Hypothetical: 1x fired --> annealed

[Heretic]

Question for the smart folks:
Caveat - with reference to UR and his annealing tests with the AMP annealer

Say I buy a box of ammo (Berger uses Lapua brass) and I shoot it. I collect the brass, resize, anneal (let's posit that the annealing is done "right), clean (to remove any carbon from the neck), prime, powder, reload.

Can this brass, although fired, be considered the same as "new" brass now? Yes, it's been fired, but it has also been "returned to factory settings."

Does the 1x fired apply to brass that wasn't annealed and resized, etc? But does the annealing put it back to "new" condition?

UR got 76 firings out of one case.

Just a topic for discussion.

 

[OREGUN]

New is new. Nothing you do with home heat treating or a “re-sizing” die can make it new again. You can’t re-virgin a pussy and you can’t make brass new again.

 

[straightshooter1]

Question for the smart folks:
Caveat - with reference to UR and his annealing tests with the AMP annealer

Say I buy a box of ammo (Berger uses Lapua brass) and I shoot it. I collect the brass, resize, anneal (let's posit that the annealing is done "right), clean (to remove any carbon from the neck), prime, powder, reload.

Can this brass, although fired, be considered the same as "new" brass now? Yes, it's been fired, but it has also been "returned to factory settings."

Does the 1x fired apply to brass that wasn't annealed and resized, etc? But does the annealing put it back to "new" condition?

UR got 76 firings out of one case.

Just a topic for discussion.

Hmmm??? Yes and no.

Yes, the neck and even the shoulder can be returned to factory condition (new/spec hardness) when annealed " properly". When the neck is sized, work hardening happen most then. So, when annealing, one actually needs to get the neck softer than new condition so that after sizing, the hardness will increase to that "new condition".

As far as the body of the case goes, it's a no, as the body down to the web isn't being annealed and is getting harder than factory spec with each cycle of firing and sizing. The less movement the brass goes through upon firing and sizing, the slower the work hardening happens. Custom chamber with custom dies can minimize this movement to the point where annealing many not even be necessary over some period of time.

 

[Maurygold]

No - annealing doesn’t completely walk back the fee at of firing brass.

Annealing made perfect has a pretty good book out where they talk about the research that went into their machine and the grain structure of brass with their annealing.

https://shop.ampannealing.com/product/352/making-perfect-the-story-of-annealing-made-perfect/

 

[straightshooter1]

New is new. Nothing you do with home heat treating or a “re-sizing” die can make it new again. You can’t re-virgin a pussy and you can’t make brass new again.

After buying a hardness tester and testing the hardness of virgin brass and my annealed brass, I found I could get my case necks the same hardness that the virgin brass after annealing and sizing. Of course, I actually had to bring the softness of the brass lower that the target so that the work hardening from the sizing process brought them to the target hardness. And I flame anneal!

 

[OREGUN]

Dimensions change, that don’t get touched by a die (think primer pocket), textures change that don’t get touched by annealing (think case web), concentricity changes (every pass through the sizer takes a case farther from perfectly concentric), every resizing changes case length and case wall thickness, every ejection torques the case rim…the list goes on and on and on….way beyond hardness and “proper” home heat treatment. Which by the way, if you are flame heat treating, is a completely uncontrolled process that relies on feels and guesswork…and thus leaves brass different every time.

 

[straightshooter1]

Dimensions change, that don’t get touched by a die (think primer pocket), textures change that don’t get touched by annealing (think case web), concentricity changes (every pass through the sizer takes a case farther from perfectly concentric), every resizing changes case length and case wall thickness, every ejection torques the case rim…the list goes on and on and on….way beyond hardness and “proper” home heat treatment. Which by the way, if you are flame heat treating, is a completely uncontrolled process that relies on feels and guesswork…and thus leaves brass different every time.

Depending on feel and guesswork is exactly why I bought a hardness tester and tested various approaches stated in different forums for flame annealing. Like, taking the brass out of the flame when the flame turns color (yellow or orange) or dropping the case out of the flame just when it begins to glow. These two methods did not get my brass necks to my target hardness (that being the same as Lapua virgin brass). The flame color method resulted in hardness substantially harder than my target and that "begins to glow" method still didn't get me anywhere near enough. Though those two methods didn't bring the hardness down to my target, the hardness readings were consistent from case to case and from on lot to another. Note too, we're not having to deal with absolutes as any very small variations that can be measured with very high end equipment doesn't really have any measurable effect on shooting results.

