- Thread starter stevenc23
- Start date
I believe .P will burn the tin out of the brass.
They key thing is to run a swirl flame torch. The typical pencil tip stuff most outfits supply with their units is vastly inferior. The swirl flame gives you maximum uniformity in flame annealing. Generally it burns hotter too, so one torch will be significantly more effective. I'm only in the flame for about 4.2-4.5 seconds on my thickest brass. On average this single torch goes to full anneal in about 3 seconds. Skinny .223rem based cases with thin walls are done in 2.2 seconds or less. Thats with a single swirl flame torch on a 20lb bottle. (1lb'ers don't give as much consistency)
If you're going to stick with the pencil tip torches typical annealers come with, you'll want 2 for certain to get the best results. Annealer design limitations may vary.
The type of flame you want is illustrated in one of my videos here:
Quite right... this is exactly what someone without mental illness would have asked, before launching into a tirade. (my response to you below) Yet it isn't as if you can reasonably expect a crazy person to not act crazy. Instead, I expect exactly what has transpired... for them to be sitting around pissed off at the same thing for a decade, fixating on it, and seething about it... up to and including self-destructive behavior.
This has been done. I developed the method using vickers testing in the first place. The testing was done off site and "under the radar" out of my control, as a favor... but it was done. We had no idea what would produce the best results, until afterward. So it was as properly blind a study as I could envision. The AMP annealer didn't exist, and there was NO prior body of work to cloud our views. I submitted the cases for approval based on annealing "time" in seconds and tenths of a second. It was only after several of those tests that I came to the realization of "hey, the best results are always right here where that flame changes color." The discovery was simply a gift, in that way... because I wasn't looking for that answer, but it was the one that was revealed none the less... and to this day is the only method of setting up a flame annealer that handles every variable the brass gives us. Thickness, metallurgy, configuration, finish, etc. (however, you'll understand the evolution in my explanation below)
The key thing here being... the "best" was based on how it shot... not what hardness was achieved. The hardness results were an afterthought, and one I didn't really even care about at the time. I just wanted a brass expert to tell me what he thought "looked" the best based purely on metallurgy under the microscope based on a 60,000 PSI pressure vessel. (from what I can remember a decade ago) His findings were not conclusive on target. However, my results on target WERE conclusive.
Shortly after I published the original video. I forget what site it was on, but a forum member had a vickers and showed the data using the method I described. This was many years before the AMP was even a thing, so no one was comparing my findings to theirs at the time. I'd be interested to see that done again as well. I'd like it better documented, with my involvement to ensure my method was being done correctly this time with my most recent equipment choices and methodology. If anyone has a vickers, you have an open invite to bring it to my facility and we'll do it all on camera.
However, it isn't like a decade of my method bringing handloaders success is anecdotal at this point. That original video has been viewed over 300,000 times and my method has become THE way flame annealers are set up, rather than the tempilaq method that was commonly given before it. It has helped hundreds of thousands of people, and I was the first person to talk about it. That is all the reward I need.
Yet I'd challenge you: Are we in agreement that the hardness that AMP produces and claims is perfect, is actually where it's supposed to be? Because I'm not in agreement on that. Using the AMP press in conjunction with their annealer, is what led me to disagree with their findings in the first place. Point in fact, I think the entire discussion around annealing has been void of two major factors in the discussion until very recently. Bullet seating force and results on target.
I can take cases off the AMP annealer, seat bullets, and shoot them. Then take cases of the same batch using a flame annealer, seat bullets, shoot them, and find that the flame cases shot better. Not due to the AMP being "wrong," but due to the AMP being wrong for the best possible effect to the fullest extent of its capabilities. The annealing process, is just another lever/switch/dial that we can move to achieve desirable results. I've been able to replicate the above effects in reverse by advancing the AMP to produce a softer sample than "they" want... and dial back the flame unit to provide a harder sample. Its just another element of tuning we can use in conjunction with several other stations in the handloading process.
My argument is as follows, as succinctly as I can put it:
The discussion on annealing can not be talked about competently by shooters if we are using hardness testing as our basis for the work. Instead, the most appropriate metric to use in the discussion of annealing, is bullet seating force. Validation of those efforts and conclusions MUST be accompanied by live fire.
So, before a real discussion can be had by real shooters, the language they are using to define "right" needs to be established before work to discover "best" can be done.
Bottom line: I've done the work, I've seen the results, I've reaped the rewards, and I'm on to other things. There is currently no advancement to my shooting I can envision by spending more time on defining correct annealing methods. The AMP annealer and flame units, will both produce results which are extremely repeatable and predictable when used in conjunction with the AMP Press and high quality inline dies.
There is no discussion on annealing that I wish to be a part of that does not include bullet seating force data, as this is where it stops being academic for all shooters, and is grounded in reality in a way that cannot be argued, dismissed, or bottled up in a lab. So, no one can speak to me about annealing as a function of hardness, time, heat, thickness, metallurgy, or any other variable.
The new language for discussing annealing methodology is bullet seating force & POI shift.
Unlike a vickers machine, every handloader can and should have have access to the AMP press to validate their handloading processes if they wish. The press, is a far more important innovation than their annealer, in my opinion.
If you want to anneal correctly, you don't need a vickers... you need an AMP PRESS!
Now, my flame color change method is the starting place, and still is essentially exactly where I anneal my cases. However, the validation is done by the AMP press. I may do another video outlining how I go about that testing in the future. Upon writing this, I've pretty much expended as much effort here on this as I intend to.
This is what I've been saying for years... but until now, no one in this thread has asked. Probably because at the end of the day, they don't care... they just want to argue.
Not directed at anyone in particular: Do with it what you will. The satisfaction for unpacking this in a way that hasn't been done prior... is all I get out of it. Argue over it. Convince yourself it was your idea to begin with. Print it and hit each other with it. I don't care. You want proof? Good, go get proof. I don't need validation and my mandate is not proving things to people. My desire is to share the things I believe in... and I've done that, and will continue to. If it helps you, great. If it doesn't, well shucks, maybe something else I'll show you sometime will. Though I do enjoy speaking with folks that have reached emotional adulthood and can demonstrate the slightest bit of critical thinking capability.
As for the detractors and psychopathic stalker types... anyone that innovates anything draws the ire of mentally unwell people. It's predictable, and I stopped caring about this quite a while back. I don't owe them anything. I pissed some of you off 20 years ago, and you're still mad about it. Oh well. Not my problem. I'm sitting here with a smile on my face all day nearly every day, living the life I dreamed about when I was in my teens and early 20's. Tens of thousands of rounds per year, whenever I want... all day every day, if I want. So having unwell people get mad at me on the internet is just not something I care about.
Up until this post I haven't thought much about your videos AND especially the primer gizmo. BUT, this explanation of Annealing is top of the chart, very well presented and understandable.
I have a flame Annealer and I'll get a swirl flame torch tomorrow.
It's very easy to "feel" the seating pressure differences using a Wilson Seater Die comparing Annealed and non-annealed cases.
Thank you for this synopsis of Annealing techniques.
You're welcome, and thank you.
I would encourage you to reevaluate "the primer gizmo." Not just the equipment, but the methodology. The equipment makes executing the methodology much more repeatable... but it's the "how" that delivers results. The equipment followed, because no other equipment was available that could do it effectively.
Well, he keeps telling everyone how he's the best & knows more than everyone else, I'm just wondering when that claim will be justified.
I find it sad how so many are willing to simple mindedly believe his bullshit.
There's so much real information out there now, why go along with a guy who has zero idea of the scientific method, shows no detailed result & expects all his loyal followers to swallow every drop.
Yeap. He falls for it every time. Like watching someone sinking into quicksand. Unfortunately, it comes back to haunt time and time again.
Is the glass half full or half empty ?
Greg have any of you primer seating test been done using a universal receiver with pressure testing capabilities. So that you can see the actual real time from impact and detonation of the primer to the Powder charges burn spike and profile?
Last edited:
I ask because I have had the opportunity to work in depth using an oehler 85 and Wiseman universal receiver. I have done seating depth tests on most Large and small primer brands and had the ability to adjust seating pressure. I personally can tell you that the pressure curve changes very minutely based on depth. What I actually found was having the primer seated firmly into the pocket was all that really mattered.
That's basically the conclusion any significant testing has returned.
I just finished believe the target with Greg and I smell snake oil!
We use his CPS Primer Seater. But mainly for the ergonomics and speed. It's a good tool for those purposes.
I will buy that portion of its usefulness. The claims of it cutting groups over 1/3, I know better than that.
RCBS sells a bench primer that has the same speed and ergonomics as CPS for less than $150. Holland sells a seating depth micrometer addition if you need micrometer seating.
And for 600$ you can have one setup for LR, SR,LP and SP.
That's fair enough however, with regards to scientific testing, I would think you would be better served reading white papers written from the methods & results of trained physicists than anything I would test. Afterall, that is the advantage of having access to that information.
As for your other comments, I suggest you take the time to go back to the very beginning of this thread started by Stevenc23. Right from the outset, the bullshit started with regurgitations of completely false information about "dead brass, "zinc burning out of the brass" & etc. This continues for some time until Stevenc23 was basically bullied & badgered off his own thread by nothing more than bullshit, rhetoric & complete ignorance of the truth. I've no idea what happened to Stevenc23 after this thread but, that guy was completely correct from a scientific perspective but, was railroaded by the likes of Dykstra & many others who had zero idea.
