Well Said
All I'm looking for here is to anneal the case necks with consistency. I don't need to hit the same exact hardness as the AMP unit. I don't even know that I would want the same hardness that they say is the best. I would anneal to the desired hardness by achieving the desired neck tension that I'm looking for, not what someone else is looking for. Then I would make sure all cases have been run through with the same time and voltage settings. I don't know of one person out there that could prove this to be a mistake. If anyone thinks that this is a bad approach, and can prove to me that all case necks need to be the exact hardness that a lab test tells me they should be, then they need to tell us all what seating depth we should be using. That way we could all comply, and stop wasting time using seating depth as a means of tuning our rifles. If I actually only had one choice on seating depth, I would probably always run a light jam, and tune with powder charge, but not everyone would agree with this method, and they shouldn't.
Most of us would be better off to build their own annealer, even if they need to use another's design, and then use the leftover money to buy their wife 30 dozen roses, or anything else she might love. After all, most of our wives put up with a lot, when it comes to our expensive hobbies.
Michael
Don't let yourself get wrapped around the axle because a piece of equipment has the potential to produce results with very high resolution. For example, do you need a scale which reads to .0002 gr when a kernel of Varget weighs about .02 grains if you know you aren't going to cut a single powder kernel into 100 pieces? Probably not.
So while the job the AMP people do is good and while they are able to measure the condition of an annealed case and while they are able to offer suggestions on how you can match those test results, you must ask yourself if that is really required? You use the term "necessary adjustments", but first you must ask yourself if these fine adjustments are truly necessary or simply nice to have. I suppose you could argue that high precision is nearly always desirable; however, it might not be quite so important in this instance. Here's why I say that.
As part of my formal education I took some classes in metallurgy. And while I'm no metallurgist, I do have some training in what happens to brass when you work harden it and then subject it to an annealing process. Yes, time and temperature are the two main factors we deal with when making our cases softer than their "as fired and/or as resized" condition. But don't overlook the question about how important is it to hit your hardness goal exactly? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you must do it.
I would argue that consistency is the most important factor and actual hardness is of secondary concern. I anneal every time using a DIY machine which has an automatic case handler I can adjust to a fraction of a second. I have a setting for each caliber I reload as well as an adjustment for neck thickness. But I don't own the equipment to test the actual hardness of my .014" thick 6mm brass compared with my .012" .223 brass, for instance. Most likely they're a little different from one another, but I do my best to make each kind of brass identical to its sibling.
Annealing has a direct effect on neck tension and that depends on exactly what happens when I fire, resize, clean, uniform, and otherwise process my brass. I do that ritual exactly the same each time. The guy shooting next to me may use a different procedure and his brass might be a little harder or softer than mine. But as long as we are both consistent, I strongly suspect neither one of us hold an advantage. We should both enjoy long brass life and, assuming we've done careful testing, we can both shoot small groups. Likewise my .223 brass and 6mm brass may not have identical hardness in the neck area, but that is not the holy grail of precision shooting as far as I'm concerned. Don't forget, our end results are measured at the target, not at the hardness machine. They don't give out trophies based on who has the ideal brass hardness.
I have no doubt that a DIY induction machine can be made to do a fine job annealing cases even without also building a hardness tester. I firmly believe that is because absolute hardness, within reason, isn't as important as being consistent. We DIY aficionados have inexpensive tools available to us to know quite a bit about our annealing process without measuring the actual hardness value. Of course, there's nothing wrong with commercial induction machines, especially ones where the maker goes out of his way to do plenty of testing and calibrating. That's all well and good. But just because F-1 racing teams adjust their tire pressure in 1/4 psi increments doesn't mean I have to do the same on my grocery getter.
Finally, to put this all in perspective, Bryan Litz, who is recognized as one of our sports more careful testers, did an experiment measuring any accuracy difference between cases annealed every time with those fired ten times and resized ten times without annealing. The unannealed cases were definitely harder, yet there was no delectable difference in performance. At some point we need to ask ourselves, how much time and money are we willing to invest in picking fly out of the pepper?
Nevertheless, I anneal every time anyway no matter what Mr. Litz's tests indicate. Don't get me wrong, if you can afford an AMP annealer, go for it. It's probably the best thing on the market. However, for someone watching their money who already has a precision annealer (even if it's a DIY version), I would argue that you are likely to get more bang for the buck spending that extra money on a betters scope,barrel, scale, rest, or what-have-you.
All I'm looking for here is to anneal the case necks with consistency. I don't need to hit the same exact hardness as the AMP unit. I don't even know that I would want the same hardness that they say is the best. I would anneal to the desired hardness by achieving the desired neck tension that I'm looking for, not what someone else is looking for. Then I would make sure all cases have been run through with the same time and voltage settings. I don't know of one person out there that could prove this to be a mistake. If anyone thinks that this is a bad approach, and can prove to me that all case necks need to be the exact hardness that a lab test tells me they should be, then they need to tell us all what seating depth we should be using. That way we could all comply, and stop wasting time using seating depth as a means of tuning our rifles. If I actually only had one choice on seating depth, I would probably always run a light jam, and tune with powder charge, but not everyone would agree with this method, and they shouldn't.
Most of us would be better off to build their own annealer, even if they need to use another's design, and then use the leftover money to buy their wife 30 dozen roses, or anything else she might love. After all, most of our wives put up with a lot, when it comes to our expensive hobbies.
Michael
Last edited: