Post Your AMP Press Plots

[Rocketmandb]

Which picture goes to which treatment? Sounds like you had three batches, and I only see two pics?

The first picture is the 13 from the lube-before-mandrel group. The second is the 15-shot, no-lube group. I didn't take a pic of standard group because it was the last batch shot and looked through the scope as substantively similar to the first one. The SD was also similar, and I didn't want to make another trip down range to paint the target - we then splattered it up with some 308.

 

[FNG1001]

So, I was hoping to shoot yesterday in this:
View attachment 8390810

Trying to get there, I got this:
View attachment 8390811

When you're going up hill on a shelf road in 4WD low, and you're doing so sideways because you have no traction due to mud filling your treads, it's time to turn around. I have to say that coming down carried much more pucker factor than going up. I don't care to do that again.

The end result is actually positive for the purposes of this thread. We ended up finding a spot just out of the hills and set a target at just under 500 yards to shoot groups.

I shot 14 shots of the "champion" lube process (lube after mandrel - one bad primer in this group), 13 of the one where I lubed before mandrel, and 15 of no lube. The SD results were not surprising.

The first two came in essentially the same at the same of 6.6 and 6.3 fps respectively. The no lube group came in at 8.4 fps.

The big surprise to me was grouping. I hadn't anticipated doing anything group related, but due to my near-death experience on the attempt to get to our normal shooting spot we had the "opportunity" to do so. Below are pics of the 13-shot group and the 15-shot no lube group.

On the 13-shot group these were the first we shot of the day. My scope had gotten away from zero and the first shot was high, I adjusted for the second (still too high), then shot the remaining 11. The results are below:

View attachment 8390817
View attachment 8390818

The dispersion on the no-lube group is measurably higher than the lube group. I frankly didn't expect this. I expected some SD difference (which we got, but not this much dispersion difference.

Could this have been wind? It was maybe 3 - 8 mph all day, so I don't believe wind alone could be responsible. Could it have been me? Yes, I'll never rule that out. I'm not ready to make any conclusions based on this, but I may go run another test at a similar range - where I can actually drive to the target to paint - got to say that hoofing it 500 yards up and down stream beds and along steep terrain just to paint the target was not the most enjoyable.

@kthomas here is first evidence of downrange performance. As I mentioned, I'll likely do another bigger test a couple months down the road.

Great looking day for the range! So with the results, how will your future reloading process look?

 

[Rocketmandb]

Great looking day for the range! So with the results, how will your future reloading process look?

No changes yet - will continue with NeoLube as a neck lubricant and will run another larger test after the BLM land closes down for fire season. I've got a private range I go to that has steel out to 1350, but will likely run tests at 500 yards to be similar to these. I'll expect group sizes to tighten up a bit since I'll be shooting from level ground there in a more controlled environment.

 

[Painterbolt]

Anyone notice a decrease in velocity going from no lube to lube. I’m getting about a lose of 25fps.

 

[memilanuk]

Anyone notice a decrease in velocity going from no lube to lube. I’m getting about a lose of 25fps.

Not enough to notice. How much are you slathering on there?

 

[Painterbolt]

Not enough to notice. How much are you slathering on there?

Just a coating. Did some load development with Neo lube and tried without. Group size stayed the same just gained an extra 25fps. Wasn’t sure if that was normal

 

[Rocketmandb]

Anyone notice a decrease in velocity going from no lube to lube. I’m getting about a lose of 25fps.

You should expect to see some drop since the bullet starts moving slightly quicker, meaning pressure is slightly lower. Same thing happens with lubed bullets. Slightly more powder will make up the difference.

 

[MarkyMark007]

Just a coating. Did some load development with Neo lube and tried without. Group size stayed the same just gained an extra 25fps. Wasn’t sure if that was normal

it's normal.
in firearms, when you lube something or polish things, this will generate less friction and consequently less pressure and therefor less speed.

it's just the opposite what people thinks.

 

[LakuNoc]

Rocketmandb any more testing are you sticking with Neo Lube?

 

[Rocketmandb]

Rocketmandb any more testing are you sticking with Neo Lube?

