Annealing Brass - Science vs Myths

[spife7980]

Ive always defaulted to these graphs that seem to point to different degrees of anneal that can be performed.

Sure, it can be a binary annealed-vs-not depending on if you did or did not do the process.
Or maybe if you think of it not being annealed unless you hit the point where the curve flattens out and consider anything less than that as unannealed.

But it can also have a wide range of outcomes depending on how hot you get it for how long.

I feel that dotted line is the sweet spot that we should aim for, heat it until new grains are complete but before they start to grow large.
750 on the case neck and shoulder keeping you in the median zone means that the neck which always turns tempilaq first and goes a smidge longer has probably hit that upper limit around 900 before grain growth phase starts while the lower slower shoulder is hitting the lower limit on new grains from coldworked at about 750.

But thats just how I rationalize my hair brained scheme of understanding annealing.

 

[Tokay444]

Oh, you can definitely make the brass all sorts of things with heat, but annealed it is not until it flatlines. I do 550°c for 7 seconds.

 

[Barelstroker]

Ive always defaulted to these graphs that seem to point to different degrees of anneal that can be performed.

Sure, it can be a binary annealed-vs-not depending on if you did or did not do the process.
Or maybe if you think of it not being annealed unless you hit the point where the curve flattens out and consider anything less than that as unannealed.

But it can also have a wide range of outcomes depending on how hot you get it for how long.
View attachment 7756545

I feel that dotted line is the sweet spot that we should aim for, heat it until new grains are complete but before they start to grow large.
750 on the case neck and shoulder keeping you in the median zone means that the neck which always turns tempilaq first and goes a smidge longer has probably hit that upper limit around 900 before grain growth phase starts while the lower slower shoulder is hitting the lower limit on new grains from coldworked at about 750.

But thats just how I rationalize my hair brained scheme of understanding annealing.

These graphs don't show the times at specific temps. Much of the info on the graphs is applicable in hours only & has no practical relevance to us.

 

[918v]

Brass likes to be at a certain hardness for optimal accuracy. We achieve that hardness by annealing it. If you overdo it the brass is too soft and does not produce good accuracy. So you can over anneal brass and ruin it.

 

[Barelstroker]

Brass likes to be at a certain hardness for optimal accuracy. We achieve that hardness by annealing it. If you overdo it the brass is too soft and does not produce good accuracy. So you can over anneal brass and ruin it.

I don't know of anyone who has actually tested that because nobody that I'm aware of has brass as soft as my cases. Before I tried 100% recrystallization, I know of nobody else who thought to test it because everybody believed the brass would be ruined or" over annealed".
Going by the graphs & info I have, 750F for under 10 seconds has very nearly zero effect so, I don't know where you're getting your information but, I have downloaded every study conducted on the subject that I can find & no clinical studies have been conducted on the difference between soft or hard cases on the effects of accuracy or repeatability.
The belief that a few seconds longer at 750F or lower has any measurable change in the crystalline structure of brass is totally & demonstrably false.
The hard facts have been published for all to see if they want to know the facts.
I don't know why you persist with these fables.

 

[Tokay444]

He’s pulling it out of his ass, because he doesn’t know what annealing is or does, and thinks the actual definition is a redefinition.

 

[Barelstroker]

He’s pulling it out of his ass, because he doesn’t know what annealing is or does, and thinks the actual definition is a redefinition.

To be fair, annealing of cases is one of many subjects which was borrowed & introduced by non experts with a lot of mis-understandings, half truths & false information at a time when information was mainly disseminated by word of mouth & the benefits or improvements were perceived from anecdotal accounts. On top of that, many guys have perpetuated those mis-understandings & half truths & now find themselves committed.
Unfortunately, I have been guilty of this myself with regard to this very subject before actually finding out the facts.
It's a similar situation as statistical validation of results which does not lend itself to intuitive acceptance.
As with quite a few subjects, it will be a while before people accept the facts. The perpetuation of the facts will hopefully be up to those who embrace change & correction &, those who are knew to the sport & not set in their ways.

 

[orkan]

My results on the target speak for themselves. That's the only factor that affects my decision making process on annealing and everything else.

 

[Barelstroker]

My results on the target speak for themselves. That's the only factor that affects my decision making process on annealing and everything else.

Yes, a lot of guys are convinced that annealing makes a difference on target.
For the moment though, I'm not as sure as some. The problem I have is that I can't conceive of a mechanism which effects repeatability from what amounts to a proportionately minor difference in hoop tension of the brass. Moreover, I have not yet seen or heard of anyone conducting a thorough statistical analysis by way of solid evidence beyond anecdotal here say.
Given that many who don't anneal can & do obtain excellent accuracy, I will remain on the fence regarding this claim.

 

[orkan]

Yes, a lot of guys are convinced that annealing makes a difference on target.

It does. If I don’t anneal, the next firing on the brass requires all new load development.

 

[Tokay444]

If you don't anneal, the condition of your brass is different every time you load it, as it work hardens more every time it's sized.

 

[Holliday]

Moreover, I have not yet seen or heard of anyone conducting a thorough statistical analysis by way of solid evidence beyond anecdotal here say.

WHOA!!! You mean the plural of anecdote is not data?? Careful you’ll upset the shooting world’s dogmatic apple cart.

As a non-competitor, I stand in but the mere shadow of those who claim that annealing is pivitol and yet other great shooters who don’t do it. I know two such well known accomplished engineers/ shooters that I trust implicitly within the industry, who are on the nay side.

Oddly, I started annealing not because of down-range issues but because of issues at the bench. I had an issue with seating bullets and damaging stems. I was dealing with neck tension issues at the time and this was before I switched to a mandrel. Now I anneal ever 3-4 shootings as a matter of course. I am definitely on the fence about it.

Yes it would be nice to see some actual “data” on this topic. That said like other debates that have provided some real scientific analysis there will still be the “flat-earthers” no matter what the results……

 

[Singleshot]

Amp has done all the testing and scientific research for everyone. https://www.ampannealing.com/articles/

 

[orkan]

That said like other debates that have provided some real scientific analysis there will still be the “flat-earthers” no matter what the results……

You're forgetting the real problem: No one shoots. They just like to talk about shooting.

This is all academic for most shooters. Those of us that shoot every day don't have to worry about someone else's testing, because we will need to test it for ourselves to see if its true anyway.

 

[whatsupdoc]

I anneal every time and while I cannot state that it has improved accuracy in any way it has improved
the constancy of the brass resizing operation and has reduced my SD.

A friend that is a pretty good benchrest shooter tried flame annealing and claimed his
loads fell apart. I believe that he just needed to modify his loads. He still runs his
non annealed brass and shoots tiny little groups, he is happy.

 

[Singleshot]

DECENT price in these trying times.... kudos

I anneal every time and while I cannot state that it has improved accuracy in any way it has improved
the constancy of the brass resizing operation and has reduced my SD.

A friend that is a pretty good benchrest shooter tried flame annealing and claimed his
loads fell apart. I believe that he just needed to modify his loads. He still runs his
non annealed brass and shoots tiny little groups, he is happy.

Increase the # of rounds fired on each target and keep stretching out the distance until you or he can see the difference. lol.

 

[Yondering]

I’m not redefining anything. I’m clarifying that there is only one state of anneal, in cartridge brass. It can neither be over nor under annealed. It can be annealed, or it can be something other than annealed. There is no varying degrees of annealed.

Ease up fella. You obviously are working with the metallurgy definition of "annealed", and by that definition you are technically right.

Where you're wrong, and need to take a step back, is not understanding that "annealed" as the word is used for cartridge brass is not the same definition. We don't generally want to anneal our cartridge brass dead soft. The correct word would be "temper", but if you really think you're going to change reloading terminology for an entire industry, you might as well beat your head against a wall.

We all know that annealed doesn't truly mean annealed in this context. You need to figure that out too.

 

[357Max]

Sorry about this, I did some quick tests and then lost track of this thread and got swamped with other things.

I ran some annealing and extraction force testing on some of our 6.5 PRC brass. I took our brass right off the press, trimmed it up myself and ran it through our annealer at different settings to get some different hardness levels and then seated Hornady 143 gr ELD-X projectiles to 2.950" OAL.

40 cases of 6.5 PRC brass with average mouth ID as measured on our CMM of .2620" with SD of .0003".

I ran the parts through our annealer for 4 different target hardnesses (measured on Vickers scale).

Group 1 was to get the brass glowing visually, which resulted in an average hardness of 84.8
Group 2 was just before glowing which resulted in average hardness of 98.4
Group 3 was our normal anneal with an average hardness of 113
Group 4 was un-annealed with average hardness of 205

Extraction force was measured as the peak force (lb/ft) required to entirely remove the projectile from the casing.

Group 1 average force: 57.1 lbf
Group 2 average force: 71.6 lbf
Group 3 average force: 105.7 lbf
Group 4 average force: 208.5 lbf

@White_Shark - Thank you for taking the time to do this. Your data seems to have been somewhat glossed over in the thread.

The test was removal force which is the reverse of what reloaders focus on. That said, removal force is probably a better test for the brass since it is a better representation of total bullet grip the brass is providing on a loaded round. Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect the peak force you measured is probably occurring right as the bullet starts to move i.e. while fully engaged. Whereas measuring seating pressure is affected by a lot of variables such as chamfer & seating speed.

You had the test set up with .002" interference fit (+-.00015).

Group 1 Vickers 84.8 = 57.1 lbf force (ES?)
Group 2 Vickers 98.4 = 71.6 lbf force (ES?) This 16% increase in Vickers = a 25% increase in force.
Group 3 Vickers 113 = 105.7 lbf force (ES?) This additional 15% in Vickers = + 48% increase in force

Group 3 deserves emphasis since it represents the average target "anneal"/Vickers hardness.
I'm putting anneal in Quotation marks For you pedantic's (you know who you are). I'm not talking about the scientific definition. Whenever I use the term anneal on this forum, going forward, forever, I'm referring to the cartridge case neck/shoulder Vickers condition.
This group 3 also seems to pretty closely represent what most of us are shooting for with our reloading process.

Ok back to group 3 target anneal for Jagemann Brass. Founded in 1949 & currently producing 300 Million cases per year (Clue).
Group 3 represents a 33% increase on the Vickers from a Brass Glowing (fully scientifically annealed?) state & this equated to a 85% increase in force with a .002 interference fit. Very significant jump in force!

Group 4 Full hard. For the pedantic's, full hard as defined in the cartridge context; meaning as hard as Jagemann deems is ideal for the lower portion of the brass that will not get Vickers conditioned (annealed). Brass can be made considerably harder then this.
Vickers 205 is 81% harder than group 3 & results in 97% more force.

So from full Glowy annealed to full hard/same as cartridge base we have 142% increase in Vickers hardness that results in a 265% increase in effective force at .002 (+-.00015) interference fit.

@White_Shark - I would really love to see you repeat the above test with 2 modifications.

1. Provide extreme spreed for the Vickers & force data data in each group.
2. Run the 4 groups again with .003 or .004 interference fit. I strongly suspect the Glowy/soft brass will plateau on force regardless of the added interference fit. I'm very curious at what interference this plateau occurs?

From the data White Shark provided it should be pretty damn clear that you are not controlling neck tension with your bushings & mandrels. You are controlling interference fit. Actual tension also does not equate to seating force because it does not account for friction. Are you using coated bullets?, what neck lube?, & how polished is the inside of the neck?

What we don't know yet is at what point of interference fit does the full Glowy/wrecked brass fail to add additional force (actual tension)???? Does this happen at .008 interference or .0015? This is information that we could benefit from.

@918v has rightly pointed out multiple times that the annealed/Vickers state of your brass matters most in mag fed ammo that is jumping to the lands or auto loaders where there is a min required tension/force to prevent dislocating bullets during high speed/high G cycling.

If your game is bench rest and your soft seating with a .015 jam, tight neck chamber, & concentric turned necks, then all you really need the neck for is to prevent spilling the damn powder while you deliver the bullet to the lands. Go ahead and light your brass up like a light bulb if it floats your boat. Sure it may be technically fully scientifically annealed, but what have you gained?

To suggest that all the major brass manufacturers, Mil, & top level competitors are wrong to partially anneal targeting +- 110 Vickers via an annealing process is fucking absurd! It seems there are some that cant see the forest for the trees. The goal is not to fully anneal the necks. The goal is to use a reliable repeatable annealing process to condition & maintain necks in an ideal temper range that is purpose driven.

My game is mag fed bolt and auto loader & for that yes you can wreck your brass and no you cannot control tension via bushing/mandrel regardless of the Vickers condition of your necks. Thats not how this works, that's not how any of this works. Interference fit & tension are two completely different things.
A given Vickers hardness will have a maximum potential tension capability that will be reached at __? interference fit. If your application requires more tension (auto loader) then a full annealed/full soft/84.8 Vickers can deliver then your brass is trashed.

There is a damn good reason no brass manufacturer supplies brass with the necks technically fully annealed.

For any Newbs reading this fuster cluck of a thread I'd suggest you apply decernment. Mark the thread and come back to it once you've gotten a good baseline understanding of terminology used in fire arms context, a better feel for who some of us characters are, and what experience and background is being brought to the table.

If your mag feeding, jumping bullets to the lands, or loading for field type shooting where your not treating brass like fine jewelry then yes the state of anneal/Vickers condition matters. How much is like anything it depends on application, goals, & expectations.

I target somewhere between Group 2-3 based on White Sharks description. I use flame via a Mike reloading bench annealer & tune it to drop brass right as flame changes color. I find that the time can vary a good bit within the same caliber between brass manufacturers. I use the method in @orkan video for the flame color change & it is a great indicator prior to the case starting to glow.

I've got 4 x reloads on some 6GT brass running109's @ 2925 fps annealed each time. I anneal it while dirty, then de-cap & tumble with ss pins, then resize for .0015 - .002 shoulder bump with a non honed/no bushing Whidden FL sizer, & then prime + dry graphite in necks before 21st Century mandrel. In this example the brass is malleable enough to easily resize. Yet hard enough that changing the mandrel +-.0005 interference makes a difference on seating force/effective tension. The Whidden FL sizer is working the necks pretty hard -.010. Still I'm getting consistent seating pressure, 5-7 SD, and consistent MV across 4x loading's so far.

The Gay Tiger is pretty easy to load for as by design there is plenty of ogive engaged in my free bore when chambered. On the other hand my DPMS 308 is mag limited @2.822. A 168 SMK is sitting on the lands @2.820 & shoots great @2.800. A 168 TMK @2.822 is jumping .110 with the ogive barely starting to engaged free bore when chambered. This is where concentric necks matter as does anneal. I completely agree with @918v The case neck has to support and guide the bullet into the free bore. If my case neck is too damn soft it will just flatten to the chamber before the bullet is squared up in the free bore.

@918v - Here's my stab at why the color change only happens when brass is new. No evidence to back it up, but I think it has to due with lubricant used by the manufacturer during forming & drawing. I'm thinking it's kind of embedded in the surface and the first anneal burns the lube out causing the case hardened look. From that point on it's gone. I don't think lanolin or one shot gets embedded by us via resizing the same way it would when drawing and forming.

 

[Tokay444]

Ease up fella. You obviously are working with the metallurgy definition of "annealed", and by that definition you are technically right.

Where you're wrong, and need to take a step back, is not understanding that "annealed" as the word is used for cartridge brass is not the same definition. We don't generally want to anneal our cartridge brass dead soft. The correct word would be "temper", but if you really think you're going to change reloading terminology for an entire industry, you might as well beat your head against a wall.

We all know that annealed doesn't truly mean annealed in this context. You need to figure that out too.

So reloading has redefined what annealing is? I think that’s wrong, and anyone who perpetuates that is wrong. Who is we? Do you think the AMP Annealer doesn’t anneal, because it absolutely does.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Ease up fella. You obviously are working with the metallurgy definition of "annealed", and by that definition you are technically right.

Where you're wrong, and need to take a step back, is not understanding that "annealed" as the word is used for cartridge brass is not the same definition. We don't generally want to anneal our cartridge brass dead soft. The correct word would be "temper", but if you really think you're going to change reloading terminology for an entire industry, you might as well beat your head against a wall.