If you want to understand some of the reasoning behind my zeal, I urge you to spend some time reading through this thread to see why I feel the way I do.
What happened to Stevenc23 was an absolute disgrace.
Last edited:
For a guy that thinks he's so smart, one would think you'd have the multi-quote feature of the forum figured out. Opening this thread today, the way you clicked reply all those times, felt like watching someone fall down the stairs.
Is this the anecdotal "no proof" thing you were referring to?
Now kindly post some video evidence of your capabilities with a precision rifle.
Surely you wouldn't be trying to apply a burden of proof to me, that you yourself couldn't meet... would you? Surely your load room allows you to load a cartridge at the bench, slide over to the window and shoot, right? I mean someone as important in the firearms community as yourself... surely you don't live in a suburb? No, definitely not, because to be able to dismiss everything I say, you must have thousands of rounds down range per month, like me, or MORE than me... to do that, right? You must be a somebody in this industry, surely? Who are you, again? Does anyone know you? Dudes I've never met in my life in here calling me by my name. lol Pretty strange actually.
I've mentored hundreds of shooters in person. I've mentored thousands more remotely. I've served content to tens of millions across several decades. I keep having more people ask to be mentored. Are you seriously going to sit here and say, after all your carrying on about my attitude, and my widely known reputation for being unbelievably hostile toward people, that it's my "charm" bringing all these people from all over the world to my facility wanting to be taught, rather than my capabilities? It's my excellent attitude keeping them coming back over and over again?
lol
Right...
You can claim my channel has no substance if you like, yet anyone that goes to watch a few videos, even just from this past year, will find more substance that will directly affect their ability to produce desirable results on target than any other channel in this space. That's because I focus on the content and not trying to gain followers and be "cool." I spent more time and effort teaching people high level understanding about brass this past year alone than any channel has in the history of the platform. Those that are looking to shoot small consistently find exactly what they are after.
The techniques I teach work better than most. The evidence of this is everywhere and has been for 20 years. That's why they want to learn it.
Long ago, I learned that there is no satisfying the burden of proof for a guy like you. As soon as I learned that, I stopped caring whether anyone felt I proved something or not. I share the information, and they can go prove it for themselves, or piss off. As a result, I'm free. Feels nice.
That 10 year old annealing video? You keep assuming and proclaiming I didn't have the brass hardness tested to confirm my process. You keep claiming the video is anecdotal. It wasn't. Anyone can repeat my method exactly as instructed while standing next to a vickers machine today, and confirm for themselves exactly what my findings were. You repeatedly saying something false, doesn't make it false.
Now that it's very obvious to me that I'm dealing with a psychopath, I won't be responding to you further. I feel sorry for you. Legitimately. You're obviously going through some stuff. You've obviously been going through it for a very long time. Whatever it is, you won't find the answers here. If you had any joy in your life at all, you'd understand that none of what you're trying to do to me, will work. Everything you are doing, makes me stronger, and you weaker... and it's really sad you don't understand this. You'd have better luck pounding your bare fist against 50 tons of solid steel than you'll have trying to put a dent in me. That accurately conveys my feelings on your attempts here. I'm sure you're still glad you decided to call me in here. This is probably the most attention you've received for a while.
Go work on something constructive. It's there you'll find fulfillment. You'll never find it trying to tear someone else down. Not ever. Not anyone, and certainly not me. I do legitimately hope you figure out whatever went wrong in your life to have you this obsessed with me. Yet whether you do, or you don't, I won't be there for it.
View attachment 8318368
Greg, as usual you miss the point completely. It matters not how much you shoot if nothing is correctly tested & correlated.
Being able to load & shoot out of a window has no bearing on your scientific method or knowledge. It simply shows you can load a round & shoot out a window.
It matters not how many names you drop or how many uneducated people agree with you. The overarching question is; are you correct in your assertions & statements &, have you conducted the testing in a scientifically, statistically significant manner to back your statements?
Since you seem to be somewhat lacking in logical thinking, it matters not who doesn't test your assertions. It only matters that the guy making the assertions & statements has done the proper testing.
I've told you before, it's not the fact that your annealing vid is totally and utterly incorrect that is the problem. The problem is that you have made no effort whatsoever to correct the inaccuracies in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence which undeniably contradict every statement in your "training video"
It's not I who has to prove a damn thing. I've included many URLS in my comments on this thread referring to scientific papers on the mentioned subjects, usually to little recognition, as far as could be discerned. I've no idea if you bothered to read any of the papers however, if you did, you certainly made no mention or appeal, nor did you at any time appear to give the slightest consideration to the prospect that you may have been incorrect.
After being questioned about the validity of the info mentioned in your annealing vid, instead of dealing with the mentioned inconsistencies in a professional manner, you chose to appeal to other members with claims of bullying & badgering by myself & others, completely skirting & ignoring the difficult & mostly impossible to defend questions. To date, your desperate attempts at mustering agreement in the face of humiliation was one of the most pathetic appeals I have yet witnessed. It was then that I realised who I was dealing with. A spoiled child in a mans body. One whom had never been taught to face the consequences of their actions.
You may be done with me but, your history will never be done with you.
Last edited:
I hope you realize that Greg/Orkan is banned and can't reply.
All that popcorn and no show. . .
No, I had no idea.
I hope you realize that Greg/Orkan is banned and can't reply.
All that popcorn and no show. . .
Do you know why he was banned?
I highly suspect it was due to his business banner display on his posts without having a "Commercial Sponsor" subscription. Just a guess, I've been wrong before.
Yeah right.
I don't know why he gets on the Hide after making a vid a while back saying that all the sites like these were dead.
Must change his mind when someone picks on him.
This is the most accurate comment you've made, IMHO.
Oh well. Read back through the entire thread. I know I made plenty of other factual statements, in fact, I made sure I did.
This topic isn't a hill I choose to die on. I conducted my own in house tests to see if annealing was of benefit and I found it is. I also anneal by flame with a drill/socket/torch and can read the annealing progress on the brass and know when to quit. This seems to drive the AMP guys nuts, but this/my method works. I brought back to life a batch of brass that had become so work hardened, the seating force became ridiculous. I did't know about annealing back then (6yrs ago?) and called RCBS to ask if there was something amiss with the die that would cause this. So, they recommended I anneal the brass. Couple youtube videos later and a bit of developed finesse and I saved that batch of brass for some continual loadings. I have been annealing ever since. My necks glow a little bit and the anneal line forms just below the shoulder and I'm good.
My method is a time suck, so I have been eye balling the "Ugly Annealer" to automate my very similar flame anneal process.
I do like my AGS annealer and he has a newer version out. You might take a look at it and see if it fits you needs
The ugly annealer is a great little unit. My Son-in-law has one & I've annealed my brass with it. It's simple, well built & easy to use.
Annealing is just one of a number of subjects in the shooting/reloading sphere, that has been so twisted by scientific ignorance then propagated by videos & blind trust without question that, much of the information available is basically useless, damaging or both.
I believe that as a community, we can & should do better to ensure as far practicable that the information we post is the truth & not assumption presented as truth.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?” - Keynes
That quote comes to my mind often.
I can’t even remember all the things I used to da over the past 35 years of reloading that I no longer do because our understanding of the tech has changed
Remember the moly phase?
And cryo treating barrels?
That quote comes to my mind often.
I can’t even remember all the things I used to da over the past 35 years of reloading that I no longer do because our understanding of the tech has changed
Remember the moly phase?
And cryo treating barrels?
I agree with all of this 100%, as well as your assessment of the initial progression of the thread. The pack mentality is strong on this forum, like just about any other gun forum and most others too for that matter.
However - the main issue with the past few pages was your approach, stooping pretty low yourself in your pestering and badgering of Orkan or whoever he is. The wrong approach can discredit even the most accurate and clear cut information because nobody respects "that guy". Just my observation.
A fair observation.
I have to admit that I assumed how Orkan would react because it's the way he always reacts when difficult questions & outright falsities are presented to him. Even so, I could have done better, even though I'm over his holier than thou attitude on many of his podcasts. The shame is, Greg can do a very descent review when he keeps his nose out of the air & sticks to the facts. His latest review & comparison of three chronographs was interesting, well presented & quite packed with very handy info. Greg does seem to attract a lot of negativity going by his own comments. I've tried to find these negative comments on his channel but can never see any. I presume he deletes the comments he doesn't like because all I ever see is the adoring comments of his gaggle of pucker knuckle lickers.
You seem to spend a lot of mental energy and focus on this Greg fellow, to the point that it looks like an obsession. That's where you lost credibility in this thread to start with and fell into the same trap again just now; if a man can't stand on his own knowledge or accomplishments, and instead has to go after someone else, then he most likely has nothing useful to offer the rest of the group.
Obviously you haven't read through this thread. It mat be helpful before you make rash judgements.
How about you look forward now that Orkan is gone from here. You had a couple nice posts when you weren't fixated on Orkan or the past shit show interaction you guys had.
Similar threads
