AMP annealing guys testing the salt bath annealing method

M

MartyK2500

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
278   0   0
Location
Quebec
I was checking on their website to see how to maintain my machine (lot's of carbon ending up in the bottom) and stumbled across this article they have written.
The guys seem to say that salt bath annealing doesn't really work, which I am frankly surprised.
Don't know how much of it is real or how much of it for them to want to downplay a serious competitor, but the read was enjoyable none the less.
Cheers

www.ampannealing.com/articles/52/salt-bath-annealing--does-it-work-/


Here is a sample of the article, which is their harsh conclusion ;


Summary of molten salt bath annealing:

PROs:
When inserted into the 550°C bath for 5 – 8 seconds, the cases look terrific – just like they have been annealed. Even just 2 seconds immersion gives a great looking result. This gives the illusion of annealing.

CONs:
1. At best, all case necks were only partially annealed. Even using 550°C for 8 seconds, no case necks tested annealed softer than 120 HV, which is much harder than desirable.
2. Even when an insertion time of 20 seconds @ 550°C was used, necks were not correctly annealed. The case bodies, however, were over-annealed.
3. The process is HAZARDOUS. For those determined to try it, the following articles should be read thoroughly. This linkis an industry guide to the safe use of molten salt baths. It doesn’t even contemplate domestic use.

What is the point of taking on all that risk, when the results are so poor? There are several ways to achieve correct annealing. Molten salt bath "annealing” isn’t one of them. For those reloaders considering getting started on annealing, and who are on a budget, we would recommend a gas flame-based option.
 
Can't argue against the results. Which are salt bath annealing is for looks, not truly giving a proper anneal
 
I'm no metallurgist but what is the difference if you heat it up with induction heating, a flame, or hot salts? They will all get a metal to a certain temp for a certain amount of time.

But I am a skeptic and don't put much weight on info from someone who has a good reason to be biased until I see some info from an independent source to back it up. This report says exactly what I thought it would before I even clicked the link.

Expecting the AMP Annealer people to say any different is like expecting Lexus to put out a commercial telling you that their vehicles will get you to the grocery store but so will a Chevrolet Spark for a lot less money.

I would love an AMP Annealer but my budget won't allow it. I'm sure it does a better job than salt annealing. But the salt annealing works for me just fine..
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with this opinion, that it was not up to them to make the test.
Wether results we’re biased or not, we may never know.
There is one point that is obvious, AMP is much safer to use in a residential home, which is the exact reason why i got mine VS a salt bath annealing kit at the time.
 
MartyK2500 said:
There is one point that is obvious, AMP is much safer to use in a residential home, which is the exact reason why i got mine VS a salt bath annealing kit at the time.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that Marty. You have to be mighty careful with the salt annealing route. I just wish the AMP's weren't so expensive, otherwise I'd have one.
 
todbartell said:
Can't argue against the results. Which are salt bath annealing is for looks, not truly giving a proper anneal
Click to expand...


I disagree with your conclusion that it is for looks.

I have (access to) an AMP, and get low SD/ES and my primer pockets fail long before my necks do.

Two high volume competitive PRS/F shooters I shoot with use the salt bath, and they get low SD/ES and their case necks also outlast the primer pockets.

Being that conisistent neck tension and life are the objectives of annealing, my own conclusion is that it works just fine.
 
yomomma said:
Build your own annealer...

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...-Resurrecting-the-annealer-DONE?highlight=AMP
Click to expand...

I used to own Annealeez, which is an overpriced version of what you are running.
Using tempilac 650 1/8'' under the shoulders worked great.
Would still be using it to be honest, but when I got a year end bonus last spring, I kinda went overboard in my reloading tools, which aren't the best investment but fun to use.
The AMP mkll was 1 thing among other things that I have purchased, before AMP I had salt bath kit and annealeez, never ended up using salt bath as my reload room is 100% finished room.
 
Not publically, I did have a couple of email exchanges with people who asked me about it directly.

Bottom line, I don't take much issue with the lab results they publish. A lot of the tests were done improperly and it looks to have resulted in readings 5-10 points too high, but some tests were done correctly, and the difference between 110 and 120 HV isn't that important anyway. On the other hand I see a number of problems with their evaluation standards and the assumptions they base all their tests upon. The author doesn't appear to have a strong background in materials science, as evidenced by the crackpot "variable case area" (or whatever he called it) theory he came up with.

In a lot of ways it's symptomatic of the lack of knowledge about case annealing for reloaders, generally. I have created an annealing information section on the Ballistic Recreations webpage that I intend to populate with good quality information that is directly applicable, for example to try to get away from guessing at temperatures for 5 second anneals based on graphs made for one hour anneals. But it will take a good while to work up to the point that there's enough data there to completely refute the things AMP has published. Rome wasn't built in a day.

BTW if anybody knows of a Vickers hardness tester for sale at a good price, I'm in the market.
 
BattleRife said:
Not publically, I did have a couple of email exchanges with people who asked me about it directly.

Bottom line, I don't take much issue with the lab results they publish. A lot of the tests were done improperly and it looks to have resulted in readings 5-10 points too high, but some tests were done correctly, and the difference between 110 and 120 HV isn't that important anyway. On the other hand I see a number of problems with their evaluation standards and the assumptions they base all their tests upon. The author doesn't appear to have a strong background in materials science, as evidenced by the crackpot "variable case area" (or whatever he called it) theory he came up with.

In a lot of ways it's symptomatic of the lack of knowledge about case annealing for reloaders, generally. I have created an annealing information section on the Ballistic Recreations webpage that I intend to populate with good quality information that is directly applicable, for example to try to get away from guessing at temperatures for 5 second anneals based on graphs made for one hour anneals. But it will take a good while to work up to the point that there's enough data there to completely refute the things AMP has published. Rome wasn't built in a day.

BTW if anybody knows of a Vickers hardness tester for sale at a good price, I'm in the market.
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see your results!
Annealing always been a process filled with misconceptions and misunderstandings, myself included, I used to use torches and tempilac, hoping for the best.

Looking forward to reading your annealing information blogs,
Make sure to link them up here so we can know when to look out for them.

Even though i'm an AMP user, I like to stay informed, and try to keep my options open for when i'm helping new reloaders setup.
 
Annealing is a matter of temperature and exposure time, rather than it is a matter of technique. If your case mouths and shoulders are not annealed using the salt annealing process, its because you either didn't wait for the salt to get hot enough or because you aren't leaving the brass in the salt long enough. The good news about salt annealing is that the brass cannot get hotter than the salt its immersed in, unlike say open flame annealing where the brass can be damaged by excessive heat. If I was selling annealing machines that cost $1800, I'd be critical of the salt annealing system too, or for that matter any system that can produce the desired results for little more than 10% of the AMT's cost.

As for the dangers associated with salt bath annealing, there are only two conditions that must be avoided, the first is that the salt bath temperature cannot be allowed to exceed 590 C, which is not difficult since the normal annealing temperature is 500-550 C. The other issue is that the salt bath cannot be exposed to water, this doesn't seem to be a problem provided that prudent precautions are taken.
 
Last edited:
Aside from everything mentioned so far, maybe the biggest advantage to the AMP is the unit is so damn easy and convenient to use. And the results are exactly the same every time with no way to screw things up really.

If I was annealing with flame or salt bath I would not be annealing so often just because of the inconvenience. With the AMP annealing is a quick simple step that why not do it every firing even if you are lazy or dont have lots of extra time.
 
I can see the worth in the AMP annealing system for high volume/commercial annealing. It, once set up, is basically foolproof. A person with no interest can be taught to operate it with minimal effort.

The salt bath method has its dangers, therefore, the operator must be diligent to all aspects of safety. Temperature and dwell time must be monitored. Then you have to deal with the salt residue, which isn't a biggy, but using the brass may take awhile if air dried or take the extra step to put in oven under low heat.

The propane torch and drill method is simple and fast, the operator must pay attention to dwell time. The brass can be loaded immediately after annealing ( I just roll them on a damp cloth).

I have done the torch and drill method for a long time, now I am doing it the salt bath way. Once set up this method goes fairly quick. I use it when I have a lot of brass to do (200+). For loading a few brass I still use the torch method.

I think the AMP system should get very consistent results, especially in higher volumes.

As far as the 3 methods described, they all will anneal the brass. A good operator on the latter two compared to the AMP, I'm guessing would rival the AMP system.....on the target as well as exhibit a low ES all things being equal.
 
Longboat said:
Aside from everything mentioned so far, maybe the biggest advantage to the AMP is the unit is so damn easy and convenient to use. And the results are exactly the same every time with no way to screw things up really.

If I was annealing with flame or salt bath I would not be annealing so often just because of the inconvenience. With the AMP annealing is a quick simple step that why not do it every firing even if you are lazy or dont have lots of extra time.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
A disadvantage of the AMP system is that you are required to purchase cartridge specific pilots at $31/ea which gets expensive if you have say cartridges from a half dozen cartridge families to anneal; eg .22 Hornet, .223, .308, .300 Winchester, .404 Jeffery, .416 Rigby, even if there is commonality within a cartridge family such as .243, .260 Remington, 7-08, .308, .358 etc. Given a purchase price of nearly $1800, which poses a hardship for many, the AMT should include everything needed to put it to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom