Just emailed them about pricing. They offered to ship one straight to me if MF didn't have them in stock but would have to honor the US dealer pricing so doesn't sound like assembly location has changed. I was a buyer at the original price but I don't think I want to give MF an extra $400.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Quick Anneal any users out there with reviews?
- Thread starter Rover31
- Start date
To their credit, it's easier to love it $900 landed vs AMP v1 money (40% premium).
They should at least cover shipping for anyone still interested.
Im shocked that anyone would even consider the QA at that price. The AMP is around the same price and far superior. If you want something like the QA just buy an giraud Annealer ,ugly Annealer, or any other automated flame snnealer and save the thousand bucks. If you want the annealer that has actual science to back it up . There’s only 1 choice - Amp.
And I am shocked about such a bold statement.
Mind sharing your experience with both machines?
come on guys, it's pretty clear that you're just guessing with the QA, whereas you're getting a pretty precise hardness value with the AMP.
I'm not AMP fanboy, I use my Giraud too. But let's be real: QA is NOT amp, and when they cost the same, there's no comparison, especially for the newcomer
I'm not AMP fanboy, I use my Giraud too. But let's be real: QA is NOT amp, and when they cost the same, there's no comparison, especially for the newcomer
Alright, I crawl back into the cave…. to much “science” for me. Annealer thread’s suck most of the time anyway, one of the many things in reloading that I’ll test myself.
I believe it is still being assembled in South Africa. Mountain Forged is just selling it for them in the USA, so the price increase is probably the distributors cut.
With the new price of Quick Anneal, I don't see any reason to not choose the AMP now.
For something more affordable, I would consider the Annie induction annealer v1.5, the v2.0 is double the price but much quicker for the annealing job.
For something more affordable, I would consider the Annie induction annealer v1.5, the v2.0 is double the price but much quicker for the annealing job.
Figured I’d weigh in here since I’m one of the guys from ‘MF’.
We spent a lot of time with the unit before we agreed to be the distributors. Jon Pynch and I have now done thousands of pieces of brass on these with great results.
We would have loved for the unit to be $999 stateside, but there is no way that is possible with shipping and importing hassle. (We currently have a batch stuck in customs.)
As for why to choose this over other options, that's obviously going to be up to each individual, but it is an amazing unit that is very easy to use. Additionally, it is very simple and cost-effective to automate. If you factor that into the cost, it becomes significantly more affordable.
We spent a lot of time with the unit before we agreed to be the distributors. Jon Pynch and I have now done thousands of pieces of brass on these with great results.
We would have loved for the unit to be $999 stateside, but there is no way that is possible with shipping and importing hassle. (We currently have a batch stuck in customs.)
As for why to choose this over other options, that's obviously going to be up to each individual, but it is an amazing unit that is very easy to use. Additionally, it is very simple and cost-effective to automate. If you factor that into the cost, it becomes significantly more affordable.
After watching both units in action on the video's. I bought the Quick Anneal. It preforms great, and with the auto drop when it's done, it runs faster and cooler then the AMP. They are both around the same price now. Pick your poison. I'm happy with it.
This.
The QA unit is a very well built GinaEric/MGNZ annealer. Nothing new about this, other than the build quality. They're taking a guess that the proper flash annealing temp happens at the exact time the material starts to glow. It may or it may not. When you're talking times this short, reaction time comes into play here too. AMP did the RND to determine the correct way/amount to anneal and has published plenty of papers to prove it. QA has not. They built the best version of a DIY induction annealer.
I honestly don’t know why anyone would pay the current price for a machine that literally does the same thing as a $200 annealeez. Only difference is its induction instead of flame. You are still playing a guessing game with your annealing time. I almost bought a quick anneal. However after emailing the company several times. I found out the “test” you perform isn’t actually a test at all, it’s a timer. It’s just another automated Annealer literally the only difference is that it is induction instead of flame. My statement is based on the fact that if you want to truly anneal your cases consistently there is currently only 1 option, the Amp .
How could one reason with someone that doesn’t seem to be able to even read the thread title? Or do you call your reply a review of the Quick Annealer?
