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
Salt Bath Annealing Doesn't Work! by AMP
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="SMK1000plus" data-source="post: 1637676" data-attributes="member: 93846"><p>Let me begin by stating that I have no dog in this fight (yet) but, as <strong>Barrelnut</strong> alluded to and <strong>tailbon3</strong> suggested a fix for, as did <strong>LongBomber</strong>...</p><p></p><p>I don't doubt AMP's data per-say, I take exception to their test methodology and the conclusions they draw. AMP's own data shows their testing issue AND the solution to it! Notice chart 2, test positions 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the 550 °C for 8 seconds. The hardness is at or near the ideal (90 to 100) hardness <strong>for the case neck!</strong> At the beginning of the "testing" they set a submersion depth of 5mm beyond the case shoulder/body junction. Why? Especially when considering the test data and results that they had already collected! There seems to be a lot wrong... </p><p></p><p>Nowhere in their "well documented" testing do we see any calibrated instrument testing of the salt bath temperature during the testing. Calibrated temperature recording should have been documented throughout the testing and at several depths of the salt bath. AMP's test results strongly suggest that all the salt bath was not up to proper temperature.</p><p></p><p>AMP's testing also revealed that, not only did annealing take place but, they submerged the cases too deep! Just looking at their test data, it appears to me that (kind of what <strong>LongBomber </strong>suggested) a single dip for 8 seconds at 550 °C <strong>0.1" above the case neck/shoulder junction</strong> would anneal the case nearly perfectly!</p><p></p><p>How could they possibly miss these issues or not see that their own test data provided all the necessary corrections for near perfect annealing, unless they were intentionally slanting the results to favor their interests.</p><p></p><p>Who was it that said; "there are lies, d*mn lies, and then there are statistics!"?</p><p></p><p>JMHO.</p><p>Kevin</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SMK1000plus, post: 1637676, member: 93846"] Let me begin by stating that I have no dog in this fight (yet) but, as [B]Barrelnut[/B] alluded to and [B]tailbon3[/B] suggested a fix for, as did [B]LongBomber[/B]... I don't doubt AMP's data per-say, I take exception to their test methodology and the conclusions they draw. AMP's own data shows their testing issue AND the solution to it! Notice chart 2, test positions 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the 550 °C for 8 seconds. The hardness is at or near the ideal (90 to 100) hardness [B]for the case neck![/B] At the beginning of the "testing" they set a submersion depth of 5mm beyond the case shoulder/body junction. Why? Especially when considering the test data and results that they had already collected! There seems to be a lot wrong... Nowhere in their "well documented" testing do we see any calibrated instrument testing of the salt bath temperature during the testing. Calibrated temperature recording should have been documented throughout the testing and at several depths of the salt bath. AMP's test results strongly suggest that all the salt bath was not up to proper temperature. AMP's testing also revealed that, not only did annealing take place but, they submerged the cases too deep! Just looking at their test data, it appears to me that (kind of what [B]LongBomber [/B]suggested) a single dip for 8 seconds at 550 °C [B]0.1" above the case neck/shoulder junction[/B] would anneal the case nearly perfectly! How could they possibly miss these issues or not see that their own test data provided all the necessary corrections for near perfect annealing, unless they were intentionally slanting the results to favor their interests. Who was it that said; "there are lies, d*mn lies, and then there are statistics!"? JMHO. Kevin [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Salt Bath Annealing Doesn't Work! by AMP
Top