-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
AMP Annealing Made Perfect is a load of horse manure?
- Thread starter secondofangle2
- Start date
No it melts the case at a certain temperature. If you send one in they test the hardness
We are a little beyond just a “gun forum”...
I mean how scientific does this whole thing need to be, within reason? It has a sensor that detects when the brass has melted based on time and amperage and spits out a static value under that. Pocket watch and a fixture for brass distance - same down-range result and longevity with a flame. It’s simply fancier and somewhat easier with the machine. I’m no metallurgist, but I can understand the differences between how the machine heats the brass versus how a flame would. Does that matter though - I seriously doubt it based on too many other variables.
I’ve got an AMP on my list of low-priority things to get, just to give it a try. Am I expecting amazement and awe, hardly. MAP-gas flame has been giving me the results I am after for a long time.
Last edited:
Excellent point and very valid thinking. There is no perfect when it comes to do-it-yourself annealing. I went for years oblivious to the fact I was not going to get good reloads without annealing.
Yea! There is a reason when you would send in brass to AMP they didn't just ask for 1 case.
With the old non AZTEC settings you can see the variability is settings based on wall thickness. Turning necks will reduce the variability, but not eliminate it.
That's exactly one of the question I was asking myself as I did some research. And from what little I could find out, most (if not all) use an induction annealing system and they anneal more than one at different stages of forming the brass. SPEED is the primary benefit and along with that is CONSISTENCY. The latter being a big issue when doing rather high speed production.*
NO DOUBT, the superiority of induction annealing. But for most reloaders, I'd say the cost vs benefit, like that of AMP, over a good flame system is very hard to justify.
*My brief summary from what I've been able to find out.
Important part is the case is heated to the acceptable range. Which is why finding the average case is important.
If you end up with a code on one extreme end or the other, you *may* end up with over or under annealed cases that are on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Machine would have to be way off for either to happen if you’re in the middle.
Also, under annealing does nothing. Over annealing ruins the brass.
So, pick which you would like to take a bigger chance of if you want to stray from the middle setting.
So, pick which you would like to take a bigger chance of if you want to stray from the middle setting.
#demandsamecodebrass
So whats the difference between someone running a code 20 numbers apart on the Aztec compared to people arguing over their preferred annealing temp? Some like 650, some like 700, some like 750 degrees. Others shoot for color or turn off their flame when the brass starts to glow in the dark... too many other options to fuck it up, why not do the same with the AMP?
So whats the difference between someone running a code 20 numbers apart on the Aztec compared to people arguing over their preferred annealing temp? Some like 650, some like 700, some like 750 degrees. Others shoot for color or turn off their flame when the brass starts to glow in the dark... too many other options to fuck it up, why not do the same with the AMP?
Because people are supposed to take a sample of their brass, use that, get the code, and go to town.
Not stick multiple pieces in, get a bunch of numbers and confuse the shit out of themselves.
Last edited:
When loading for my 338 Lapua, I just select the number in the middle of the range and go. I have never felt the need for their Aztec program. Look at all the guys out there annealing with blow torch setups!
I bought my AMP because it is consistent and most of all, I don't have to worry about open flames in my reloading room.
I bought my AMP because it is consistent and most of all, I don't have to worry about open flames in my reloading room.
When I was looking for an annealer, I looked at the AMP. But, I said to myself, “Self. How do I know what’s going to in there when I insert the case in an enclosed thing?”
So, I ended up with an Annealeez, with the digital speed controller. Now, I templac a handful and mix them in the hopper. When I see those coming around, I verify the speed and flame. I figure if one gets 450° and another gets 459°, I’m still good. I neck turn, also. So thickness inconsistencies isn’t an issue.
So, I ended up with an Annealeez, with the digital speed controller. Now, I templac a handful and mix them in the hopper. When I see those coming around, I verify the speed and flame. I figure if one gets 450° and another gets 459°, I’m still good. I neck turn, also. So thickness inconsistencies isn’t an issue.
lol you guys...
Look, the AMP (or a homemade induction annealer) is unquestionably the best way to anneal. It is the only method that will 100% of the time apply the exact same amount of heat, for the exact same amount of time case-to-case. Paying careful attention, you can get close with flame, but you've got variation in gas flow, flame temp, some setups require you to reconfig the torch each time, etc... the point being...it cannot (and will never be) be as consistent.
The lack of setup/config required for the AMP, as well as the ability to definitively tell you the right code for annealing is the whole reason people are spending $1400 on it. If the AZTEC code varies, it's because you've got variation in the brass somewhere, not because the AMP spits out numbers at random. This is also incredibly easy to test yourself....go burn up some .mil 223 LC brass playing with it....you'll see exactly how it works.
Hell, even in their own testing AMP has acknowledged flame annealing is a good option, provided you're 100% confident of the temps/time (they wouldnt' say the same for salt bath)....so it's not like you're not going to get good results with a flame annealer...you just need to know what you're doing.
Now, if you're not getting the 'on target' or 'on chronograph' results you want from the AMP, that's not necessarily an indication the AMP is somehow flawed. It's more an indication that the process of annealing isn't meeting whatever expectation you had, because unless it's broken, the AMP is doing it perfectly, every time.
Reminds me of folks who have never shot a custom talking about how their savage with a PTC Shilen is 'just as good' as a Defiance with a shouldered Bartlein. I mean..I'm sure it's accurate....but just as good...common. All it takes is a couple of shots behind the custom and you'll at least partially understand why people spend the money....same goes for the AMP.
Look, the AMP (or a homemade induction annealer) is unquestionably the best way to anneal. It is the only method that will 100% of the time apply the exact same amount of heat, for the exact same amount of time case-to-case. Paying careful attention, you can get close with flame, but you've got variation in gas flow, flame temp, some setups require you to reconfig the torch each time, etc... the point being...it cannot (and will never be) be as consistent.
The lack of setup/config required for the AMP, as well as the ability to definitively tell you the right code for annealing is the whole reason people are spending $1400 on it. If the AZTEC code varies, it's because you've got variation in the brass somewhere, not because the AMP spits out numbers at random. This is also incredibly easy to test yourself....go burn up some .mil 223 LC brass playing with it....you'll see exactly how it works.
Hell, even in their own testing AMP has acknowledged flame annealing is a good option, provided you're 100% confident of the temps/time (they wouldnt' say the same for salt bath)....so it's not like you're not going to get good results with a flame annealer...you just need to know what you're doing.
Now, if you're not getting the 'on target' or 'on chronograph' results you want from the AMP, that's not necessarily an indication the AMP is somehow flawed. It's more an indication that the process of annealing isn't meeting whatever expectation you had, because unless it's broken, the AMP is doing it perfectly, every time.
Reminds me of folks who have never shot a custom talking about how their savage with a PTC Shilen is 'just as good' as a Defiance with a shouldered Bartlein. I mean..I'm sure it's accurate....but just as good...common. All it takes is a couple of shots behind the custom and you'll at least partially understand why people spend the money....same goes for the AMP.
Last edited:
I still use a torch but if I wasn’t spending $$$ on multiple hobbies I’d definitely spring for the AMP.
It seems the best option as of now.
I have a custom with a high end cut rifled barrel.
My lowly savage with is Shilen prefit can totally hang with it in the accuracy department.
Oh I’m totally a BR shooter.
lead sled Olympics is the highest level of shooters.
Maybe you’re just not cut out for reloading.
In all fairness the number selected by the AMP annealer is arbitrary. According to amp the numbers have no meaning. The machine picks random numbers. They are not assigned in proximity to each other.
Can’t find any literature that says that.
And this would imply the codes are within proximity:
If they were random, they 1,2,3000 codes wouldn’t be designed for heavier cases
As well as the above posters posting their Aztec codes results for multiple pieces of brass all being within proximity of one another.