What I've found:

- I've tested dry moly, graphite, HBN, just using residual carbon in the necks, and NeoLube

- NeoLube has tightest overall plots with occasional minor "flyers" - since I'm running everything through the AMP Press, I just cull those. Probably on the order of 1 out of 15 or 20 or so.

- NeoLube is much quicker when using the dip method of applying - will be showing this in an upcoming video

- NeoLube, contrary to what you might think, is actually less messy than using a powdered lubricant.

- NeoLube is the most expensive of all the lubricants I've tested, but you can get it in bulk from the manufacturer which brings the price per ounce down significantly (I bought a quart size - you can get gallons)

- I think, but am not sure, that graphite is the most benign from a health perspective, so that includes NeoLube.

Before @Rio Precision Gunworks enlightened me to dipping in NeoLube, I had found moly dry lube to be the most consistent. Here is a plot comparing (NeoLube in blue EDIT: ORANGE):

Very similar, which is why NeoLube is winning out for me due to time and ease of application.

EDIT: Note that NeoLube (orange) is tighter except for the highest one - an aforementioned flyer.

 

[LakuNoc]

Very Interesting. What is your youtube? Thanks for the info, do you turn your necks or no?

 

[Rocketmandb]

Very Interesting. What is your youtube? Thanks for the info, do you turn your necks or no?

Youtube link is in my signature. If Lapua brass is available, I don't neck turn. When the best brass I had for the 300 was ADG, I did neck turn and saw a noticeable improvement in SDs. I have thought about doing it on some Lapua - likely will at some point.

 

[bbowles]

How does alpha brass compare to lapua? Landing for 6.5 Creedmoor. Going to order some more brass soon. Thanks

 

[Barelstroker]

You're all barking up the wrong tree.
Looking at graphs plots from Amp Presses is kinda useless information when viewed from the perspective of just the primer pressures involved.

 

[straightshooter1]

How does alpha brass compare to lapua? Landing for 6.5 Creedmoor. Going to order some more brass soon. Thanks

I've not shot Alpha brass a lot, but I have shot Lapua a lot. So far, I like my Alpha brass a lot. . . as much as Lapua. But a lot more time with Alpha will tell the tale. I feel confident you won't be disappointed using Alpha brass. The only "comparison" I have with Alpha vs Lapua is case measurements, which I found interesting. This was for .308 cases, not 6.5 CM, but it still might give you some ideas. . . here (V=virgin, F=fired):

 

[bbowles]

I've not shot Alpha brass a lot, but I have shot Lapua a lot. So far, I like my Alpha brass a lot. . . as much as Lapua. But a lot more time with Alpha well tell the tale. I feel confident you won't be disappointed using Alpha brass. The only "comparison" I have with Alpha vs Lapua is case measurements, which I found interesting. This was for .308 cases, not 6.5 CM, but it still might give you some ideas. . . here (V=virgin, F=fired):

View attachment 8531255

Appreciate the info ss1. Thanks!

 

[Barelstroker]

What I've found:

- I've tested dry moly, graphite, HBN, just using residual carbon in the necks, and NeoLube

- NeoLube has tightest overall plots with occasional minor "flyers" - since I'm running everything through the AMP Press, I just cull those. Probably on the order of 1 out of 15 or 20 or so.

- NeoLube is much quicker when using the dip method of applying - will be showing this in an upcoming video

- NeoLube, contrary to what you might think, is actually less messy than using a powdered lubricant.

- NeoLube is the most expensive of all the lubricants I've tested, but you can get it in bulk from the manufacturer which brings the price per ounce down significantly (I bought a quart size - you can get gallons)

- I think, but am not sure, that graphite is the most benign from a health perspective, so that includes NeoLube.

Before @Rio Precision Gunworks enlightened me to dipping in NeoLube, I had found moly dry lube to be the most consistent. Here is a plot comparing (NeoLube in blue EDIT: ORANGE):

View attachment 8420113

Very similar, which is why NeoLube is winning out for me due to time and ease of application.

EDIT: Note that NeoLube (orange) is tighter except for the highest one - an aforementioned flyer.

If I may ask, what difference do you think how the projectile is seated, could make a difference to anything during the internal ballistics process?

 

[Barelstroker]

Anyone notice a decrease in velocity going from no lube to lube. I’m getting about a lose of 25fps.

