I keep going back and forth on this one. I’m not shooting bench rest, 1/2 to 3/4 moa is fine. I don’t like messing with dies after I have a load, so annealing would help that in regards to neck tension. But how much? How many extra firing you get outta brass in general? If I was going to get an annealer it’d be an AMP so I could set it and forget it but it’s just a steep price to try to justify.
- Thread starter VandelayIndustries
- Start date
Got the annealer but decided to run a batch of 1k cases non annealed and see for my self whether or not it's worth it to me , so far my cheap ass factory brass has been reloaded 9 times and it's still going strong I seem to only have lost a couple of pieces . so I would say it's up to you . I still have no idea how many I will get from the brass I am using now , I'll reassess it after I have more information .
I would say that it depends on what caliber you are shooting. Some calibers are less inclined to harden brass. I shoot several calibers from Grendel to 6x47 to 6.5 SAUM to 6.5 x47 to Valkyrie to black powder 45-90 to black powder 40-65. What I have found is that by annealing, once you resize the brass, it stays at the resize. I have found that brass that has NOT been resized, springs back .001-.002. This leads to variant neck tension. In my experience, neck tension is EVERYTHING to accuracy. I have tried various reloading techniques. Switching primers, powder variance, seating depth. All of these are an important factor in accuracy. However, neck tension is key!
Annealing is key to accurate ammo. That said, do we need a 2500$ annealer! Not sure. My method would have some quiver. BUT I’ll put up my groups to any with the 2000$ annealer.
This is just me. YMMV
Annealing is key to accurate ammo. That said, do we need a 2500$ annealer! Not sure. My method would have some quiver. BUT I’ll put up my groups to any with the 2000$ annealer.
This is just me. YMMV
My reasons- Sizing is more consistent, trimming becomes easier and faster, and seating feels more consistent. On paper I can typically see better results as well.
I've had success with annealing with a hand torch but now I have an Annie for ease of use.
I've had success with annealing with a hand torch but now I have an Annie for ease of use.
My Annie started acting up and I decided to get an AMP. It is really nice. The Annie worked great until it didn't.
Do you need to anneal?
It depends on what your goals are. Are you just going to the range and shooting groups at 100 yards? If so, then annealing every 3-4 firings will keep the brass going until the primer pockets finally give out and differences case to case are less likely to show. Are you taking a big 30 cal to 2k yards? Then annealing every firing is pretty critical to keep the neck tension consistent, and with it, keep the SDs low.
Are you going to anneal a relatively small number of cases? You could easily flame anneal and be happy - it's not that difficult to get it right and you don't need an AMP. Do you anneal a bunch at a time? The AMP is very efficient.
I anneal with an AMP every firing and my loads stay the same, same low SD/ES, same MV, same POI, same.
In 6CM I’m running a batch of Lapua ex-22-250Rem cases that have 17 firings on them and counting.
In 6CM I’m running a batch of Lapua ex-22-250Rem cases that have 17 firings on them and counting.
Being fine with 1/2 - 3/4 MOA, you don't need an AMP to easily do that; flame works fine.
How many extra firings depends on several factors (e.g. size of brass; how brass is sized; how hot the cartridges are loaded . . .just to name some). But the info below should at least give you some kind of idea:
I think I already know the answer, but I'm going to ask anyway...
Was the automation through AMPmate worth the price/setup, etc.?
Yes, absolutely. I can dump hundreds of cases and walk away. Spend time with my family or make dinner. The time gained is worth every penny.
Still don’t have the amp mate but it sure looks nice!
The amp is fast even without the mate. I can run it as fast or faster than the mate by hand, but I have to be there. The mate with case feeder is pretty badass though.
Is you aren't using an AMP, IMO you are wasting your time trying to half ass flame anneal where you have no idea what's happening to your brass and its definitely not consistent case to case.
I spent almost a year In metallurgy classes doing destructive and non destructive testing on materials. Flame annealing is not reliable, and if you aren't atleast batch testing you have no idea what the hardness is.
Is you aren't using an AMP, IMO you are wasting your time trying to half ass flame anneal where you have no idea what's happening to your brass and its definitely not consistent case to case.
I spent almost a year In metallurgy classes doing destructive and non destructive testing on materials. Flame annealing is not reliable, and if you aren't atleast batch testing you have no idea what the hardness is.
5 shot group @100 yds via 6.5 SAUM. Brass annealed in my fingers over a torch. Brass reloaded 7x.
Not sayin AMP is not the shiznit, just saying that it can be done.
YMMV
I've thought the same for a while now... and IDK shit about metallurgy lol.
I mean, even if you're not using the most ideal setting, at worst the AMP is still doing the same thing to the cases every load cycle, so unless one is doing something ridiculous to mess it up, the cases stay consistent from firing to firing, and last forever (or at least until they won't hold a primer any longer).
I almost feel like the processes should be referred to differently and separately: annealing with an AMP, versus, annealing with anything/everything else.
I anneal every time. Last year got over 20+ loads on a hot 200g FTR .308 load in a Lapua SRP case.
For me the primer pockets go south before the necks do.
For me the primer pockets go south before the necks do.
Really doesn't mean shit. Do it 100 times then compare to 100 non annealed cases.
Groups are one component. Let's see your ES/SD over a 30 shot string.
Going to an amp cut my sd in half from a flame annealer.
I think there are some guys who can get good results with flame annealing, at the very least prolonging their case's life.
The AMP hits every single case, exactly the same way, same heat, same duration, every time, every case.
I got pretty good with a blowtorch and a stopwatch... but the AMP is simply a way better mousetrap.
Since going to the AMP, things changed, suddenly more so than ever before, the force was with me, and now I can't remember the last time I had SD's that weren't single-digit.
I BELIEVE.
The AMP hits every single case, exactly the same way, same heat, same duration, every time, every case.
I got pretty good with a blowtorch and a stopwatch... but the AMP is simply a way better mousetrap.
Since going to the AMP, things changed, suddenly more so than ever before, the force was with me, and now I can't remember the last time I had SD's that weren't single-digit.
I BELIEVE.
I use an Annealeez. Here's what I get over long strings:
What kind of numbers are you getting now?
Last edited:
That's good. It's what I'd expect from those cartridges.
I anneal every three times. My chrono and my target tell me that's all I need. I suggest you consult your chrono and your target not in that order and don't get caught up chasing unicorns or listening to tall tales.
Bro, you are missing my point. I am in no way arguing that the AMP is not better than flame. More accurate more precise, but also MORE money.
All I’m saying is, that for us poors, the flame WILL work.
The rifle that shot that group has over 800 written record rounds through it. I have used the same flame method from its new build until recently and it still shoots those same groups. SD in the single digits.
I would argue that annealing , while part of the equation for low SD is not the ONLY component to that end. It also factors in powder used,primers, bullets, etc.
I will also concede the point that small groups at 100 yds to not give a proven indication of performance of said load to 1000 and beyond (high SD will indicate long range performance at distance). I would also proffer that high SD loads generally will not produce small groups.
Bottom line is that while all you say is correct, flame annealing has a place in the total equation of reloading for some of us.
Now I will go be poor somewhere else…..
Not to add fuel to the fire, or confusion to the mix, but I believe Bryan Litz published results stating that during experimentation they couldn't find a relationship between annealed brass and SD. That is, annealing vs not annealing produced similar MV/SD/ES graphs and the annealed brass did not demonstrate more consistent MV.
So that leaves the result of annealing brass to only longevity and consistency when sizing?
Works for me.
My answer is... it depends.
Things I'm trying to be super accurate with, I've started to anneal every time. Trying to improve consistency.
Cases that are hard to form, hard to find, expensive to replace, I've started doing them anywhere from every time to every few times, depending on what they are.
Most "regular old stuff", frankly never.
Things I'm trying to be super accurate with, I've started to anneal every time. Trying to improve consistency.
Cases that are hard to form, hard to find, expensive to replace, I've started doing them anywhere from every time to every few times, depending on what they are.
Most "regular old stuff", frankly never.
No it really doesn't because you could not flame anneal and get the same results. It's a placebo.Bro, you are missing my point. I am in no way arguing that the AMP is not better than flame. More accurate more precise, but also MORE money.
All I’m saying is, that for us poors, the flame WILL work.
The rifle that shot that group has over 800 written record rounds through it. I have used the same flame method from its new build until recently and it still shoots those same groups. SD in the single digits.
I would argue that annealing , while part of the equation for low SD is not the ONLY component to that end. It also factors in powder used,primers, bullets, etc.
I will also concede the point that small groups at 100 yds to not give a proven indication of performance of said load to 1000 and beyond (high SD will indicate long range performance at distance). I would also proffer that high SD loads generally will not produce small groups.
Bottom line is that while all you say is correct, flame annealing has a place in the total equation of reloading for some of us.
Now I will go be poor somewhere else…..
No, it really doesn't because the AMP isn't more precise or accurate. More consistent batch to batch maybe, but nobody has shown that makes much difference anywhere but in their head yet.
Again as per the usual, I will point to the record books. If the AMP was making ammo better than ever before, it would show.
If flame annealing didn't work factories that make brass wouldn't be flame annealing.
^^^^ I own an AMP and I approve of this message.
I will bet dimes to dollars that when I get enough of a sample size through my AMP, it will not show superior results to when I was flame annealing. Was it easier to set up? Yes. Is it easier to get and maintain consistency? Yes. Is it quicker than flame annealing? For my flame process, yes. Is it flameless so I can anneal inside when my wife is home? Yes.
Key theme is that AMP makes it easier. Just because something is easier, doesn't mean you can't match results through a more arduous process. AMP is annealing's easy button, but that doesn't mean it get me any better consistency over my old flame annealing process - a process I spent a fair amount of time and effort perfecting. Still plenty of reasons to love the AMP, though!
Its absolutely more accurate. They figured out through destructive testing, how to program the machines to return the brass to around 95-105 hardness. This was verified with testing and then creating the corresponding aztec codes that get it damn close to optimal.
Every single person I know who has an AMP, has reported similar results. SD/ES tightening up and much better and consistent neck tension control.
Factories who flame anneal have the process down to a science. They have lab testing and can dial it in exactly where they want it. They have destroyed a shit load of brass to get this down, and may even have do it by batches as the brass thickness can change, needing different cycle time to get desired hardness.
Joe blow using shitty torch annealers with garbage regulators aren't. Templaq is not reliable and unless you are doing hardness testing, you have no idea what you are doing to your brass other than making it hot. You have a rockwell machine in your house? Can you test Vickers or Brinell? No? Then you have no fucking idea what your brass is actually doing.
Alpha uses a similar induction annealing process to AMP. Their brass are right there with Lapua as the best money can buy.
Once again Hanus you have much wisdom and intelligence to contribute to the conversation.
OP I was huge skeptic of annealing, but the reality is, brass work hardens and its much nicer sizing it when its annealed. The biggest benefit isn't really split necks, its getting consistent dimensions.
Never go full retard...
Anyone who thinks annealing is "a placebo" is 100% lost in the sauce.
ETA: To wit
Last edited:
You have no idea what you are doing to your brass other than what AMPS advertising told you. I thought flame annealing was a placebo? Is that out now?
I dont need to test any of that stupid shit. I test my ammo by shooting it you muppet.
Ya, their brass is right up their with Lapua, supposedly, and how does Lapua anneal...
Any retard who cannot discern the difference between actual annealing and hitting it with a flame that you have no idea what its doing is a moron.
Not sure if you have reading comprehension skills or are just an easilly triggered snowflake.
I never said anything was placebo or vise versa.
Was quietly reading and obsorbing what was being discussed until diaper stain opened his cock holster again with nothing of use to contribute.
Some of what is being said i agree with and some i dont.
Thank you for proving how stupid you are in so few words.
I thought flame annealing was a placebo? Is that out now?
I dont need to test any of that stupid shit. I test my ammo by shooting it you muppet.
Ya, their brass is right up their with Lapua, supposedly, and how does Lapua anneal...
Wow, this went off the rails.
I'm not going to say which method I use but will say. I don't bang steel, I shoot for a score in FTR.
Match numbers don't lie, politicians do. Scores and percentages tell you what happens at the target far as accuracy. We shoot 600 and 1000 matches and pretty confident what works.
Do what works for YOU!
Every barrel, case, load etc is different.
I'm not going to say which method I use but will say. I don't bang steel, I shoot for a score in FTR.
Match numbers don't lie, politicians do. Scores and percentages tell you what happens at the target far as accuracy. We shoot 600 and 1000 matches and pretty confident what works.
Do what works for YOU!
Every barrel, case, load etc is different.
Work hardening is a basic concept, its not a PhD thesis. Hit something brass or copper with a hammer....a lot. It gets harrder, more brittle,obviously so and it will split. Put it over a gas oven or open flame...beffore reaching that point...put it back under the hammer...see what happens.
The fact that you've never actually done this is kind of funny. This is the origin of annealing:
So go ahead and tell us all how this was never done before you figure it out like 5 years ago.
Last edited:
You really suck at spelling .
thats all you got.Just about as insightful as the posts i keep seeing coming out of you.
Im not writing a book were i actually give a shit to proof read everything so i really am not to concerned about it.
We had a grammer nazi here but sadly the guy passed away and i sure as hell dont see you taking his place in that role.
The point i am trying to make is try and be part of the conversation by adding something of use or just shut up.
This shows how absolutley ignorant you are. It actually is a PHD subject with a TON of thesis written on it. You have post grads and phds who do this for a living.
How many hours do you have a a lab doing undergrad testing?
By the sound of it, you never passed 3rd grade.
This is why you can't have intelligent debate on the internet. Its full of retards who think if they are the loudest that makes them right.
Autism? We heard you the first time, first time, first time.
1. PhD wasn't invented until about 500 years after the concept of 'annealing' entered the english language.
2. 500 years after somebody
(presumably a PEASANT) figured out annealing 3. A placebo is a null (zero-validity) process, NOT a primitive but effective process.
I'm too lazy spell it out further...