I don’t consider myself an AMP expert by any means, but I don’t think this is entirely accurate.
this is from their website;
“Firstly, it changes the codes generated in "Analyse” mode from being random numbers to a linear sequence, with each successive four-digit code number delivering fractionally more energy than the previous number. For example, code 0127 will anneal a fraction more than code 0126. This makes the codes much more intuitive to use. We have completed "Annealing Under the Microscope Part 3” which is an extensive study on the value of weight sorting cases and the effects on AZTEC codes and annealing accuracy.”
This has been my experience in actual testing. AZTEC is supposed to work off of FIRED brass. Run the AZTEC on resized brass and the value will be a few points above the FIRED value. In testing, the values tested above the FIRED Aztec value resulted in the beginning of a substantial loss in muzzle velocity for the established load. For some brass, I’ve even found it necessary to reduce by a point of the average Aztec value in order to keep the velocity up and the ES’s consistent. Only experienced this with 5.56 thus far. Other calibers have been spot on.
Same way as when I’m annealing one caliber and then the next. I wrote all my Aztec codes down as it pertains to its brass, so I input my selection.
gotcha so your not actually changing anything your just using the code from your analyze run with what ever brass/cartridge your annealing at the time.
You don’t analyze every time unless you choose to and want to expend brass. Once you’ve determined the code for your particular brass, each time the machine fires up it prompts you to “analyze” or “run”. Choose “run” for your annealing session, and then it prompts you for the code. So if my Lake City 2012 5.56 code is 0123, I may still elect to use 0122. So that’s when I input whatever I wish. Then you’re off to annealing...
im very familiar with the amp and how it works and actually if you want to anneal less or more you enter your code from what the "analyze" gave you...you then push and hold the + button until the little star on the right disappears(aprox 2secs)you then use the + and - buttons too anneal less or more you can go 6 numbers + and 6 numbers - from your code....im not sure what changing your actual code from 123 to 122 does.
like i said ive been playing with the amp trying to figure out how i can anneal every time and retain my accuracy...last weekend i annealed 5 each at my code(for peterson BR brass formed to BRX)0129..0129-2..0129-4..0129-6 the 129 shot pretty good...this sunday i shot flame annealed using tempilaq 750 and i also shot my code 0129+2 which shot the best so in my case i think my code is a little under annealing so this coming weekend im going to run 129..129+2..129+4 and 129+6 then what ever shoots the best i will re-run at 100yds and also shoot out to distance.
#1 was foulers cold clean barrel
#2 was my code 0129
#3 was flame annealed
#6 was my code 0129+2 and the higher one was me gun not in my shoulder right
these are all 6 rounds
Last edited:
I followed AMP’s directions and analyzed 260 Lapua brass from two boxes purchased a few years apart. One has four or five firings and the other two or three. Both test pieces ended up with the same AZTEC code.
My small sample size conclusion is Lapua makes consistent brass (wow big surprise) and the AMP is not horse shit.
My small sample size conclusion is Lapua makes consistent brass (wow big surprise) and the AMP is not horse shit.
Well you know more about the machine than I do, because as soon as I input my desired code, I insert brass and hit START. I first figured out about code discrepancies when I Aztec’d resized 5.56 brass and got code 0125. Groups still looked awesome but velocity was down by almost 50fps. All my testing I do are shot with the lab radar, so I’m watching numbers in addition to the holes on target. My 77gr 5.56 load was worked up around the mass amount of 1x brass, so annealing was not not part of the load development. Additionally, the load developed is built to work well in all of my 5.56 rifles, so the testing of AMP’d brass and velocities is tested across all the platforms and lab radar. 0122 and 0123 is the threshold identified across all the rifles and true 5.56 chambers, wylde, and a CLE chamber.
Welcome to July 2018. Explains some of the reasons for the variation in Aztec codes.
The entire 5 part series is very informative.
www.ampannealing.com
Note that all cases tested in this study were fireformed once from virgin brass. We strongly recommend that sacrificial cases are analysed at the fireformed, unsized stage. That is when annealing should normally be done. Depending on the rifle chamber specification, unsized cases will usually generate an AZTEC linear code lower than sized cases. We used stock standard Remington 700 rifles for both the 223R and 308W tests. Fireformed AZTEC linear codes were consistently 2 lower than sized or virgin cases.
Note: the other major factor in accurate annealing is neck wall consistency. Neck wall thicknesses should be checked before even starting to weigh cases. Each 0.001” will make a significant difference, as can be seen in our Standard program listings.
Not many reloaders would want to sacrifice ten cases, as we did in each of these tests, in order to establish the correct AZTEC linear code. That is why we have highlighted the importance of weight sorting cases. While this study shows that weight sorting is less important with Lapua, Peterson or Norma brass, we cannot rule out that some lots of those brands might be less uniform than those we tested. For the sake of a little extra effort we think it is best practice to weigh all new batches of brass.
Once the most representative median weight is established, one or more sacrificial cases can be analysed. As noted above, ensure that case mouths are round before sacrifice. If several median cases are sacrificed, they should be within +/- 1 code of each other. The increments between codes are very fine, and that range will give correct annealing.
Having gone to this effort, make sure to keep your case lots separate. If lot numbers get mixed it can be almost impossible to re-sort them.
The entire 5 part series is very informative.
Induction Case Annealer | Learn About Case Weight | AMP
View the latest articles from AMP Annealing. Get tips and tricks from our R&D. Here we upload articles to provide your the best possible information on innovations in the annealing process.
www.ampannealing.com
- 1. What is responsible for AZTEC analysis generating different annealing codes for the same brass? The above evidence demonstrates that if the mass of brass within the targeted annealing zone varies even fractionally case to case, then a different AZTEC code may be generated. If cases are exactly the same, then the same code will be generated. The Table 4 test of neck turned Brand C 308W cases illustrates that even when neck walls are trued, and case weight is similar, big variations can still occur in both AZTEC codes and annealed hardness if the rest of the target zone, i.e. the shoulder and front section of the body is still inconsistent.
- 2. Where in the case does the weight variation occur? On this evidence, overall case weight variation was minimal in all packs of Lapua, Peterson and Norma cases. What variation there was did not affect either the AZTEC code generation or annealed hardness. Therefore, any weight variations with those cases must be in the case heads. Brands "A”, "B” and "C” showed clear evidence that at least a portion of the case weight variation was in the targeted annealing zone. This may have implications beyond the scope of this study, in particular variable case volume.
- 3. Does variable case weight result in variable annealing hardness? - That depends on the cases. With all three brands "A”, "B” and "C”, we saw a considerable increase in annealed hardness as case weight increased. The Lapua, Peterson and Norma cases showed no such trend.
- 4. If so, what is an acceptable tolerance? – That depends on the reloader's expectations. The lowest single hardness reading in all the above tables is 85.2 HV. That is not low enough to ruin that case, and when shot and resized, it would regain hardness. The highest single reading is 106.4 HV, which is still definitely annealed. For the reloader who just wants to extend the life of their cases, that sort of tolerance may be acceptable. Neck tension, however, would not be very consistent. For the competitive shooter, in particular at long range, the tighter the HV tolerance the more consistent the neck tension (and hence velocity SD/ES) will tend to be.
- 5. Are some brands better than others? The above tests show results for two boxes of Lapua (223R and 308W), two of Norma, one of Peterson, one of "Brand A” one of "Brand B” and two of "Brand C”. We cannot say for sure that every box of Lapua, Peterson or Norma will be as good as those tested here, nor that brands "A”, "B” and "C” will always be that erratic. On the above evidence however, batching cases by weight would show greatest benefit with brands "A”, "B” and "C”. It would appear to be less important for Lapua, Peterson or Norma, all of which showed excellent consistency.
Note that all cases tested in this study were fireformed once from virgin brass. We strongly recommend that sacrificial cases are analysed at the fireformed, unsized stage. That is when annealing should normally be done. Depending on the rifle chamber specification, unsized cases will usually generate an AZTEC linear code lower than sized cases. We used stock standard Remington 700 rifles for both the 223R and 308W tests. Fireformed AZTEC linear codes were consistently 2 lower than sized or virgin cases.
Note: the other major factor in accurate annealing is neck wall consistency. Neck wall thicknesses should be checked before even starting to weigh cases. Each 0.001” will make a significant difference, as can be seen in our Standard program listings.
Recap on selecting sacrificial cases.
Not many reloaders would want to sacrifice ten cases, as we did in each of these tests, in order to establish the correct AZTEC linear code. That is why we have highlighted the importance of weight sorting cases. While this study shows that weight sorting is less important with Lapua, Peterson or Norma brass, we cannot rule out that some lots of those brands might be less uniform than those we tested. For the sake of a little extra effort we think it is best practice to weigh all new batches of brass.
Once the most representative median weight is established, one or more sacrificial cases can be analysed. As noted above, ensure that case mouths are round before sacrifice. If several median cases are sacrificed, they should be within +/- 1 code of each other. The increments between codes are very fine, and that range will give correct annealing.
Having gone to this effort, make sure to keep your case lots separate. If lot numbers get mixed it can be almost impossible to re-sort them.
ALL of my testing and load development is shot over a magneto speed(that is not attached to my barrel) my ESs are much better when annealing and my sizing is more consistent and this is why id like to anneal every time the problem is my groups go from 1 hole to what you see on paper..and by 1 hole i mean .2s and low .3s.
everyone says they anneal and their groups stay the same and are still awesome but that has never been the case for me...the first firing after annealing my groups open up...the second firing groups are back to normal...and this is what im trying to figure out.
Agreed. Most of my loads across all calibers I have were originally developed off of 1x fired brass. Then I started annealing: first with the torch a drill, then fucking around with a Giraud unit, then finally getting the AMP to relieve myself of the setup and constantly fucking around to hopefully maintain consistency from one session to the next, and even within the same session with the torch warming up or fuel level dropping. Each time I upgraded and refined, my group sizes and SD/ES improved. I’ve always believed in annealing for each firing as well. The AMP is by far Given the best results (consistency) along with the least amount of hassle to achieve it. Some of the best money spent in my reloading.
Got the AMP Mark ii machine some months ago, and i am mostly happy with it. Much faster than gas flame annealing. Shoulder bump during FL sizing is also more consistent. SD and ES did not change for me (gas flame vs AMP).
But: The AMP machine has a tendency to change the surface finish of the neck to an undesirable state. If you run your fingers over the annealed area, it feels more ‘sticky’ than the unannealed area close to the case head. I also measured the required seating force via an instrumented K&M arbor press (with the “force measurement tip” ) for 30 cases each, and compared with brass that has been annealed and then tumbled again for 5 hours to strip off this layer: Seating force came down from 160 lbs (+- 50 lbs) to 60 lbs (+- 10 lbs) if you use the tumbler to remove the discolored oxidation layer. Almost 3x less seating force required and far better consistency post tumbling.
If i have to guess: It seems the intense localized heating causes an oxidation layer to form, which has a much higher coefficient of friction. After the tumbling operation, the neck feels as smooth as the rest of the case and the discoloration is gone. Seating is then butter smooth (it seated with a very hard thunk before).
It may just be the humid Gulf Coast climate causing my tumbled brass to slightly oxidize and discolor a tad before i get around to annealing the “clean” brass, and maybe somehow the AMP machine is transforming that thin surface layer of oxidized brass material via the high heat in the machine into a super sticky surface layer.... Not a metallurgist, so just guessing here. A comment from a bona fide professional would be most welcome!
All i know for sure is that seating force goes way up if i anneal in the AMP machine, and then comes down to normal again if i tumble the annealed cases for long enough. Never noticed the prior propane flame annealing doing that...
Has anybody seen that?
@47guy, perhaps try that.
This is a known “issue.”
AMP anneals “fully” (at least in their definition) and most other annealing methods partially anneal (when comparing to AMP standards).
Debating if the “partial” annealing is enough to increase brass life is whole other debate.
But yes, it is common practice to clean after annealing for the reasons you have mentioned.
Namib/47Guy,
Posted this someplace else as well...but I also find after AMP, there is an oxide. It caused me some weird results until I accidentally left a batch in the tumbler for 5-6 hrs...back to more consistent SD and grouping.
It doesn't seem to matter if I load right away or if they sit for a few weeks. But tumbling with polish and a cap of Nu-Finish wax seems to work for me. FWIW, each firing; basic cleaning tumble, anneal, size w/o expander ball, mandrel for neck tension, tumble 5hrs, load....mostly 6.5 creed and 6BRA.
Posted this someplace else as well...but I also find after AMP, there is an oxide. It caused me some weird results until I accidentally left a batch in the tumbler for 5-6 hrs...back to more consistent SD and grouping.
It doesn't seem to matter if I load right away or if they sit for a few weeks. But tumbling with polish and a cap of Nu-Finish wax seems to work for me. FWIW, each firing; basic cleaning tumble, anneal, size w/o expander ball, mandrel for neck tension, tumble 5hrs, load....mostly 6.5 creed and 6BRA.
Last edited:
@NamibHunter
so heres where im at and what ive tried with annealing every time....
exdander ball kit from whidden...
mandrels...i have a full set plus the TiN turning arbor from 21st century...
lube...redding dry neck lube...hornady one shot case lube....
case cleaning....lymann 2500 with buckwheat groats...nu-finish and dryer sheets to keep the media clean and my brass shinny...shinny brass shoots better in my rifle plus my mom was Puerto Rican so i like shinny shit!!
so ive tried every combo with whats above...
fire...anneal...FL size...bushings only..mandrel necks with dry lube with one shot with no lube..expander balls...tumble...trim...the last thing here i have not done is play with neck size but plan to this weekend.
now what ive personally found to this point running my necks at .002 is that mandrel or expander ball does not make a difference as far as groups on paper...mandrels do seem to help a bit with ESs but not enough for me to keep using them with the added step involved.
also the lube used(or not used)does not make a huge difference...my ESs have ALWAYS ended up in the mid 20s when i take a 40-50 shot sample...ive had so many 1-2-3FPS 5 round samples i can not remember them all...ive also had a few 5-6 shot samples with a 6.5x47 that were 0.
and no matter how i size necks..what lube i use or if i anneal or not i end up right at 25fps which is fine because i rarely shoot past 1100ish yds. the thing that bothers me is that my groups open up which at the end of the day i can live with because of the consistency so regardless if i get my groups back in the .2s or not i will most likely continue annealing every time and sizing with an expander ball like i always have....i will post back when i run a neck size test.
so heres where im at and what ive tried with annealing every time....
exdander ball kit from whidden...
mandrels...i have a full set plus the TiN turning arbor from 21st century...
lube...redding dry neck lube...hornady one shot case lube....
case cleaning....lymann 2500 with buckwheat groats...nu-finish and dryer sheets to keep the media clean and my brass shinny...shinny brass shoots better in my rifle plus my mom was Puerto Rican so i like shinny shit!!
so ive tried every combo with whats above...
fire...anneal...FL size...bushings only..mandrel necks with dry lube with one shot with no lube..expander balls...tumble...trim...the last thing here i have not done is play with neck size but plan to this weekend.
now what ive personally found to this point running my necks at .002 is that mandrel or expander ball does not make a difference as far as groups on paper...mandrels do seem to help a bit with ESs but not enough for me to keep using them with the added step involved.
also the lube used(or not used)does not make a huge difference...my ESs have ALWAYS ended up in the mid 20s when i take a 40-50 shot sample...ive had so many 1-2-3FPS 5 round samples i can not remember them all...ive also had a few 5-6 shot samples with a 6.5x47 that were 0.
and no matter how i size necks..what lube i use or if i anneal or not i end up right at 25fps which is fine because i rarely shoot past 1100ish yds. the thing that bothers me is that my groups open up which at the end of the day i can live with because of the consistency so regardless if i get my groups back in the .2s or not i will most likely continue annealing every time and sizing with an expander ball like i always have....i will post back when i run a neck size test.
Last edited:
exactly....and ive also played with the timing or heat im not sure i just know that AMP gives 6 numbers + and 6 numbers - of the setting you get with a test case.