We all know that annealed doesn't truly mean annealed in this context. You need to figure that out too.

I don’t have a dog in this fight.

But, FWIW, the loading community seriously needs to redefine a few terms we use incorrectly.

Another one is “neck tension.” What almost everyone is actually talking about is interference fit. Neck tension is a sum of several variables.


Fields of study advance only when you continue to *properly* redefine everything possible, including definitions.

 

[supercorndogs]

Amp has done all the testing and scientific research for everyone. https://www.ampannealing.com/articles/

So has Pfizer.....

 

[Yondering]

I don’t have a dog in this fight.

But, FWIW, the loading community seriously needs to redefine a few terms we use incorrectly.

Another one is “neck tension.” What almost everyone is actually talking about is interference fit. Neck tension is a sum of several variables.


Fields of study advance only when you continue to *properly* redefine everything possible, including definitions.

You aren’t wrong, but good luck making it happen. I’m not beating my head against that wall, and I have no need to pretend I don’t know what reloaders mean by “anneal”.

 

[Yondering]

So reloading has redefined what annealing is? I think that’s wrong, and anyone who perpetuates that is wrong. Who is we? Do you think the AMP Annealer doesn’t anneal, because it absolutely does.

Good for you. At this point nobody else really cares. You’ve reached the point of just being an annoying little ankle biter dog yapping at everyone; your pedantics don’t serve any useful purpose here.

And why would you try to add in that stupid argument about the AMP? I never said anything about it. Go argue with yourself, I don’t care.

 

[Tokay444]

Annealing is the goal of annealing. Tempering is not. You want your brass annealed. The actual definition of annealing fits perfectly in the reloading world.

 

[Yondering]

Annealing is the goal of annealing. Tempering is not. You want your brass annealed. The actual definition of annealing fits perfectly in the reloading world.

Wrong.
I do not want my brass actually annealed. Almost nobody does, including the manufacturers.

You must be some sort of genius to be so convinced you know better than all ammo developers of the past 100+ years. In your own mind at least.

Personally I think all your yammering is based on theory and inexperience. You haven’t shown any evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[Tokay444]

Wrong.
I do not want my brass actually annealed. Almost nobody does, including the manufacturers.

You must be some sort of genius to be so convinced you know better than all ammo developers of the past 100+ years. In your own mind at least.

Personally I think all your yammering is based on theory and inexperience. You haven’t shown any evidence to prove otherwise.

Wrong. The AMP gives a full anneal and there aren’t many people arguing that it doesn’t give them what they want.

 

[Tokay444]

All groups shot from a bipod and Gamechanger.

Twice fired in load development. Full anneal.

200 yard cold bore. 3rd firing. Full anneal each time.

3 times fired. Full anneal each firing.

300 yards. 5 times fired. Full anneal each time.

200 yard cold bore. 8 times fired. Full anneal each load.

9 times fired.

Ten times fired. Full anneal each time.

 

[sleeplz]

I copied this from tpe187 awhile back which references Bryan litz.


Bryan Litz had some interesting findings of case annealing using an AMP induction annealer in his book "Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting", pg 144-153. Using both .223 and .308 Lapua brass he ran one 10rd group with no annealing, one 10rd group annealed on the 5th firing, and one 10rd group annealed after every firing. Basically, his findings indicated there was no real difference in SDs with annealing. (Never annealed 7.4SD, once annealed 7.5 SD, every time, 6.9SD) He does state that he wants to expand his test in the next volume as he does believe its beneficial in some cartridge combinations. I would be interested if any members have done their own test to determine if their load had any benefit from annealing.

Has anyone done a no shit test that shows annealing makes a difference in sd or accuracy.

 

[Tokay444]

I don’t anneal for the affects on group size per se. I anneal to extend the life of the brass. The fact that it’s in the exact same condition every time I reload it is a variable I now control.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Wrong.
I do not want my brass actually annealed. Almost nobody does, including the manufacturers.

You must be some sort of genius to be so convinced you know better than all ammo developers of the past 100+ years. In your own mind at least.

Personally I think all your yammering is based on theory and inexperience. You haven’t shown any evidence to prove otherwise.

This is factually incorrect unfortunately. We don’t temper brass.

Annealed is actually a yes or no question.

It’s either:

A: not annealed
B: annealed
C: melted

C is when you get too soft of a neck and such. There are varying forms of melting. It doesn’t need to look totally trashed like the it looks after doing an amp diagnostic test.

What people call “over annealed” is actually just melted in some way, shape, or form.

And in reality, actually annealing (there is no fully or partial, just yes or no) is much easier to be consistent with. It’s the same principle as trying to breath out completely vs holding 50% of your lung capacity in. One is vastly more consistent to accomplish.

Most people “under anneal” as in they don’t actually anneal and just waste time and energy.



As is typical with this industry, most of the “common” thoughts that go around about ammo is dogma based on no real testing.

A guy sitting at a desk with tempilaq, a torch, and a drill is absolutely being far more inconsistent “annealing” than they would be if they didn’t attempt at all.

The “data” that is usually show has zero real credibility. Most of the time they don’t even test what they claim “doesn’t work” therefore invalidating any argument before it starts.

 

[lash]

Ease up fella. You obviously are working with the metallurgy definition of "annealed", and by that definition you are technically right.

Where you're wrong, and need to take a step back, is not understanding that "annealed" as the word is used for cartridge brass is not the same definition. We don't generally want to anneal our cartridge brass dead soft. The correct word would be "temper", but if you really think you're going to change reloading terminology for an entire industry, you might as well beat your head against a wall.

We all know that annealed doesn't truly mean annealed in this context. You need to figure that out too.

Where are you getting your definitions, Mr. self-proclaimed expert. In metallurgy, annealing is indeed the process of returning a metal to its softened state in order to make it more ductile. How soft an alloy will anneal to is defined by its alloy content. This why good rifle brass uses a specific alloy makeup. Annealing is most often used when metals have been work hardened and helps keep it from stress cracking. Like firing it in a rifle, for example.

Tempering on the other hand is used to make metals more tough and durable. It is NOT the process we use when trying to reduce stress cracking in our brass.

It’s good to hear that we have so many experts on here (in their own minds anyway) and I always get a kick out of reading reloading threads. Next to scope threads, they are the most entertaining on this site, usually.

 

[lash]

I copied this from tpe187 awhile back which references Bryan litz.


Bryan Litz had some interesting findings of case annealing using an AMP induction annealer in his book "Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting", pg 144-153. Using both .223 and .308 Lapua brass he ran one 10rd group with no annealing, one 10rd group annealed on the 5th firing, and one 10rd group annealed after every firing. Basically, his findings indicated there was no real difference in SDs with annealing. (Never annealed 7.4SD, once annealed 7.5 SD, every time, 6.9SD) He does state that he wants to expand his test in the next volume as he does believe its beneficial in some cartridge combinations. I would be interested if any members have done their own test to determine if their load had any benefit from annealing.

Has anyone done a no shit test that shows annealing makes a difference in sd or accuracy.

I certainly don’t disagree with this, even though what Brian did was an empirical test and not a scientific study.

I guess that it’s a good thing that I anneal primarily to prolong the length of my brass. No, I cannot provide you with scientific data to back that up, and yes, I don’t care what anyone else does or how right you think you are. There are a few people here that have and are doing ongoing testing to collect and compile data for some of the very things being discussed. Most of them could care less to get involved in another worthless internet argument with us that are barely informed.

 

[Yondering]

Where are you getting your definitions, Mr. self-proclaimed expert. In metallurgy, annealing is indeed the process of returning a metal to its softened state in order to make it more ductile. How soft an alloy will anneal to is defined by its alloy content. This why good rifle brass uses a specific alloy makeup. Annealing is most often used when metals have been work hardened and helps keep it from stress cracking. Like firing it in a rifle, for example.

Tempering on the other hand is used to make metals more tough and durable. It is NOT the process we use when trying to reduce stress cracking in our brass.

It’s good to hear that we have so many experts on here (in their own minds anyway) and I always get a kick out of reading reloading threads. Next to scope threads, they are the most entertaining on this site, usually.

Hey genius- do you really think most people in this industry are fully annealing their brass? They aren’t; they are heating to a lower temperature which is a temper.

Some of you are really hung up on the word “annealing” and are refusing to recognize that it’s not what most people are trying to do, despite their incorrect use of the word.

 

[Yondering]

This is factually incorrect unfortunately. We don’t temper brass.

Annealed is actually a yes or no question.

It’s either:

A: not annealed
B: annealed
C: melted

C is when you get too soft of a neck and such. There are varying forms of melting. It doesn’t need to look totally trashed like the it looks after doing an amp diagnostic test.

What people call “over annealed” is actually just melted in some way, shape, or form.

And in reality, actually annealing (there is no fully or partial, just yes or no) is much easier to be consistent with. It’s the same principle as trying to breath out completely vs holding 50% of your lung capacity in. One is vastly more consistent to accomplish.

Most people “under anneal” as in they don’t actually anneal and just waste time and energy.



As is typical with this industry, most of the “common” thoughts that go around about ammo is dogma based on no real testing.

A guy sitting at a desk with tempilaq, a torch, and a drill is absolutely being far more inconsistent “annealing” than they would be if they didn’t attempt at all.

The “data” that is usually show has zero real credibility. Most of the time they don’t even test what they claim “doesn’t work” therefore invalidating any argument before it starts.

Most of what you’re claiming here is wrong. Look at the charts in post 301 for example. Claiming there is no effect at 750* or anything below technically annealed is horse crap. There is effect, with solid metallurgical data about it, and that middle zone is what most people historically are trying to achieve, NOT the technical definition of “annealed”. The effect on the brass is gradual as temperature climbs, and is not just a yes or no thing as you claim.

“Annealing” or whatever you want to call it to that middle zone around 750-ish in the plots does prolong brass life, which is the primary reason most of us do it.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Most of what you’re claiming here is wrong. Look at the charts in post 301 for example. Claiming there is no effect at 750* or anything below technically annealed is horse crap. There is effect, with solid metallurgical data about it, and that middle zone is what most people historically are trying to achieve, NOT the technical definition of “annealed”. The effect on the brass is gradual as temperature climbs, and is not just a yes or no thing as you claim.

“Annealing” or whatever you want to call it to that middle zone around 750-ish in the plots does prolong brass life, which is the primary reason most of us do it.

No. It’s not.

You’re truthfully wasting your time “partially annealing.”

The small changes you are speaking of are small and inconsistent. Which is why it’s not considered annealed. There is literally no such thing as a partial anneal. Also, you don’t temper brass.

This has been proven through hardness testing. Your brass life will be more or less the exact same as not annealing.

