Annealing Gas Checks

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I made a short simple video of how I do it.

I didn't see any GC annealing videos on youtube so this might help some noobs who might be having trouble seating theirs.
http://youtu.be/DMRZQdZixTE

[iraiam]

You're right that was the easy way, I'll try that next time I need to anneal a batch.

I need to anneal gas checks when I make my soft alloy hollow points for 9mm or .357, if the gas check is too hard I can deform the softer bullet when I size them in my top punch sizer luber, a soft gas check seems to take care of the issue.

[dahermit]

I did not watch the video...my connections is too slow and I am too impatient.
Nevertheless, I too use an easy way of annealing gas checks. During the Winter when I have a fire in the fire place, I put a box of them into a capped 2 inch, eight inch iron pipe nipple with at least one of the pipe caps slightly loose. I drop it into the fire and the next morning when it has cooled down, I remove it from the fire, unscrew the cap and dump the annealed checks back into their boxes.
And, I did not have to make a vidio to explain it...there is no need to go Cecil B. DeMille on everyone.

[Real Gun]

deleted in favor of new thread

[Real Gun]

Sorry

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

I've never encounter a work hardened gas check myself. To where trying to mount it correctly to the base of a bullets ring would require so much force as to near break a reloaders bench top. Wow!!

As I know from looking at the Hornady site there is a crimping lip that requires enough pressure so to have that lip be crushed into the the bullets casts material itself during its mounting process. By annealing or softening that disks lip. You are defeating that lips intended purpose.

So hears my advice:
Those who have encounter the same scenario of work hardened gas check not easily mounted in their Lee tool. I would send that Die back to Lee with a note what's going on with its use. If there's no resolving of the problem by Lee. I would then look to one of the other manufactures like RCBS Lyman or Redding/ Saeco for your bullet lubri-sizer tool.

S/S

[dahermit]

I've never encounter a work hardened gas check myself.

If you use gas checks, yes you have. They all come that way from rolling to correct thickness, punched out with dies, forming. Annealing gas checks is and has been a standard practice for cast bullet rifle shooters for years. Cast Lead Bullet Association shooters have found that annealed checks result in a bullet that is more accurate, and much easier to apply. The difference in "springiness" between an annealed check and an un-annealed one is obvious when you apply them to the bullet bases. On some bullets it is down-right difficult to get an un-annealed check on without significant difficulty. Anneal a few for comparison and you will see. Annealing takes a lot of frustration out of the process.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

If you use gas checks, yes you have.

Nope. Not that I've ever recall. But I've owned a RCBS Lube/sizer II press well over 20 years. Never a struggle have I ever encountered with installing Hornady G/Cs either. I've also Gas Checked well over 700 lbs of pure lino during those years of press ownership. Linotype use. As you know is just about the hardest (BHN) metal available to us home reloaders.

You have to admit heating checks to soften their tensile strength on purpose. Does defeat the crimp lips purpose? and probably Hornady's product liability also.

S/S

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I've had no problems with the lip crimp. Seems to work just fine once annealed.

[dahermit]

You have to admit heating checks to soften their tensile strength on purpose. Does defeat the crimp lips purpose? and probably Hornady's product liability also.

What I have to admit, is that I actually know the difference between tensile strength and toughness and other specific metallurgical terms because I have studied them in college. An annealed check will have less spring-back when it it sized and the crimp feature is pressed into the lead alloy of the bullet.

Also, I do not do any "Chicken Little", speculating on Hornady's product liability...do you actually think that annealing a gas check will have the gun blow-up in your face?

[dahermit]

I've had no problems with the lip crimp. Seems to work just fine once annealed.

Shhhh. Do not tell Sure Shot.

[dahermit]

Nope. Not that I've ever recall.

Is I posted, they come in a work-hardened state. They resist deformation and they exhibit spring-back. In all, the work-hardened properties make them noticeably harder (and annoying), to apply to the bases of some bullets. Nevertheless do not take my word for it. Anneal some and try them to see if there is a difference.

[dahermit]

...mount it correctly to the base of a bullets ring...

