My long winded thoughts on annealing

[FEENIX]

Reloading and all of this stuff was fun at one time, looks as if those days are gone,

It is still fun for me. The time it is in longer fun is the time I will no longer engage. I synthesize the information, filter the destructive ones and move on. If there is something unclear, I simply ask for clarification. As a continuous learner, I keep an open mind to allow the learning process to develop/progress ... but that is just me. Cheers!

 

[Muddyboots]

Wow, this is a very "interesting" read from every opinion direction. I appreciated the "technical" discussion on induction versus flame. Really good detail on each process. I worked my last 35 years of my career for 2 global companies that had a "Speak with data" mantra which included cost benefit analysis.

My take is induction is "better" than flame not that flame doesn't work at all. This "discussion" is similar to that you "have" to use temperature stable powders to shoot consistently. How did we shoot all those years without them? Why do load manuals include non temp stable powders?

If you have the need to grab every 0.01 MOA at 1K and the means to purchase an induction annealer, go for it. If you still use flame, focus on improving your process for better consistency. Annealing is not a race to finish as quickly as you can. We are painstakingly deliberate in our reloading process and we need to be same on annealing. I got better at flame when I "slowed" down and focused on my process for end result on brass. This is where induction wins hands down but if you approach flame with mindset you can improve your results.

I do not shoot "enough" at LR to justify the cost benefit for the (slight, minimal, better) improvement IMO. Is induction better, of course, but doesn't mean flame does not work. I have other technical areas I need to get better bang for the buck.

I do hope we can keep having these technical discussions because there are so many ways to "skin a cat" and present many of us opportunities to learn and improve our knowledge.

 

[Petey308]

And you can argue the same point with the induction annealer, current draw, the size of lead wire, are you using an extension cord, if so what gauge, are are same appliances or machines on or off every time you anneal, does the fridge or microwave come on in the middle of a cycle, dishwasher? the list goes on and on

The "wire", which I'm assuming you mean the coil or Litz wire, isn't a variable that changes unless you change it yourself for whatever reason. With an AMP, you don't ever mess with it, so it's not a variable that changes. And I only mess with the coil on my Annie if I'm annealing a bigger or smaller cartridge that needs the bigger or smaller coil, but that's still a controlled variable that doesn't change from session to session. Same with if you're using an extension cord or not. That's an easily controlled variable.

There are capacitors on the induction units too that kept the current consistent. You won't see a drop in current when an appliance kicks on like you might see with your lightbulbs that don't have capacitors feeding them. Plus, if you were worried about it, just don't anneal and run other appliances in the house at the same time, but it still won't be a factor if you did.

 

[steel2]

Reloading and all of this stuff was fun at one time, looks as if those days are gone,

I don't know if I can say what I'm thinking but I started to reload in the late 80s n I had a lot of fun and I still do lol
When I started reloading the nosler partition was the "best" bullet and I used them some and there wasn't such a thing as hammer bullets and we didn't know what we were missing and I still haven't bought any hammers but I would like to sometime and I appreciate what butterbean and others have to say about them but I'm still happy to use my "lesser" quality bullets
Now we come to this annealling and quite honestly I hadn't heard anything about that till I became a member here and I find it very thought provoking to hear what petey has to say along with the input of others but i haven't bought an annealer yet but with interest I read what is being said about it just like I read what is said about the hammer bullets
So let's enjoy the thoughts that each has on a given subject without being sarcastic and continue to learn together because I for one still has a lot to learn and the older I get the more I realize we need others input cause I'm not gonna live long enough to learn it all So God bless you all and let's enjoy the day..Dale

 

[asd9055]

Wow, this is a very "interesting" read from every opinion direction. I appreciated the "technical" discussion on induction versus flame. Really good detail on each process. I worked my last 35 years of my career for 2 global companies that had a "Speak with data" mantra which included cost benefit analysis.

My take is induction is "better" than flame not that flame doesn't work at all. This "discussion" is similar to that you "have" to use temperature stable powders to shoot consistently. How did we shoot all those years without them? Why do load manuals include non temp stable powders?

If you have the need to grab every 0.01 MOA at 1K and the means to purchase an induction annealer, go for it. If you still use flame, focus on improving your process for better consistency. Annealing is not a race to finish as quickly as you can. We are painstakingly deliberate in our reloading process and we need to be same on annealing. I got better at flame when I "slowed" down and focused on my process for end result on brass. This is where induction wins hands down but if you approach flame with mindset you can improve your results.

I do not shoot "enough" at LR to justify the cost benefit for the (slight, minimal, better) improvement IMO. Is induction better, of course, but doesn't mean flame does not work. I have other technical areas I need to get better bang for the buck.

I do hope we can keep having these technical discussions because there are so many ways to "skin a cat" and present many if us opportunities to learn and improve our knowledge.

Well Said!!!!!

 

[jthor93]

Too many variables to take in to consideration for it to be a fact, you are just assuming and once again this is just your opinion

Variables as in? Timing and flame placement, two of the most important variables in flame annealing. If you can prove that you can time every case the same and place the flame in the exact same spot every time, then by all means do it.

If using a drill socket was more consistent than using a Bench Source, annealeeze and so on top competition shooters would still be doing it, but it's not.


Again, go ahead and use a drill socket and a torch if that's all you have, but it's not as consistent as bench source or annealeeze do to the biggest contributing factor causing inconsistencies, the human operator.

 

[Petey308]

Reloading and all of this stuff was fun at one time, looks as if those days are gone,

It's still fun for me. In fact, it just gets more fun for me with equipment that takes guesswork out of it and makes things more efficient and more consistent.

 

[Petey308]

Wow, this is a very "interesting" read from every opinion direction. I appreciated the "technical" discussion on induction versus flame. Really good detail on each process. I worked my last 35 years of my career for 2 global companies that had a "Speak with data" mantra which included cost benefit analysis.

My take is induction is "better" than flame not that flame doesn't work at all. This "discussion" is similar to that you "have" to use temperature stable powders to shoot consistently. How did we shoot all those years without them? Why do load manuals include non temp stable powders?

If you have the need to grab every 0.01 MOA at 1K and the means to purchase an induction annealer, go for it. If you still use flame, focus on improving your process for better consistency. Annealing is not a race to finish as quickly as you can. We are painstakingly deliberate in our reloading process and we need to be same on annealing. I got better at flame when I "slowed" down and focused on my process for end result on brass. This is where induction wins hands down but if you approach flame with mindset you can improve your results.

I do not shoot "enough" at LR to justify the cost benefit for the (slight, minimal, better) improvement IMO. Is induction better, of course, but doesn't mean flame does not work. I have other technical areas I need to get better bang for the buck.

I do hope we can keep having these technical discussions because there are so many ways to "skin a cat" and present many if us opportunities to learn and improve our knowledge.

I agree. Things tend to get taken a bit out of context and certain things get focused on without reading everything and taking the whole big picture into consideration. It was mentioned numerous times that proper annealing can be achieved with a flame, but there are more variables involved, and ones that are harder to keep consistent, especially depending on the actual method you're using (to keep flame distance the same and time in flame the same), but some still get caught up accusing this post of saying you must use an AMP or not even bother annealing. That's not at all what was said.

The beauty, for me, about equipment like the AMP, is that it actually makes things less complicated. It takes the guess work out of it and many of the variables. It's basically plug and play. So I don't get how some think it's over implicating things. It's literally taking the complications out of it. That unfortunately comes at a cost, and they may or may not be worth it to some. All aspects of annealing itself may or may not be worth it to some. Some guys are just after reducing some of the hardness to prolong the life of the brass, and they're not shooting at a level that requires the potential gain in consistency. That's fine. Again, nowhere was it mentioned you must use a certain type of annealer. It was mentioned that some guys are inducing inconsistencies by their particular method, and it is my opinion that those particular people would be better off not annealing at all if that would be their only method of doing it, and I'd recommend they just buy new brass when required. I'm sorry if some get offended by that. I don't mean any offense by it at all. That said, if their needs on accuracy aren't that strict, they may very well be fine even if they are inducing inconsistencies. It's merely a recommendation which can be taken or left. Improving the method of annealing is another great option and better than not annealing at all.

Anyway, I didn't mean to get on a rant. I really enjoy technical discussions too. I hope they can continue as well.

 

[Petey308]

asd9055:

I think a few people in this conversation went and got themselves a scotch several hours ago. And a few of the others have been closed up in the house too long.

It was fun for a while.

Bourbon for me, but yes lol

 

[Muddyboots]

Some guys are just after reducing some of the hardness to prolong the life of the brass, and they're not shooting at a level that requires the potential gain in consistency. That's fine.

Perfect statement that summed up my thoughts exactly. Thank you.

 

[coop2564]

I'm a hunter. Been reloading for 35 years. NEVER have I annealed a case. Right now I have 17 firings on my 270 win loads they still shoot under MOA at 700yds, I first loaded this group of 25 12 years ago, not one split neck or failure yet, it's 130gr Accubond @2980 hornady brass . I don't target shoot a lot, Don't chase max velocity's, specially now with prices and components crazy high and hard to find. After 12 yrs I still have 25 more brand new pieces still in that bag. That's 425 shots I've taken with the original unannealed brass, killed countless deer, hogs etc,. I'll keep my $1500 and buy a new bag of brass $70 when the time comes. I'll add I use the lee FCD on ALL my rifle loads with a light crimp. I firmly believe this helps overcome any slight neck tension variations. JMO

 

[gpo1956]

To you engineer types. We all know the only reason you're engineers is because you didn't have enough personality to be accountants!!

 

[asd9055]

To you engineer types. We all know the only reason you're engineers is because you didn't have enough personality to be accountants!!

Now that's funny! And I am an Engineer!

 

[DoneNOut]

Good morning, Gents!