What I found that works with my flame annealing is bringing the neck to a red glow for just a hair over 1 second (in a darkened room) and the consistent timing produce consistent results as measured by my hardness tool. Getting the necks that red glow suggested by color that the temperature was somewhere between 1,100 - 1,200°F (600 - 650°C). I had to find just the right amount of time at that temperature range to get the necks at the right amount below the target softness so that the sizing would hit the target hardness.

Consistency is what it really all about.

 

[OREGUN]

Depending on feel and guesswork is exactly why I bought a hardness tester and tested various approaches stated in different forums for flame annealing. Like, taking the brass out of the flame when the flame turns color (yellow or orange) or dropping the case out of the flame just when it begins to glow. These two methods did not get my brass necks to my target hardness (that being the same as Lapua virgin brass). The flame color method resulted in hardness substantially harder than my target and that "begins to glow" method still didn't get me anywhere near enough. Though those two methods didn't bring the hardness down to my target, the hardness readings were consistent from case to case and from on lot to another. Note too, we're not having to deal with absolutes as any very small variations that can be measured with very high end equipment doesn't really have any measurable effect on shooting results.

What I found that works with my flame annealing is bringing the neck to a red glow for just a hair over 1 second (in a darkened room) and the consistent timing produce consistent results as measured by my hardness tool. Getting the necks that red glow suggested by color that the temperature was somewhere between 1,100 - 1,200°F (600 - 650°C). I had to find just the right amount of time at that temperature range to get the necks at the right amount below the target softness so that the sizing would hit the target hardness.

Consistency is what it really all about.

I challenge you to create a repeatable process, that you can pass on to another home-heat-treater, that uses terms like “just a hair over 1 second (in a darkened room)”. This is the definition of process by feels and guesswork. How dark is darkened? How red is red? How much is a hair? Is it more or less than just a hair? What happens as your gas pressure changes? What happens if your ambient conditions change? When do I start my timer?

I don’t doubt that heat treating with a flame has some effect on brass hardness. Companies like Anal-ease have made an industry out of convincing shooters that flame treating is effective. YOU may be consistent with what you do but the PROCESS is not. What the AMP folks have done is create a repeatable and reproducible process that use measurable parameters to heat treat brass. Anyone with their dataset and some know-how could build an AMP annealer and get the same results. That’s process by standardization. Consistency really is what it’s all about.

But you didn’t ask about home heat treating, you asked about re-virginating brass. I stand by my first answer. You cannot.

 

[straightshooter1]

I challenge you to create a repeatable process, that you can pass on to another home-heat-treater, that uses terms like “just a hair over 1 second (in a darkened room)”. This is the definition of process by feels and guesswork. How dark is darkened? How red is red? How much is a hair? Is it more or less than just a hair? What happens as your gas pressure changes? What happens if your ambient conditions change? When do I start my timer?

I don’t doubt that heat treating with a flame has some effect on brass hardness. Companies like Anal-ease have made an industry out of convincing shooters that flame treating is effective. YOU may be consistent with what you do but the PROCESS is not. What the AMP folks have done is create a repeatable and reproducible process that use measurable parameters to heat treat brass. Anyone with their dataset and some know-how could build an AMP annealer and get the same results. That’s process by standardization. Consistency really is what it’s all about.

But you didn’t ask about home heat treating, you asked about re-virginating brass. I stand by my first answer. You cannot.

No doubt that the AMP machine is the easy button for very consistent results. Though the timing it uses is a function of the AZTEC Analyze mode to input the correct code. It's not really a good idea to use a particular code from someone else's test, huh?

I'd say similarly with flame annealing, testing and set up before starting the annealing process is needed to address the variables you mention. For me, the test comes down to making adjustments to where I get the reading I'm after from the hardness tool. I don't have to start a timer as the wheels that drop the cases into and out of the flame is consistent. As far as gas pressure changes, a regulator takes care of that nicely.

 

[Heretic]

Hmmm??? Yes and no.

Yes, the neck and even the shoulder can be returned to factory condition (new/spec hardness) when annealed " properly". When the neck is sized, work hardening happen most then. So, when annealing, one actually needs to get the neck softer than new condition so that after sizing, the hardness will increase to that "new condition".

As far as the body of the case goes, it's a no, as the body down to the web isn't being annealed and is getting harder than factory spec with each cycle of firing and sizing. The less movement the brass goes through upon firing and sizing, the slower the work hardening happens. Custom chamber with custom dies can minimize this movement to the point where annealing many not even be necessary over some period of time.

Your response highlights the problem with my question - I didn't think about the rest of the case! Thank you! 1x is 1x.

 

[JR1200W3]

The very simple answer to the OP's question is a clear, undeniable, observable fact.

