Thank you again for proving you have zero knowledge of the subject at hand. Keep making yourself look like a fool, it's atleast entertaining.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
To anneal or not
- Thread starter VandelayIndustries
- Start date
Dang! I'm surprised no dinosaurs have chimed in yet. When I shot highpower rifle in the '90s, nobody annealed. Everyone shot new Lake City in leg matches. (required) Your reloads had to replicate Lake City ammo or your zeros would be off. You used your purchased once fired Lake City brass 8-10 times till the first case head split. Then you threw out that batch of brass. Without annealing, I shot 100 7X on the MR52 reduced 600yd target and 195 13X at 600 on a full sized target. Iron sights. Jim O'Connell ( my memory is failing. He used to coach the Marine Corp. teams that shot at Camp Perry. He might have coached some of their snipers as well) always placed well at the Camp Perry National Matches as did other other high masters.
You can do quite well without annealing. Many have won National championships without doing so. 23 years later it is a different day. If you are a "poor" as they say on this site skip annealing. If you want to be the best you can be, eliminate all the variables so you know the problem is you and are willing to spend whatever it takes... go with the AMP. A friend of 30 years, who went distinguished in HP rifle with iron sites convinced me the latter was a must. Not shooting from position anymore. I'm relegated to bench rest due to my location.
You can do quite well without annealing. Many have won National championships without doing so. 23 years later it is a different day. If you are a "poor" as they say on this site skip annealing. If you want to be the best you can be, eliminate all the variables so you know the problem is you and are willing to spend whatever it takes... go with the AMP. A friend of 30 years, who went distinguished in HP rifle with iron sites convinced me the latter was a must. Not shooting from position anymore. I'm relegated to bench rest due to my location.
Last edited:
How is that blood pressure ? Is it better in the morning when you are not so drunk yet ?
They didn't prove shit. Litz gets his ass whooped by hilbilly farmers who anneal at matches. He has done alot for the discipline and does get some things right but he's full of shit on others.
Anything out of hornady is garbage, catered to low IQ and pocketbook shooters. Let me know when they finally make a bullet that doesn't blow up.
Wait, I thought those hillbillies torch annealing weren't doing anything... 
“The defense rests, your honor”….Wait, I thought those hillbillies torch annealing weren't doing anything...
A big point being missed is the variability of the brass that you are applying “exact” thermal energy to.
If you destroy 10 or more pieces of superb brass , say Lapua or RWS (I burned up over $100 of RWS 50 BMG brass) you will notice that you get different AZTEC codes for each piece, that’s why AMP instructions say, take a sample from each lot, burn them up and take an average.
Therefore, you may be applying an exact amount of heat to your batch, but it is an average of what your lot measurement spit out.
This means inherently that this “exact“ heating of each piece of brass heats the brass differently because of its different mass and metallurgical content.
If the brass is variable, and it is, your “exact“ annealing process is lost in the variability of the brass meaning that the comments above about variability of flame annealing compared to amp will be lost in that noise
As they said, when I grew up, “you can’t polish a turd”. Lapua & RWS brass are hardly turds, but treating a noisy variable the same way each time doesn’t make the initial variable less noisy.
One hypothesis is that the differences in aneeling at some point are overwhelmed by the inherent variability of each piece of brass and you are wasting time with “exact” annealing
Full disclosure: I anneal with both an amp and a Girod flame annealer, depending upon volume and case size/cost.
If you destroy 10 or more pieces of superb brass , say Lapua or RWS (I burned up over $100 of RWS 50 BMG brass) you will notice that you get different AZTEC codes for each piece, that’s why AMP instructions say, take a sample from each lot, burn them up and take an average.
Therefore, you may be applying an exact amount of heat to your batch, but it is an average of what your lot measurement spit out.
This means inherently that this “exact“ heating of each piece of brass heats the brass differently because of its different mass and metallurgical content.
If the brass is variable, and it is, your “exact“ annealing process is lost in the variability of the brass meaning that the comments above about variability of flame annealing compared to amp will be lost in that noise
As they said, when I grew up, “you can’t polish a turd”. Lapua & RWS brass are hardly turds, but treating a noisy variable the same way each time doesn’t make the initial variable less noisy.
One hypothesis is that the differences in aneeling at some point are overwhelmed by the inherent variability of each piece of brass and you are wasting time with “exact” annealing
Full disclosure: I anneal with both an amp and a Girod flame annealer, depending upon volume and case size/cost.
Last edited:
It would seem the empirical existence of 'donuts' proves there is in-consistent wall thickness exist in many if not all cartridge cases. It puzzles me how one can effect consistent thermal response in inconsistent substrate--even with the most even, ideal, of heat-sources. To do this in practice would require some kind of measurement of the substrate that is beyond current consideration.
