Annealing question

[Capt. Oblivious]

Anyone know if the bench rest top shooters anneal. In my limited testing I found that if you want to anneal then be prepared to do it after every firing as well as working up your load doing this. Otherwise I found no accuracy gain although there may be a gain in less split necks. JMO

 

[Straightshooter1]

. . . and if anyone is curious about how the numbers add up:

 

[Dave M.]

. . . and if anyone is curious about how the numbers add up:

View attachment 1467318

That data seems to speak volumes. Annealing = smaller groups

 

[Ccrider]

That data seems to speak volumes. Annealing = smaller groups

Please explain why you accept this as valid when the two groups were shot with different guns. Even though he claims the guns are identical, presumably I build specs, I have trouble believing they shoot identically.

 

[William Vogel]

Here’s my thoughts. If I’m going to ever anneal a piece of brass in my reloading process ( I anneal every firing), I would always anneal every piece every time. The annealing process for me is simple and fast. I use an annealeze. The amp annealer looks more time consuming. It might be better but that’s subjective. If annealed brass shoots differently than non annealed brass with everything else being equal, then the load needs to be optimized for the annealed brass. The process supposedly makes the brass last longer, therefore you get more shots before a load rework. New different brass will require a new work up unless you get really lucky. I really enjoy shooting but reworking a load is not as fun to me as shooting a known good load. Trusting a load helps me work on me as a shooter vs questioning whether it’s me, the gun or the cartridge. For the work I spend before I shoot I just feel better using the exact same steps every time.

 

[Goatdude67]

I anneal my precision rounds with each firing and the 223 I shoot in Highpower every other firing. More consistent shoulder bump back and more consistent neck tension. Brass necks last far longer before splitting (the primer pockets outlast the necks since I started annealing) Results on the target also convincing.

 

[Dave M.]

Please explain why you accept this as valid when the two groups were shot with different guns. Even though he claims the guns are identical, presumably I build specs, I have trouble believing they shoot identically.

Because I merely looked at the data. I didn’t know they came from two different guns. I didn’t even watch the video. Not sure why anyone would post annealing vs not annealing data between two different rifles. That obviously is like comparing an apple to an orange.
Dave

 

[K22]

This topic, like "cleaning" does not necessarily have to become a controversy. "One size" may not fit everyone needs, or tolerance for increasing the equipment and time to add another step in the reloading process.

Shooters who anneal do so because they either have experienced the benefits or because they want to prevent poor results by maintaining as much consistency in their cases as possible.

Then there are shooters like me, who don't anneal and never did and who are content with the results they are obtaining on target and most assuredly do not want to add more equipment, steps and time to the reloading process. For some of us, reloading is a necessary burden and it ain't fun.

If you are in the ultra-precision game like the benchrest guys, it kind of makes sense that consistency in ammo is paramount. It would seem that annealing achieves that so there may be a need for it in that discipline. I won't engage these guys in a reloading debate because their accuracy standards are so much higher than mine. Just look at their targets, the successful ones know what they are doing in the world of ultra-precision.

In my game, in the world of practical field shooting I know what I am doing. There are so many variables, the shooter being the most significant, that wringing out a few more thousandths in group reduction is not worth the time, expense, and effort. Honing one's field shooting skills has a bigger payoff because there is so much less artificial support in the shooting position in this world.

I will borrow a concept by Ryan Cleckner, Special Operations Sniper, define what is acceptable accuracy for your needs. Once you do that, you have a standard to work towards to adapt and test your reloading, cleaning regime, etc. against that standard.

 

[Ccrider]

Because I merely looked at the data. I didn’t know they came from two different guns. I didn’t even watch the video. Not sure why anyone would post annealing vs not annealing data between two different rifles. That obviously is like comparing an apple to an orange.
Dave

As usual, my hat is off to to you sir. Your post are always spot on.

 

[Dave M.]

As usual, my hat is off to to you sir.

I just assumed that anyone posting A vs. B data would only change one single variable (ie annealing) and would obviously shoot them from the same gun.

 

[Straightshooter1]

This topic, like "cleaning" does not necessarily have to become a controversy. "One size" may not fit everyone needs, or tolerance for increasing the equipment and time to add another step in the reloading process.

Shooters who anneal do so because they either have experienced the benefits or because they want to prevent poor results by maintaining as much consistency in their cases as possible.

Then there are shooters like me, who don't anneal and never did and who are content with the results they are obtaining on target and most assuredly do not want to add more equipment, steps and time to the reloading process. For some of us, reloading is a necessary burden and it ain't fun.

If you are in the ultra-precision game like the benchrest guys, it kind of makes sense that consistency in ammo is paramount. It would seem that annealing achieves that so there may be a need for it in that discipline. I won't engage these guys in a reloading debate because their accuracy standards are so much higher than mine. Just look at their targets, the successful ones know what they are doing in the world of ultra-precision.

In my game, in the world of practical field shooting I know what I am doing. There are so many variables, the shooter being the most significant, that wringing out a few more thousandths in group reduction is not worth the time, expense, and effort. Honing one's field shooting skills has a bigger payoff because there is so much less artificial support in the shooting position in this world.

I will borrow a concept by Ryan Cleckner, Special Operations Sniper, define what is acceptable accuracy for your needs. Once you do that, you have a standard to work towards to adapt and test your reloading, cleaning regime, etc. against that standard.

Hmmm??? The way I see it . . .
If my rifle and ammo produces groups with large ES's, I'm more likely to miss with my "practical field shooting" than if my rifle and ammo produces groups with very small ES's.

Because I merely looked at the data. I didn’t know they came from two different guns. I didn’t even watch the video. Not sure why anyone would post annealing vs not annealing data between two different rifles. That obviously is like comparing an apple to an orange.
Dave

While two different guns can certainly be and issue and call into question the validity of the test, as it has, given the knowledge, expertise and history that Lou Murdica has, I'd give him a lot of positive weight to his claim that his two guns shoot the same (not that the claim is an absolute). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[BoydAllen]

There is a little fly in the ointment. Not all winning long range benchrest shooters anneal their cases. I do not make this assertion based on guesses. Also, at short range in the group benchrest game, few anneal and if you inspect the match results you may find that the top shooters do pretty well.

 

[K22]

Hmmm??? The way I see it . . .
If my rifle and ammo produces groups with large ES's, I'm more likely to miss with my "practical field shooting" than if my rifle and ammo produces groups with very small ES's.

Not necessarily if your focus and effort is on squeezing out a few thousands smaller moa rather than developing your marksmanship skill especially in shooting conditions where there is less artificial support compared to a bench, front and rear rest.

I saw it for 30 years in competitive pistol shooting. Guys spending all their energy and money on trying to buy their way to the top. For example, one of the top shooters on our "gold" team (the top 5 shooters) shot a stock Ruger in the rimfire stage. He was an exceptional marksman and could handle match pressure better than most. Another guy quite affluent, never made the gold team despite using superior target grade ammo and a superior Model 41 S&W. When that didn't produce the results he wanted, he moved on to another pistol, even brought one of the very best and expensive European pistols at the time. But the results were the same. This was not an isolated case, saw a lot of it also in Hunter's Pistol Silhouette competition.

Now before you blow as gasket, I understand the concept you are making, and it is valid. In the perfect world, take two shooters with equal skill, the one with the better equipment will win. But we do not live in a perfect world. Of course, you want the best equipment you can obtain and afford but unless you master the fundamentals of marksmanship it won't matter than much.