There is always a muzzle velocity difference between virgin brass and 1 x fired, annealed, resized brass. The latter is slightly slower.

Your brass is never going to behave the way it did when virgin. And pretty much for the better.

You can parse the question out to only in the context of grain structure in the neck of annealed brass, but it has no practical application. You're just theorizing about something that by and large doesn't change your ability to hit targets or make brass last longer.

 

[Rocketmandb]

Your brass is never going to behave the way it did when virgin. And pretty much for the better.

There's a reason I only ever shoot virgin brass as, essentially, foulers. As you mention, virgin brass is significantly less consistent .

Fun fact: virgin Lapua brass is less consistent than virgin Lapua brass that has been annealed again. Their annealing process is not especially consistent.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

Can someone, anyone show me quantitative proof that annealing has any effect on accuracy or brass life or whatever reason your doing it?

I hear people speculate about these things, but I've never heard of any scientific testing to prove it's benefits. Does anyone know where I might look?

 

[JR1200W3]

Amps website has articles with "science and shit".

But like ever annealing thread on SH, feel free to willfully choose to believe whatever you want.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

I just looked through the stuff on the amp site. All I can find is "the case is more consistent post annealing by measuring with this method". I have no doubt that is true. My question is: has anyone ever simply loaded 200 cartridges and annealed 100 of them each firing and shoot through both groups looking for any changes in accurracy/ precision, or brass life?

Surely someone has put these ideas to a simple test?

 

[JR1200W3]

Well, you're not going to prove anything related to brass life in one firing so there goes that part.

I can say that I went from annealing every firing to annealing every 3-4 firings and have seen no difference on target or in SDs. The difference I saw and the reason I stopped annealing every firing is induction annealing chars the carbon left inside the neck to a reddish volcanic, highly frictious material and makes for really sticky bullet seating. I think I could eliminate that with dry tumbling in a media that leaves a dusty residue but I haven't had a traditional dry tumbler for years. And you still have to deal with lubing the inside of your necks in order to mandrel (before you would tumble a second time after sizing to remove lube) which I consider to be a giant PITA. So it's easier to just reduce the number of times I anneal.

You can test it yourself by checking for spring back and seeing if spring back has negative consequences for you based on what neck diameter pops out of .xxx bushing or mandrel. I don't think that part of annealing is very debatable. Could be you don't like having multiple bushings depending on how many firings you have on your brass.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

Well, you're not going to prove anything related to brass life in one firing so there goes that part.

I can say that I went from annealing every firing to annealing every 3-4 firings and have seen no difference on target or in SDs. The difference I saw and the reason I stopped annealing every firing is induction annealing chars the carbon left inside the neck to a reddish volcanic, highly frictious material and makes for really sticky bullet seating. I think I could eliminate that with dry tumbling in a media that leaves a dusty residue but I haven't had a traditional dry tumbler for years. And you still have to deal with lubing the inside of your necks in order to mandrel (before you would tumble a second time after sizing to remove lube) which I consider to be a giant PITA. So it's easier to just reduce the number of times I anneal.

You can test it yourself by checking for spring back and seeing if spring back has negative consequences for you based on what neck diameter pops out of .xxx bushing or mandrel. I don't think that part of annealing is very debatable. Could be you don't like having multiple bushings depending on how many firings you have on your brass.

Thank you. I didn't mean to suggest one firing, I meant fire through all 200 rounds until they are all gone. If you got to thr 8th firing and had half as many case failures, that would be strong evidence. If after (x) firings, the consistency of the annealed brass caused (x) to my groups. Surely someone has done these tests?

 

[straightshooter1]

Hmmm??? Well . . . there good reason why fire forming brass makes such a big difference in the brass's contribution to consistency.

Even the best of the brass (e.g. Lapua), virgin brass always has lots of inconsistencies in their dimensions that need to be ironed out to get the best possible performance. That's just in the nature of mass production.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

Hmmm??? Well . . . there good reason why fire forming brass makes such a big difference in the brass's contribution to consistency.

Even the best of the brass (e.g. Lapua), virgin brass always has lots of inconsistencies in their dimensions that need to be ironed out to get the best possible performance. That's just in the nature of mass production.

I'm not arguing with you at all. That sounds right. Can you prove that it effects precision, accuracy, or brass life in any way?

 

[straightshooter1]

Can someone, anyone show me quantitative proof that annealing has any effect on accuracy or brass life or whatever reason your doing it?

I hear people speculate about these things, but I've never heard of any scientific testing to prove it's benefits. Does anyone know where I might look?

