That's an interesting response, but for it to be true the AMP folks would have to actually be falsifying their independent lab analysis of the actual softening that occurred in the subject brass. Is that what you are saying they did - published falsified results? Just curious, as a sort of a scientific type I can't see any other way to take that.
Thanks,
Rex
Not exactly, there are other possibilities.
For example, the AMP article is based on their a priori assumption that hardness testing is the only true measure of the results of annealing.
That assumption is interesting, but it's conjecture and certainly not a well established scientific fact.
Ideally, for the purposes of a cartridge case, one wants brass to maintain a certain hardness. The problem with work hardened brass in that application is not necessarily the increased hardness, but the loss of ductility and potential development of stress fractures.
To simply maintain that Salt Bath Annealing has no effect on brass denies the actual results of actual users experience.
As to the difference between Recovery Annealing and Full Annealing...
Candle Annealing was explained fully by Mule Deer in a paragraph or two. With a total investment of One Dollar ($1) to get set up and started one can achieve PROVEN results.
PROVEN by analysis and proven by decades of actual testing by thousands of users.
Annealing as defined by AMP requires a 300 page scientific treatise to show that only their machine will work, and costs $1500.
After reading the AMP scientific treatise, apparently only the $1500 machine method will work at all.
If that is truly the case, how did millions of Benchrest and Match shooters possibly ever manage to Anneal their brass cases for 100 years before the AMP machine was invented?
Hell...I've been doing it for over half that long.
After all, a simple method that only costs a dollar ($1) can't possibly achieve the same results as a $1500 unit...can it...?
Hey...I just ask the questions... one can draw their own conclusions...
