Annealing White Paper - Provided by Starline

markr6754

New member
Gents, I hope this is helpful to some of you. I found it to provide the answers that I needed, but I'm also pretty new to this environment.

I asked Starline for guidance on using their Basic Grendel Brass to be form 6mm ARC. My follow-up question was answered. The included file is attached.

Mark,

Here is a great article on annealing. I would suggest trying to only go a 1/4"-3/8" below where the shoulder will be when annealing for 6mm ARC. The ARC has very little body taper so it doesn't need too much below the shoulder.


Regards,

Hunter Pilant
Process Manager
Chief Ballistician
hunter@starlinebrass.com

Starline Inc.
1300 W. Henry Street
Sedalia, MO 65301
800-280-6660
660-827-6640
www.facebook.com/StarlineBrass
 

Attachments

  • Annealing info by Ken Light.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 85
It is an interesting article but misses a few points. One is that the harder brass is, the faster it anneals. 90% hard brass exposed to the same annealing temperature as 50% hard brass will recrystallize nearly ten times faster. Fortunately, brass's modulus of elasticity is constant for all hardness levels and degrees of annealing. So while we don't want to under or over-anneal, there is a surprisingly large range of annealing completeness over which we will get the same apparent performance as long as the interference fit between the resized neck and the bullet being seated is the same. Note that because harder brass is more springy than anneal brass, this has to be checked.

Second, recrystallization and grain growth you can see on etched brass with an optical microscope, are not the only stages of annealing. Before the brass heat exposure reaches those stages, it undergoes recovery, which relieves stresses on an atomic level, and which restores some malleability and is thus enough to prevent neck splits. Recovery, being at the atomic level, is not visible in an optical microscope and has to be "seen" by x-ray diffraction.

To achieve recovery to prevent neck splits, the lower heat of the candle flame annealing method or the molten lead method mentioned in the article can be made to work. Both are slow, but as described by metallurgist Fred Barker, they are:

(1) Lead Pot Method: heat lead to 725°-750°F; dip neck into powdered graphite and then holding body of case in fingertips into molten lead: when case body becomes too hot to hold slap case into wet towel; or

(2) Candle-flame method: Hold case body in fingertips, place case neck in flame and twirl case back & forth until case body is too hot to hold, then slap case into wet towel; wipe soot off neck & shoulder with dry paper towel or 0000 steel wool.

Fred Barker, Precision Shooting Magazine (RIP), July 1996, pp. 90-92

The wet towel, in these instances, is to stop heat from spreading toward the head and help remove candle soot and lead oxide, and flux traces. With the candle method, I have not found it necessary, and the soot can be removed later. However, the candle method is painfully slow, as you are often about 20 seconds per case.

My point in mentioning these methods is to illustrate you need less annealing than you might think, and if you do go to recrystallization, you are doing more than is minimally necessary but aren't hurting anything if you take it that far. You won't, as a practical matter, see any difference in neck tension over that range, provided the necks are coming out of the die the same diameter. If a case gets too soft, its yield point (where it goes from elastic to plastic deformation by an applied force) gets too low, and there can be too little spring left in the metal to hold onto the bullet well, especially if you anneal after resizing and don't reinstate a little work hardening by sizing.

The above range is a good thing because of the recrystallization time difference I mentioned before. Even with identical heat exposure, those with brass that hasn't been annealed for a while are taking their annealing further than it goes when the brass has only been reloaded once.
 

Metal god

New member
So I’ve been putting some thought to the idea of harder brass anneals faster . In my head it seems like a misleading statement.

Correct me if Im wrong but they seem to say because 90 and 50 get annealed to the same point at the same time , The 90 did it faster but does it really ?

For the sake of this discussion lets say brass is fully annealed at a temp of 1000* Thin cartridge brass will be fully annealed once it reaches that temp correct ? Now you have two pieces of brass at different work hardened points of there life . Both pieces have the same mass so all things being equal both should reach that 1000* at the same time resulting in them both taking the same amount of time to anneal correct ? Are you saying the harder the brass the faster it heats up resulting in the harder brass actually annealing faster ?

I’m just not seeing it logically in my head . How does one anneal faster when annealing has nothing to do with time other then how long you leave it in a specific temperatured heat source ? Isn’t cartilage brass annealing all about the temp it reaches more then the time its at that temp do to how thin it is ?
 
First, I screwed up a little by misremembering 75% cold worked (CW) as 90%CW. It is actually 75% which was much faster than 50% in the paper I looked at. According to the author of this paper on annealing of 70-30 brass:

"…recrystallisation law…states that increased strain on the metal decreases the annealing temperature—the time to reach complete recrystallization at 450°C 21% CW was 4 hours whereas at 42% CW at the same annealing temperature it only took 15 seconds to reach complete recrystallization."

So the size of the time difference can be substantial. The charts in figure 4.15 on page 16 of the paper show the effect. The graphs have temperature expressed in awkward units such that if you divide 1000K by the number on the horizontal scale, you get the absolute temperature. But, basically, the temperature at the left and lower point of both graphs works out to be 550°C (1022°F), the middle point of both is 425°C (797°F), and in the rightmost point in both is 300°C (572°F), three temperatures used in many places in the paper. In those charts, you can see that the 50%CW brass takes a full minute to start recrystallization, while the 75%CW takes just a tenth of a minute (6 seconds) to start, so it starts 10 times sooner at 550°C. This is not a linear relationship, and at 425°C, it starts only two times sooner, but at 300°C, it is back up to about 5 times sooner.