There some good science on AMP's website. One needs to delve into the numbers to really understand the science there. https://www.ampannealing.com/articles/58/annealing-under-the-microscope/

Shooters have found that "neck tension" is really important to consistency/precision (understanding the difference between accuracy and precision). Getting consistent "neck tension" leads to better precision. Work hardening that the necks and shoulders go through during the cycle of firing and sizing can vary substantially from one case to another in addition to just the change in "neck tension". Annealing properly will mitigate this providing more consistent "neck tension" over time with multiple cycles of firing and sizing. Whether or not addressing "neck tension" can be determined to be beneficial or not will depend on the type of shooting one is doing where the desire for precision is really acute or not.

I don't know why it's so hard for anyone to understand how work hardening of the necks leads to neck splitting and how annealing can mitigates that. How much work hardening is done during the cycle of firing and sizing will depend a lot on the chamber dimensions as well as the sizing die being used that will either exacerbate the work hardening or minimize it. Certainly, it's plenty easy enough for one to test on their own.

 

[diggler1833]

Can someone, anyone show me quantitative proof that annealing has any effect on accuracy or brass life or whatever reason your doing it?

I hear people speculate about these things, but I've never heard of any scientific testing to prove it's benefits. Does anyone know where I might look?

Annealing has definitely given me quantitative data on reducing my numbers of split necks on hot .223 loads. Scientifically, no, I have no proof that it was due to annealing alone. But my load (25.5gr Rl-15) was the same throughout.

However, I went 2 reloads on my '08 Lake City 5.56 brass, and split the neck on ~80% of them on the 3rd reload. I started annealing, and made it to 5 reloads before I had to replace that barrel... That was '07 Lake City 5.56 brass. I do not know how many more loads I would have got before primer pockets opened up etc... When I had that barreled action redone, I switched brass.

*****

Regarding accuracy, I have no scientific data that says annealing has helped my accuracy. Again, however, I will absolutely attest to having a more uniform feeling of my brass over my expander mandrel when I anneal brass as my first step after firing. I would ASS-U-ME that the more uniformity in the interference fit/neck tension is giving me better ES/SD and consistent bullet release. Can I prove it with the targets that I've saved? Nope.

I've done it both ways for quite a few years. I choose to anneal now after every firing.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

There some good science on AMP's website. One needs to delve into the numbers to really understand the science there. https://www.ampannealing.com/articles/58/annealing-under-the-microscope/

Shooters have found that "neck tension" is really important to consistency/precision (understanding the difference between accuracy and precision). Getting consistent "neck tension" leads to better precision. Work hardening that the necks and shoulders go through during the cycle of firing and sizing can vary substantially from one case to another in addition to just the change in "neck tension". Annealing properly will mitigate this providing more consistent "neck tension" over time with multiple cycles of firing and sizing. Whether or not addressing "neck tension" can be determined to be beneficial or not will depend on the type of shooting one is doing where the desire for precision is really acute or not.

I don't know why it's so hard for anyone to understand how work hardening of the necks leads to neck splitting and how annealing can mitigates that. How much work hardening is done during the cycle of firing and sizing will depend a lot on the chamber dimensions as well as the sizing die being used that will either exacerbate the work hardening or minimize it. Certainly, it's plenty easy enough for one to test on their own.

I think you've done the same thing everyone in this conversation does: an appeal to data. The problem is that the available data provides nothing but data. Seems like such a simple thing to prove.

One of my best friends shoots a .308 in prs and doesn't own an annealer. He brags about getting 11 firings out of his srp lapua brass without an issue.

I have another friend who brags that the 8+ firings he gets out of his srp lapua .308 brass is only due to the annealing process perfected by amp. They can't both be right, can they?

 

[JR1200W3]

I think you've done the same thing everyone in this conversation does: an appeal to data. The problem is that the available data provides nothing but data. Seems like such a simple thing to prove.

One of my best friends shoots a .308 in prs and doesn't own an annealer. He brags about getting 11 firings out of his srp lapua brass without an issue.

I have another friend who brags that the 8+ firings he gets out of his srp lapua .308 brass is only due to the annealing process perfected by amp. They can't both be right, can they?

I think most people here just don't want to argue about it anymore. This has been argued about so many times before. And Americans have the habit of wilfully believing whatever they want. Provide anecdotal examples .... your opponent will ask for data,. provide no shit science based data .... you're opponent will ask for real life andeoctal examples.

Believe whatever you want. Buy an annealer or don't buy one. Why would I give a shit? Say you're on the hunt for truth and science? Do your own fucking tests and tell us. Just feel contrarion today? Keep challenging people on this thread.

 

[straightshooter1]

I think you've done the same thing everyone in this conversation does: an appeal to data. The problem is that the available data provides nothing but data. Seems like such a simple thing to prove.

One of my best friends shoots a .308 in prs and doesn't own an annealer. He brags about getting 11 firings out of his srp lapua brass without an issue.

I have another friend who brags that the 8+ firings he gets out of his srp lapua .308 brass is only due to the annealing process perfected by amp. They can't both be right, can they?

Like I've read so many times myself where, like your friend, claims made for getting good results without annealing are made. But there's so much missing information, like. . . how much expansion is being done in the chamber and how much sizing is being done to get an idea of how much work hardening is being done on each cycle. And yes, I'd say it's actually very possible they both can be right. . . particularly if the one not annealing has a custom chamber and minimizing the sizing operation (reducing work hardening each time) with their die. Compare that to a mass produced factory chamber and you're going to see big differences in how the brass works. So, when statements like that are made, one really needs to look much deeper into what's going on and not just look at it from face value.

It's like, I've so often read how bad .308 Federal LRP brass is, lasting only 4 or 5 firings, yet I managed to get 13 firings from my .308 Federal brass without primer pocket issue (except on just one case that gave up at 9 firings) and I was using moderate to hot loads. I think maybe that's might be because my chamber was a little tighter than theirs??? At 13 firings, I trashed the cases as indication of case head separation was becoming quite evident.

If you don't have a gun that shoots better than 1 MOA, I don't think annealing makes any difference. But in a gun that can shoot less than .3 MOA, yes! In that link I posed with a video of testing, I took that data a few years ago and put it on a spreadsheet to get a better idea of the issue we're talking about. Here's those numbers:

 

[jthor]

A lot is mentioned here, but anneal every time. My process is:

- Dry tumble in rice media for 3 hours
- Decap on the progressive
- Anneal on Amp
- lube and resize (I don’t lube the inside of the neck and I currently use Alpha Munitions lube)
- Trim/chamfer/deburr on the Henderson trimmer
- Dry tumble in rice media for 15 minutes to remove lube

Past brass longevity, I anneal for consistency. Two things I can say is it did make the resize on the neck feel more consistent across all of the brass when I was doing a separate op for an expander mandrel. Secondly, shoulder bumps have been more consistent/what I expected I to be. I found this out by accident about 5 years ago when resizing some 6.5 PRC brass from ADG. I had 2 containers of brass; one for annealed brass ready to resize and the other I still needed to anneal. I accidentally grabbed brass from the non-annealed pile and it was only bumping .001-.002” vs the .002-.003” I was expecting. Quickly realized I grabbed the wrong pile and the annealed brass sized how I was expecting. I didn’t do any testing past that accident so I don’t know if the spring back would have gotten worse or kinda stopped where it did after 1 firing not being annealed. So spring back will show up after one shot. Varying brass brands/quality will probably vary.

With my brass process my bullets seat very smooth. I’m not seeing any ill effects of my AMP charring the carbon on the necks.

There’s ways to prep virgin brass to perform close to what we like with fire formed brass, but that’s past this topic.

Find a process that works for you.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

I think most people here just don't want to argue about it anymore. This has been argued about so many times before. And Americans have the habit of wilfully believing whatever they want. Provide anecdotal examples .... your opponent will ask for data,. provide no shit science based data .... you're opponent will ask for real life andeoctal examples.

Believe whatever you want. Buy an annealer or don't buy one. Why would I give a shit? Say you're on the hunt for truth and science? Do your own fucking tests and tell us. Just feel contrarion today? Keep challenging people on this thread.

I don't think I've been contrary nor have I challenged anyone on this thread, although I've done plenty of both in other places. I'm not buying an annealer until someone can show me a smoking gun that proves it's efficacy, but even when I'm talking to people who live by their annealing, nobody seems to be able to point to any evidence that it is doing anything funtional. I don't care what anyone else is doing, anneal your rifle every shot if that's your thing. It just seems like there would be some easily provable benefits from something in such common usage. The talk about work hardening necks makes plenty of sense, but how much does it effect either precision or durability of the brass? I keep hoping to stumble into someone who's actually tested them. The fact that they aren't front and center on the pages of the annealer pages says a lot. If amp could advertise that annealing doubles your brass life, it would be written 20x on their landing page. If there was a tangible use case test that clearly demonstrated increased precision or brass life, I think they would be everywhere. I'm afraid they prove otherwise, but I want to be wrong.

 

[straightshooter1]

I don't think I've been contrary nor have I challenged anyone on this thread, although I've done plenty of both in other places. I'm not buying an annealer until someone can show me a smoking gun that proves it's efficacy, but even when I'm talking to people who live by their annealing, nobody seems to be able to point to any evidence that it is doing anything funtional. I don't care what anyone else is doing, anneal your rifle every shot if that's your thing. It just seems like there would be some easily provable benefits from something in such common usage. The talk about work hardening necks makes plenty of sense, but how much does it effect either precision or durability of the brass? I keep hoping to stumble into someone who's actually tested them. The fact that they aren't front and center on the pages of the annealer pages says a lot. If amp could advertise that annealing doubles your brass life, it would be written 20x on their landing page. If there was a tangible use case test that clearly demonstrated increased precision or brass life, I think they would be everywhere. I'm afraid they prove otherwise, but I want to be wrong.

Fascinating. Skepticism is a good thing and can lead to good science, but there are forms of it that just doesn't lead to progress.

In the spreadsheet I posted, I took the values right off each of his chronograph readings as he fired them since they were not published anywhere. And the group sizes weren't affected by atmospherics since the shooting was done in a controlled environment. Yet, you apparently reject the test, perhaps as anecdotal??? What do you really want to convince you?

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

Fascinating. Skepticism is a good thing and can lead to good science, but there are forms of it that just doesn't lead to progress.

In the spreadsheet I posted, I took the values right off each of his chronograph readings as he fired them since they were not published anywhere. And the group sizes weren't affected by atmospherics since the shooting was done in a controlled environment. Yet, you apparently reject the test, perhaps as anecdotal??? What do you really want to convince you?

No, you misunderstand. Didn't disregard your data, and in fact, thank you for sharing it. It's just a very small sample size. That data may prove out over a thousand rounds, or ten-thousand, but you know 10 rounds isn't a large enough sample size to make any declarations. I've shot 10rd groups back to back with no changes and seen noticeable changes in group size and SD and the like. Thank you for your spreadsheet, and it does as much as anything I've seen as far as reasonable testing, just needs more. Ten groups of ten shots each way would probably be enough to tell the truth.

 

[Rocketmandb]

Here are the problems with conclusively proving how much one thing or another helps your precision:

Individually, the improvements you make for adding or improving a specific step are pretty small. They are small enough that without a large sample size, critics will tell you that the improvement is within the margin of error. Then, when you do actually use a large enough sample, they'll say it's something else.

So, why is it that some people have reliably lower SDs than others? Because they do a number of things together that, in the aggregate, produce meaningful results.

My question is: has anyone ever simply loaded 200 cartridges and annealed 100 of them each firing and shoot through both groups looking for any changes in accurracy/ precision, or brass life?

This would be a pretty invalid test for what you're looking for. Here's why:

1) It would have no bearing on brass life. EDIT: for clarification, one firing would have no bearing

2) It would likely have little to no impact on precision either. Firing brass that's newly annealed vs. brass that was annealed last firing will show little difference. Harder cases will spring back more after sizing and using a mandrel, and will thus exhibit a higher effective neck tension on the bullet. If they're all the same, you will get progressively higher effective neck tension as you go up in the number of firings, which will ramp pressure progressively as well, but with proper prep, they should all maintain a consistent firing profile with respect to each other. Whether this pressure ramp impacts precision down range is entirely dependent on a vast array of other variables - some of which will change by the hour.

3) Even going to 3 or 4 firings, as long as you're firing the same group of brass (e.g. they all have the same number of firings), and you use other mitigating factors in your reloading process, you probably won't see much difference. This is provided you keep the brass separated by number of firings.

The most effective way to test would be to get a group of brass that you never anneal, let's say 40 pieces. Each firing you pull 5 out and put them aside. This will give you a group of brass ranging from 1 to 8 firings since annealing. Then fire them all together, measure the SDs and group size of that group vs. another group that's been freshly annealed.

I've done enough testing on other things. Perhaps I'll do that once I get my newly rebarreled 308 dialed in again. Would be a fun, if long, test to do.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

Here are the problems with conclusively proving how much one thing or another helps your precision:

Individually, the improvements you make for adding or improving a specific step are pretty small. They are small enough that without a large sample size, critics will tell you that the improvement is within the margin of error. Then, when you do actually use a large enough sample, they'll say it's something else.

So, why is it that some people have reliably lower SDs than others? Because they do a number of things together that, in the aggregate, produce meaningful results.




