Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Annealing for Reloaders (Page 2 of 2)
|
Quoted:
That's a fair question. I am not ignoring it. You are not understanding my meaning. I could not care less about brass hardness or neck tension or any other technical detail unless it shows up as smaller group sizes on the target face. Show me results. You mentioned in another post that error is not simply summed from different sources. This of course is true, and it is one of the things that makes it so difficult to attribute a specific amount of error to any one cause. However, the effect of annealing on vertical error at range is relatively easy to quantify. You simply measure the difference in the muzzle velocity spread between ammunition loaded in annealed and unannealed (but multiply fired) cases. That result is compelling, because we KNOW what an extra 10 or 20 fps in variability does to vertical spread on target at X yards. Whether or not that difference will be masked by any individual's skill, range conditions, mirage, normal bullet variances affecting BC, etc ... is another question. But if one's objective in reloading is to eliminate as many sources of error as possible, annealing has a place. It's no secret that the not-so-secret sauce in handloading is consistency. I've seen the difference in SD between annealed and non-annealed ammo. I didn't keep the data. I'm not going to do the experiment again, because creating a batch of multiply fired unannealed brass from the same lot as a batch of annealed-every-time brass, is simply not a rational use of my bench time, range time, components, or barrel life. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: There is better data available then the Copper group provides. Their data is consistent with the Copper.org data and John Klein's report. It shows things like dwell times at temperature to anneal Cartridge Brass. It will take longer at 750 F than at 1,000 F. At 750 F, it takes over ten minutes. That long of a dwell would anneal the whole case - this is useless/dangerous for use by a reloader. Just remove SOME of the work hardening that has occurred. If you did 10 minutes at 750 F there would be almost NO neck tension from the now dead soft brass. |
|
Quoted:
You are NOT trying to make the case mouth and shoulder 'dead soft.' Just remove SOME of the work hardening that has occurred. If you did 10 minutes at 750 F there would be almost NO neck tension from the now dead soft brass. There is nothing to be lost with these cases, as they split open on first firing. AMP uses a profile that goes quickly up to 1000 F and it comes back down just as fast. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not going to do the experiment again, because creating a batch of multiply fired unannealed brass from the same lot as a batch of annealed-every-time brass, is simply not a rational use of my bench time, range time, components, or barrel life. This is off-topic but relevant to me and my experiences - I do not believe chronographs have single digit accuracy. I have posted other threads to demonstrate this with data. I have never tested LabRadar but have used Oehler and own PACT and CED. PACT and CED do not yield single digit accuracy or repeatability. That said, I do not want to go there in this thread. |
|
I think the way it's most 'quantifiable' is via an arbor press force gauge; annealed rounds routinely seat with a much more consistent (and lower) PSI force. You will also see more consistent shoulder bump, and by virtue of that a more consistent trim length (trimmer dependent). Now, how that directly translates to higher scores in competition isn't as clear cut; I suspect because you're dealing with a huge number of variables; annealing is just a method to reduce variables. I will tell you that over the past year I've gotten pretty heavily into F-Class, and happen to shoot at one of the 'more premier' ranges in the country for it; in doing so, I've been exposed to several of the top state & national competitors. Literally every 'top dog' that I've talked to is annealing after every firing for their 'serious' match ammo; their machines vary, but they're all doing it in some form. I'm confident that doesn't meet your quantifiable standard, which I totally get. Litz himself tested it (using ES/SDs as the metric) and came up with the conclusion it was inconclusive, and required more testing. That said, I think most top shooters are doing it because they can see (force gauge) and feel (seating) the consistency difference. In a world of weighing primers, and weighing powder to the exact kernel, annealing is just a part of that. I ordered an AMP this morning, so I'll try to do some testing for you, but admittedly I don't have a wind tunnel to test in. 
Edit: Litz Test results Attached File |
|
Thank you for that info and for the graphic. This time, when I copied the data, I made a note to remind myself where it came from.
Wind tunnel testing, hmmm,...  Just kidding, no, that's not really necessary.My point is that when a change you make gets small enough, it doesn't make a practical difference. That concept would apply to accuracy (group size) and case life. The effect of your change gets swamped by the dispersion of the other variables and it is those other variables which prevent any reduction of dispersion in the overall group size. |
|
Quoted:
Thank you for that info and for the graphic. This time, when I copied the data, I made a note to remind myself where it came from. Wind tunnel testing, hmmm,... Just kidding, no, that's not really necessary.My point is that when a change you make gets small enough, it doesn't make a practical difference. That concept would apply to accuracy (group size) and case life. The effect of your change gets swamped by the dispersion of the other variables and it is those other variables which prevent any reduction of dispersion in the overall group size. 