With cracking case necks, we aren't annealing for minutes, and we don't need to because in order for the small percentage of circumferential elongation that splits the case to do what it does, you know, splitting necks are more than 75%CW and will anneal still faster at a given temperature than the 75%CW brass does. This, in turn, leads to the question, if I have some annealed necks that have only been loaded and fired once and some others loaded and fired many times and near to splitting, and I subject both to the same annealing time and temperature, will I get the same degree of annealing. The answer seems to be no, but it is hard to tell from the charts how much difference they will have, and, given the matching modulus of elasticity, will it make much difference in the finished load? We've seen some tests where it seems to make no difference to anneal with each load cycle, and some where people swear it is essential to do. I'm solidly on the fence about it until an evaluation of the effect of different starting hardness on annealing can be done. It may already have been done, and I just haven't come across the information yet.
 

Metal god

New member
Wants me to join or sign in to read the link so I can’t do that . I will say your theory or facts about annealing sure seem to blow everything Ive ever read about annealing out of the water . To include the AMP machine. Nowhere that I’ve seen do the makers of the AMP say or have calculations for different work hardened brass .

Based on the above post when you test your first piece in the AMP and it calculates whats the best setting for all your same type brass . It’s actually totally wrong because you might have different worked brass throughout a single lot of brass . Boy that sure is going to hurt a lot of those AMP fan boys feelings . AMP seemed to have some pretty good research on the subject on the website too . I wonder if anyone’s told them how wrong the got it haha .
 

HKGuns

New member
Wants me to join or sign in to read the link so I can’t do that . I will say your theory or facts about annealing sure seem to blow everything Ive ever read about annealing out of the water . To include the AMP machine. Nowhere that I’ve seen do the makers of the AMP say or have calculations for different work hardened brass .

Based on the above post when you test your first piece in the AMP and it calculates whats the best setting for all your same type brass . It’s actually totally wrong because you might have different worked brass throughout a single lot of brass . Boy that sure is going to hurt a lot of those AMP fan boys feelings . AMP seemed to have some pretty good research on the subject on the website too . I wonder if anyone’s told them how wrong the got it haha .

I wonder if anyone’s told you how wrong you got it, because if you follow their directions, you don’t just randomly analyze a piece of brass.

Taking brass back to the same consistent point is exactly the point.

How about not denigrating a product you’ve obviously never used and stick to the stuff you actually know something about?

Most of the best shooters in the world use it but somehow you’re just smarter than them huh?
 

Metal god

New member
No my point which you clearly missed was based on UN’s point how every single piece of brass anneals differently ( time and heat ) based on how work hardened it is . Using that theory/logic testing only one piece of brass to get your base line can’t work . It had nothing to do with what “I” believe about the AMP , its what the paper UN seems to say about there method . I’ve always believed the AMP was the best annealer on the market but now ……..

AMP directions said:
It is important that the sacrificial case is representative of the cases you are going to anneal. The two most significant factors are neck wall thickness and case weight.

I don’t see anywhere it talks about cases being work hardened differently and how that may effect the annealing process , also says sacrificing only one case . Again I’m only pointing out the discrepancies between the paper UncleNick describes and the directions of the AMP machine , not what I personally think of either .

If it helps check out my second signature line .
 
Last edited:
I would like to have been a fly on the wall watching AMP's development test criteria and results. The fact the brass modulus of elasticity is constant at all hardnesses means a significant range of degrees of anneal will work just fine. I think this explains why Bryan Litz's experiment comparing performance consistency of annealing every load cycle with the AMP to doing no annealing for ten load cycles yielded no statistically significant difference (the unannealed brass actually did a tiny hair better). Board member Hounddawg likewise could tell no difference and was offering to make someone a good price on his unit. Still, there are others swearing by it as essential.

More data probably needs to be collected. Even then, there might be differences that depend on the load pressures used, as they change how much stress the brass is subjected to in each load cycle.
 

RC20

New member
The only entity that could bring enough resources to bear is not going to do it. Something on the level of the Manhattan Project. You have to have extremely good equipment, identical repeat test conditions and materials.

If it could be done the Military would have done it. M-16/M4 had what, 4 inch accuracy at 100 yards?

At some point you accept that its reduced to a process that works and get on with life.

Jeephammer I believe provided the required degree of methodology which was to look at grain structure.

And then you have to average it anyway as each case is going to have some variability as will each powder load and primer and bullet.

This has been covered repeatedly. It does not have to be perfect, it just needs to be in the ballpark.

I went with below perfect and its worked just fine for me. Others have their own methods though Metalgod has by far the most in depth methodology of the heat it with a torch group. That is not for me but it looks like he gets it so close as to make no difference.

Most have no idea if they are close or overdone because overdone get wiped out in the noise level of the entire accuracy aspect and all that goes into it.

And even if they nailed the details to the point you could measure it some how, then all the other aspects can and in most cases swamp it.

That is why for each great shooter there is their own list of what works and its like aircraft flying, because we are convinced they will, they do.
 
Top