More snake oil that’s been sold. This is the same as velocity flats spots and other such dogma.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Most of what you’re claiming here is wrong. Look at the charts in post 301 for example. Claiming there is no effect at 750* or anything below technically annealed is horse crap. There is effect, with solid metallurgical data about it, and that middle zone is what most people historically are trying to achieve, NOT the technical definition of “annealed”. The effect on the brass is gradual as temperature climbs, and is not just a yes or no thing as you claim.

“Annealing” or whatever you want to call it to that middle zone around 750-ish in the plots does prolong brass life, which is the primary reason most of us do it.

You also don’t temper non ferrous metals.

To achieve different hardnesses you cold work them.

Then if you need a softer hardness, you anneal them and then cold work it back up to the desired hardness.

 

[lash]

No. It’s not.

You’re truthfully wasting your time “partially annealing.”

The small changes you are speaking of are small and inconsistent. Which is why it’s not considered annealed. There is literally no such thing as a partial anneal. Also, you don’t temper brass.

This has been proven through hardness testing. Your brass life will be more or less the exact same as not annealing.

More snake oil that’s been sold. This is the same as velocity flats spots and other such dogma.

You also don’t temper non ferrous metals.

To achieve different hardnesses you cold work them.

Then if you need a softer hardness, you anneal them and then cold work it back up to the desired hardness.

Thank you for describing the facts better than I.

 

[357Max]

Direct quote from AMP “ Our target annealed neck hardness is 98 HV.”

“AMP focuses on the end result – neck and shoulder hardness – rather than temperature.”

From the data published by AMP & elsewhere.
Lapua, Norma, & Hornady supply brass with necks in the 100-110 HV range and primer pockets in the 200HV range.

AMP Appendix 1 Metlab report
“for cartridge brass full hard is typically 175-185HV and fully annealed cartridge brass is typically 65HV. Other publications also describe soft, 1⁄4 hard, 1⁄2 hard and spring hard etc.”

The AMP is not fully annealing the case necks.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Direct quote from AMP “ Our target annealed neck hardness is 98 HV.”

“AMP focuses on the end result – neck and shoulder hardness – rather than temperature.”

From the data published by AMP & elsewhere.
Lapua, Norma, & Hornady supply brass with necks in the 100-110 HV range and primer pockets in the 200HV range.

AMP Appendix 1 Metlab report
“for cartridge brass full hard is typically 175-185HV and fully annealed cartridge brass is typically 65HV. Other publications also describe soft, 1⁄4 hard, 1⁄2 hard and spring hard etc.”

The AMP is not fully annealing the case necks.

Annealing is recrystallization.

Which means it’s annealed. Like it has been stated, there is either annealed or not annealed.

 

[357Max]

You also don’t temper non ferrous metals.

To achieve different hardnesses you cold work them.

Then if you need a softer hardness, you anneal them and then cold work it back up to the desired hardness.

Last I checked aluminum is non ferrous.
What do you think the T stands for in 6061 T-6
Or 7075 T-6?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Last I checked aluminum is non ferrous.
What do you think the T stands for in 6061 T-6
Or 7075 T-6?

Thermally treated.

There’s a difference between “temper designations” and “tempering” as a process.

 

[357Max]

But, FWIW, the loading community seriously needs to redefine a few terms we use incorrectly.

I agree with that statement, but apparently you think only your definitions are correct.


Thermally treated is the tempering process for T6 Temper .…good god man!

ASTM is the Gold std. (American Society for Testing & Materials) This is the std. used by D.O.D.

5. Classification of Tempers
5.1 Annealed Tempers, O—Tempers produced by annealing to meet mechanical property requirements.
5.2 Annealed Tempers, OS—Tempers produced by anneal- ing to meet standard or special grain size requirements.

The above taken from here.

https://www.nationalbronze.com/tempers.pdf

Literally the std for copper alloys.

5.1 = Vickers hardness spec
5.2 = Recrystallization grain structure spec

Quote from AMP annealing article #1

“From the above results, we conclude that over ten cycles there is no discernible grain growth or contraction, and hardness is also consistent load to load. This means that for our future testing and calibration we do not need to routinely focus on grain size or structure. If the correct neck and shoulder hardness is achieved, it will be repeated each cycle.

The purpose of accurate annealing is to produce consistent, repeatable neck and shoulder hardness. Clearly AMP achieves that. It is not really our brief to consider other factors in accuracy, but we feel it is important to our customers that we explore other variables.”

“AMP focuses on the end result – neck and shoulder hardness – rather than temperature.“

So the proper terminology to use for what the AMP does = Annealed Temper O82 (clarifier 98 HV).

Disagree? If so explain why?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I agree with that statement, but apparently you think only your definitions are correct.


Thermally treated is the tempering process for T6 Temper .…good god man!

ASTM is the Gold std. (American Society for Testing & Materials) This is the std. used by D.O.D.

5. Classification of Tempers
5.1 Annealed Tempers, O—Tempers produced by annealing to meet mechanical property requirements.
5.2 Annealed Tempers, OS—Tempers produced by anneal- ing to meet standard or special grain size requirements.

The above taken from here.

https://www.nationalbronze.com/tempers.pdf

Literally the std for copper alloys.

5.1 = Vickers hardness spec
5.2 = Recrystallization grain structure spec

Quote from AMP annealing article #1

“From the above results, we conclude that over ten cycles there is no discernible grain growth or contraction, and hardness is also consistent load to load. This means that for our future testing and calibration we do not need to routinely focus on grain size or structure. If the correct neck and shoulder hardness is achieved, it will be repeated each cycle.

The purpose of accurate annealing is to produce consistent, repeatable neck and shoulder hardness. Clearly AMP achieves that. It is not really our brief to consider other factors in accuracy, but we feel it is important to our customers that we explore other variables.”

“AMP focuses on the end result – neck and shoulder hardness – rather than temperature.“

So the proper terminology to use for what the AMP does = Annealed Temper O82 (clarifier 98 HV).

Disagree? If so explain why?

Again, you’re quoting “temper designations.”

Tempering is a process used on ferrous metals. It’s also air cooled. That’s not the process used on aluminum.

And no, the proper terminology for amp is annealed. Not partially annealed, not under annealed, not tempered…….annealed. The brass recrystallized.

If your salt bath, flame, electric, or even a hair dryer method achieves recrystallization, it’s annealed. If it doesn’t, it’s not. It’s that simple.

If your necks get soft enough they are ruined, that means you started melting the zinc. That means it’s not annealed.

You’re getting a lot of stuff confused.

“Annealed tempers” doesn’t mean it was “tempered.”

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I agree with that statement, but apparently you think only your definitions are correct.


Thermally treated is the tempering process for T6 Temper .…good god man!

ASTM is the Gold std. (American Society for Testing & Materials) This is the std. used by D.O.D.

5. Classification of Tempers
5.1 Annealed Tempers, O—Tempers produced by annealing to meet mechanical property requirements.
5.2 Annealed Tempers, OS—Tempers produced by anneal- ing to meet standard or special grain size requirements.

The above taken from here.

https://www.nationalbronze.com/tempers.pdf

Literally the std for copper alloys.

5.1 = Vickers hardness spec
5.2 = Recrystallization grain structure spec

Quote from AMP annealing article #1

“From the above results, we conclude that over ten cycles there is no discernible grain growth or contraction, and hardness is also consistent load to load. This means that for our future testing and calibration we do not need to routinely focus on grain size or structure. If the correct neck and shoulder hardness is achieved, it will be repeated each cycle.

The purpose of accurate annealing is to produce consistent, repeatable neck and shoulder hardness. Clearly AMP achieves that. It is not really our brief to consider other factors in accuracy, but we feel it is important to our customers that we explore other variables.”

“AMP focuses on the end result – neck and shoulder hardness – rather than temperature.“

So the proper terminology to use for what the AMP does = Annealed Temper O82 (clarifier 98 HV).

Disagree? If so explain why?

Also, T6 is precipitation hardened. Not tempered.

 

[357Max]

“Annealed tempers” doesn’t mean it was “tempered.”

Yes it literally does! If you believe ASTM & you understand what temper actually means. Temper is a spec for a specified state of hardness that may or may not include other properties. The 98 HV that AMP is targeting is such a state & that is what they claim too & do achieve. A repeatable restoration of the neck/shoulder area to 98HV. That is what the current consensus appears to be by the major brass manufacturers as well. They do not claim to achieve nor are they attempting to do partial or complete recrystallization. Some may happen as a by product, but who cares. They are focusing on what matters as they rightly state “neck shoulder hardness”. The ability to get repeatable and tunable actual neck tension.

Steel Temper spec requires it to be softened, Aluminum Temper calls for hardening. Glass temper requires hardening it. Brass temper calls for softening it. Tempering can be viewed narrowly as a specific process or understood in the context I’ve clearly been using; Temper as a specified state. This is not some context I made up. It’s universally accepted common knowledge. Temper can be accomplished by a large variety of methods to achieve many many different qualities.

Annealing is not that simple. It’s not all or nothing. Like Tempers there are many different specs for anneal. I clipped like 50 from the below excerpt. Go click on the link I posted in #342 & those are just for Copper alloys.

ASTM - Copper Alloys
“6. Temper Designation Codes
6.1 Annealed Tempers, O:
6.1.1 Annealed to Meet Mechanical Properties,
Annealed Tempers—O
Temper Names
Anneal
O60 Soft Anneal
O61 Annealed
O65 Drawing Anneal
O68 Deep Drawing Anneal O70 Dead Soft Anneal
O80 Annealed to Temper—1⁄8 Hard
O81 Annealed to Temper—1⁄4 Hard
O82 Annealed to Temper—1⁄2 Hard”

I’m not confused at all. I understand what temper means.

I regularly wittiness it in person. Aluminum and Glass at foundries and manufacturers in CA, TX, Germany, & MX.

Also, T6 is precipitation hardened. Not tempered.

T6 is both actually!


T is a designator for a class of temper.

Source for below quotes.
Edit. This is from nist (National Institute of Standards and Technology).

https://materialsdata.nist.gov/bitstream/handle/11115/186/Understanding%20Temper%20Designation.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

“Understanding the Aluminum Temper Designation System”

“Subdivisions of the T Temper for Heat Treatable Alloys. The T tempers for heat treatable alloys may have from one to five digits following the T, and there are many more possible combinations than for the H tempers. The first digit after the T always indicates the basic type of treatment, and the second to fifth, if they are used, indicate whether the product was stress relieved”

“T6: Indicates the alloy has been solution heat treated and, without any significant cold working, artificially aged to achieve precipitation hardening. If there is any straightening or flattening to meet dimen- sional tolerances, it is not sufficient to be recognized with higher mechanical property limits.”