And I still feel besides basic case prep, the biggest thing you can concentrate on is consistent neck tension... |
|
The farther you shoot (600+ yards), the more other factors matter will matter to me, i.e., wind. When the electronic targets at the 1,000 yard range becomes available, I promise you, I will get some quantitative data at that distance. Besides, how many shooters have 1,000 yard ranges at which they can shoot? Not many, I suspect. The thing is, the first thing I need is an annealing process that actually works. 750 F Tempilaq did not work for me. |
|
Let's do a little recap here -
1. Reloader in another thread had an expander ball that was too small. (link to thread) 2. Firm recommendations were made to this guy to anneal his case necks as the solution to his problem rather than replacing the expander ball with a properly sized one. 3. This thread was created to avoid off-topic posts about the merits of annealing, especially for that reloader but also as it applies to most shooters. 4. This topic included exploring annealing process options for use with 70/30 cartridge brass cases. Somehow, in this generic discussion, we have arrived at the point where one has to be shooting at more than 600 yards (800, 900 and 1,00 yards) to see the benefits of annealing and somehow that has morphed into the criteria that is important for the average Joe. Were this a debate about the merits of annealing for the average Joe, I would say you just proved my case for me (intentional pun, there). Instead, perhaps we just have a different context for our comments. I would bet that most shooters consider shooting NRA Long Range matches and Palma matches to be a small niche that's not representative of the norm. As much as I enjoy that sport and respect those who participate, in this regard they are somewhat akin to competitive benchrest shooters in that what they do, or do not do, is not necessarily what the majority of shooters should do. Turning case necks for uniformity comes to mind here. Is this context difference the source of our apparent disagreement on annealing? My context is that other thread and the majority of 'average Joe' shooters. Perhaps the context for some of these other comments (like AKSnowman's) is that of competitors in NRA Long Range, Palma and LR Benchrest. |
|
Quoted:
Let's do a little recap here - 1. Reloader in another thread had an expander ball that was too small. (link to thread) 2. Firm recommendations were made to this guy to anneal his case necks as the solution to his problem rather than replacing the expander ball with a properly sized one. 3. This thread was created to avoid off-topic posts about the merits of annealing, especially for that reloader but also as it applies to most shooters. 4. This topic included exploring annealing process options for use with 70/30 cartridge brass cases. Somehow, in this generic discussion, we have arrived at the point where one has to be shooting at more than 600 yards (800, 900 and 1,00 yards) to see the benefits of annealing and somehow that has morphed into the criteria that is important for the average Joe. Were this a debate about the merits of annealing for the average Joe, I would say you just proved my case for me (intentional pun, there). I would bet that most shooters consider shooting NRA Long Range matches and Palma matches to be a small niche that's not representative of the norm. As much as I enjoy that sport and respect those who participate, in this regard they are somewhat akin to competitive benchrest shooters in that what they do, or do not do, is not necessarily what the majority of shooters should do. Turning case necks for uniformity comes to mind here. Is this context difference the source of our apparent disagreement on annealing? My context is that other thread and the majority of 'average Joe' shooters. Perhaps the context for some of these other comments (like AKSnowman's) is that of competitors in NRA Long Range, Palma and LR Benchrest. As for competing in a shooting sport..nope not me, unless you mean shooting for beers among close friends...then sure...I have seen significant improvements in case life, consistent neck tension, SD, spread and accuracy with my annealing...sorry you don't but it won't affect my annealing... |
| For the overwhelming majority of reloaders on this site, I'd say it's absolutely pointless short of trying to save brass that is prone to splitting before the pockets go out. Most aren't shooting on paper for score/groups, their rifles are for the most part factory guns (or semis), and they usually aren't shooting at MR/LR distances. |
|
Quoted:
FYI - Got my AMP today and annealed ~150 pieces of brass. I'll cook up identical loads using the same lot of brass, one annealed, one not annealed, and do some testing at 300 yards this weekend. |
|
Quoted:
FYI - Got my AMP today and annealed ~150 pieces of brass. I'll cook up identical loads using the same lot of brass, one annealed, one not annealed, and do some testing at 300 yards this weekend. It is a LOT of shooting, that's why I think the industry should do it rather than individuals. I do not know what you have planned but let me scope out a small test. 15 - 30 pieces of brass = 5 - 10 pieces of brass for each lot non-annealed, annealed every reload, annealed every third reload 200 - 400 rounds fired = assume case life is as expected - 10 reloads non-annealed; 15 reloads annealed every time; 15 reloads annealed every third time 200 - 400 bullets needed (preferably from same production lot) 200 - 400 primers (preferably from the same production lot) 1 - 3 pounds of powder (cartridge dependent) |
|
Quoted:
That would be great, SuperDutyMikeMc. Anything you can share is welcome. It is a LOT of shooting, that's why I think the industry should do it rather than individuals. I do not know what you have planned but let me scope out a small test. 15 - 30 pieces of brass = 5 - 10 pieces of brass for each lot non-annealed, annealed every reload, annealed every third reload 200 - 400 rounds fired = assume case life is as expected - 10 reloads non-annealed; 15 reloads annealed every time; 15 reloads annealed every third time 200 - 400 bullets needed (preferably from same production lot) 200 - 400 primers (preferably from the same production lot) 1 - 3 pounds of powder (cartridge dependent) Quoted:
Quoted:
FYI - Got my AMP today and annealed ~150 pieces of brass. I'll cook up identical loads using the same lot of brass, one annealed, one not annealed, and do some testing at 300 yards this weekend. It is a LOT of shooting, that's why I think the industry should do it rather than individuals. I do not know what you have planned but let me scope out a small test. 15 - 30 pieces of brass = 5 - 10 pieces of brass for each lot non-annealed, annealed every reload, annealed every third reload 200 - 400 rounds fired = assume case life is as expected - 10 reloads non-annealed; 15 reloads annealed every time; 15 reloads annealed every third time 200 - 400 bullets needed (preferably from same production lot) 200 - 400 primers (preferably from the same production lot) 1 - 3 pounds of powder (cartridge dependent) I intend to run this test using two rifles, both are used exclusively for shooting F-Class matches, so I can't dedicate a ton of barrel life to testing this for ARFCOM. Shame on me, I know.
Rifle 1 is a 6.5CM. It's a blueprinted 700 with a 30" Kreiger HV, running a .199 freebore CM chamber. ~375rds on it. Load data for the CM: 142 SMK 41.2 H4350 Alpha LRP brass CCI 200 primer 2.005 w/ the hdy comparator. 2820 FPS This rifle shot two 198s in matches 2 weeks ago, with a 588-20x for the match; distance was 600 yards. Mind you, I was shooting that off a plane jane atlas bipod and a small protektor, so the misses were likely me. Rifle 2 is a 7-twist .223 throated for 90gr VLDs. It's a blueprinted 700 with a 30" Kreiger Sendero contour, running a .170 freebore chamber ~1300rds on it. Load data for the .223 90gr SMK (I'm trying the SMKs because the VLDs have been a bitch to tune in) 24.4 gr of Varget Lapua Brass CCI BR4 primers 2.085 OAL w/ the HDY tool. ~2770 FPS I'll run a few 10rd test groups, and I'll share the results regardless. If I got a ~$1,400 paper weight, I'm fine with folks knowing. It's a pretty fucking cool paperweight. |
|
Quoted:
If I got a ~$1,400 paper weight, I'm fine with folks knowing. It's a pretty fucking cool paperweight. In my most recent research, as posted above, I found a little glimmer of hope that I may yet see a favorable outcome (need higher temp). I hope you are wildly successful and your new toy proves of great value to you. Can any of this data be gleaned while shooting a match? Do you shoot on electronic targets (that plot and record your shots)? |
|
Quoted: The preferred outcome is one that shows annealing helps. I was trying to get it to work for me. In my most recent research, as posted above, I found a little glimmer of hope that I may yet see a favorable outcome (need higher temp). I hope you are wildly successful and your new toy proves of great value to you. Can any of this data be gleaned while shooting a match? Do you shoot on electronic targets (that plot and record your shots)? The .223 is another good candidate, despite having struggled with staying in tune. The reason it's a good candidate is the reamer used, while setup for 90gr VLDs, is ultimately designed for a slinger. It's a .170 freebore, but it's got like a .258 neck. I'm using a .248 bushing, so I'm moving those necks .010 on resize. Secondly, I'm running that brass extremely hard; 24.4gr of Varget behind a 90gr bullet is well over book max (it's safe, and common in F-Class), and kills Lapua primer pockets on the 5th-6th firing, which is where I'm at on it. The reason I say it's a good candidate is because if you want 'ragged edge of worn out necks' this is probably it. If I can't get it to shoot consistently in the next couple of weeks, I'm going to rebarrel it again, and if I reach that point I'll be happy to wear the barrel out in testing. Regarding the matches I shoot, yes they are on ShotMarker E-Targets, and going forward I can get group size data. That said, I don't have any of the historical data; just screen caps of the grouping, without measurements. |
|
Well, I went and "tested" today, if you even want to call it that. It was a complete train-wreck. The day started out windless, but I only got about ~30 minutes of still/perfect conditions before winds picked up to a constant 15-25mph; shifting directions constantly. I'd say the wind was so bad, it effectively invalidated my test. In addition to the winds, the range was packed, and the guy next to me was shaking my bench (benches are wood, and VERY close together). Lastly, my TriggerTech Diamond broke mid-test with my .223; it won't come off safety. I did manage to shoot a total of 20 rounds of non-annealed, and 20 rounds of annealed brass out of the .223 before the trigger broke. Again, the winds were howling, so I don't know how much stock I put in them. That said, the overall groups will probably measure the same, but there was a tighter cluster on the annealed brass. This occurred on both loads I was testing (20 rounds of each load, 10rds annealed, 10 rds non-annealed). Despite the invalid data, I get the impression my .223 will/would respond well to annealing. My 6.5CM test didn't go so well either. This rifle is dialed and shot a few 1.5"-2.0" groups at 300 today, and while that's typically nothing to brag about at 300, it wasn't bad when you take into account the conditions. By the time I got to testing the annealed vs. non annealed brass, I was ready to get back inside. Temps had dipped to ~60 and I had only worn a tee shirt and jeans. I had planned to shoot 2 15-round groups, one annealed and one not. I ended shooting the 15 unannealed first and it shot ~4". I was decided I was cold, and I'd just bang out the other 15 without letting the gun cool. I then shot 10x annealed and it may have been 7"-8" groups; it definitely opened up bigtime on the creedmoor. I'm not sure what to think about the Creedmoor groups; about the only conclusion(s) I can come to is that I either over annealed the brass (not sure how as I used Aztec on the AMP to determine the code), or the softening of the brass via annealing brought it out of it's ideal neck tension range. I'm about to deprime/wet tumble all my brass, and I'll sacrifice another piece to confirm the AMP anneal code. I'll get some pictures posted, but I wouldn't put much stock in my test results. I will say on the reloading bench, and with bullet seating the difference is pretty amazing (not that it matters relative to the results on target). I get the feeling it actually will help with accuracy, but I won't know until I get to mess around with it more. Tomorrow is supposed to be another 20+ mph day, so I'll probably skip out on work mid-week if there's a calm day and try it again. |
|
My personal perspective for informal testing - wind does not matter for this test*.
The issues are - uniformity of muzzle velocity; group size (accuracy); case life. The muzzle velocity and group size variations manifest in the vertical dispersion. If they are significantly different, you will see it in the vertical dispersion. You have to have a rifle that is known to be good and capable of shooting round groups under windless conditions. Use a consistent aiming point for all shots in a group. If you have that, the lateral dispersion (in excess of the vertical dispersion) is due to the wind and your lack of perfection at compensating for it. If you don't have a good rifle, well, don't bother with this type of testing. I'd advise everyone to get at least one truly good rifle. It is soul-satisfying, gratifying to see the shots go where you place them rather than to some random location. The test results will show whether the difference in vertical dispersion is or is not significant relative to the wind-induced lateral dispersion. A real key in this type of testing (for me) is being able to call your shots and having a rifle that shoots 'on call'. Know where you placed the shot and what the wind was doing when you fired. Then, you can judge whether it went where you put it (accuracy) or whether it randomly went elsewhere (accuracy) or whether the wind blew it laterally (irrelevant to this test). Case life comparisons inherently take a long time and cost a lot of money (if done as a stand-alone test rather than as part of one's normal shooting events). * My range has wicked fishtailing winds all the time. Gusts from 0 to 10 mph is normal. Gusts from 5 to 15 or even 10 to 30 mph is not unusual. Direction switches from 6:00 to 3:00 or 6:00 to 9:00 is not unusual (but less frequent). During most of the day, you are likely see all of the above on the bullet's trajectory to a 600+ yard target every time you fire. 
|
|
I'd have to disagree with you regarding wind; had I been shooting a 600 yard match today, I'd bet the winning F-Open score wouldn't have broken 585? Either way, the .223 the groups were tighter, the 6.5CM the groups opened up. I just re-'aztec'ed' a 6.5CM round and the code came out a 153 vs 152 I used previously, so that tells me I didn't over anneal them. Must be a neck tension thing. |
|
That is up to you. I was trying to find some wiggle room to make life easier for you.
Wind is one of those uncontrollable, unquantifiable variables that tends to dominate everything else in these tests. Until the shot hits the target, you can't be 100% certain about what the wind was like. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Annealing for Reloaders (Page 2 of 2)
Armory Sponsor