Annealing

[moonstalanda]

I recently came across a video that showcased an interesting comparison, but I couldn't help but notice what seemed like an uneven playing field. In the video, the second group (annealed) benefited from a wind caller, while the first group (not annealed) did not. This raises questions about the true impact of annealing.

I've delved into various discussions, including some involving Bryan Litz's findings, which suggest that annealing may not be necessary as long as you keep your brass under 10 firings. This has me wondering if there are prominent F-Class or benchrest shooters who forego annealing altogether.

My main concern is justifying the cost of investing in what seems to be the most consistent annealing device on the market, the AMP annealer. It would undoubtedly be a significant expense for me, and I'm currently on the fence about whether it's worth the investment.

I'd appreciate any insights or experiences from fellow precision reloaders, particularly if you have achieved top-level performance without annealing, or if you've found that the AMP annealer has made a substantial difference in your precision reloading process. Your input will help me make an informed decision. Thanks in advance!

 

[straightshooter1]

Apparently, you're excluding the benefit of brass longevity and focusing strictly on what one can achieve on target. With that in mind . . .

How much it may benefit depends on the type of shooting event one is engaged in. For most shooters, the only benefit is brass longevity and won't make any noticeable difference for them on target. For those who compete where .0001" difference in group size can make the difference in winning or not, then producing cartridges that are as consistent as possible is an important objective. Proper annealing does a lot towards this end by putting the brass in such a state that one gets more consistent neck tension, more consistent shoulder bumping, more consistent bullet release. The benefit of those things is small on targets, especially with custom chambers (a little better yet with factory chambers).

The AMP is best at getting the "proper" annealing done and doing it very consistently. At the same time, it also does it work rather quickly. Several competitors have stated the time savings alone is worth it over the flame annealing processes. In terms of the annealing results, the AMP has a small edge on the consistency side, but there hasn't been any demonstration on targets or even with chrono's that brass having been done right with a flame give one as good results on target as what the AMP can gives you. Comparisons have only been AMP vs non-annealed brass.

You don't have to anneal to get good results on targets. But you'll have to do a number other things to mitigate the work hardening of the brass and its effects over a number of reloads.

 

[moonstalanda]

Yes, in the case of using the AMP, I am only considering results on target. The way I calculate it, I can buy and reload quality brass approx. 10x before it might fall apart if I have not annealed. At $1600, that is very conservatively more than 10,000 shots before I "break even". I haven't started competing yet and most of my reloading is for hunting and plinking as I have my own property and can shoot up to 2 miles. My plan is to shoot on my range until I think I will be competitive before going out or building an Fclass-type gun. I have recently been re-bit by the precision rifle bug and have invested in bushing dies, Giraud trimmer, chrono, and lots and lots of cleaning supplies. But I just can't wrap my head around the annealer. If the video above had the guy calling wind in both scenarios I probably would have been sold, but based on your response, I think I would be better off ordering a new barrel as my current one is probably approaching it's last half of life. Thank you for your feedback. Look forward to learning more.

 

[Secondistic]

X1 What @straightshooter1 said.

 

[supercorndogs]

Can anyone show me some evidence the AMP is more consistent than flame annealing?

If you are annealing for brass life. You are wasting your money and time. My dad has some LC 5.56 with 30x and he doest "anneal."

I am not sure about the AMP saving time over flame annealing. Maybe if you were doing it with a torch and drill. Most of the automated machines. No.

Your brass is going to reach a point at about 10 firings where the crystal structure has changed. No amount of of stress reliving with heat is going to change that. Your brass is changing every firing whether you do what we call "annealing" or not. I am not sure if it is possible to return the neck and shoulder of a brass case to an actual annealed state without ruining it. But I am really sure it doesn't matter if you do, because we don't.

 

[straightshooter1]

Can anyone show me some evidence the AMP is more consistent than flame annealing?

If you are annealing for brass life. You are wasting your money and time. My dad has some LC 5.56 with 30x and he doest "anneal."

I am not sure about the AMP saving time over flame annealing. Maybe if you were doing it with a torch and drill. Most of the automated machines. No.

Your brass is going to reach a point at about 10 firings where the crystal structure has changed. No amount of of stress reliving with heat is going to change that. Your brass is changing every firing whether you do what we call "annealing" or not. I am not sure if it is possible to return the neck and shoulder of a brass case to an actual annealed state without ruining it. But I am really sure it doesn't matter if you do, because we don't.

The brass we use for cartridges is a wonderful and fascinating alloy. If you really want to understand the annealing process, maybe you'd like to study the attached PDF file about Recrystallization Behavior of 70/30 Brass (if you haven't already)?

 

[FredHammer]

A MAP/PRO bottle torch in a vise and a hand drill with socket. I can pump through brass annealing nearly as fast as FL sizing. Put into and pull from same place in flame when the anneal shows just below the shoulder. It's so easy, they even let me do it. I see the benefits in consistency with my loads, or I wouldn't keep doing it.

Edited to add: I started running the annealed brass back through the walnut media tumbler for 20-30 min to get the anneal sticky shit off the inside necks for smooth seating.

 

[SharpShooterSER]

My $0.02.
In terms of speed, flame vs. other methods are not that different (most of the cases done with flame are below 8 seconds). Induction may do it in 3 or 4, but take out the case, put in another one......so unless you do 10k of them at the time, in terms of time saving I dont see much of the point (just to add, I am biased since I am producing and selling flame annealer). Others will say, flame is not consistent as the induction - based on my research and measuring neck hardness, its consistent as with the factory cases (my testing was done on Lapua cases, only ones available for the caliber I shoot and reload, 6.5x47 and quite scarce in my neck of woods and I used well known ammo producer facilities to conduct the testing back in the day). For number of reloads - it does extend the case life. Previous (first) batch of cases I had started to split necks on 14-16 firings (no loose pockets, I shoot mild loads, but seating was hard after 4 or 5). Once I started annealing, it went to 24-26. What it also gave me - softer neck for seating, and less neck tension. Neck tension is important, because it changes initial pressure to release the bullet on firing, which corresponds to speed that I get out of my barrel, and it showed me that on paper in terms of results (maybe because I believe in OBT), and I strongly believe that it had impact on my precision (cause I didn't change other variables over time, except weather conditions and barrel life). Or I just got better at shooting lol. SD/ES also improved, but I dont think I shoot well enough to see the benefit of that yet.
Does one have to anneal - I believe one should (again, biased). Do you need a Ferrari to get from point A to point B? Depends on the several things, but one can surely reach B in a Ford or Chevy as well.
Also remember that "he got into reloading to save money" saying - well its not true

 

[PoorFarmer]

So I’ve been working up a load for a 22-250 for a friend that recently purchased a bergara

Brand new POU brass
CCI large rifle
H414 36.2-36.8 gr.
Head space comparator :
First and second firing - 1.558”
Sized to - 1.557”
Induction Annealed
Now measures 1.560”

I normally anneal right before sizing to get the most consistent cases. Sized 5 cases then annealed all 5 measured 1.560” dead on. Cutting to see if they’ll chamber.
Wasn’t expecting this result. Anyone else get growth after annual?

 

[Grantw1221]

Using my AMP annealer, on twice fired brass, exact same load, day, rifle, etc. here’s my results. So it’s obviously worth it to me.

 

[StaveyIL]

I just went down this path. I’m shooting informal sr Benchrest. I’m sorting bullets seating primers to a consistent depth etc…I don’t want 1 bullet falling out of the group. I am not willing to cut corners in any other process. Therefore I’m not willing to when it comes to annealing. I’m not annealing for brass life. I’m annealing for consistency. Flame annealing seams like a gamble. They make lots of claims but never back them up. As far as the whole 750* (tempilaq)trick. That is not annealing anything. Without owning a hardness tester or having your brass analyzed. You are shooting in the dark. The AMP however does back their claims up. It does exactly what it’s supposed to each and every time. This is why Lou Murdica has said. “Anneal using an AMP or dont anneal at all.”
Happy Shooting .

 

[FredHammer]

I just went down this path. I’m shooting informal sr Benchrest. I’m sorting bullets seating primers to a consistent depth etc…I don’t want 1 bullet falling out of the group. I am not willing to cut corners in any other process. Therefore I’m not willing to when it comes to annealing. I’m not annealing for brass life. I’m annealing for consistency. Flame annealing seams like a gamble. They make lots of claims but never back them up. As far as the whole 750* (tempilaq)trick. That is not annealing anything. Without owning a hardness tester or having your brass analyzed. You are shooting in the dark. The AMP however does back their claims up. It does exactly what it’s supposed to each and every time. This is why Lou Murdica has said. “Anneal using an AMP or dont anneal at all.”
Happy Shooting .

That's absolute bullshit for a couple reasons.

1. I've been annealing very consistent brass for a couple years now by drill and torch. If it didn't work this way I wouldn't do it. If it weren't evidenced in my bullet seating consistency and group sizes, I would buy an expensive machine to do the job and justify the cost.
2. Do you understand the inherent bias in this statement given by someone who makes a profit selling some such product? Of course he's gonna make this claim.

I got no problems with a guy spending his money the way he wants, and if that is buying an expensive machine to do a mundane task, that is awesome. However, I won't tolerate bullshit statements that a guy can't get the same positive results by much cheaper and rudimentary methods.

 

[StaveyIL]

That's absolute bullshit for a couple reasons.

1. I've been annealing very consistent brass for a couple years now by drill and torch. If it didn't work this way I wouldn't do it. If it weren't evidenced in my bullet seating consistency and group sizes, I would buy an expensive machine to do the job and justify the cost.
2. Do you understand the inherent bias in this statement given by someone who makes a profit selling some such product? Of course he's gonna make this claim.

I got no problems with a guy spending his money the way he wants, and if that is buying an expensive machine to do a mundane task, that is awesome. However, I won't tolerate bullshit statements that a guy can't get the same positive results by much cheaper and rudimentary methods.

First off. You have no idea what the flame is actually doing. Again people make these claims but have zero actual evidence to back them up, As far as your bullet seating. If you feel like your accomplishing something I guess that’s all that matters.
Secondly . If it didn’t work . Lou would not put his name behind it. Not to mention others Bart Sauter, Bryan Zolnilov, etc .., would not use them . These are top level world class shooters. If that’s not enough AMP posted their tests rite in their site. Something I’ve yet to see a flame annealer do. I’m not a gambler on the range or off. I’ll stick with what is PROVEN to work.
Happy Shooting

 

[Capt45]

Here's a side by side comparison of Bench Source and AMP annealer results:

Personally I use a flame source annealer and get excellent results, but I'm not a F Class shooter either.

 

[MarshallDodge]

New month, new annealing thread

I really believe some cartridges do better than others when annealing. In 223, I see a noticeable difference. Not so much with my 6x47L, but I do it every five firings to extend case life. Currently over 15 firings on the same brass.

Edit to add: Flame worked well for me and then I got a deal on an Annie. It is quick and consistent, without the need for a torch in my reloading room.

 

[Capt45]

I've actually begun annealing after every firing. I can't see a downside, yet.

 

[FredHammer]

First off. You have no idea what the flame is actually doing.

I only need to know what the result is of the flame on the brass. Heat and Time. Whether I insert it at the end of the flame for 10 seconds or down by the mouth of the torch for 2 seconds. The outcome of the result on the brass is the determining factor.

Again people make these claims but have zero actual evidence to back them up, As far as your bullet seating. If you feel like your accomplishing something I guess that’s all that matters.

Like I said, I wouldn't do it if it didn't work.

Secondly . If it didn’t work . Lou would not put his name behind it. Not to mention others Bart Sauter, Bryan Zolnilov, etc .., would not use them . These are top level world class shooters. If that’s not enough AMP posted their tests rite in their site.

You have totally gone off the rails of what I said. Go reread my statements.

Something I’ve yet to see a flame annealer do. I’m not a gambler on the range or off. I’ll stick with what is PROVEN to work.
Happy Shooting

I'll stick what what is PROVEN time and time again, with boring consistent results of sub half MOA groups, with multiple rigs, all years long.

You need some comprehension skills, or lay off the booze before you post. Damn!

 

[FredHammer]

I've actually begun annealing after every firing. I can't see a downside, yet.

Because there is no downside to annealing. Machine or no!

 

[MTRecon]

It would be interesting to see machine testing of the flame method. For example, the device they use in this video to determine case hardness after annealing.

As @StaveyIL noted I have yet to see any case hardness testing by any of the other manufacturers or users.

 

[secondofangle2]

I can all but guarantee you that the manufacturers of the AMP annealing machine have tested brass that has been annealed with a flame torch annealer.

And that they don’t publish the results because it shows no difference.

If flame annealed brass were inferior or less consistent than amp annealed brass, they would definitely have posted that result to prove to you that their product/method is superior

And if I am wrong and they haven’t done the testing, that is because they are afraid of what they might find

 

[MTRecon]

Likewise, if I was a flame annealing concern I would want to demonstrate flame is as good or better than the AMP.

 

[salks]

Heat is heat whether it comes from a flame or inductance. Heat the neck until it just faintly glows in dim light. It is either annealed or it isn't.

 

[RegionRat]

Not that I have a pony in this race, but having run with both flame and induction for necks, there is no difference in the testing results when making cartridge cases in a production sense. Ammo production wasn't concerned with long term testing of cycles from multiple reloadings.

When I checked multiple cycles for my own curiosity, the difference between flame or induction annealing was irrelevant.

Regardless of flame or induction, what is important is hitting the hardness tolerance because that means you are hitting the other tolerances with respect to all the important material properties. Hardness per se wasn't important, it is just a proxy for what is actually important.

It isn't difficult (technically) to test hardness, but those other properties are very difficult to test. YMMV

 

[Rocketmandb]

@StaveyIL I hate to burst your bubble, but you can get every bit as consistent results with flame annealing as with an AMP. How do I know? Because I used to flame anneal - and now I use an AMP. I measured it where it matters: seating force consistency. I got the same pre-AMP as I do post-AMP. Why did I switch to induction annealing? COVID.

Well, sort of.

My wife did not like open flame in the house, so I could only anneal when she wasn't home - of course, I didn't tell her! When COVID hit, she started working from home, and I no longer had any timeframe where I could anneal. So, I bought an Annie Annealer, and it delivered similar results to my flame annealing (slightly worse). The Annie worked well, until it didn't. When it started delivering inconsistent results, I decided to get an AMP.

Notes:

- I had made a flame annealing setup that was very consistent, but it took about 10-14 seconds per case, depending on the case. That setup delivered 4-5 fps SDs with my 6 BRA to 6-7 for my 300 PRC. Other rounds fell between the two. Seating force for the BRA was exceedingly tight within a 5 lb range. The 300 was within about a 10 lb range.

- The Annie delivered results that were about 1 fps higher for each on SDs until it went tits up. It's hard to measure fine variations on seating force.

- The AMP is closer to what I was getting with the flame annealing method.

- The AMP in itself does not deliver more consistent results. But rather, it makes it easier to deliver more consistent results.

- The AMP is quicker than a flame annealer - much quicker than my flame annealing method, and maybe 50% faster than something like a Bench Source.

- My issue with the way most people flame anneal is that they try to shorten the time for each case. Because of a host of variables in the flame process, I've actually found that elongating the time makes for more consistent results - but that also means more reason to get an AMP to speed that up.

Do I love the AMP? Yes, I do. It's easier and quicker to use. Did it give me more consistent results? No, it did not. But that's not why I got it.

 

[supercorndogs]

Using my AMP annealer, on twice fired brass, exact same load, day, rifle, etc. here’s my results. So it’s obviously worth it to me.

Depending on the number of shots fired those numbers could be essentially the same or exactly the same.

First off. You have no idea what the flame is actually doing. Again people make these claims but have zero actual evidence to back them up, As far as your bullet seating. If you feel like your accomplishing something I guess that’s all that matters.
Secondly . If it didn’t work . Lou would not put his name behind it. Not to mention others Bart Sauter, Bryan Zolnilov, etc .., would not use them . These are top level world class shooters. If that’s not enough AMP posted their tests rite in their site. Something I’ve yet to see a flame annealer do. I’m not a gambler on the range or off. I’ll stick with what is PROVEN to work.
Happy Shooting

First off I know exactly what the flame is doing. Same thing as the coil in the AMP. Heating the case to my desired temperature. I also bet all those top shooters you mentioned measure seating force.

Second off, no one said it didn't work, people said it didn't work any better than a flame. If you want to believe it works bestest because some of the top sponsored shooters endorse it, ok...

Third off, that paper is marketing plain and simple. Otherwise they would have compared their annealed brass to un-annealed at the very least. And flame and salt bath if they were trying to prove something. They didn't, or at least didn't publish those results, that is what I call a clue.
The fact that they never achieved recrystallization of the brass is also a clue that no one is.

Flame annealing was "proven" effective long before the AMP came on the scene. So, honestly you are gambling jumping in bed with the new guy, based on sponsored shooters endorsements and the companies own marketing.

 

[Grantw1221]

Depending on the number of shots fired those numbers could be essentially the same or exactly the same.


First off I know exactly what the flame is doing. Same thing as the coil in the AMP. Heating the case to my desired temperature. I also bet all those top shooters you mentioned measure seating force.

Second off, no one said it didn't work, people said it didn't work any better than a flame. If you want to believe it works bestest because some of the top sponsored shooters endorse it, ok...

Third off, that paper is marketing plain and simple. Otherwise they would have compared their annealed brass to un-annealed at the very least. And flame and salt bath if they were trying to prove something. They didn't, or at least didn't publish those results, that is what I call a clue.
The fact that they never achieved recrystallization of the brass is also a clue that no one is.

Flame annealing was "proven" effective long before the AMP came on the scene. So, honestly you are gambling jumping in bed with the new guy, based on sponsored shooters endorsements and the companies own marketing.

Those were 10 shot strings.

 

[Rocketmandb]

Depending on the number of shots fired those numbers could be essentially the same or exactly the same.

Not to mention that, even if they held up over large sample sizes, it shows the AMP against another annealer (flame), not the AMP vs. flame annealing in general. Who knows if the flame annealer was set up correctly, is a consistent model, etc.

 

[CK1.0]

Induction + time (AMP) = controllable, repeatable, predictable results.

Fire + time (flame) = somewhat controllable, sort of repeatable, slightly more unpredictable results.

Annealing every firing is like pressing a "reset button" on one's brass so it shoots the same every firing/loading cycle throughout its service life, while in corollary, eliminating the guesswork associated with spring-back or having to counter the effects of work-hardening over many firing/load cycles.

Some people also don't think every charge needs to be the same down to the kernel either... but those people are wrong.

 

[Rh0dz]

I recently purchased an AMP because I struggled getting a consistent flame and it was driving me nuts. I was always having to adjust the flame and knew my results were not consistent, so I bought an AMP. I'm in the camp of controlling as many variables as you can, and with my flame annealer I was not in full control.

 

[Capt45]

If that bothers you, this will drive you nuts!!

 

[secondofangle2]

IMO you should not be running a flame w/o a gauge and regulator like this from Tejas Smokers www.tejassmokers.com or similar. Then you can record your PSI for each application and keep it consistent between sessions. Attach it to a 5# propane tank and you’re GTG w a consistent flame for many years and you can refill it and it doubles as a camping spare.

OTOH, add on the $150 cost of that equipment and you’re getting closer and closer to justifying the AMP.