Quenching, aging & hardness

[cohutt]

Great forum here guys, thanks for all the useful information I've already picked before getting around to this first post:

Using A-Neat's Lino & Pure lead formula 25:75, I had done a couple of practcie runs to get the cast mechanics familiar to me. Initially decided to go with Lee micro groove 6x molds and have cast some 240 swc in 44 and (more) 125 rn in 9mm.
after these test runs I sat down last night and cast about 400-450 of the 9mms. I set up a cardboard bullet chute that allowed me to drop the bullets out of the mold and directly into a coffee can full of water down on the floor. I was using a lee 20lb bottom pour pot and it took maybe 1 1/2 hours to do these even after a slow start. I ran the pot pretty hot (no thermometer, dialed 1 under max i think) for fast pouring and didn't get any frosting on the surface of the bullets. I am going to try and get away without sizing (as i don't have a sizer at this point) and roll them in liquid alox when time to lube.

An alloy calculator i downloaded suggests this combo of lead and linotype would be around 9.25 bnh. I assume this would be immediately after the cast cooled down with no quenching or heat treating. I mic'd a bunch of them and they all measured out a little bigger than the .356 spec that Lee has on them, by .0005 - .001.
I plan on shooting these through a S/A IMI UZI and possibly various 9mm Glocks (iIam aware of the Glock Barrel issues/concerns and will move slowly and consider various aftermarket barrels if i get there...) The UZI is tolerant of hot ammo, medium ammo, cold ammo, pretty much shoots anything.

OK, now the questions:

1- The quenching- as described above, what kind of bnh hardness would you estimate I moved up to by quenching?
and
2- Do quenched bullets of this alloy still stand to harden up some more if left alone for a couple weeks? I've seen posts here stating that a little time will help harden up most softer aloys. So do I get a double effect or does the quenching already do as much as I could expect?

Thanks ahead of time for your input and any comments/ advice/ warnings/ encuragement/ harrasment you care to toss into the thread. (To be kind, I left my fat-chick avatar back at GT for now)

[44man]

I never worked with that alloy but wonder if there is too much pure lead to gain much hardness. I'm curious too and will have to wait for someone else to sign in.

[BigSlick]

I just ordered a Cabin Tree tester. I'll be able to find out the tangible difference (with my alloy) in a couple of days.

I have been dropping a few lately, mainly .501-440's. First batch was air cooled and fairly soft. Tonight I dropped another 100 or so and ice-water quenched them. So far, one reject (maybe more to come upon closer inspection).

I did a vise check on the bullets from my first (AC) batch (about two weeks old) and the one from tonight (quenched). The difference is pretty amazing. I know the quenched bullets will harden over the next few days or weeks, but even with the ones dropped just tonight, the hardness of the quenched is (est) 25-30% greater.

I'll know Monday about noon or so if one or the other leads my barrel. I'm off tomorrow so I am going to drop 3-400 175TC's like the ones Yammer casts. I hope to have as good a result as he does.

'Slick
________
How To Roll A Blunt (http://howtorollablunt.net/)

[cohutt]

Slick I figured you were castng for years the way you ***** lead.
I finally got around to working on the 500 lbs of pure lead i picked up a couple months ago. A_Neat helped in a trade for some Lino to harden it up some an dsuggested the 3:1 blend I started with. If i can find a good mix for my casting needs with these I'll remain a "white glove" caster- only clean pure lead and linotype ingots, no wheel weights to mess with. :-D (that is unless some fall in my lap)

[BigSlick]

I been whoring lead for a long time. I decided to wait until I got enough to make it worth it before getting started dropping bullets. Now I'm about half way there, I just need another few hundred pounds and that should last me until Hillary is out of office.
________
The Cigar Boss (http://thecigarboss.com/)

[arkypete]

Cohutt
I'm a Wheel weight *****!
I have pure lead around but I use it for casting billets for swaging.
Wheel weights are the answer to a bullets casters fantasies. Your linotype will provide the bit of tin required to make perfect bullets using linotype.
Your alloy sounds pretty close to the NRA number two alloy which if fine for mid range pistol bullets.
I suggest getting some welders mitts and clean up some wheel weights. Cast your air cooled and water quinched and see the difference.
Jim

PS: Three or four tons of wheel weights are a good starting point, usually free for the asking.

[ANeat]

I never really worried about the age hardening thing untill I got a tester myself. I know my bullets that are 50/50 WW and pure lead do check quite a bit harder after a couple of weeks sitting around. Ill have to check them again and get you some hard numbers.

If you want it checked Cohutt just mail me a bullet and Ill let you know the BHN. Actually 500 or 1000 would be a better test but one is enough:-D [smilie=1:

I did luck into 600 lbs of WW a couple weeks ago:drinks:
Adam

[454PB]

For heat treating, I've always used WWs as a base metal, I've never used linotype. In theory, since linotype and pure lead have no arsenic, it won't work.

Another point, if you water dropped them, they need to be sized quickly. If they are sized latter, they will resoften. It takes a while for that to happen, so shooting them up right away should be OK.

[cohutt]

Who am I kidding- I can hear the air tools of a decent sized tire store from my house. Gotta get the 600 buck tires i bought there rotated soon. I know i'll find a way to get WWs into the formula :drinks:

Oh= and I do have welders gloves and a rawhide BBQ apron- look like a blacksmith down there, I figured out pretty early on this sh&t burns you really fast

[cohutt]

For heat treating, I've always used WWs as a base metal, I've never used linotype. In theory, since linotype and pure lead have no arsenic, it won't work.

Another point, if you water dropped them, they need to be sized quickly. If they are sized latter, they will resoften. It takes a while for that to happen, so shooting them up right away should be OK.
So arsenic in the key to heat treating / quenching adding the hardness.... thats what i was forgetting

[454PB]

I realized after I posted that you said you weren't going to size these, but if (and when) you decide to do that.....keep the sizing quickly in mind.

I've read that some guys use magnum shot to add arsenic to pure lead. I've never tried it, WWs are still fairly easy to find in my world.

[felix]

No, it is not arsenic per se, but any element considered to be a foreign matter to the rest of the elements in the mix. If a mix goes from liquid to solid in likity-split time, then it won't heat treat. Get the whole mix into having a slush stage between frozen and liquid, then that mix will heat treat. Wider the slush temp difference, the better the heat treat potential. Another indication of potiential is how long it takes after the heat treat to reach final hardness. Sometimes in 12 hours, sometimes in one month. Longer the slush stage, the longer the time it takes to reach max hardness. To hurry up the time to max hardness, put the finished boolits back into the oven at 200 degrees for a couple of hours. Then max hardness should be made in a much shorter time than left at room temperature to harden. ... felix

[454PB]

Here is a link to a site that explains the precipitation hardening of lead alloys. It is directed at battery plate hardening, but the principles are the same:

http://www.key-to-metals.com/Article88.htm


And another:

http://www.lasc.us/CastBulletNotes.htm


With a quote from the above site:

Heat Treating Tips

(From the pages of HandLoader Magazine)
The essential metals for heat treating are lead, antimony and arsenic. Tin is optional; although it may aid in an effort to cast more perfect bullets and contribute to ductility. To obtain maximum hardness, a minimum of one to two percent antimony is required in addition to a trace of arsenic. Arsenic is the catalyst. Heat-treating cannot work without it, regardless of the amount of antimony or other trace elements present.

Tin has the effect of reducing maximum hardness from heat treating as its ratio to other metals increases. Wheel-weights, one to two percent tin, can be heat-treated to a harder level than Lyman No. 2 with its five percent tin content. Linotype, 84/12/4 (lead-antimony-tin) has the lowest hardening potential when compared to other alloys commonly used to produce cast bullets.

[leftiye]

454- Years ago, I heat treated some Lee 250 grain .45 boolits, and with Blue Dot blew them out at 1250 fps with no leading. That was way before folks decided that you could run a .45 L.C. above 15000 psi. Nowadays my load is nothing special.

The method I used came from the NRA's E.H. Harrison book. It said that .5% tin and 5% Antimony heated to just below the slump temp for one hour and immediately dumped into water would harden to a Brinell hardness of 42. AND they WERE unbelieveably hard, though I still don't have a hardness tester. Couldn't EVEN make any effect with the ole thumbnail!

This is the first I've heard about arsenic being necessary. There weren't none in the aforementioned metal atall. The tin was only there to promote ease of casting, I suspect. Antimony is the crystalline structure forming agent. Heat treating to harden is all about heating and soaking to allow crystalline structure to form, and then freezing the alloy instantly in order to retain the crystalline structure. Otherwise the crystalline structure dissappears while the alloy cools. This may be the same for many metals, certainly also is true for steel.

I suspect that arsenic may well promote even harder (than 42?) crystalline formation. And I may be wrong, but this is the first I've seen it said to be the primary hardening agent in heat treating.

[Ricochet]

I've read that about arsenic being necessary, but it's definitely not true. I don't doubt it's helpful.

Alloys with only a little antimony in them will quench harden, not as hard as more highly alloyed ones. I suspect the lower the antimony concentration, the longer time needed to reach full hardness as the supersaturation of the solid solution is less.

[cbrick]

Taking from the above mentioned links, arsenic is not an absolute neccessity in heat treating, antimony is. However, a trace and only a trace of arsenic (1/4 of 1 percent) will dramatically increase the amount of hardness the alloy can acheive. See the article from "Key to Metals" as an industry perspective.

The cast bullet notes page mentioned by 454PB is my web site (lasc.us). The quote from HandLoaders is a bit off from newer info I have been able to learn. While arsenic is the catalyst it should read, "arsenic is the catalyst to greatly increased HT potential". The article by "Key to Metals" confirms this and is also on my site though there is no link to it yet while I am waiting for permission from them to reprint it.

I am also working on another page to be added to the 'Cast Bullet Notes" page. It will be some time yet but I have been keeping an accurate chart of all heat treating that I have done for nearly a year (and I HT a lot). The new page will be a chart listing alloy, starting BHN, convection oven temp (400, 410, 420, 430 etc), time in oven, water temp, time in water, BHN in 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 96 hours, 7 days and 14 days.

There have been some interesting results learned from keeping this chart. For one, alloy variations can be tracked more from the time it takes bullets to harden than from the final BHN. As WW alloy varies (I suspect less antimony) bullets are still acheiving the same final HT BHN but instead of 3 days its taking well over a week. From reading the article on "Key to Metals" they mention testing done with 2% - 4% - 6% - 8% antimony with 4% ideal for quickly acheiving quenched hardness so my theory of less antimony in my current lot of WW makes sense. In addition, pre HT BHN for several years was right at 11 with 3% tin added but currently its been 9 BHN. The current test underway for the chart is the WW + 3% tin with # 8 chilled shot (both antimony and arsenic) added to test for any possible difference and or how much shot is needed to gain an improvement.

Ricochet's post (while much shorter than this has turned out to be) is correct according to all of the testing I have done for many years. Heat treating the shiny goddess and group testing them has been the passion of my shooting for better than 15 years so I tend to get a little long winded.

Rick

[cbrick]

No, it is not arsenic per se, but any element considered to be a foreign matter to the rest of the elements in the mix. If a mix goes from liquid to solid in likity-split time, then it won't heat treat. Get the whole mix into having a slush stage between frozen and liquid, then that mix will heat treat. Wider the slush temp difference, the better the heat treat potential. Another indication of potiential is how long it takes after the heat treat to reach final hardness. Sometimes in 12 hours, sometimes in one month. Longer the slush stage, the longer the time it takes to reach max hardness. To hurry up the time to max hardness, put the finished boolits back into the oven at 200 degrees for a couple of hours. Then max hardness should be made in a much shorter time than left at room temperature to harden. ... felix

Interesting, somewhat different from everything I have tried myself or read about . . . but then that's why I'm here.

Linotype is eutectic (no slush stage) and can be heat treated because of its antimony but with its high tin content and lack of arsenic not to the dramatic results of WW.

I did a bunch of testing several years ago on the water temp with bullets HT in a conventional gas oven and found that the colder the water the faster they reached final hardness. They didn't get any harder with cold water but they got there faster. When I switched to the convection oven this difference seems to not apply or at least not nearly as much. Putting them back in the oven after HT would seem to be a method of annealing and would reduce the final amount of hardness acheived. Its a new concept to me but then again . . . that's why I'm here. I'll have to play with this and see what comes of it.

Rick

[ANeat]

Heres a little data that really suprised me, and I really cannot explain why but here it is. Bullets are H&G68 45acp 200gr SWC. The alloy is a mix I mix up 100lbs at a time. 48lbs of WW, 48lbs of pure lead, 2 lbs of tin. I always just water dropped them for convience and the little extra hardness is a side benifit. Checked right after quenching they check right at 10bhn. Well I had cast some back over the summer (6 months ago) and hadnt got around to sizing/loading them yet. I thought I would check a couple today and got a reading of 20.9bhn:confused: WOW. I pulled out about half a dozen more and they were all the same. Double checked the lead tester with a lead ingot that I had recieved from Cohutt and the tester (Lee) is right on the money.

Im not sure exactly why but the next batch I will reduce the WW %.


Adam

[cohutt]

Double checked the lead tester with a lead ingot that I had recieved from Cohutt and the tester (Lee) is right on the money.


Adam

You haven't melted the mega-ingot yet? Admit it, you keep it on the coffee table as conversation piece.:mrgreen:

[454PB]

First, thank you cbrick for your fine web site. I use it as reference and point others to it frequently.

As I stated in my original reply, I've never tried heat treating linotype, so today I cast up some test boolits (Lee .44 300 RF) using 1 part linotype and 3 parts pure lead. These were quenched from the mould in cold water, as well as some that I dumped on a soft towel and air cooled. I then sized the quenched boolits in a Lee .430 push through within an hour of casting. They cast right close to .430 to .4305, so there was very little sizing actually done, but I ran them through anyway as a "control" measure for future testing. Incidentally, these same boolits cast in my normal 25% linotype and 75% WW measure .432 to .433.

I then did a preliminary hardness test for a baseline. The AC boolits tested 11 BHN. The quenched boolits tested 13.4 BHN measuring on the nose, and 14.3 BHN measuring on one of the driving bands after sizing.

My plan is to continue measuring these samples over the next few weeks. I learned long ago that the hardening (and resoftening) process takes months.

I also found this to be a rather bad alloy for quenching. The AC boolits were fine, but the quenched boolits where badly smeared and obviously so hot when they hit the water that they looked like they were covered with what appeared to be splashed solder. About 40% of them are unusable, but will serve as good test subjects.

[ANeat]

You haven't melted the mega-ingot yet? Admit it, you keep it on the coffee table as conversation piece.:mrgreen:

Yea im keepin the big ingots for now, mabey not on the coffee table though......:coffee:

454PB; I did a half arsed test like you are starting a few weeks ago. Straight WW with 2%tin added. The day they were cast air cooled were 10.1 and quenched were 14.3 (12-22-06)

I checked them 3 weeks later and the air cooled were 13.4 and quenched were 20

Checked again today and no change

Adam

[Ranch Dog]

The cast bullet notes page mentioned by 454PB is my web site (lasc.us).

That is an outstanding web site Rick. I sure appreciate all the work you have put into the page and look forward to your next work. Great thread guys!

[454PB]

454PB; I did a half arsed test like you are starting a few weeks ago. Straight WW with 2%tin added. The day they were cast air cooled were 10.1 and quenched were 14.3 (12-22-06)

I checked them 3 weeks later and the air cooled were 13.4 and quenched were 20

Checked again today and no change

Adam

That's good information, Adam, but we know WW's have some arsenic in them. What I'm trying to learn is if pure lead and antimony will heat treat minus any arsenic.

[randyrat]

I just ordered a Cabin Tree tester. I'll be able to find out the tangible difference (with my alloy) in a couple of days.

I have been dropping a few lately, mainly .501-440's. First batch was air cooled and fairly soft. Tonight I dropped another 100 or so and ice-water quenched them. So far, one reject (maybe more to come upon closer inspection).

I did a vise check on the bullets from my first (AC) batch (about two weeks old) and the one from tonight (quenched). The difference is pretty amazing. I know the quenched bullets will harden over the next few days or weeks, but even with the ones dropped just tonight, the hardness of the quenched is (est) 25-30% greater.

I'll know Monday about noon or so if one or the other leads my barrel. I'm off tomorrow so I am going to drop 3-400 175TC's like the ones Yammer casts. I hope to have as good a result as he does.

'Slickbigslick how ya doing. Yes i check this forum out also. Need any 10mm emties. I'll have more later in the spring.

[randyrat]

That's good information, Adam, but we know WW's have some arsenic in them. What I'm trying to learn is if pure lead and antimony will heat treat minus any arsenic.
From what i have read you need a little arsenic to heat treat.

[Ricochet]

What I'm trying to learn is if pure lead and antimony will heat treat minus any arsenic.
Yes it will. Go back and read that article from Key to Metals.

[cbrick]

Again Ricochet is correct.

454PB, also re-read post 16 in this thead where the Key To Metals article and the Handloader article was discussed.

Rick

[BigSlick]

Hey Randy ;)

Good to see you here. I can always use a few (zillion) 10mm brass.

I've been hanging out over here trying to catch on to some of the details of casting. I'm still ignernt, but minutely less so.

At this point, my ignorance of casting is exceeded only by my disdain for factory ammo. I got the ww, got a few moulds and the desire, maybe this blind hog can find an acorn or two with perserverance.

I sized a few more 440gr honkers today. I enjoy this stuff so much I can't seem to stay away from it.

From my first batch ever... and with my second attempt at home made lube (first batch was a disaster) ;) :


http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b349/BigSlick10MM/.jpg
________
Vaporizer wiki (http://vaporizerwiki.com)

[Dale53]

BigSlick;
Those are nice looking bullets. I would say that you are on your way!

Dale53

[MTWeatherman]

cbrick:
Congratulations on a very fine web site. I have a loose leaf notebook that I keep notes in on various cast bullet topics for reference. I copied your "Cast Bullet Notes" for reference long ago. Its got more "to the point" information in as concise a package as I've seen.

Thanks for your expert input on the heat treating subject. I'm looking forward to that update in your "Cast Bullet Notes". Please let us know when its ready so we'll be able to peruse it.

I do a significant amount of oven heat treating with straight WW. I've found it necessary for a 9mm, a Microgrooved .44, and more recently a .223. I know that the BHN can be varied by oven temperature but usually go for the hardest bullet possible. However, I've thought that perhaps one could also adjust the heat treated BHN downward by adjusting the amount of lead alloyed with the WW. Based on my understanding here, thats really not the case...a 1% antimony/lead alloy in the presence of arsenic would be just as hard as a 3% WW, just take longer to accomplish it.

Is there absolutely no decrease in the final BHN by alloying WW with lead before heat treating? If so, it would seem one has the possibility of going 2 parts lead to 1 part WW (or at least 50/50) for heat treating to a high BHN. All that would be required would be a little patience before shooting. It would be a great way to use up some of the soft lead I've accumulated over the years.

[Ricochet]

I've been finding that very soft scrap lead of unknown composition, that I can thumbnail dent easily when air cooled, gets quite hard after spending an hour at 475°F in the oven, quenching, and waiting a few days. Don't have a hardness tester, but I've tried cutting the stuff with a knife after 4 days and found it to be about as hard as air cooled wheelweights then. Probably gets harder as more time goes by. With about 1 part wheelweights to 5 parts of this stuff on up to half and half, when quenched and aged I can't tell the difference in hardness with my crude methods from pure quenched wheelweights. I broke my loading bench trying to size 20% wheelweight boolits quenched this way that had hardened overnight. They ring like bells when you shake 'em around together, too. The pure old soft scrap stuff still sounds dull as a lead boolit is expected to, but gets a lot harder than you'd think.

[cbrick]

cbrick: Congratulations on a very fine web site. I have a loose leaf notebook that I keep notes in on various cast bullet topics for reference. I copied your "Cast Bullet Notes" for reference long ago. Its got more "to the point" information in as concise a package as I've seen.

Thanks, words like that make a lot of work well worthwhile.


I know that the BHN can be varied by oven temperature but usually go for the hardest bullet possible.

The hardest bullet possible isn't really needed or desirable for most situations. I started out heat treating years ago with this notion also. I did a lot of long range revolver testing, 150 meters scoped from the bench with a FA 357 9". All of the testing was with virgin brass and as identical of loads as I could make. All used the RCBS 357 180 gr silhouette bullet cast of WW + 3% tin at 190 gr, the only thing I varied was the bullet BHN by heat treating. All shooting was done over an Oehler 33 and the casting, heat treating and shooting lasted for months. The best accuracy, the best chrono numbers were with 17-18 BHN. With each increase in BHN all the way up to 30 the velocity came down, groups opened up a bit but it still shot pretty well. With each decrease in BHN down to 11 groups opened up. The one thing that destroyed groups was mixing bullets of different BHN. With bullet hardness ranging from 16 to 22 in the same five shot group most shots missed the 150 meter target completely.


However, I've thought that perhaps one could also adjust the heat treated BHN downward by adjusting the amount of lead alloyed with the WW. Based on my understanding here, thats really not the case...a 1% antimony/lead alloy in the presence of arsenic would be just as hard as a 3% WW, just take longer to accomplish it.

Is there absolutely no decrease in the final BHN by alloying WW with lead before heat treating? If so, it would seem one has the possibility of going 2 parts lead to 1 part WW (or at least 50/50) for heat treating to a high BHN. All that would be required would be a little patience before shooting. It would be a great way to use up some of the soft lead I've accumulated over the years.

This could make for some pretty interesting testing, are you volunteering? If you would like to experiment with this, I for one would be all ears. All of my heat treating has been with wheel weights and the variation I was refering to in the earlier post was the variations in the composition of wheel weights. I have never attempted blending lead with WW and heat treating but the idea is intriguing just to learn the results and add to the knowledge base. The education continues.:-D

Rick

[Bass Ackward]

I have HT all mannner of lead, but never tried "pure" lead because I couldn't see the point.


Lead can only HT to a maximum practical hardness of 35 BHN. Once you go so far down in antimony content, your top end hardness potential drops. In addition, your temperature flexibility, to vary and control hardness becomes narrower. And the lower the antimony content, the lower the final hardness will be after the softening degradation occurs. I have 15 year old WDWW that is still 20 BHN. But my first attempts at 50/50 are down to 11 BHN now.

You can give any mix a kicker by adding magnum grade shot to increase the arsenic content, but you are also adding antimony that you purposely diluted down, so it is kind of self defeating unless you wanted to see what lino can REALLY do. Then the arsenic is worth it.

Increased arsenic content "may" delay or slow the softening process too as I have noticed this in a couple of cases, but I never specifically tested for it.

[cohutt]

cbrick, dittos. I found and bookmarked the lasc site when i decided i wanted to begin thinking about casting. Aneat's new testing project is using pure lead from this first batch; cbrick if you are interested I will be happy to send you some to use in your own tests as a "thank you" for the lasc, the lead being of a know origin and composition for control purposes..

Bass-Ackwards, I'm using pure lead as a starting point since i have a friend/client in the shielding business who graciously lets me have scrap when i ask. It is very clean and also each batch they order is send down to Georgia Tech and tested via spectrograph or something along those lines, so it is of known makeup- 99.99... etc. Adding lino to it seemed easy enough to get the antimony & tin...
[ I approached from this perspective since lead is always the 90%+ component of every bullet casting alloy formula I've seen :-D Of course i didn't realize at the time that I wouldn't easily find a similar source for tons of free clean arsenic, tin and antimony of certifiable composition. :( ]

To everyone else in this thread, thank you and please keep posting- I figured this was long ago settled and that this would be a 3 post thread including my thank you. The more i know the more i realize what i don't know.

[MTWeatherman]

cbric:
I checked the date on my printed copy of your notes...08/01/05. I used it as a bookmarked favorite well before that so you’ve had that web page for some time. I have absolutely no doubt that a hardness less than maximum may well be the most accurate...the obturation issue would likely make that especially true in revolvers. I just haven’t done much experimenting with it. When I decide I need a hard bullet, I just go for it. In all cases I’ve found it necessary, it solved the leading or accuracy issues and I went no further.

At this stage, I’d not be the best choice to do a test as I don’t have a hardness tester. I use a “relative hardness” test when heat treating. I have linotype bullets precast for each bullet I heat treat. If I have any doubts about the success, I simply place the heat treated and the linotype bullets nose to nose (all have meplats) in a vise, and compress them against each other. If the heat treated bullet wins the deformation contest, I consider the heat treating a success. I have determined hardness fairly reliably by compressing a 3/8 ball bearing between a cast of pure lead and one of the tested alloy in a vise...then using the method described in Lyman #3 to determine the actual BHN. Seems to work well enough but set up is a pain...not something I’d want to do very often.

I’d be surprised if someone hasn’t already done the testing, especially given the development interest of the board members here. It sounds like Bass may already have been there.

Bass:
Were you able to determine the initial BHN of that heat treated 50/50 mix? Any further information you could provide on your experience would be appreciated.

In the relatively near future, heat treating may become more of a necessity for dedicated casters. I believe that the days of freely available WW will disappear as manufacturers are forced to convert to steel and zinc due to environmental concerns. WW will become in short supply and with it our main source of bullet alloy. What better way to extend our supply of bullet alloy that to heat treat WW/lead alloy bullets...even if we don’t need hard bullets?. To use a purely hypothetical example, if the BHN of ACWW meets your needs and a 4 to 1 lead to WW alloy could be heat treated to equal it...you could turn 1 pound of WW into 5 pounds of useable alloy...perhaps as simply as water quenching. We could live with less WW or at least hoard fewer of them. That is, of course, assuming that lead, which is considered a toxic substance, will still be available to the public without a hazardous materials license.

Here’s another reason for interest in the subject...convenience. Suppose, for example, that a correct WW/lead alloy could be found to produce a heat treated BHN of about 15 with water quenching. That alloy then would function similar to Lyman #2 in use...a BHN between ACWW and HTWW with no finely tuned oven treating required...just quench.

...and that doesn’t even address finally finding a use other than barrel slugging for those stick on WW.

Really curious if anyone has any results on the heat treating of WW/lead alloys they could share with us. If not, I would definitely consider getting that hardness tester and doing some experiments myself.

[Ricochet]

I have HT all mannner of lead, but never tried "pure" lead because I couldn't see the point.
The point I've drawn from my experience is that "pure" lead by the thumbnail test may not be that pure. A little alloy can make it quite a bit harder after quenching and aging.

So far as water dropping goes, it's just easier to cast that way, whether or not you want boolits hardened. I've water dropped them and later annealed them in the oven.

As for temperature ranges, with lower antimony levels you should have a WIDER temperature range that'll give maximum hardness. The antimony will start to go into solid solution at some minimum temperature regardless of the total amount present. A lower amount will get it all into "solution" at a lower temperature, as the saturation is lower. But it can be heated to a higher temperature before reaching slumping and melting points. Now, it may well be harder to try to achieve some intermediate hardness through the heat treatment process. I haven't been trying to do that, just to put whatever's in there in a solid solution, quench it, and let it age by itself. I do expect that if it's accurately measured the hardened metal with lower alloy content will be softer, but it gets pretty hard.

[BruceB]

This is a fascinating thread, and I read this type of discussion with the same sorta "spectator" view as I would watch a tennis match or a slow-motion semi wreck on an overpass.

The more I know about the fine points of alloying and the minutiae of temperatures, quenching, catalysts and all that, the better-informed I feel.

I'm very grateful to you who find the time and energy to do the research and PARTICULARLY, to report it here where many can benefit from your work.

BUT (and I say this mostly for any new casters who may find themselves in this seminar).... I read it avidly, but I don't need it for MY purposes.

We all find our niches and methods in this great hobby, and after exactly forty years of casting this month, I find that KISS is where I'm at. This is most emphatically NOT criticism against those of us who enjoy the scientific approach!

SO, I water-drop most of my rifle boolits, all of which are made from plain wheelweight alloy of whatever weights came to hand for smelting. No tin, no other additives. Most handgun boolits are aircooled WW. The longer I shoot, the less need I see for hard bullets even in my rifles, so I don't worry much about age-softening over time. Don't even have a hardness tester.

I do cast a lot of bullets, and I do a lot of shooting. I enjoy the dickens out of the whole procedure, and reading threads like this one is an integral part of the enjoyment. I just don't want any newcomers over-awed by the science and dedication presented here.

You guys are great.

[cbrick]

BruceB, you are absolutely correct. I am currently writing an article on heat treating and one of the points I am trying to make is getting them too hard for the application. It's not needed and can quickly become detrimental. Most handguns do indeed shoot air cooled WW very satisfactorily. My 308 rifle shoots air cooled WW at 1900 fps with zero leading.

Here is a sneek peak at the article, its not completed yet, especially the chart but this is what I have so far.

http://www.lasc.us/HeatTreat.htm

Rick

[Bass Ackward]

Bass:
Were you able to determine the initial BHN of that heat treated 50/50 mix? Any further information you could provide on your experience would be appreciated.




MTW,

My initial hardness was 6/7 BHN if I remember correctly. (?)

Bob (45 2.1) was / is the driving force behind 50/50 on this board and will probably answer any questions if you PM him. He is the most familiar with it that I know.

And necessity is the mother of invention. Believe it or not, at one time antimony was a dirty word to casters. You can buy the stuff in several forms and alloy it in yourself. It's a PIA if you don't follow the instructions. Here is the instructions from Bill, the Antimony Man.

ANTIMONY
The product looks like small metal gravel. It is quite pure with dust and fines removed.

ALLOYING FLUX
The flux is a pink powder which absorbs moisture so it must be stored in a sealed container with a desiccant such as silica gel when not in use. It has a MAXIMUM alloying temperature limit of 635F. The lowest temperature is that where the metal to be alloyed, LEAD, or LEAD/TIN or TIN is completely liquid. These temperatures range from 621F for pure lead to 450F for pure tin. 93/7 tin/antimony pewter is made at 500F.

PROCEDURE
1. Start with a clean pot and clean metal or alloy. Bring up to operating temperature, minimums as given above.
2. Spread a very light film of flux over the melt surface and let it melt. The simplest applicator is a 'salt shaker' type container. Letting it melt insures evaporation of any adsorbed moisture.
3. Sprinkle on a light coat of granulated antimony. Follow with another thin film of flux. When the flux has melted the antimony will have warmed up enough to not 'chill' the melt.
4. Start stirring slowly and smoothly. The antimony and flux float so there is no advantage to agitation. Stirring rolls the antimony particles over in the film of flux on the surface of the melt. EXCESS FLUX is indicated by a dark foam or crust. As the antimony is encased in this flux it will not contact the melt and solution slows and stops.
5. Learn the lesson, skim off all foam, antimony and excess flux. When cool, wash with water, the flux and flux products dissolve leaving the antimony. Dry it.
6.Start over again and control flux properly. As the antimony goes into solution, add very thin film of minimum flux when reaction appears to have stopped and continue stirring.
7. Eight to ten minutes is usually adequate time to make linotype IF the procedure is followed properly. As with any process it takes practice to maintain proper temperature (as low as possible), add minimum flux and spread antimony in the proper amounts.

[454PB]

I didn't even mention that although I've done heat treating and water quenching for over 20 years, I really feel like it's solution for a problem I don't have. I have enough wheelweights, type metal, babbitt, and solder to create about any alloy and hardness desired.

I also have found that the end result is variable, and will change in hardness over time, depending on the methods used.

As I said in my original reply, I didn't think heat treating would work without arsenic, and I sighted the quote from The Handloader from cbrick's web site as an example of "accepted" thinking. I now know that it is untrue, but I'm still curious enough to do follow up testing to see how a linotype/lead mixture will hold up to the aging process. At times I've spun my wheels expending a lot of effort and time on heat treating, only to find that the boolits I spent so much time on 5 years ago are now the same hardness they would have been if they were simply cast with a traditional alloy in the first place. I do a lot more casting than shooting, especially in the winter. It's normal for me to cast 3000 to 6000 boolits in the winter, so there are always old boolits around. As MTWeatherman said, if your supply of alloy is dwindling, all those attempts are worthwhile, but I don't have that problem.

It's obvious that a lot of old theories and practices are untrue. Fortunately those on this forum have been instrumental in disproving a lot of bad information for the benefit of the newer and younger casters. A simple question by a relatively new caster has taught a lot to us old dogs ( at least this one).

Isn't that what it's all about?

[ANeat]

Im in a position where I have a good supply of pure lead along with an almost equal supply of WW. My initial tests were an attempt to come up with some mix that would work for my bullseye shooting and use both. Shooting a 200gr bullet at less than 800fps doesnt call for a hard alloy by any means. As a matter of fact Ive had very good results with Star swaged SWC bullets and they are about 6 BHN. I was water dropping my bullets for convience and right after casting they were right at 10 bhn

I shot the 50/50 WW/Lead mix last year with very good results. One snag was that the molds I had were throwing bullets that were on the small side due to the softer mix. I had Ballisticast make me up an H&G 68 4 cavity mold that throws a .454 bullet with 50/50. I push it thru a .453 sizer and end up with a .4525 bullet. Using Lars red lube I can shoot hundreds of rounds between cleanings and get zero leading.

This year I will try some with even less WW added or even some with just a Lead/tin mix. I know other Bullseye shooters that have had great results doing just that.

I would like to get them to where the sizer is just barely touching up the OD of the bullet when lubing.

One point on some of the old theories that dont always prove out. Ive known shooters that would get leading and poor accuracy using WW or a softer alloy, they would keep adding Lino and bingo they would start getting good results. Their first thought would be the alloy was to soft. Well perhaps, one thing they didnt realise was that as they were getting an increasingly harder and harder alloy their bullets were dropping a little larger from thr mold. Also when they sized their bullets they would get more springback with the harder alloy and the end result would be a better fitting bullet, less leading and better accuracy.

[Ricochet]

That's an excellent point about different alloys giving different as-cast diameters.

[MTWeatherman]

Bass:
Thanks for the information. However I screwed up when I asked the question. I should have asked what was the initial maximum hardness after a couple of weeks or so. If you've got that information, would appreciate it. Also, thanks for the tip...I will PM Bob.

ANeat:
Were you water dropping that 50/50 mix? Do any testing on maximum hardness with it?

I don't want to leave the impression that I'm currently short on alloy. A $20 bill and a trip to a tire shop will get me a 5 gallon bucket of them. My concern is not the here-and-now but the future. They've taken the lead from gasoline, paint, and waterfowl shot among other things. Most of those efforts required a significant redevlopment effort from the manufacturers...to remove a hazardous substance (lead) from the environment. How long before wheelweights come under that scrutiny especially when substitutes so readily available? No development efforts involved...just switch to steel or zinc. Its already happened in Europe. The change could take place overnight in the good old U.S and I suspect the global warming issue will bring environmental issues to the forefront once again. I expect that you'll be seeing more and more of those steel and zinc wheelweights as manufactures anticipate the future. The good old lead WW will begin to totally disappear as the change is mandated and that change may not be very long in coming.

When (and I believe its when...not if) the supply of lead WW (but its the antimony part of the alloy thats important isn't it?) diminishes, the ability to alloy lead with and existing supply of old WW and heat treat likely will become more important. The "Antimony Man" will become an important source to all of us. However, we can't purchase arsenic very readily and even if not absolutely necessary, all evidence says it certainly helps the heat treating process. I can hoard lead WW but would prefer no more than a few hundred pounds.

Most of my needs are satisfied by plain ACWW and thats what I use. However, I could never get a 9mm to handle cast without heat treating (its a pressure and twist issue...not a bullet size)...or a .44 Magnum microgroove to shoot well over 1200 fps with PB (or a gas check over 1600 fps) without it (likely the rifle's ability to grip the bullet issue). Heat treating cuts the groups in my .223 in half. Linotype is hard to find, expensive to purchase new, and ship. I have no doubts that many, likely most on this board, have no need for heat treating. However, it definitely does have its uses. Whether or not you find it of value is extremely dependent on what you shoot or your ability to find high BHN substitutes.

I hope that lead WW remain readily available to us, our children, and grand children. However, I believe its folly to think they'll always be available just because they always have been. Planning for their eventual disappearance makes sense to me...hence my interest in the heat treating subject. Plain lead won't work for me...I'm not a black powder shooter.

[ANeat]

ANeat:
Were you water dropping that 50/50 mix? Do any testing on maximum hardness with it?

Yes I water drop them, they were coming out 10bhn checking the day I cast/quenched them. I hadnt really worried about it since but checked some I had cast back in the summer and they are now 20.9bhn. Way more than what I feel I need for the gun I was casting them for.

I agree that WW will be very hard to find someday and have been looking at ways of stretching what I have. The next time I cast a few it will be a lower % of WW in the mix and I will check them a couple of weeks after casting to see how they are aging.

Adam

[MTWeatherman]

ANeat:
Thats about what would be expected with water dropped straight WW. Looks like you just confirmed the theory that at least for 50/50 it's the hardening time that changes...not the actual hardness.

Interesting to see what the increase in hardening time might be...and what a further reduction in the WW percentage would bring. Please keep us posted on the results.

That's very useful information...thanks both for the research and the information.

[454PB]

As an example of the resoftening time:

I did some hardness testing for one of our forum members. He sent some quenched WW boolits that were right around 30BHN when I received them. I believe that was in May last year, in July they tested 22, and yesterday they tested 15.8.

[Ricochet]

That's interesting.

Someone has earlier reported that putting the boolits in a freezer delays hardening of quenched boolits. Bet it delays resoftening, too.

[Bass Ackward]

Someone has earlier reported that putting the boolits in a freezer delays hardening of quenched boolits. Bet it delays resoftening, too.


You win.

[cohutt]

Bump because I learned a lot from this after reviewing it again 2 years later.

[Fugowii]

Bump because I learned a lot from reading this three years later...