There's my problem, I do not know what a "bullets ring", is.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

dahermit critiquing of S/S's comments

No returned arguments nor critiquing behavior will you have to endure from me today. It's such a beautiful day here that I had my morning coffee served to me out under the canopy of my veranda. Just so there's no mistaken my articulation this time. "I actually arose from my bed in a positive attitude Sir. And have since decided to take the day off and go fishing." _Pickup's gassed up, boats fueled up, wife is making a few sandwiches for our onboard dinning as I write. That being said. dahermit your attendance is needed right here on the threads. As I now log off. I'm happy knowing. "Yes indeed. dahermit's in charge"_

S/S

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Here is a after thought to consider for those over-heating their g/checks. If the manufactures thought it was OK to do. Don't you think the Checks would come that way from the manufacture to begin with? Or at the very least print it's Acceptance on the side or a note found in the box itself. As for myself. Before over heating my Checks because another say's I can or should. I would call Hornady's Customer Service or ask for Hornady's Technical Help Dept. and pose that question of (over heating g/checks) prior to their use to those in the know. I'm sure they'll have an opinion on the practice of (why) it is or isn't acceptable. I have no intentions of telling some other not too get involved with the questionable practice of overheating their checks. Do as you like.


S/S

[dahermit]

Here is a after thought to consider for those over-heating their g/checks. If the manufactures thought it was OK to do. Don't you think the Checks would come that way from the manufacture to begin with? Or at the very least print it's Acceptance on the side or a note found in the box itself.

As Judge Judy would say, this is inadmissible because it speculates on the manufactures thought process. Maybe they just do not care enough about people annealing their checks or think that it could no possibly be a hazard. Why don't you ask them and get back to us?

"...Before over heating my Checks..." Annealing gas checks is similar to annealing cartridge case necks. Although the "over" you put in front of heating seems like an attempt to put a "t..d in the punch bowl" so to speak. The temperature is not need to be any hotter than annealing the case necks. Nevertheless, the temperature used for annealing the gas checks would not nearly be as critical as case-neck annealing. A dead-soft copper gas-check is not likely to be significantly softer (or pose a danger), than the thin aluminum gas checks some are using today.

[dahermit]

...with the questionable practice of overheating their checks...

CBA members and competition cast lead bullet shooters have been annealing their gas checks for at least 15 years that I know of. Nevertheless, perhaps soon there will be a report of some problem with the practice...any minute now...yup, soon now. Well, while I am waiting, I and lots of other casters will just keep on annealing our checks. In the meantime, just who determined that the practice is "questionable"?

Should this be a Poll question: Who thinks annealing gas checks is dangerous? Who does not?
And, if you think it causes a problem, please cite (as in Internet address), the instance were it caused a problem. For as long as it has been going on, surely there would be some post about it by now.

[dahermit]

If the manufactures thought it was OK to do. Don't you think the Checks would come that way from the manufacture to begin with?

No. You are attempting to explain the manufactures thinking again.
They want them bright and shiny. Annealing the checks discolors them. To anneal them, they would have to add to the manufacturing costs in the way of added fuel for the heating, and the man-hours for the added tumbling to remove the discoloration.
At a seminar at Valinite (Saline, MI), a manufacturer of machining bits, we were told that, because customers would buy the Gold-colored Titanium Nitride coated bits but often did not want to pay the extra for the hard ceramic coating (TiN), but seemed more interested in the Gold color, they offered plain carbide bits, dipped in a non-functional Gold coating that out-sold the plain Grey carbide bits. In short, shiny sells better than dull.
Nevertheless, I do not know why the manufactures do not anneal their gas checks. But I do know (an neither does anyone else, unless they contact Hornady) that doing so would increase the price, and they are already too expensive as it is.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

[QUOTE]Here is a after thought to consider for those over-heating their g/checks. If the manufactures thought it was OK to do. Don't you think the Checks would come that way from the manufacture to begin with? Or at the very least print it's Acceptance on the side or a note found in the box itself.


[QUOTE]As Judge Judy would say, this is inadmissible because it speculates on the manufactures thought process.[QUOTE]

Really!! Why would you bother to mention Judge Judy.

Maybe they just do not care enough about people annealing their checks// or // think that it could no possibly be a hazard.

There you go again dahermit. I'm not sure. What your intended meaning is on the {later} part of the above quote. Although it's first part as read express's your personal opinion.

Why don't you ask them and get back to us?

There you go again dahermit. Why would I bother to call Hornady. I don't purposely heat my checks. Common sense tells me not to get involved concerning your practice of over heating checks.
Nor will I attempt to tell some other member they can't or shouldn't do. Those that do over heat there checks are either concerned or not about the practice. I just brought the idea forward that those concerned may want to consult with a Hornady associate to see if the practice of over heating their product is acceptable or not.

Although the "over" you put in front of heating seems like an attempt to put a "t..d in the punch bowl" so to speak.

There you go again dahermit. Again I'm not quite sure what the meaning of this comment is either. But the over heating practice some others prefer to do to their checks. As I've read. Wasn't a regulated heat source. So to call the process annealing is misleading and incorrect. The term "over heating" is closer to fact than speculation.

I and lots of other casters will just keep on annealing our checks. In the meantime, just who determined that the practice is "questionable"?

There you go again dahermit. You and those others are welcome to do as you like. But use of the word {annealing} as a descriptive concerning the over heating of gas checks is again misleading and incorrect. As far as "questionable ? " Those who have some concern about the practice. Have a source. (Hornady) to rely on for a correct answer to a "questionable" activity with one of Hornady's products. {questionable as in>asking a Hornady associate whether the practice of over heating their gas checks is appropriate or not to do. I'm relatively sure that associate of Hornady will indeed offer his or hers unbiased opinion concerning the activity.}

So dahermit. I've attempted to add some clarity to your comments that indeed were at times confusing misleading or perhaps unnecessary. I hope you enjoy my commenting as much as I've enjoyed reading yours.

S/S

[salvadore]

Wow...

[iraiam]

Wow...

I know, right....I feel like a dirty little criminal now for doing the evil process of annealing my gas checks for certain loads.

[dahermit]

There you go again dahermit. You and those others are welcome to do as you like. But use of the word {annealing} as a descriptive concerning the over heating of gas checks is again misleading and incorrect. As far as "questionable ? " Those who have some concern about the practice. Have a source. (Hornady) to rely on for a correct answer to a "questionable" activity with one of Hornady's products. {questionable as in>asking a Hornady associate whether the practice of over heating their gas checks is appropriate or not to do. I'm relatively sure that associate of Hornady will indeed offer his or hers unbiased opinion concerning the activity.}

So dahermit. I've attempted to add some clarity to your comments that indeed were at times confusing misleading or perhaps unnecessary. I hope you enjoy my commenting as much as I've enjoyed reading yours.

Re: The questionable act of over-heating gas checks, use of the word {annealing} as a descriptive concerning the over heating of gas checks is again misleading and incorrect.

The act of work-hardening Copper and (Brass) is an unavoidable effect of bending and stressing the metal. Copper is a face-centered crystal, the act of bending/stressing, breaks that crystal resulting in resistance to further bending. When heated to about 700 degrees, the crystals are released by the heat to reform into the face-center (soft) crystal. If the copper is heated past its lower annealing point, no additional softening is achieved. The only caution is that the melting point of Copper should be reached and the Copper melts. Therefore, if one does not heat the copper gas checks to their melting point, there is no problem. Now, anyone who thinks that I am making this up (what I learned studying metals in college), feel free to look up what I just posted on the internet...Just search on "Copper", "Work-hardening" and "Annealing".

....Again I'm not quite sure what the meaning of this comment is...

Of course not.

And again, this disagreement can easily be settled if you just:

please cite (as in Internet address), the instance were it caused a problem.

[dahermit]

...If the manufactures thought it was OK to do. Don't you think the Checks would come that way from the manufacture to begin with? Or at the very least print it's Acceptance on the side or a note found in the box itself.

Uhhhh. Fallacy of "Affirming the Consequent"? Gosh, we could us some book-larn'nen here couldn't we. Do a search on, "Fallacies of Logic", Affirming the Consequent.