I ran AZTEC on multiple pieces of brass and they gave different codes and the manual says take an “average” sample of cases (based on weight) and then “average” rhe resulting AZTEC codes. That’s called “variance”
There seems to be two main groups of people when it comes to annealing: the ones who started doing it and now swear by it, and the ones trying to tell others that it doesn't do anything (because they don't do it).
It's like a "reset button" for your brass, it means almost no more guessing about what effects things like spring-back and work-hardening will have on your loads over repeated load cycles, and not having to deal with all the inconsistency that come with those effects.
Yes, guys can make ammo that shoots great without annealing, but that's not the point.
It's not a "good/bad" thing, it's a "repeatability/no surprises" thing.
It's like a "reset button" for your brass, it means almost no more guessing about what effects things like spring-back and work-hardening will have on your loads over repeated load cycles, and not having to deal with all the inconsistency that come with those effects.
Yes, guys can make ammo that shoots great without annealing, but that's not the point.
It's not a "good/bad" thing, it's a "repeatability/no surprises" thing.
We should all understand brass is variable. Weigh some, measure the capacity of some with water, section some pieces and measure case wall thickness in different areas.
What is the most times you have shot a piece of brass without annealing, while tracking any, all, or none of these variables?
Nothing is absolute. While neck turning for most is a waste...those same benchrest and fclass shooters may have a custom reamer with a tight throat. So they will neck turn to get a nice tight fit and ensure it actually feeds.
That's why all these conversations are full of idiots and ignorance. Most of the people posting are the definition of Dunning-Kruger.
At the risk of being shot at by those who swear by annealing, the reality is that annealing to save brass life is useful but it is not something that must be done after every firing. The amount of work hardening done on every firing and resizing is dependent on the load to a small extent but very dependent on dies and chamber (neck) dimensions. If you look at the data that @straightshooter1 posted it implies that if the cases were annealed every 5 to 10 rounds it would be the same result as annealing every reload. That would be true for that particular rifle/case combination.
As someone who anneals with an amp every single firing...it's also important to note there are people out there who don't anneal and are getting 15-20 firings before the primer pockets blow out, and with good results. There are so many variables to this game you can't isolate any one thing without considering everything else. Maybe they are shooting mild loads, maybe have tighter chambers with minimal bump to reduce work hardening of brass, ect, ect. That may be the exception to the rule however. Annealing done correctly is the most reliable and consistent way to control neck tension IMO. Reducing split necks,ect is just a added benefit.
I do not have an opinion on annealing every reloading other than if you believe it helps with neck tension then do it. It's not something that is likely to hurt.
You can make really good ammo with and without annealing.
I happen to anneal with an AMP after every firing. I like being consistent.
What's most important if you are going to anneal, IMO, is to do it correctly. Incorrect annealing can cause issues that you may not anticipate.
I once annealed 6BRA brass with a Dasher pilot in an AMP, and had some really bad neck tension issues as a result. The difference in pilots can't be much - shoulder angle is the same between the two but the dasher shoulder is 0.08" ahead if I remember correctly.
That makes me wonder how many issues are a result of poor/improper annealing, especially with setups which are less precise than the AMP.
If you are going to anneal, do it consistently and properly.
I happen to anneal with an AMP after every firing. I like being consistent.
What's most important if you are going to anneal, IMO, is to do it correctly. Incorrect annealing can cause issues that you may not anticipate.
I once annealed 6BRA brass with a Dasher pilot in an AMP, and had some really bad neck tension issues as a result. The difference in pilots can't be much - shoulder angle is the same between the two but the dasher shoulder is 0.08" ahead if I remember correctly.
That makes me wonder how many issues are a result of poor/improper annealing, especially with setups which are less precise than the AMP.
If you are going to anneal, do it consistently and properly.
I agree, and I've even said it more than once, that one can do without annealing and get decent brass life and that it may not make any difference in results. But that all depends on ones expectations and how one's gun is built. Mass produced factory guns tend to have verily loose tolerances compared to a highly precisioned custom guns and that difference often effects how much work hardening the brass will go through. Similarly, the sizing dies being used and how they match up with a particular gun's chambering effects how much work hardening the brass goes through. Whether it's a highly precisioned custom gun or a factory gun, the more one can reduce the work hardening of the brass, the less the benefit of annealing. It's easy enough to make broad brush statements about the benefits of annealing, but one simply needs to be aware of what taking place with their set up to whether or not annealing makes any sense.