Only on SH we have guys state “facts” on equipment they don’t even own.
Last edited:
It's NOT the "only difference" as the timing will be a lot more consistent and unlike flame annealing where their can be variations in the heat of the fame depending on how the flame is being controlled. More than anything, whatever one is doing with their case prep, it's all about consistency.
Their argument is ultimately that with the AMP, they get ‘scientific’ starting points for their settings and that’s a perceived advantage. Thus they can ignore the advantage the QA has for automated feeding, which apparently matters more to some than others.
I personally appreciate that there’s competition in the market. I’m not happy with the price increase, but blame no one or thing for it except market forces.
Sub-note: I absolutely do understand and appreciate the testing and engineering behind quantifying the temperature zones with respect to each cartridge type and the programming it takes. It’s just that it doesn’t strike me as being critical for a regular use basis. Sure, if you shoot 10 calibers or more and tend to swap around often, there’s a benefit for your use.
The AMP is ideal for getting what is considered the perfect hardness and the electronic timing gives it the repeatability. Quick Anneal does not necessarily get one to the "perfect hardness", but whatever setting is used, the annealing can be just as consistent as the AMP. The difference between what the AMP does and what can be done with the Quick Anneal is a small difference that isn't likely measurable on targets. . . even for BR shooters.
The simple automated feeding that can be done with the Quick Anneal is a big plus over what can be done with the AMP. When money is not object, AMP is the way to do. The QA is a good choice for those with limited budgets and want to save time annealing in bulk.
You don’t have to sacrifice a case with QA either. Are you under the mistaken impression that you need to destroy a case to tell when it gets red?
Bummer to find this thread now. I had my sights set on this last year when I first ran across this thread but a 40% price increase is pretty hard to swallow after saving up all this time.
$400 for shipping and import hassle seems a bit outlandish when you could previously get them shipped to your door for ~$990.
$400 for shipping and import hassle seems a bit outlandish when you could previously get them shipped to your door for ~$990.
Last edited:
While the price may have gone up, but I’ve had nothing but amazing results from my QA with a Dillon case feeder. Walk in from a match. Dump the brass in and walk away. Using a Garmin chrono on the last stage of a match a few months ago, 12 shots had an ES of 6fps. Seating consistency is damn near identical every time. Hard to argue with results down range.
You can use your calibrated eye balls to watch cases glow and set anneal times. This "perfect annealing" thing was sorted out well before the AMP hit the market. Some people want an easy button. Some people lack the confidence to do things themselves. Some people mistake marketing for research. Some people just like expensive widgets. Some people like using old things they already own. Perfect annealing.
That shit always makes me chuckle. 4 pages of bullshit arguing, and not one person can take some targets and show why one is better than the other. 
Annealing is not always about the targets. Much of it is about case life, or maybe in some instances, it's wildcatting.You can use your calibrated eye balls to watch cases glow and set anneal times. This "perfect annealing" thing was sorted out well before the AMP hit the market. Some people want an easy button. Some people lack the confidence to do things themselves. Some people mistake marketing for research. Some people just like expensive widgets. Some people like using old things they already own. Perfect annealing.
Last edited:
Okay, fair enough. So, where’s all the data that proves one method of annealing is superior in providing extended case life over another method….? By data, I mean actual cases lasting longer using one method versus another?Annealing is not always about the targets. Much of it is about case life, or maybe in some instances, it wildcatting.
Best practice?
Then there's the guys that have Lapua 6-BR brass with 50 firings on them. And they have never been annealed.
you blaspheme, and your fingers shall be burnt off as punishment!Okay, fair enough. So, where’s all the data that proves one method of annealing is superior in providing extended case life over another method….? By data, I mean actual cases lasting longer using one method versus another?
Best practice?
View attachment 8442850
The question you pose just doesn't seem like a good question. IMHOOkay, fair enough. So, where’s all the data that proves one method of annealing is superior in providing extended case life over another method….? By data, I mean actual cases lasting longer using one method versus another?
Best practice?
Any method (be it induction, flame or salt bath) can anneal the brass to the same hardness if the proper heat and time is used. As such, none are superior.
The real issue is controlling the temperature and time to get to the desired hardness. Put together the computer electronics that can control this quite preciely with speed of induction heating, then such a method would be superior in terms of timming and consistency over what is often done with the flame or salt bath method. You'll have to split hairs when the latter methods are used well and compared to how well the former does.
Annealing Made Perfect's testing, analysis and data makes a good case for annealing. But they didn't do a comparison with flame annealing to see what difference if any can be seen on target or even in terms of measuring difference(s) in hardness. IMHO, they didn't do so as I feel they can't show enough difference between the two methods, which would in all probability mitigate the annealing benefit of their product/system.
If I could find a significant difference in the annealing result for going with induction over flame, I'd change from flame. Though I'm not a metalurgist, some of my undersanding how such alloys work comes from having had some college physics and mostly having worked with and testing various aircraft alloys (having to do with work hardening due to vibration and/or repeated stressing). When I flame anneal my brass, I give a lot of attention to details and get pretty consistent results. . . which is what I'm after to get consistent neck tension and interference.
One optional method is no annealing at all, where one controls and minimizes the amount of work being done on the brass, by way of customizing sizing dies and chamber specs for a particular load and projectile.
Last edited:
On the contrary, your answer shows exactly why it was a good question. Thanks.The question you pose just doesn't seem like a good question. IMHO
Any method (be it induction, flame or salt bath) can anneal the brass to the same hardness if the proper heat and time is used. As such, non are superior.
The real issue is controlling the temperature and time to get to the desired hardness. Put together the computer electronics that can control this quite preciely with speed of induction heating, then such a method would be superior in terms of timming and consistency over what is often done with the flame or salt bath method. You'll have to split hairs when the latter methods are used well and compared to how well the former does.
Annealing Made Perfect's testing, analysis and data makes a good case for annealing. But they didn't do a comparison with flame annealing to see what difference if any can be seen on target or even in terms of measuring difference(s) in hardness. IMHO, they didn't do so as I feel they can't show enough difference between the two methods, which would in all probability mitigate the annealing benefit of their product/system.
If I could find a significant difference in the annealing result for going with induction over flame, I'd change from flame. Though I'm not a metalurgist, some of my undersanding how such alloys work comes from having had some college physics and mostly having worked with and testing various aircraft alloys (having to do with work hardening due to vibration and/or repeated stressing). When I flame anneal my brass, I give a lot of attention to details and get pretty consistent results. . . which is what I'm after to get consistent neck tension and interference.
One optional method is no annealing at all, where one controls and minimizes the amount of work being done on the brass, by way of customizing sizing dies and chamber specs for a particular load and projectile.
^This
We are obsessing about something that's too small to matter
But if you have the cake to spare, and like the way it works, by all means get the AMP and carry on in peace, brother
To be fair, those guys are probably using dies that are matched to their chamber, have a chamber that is tight, and a strong action that keeps the brass from stretching when firing.
When using standard 223 dies, I have had necks split after 4 or 5 firings. That hasn't happened since I started annealing, usually the primer pockets loosen or they are lost.
Or, they could be using off the shelf Redding bushing dies to size brass for a Shilen ratchet barrel that is screwed on to an old assed Remington 700...
Started in 2001 with 47 pieces of brass.
I still have all 47 pieces. 3 of the original 50 went to a gunsmith to chamber a second barrel for another 700. It's a Hart barrel.
I have no idea how many firings are on the other 50 that go with barrel #2, but I've shot it a lot more than the first barrel.
A lot of the answer to how I got that many, is that I don't beat the shit out of the brass.
Last edited:
I have two other BRs that share 300 pieces of brass.
Between them, the two rifles have 6900 rounds on 300 pcs.
I quit tracking the number of firings because of the first two rifles. It just seemed like a waste of time. Going by simple math, those 300 pcs have 23 firings on them.
Between them, the two rifles have 6900 rounds on 300 pcs.