What number of samples were measured to determine that figure?

 

[CK1.0]

You're all barking up the wrong tree.
Looking at graphs plots from Amp Presses is kinda useless information when viewed from the perspective of just the primer pressures involved.

How's about just stating your point instead of asking us all to read some long-ass boring paper?

Are you trying to say primers matter more than consistent neck tension or something?

 

[Barelstroker]

How's about just stating your point instead of asking us all to read some long-ass boring paper?

Are you trying to say it's the primers or something?

It's more effective if you read the study & come to your own conclusions. Reading something I've written is simply reading my assessment of one of the possible impacts of the studies conclusions.
I include these kinds of studies in an effort to educate the shooting/reloading community.
In my opinion, seating force graphs have little to no effect on the outcome of accuracy or repeatability due primarily to the exponentially greater forces involved during the IB process.
If you want to learn truth & facts, then read the study paper yourself. If you think it's boring, that would tend to suggest that you're far more interested in reinforcement of your beliefs.
The choice is yours.

 

[CK1.0]

It's more effective if you read the study & come to your own conclusions. Reading something I've written is simply reading my assessment of one of the possible impacts of the studies conclusions.
I include these kinds of studies in an effort to educate the shooting/reloading community.
In my opinion, seating force graphs have little to no effect on the outcome of accuracy or repeatability due primarily to the exponentially greater forces involved during the IB process.
If you want to learn truth & facts, then read the study paper yourself. If you think it's boring, that would tend to suggest that you're far more interested in reinforcement of your beliefs.
The choice is yours.

I'm not interested in reinforcing my beliefs, I started reading it, and it is boring.

 

[Barelstroker]

I'm not interested in reinforcing my beliefs, I just started reading it and it is boring.

Keep reading. You'll get over the boredom.

 

[CK1.0]

Keep reading. You'll get over the boredom.

Nope. I don't care now.

 

[Barelstroker]

Nope. I don't care now.

You read it yet?

 

[Dogtown]

The struggle is real....

 

[Barelstroker]

View attachment 8552395

The struggle is real....

The struggle is real if you ignore primer pressure fully engraving the projectile into the barrel bore at 15 to 20Kpsi.
What difference is 30 to 80 Lb of neck tension going to impact that kind of primer pressure?

 

[Dogtown]

Man, I’m just trying to color inside the lines.

 

[Barelstroker]

Man, I’m just trying to color inside the lines.

Just putting it out there, hopefully before too many guys nail their trousers to the "neck tension consistency matters" mast.

 

[Rocketmandb]

If I may ask, what difference do you think how the projectile is seated, could make a difference to anything during the internal ballistics process?

Why should I try? You clearly have your beliefs. I'm testing and forming my beliefs from that testing.

I'd ask you to explain how I got this data - and this isn't over 5 shots, 10 shots, etc. - it's a total of 82 shots each of lubed and non-lubed - all other factors were the same:

 

[Rocketmandb]

View attachment 8552395

The struggle is real....

What's your process - what cartridge?

 

[Dogtown]

This is .300NM Lapua brass with 250 A-Tips.

Fired brass...

1. Deprime
2. AMP anneal
3. FL size, neck bushing is slightly under final neck ID
4. Tumble
5. Expand neck to final neck ID
6. Neolube #2 generously but not enough to drip down into shoulder
7. 3-way trim/chamfer/deburr

I did a batch a few weeks back where I did everything the same, except 10 rounds I dipped the cases (wipe outside). Seemed like a bit of a waste and didn't see any obvious improvement in seating consistency, but I should probably try a larger sample.

 

[Rocketmandb]

This is .300NM Lapua brass with 250 A-Tips.

Fired brass...

1. Deprime
2. AMP anneal
3. FL size, neck bushing is slightly under final neck ID
4. Tumble
5. Expand neck to final neck ID
6. Neolube #2 generously but not enough to drip down into shoulder
7. 3-way trim/chamfer/deburr

I did a batch a few weeks back where I did everything the same, except 10 rounds I dipped the cases (wipe outside). Seemed like a bit of a waste and didn't see any obvious improvement in seating consistency, but I should probably try a larger sample.