This would be a pretty invalid test for what you're looking for. Here's why:

1) It would have no bearing on brass life. EDIT: for clarification, one firing would have no bearing

2) It would likely have little to no impact on precision either. Firing brass that's newly annealed vs. brass that was annealed last firing will show little difference. Harder cases will spring back more after sizing and using a mandrel, and will thus exhibit a higher effective neck tension on the bullet. If they're all the same, you will get progressively higher effective neck tension as you go up in the number of firings, which will ramp pressure progressively as well, but with proper prep, they should all maintain a consistent firing profile with respect to each other. Whether this pressure ramp impacts precision down range is entirely dependent on a vast array of other variables - some of which will change by the hour.

3) Even going to 3 or 4 firings, as long as you're firing the same group of brass (e.g. they all have the same number of firings), and you use other mitigating factors in your reloading process, you probably won't see much difference. This is provided you keep the brass separated by number of firings.

The most effective way to test would be to get a group of brass that you never anneal, let's say 40 pieces. Each firing you pull 5 out and put them aside. This will give you a group of brass ranging from 1 to 8 firings since annealing. Then fire them all together, measure the SDs and group size of that group vs. another group that's been freshly annealed.

I've done enough testing on other things. Perhaps I'll do that once I get my newly rebarreled 308 dialed in again. Would be a fun, if long, test to do.

Yeah, truthfully that test would not be much fun at all in my opinion, but I want to address how it's done. What I described above was two batches of brass, (100ea), one group is annealed before the first and after each firing, the control group is never annealed. Do identical brass prep on both sets, load them all an identical known load in a simple chambering that won't require cleaning a carbon ring before you can get through 200 rounds, and record precision on each group. After 8 rounds, let's see what the difference in the brass is. 10 rounds, 12 rounds, 20 rounds.

It will be expensive, boring and monotonous, but it will prove definitively what the tangible effects of the annealer are. If someone had a decent YouTube channel and hyped it correctly, it would probably get a million views in the first week..

 

[straightshooter1]

No, you misunderstand. Didn't disregard your data, and in fact, thank you for sharing it. It's just a very small sample size. That data may prove out over a thousand rounds, or ten-thousand, but you know 10 rounds isn't a large enough sample size to make any declarations. I've shot 10rd groups back to back with no changes and seen noticeable changes in group size and SD and the like. Thank you for your spreadsheet, and it does as much as anything I've seen as far as reasonable testing, just needs more. Ten groups of ten shots each way would probably be enough to tell the truth.

I agree about 10 rounds given the statistics for that number. That's why I combined each of the 10 sets for 20 on my spreadsheet as 20 is a much better telling figure. There's an error factor for 20 too, but. . . but it's getting pretty small and I think, small enough to answer the question as to whether the theory(s) is valid . . . especially given the many testimonies from some pretty good sources. It just doesn't seem to me that something like a 1,000 round test is going to answer the question any better. After all, we're not trying to put a lander on Mars.

Hmmmm??? I wonder if a Monte Carlo simulation software could answer the question well?

You're very welcome, about the spreadsheet. As I've collected my own data or the last 8 years, it's been interesting to me to see what works and what doesn't. When I initially started annealing, I saw a distinct improvement in my overall data. But, because I was (and still am) playing with various components, I think it would be too confusing for anyone to look at my data and draw any conclusion about annealing since I didn't actually record this aspect for annealing.

 

[Rocketmandb]

Yeah, truthfully that test would not be much fun at all in my opinion, but I want to address how it's done. What i described above was two batches of brass, (100ea), one group is annealed before the first and after each firing, the control group is never annealed. Do identical brass prep on both sets, load them all an identical known load in a simple clambering that won't require cleaning a carbon ring before you can get through 200 rounds, and record precision on each group. After 8 rounds, let's see what the difference in the brass is. 10 rounds, 12 rounds, 20 rounds.

It will be expensive, boring and monotonous, but it will prove definitively what the tangible effects of the annealer are. If someone had a decent YouTube channel and hyped it correctly, it would probably get a million views in the first week..

Yeah, you’d go through a barrel just doing that. If I modified my test plan such that it was 50 rounds in the non-annealed group, and maybe 25 in the annealed group, it would 9 total trips to the range at a total of 75 + 70 + 65 + 60 + 55 + 50 + 45 + 40 + a final to test the mixed batch at 65 (5 of each round count plus 25 annealed). That’s still more than 500 rounds total, but a lot more doable.

 

[straightshooter1]

Yeah, you’d go through a barrel just doing that. If I modified my test plan such that it was 50 rounds in the non-annealed group, and maybe 25 in the annealed group, it would 9 total trips to the range at a total of 75 + 70 + 65 + 60 + 55 + 50 + 45 + 40 + a final to test the mixed batch at 65 (5 of each round count plus 25 annealed). That’s still more than 500 rounds total, but a lot more doable.

Hmmm??? Unless such a test is done in a controlled environment (like a test tunnel. . . or a very long warehouse ), I'm not sure how such an extensive test might be valid.

I know the guy the runs the website at the Precision Rifle Blog has recently built himself a very nice test tunnel, but haven't heard yet how he's been using it. In the past, he's run various tests, but I think they're mostly sponsored. It'd be cool if he would run a test such as this.

 

[Rocketmandb]

Hmmm??? Unless such a test is done in a controlled environment (like a test tunnel. . . or a very long warehouse ), I'm not sure how such an extensive test might be valid.

Generally you'd be comparing two sets of data on each day: annealed vs. x times fired without annealing

While the temps, etc. would change day to day, the comparison between the two sets would be valid - as would the final test, which would be fresh-annealed vs a mix of 1-8x fired.

Either way, 500+ rounds is a heavy tax to pay.

 

[Ledzep]

I once shot a 20-shot group with a single piece of brass. Fired, annealed (AMP), FL resized, wiped off, trimmed, loaded and fired. This was in our 200yd test tunnel from the fixture.

Group was pretty much indistinguishable from 20x virgin cases. The only notable difference was the first shot was slower than the rest. I've done some virgin vs 1x, 2x fired tests before, too and saw the same thing. First firing usually averages 10-15fps slower. Dispersion and velocity ES/SD data is pretty much indistinguishable.

In my opinion from what I've seen, annealing (if done properly) extends service life. That's about all it does. The only claim I think that can be reliably made about improving ES/SD/precision is if you compare annealed vs. 5-7x fired brass because eventually as the necks get hard you do often see a decline in those metrics.

 

[diggler1833]

I volunteer to provide a conclusive and non-biased test of the effects of annealing on both accuracy and brass life... once and for all. I will utilize a cartridge with a longer barrel life in order to have the least amount of accuracy degradation ('cause it will skew the results and all).

I just need someone to provide me with:

- One AMP annealing machine
- One Garmin chronograph
- 400 cases of virgin .308 Lapua or Alpha brass
- 6,000 Berger 185gr Juggernaut bullets
- 38lbs of VVN150 powder
- 6,000 Federal 210M primers
- One Bartlein/Krieger/Brux .308 barrel, 1:10 twist, M24 contour, 24-26", cut and chambered for an AI 27mm tenon receiver

I'll go ahead and provide the dies, press, and time. It is the least I can do.

 

[Rocketmandb]

The only claim I think that can be reliably made about improving ES/SD/precision is if you compare annealed vs. 5-7x fired brass

This really where all my testing efforts are centered. I care about group size, obviously, but usually you can tune that in via seating depth and/or charge weight. ES/SD can only be made as good as the brass/prep will let it be.

 

[straightshooter1]

I once shot a 20-shot group with a single piece of brass. Fired, annealed (AMP), FL resized, wiped off, trimmed, loaded and fired. This was in our 200yd test tunnel from the fixture.

Group was pretty much indistinguishable from 20x virgin cases. The only notable difference was the first shot was slower than the rest. I've done some virgin vs 1x, 2x fired tests before, too and saw the same thing. First firing usually averages 10-15fps slower. Dispersion and velocity ES/SD data is pretty much indistinguishable.

In my opinion from what I've seen, annealing (if done properly) extends service life. That's about all it does. The only claim I think that can be reliably made about improving ES/SD/precision is if you compare annealed vs. 5-7x fired brass because eventually as the necks get hard you do often see a decline in those metrics.

I think you bring up a good point as to comparing "annealed to 5-7x fired brass". This big issue there is what's the difference between 5-7x fired brass and 2-4x fired brass. Certainly as the necks and shoulders of the brass that's not being annealed is getting work hardened more with each firing and sizing cycle, as you say. Not all chambers and sizing dies are the same, where there can be substantial difference in how fast the none annealed brass will work harden.

As I've mentioned in the past where a shooter with a custom chambered gun along with a custom sizing die can reduce the rate of hardening to where they might get 15-20x firings before seeing ANY benefit for annealing. On the other end, a factory chamber and basic cheap sizing die might only take 2-4x firings to get a lot of work hardening due to moving the brass a lot where annealing can benefit.

What I'd like to see is much like the research shown on AMP's website but where hardness is measured after each cycle and find at what hardness the neck and shoulder has to get to where annealing then becomes most beneficial.