“In all of the T-type tempers just described, solution heat treatment is achieved by heating semifinished or finished products to a suitable temperature, holding them at that temperature long enough to allow constituents to go into solution, and cooling them rapidly enough to hold the constituents in solution so that they may be the basis of precipitation hardening upon natural (i.e., room temperature) or artificial (i.e., in a furnace) aging.“

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Yes it literally does! If you believe ASTM & you understand what temper actually means. Temper is a spec for a specified state of hardness that may or may not include other properties. The 98 HV that AMP is targeting is such a state & that is what they claim too & do achieve. A repeatable restoration of the neck/shoulder area to 98HV. That is what the current consensus appears to be by the major brass manufacturers as well. They do not claim to achieve nor are they attempting to do partial or complete recrystallization. Some may happen as a by product, but who cares. They are focusing on what matters as they rightly state “neck shoulder hardness”. The ability to get repeatable and tunable actual neck tension.

Steel Temper softens it, Aluminum Temper hardens it. Glass temper hardens it. Brass temper softens it. Tempering can be viewed narrowly as a specific process or understood in the context I’ve clearly been using; Temper as a specified state. This is not some context I made up. It’s universally accepted common knowledge. Temper can be accomplished by a large variety of ways to achieve many many different qualities.

Annealing is not that simple. It’s not all or nothing. Like Tempers there are many different specs for anneal. I clipped like 50 from the below excerpt. Go click on the link I posted in #342 & those are just for Copper alloys.

ASTM - Copper Alloys
“6. Temper Designation Codes
6.1 Annealed Tempers, O:
6.1.1 Annealed to Meet Mechanical Properties,
Annealed Tempers—O
Temper Names
Anneal
O60 Soft Anneal
O61 Annealed
O65 Drawing Anneal
O68 Deep Drawing Anneal O70 Dead Soft Anneal
O80 Annealed to Temper—1⁄8 Hard
O81 Annealed to Temper—1⁄4 Hard
O82 Annealed to Temper—1⁄2 Hard”

I’m not confused at all. I understand what temper means.

I regularly wittiness it in person. Aluminum and Glass at foundries and manufacturers in CA, TX, Germany, & MX.



T6 is both actually!


T is a designator for a class of temper.

Source for below quotes.
Edit. This is from nist (National Institute of Standards and Technology).

https://materialsdata.nist.gov/bitstream/handle/11115/186/Understanding%20Temper%20Designation.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

“Understanding the Aluminum Temper Designation System”

“Subdivisions of the T Temper for Heat Treatable Alloys. The T tempers for heat treatable alloys may have from one to five digits following the T, and there are many more possible combinations than for the H tempers. The first digit after the T always indicates the basic type of treatment, and the second to fifth, if they are used, indicate whether the product was stress relieved”

“T6: Indicates the alloy has been solution heat treated and, without any significant cold working, artificially aged to achieve precipitation hardening. If there is any straightening or flattening to meet dimen- sional tolerances, it is not sufficient to be recognized with higher mechanical property limits.”

“In all of the T-type tempers just described, solution heat treatment is achieved by heating semifinished or finished products to a suitable temperature, holding them at that temperature long enough to allow constituents to go into solution, and cooling them rapidly enough to hold the constituents in solution so that they may be the basis of precipitation hardening upon natural (i.e., room temperature) or artificial (i.e., in a furnace) aging.“

Oh boy……

This is way wrong.

You can’t harden anything by tempering it. Not how it works.

Age hardening isn’t tempering.


This is the last time I’m going to say this. “Temper” isn’t from tempering. Temper in this context is talking about the hardness. Not that the hardness was achieved through tempering.

You are talking about heat treating. Tempering is literally a kind of heat treatment, not a term for general heat treating.

You’re littering just googling and then misinterpreted what you googled.

Ferrous metals get tempered. Non ferrous get annealed.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

And again, “T” literally stands for thermally treated.

If it stood for tempering, that’s would it would literally be labeled as. It’s labeled as thermally treated because it’s not tempered.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

And annealing is literally defined as heating above the crystallization temperature but less than the melting point.

If it doesn’t recrystallize, it’s not annealing. And you can’t temper brass. Extremely simple.

 

[Yondering]

No. It’s not.

You’re truthfully wasting your time “partially annealing.”

The small changes you are speaking of are small and inconsistent. Which is why it’s not considered annealed. There is literally no such thing as a partial anneal. Also, you don’t temper brass.

This has been proven through hardness testing. Your brass life will be more or less the exact same as not annealing.

More snake oil that’s been sold. This is the same as velocity flats spots and other such dogma.

Except that none of the data posted here or elsewhere supports your claims. Ignoring the reality of how most people use heat to PARTIALLY reduce the hardness of cartridge brass, but not dead soft, and refer to that as annealing, is just asinine. You’re either being so pedantic that it’s just stupid, or you’re flat out wrong. Which is it?

 

[Yondering]

Wrong. The AMP gives a full anneal

According to who?
Are you referring to the fact that an AMP machine can do that? Or claiming that’s what they always do? Or what, and based on who’s data? Certainly not AMP’s.

If you pedantic geniuses are right, that annealing is only one thing, dead soft, and there is no in between, then there’s no reason to buy an AMP or any other annealer; just heat with a torch till it glows and call it done. That’d be fully annealed after all, and apparently your “ideal” condition.

Of course sooner or later you might figure out that there are situations where dead soft brass doesn’t work well. Something about semi autos, bullet setback, runout, that sort of thing.
You can prove that your fully annealed brass works well in some conditions. I wouldn’t even argue with that, and the idea that fully annealed is most consistent is right. No issues so far. But once you encounter conditions where that doesn’t hold a bullet adequately, it’s hard to claim that fully annealed is always best. It’s just not.