Popsbengo

Spot on Lukas, I agree fully. The only sensible tests are case life and SD performance. I'm sure AMP make a fine product but there seems to be an awful lot of BSBB in their article. I especially liked their "warning" about over-annealing the case head - for sure they are correct about not weakening the case but why on earth would anyone leave a case in the salt bath so long as to bugger it up just to achieve their "recommended hardness" !!

loverly jubbly

If it fits without distortion I would think there's no advantage.

Is one advantage of the Norma that you can shoot it at Bisley? Using Hornady 4DOF doppler radar calc: Running a 30 cal 220gn SMK at 3000fps gives 92.3 moa drop at 2000yds. .338 300gn SMK at 2850fps = 84.8 moa drop at 2000yds. Not a huge amount of difference.

I wonder if the subject is somewhat confused by the loose use of 'anneal' as the process that's being used. Annealing is modifying the grain structure and the homogeneous nature of the alloy materials. Stress relieving is the reduction of internal stresses built up by cold working. Both are time/temperature related for brass alloys. Is what we are trying to achieve actually stress relief ? I'm not sure that Vickers hardness testing (as used by Amp) is actually wholly relevant to the needs of the reloader. Any metallurgists out there to enlighten me?

To my mind the best test is: 1) does your brass last - ie, is cracking prevented/reduced? 2) do you get good ballistic performance from your brass? Group size etc? If the answer is yes to both then one has achieved ones goal. The effects they (Amp) report may be well founded but are they over-egging the issue?

Let me guess, they are peddling an alternative system? For fork sake, it's biased propaganda peddling as information. Bullshit baffles brains. Molten salt annealing and heat treatment is a tried and tested system common in engineering and used for the last 150 years. In the end, just do what you feel's right.

Cheers Bradders, makes perfect sense to me to replace rather than refurbish. For interest I've just, since posting earlier, done 5 measurements each bullet type with my Hornady set up: SMK 155, Lap Scenar 155 and Hornady 178 ELD-M. in my .308 ORSIS 24". With all three bullet profiles I got +/- 1thou. each reading with the SMK and ELD; Lapua cock on (better than 0.5'). I like the Hornady gauge, it works for me. With regard to erosion (Ignoring the ELD's because I've only recently started developing them) in 2,109 shots from new the throat has moved back 2thou. for the SMK and 6thou. for the Scenars. Not much to be concerned with I reckon.

Bradders In principle is it a matter of removing the barrel, and machining / reaming the chamber back to spec?

I agree, it's something I do regularly however the rate of erosion is pleasingly slow on my 308

Wise man, checking costs now't, 🤫

2mm, 80thou; I'm intrigued! How can that be? All it's doing is presenting a sliding bullet in a case against a back stop. Where could such a gross error occur - I'm genuinely interested. I use a dowel down the bore to ease the bullet off the lands, take five measurements, with five new bullets and average the result - often the individual measurements are within 1thou. If the loaded ammo is measured with the same calibers and gauges it should be exact to a tight tolerance. Works on 223, 308 and 338 without any problems. Granted the Hornady modified case could be slightly different to one's own fire formed but that's a measurable constant to be offset.

sure, but wax polish is cheaper if you need to go out and buy it

Or you can use the Hornady gauge and save yourself a load of trouble about a thou' here or there. Why do shooters create such voodoo around simple engineering?

That's done then https://nra.org.uk/offensive-weapons-act-2019-new-prohibitions/

+1. I also put a coat of hard wax on the action so the epoxy don't stick

Me too! I agree they look good on paper. I've just done some initial development for them using N540 ('cause I have it). 2730 fps and a good tight group at 100yds. 24" barrel, 1:11. Seems to be a clean, full burn. Will be trying 500yds tomorrow and I'm off to Eskdalemuir to try +1000 on Monday. I'll feed back.

If you disconnect the thermostat be damned careful not to walk away, get distracted and let the salts get above 550C, things get seriously hazardous to health.

Dunc, Don't understand the "non-salt annealing kit"? Do you mean the kit but without the salts provided? You can get them at APC Pure - see earlier posts. I believe the Ballistics Creation kit is designed around the Lee pot dimensions. I'm informed the Lee pot is around 72mm diameter (don't know how deep). The Lyman pot is 100mm diameter and 70mm deep. I built my own rig from scratch around a Lyman pot. My guess is the Ballistics kit is too small for the Lyman.

resolution and magnification are related but not the same thing. A first class scope will resolve better than a cheap one at the same magnification - that's why top quality gear costs so much more than cheap and cheerful or indeed midrange scopes like Minox. A £300 scope isn't going to have lenses anywhere near as good as a £2000 scope. My Vortex Razor spotting scope (not quite the best, but good) easily resolves bullet holes at 300m at x60 mag. Further than that and atmospherics/mirage makes it difficult.

Well done Lukas, nice to see an alternative to .375 triumph

Re Chris P. found it!

Yes, on my Lyman pot. There are three self tappers, I just discarded them. The crucible coating has all but fallen off now and the 'puck' just comes away with a tap.

Nice job. I take the jig out of the salts whist molten, let everything go cold and then pop the crucible out of the heating element, turn upside down and knock the 'puck' out to store in a plastic bag. I wash the residual salts off and dry everything ready for the next go.

Yes, it's a technique that's been around for a long time. It relies on the brass not 'wetting out' and the lead sticking (like soldering when flux is applied).