I posted this in reloading but thought I would post here as well:

Okay, this is a very limited test, but I shot my .220 Swift (80 gr AMAX w/32 grains of Varget) using two different kinds of bullets: annealed using the manual flame vs using my new Annealing Made Perfect machine. I alternated rounds:



Flame
3183
3169
3199
3196

Avg MV 3186.8
St dev 11.9
ES 30

AMP
3170
3173
3169
3166

Avg MV 3169.5
St dev 2.5
ES 7

I know that is a very limited sample, but it impressed the hell out of me.

There are a few different methods of using a manual flame, how did you do it for this test?

Need more data but that does seem to make a nice difference in consistency.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
There are a few different methods of using a manual flame, how did you do it for this test?

I used the Hornady kit w/heat goop; when it melted, I stopped.

Honestly, even if they were the same in terms of performance, the AMP is so much faster there is no comparison.

Not doubting the performance of the AMP just wondering what manual method you were comparing it with.

Actually the "flame" method results are quite good but reducing some 400% by using the unit mentioned is impressive to say the least.

Thanks for sharing your results--they do look promising. It would be interesting to see un-annealed brass thrown into the test as well. Could you feel any difference in the force needed to seat bullets?

I've been using a DIY induction annealer for a while now and it's much faster and easier to get consistent results vs torch. It only takes a few seconds per case and I can grab the next one while it runs and have it ready to drop in. I timed how long it took to run a batch of 300 223 cases: 21 minutes. It helps a lot with brass life too. I have one set of WSSM match brass that's still going strong after 30+ reloads.

It also works to anneal pistol brass, which I would not try with a torch.

quote:

Originally posted by jpl:
Thanks for sharing your results--they do look promising. It would be interesting to see un-annealed brass thrown into the test as well. Could you feel any difference in the force needed to seat bullets?

I've been using a DIY induction annealer for a while now and it's much faster and easier to get consistent results vs torch. It only takes a few seconds per case and I can grab the next one while it runs and have it ready to drop in. I timed how long it took to run a batch of 300 223 cases: 21 minutes. It helps a lot with brass life too. I have one set of WSSM match brass that's still going strong after 30+ reloads.

It also works to anneal pistol brass, which I would not try with a torch.

You can definitely feel the seating tension is much more consistent, esp with neck turned brass that is old - after a while it is so brittle you can't hardly keep the bullet in the case (I can pull it with my fingers). Annealing fixes that problem. I posted before about my 338 Edge: the first time I used the AMP machine I couldn't chamber the bullets. My neck tension was so loose I was jamming the bullets into the lands and not even realizing it. I normally use a Stoney Point gauge so I have no idea how that happened.

What are your observations in terms of neck tension consistency jpl?

I also posted this in the reloading thread:

Some loads shoot great even with a high variance in MV...at close range, but once you get out there in terms of range, you do see a higher vertical dispersion (what I love about the LabRadar - what other chrony can you take out in the desert and document the velocity vs bullet splash?).

I will also say this: the last ten shots from my two Lapuas at 800 yards have varied less than 1/2 MOA vertically. I don't have my logbook as I am in MN right now (deer opens Saturday!) so I don't have the exact number but I noticed an immediate improvement when I got the AMP. At 1190 yards my vertical dispersion is higher, but I believe that is because I wasn't taking into account differences in temperature (I normally shoot only one shot at each range). I was looking at my logbook and noticed on warmer days (95 to 110), I always shot higher than cooler mornings (60-70). The total vertical spread at this range is about 1 MOA.

What are you guys paying for the AMP? They are going here, where they are made, for $NZ1600 plus extra for the pilots.
It certainly looks like a quick, easy and controlled way to anneal but alas NZ$1600 would buy me 320 new 404J cases which I fastidiously anneal to preserve my limited supply.
320 new cases would see me out without the need for annealing.

I paid 1099 US plus pilots, which if you have a lot of calibers, adds up.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I paid 1099 US plus pilots, which if you have a lot of calibers, adds up.

With current exchange rate same as we pay, damn we don't even get a country of origin discount

Just saw this post..Has anyone done a comparison between the AMP and Anneal ease, which is a third of the cost.

quote:

Originally posted by eyeman:
Just saw this post..Has anyone done a comparison between the AMP and Anneal ease, which is a third of the cost.

I like that one better than any other flame method, but like all others, it is more of an "art" than a "science." AMP gives exactly the same treatment for every case.

Kind of reminds me of buying a binocular: you can convince yourself that a $400 brand is just as good as a $2500 one, but at the end of the day, you will end up buying the $2500 if you are serious.

If you can afford it, you won't be disappointed with the AMP.

quote:

Originally posted by eyeman:
Just saw this post..Has anyone done a comparison between the AMP and Anneal ease, which is a third of the cost.

The results are probably pretty similar. The anneal ease uses propane torches, right? I used a hand drill and a torch for quite a while, but the induction annealing is more consistent, easier to tune/configure, etc. It depends what you're doing I think. Do you want to anneal 5 elephant gun cases, or a truckload of military surplus 223?

I've seen a few different induction annealing setups. The amp is air cooled, but you have to attach and invert each case with a particular bushing. Personally I like the drop thru coil types. You can see the neck as it anneals, and then the case drops out the bottom of the coil and you drop the next one in from the top. Most have an adjustable perch for different cases. Look at the ez-anneal or the SAM machine on youtube; this is the kind I'm describing. I think the main drawback on these types is that the coil is water cooled, so there is a little more trouble or maintenance involved.

I have been annealing by temperature, which I believe gives me more consistent results than the timer setups. I think microwave popcorn is a good analogy. You can put the bag in, punch in a time and walk away. You might get what you want, but if you listen for the popping you'll probably get a more consistent result. I think annealing brass by time is the same way. There are a lot of variables that the timer doesn't know about. The amp guys even talk about using different settings for different cases, different brands, different lots of the same brand, etc. They will test some cases for you, but that only helps to a certain extent. Does the same time setting used in january give the same result in august?

This is probably a finer point though. Like I said at the top, I think any annealing would be better than none and the results are probably broadly similar. The time-temperature curves have an asymptotic shape so if you take the peak off with any method you should see a benefit.

There have been a few threads about this:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...2511043/m/3161094632

http://forums.accuratereloadin...2511043/m/5931089822

I bought the AMP simply to try and get more consistent neck tension; I believe it delivers on this, although there is the odd case that seems to have a loose neck even though it is annealed the same way. I bought a KM arbor press with the seating pressure indication, but have not yet used it.

When I shoot at LR I chrono ever shot using my LabRadar; here is some data. Keep in mind I typically fire one shot at 800 and one shot at 1190 using two different rifles; my .338s all shoot 285 ELDs. I record MV and temp; but sometimes my LabRadar is not positioned correctly and or doesn't pick up the MV (the angle to the 1190 target is different than 800). Also, my old log book filled up, so this is from new one, so limited data. The Edge cases are neck turned from .300 RUM brass, then expanded. The Lapua brass is not neck turned, and none of the brass is sorted. All powder charges are weighed.

Stiller/Brux .338 Lapua RL33 powder Hornady case:
Temp 69
2772
2774

Temp 75
2783


Temp 76:
2789

Temp 64
2776
2775

Temp 70:
2763
2773

Temp 70:
2786

Temp 75:
2783

summary:
12 shots
ES 26
Std 7.4

Stiller Lilja .338 Edge H1000 powder Hornady case
Temp 69
2671
2677
2679
2661
2673

Temp 75:
2662
2668

Temp 78:
2666
2705
2683

Temp 76
2673
2673

Temp 64
2670
2658 (new case not fireformed)

No temp recording
2670
2685

temp 75
2704

Temp 79:
2670
2685

Temp 74:
2673

Temp 63
2672

Temp 70
2676
2674

Summary:
21 shots
ES 44
Std 11.1

Savage Lapua Retumbo Nosler case:
Temp 79
2738
temp 70:
2750
No temp
2748
2750

4 shots (very limited)
12 ES
Std 5

The other interesting note: I cycle through a very small number of cases; I should mark each case and record the velocity - I wonder if those high Edge velocities are the same case...if you discard those two high velocities (2704 and 2705), you get this:
19 shots
ES: 24
SD: 6.5