Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Expanding vs Turning Mandrels
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="QuietTexan" data-source="post: 2426934" data-attributes="member: 116181"><p>My process is the same as you said - size down, mandrel up, use the same size bushing/die and mandrel every time, working towards minimal movement all around the case. The initial fireforming takes a more than one firing, that's the only reason I do anything differently at the beginning - only sizing the case web and neck until the shoulders fill out, anneal once, then start the consistent loading process cycle until the necks don't size correctly anymore. </p><p></p><p>The problem I'm facing is there aren't a lot of cycles before cases start getting hard because my necks move so much in several chambers. My goal is to get a consistent and repeatable anneal so that I can use the same bushing and mandrel <em>regardless of how far the neck expands each shot</em>, since neck clearance can't be controlled until I start buying a lot more reamers (and letting people I shoot with use them). I think that's what you're saying with sizing plan or annealing later on - you control via sizing, but I'm saying I can't control via sizing because of excessive neck expansion, so I'm using annealing to try to compensate. And don't want to get caught in a loop while I'm trying.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That makes perfect sense, and I agree with the sizing plan logic. I'm looking at an annealing plan as part of a process where I can move a neck 0.004-0.008" without excessively hardening the case and getting consistent, minimal spring back.</p><p></p><p>I'm thinking that since an induction annealer can be set very precisely in terms of time and energy delivery, I can find a repeatable anneal setting that can be used more frequently (potentially before each) sizing cycle - more akin to your stress relief anneal and not full anneal - in cases where the neck movement when fired is excessive. Salt annealing could probably do the same thing, but with the induction machine I can hit a few buttons to change the setting and not have to try to change the pot temp. Flame may work great for some people but not me, I'm not consistent enough to be successful with it with what I'm trying to do here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And now that you put it in words, I guess my ultimate goal is exactly what you said - use a sizing mandrel at caliber size in a case sized such that running the mandrel doesn't move the neck, so the only spring back from the mandrel is exactly what a seated bullet would be subject to. That's got to be the ideal amount of spring back for any given caliber because seating the bullet wouldn't change anything in the case. At that point the length of neck sizing is the last variable, but as long as it's held constant at some setting that would get you very consistent and repeatable seating.</p><p></p><p>Now this might be a fool's errand, but I have a pin gauge set to measure actual spring back at different anneal settings to see if there's any truth to my thought that I can find a setting where a full-caliber mandrel goes in and out without the neck dimension changing after sizing down from whatever a chamber gives me. </p><p></p><p>Watch it that the AZTEC code does this the first time, and all I did was confirm their research. I wouldn't even post it if I did, I'd need an asbestos suit to survive the flaming. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🤣" title="Rolling on the floor laughing :rofl:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" data-shortname=":rofl:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="QuietTexan, post: 2426934, member: 116181"] My process is the same as you said - size down, mandrel up, use the same size bushing/die and mandrel every time, working towards minimal movement all around the case. The initial fireforming takes a more than one firing, that's the only reason I do anything differently at the beginning - only sizing the case web and neck until the shoulders fill out, anneal once, then start the consistent loading process cycle until the necks don't size correctly anymore. The problem I'm facing is there aren't a lot of cycles before cases start getting hard because my necks move so much in several chambers. My goal is to get a consistent and repeatable anneal so that I can use the same bushing and mandrel [I]regardless of how far the neck expands each shot[/I], since neck clearance can't be controlled until I start buying a lot more reamers (and letting people I shoot with use them). I think that's what you're saying with sizing plan or annealing later on - you control via sizing, but I'm saying I can't control via sizing because of excessive neck expansion, so I'm using annealing to try to compensate. And don't want to get caught in a loop while I'm trying. That makes perfect sense, and I agree with the sizing plan logic. I'm looking at an annealing plan as part of a process where I can move a neck 0.004-0.008" without excessively hardening the case and getting consistent, minimal spring back. I'm thinking that since an induction annealer can be set very precisely in terms of time and energy delivery, I can find a repeatable anneal setting that can be used more frequently (potentially before each) sizing cycle - more akin to your stress relief anneal and not full anneal - in cases where the neck movement when fired is excessive. Salt annealing could probably do the same thing, but with the induction machine I can hit a few buttons to change the setting and not have to try to change the pot temp. Flame may work great for some people but not me, I'm not consistent enough to be successful with it with what I'm trying to do here. And now that you put it in words, I guess my ultimate goal is exactly what you said - use a sizing mandrel at caliber size in a case sized such that running the mandrel doesn't move the neck, so the only spring back from the mandrel is exactly what a seated bullet would be subject to. That's got to be the ideal amount of spring back for any given caliber because seating the bullet wouldn't change anything in the case. At that point the length of neck sizing is the last variable, but as long as it's held constant at some setting that would get you very consistent and repeatable seating. Now this might be a fool's errand, but I have a pin gauge set to measure actual spring back at different anneal settings to see if there's any truth to my thought that I can find a setting where a full-caliber mandrel goes in and out without the neck dimension changing after sizing down from whatever a chamber gives me. Watch it that the AZTEC code does this the first time, and all I did was confirm their research. I wouldn't even post it if I did, I'd need an asbestos suit to survive the flaming. 🤣 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Expanding vs Turning Mandrels
Top