I don't shoot custom guns . . .ummm, but I have installed high end drop in barrels after wearing the factory one's out and do find that annealing after every firing gives me the most uniform cases. Whenever I get poorer results than expected on paper (all too often), I've already eliminated my brass the possible culprit due to my refined brass prep procedures. It's the one thing I can control best. And I do get good brass life, an important factor these days given how hard good brass can be to get hold of.
I don't shoot custom guns . . .ummm, but I have installed high end drop in barrels after wearing the factory one's out and do find that annealing after every firing gives me the most uniform cases. Whenever I get poorer results than expected on paper (all too often), I've already eliminated my brass the possible culprit due to my refined brass prep procedures. It's the one thing I can control best.
And I do get good brass life, an important factor these days given how hard good brass can be to get hold of.
Litz is right about the tuners too. But Snake oil profits the salesmen
Holy shit dude... aren't you some kinda bitch...you got an analeze, good for you. You've made yer thoughts known. Time to stop.
For me, it's Lapua 6-BR and all 47 pieces have been shot 39 times. About a dozen have 40 firings on them and so will the rest when they get shot this cycle.
They have no splits, no cracks and primer pockets are still great.
None have ever been annealed.
Bro! You’re courting disaster…..the anneal police are coming to your house! Bitches be confiscating ALL hard brass!
I had brass with at least 10+ firings on it or so before I started annealing, but I never tracked anything meaningful before I started to anneal, so I honestly have no idea whether not-annealing works or not.
What I do know is, in my case, my loads were never as consistent, repeatable, and predictable as they have been since I started annealing every cycle. So I've continued to do it and haven't looked back.
I'm not sure if everybody needs to do it or if it's absolutely necessary in order for one to reach their "personal ammo-making potential" or not. But, people say the same things about using a mandrel instead of/versus an expander-ball... and with some things IDK if it can be proven or explained to one's satisfaction until they see it with their own eyes or experience it for themselves how it works for them.
I made good ammo before I started to anneal (and ditched the expander-ball), so I know it can be done. But, I make better ammo now and I don't believe in coincidence, which is why I think it's worth looking into if someone wants...
Last edited:
Yeah, .262 neck.
I have another (Hart) barrel with the same neck diameter and haven't lost a case from it either.
I'm pretty sure the cases are well past 50 loadings but I have no proof because I didn't track primer use, nor did I ever write down anything other than basic load data for the two varmint bullets I use in it.
It's had the living hell shot out of it though.
I have another (Hart) barrel with the same neck diameter and haven't lost a case from it either.
I'm pretty sure the cases are well past 50 loadings but I have no proof because I didn't track primer use, nor did I ever write down anything other than basic load data for the two varmint bullets I use in it.
It's had the living hell shot out of it though.
Not really
Annealing is a form of Heat treating commonly refereed to as normalizing. Its done to reduce the brittleness of the material allowing it to be more ductile and tough. I am pretty sure @kthomas understands what he is talking about.
Like any form of heat treating, Time & Temperature is critical. As is the type of quench, but with normalizing we typically just do a air quench (IE let it cool down on its own, no oil or water needed). Different types of materials and alloys all have different heat treating protocols to achieve a desired material state. Some have a narrow band and some are a bit more forgiving.
This is why home torch annealing is not only a waste of time, but can result in less consistent brass than not annealing at all. It can be done at a highly controlled level via flame but no homeowner is doing this, unless they happen to have a metallurgy lab at their disposal to dial everything in exactly where it needs to be. And you are still going to reject brass for not being correct as part of the inspection and rejection process.
This is just another example of the people in this thread pretending or thinking they know what they are talking about, when they have barely scratched the surface of the subject matter. Now I am sure there are some engineers and materials science folks on this website who can explain this even better, but this is what is happening.
I am sure the idiots will keep on crying about how their torch annealer is better or just as good as the AMP. They haven't been intelligent enough to grasp what has already been explained, so I doubt this will do much better.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about annealing and I don't want to get into an argument. Unfortunately there is not a lot of detailed information related to brass other than that related to cartridges on the internet. Suffice it to say that the normal time and temperatures used of not provide sufficient energy for a significant amount of recrystallization to occur. The attached paper is one of the few available that actually provides some data as to what happens with actual brass for various temperatures for a short period of time.
Eric Cortina did a video where he set out to ruin some brass from over-annealing some brass on a flame annealer. It gives some anecdotal evidence that the time we are dealing with doesn't materially change the brass.
Eric also did a comparison of the AMP versus flame that people might find interesting. I don't think it's conclusive and he may have followed it up.
I don't anneal for brass life. I anneal for brass consistency. If my brass is in the exact same condition every time I load it, that variable is controlled.
The main problem is having the tool available that will measure the hardness of our brass. We can tell by the difference in we feel when seating a bullet at a particular "neck tension". That I wouldn't call that as something that's quantifying the hardness. The man (Bruce) in the video below has a great idea with a hand tool to measure hardness (still not perfect, but pretty good, IMHO).
What do you think of AMPS write up? They section brass annealed 4x and 11x, to show the grain structure is the same.
I wonder if the grain structure is starting to change around 14-15 loads.
I will have to mess around after work, I think I have 200x on my microscope, but its not top lit. I would be interested to see the grain structure on some 3x and 10x not annealed.
Knowing that working brass hardens it. So every time it's sized, it's work hardened more than the last time.
NOT to get caught in the which hunt of fire vs amp, I think both are fine, there is undeniable easy to prove instant results of why everyone should anneal.
I didnt anneal for the longest time. over 5 years of competition shooting. never had accuracy or sd issues. to speak of. the single most useful item that helped my reloading would be the fx powder scale. SD went from 10 ish on a RCBS to under 5 instantly.
back to annealer. shoulder bump. i always measure shoulder bump every time I size the brass. going with new to say 5 or 10 times fired, there is a def notice in how hard it is to shoulder bump. I had to also adjust the die more and more to shoulder bump where I wanted to get the 2-3 thou bump without annealing, after annealing after every 2 or somtimes 1 firing, I never have to adjust my sizing die again and I never get the random few brass that was a little harder that would not allow my bolt to close because i didnt bump far enough.
after annealing, I have never had a hard bolt close. this alone is worth it 100x. the other problem as the brass hardens, as you size it pushes the brass down to the base which causes case head separations. this also happens with oversizing that you have to do when you dont anneal.
one thing I always did also, possibly more of a ocd thing is sort bullets as I load the feel of bullet seating. easy to seat in this box, hard to seat in another. after annealing this went away as they were ALL easy to seat. nothing scientific on target just actual results of consistency in neck tension that I could feel.
GL
DT
I'm convinced and confident that an AMP annealer does a more consistent annealing job than with using a a good flame annealer machine. But I've seen no good evidence that the improvement with an AMP is enough of a difference that can be seen for 95% of the reloaders out there. Even for the high end benchrest shooters, the improvement is so small that it's hardly noticeable. For a great majority of shooters, they aren't going to see a difference on paper. . . but the AMP can be a little easier and much safer to use. Just for extending the life of the brass, the flame annealing process works just fine when done properly.
The biggest advantage of the AMP, as you state, is it's easy of use and safety.
No dicking around with torch angles and propane pressure, timing, tempilaq, open flames, etc. The AMP makes it incredibly easy - just be sure to use the right pilot and program number for your brass.
Some great ammo has been built with propane torch annealers. BR world records have been set with ammo using such equipment. There's just more propensity for user error and potential safety issues when compared to the AMP.
I don't have the amount of experience many of you do, but I use an AMP and found it super easy and...as you said...safe.
Biggest advantage to me is that my house does NOT look like this....yeah, flame annealing...I'd def end up burning the place down! haha I've just got a way with fire! LOL
It's actually a pretty good read but unfortunately it's marketing and doesn't show what happens to brass under the same conditions un-annealed, unless I missed it. In the Metlab Appendix 1 there is a discussion of annealing but unfortunately is doesn't really address the issue. As for AMP they certainly show an argument that they get a level of consistency.What do you think of AMPS write up? They section brass annealed 4x and 11x, to show the grain structure is the same.
I wonder if the grain structure is starting to change around 14-15 loads.
I will have to mess around after work, I think I have 200x on my microscope, but its not top lit. I would be interested to see the grain structure on some 3x and 10x not annealed.
A Open Class shooter found this last week and on page 18-20 there is a good description of what we are trying to accomplish with annealing. I think this may be the best description of the issue I've found.
Ammunition Making-NRA by G Frost-1990 _text.pdf
If the equation is temp vs time, what makes an amp more consistent than another automated process?
I have mostly the same experience, I don't track shoulder bump anymore, since I don't really run into brass that has some that are hard to chamber. Its has currently led me to think it makes a difference if I anneal my brass after the third firing.
Do you have anything on annealing preventing CHS? I have always thought of CHS as purely an over sizing problem, and caused by the brass moving toward the neck.
I think the argument here in the temp vs. time arena is between batches of the same lot of brass (if that makes sense). It's always the same (time/temp), where as with flame, that has to be adjusted out each time you set up to anneal. Can both methods get to the same end result? Yeah. The AMP just makes it easier.
JMTCW...
