Split necks.

[Sheldon N]

No connection between pressure and split necks? I thought that was one of the potential indicators.

No connection.

Thanks, appreciate the clarification.

 

[jlow]

This is very odd and is not likely caused either by OP's firing or annealing. I am guessing that the cases were not prepared properly by the manufacture i.e. not annealed properly before first firing.

 

[savagedasher]

Nothing assumed here. I have the reamer in my hand. My measurments are EXACTLY the same as on the print.
Reamer.... .3715 neck, .242 freebore, 1.30 degree lead
loaded round neck diameter.... .366.

Fired round neck diameter.... .370

loaded round OAL.... 4.08"

Now, that is a little more neck clearance (.0055) than I usually run (.003), but the reamer was made based on the Rem 300 RUM brass..the only brass available at the time. The Bertrom brass is a touch thinner.

91.5 is NOT A "PIPE BOMB" !! It ( the load and the velocity) is right in there with every other edge shooter's loads that I have ever heard from. Gun (BAT "M") 30" Brux was taken to 95 grains before any PSI signs appeared. With my Edge I ended up using the exact same load with REM brass and got 7 firings on the brass. The PP's are just now starting to get a little loose.

The question is then the brass your using how much are you working it . Nothing else matters
Larry

The numbers above tell you EXACTLY how much I am working the brass. I guess the number I omitted is the sized case neck diameter...... .364. I am using a .367 bushing to get this, which makes no sense at all to me. But I also have a .365 and a .364 bushing, and the FELT neck tension on the press handle when seating a bullet is a whole lot more with the smaller bushings. This gave me some verticle at 1000+ yards. The .366 bushing took care of most of the verticle. I know that this is not very "scientific", but feel is the only test method I have.

You stated the reamer neck size was . .3715 using that number for a reference . How hard is it to under stand busing size subtracted from .3715 will tell you the number on how much your working the brass.
Just because you have a reamer with that neck size doesn't mean the chamber is that. WHAT is the neck size of a fired brass ? Take that number and subtract .364 from it and that will give you the answer . Larry

 

[4xforfun]

Nothing assumed here. I have the reamer in my hand. My measurments are EXACTLY the same as on the print.
Reamer.... .3715 neck, .242 freebore, 1.30 degree lead
loaded round neck diameter.... .366.

Fired round neck diameter.... .370

loaded round OAL.... 4.08"

Now, that is a little more neck clearance (.0055) than I usually run (.003), but the reamer was made based on the Rem 300 RUM brass..the only brass available at the time. The Bertrom brass is a touch thinner.

91.5 is NOT A "PIPE BOMB" !! It ( the load and the velocity) is right in there with every other edge shooter's loads that I have ever heard from. Gun (BAT "M") 30" Brux was taken to 95 grains before any PSI signs appeared. With my Edge I ended up using the exact same load with REM brass and got 7 firings on the brass. The PP's are just now starting to get a little loose.

The question is then the brass your using how much are you working it . Nothing else matters
Larry

The numbers above tell you EXACTLY how much I am working the brass. I guess the number I omitted is the sized case neck diameter...... .364. I am using a .367 bushing to get this, which makes no sense at all to me. But I also have a .365 and a .364 bushing, and the FELT neck tension on the press handle when seating a bullet is a whole lot more with the smaller bushings. This gave me some verticle at 1000+ yards. The .366 bushing took care of most of the verticle. I know that this is not very "scientific", but feel is the only test method I have.

You stated the reamer neck size was . .3715 using that number for a reference . How hard is it to under stand busing size subtracted from .3715 will tell you the number on how much your working the brass.
Just because you have a reamer with that neck size doesn't mean the chamber is that. WHAT is the neck size of a fired brass ? Take that number and subtract .364 from it and that will give you the answer . Larry

You need to re read my posts. I stated the fired neck diameter is .370. That is .0015 spring back from the chamber and .006 bigger than sized brass. Like I said, what I don't understand is how I can size the brass with a .366 bushing and come away with brass that measures .364 after sizing.

Another question.....How can the chambe neckr be bigger than the reamer? I am NOT a smith, so I am wondering how this can happen.

Thanks,
Tod

 

[Dusty Stevens]

It cant be smaller but runout can make it bigger- and usually does!

 

[savagedasher]

Just using the numbers stated. The neck is being worked in excess of six thousands.
Larry

 

[Sheldon N]

You need to re read my posts. I stated the fired neck diameter is .370. That is .0015 spring back from the chamber and .006 bigger than sized brass. Like I said, what I don't understand is how I can size the brass with a .366 bushing and come away with brass that measures .366 after sizing.

Some info on the issue here...

http://www.redding-reloading.com/tech-line-a-tips-faqs/140-bushing-selection

Excerpt:
It has come to our attention through customer calls and our own use of the bushing style sizing dies that in certain instances, a given neck sizing bushing will produce a case neck diameter that can be several thousandths of an inch smaller than the actual diameter of the bushing. This idiosyncrasy occurs when the neck diameter of the fired case is a great deal larger than the diameter of the neck sizing bushing, such as occurs when factory chambers are on the large side of the tolerance range and the brass is on the thin side. Typically, we have not noticed any problems until the case neck is reduced more than 0.008-0.010".

Solutions include, increasing bushing diameter to compensate and/or the use of a size button. Reducing the neck diameter in two smaller steps by using an intermediate diameter bushing will also help. More concentric necks will also result using this method, as the case necks are stressed less during sizing. Don't forget to properly chamfer the inside and outside of the case mouths and apply a light coating of lubricant to the case necks before sizing.

I've seen this effect before in reloading 308 Lapua brass. I've got a .336 bushing doing roughly a .006 size reduction from fired brass and I'll get a .335 neck as a result.

 

[4xforfun]

I just ran another 6 brass through the die with the .366 bushing. Looks like we are just shy of .365 neck diameter. Still a full point UNDER what is printed on the bushing. ?? That also equates working the brass just a touch over .005. Not ideal, but considering the size of the case I am working with and how sloppy some other chambers are (ie ..factory chambers) I can't believe that I am over working the brass.

 

[Sheldon N]

Yep, same thing I'm getting with a 0.0055- .006 reduction. There's no explanation given for why that happens, but if I had to guess it's that a larger size reduction forces the brass through the bushing at an angle, resulting in the slightly smaller diameter.

 

[jlow]

Unfortunately I have seen this too many times... One can also figure out the internal diameter of the bushing by first measuring the thickness of its walls at 3 points and then the outer diameter of the bushing. Outer diameter minus wall thickness = internal diameter.

 

[savagedasher]

I just ran another 6 brass through the die with the .366 bushing. Looks like we are just shy of .365 neck diameter. Still a full point UNDER what is printed on the bushing. ??

Guy read what you just wrote. The 366 bushing sized the case one thousand smaller. the .365 comparing the numbers would make the neck .364 Dusty told you the reamer was a minimum . Knowing that just for a reference the neck in the chamber could be very easy one thousand bigger.
.371
- 364
= .007 That can be excessive expansion for the brass you are using.
Larry

 

[4xforfun]

I just ran another 6 brass through the die with the .366 bushing. Looks like we are just shy of .365 neck diameter. Still a full point UNDER what is printed on the bushing. ??

Guy read what you just wrote. The 366 bushing sized the case one thousand smaller. the .365 comparing the numbers would make the neck .364 Dusty told you the reamer was a minimum . Knowing that just for a reference the neck in the chamber could be very easy one thousand bigger.
.371
- 364
= .007 That can be excessive expansion for the brass you are using.
Larry

OK..forget the .364 number....it no longer exists. That piece of brass was sized two years ago and put in the little kit I keep for each tube (Loaded dummy round, the little piece of the bbl with all the info on it, a once fired case that has been sized). it may well have been sized with a smaller bushing, as I may not have had the .366 bushing yet. Lets use the .365 number...it is accurate and recent.

Now, I agree, that is still working the brass .006. Now, if we were working a 223 rem .006 we would probably be working the brass to much. But, how about the 338. or, say a 50 caliber. If we were working with a 50 BMG and were working the brass .006, would that be exsessive?" How about a 20mm ? Something in my head tells me that the size of the case matters. I could be wrong. What does every one think about that???

 

[jlow]

I just ran another 6 brass through the die with the .366 bushing. Looks like we are just shy of .365 neck diameter. Still a full point UNDER what is printed on the bushing. ??

