Sorry but here it goes
How can you say the first quote then come back with the second quote claiming you know annealing does less for you then other reloading practices ???? So you have done what you want to know from the first quote ???? OR you can't claim you know other things are better ????
the simple answer is my testing has been limited and not measured using high end custom rifles shot by a really good shooter using the most accurate test equipment. The problem is I do not have the time or resources to conduct extensive and thorough testing the way Litz does. In his annealing tests he took 30 unfired cases used the exact same case prep and divided them into 3 groups. One set of ten he annealed before each reload, the second he annealed before the 6th reload and the third group he annealed after every firing. After ten reloads he found no difference whatsoever in the three batches. His testing was limited to .223 and .308 and he called the .308 invalid because he used the wrong setting on his AMP for the .308s
In my test I used only two groups of ten and only made it to three reloadings before I got the two groups mixed up in the cleaning phase. For those three cycles though the SD's were similar if not identical. I am also using a CE chronograph and would have more faith in a Labradar or CED Millennium chrono.
I did similar tests on a more limited basis on neck tension, neck lubes, rounds prepared identically but half of which had runouts less than .001 against others with 002 and up, rounds neck sized only with a Lee collet against a RCBS FL die vs Redding bushing dies with and w/o the expansion button and various bushing sizes. I also tried out various wet and dry neck lubes and found while they make bullet seating smoother I saw no difference in velocity at the shooting bench.
Again nothing as extensive or indepth as Litz's testing but it has enabled me to fine tune my loading technique down to where I can get SD's in the low to mid single digits with ES's around 15 to 20 FPS
consistently and ten shot groups at 300+ well below 1 MOA as long as I am doing my part with technique.
The biggest factor for small groups I have found is seating depth. Three to five thousandths can make a difference between a 1.5 MOA group and a .5 MOA group. That applies at all distances from 100 to 800.
For velocity consistency I have found that the proper powder and load affects velocity the most. I now look for temperature stable powders that can give me a consistent velocity over a three to five tenth grain spreads. That way if the temp is 40 degrees or 95 degrees or the load is + or - .1 gn the velocity will be stable.
I have came to those conclusions by testing where just over the last year or so where I test fired appx 1500 to 2000 rounds playing with bullets, powder and seating depths. You can probably double that number for rounds shot in pratice and competition. For 8 months last year I chroned most every practice and development shot. I have pics and documentation with info for all the things that worked and a lot that did not. The things that did not work you just remember such as my great neck lube experiment. I tried four or five different methods with no statistically significant changes with or without
Here are a few targets I shot in the last week at 300 doing seating depth testing on some new bullets I am trying out. No charge testing has been done on any of the bullets, I simply used the same powder and load that worked well with 77gn non tipped SMK's and 140 gn Nosler CC's. Next week I will set up my chrono and see if these loads will work at 500 yards plus with some powder charge testing now that I have the optimum seating depths identified
https://imgur.com/a/S8v81EO
I know these are not benchrest quality groups but keep in mind that these were shot using home grown rifles shot based on Savage 10 actions from a bag and a bipod shot by a guy who only decided to get serious about shooting long range a year ago. I am no Brain Litz or Erik Cortina so I would not consider myself anything special but I have always worked as a techie so analysis is something I am used to
nothing fancy was done to any of the cases No neck turning or neck reaming or moly coating of bullets etc etc. As I said before I will continue to anneal simply because I have the Annealeez sitting on my bench and it only eats a few cents worth of propane each week.
I am still on the fence on whether it helps but I know it is not hurting. I think of it the same way as I think of my good luck hat which is nothing more than a old worn out NRA ball cap which I wear at every range session. I did let the wife wash it once after it crawled off by itself one day.
I am still open minded about annealing and I would love to see a good indepth test by someone who really knows their stuff. Iam looking forward to Litz completing his testing in his next Modern Advancements book, soon as it is released I will be downloading the Kindle edition.
edit - My opinions on annealing only apply to the average reloader who simply FL resizes , not those who are doing major case forming or reforming such as necking down, wildcatting, or case manufacture where major changes in the brass are being applied.
Oh and no need to be sorry , questioning is good thing and you were polite in the way you did it. Nothing at all to be sorry about
. The hardest thing I had to learn/get over was micro managing my employees . Took maybe 15+ years to figure that out . It's when there eyes start to glaze over , you've lost them 