Fire forming is the idea still relevant

[AJC1]

Then don’t do it.

I have seen some cases (pun intended) where it didn’t make any difference and others where the variables stacked up so it made “all the difference” in getting a rifle to shoot.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix your routine but if you just can’t figure one out some time, give it a try, it just might be the solution.

We all do it as a. Matter of function. If you pull the trigger on a load it's done. I have shot a personal best with out of the box lapua that I set neck tension and then seated bullets. I have and always will perform form of full length sizing in most of my guns. I'm saying basically if your full length sizing your undoing most of the forming process. If you neck size then you gain the full benefit of fire forming.

 

[AJC1]

Yes, I think AJ has a different definition of fire forming than I do. Fire forming to me is changing the case to another caliber, not just forming caliber A brass to caliber A chamber. That's just differences in sizing your cases.

Yes, exactly. And my list was the exceptions.

 

[AJC1]

Well, first off, you asked the question, “is it still relevant,” then name three scenarios where it is. So, you answered your own question in the op. Second, while everyone concentrated on rifle and accuracy, all y’all forgot about rarity of certain pistol and revolver ammunition. Plain old 9mm Luger fresh picked off the range turf is 1st-stage fire formed 9mm Makarov brass. To make Mak from Luger it’s gotta be fired to open up the base. By the same token, the best way to open up .45AR or ACP for loading .455 Webley in a cut Webley revolver is to shoot it in a .45ACP revolver or automatic, again to open it up for a larger bullet. Now, both those fit your No.3 but like I said, those three scenarios you pointed out answer the original question. But they don’t strictly apply to rifle as seems to have been assumed.
In my experience, there’s no such thing as “average reloaders “. There’s folks who learn and folks who just follow directions and aren’t any of them average. You’d have to assume people are automatons for that average thing to work out. I don’t believe any such thing.

Correct I listed when it would apply.

 

[jmorris]

I'm saying basically if your full length sizing your undoing most of the forming process.

What I was saying is that it is possible to just neck size with a full length die. As an example, I could never get the results I get with my van horn barrel with full length sized brass.

I backed the die out, moving it up away from the shell holder, enough that only a portion of the neck (the part that holds the bullet) is sized, leaving the body alone as the die is far enough above the case, the two tapers (case and die) cannot contact another.

There are a number of firearms that after a case is fired it can still be dropped into a case gauge, the body of that case isn’t going to be moved as much upon FL sizing as one fired from a chamber that is on the large side. Brass life will also vary between the two firearms as well.

 

[Varminterror]

If you neck size then you gain the full benefit of fire forming.

For this to be true, then you have to neglect all of the inconsistencies neck-sizing only brings with it.

What we have not discussed in this thread is the fact “fire forming” doesn’t actually perfectly form the case to the chamber, because the brass has memory and springs back slightly. In most instances, fired cases will still fit and lock back into the chamber without interference or “crush fit.” So with one firing since body sizing, neck sized only cases will still fit into the rifle. But…

We only get away with that for a few firings - and the case is changing with every subsequent firing. When we fire multiple times without resizing a portion of the case, that brass “forgets” it’s memory and eventually fits the chamber exactly - which some folks unfortunately are misguided to believe is a good thing. Because we can’t actually put on a glove which is the exact same size as the skin on our hand…

Using my example from page 1 here - but expanding for additional detail: virgin brass is 15, what actually fits (kiss length) into the chamber is 20, the chamber is actually 21. We fire once, and the case still fits = 19. We neck size, fire again, and now the case becomes a 20, maybe I can still close my bolt, but I feel the slight crush or drag on feeding and closing. I fire again, and the case becomes a 21. Upon my next loading, the round won’t close into the chamber because the case has grown to an interference fit. So now I’m on the clock at a competition or I’m stalking the bull of a lifetime, and my rounds won’t close into battery…

But oh, I’ll just FL size every 2-3 loadings to “reset the clock,” and I won’t ever have chambering issues… Ok, great, except that you’re still committed to inconsistency in case volume for every firing - first firing is 15, then second is 19, then 3rd is 20, then resize to 18, then the second 2nd is 19 again, then second 3rd is 20 again, then resize to 18, then 19, then 20, reset…

So what consistency do you gain? Nothing. It’s fallacy. Setting your sizing die to minimally resize the entire body upon every firing is more consistent - 18 every time…

It is true and fair to point out the fact not every dimension of every mass produced die will fit every dimension of every rifle chamber - and by extension, true and fair to point out that our best opportunity for best brass-to-chamber fit is accomplished by custom reamed dies made by the same smith that chambered the barrel (different reamers, however, despite common internet misconception). But we know we can promote improved consistency by starting with the same case volume every firing than we can by allowing cases to expand inconsistently from one firing to the next, to the point of requiring a reset button every few loadings…

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Correct I listed when it would apply.

So I guess the REAL question is, "When does traditional fire-forming become irrelevant?" Because obviously there are plenty of situations where it's still relevant. One "new" situation where fire-forming pistol brass can be an asset is in the case of bulged/debulged brass. Running bulged brass through a resizer that hits the base and then fire-forming in a supported chamber without the full pressure of a loaded round will show any thin spots in the base and reform the case for trimming and longer life. Now, is that WAAAAY more trouble than "the average" reloader is willing to go through? Probably. Until useable, cheap, easy to source brass gets pricey and rare; then it's going to be the new norm. Hopefully we wont' get there but I don't remember but one or two oddballs discussing reloading crimped primer 5.56mm brass 30 years ago. Now it's a regular topic.

 

[Varminterror]

Here’s a Cortina video - taking advantage of his relationships and standing in the competitive precision shooting world to garner the attention of these folks to provide an answer for us all - in which he polls maybe a couple dozen of the most accomplished and most capable precision shooters in the world, and the responses are unanimous:

Full length size with a 2-3 thou shoulder bump.

 

[Varminterror]

I don't remember but one or two oddballs discussing reloading crimped primer 5.56mm brass 30 years ago. Now it's a regular topic.

Recall, 30yrs ago, AR’s were rare in the US market, and remained so for effectively another decade due to the Federal AWB. So there was exceptionally limited market interest in 223/5.56 compared to that which we experience today. I started swaging 5.56 brass some time ~23-24yrs ago - I had to call to order a catalog, then call again 2wks later after receiving it to place my order for the tools… A lot has changed in the last 20-30yrs - I can order a swager online with the phone in my hand (which wasn’t really a thing yet 30yrs ago), and Amazon will drop it on my front steps tomorrow…

The markets for DBM rifles and FFP scopes 30+ years ago were also exceptionally small - boutique niches within a niche which was already small itself… but today… the market has changed, and demand is high for both, with DBM demonstrably being the standard. Availability and model diversity of steel rifles were also exceptionally limited back then. Crank windows were standard equipment in automobiles too - I’m not certain you can even order a custom vehicle with crank windows any longer… Markets change, and product demands change with them.

 

[jmorris]

What we have not discussed in this thread is the fact “fire forming” doesn’t actually perfectly form the case to the chamber

This is correct. Also why custom die makers want brass that has been chambered and fired multiple times, so the case is better formed to the chamber.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Recall, 30yrs ago, AR’s were rare in the US market, and remained so for effectively another decade due to the Federal AWB. So there was exceptionally limited market interest in 223/5.56 compared to that which we experience today. I started swaging 5.56 brass some time ~23-24yrs ago - I had to call to order a catalog, then call again 2wks later after receiving it to place my order for the tools… A lot has changed in the last 20-30yrs - I can order a swager online with the phone in my hand (which wasn’t really a thing yet 30yrs ago), and Amazon will drop it on my front steps tomorrow…

The markets for DBM rifles and FFP scopes 30+ years ago were also exceptionally small - boutique niches within a niche which was already small itself… but today… the market has changed, and demand is high for both, with DBM demonstrably being the standard. Availability and model diversity of steel rifles were also exceptionally limited back then. Crank windows were standard equipment in automobiles too - I’m not certain you can even order a custom vehicle with crank windows any longer… Markets change, and product demands change with them.

Exactly! What was rare and unusual 30 years ago (eg. swaging primer pockets in 5.56mm) is now the norm and what is rare and unusual today (eg. debulging and fire-reforming pistol brass) may or may not be common in 5, 10, or 20 years. That was kinda my point.

Worth noting also you had to chop and edit that one sentence in my rather lengthy post to find a nit that could picked.

 

[JFrank]

It’s amazing how guys can detail the same topic twelve different ways.

 

[Nature Boy]

This is correct. Also why custom die makers want brass that has been chambered and fired multiple times, so the case is better formed to the chamber.

In the case of Widden dies, at least 3, or send them a reamer print. I’ve done both

 

[Varminterror]

It’s amazing how guys can detail the same topic twelve different ways.

Largely because it seems some folks which are stuck on the idea of neck sizing only as the best promoter of precision need SOME different words to finally understand why it’s a fool’s errand. If folks just took “don’t neck-size only, it’s not actually better” as simply as that, we could all forget the few years when it was popular and move on with our lives.

But for some reason, the neck-sizing habit only is more difficult to kick than the covid pandemic.

 

[JFrank]

Just so readers don’t get the wrong idea about fire forming, I have loaded 308 Winchester ladder charge tests in new Nosler brass and came up with the exact same node results as with multiple firings brass.
I did this before I knew what I was doing….
No fire forming
No annealing
No fancy dies
No spotting scope
No chronograph
No bullet sorting
No internet
No BS
Jim

 

[jmorris]

I think there are a lot of factors in play and with the right combinations of the variables almost all of the methods can work well and that’s how “the myths” stick around. Because one can get good results with them, under the right circumstances.

 

[Engineer1911]

My 223 reloads occasionally give astounding results at 100 or 200 yards, in AR or bolt gun platforms. Those same reloads have "produced" thousands of dead prairie dogs for many grateful ranchers in several states, all without science or technology. Brass is annealed, cases resized, first 3 cases checked for fit in a case gauge. and the ammo is reloaded. Read the book, verify the facts, and forget perfection.