I quit tracking the number of firings because of the first two rifles. It just seemed like a waste of time. Going by simple math, those 300 pcs have 23 firings on them.
2 out of 3 ain't bad
You have a quality chamber, with a good set of dies that aren't overworking the brass.
2 out of 3 ain't bad
You have a quality chamber, with a good set of dies that aren't overworking the brass.
Wasn't that a Meatloaf song?
Four pages of rhetoric interrupted by meaningless plagarism of outdated web "research"..... Ugh.
Grab yourselves a Flir handheld IR calibrated & certified temp gauge and a calibrated & certified W-20 handheld hardness tester.
Take 5600 pieces of 1F Lapua & Alpha brass you used at national level competitions, and measure them compared to the reference virgins you set aside from each lot. Anneal a few samples, match hardness, concentricity, neck thickness & bullet-neck interference fit(what the kids call "neck tension"), then go shoot a batch.
You can anneal with whatever you like, flame, AMP, QA. Or.... use a $130 110V annealer with a $17 timer switch off Amazon mounted in a base stand on your work bench, and measure your own shit.
Because:
Grab yourselves a Flir handheld IR calibrated & certified temp gauge and a calibrated & certified W-20 handheld hardness tester.
Take 5600 pieces of 1F Lapua & Alpha brass you used at national level competitions, and measure them compared to the reference virgins you set aside from each lot. Anneal a few samples, match hardness, concentricity, neck thickness & bullet-neck interference fit(what the kids call "neck tension"), then go shoot a batch.
You can anneal with whatever you like, flame, AMP, QA. Or.... use a $130 110V annealer with a $17 timer switch off Amazon mounted in a base stand on your work bench, and measure your own shit.
Because:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Here's some more food for thought, a decent comparison between a propane annealer and the AMP MKII. It shows the differences between required bullet seating pressure, and groupings.... Part 2 is where the results are shown.
My guess is any induction annealer will do the job marginally better than gas (fewer variables) if you can manage to find the right settings. That's probably where the AMP shines, it quickly gets you pretty close (I wouldn't call it "perfect" like many do).
Personally, I love the idea of automating a Quick Anneal with a case feeder. I would probably use Tempilaq on the inside of the case mouth (which is visible from above) to get pretty close to the right setting... maybe do 5 cases with 750F Tempilaq inside the case mouth and 450F on the body, use the test feature and stop it when the case mouth Tempilaq indicates, check the body to make sure the heat didn't go too far and then average the time from 5 cases and process the rest of the batch with that setting...
With all that in mind, I still haven't decided which annealer to buy considering all the options. And quite frankly, for my application (shooting an occasional match once or twice a year, and having fun trying to land hits on 18" plates with my .308 from a mile away) - I would likely be just fine with a cheaper propane annealer.
Also lol at that guy who was all mad about the definition of annealing... that's why the Internet is so great.
Part 2:
Here's some more food for thought, a decent comparison between a propane annealer and the AMP MKII. It shows the differences between required bullet seating pressure, and groupings.... Part 2 is where the results are shown.
My guess is any induction annealer will do the job marginally better than gas (fewer variables) if you can manage to find the right settings. That's probably where the AMP shines, it quickly gets you pretty close (I wouldn't call it "perfect" like many do).
Personally, I love the idea of automating a Quick Anneal with a case feeder. I would probably use Tempilaq on the inside of the case mouth (which is visible from above) to get pretty close to the right setting... maybe do 5 cases with 750F Tempilaq inside the case mouth and 450F on the body, use the test feature and stop it when the case mouth Tempilaq indicates, check the body to make sure the heat didn't go too far and then average the time from 5 cases and process the rest of the batch with that setting...
With all that in mind, I still haven't decided which annealer to buy considering all the options. And quite frankly, for my application (shooting an occasional match once or twice a year, and having fun trying to land hits on 18" plates with my .308 from a mile away) - I would likely be just fine with a cheaper propane annealer.
Also lol at that guy who was all mad about the definition of annealing... that's why the Internet is so great.
Similar threads