The only things you're doing differently than me are:

- I clean before I anneal (so, moving your step 4 to step 2). I don't think that should make a difference, but I'm not sure.
- I use an ultrasonic instead of dry tumbling. The only possible difference here could be cleaning solution residue that the ultrasonic leaves inside the case neck - OR - if dry tumbling leaves some dust inside the case neck.
- I trim/chamfer/deburr on a Henderson right after your step 5. Applying lube is the last thing I do before priming/charging/seating.

EDIT: It is interesting to see that you've got very similar average seating forces - low to mid 50s.

I have seen a difference when I thoroughly rinse brass after the ultrasonic. Here are some plots from my 300 PRC:

Want to guess what's different about this one?

 

[Dogtown]

This is my second go-around with an AMP Press. I got one when they first came out, but at the time I was pretty new to arbor dies and didn't like the process. The SAC Infinity die changed that for me, and I started using it for all of my precision cartridges. Frustration during a recent ELR match motivated me to try again with the AMP and get some new equipment to support just this cartridge.

I started over with virgin brass, actually turned the necks (gasp!), switched to a Micron bushing die, and got a Giraud trimmer (been almost twenty years since I had one of those). I've also been using an Accuracy One primer gauge to check primer seating uniformity - another one of those things that felt excessive in the past.

All of that was probably overkill, considering I think I was doing fine with my Redding and SAC dies as well as a shelf full of WTF trimmers, but I wanted to change things up and see if any of this would make a quantifiable difference. On Neolube and expander mandrels I'm very much a convert, and now use those in all of my precision loads. But going back to the AMP Press makes me want to use its data to make the seating process as consistent as I can. Anecdotally in the past, it seems that consistent seating force does correlate to more consistent ammo....to a degree. How much variance actually makes a statistical difference in this case and what's the point of diminishing returns? That's the question.

 

[straightshooter1]

Here's my take on the issue:

It's a great deal having to do with the timing when the bullet is being released and blowby occurs. Seating depth effects that and how quickly the bullet moves forward. When the necks are lubed for seating, it allows less pressure to move the bullet forward and results in the blowby occurring earlier than when necks are not lubed. Such changes effects when the start pressure spike occurs. Just as seating depth does this, different neck inference also does.

A college science study was done back in the 60's with an extensive report on the effect of seating depth. The graph below from their data is something I feel makes for a good visual to get an idea of w

hat's going on.

 

[Rocketmandb]

Here's my take on the issue:

It's a great deal having to do with the timing when the bullet is being released and blowby occurs. Seating depth effects that and how quickly the bullet moves forward. When the necks are lubed for seating, it allows less pressure to move the bullet forward and results in the blowby occurring earlier than when necks are not lubed. Such changes effects when the start pressure spike occurs. Just as seating depth does this, different neck inference also does.

A college science study was done back in the 60's with an extensive report on the effect of seating depth. The graph below from their data is something I feel makes for a good visual to get an idea of wView attachment 8554094hat's going on.

Pretty much right on - though I'll add that the pressure profile impacts more than just bullet expansion, and since pressure and burn rate have a reciprocal relationship, things that impact one, impact both... to an effect out of relation to the actual magnitude of the event itself. This is especially true when the event happens early in the combustion lifecycle - effective neck tension is one of the earliest elements to exhibit itself. The only one earlier is primer ignition and the earliest stages of powder burn.

What amazes me about people who say that neck lube makes no difference to SDs is that if you were to ask them if you used randomly sized neck bushings within a couple thousandths of each other if it would impact SDs, they'd say it would. Both impact effective neck tension, yet one is voodoo magic, and the other is gospel.

It ain't rocket science, and I know rocket science...

 

[Dogtown]

since pressure and burn rate have a reciprocal relationship

 

[Barelstroker]

Why should I try? You clearly have your beliefs. I'm testing and forming my beliefs from that testing.

I'd ask you to explain how I got this data - and this isn't over 5 shots, 10 shots, etc. - it's a total of 82 shots each of lubed and non-lubed - all other factors were the same:

View attachment 8554014

Although I admit you've made a far better effort than most with the sample number, velocity SD's hardly begin to settle out much under 30 samples. Besides having my own considerable velocity data, I have run many simulations & the results are basically the same as actual data. Could there be a general trend? Perhaps but, you'd need a couple hundred to really nail it down.
The other side of the coin is that many "claim" similar SD amplitudes with no lube or anything at all, so there is that.
Based upon the the primer pressure study &, lets assume that Neolube does actually reduce velocity SD's, I am far more inclined to think that it is probably the interaction of the lubed projectile in the bore than anything to do with neck tension. Maybe you could load 2 vastly differing neck tensions, both with lubed necks & send some samples down range & see if the velocity SD's tell a tale.

 

[Rocketmandb]

The other side of the coin is that many "claim" similar SD amplitudes with no lube or anything at all, so there is that.

Comparing two completely separate systems is no comparison at all. Powder type/condition, primer type/condition, bullet type/weight, rifle/bore conditions.

Maybe you could load 2 vastly differing neck tensions, both with lubed necks & send some samples down range & see if the velocity SD's tell a tale.

The real question is not whether lube itself makes a difference - it is just a means to an end. Lube helps add consistency here.

The real question is:

Does effective neck tension consistency impact bullet performance (SDs and group size)?

To measure the SD part, the appropriate experiment would be to get two sets of rounds with vastly different consistencies in effective neck tension. To do that, I'd propose:

Set 1:
- Appropriate sized bushing on all rounds
- Neck lube on all rounds
- Appropriate sized mandrel on all rounds

Set 2 (option A):
- Differing sized bushing rounds (-.002, -.001, 0, +.001)
- No neck lube
- No mandrel

Set 2 (option B):
- Appropriate sized bushing on all rounds
- No neck lube
- Use three different sized mandrels to deliver differing interference fit (-.002, -.001, 0, +.001)

Set 1 would be my baseline process I currently use. Set 2 option A would deliver more significant variances.

Does this sound like a valid test to you? I have no problem running this over 30 cases each to see the difference - both in seating forces and SDs.

 

[JB.IC]

Comparing two completely separate systems is no comparison at all. Powder type/condition, primer type/condition, bullet type/weight, rifle/bore conditions.

For someone who said they know rocket science (I’m not challenging your background so don’t take it that way), it’s weird that you would say that.

A lot of science deals in comparing completely different systems or similar systems under varying conditions; e.g., virology, biology, medicine, physics, engineering, etc. If systems produces a different response characteristic that we care about, we examine the mechanism(s) that cause change. Then if we can, we control, design, modify, and compare until we obtain whatever it is we care about. Comparing different systems is the cornerstone of science.

Entertain this extreme, I can compare a 223Rem versus a 375CT. In that comparison, I learn about their characteristics. Their characteristics reveal their strengths and weaknesses. Use cases can be explored. We can use both systems under different or similar conditions and measure some characteristic(s) and model how it/they behave. Those behaviors allow us to conclude how we might use one system over another.

 

[Rocketmandb]

For someone who said they know rocket science (I’m not challenging your background so don’t take it that way), it’s weird that you would say that.

A lot of science deals in comparing completely different systems or similar systems under varying conditions; e.g., virology, biology, medicine, physics, engineering, etc. If systems produces a different response characteristic that we care about, we examine the mechanism(s) that cause change. Then if we can, we control, design, modify, and compare until we obtain whatever it is we care about. Comparing different systems is the cornerstone of science.

Entertain this extreme, I can compare a 223Rem versus a 375CT. In that comparison, I learn about their characteristics. Their characteristics reveal their strengths and weaknesses. Use cases can be explored. We can use both systems under different or similar conditions and measure some characteristic(s) and model how it/they behave. Those behaviors allow us to conclude how we might use one system over another.

I was specifically referring to him alluding to the fact that because someone got a certain SD on one rifle/cartridge/powder/primer/bullet that you should be able to get the same on another completely different setup. Again, not a valid comparison. Sure, you can learn about what works and what doesn't, but you absolutely can't say that because you got X with one, you should be able to get X with another, completely different system.

And if you're interested as to why I know "rocket science" I already explained it once on this site. Search and you can find it.

 

[JB.IC]

I was specifically referring to him alluding to the fact that because someone got a certain SD on one rifle/cartridge/powder/primer/bullet that you should be able to get the same on another completely different setup.

Ahhh. I read his response as “your results might not generalize.” So you two are in agreement.