Guy read what you just wrote. The 366 bushing sized the case one thousand smaller. the .365 comparing the numbers would make the neck .364 Dusty told you the reamer was a minimum . Knowing that just for a reference the neck in the chamber could be very easy one thousand bigger.
.371
- 364
= .007 That can be excessive expansion for the brass you are using.
Larry

Excessive for a tight chamber but don't factory chambers approach that number and we don't see 50% neck splits after 1 firing? Just saying...

 

[4xforfun]

I just ran another 6 brass through the die with the .366 bushing. Looks like we are just shy of .365 neck diameter. Still a full point UNDER what is printed on the bushing. ??

Guy read what you just wrote. The 366 bushing sized the case one thousand smaller. the .365 comparing the numbers would make the neck .364 Dusty told you the reamer was a minimum . Knowing that just for a reference the neck in the chamber could be very easy one thousand bigger.
.371
- 364
= .007 That can be excessive expansion for the brass you are using.
Larry

Excessive for a tight chamber but don't factory chambers approach that number and we don't see 50% neck splits after 1 firing? Just saying...

OK...so this brings us full circle. Annealing brass to avoid split necks due to excessive work hardening of the brass.

Just sayin... ;D
Tod

 

[jlow]

I just ran another 6 brass through the die with the .366 bushing. Looks like we are just shy of .365 neck diameter. Still a full point UNDER what is printed on the bushing. ??

Guy read what you just wrote. The 366 bushing sized the case one thousand smaller. the .365 comparing the numbers would make the neck .364 Dusty told you the reamer was a minimum . Knowing that just for a reference the neck in the chamber could be very easy one thousand bigger.
.371
- 364
= .007 That can be excessive expansion for the brass you are using.
Larry

Excessive for a tight chamber but don't factory chambers approach that number and we don't see 50% neck splits after 1 firing? Just saying...

OK...so this brings us full circle. Annealing brass to avoid split necks due to excessive work hardening of the brass.

Just sayin... ;D
Tod

Not at all... I said in reply #21 which you have ignored...

"This is very odd and is not likely caused either by OP's firing or annealing. I am guessing that the cases were not prepared properly by the manufacture i.e. not annealed properly before first firing."

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Im just glad theyre gonna replace your brass even after you annealed it. They may have had a bad run and dont know it. Ive heard they were a good company

 

[jlow]

The fact that they are willing to replace your brass may also be because they know something you don't. It is indeed very generous, more than any brass manufacturer I know will do, but it does also make me a bit suspicious..

 

[Ledd Slinger]

So now that we are back to square one, read this article. If you dont reach the right temp, then you are just wasting your time. But dont take it from me, below is a link to a good article on annealing. According to this article, using your 600 degree tempilaq isnt allowing the brass to get hot enough. He also mentions the dark room method of determining temp, which I know works. I'll never use tempilaq.

http://www.annealingmachines.com/how-to-anneal.html

 

[jlow]

So now that we are back to square one, read this article. If you dont reach the right temp, then you are just wasting your time. But dont take it from me, below is a link to a good article on annealing. According to this article, using your 600 degree tempilaq isnt allowing the brass to get hot enough. He also mentions the dark room method of determining temp, which I know works. I'll never use tempilaq.

http://www.annealingmachines.com/how-to-anneal.html

It’s not the OP annealing. Even if you are 100% right and the OP did not anneal his brass, he has wasted his time but that is NOT going to cause 50% of his brass to split after 1 firing. The worst thing that would happen is he over anneals and they become too soft. Trust me, I have done tens of thousands.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

So now that we are back to square one, read this article. If you dont reach the right temp, then you are just wasting your time. But dont take it from me, below is a link to a good article on annealing. According to this article, using your 600 degree tempilaq isnt allowing the brass to get hot enough. He also mentions the dark room method of determining temp, which I know works. I'll never use tempilaq.

http://www.annealingmachines.com/how-to-anneal.html

It’s not the OP annealing. Even if you are 100% right and the OP did not anneal his brass, he has wasted his time but that is NOT going to cause 50% of his brass to split after 1 firing. The worst thing that would happen is he over anneals and they become too soft. Trust me, I have done tens of thousands.

Thats true. They shouldnt be splitting on second firing regardless of annealing.