FYI WW properties. Not what you were taught in boolit school.

[MBTcustom]

I just wanted to start a thread and tell what my experience is on WW makeup. I hear a lot that WW alloy has up to 3% antimony and up to .5% tin. I dont think this has been the case for a long time.
Some of you might remember that I traded a small fortune in 63/37 solder for WW on S&S. I ended up getting about 300 pounds of WW from various members all across the country, in exchange for shipping out about 200pounds of solder (my boxes tended to err on the heavy side;-))
Anyway, as it turns out, the company I work for has an x-ray machine that tests the components in metal alloys. It cost the company a small fortune to get this machine, but the government insisted that we take random samplings of our solder and test it for zinc and other trash. I happen to be friends with the guy that runs that machine and he agreed to test my lead for me. He ran dozens of samples for me in the space of one month. I kept having trouble with hitting my desired rifle alloy because I was assuming that the WW alloy had at least 2% antimony and surly a bit of tin. I was surprised to learn that most of my WW samples were very low in both metals. The average antimony percentage was 1.5% and was pretty close amongst all the samples. I found no trace of tin anywhere in the mix! Nada! Zip! Nothing! and about .5% trash that included trace amounts of gold, zinc, cadmium, sulfur, nickle, copper, gallium, river mud, etc.
I figure that the WW alloy information is out dated, and was based on a time when even the WW manufacturers diluted Linotype metal with pure lead to make their WW alloy. Why in the world would a modern company that makes WW alloy give away expensive tin for free? It doesn't take much to make a WW stiff enough to do its job, so why not cut cost by putting in the bare minimum amount of expensive metals that ti takes to get the job done?
I just wanted to let you all know.
I only tested about five samples (three from each batch so 15), but they were from all parts of the country, including Wyoming, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, California, etc. They all exhibited very close alloy characteristics with the only difference being in the trash that was found. Some would have nickle, some would not. Some would have gold, some would not etc. I hope this helps you guys with your alloys.

[Balduran]

Thanks for that Tim, I had suspected as much for a little while here as i am getting into newer wheelweights and my lead was alot softer than i expected.

[runfiverun]

the stickon's are getting harder.
and the tire dudes are really sending thier ww's back for recycling.
that shoud fill in all the blanks.
ww's have been getting softer since the 50's.

[Sgt Petro]

Thanks for this Tim!
I always appreciate excellent information, supported by facts.
Thanks for putting in the extra effort.

[coloraydo]

the stickon's are getting harder.
and the tire dudes are really sending thier ww's back for recycling.
that shoud fill in all the blanks.
ww's have been getting softer since the 50's.

Goodsteel,
Just curious, of the samples you received from various sources, were they mostly clip-ons, or did you get some stick-ons also, and if so, were you able to check them seperately? I have also noticed that some of the stick-ons were about equal in hardness to clip-ons. Inquiring minds, ya' know.

[Springfield]

I just bought 450- lbs of 20 year old WW's. I think I may get them analyzed before I melt them, might be more valuable than I thought.

[blackbike]

Thanks for that info, Tim
All the info. I have got from you and your dad has ben strait up.
Send our regards to your friend that runs that machine ,for us!
Thanks, BB

[RugerFan]

I'm wondering if your WW samples came to you in actual WW form or already smelted and ingotized?

[Wal']

I'm just getting started in this casting Boolits game & it seem's the day's of picking up your cheap WW's has long gone.

So I guess we'll have to suck it up & look for other way's to supply our habit. 8-)

The way I'm looking at it, if the lead suppliers are loosing sales to the recycled WW guy's it has bring down the prices elsewhere. :)

Hopefully. :grin:

[blackbike]

Even if you test every WW, the next one will be different.
Tims test is as good as we will probaly get.
WW aloy aint what they use to be.
Just look at the silver aloy in your pocket, we have ben riped off.
Just my two cents ( and it aint copper)
A dollar aint worth a dollar.
go figure, how long can this go on?
BB

[MBTcustom]

Just curious, of the samples you received from various sources, were they mostly clip-ons, or did you get some stick-ons also, and if so, were you able to check them seperately? I have also noticed that some of the stick-ons were about equal in hardness to clip-ons. Inquiring minds, ya' know.
All of the deals I made were for COWW ingots. So far, all of the stick on's I have dealt with were pure lead, but again, how pure is pure? if you dont care what else gets into your alloy mix, apparently it is easy to get .5% trash that covers half the periodic table. Most lead testing machines are going to give you a fairy tale based on what you ask it to look for. The machine that I have access to, gives a real number for every element in the sample. If there is more than .01% then it will see it and tell you whats there.

I'm wondering if your WW samples came to you in actual WW form or already smelted and ingotized?
All of the samples were in ingot form except one that came from my personal stash that I smelted myself. They were all the same, except for the personality of the .5% trash. That was the realy cool part, If I sample enough pieces, I could probably get to where I could tell you by the inclusions where it was from and how old it was.
It realy surprised me by what was found in a typical WW alloy, but nobody is going to use a machine of this precision to measure bullets, WW, or fishing sinkers......except me.:veryconfu Just thought the information would be valuable, because even though its not what we were taught, the samples still had pretty steady amounts of antimony so I thought I would pass it on for others to learn from.
Go and have some of your lead tested. If they come back with a clean, easy answer; that it has so much lead, tin and antimony; ask them to tell you what other metals did they find. Most would tell you that the machine only finds what you tell it to find. If they can give you a breakdown of every element in the alloy, then I would trust that answer.

[Matt_G]

Just thought the information would be valuable
Thanks Tim. It's very valuable info IMO. :drinks:

[a.squibload]

Thanks for investigating!

That would make my 50/50 soft lead (what is that?) / COWW (not sure either!)
alloy softer than what I thought. Hey, maybe it will expand!

I have some WW ingots and some 330 gn cast boolits from long ago,
might consider them as "pot sweetener". Recently sized & lubed a bunch
of old 250 gn 44 swcs, cast from straight WWs. Might melt 'em instead of shootin'
'em at targets. Propane vs antimony...

[MBTcustom]

Hold on there pardner! The purpose of this info is to tell you what is actually in WW alloy. That has no bearing on performance in your guns. Antimony is a powerful hardener in lead, even though you now know what the true value is, that does not change the fact that these low-grade WW have been working perfectly for a lot of applications, and if you had a good boolit made up that you know works, you would be nuts to melt them down just because I told you what's realy in them. If they work, then shoot 'em!
The thing is, for me this made me realize that the old timers had a lot better lead to work with than we do now. Keep this info in mind when you are reading the old Lyman recipes (or heck even the new Lyman recipes. I doubt they are aware of this information either) Because vintage information is based on vintage WW alloy.
My real pet peav is when I read someone telling a new guy to "cut his WW 50/50 with pure and that will give you about 1.5% Sb".....um no, that would be .75%Sb, and you have reduced your alloy to slightly hard. No problem if slightly hard is what you want, but if the vintage recipie calls for cutting 50/50 with WW, then you would be just fine using strait WW or only cutting it 10/90 or 20/80.

[PbHurler]

Thanks for the information Tim. Now I'm pondering "tweaking" my alloy calculator.

[gbrown]

Thanks, goodsteel, for the information. I've been wondering the same. I get small amounts of ww from different sources and I sort and test with either a cold chisel or diagonal cutter. It just seemed to me that some were very soft, compared to others. As you have pointed out, you can't take things for granted. I test my hardness of all alloy I make. Just because it is ww doesn't mean it's going to match all the charts. Thanks, again, for running the tests and confirming what some of us have already suspicioned.

[sqlbullet]

Which side of your sample ingots did you test?

The reason I ask is I have a little experience with XFR (x-ray florescence). I had my isotope lead tested a few years back. One thing we found is the "trash" readings were higher on the top (part that was up while it cooled) than the bottom. The numbers on the top were similar to what you report. We hypothesized at the time this was because the "trash" floats in liquid lead. Since XFR only tests a few microns deep, the readings are skewed.

We determined best practice to be to cut an ingot in half to ensure a reading from a largely uncontaminated sample. However I didn't have a saw suitable for such a procedure, so we just tested on sides or bottom from that point on.

I am not surprised by your findings. The COWW I have seen are clearly not the same as the isotope alloys that read 96/3/1 lead/antimony/tin.

[MBTcustom]

I melted a sample of the lead to be tested, poured dollops onto a sheet of steel with a bottom pour ladle, and then filed about .015 off the top of each sample with a new file that was cleaned with acetone. The parts were cleaned with alcohol, and handled with nitrile gloves from that point forward until they were placed in the testing machine. All testing was done in a static free, clean room environment. If there is a better way, I dont know it.

[375RUGER]

Good stuff there Tim. Thanks for posting your findings.
I've suspected that the antimony is real low becasue I've been trying to heat treat some alloy and cannot, no matter what I do, add more than 1 to 2 pts of BHN. Indicating a low antimony content. I also add solder to each pot to help with boolit fillout.

[badgeredd]

Perhaps I missed it, but do you have the arsenic content of the CCOW ingots? Since the As does also affect the ability to harden boolits by water dropping, it would seem to me that is a number that would also be helpful. Thanks for going to the trouble to get the WW analyzed. Those numbers put a dose of reality into trying to get a harder alloy. :groner:

Edd

[454PB]

Good information.

I've been using wheel weights for over 40 years, and I can tell no difference in the newest ones from those I used way back then. I'm always reading about how much better the "old" WW were........and I haven't seen it.

[MBTcustom]

I will try to dig up the info that I got again. As I recall, antimony was the largest % other than lead. Everything else was less than .4% and most metals were around the .01%-.02% range. I know I saw arsenic in there somewhere, but there wasn't enough to raise an eyebrow at all. As I recall, the metals that consistently made it over the .1 mark were copper and sometimes nickle.

[Larry Gibson]

As with 454PB I've also not found a lot of difference between the "old" COWWs and ones from today. Personally I think the advent of the SOWWs is what is causing the "difference". I think many smelt the SOWWs in with the COWWs not realizing they are almost pure lead and then comment on how "soft" the "new" WW alloy is. That's my opinion on the subject anyway.

Larry Gibson

[bearcove]

Tim, I have some WW alloy that I smelted in the late 70's. Want to try one of those?

[MBTcustom]

Thanks buddy but I am happy with the knowledge I have gleaned already, and its good enough for me. I'm not really even sure if it matters, but I thought it was worth laying out the truth as I know it for the benefit of the forum. I set on this info for quite a while, cause I didn't want to become known as "the guy who can get your lead tested for free". Its not free. It cost the company a lot of money. I have a clear mind about testing a few pieces for my own use, because I asked permission and was granted it. However, at this point I am not going to get any lead tested for the members of this forum because I believe it is dishonest.
I just posted these findings for you to take as you will.
I have already been asked by three people, so the answer is no.

[MBTcustom]

No offense to anyone I hope?

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Tim,
I have read (and assumed to be true) the typical 2-3% Antimony content of WW
with about 0.5% Tin.

thanks for posting this. After reading this thread, I searched a little to see
what I could find to corroborate your findings. I did find something interesting
in chapter 3 "Alloy Selection and Metallurgy" of Glen Fryxell's book "From Ingot to Target: A Cast Bullet Guide for Handgunners©"
http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_Chapter_3_alloySelectionMetallurgy.ht m
scroll down the page a little bit to, "Metallurgy of the Cast Bullet" The second paragragh is entitled, "Lead-antimony (Pb-Sb)" there is a little chart.
The Chart shows that an alloy of 1% Antimony and 99% Lead has a BHN of about 10
and an alloy of 2% Antimony and 98% Lead has a BHN of about 11.
When I test my COWW alloy, I get in the range of BHN of 9 to 11.
and your tests show the COWW you've received is an average of 98% Lead, 1.5% Antimony, and 0.5% other/trash (interestingly excluding tin).
Looks like your tests are right on the money, and also concludes
that my Lee hardness tester and my technique seems fairly acurate (± 1 BHN).
Thanks again,
Jon

[John Boy]

I just posted these findings for you to take as you will.
goodsteel - with all the posts you've made on this thread using the 'expensive' testing machine ... you have never once posted the complete analysis composition for the wheel weights that you tested. Is there a reason or do you plan to post the full analyzes at some later point in time?

As for hardness for several hundred lbs of WW I've gathered and made into ingots, the various batches tested resulted with Bhn's of:
12.5
14.3
13.4
15.4

I use the Bhn 15.4 batch to make a ratio of 7 pure Pb:1 WW for BPCR bullets that I shoot at 700 to 1000yds which when aged have a Bhn of 9.8. Reason for the 7:1 WW mix with the Sn-As-Sb percentages in these bullets - is they bump up for better obturation and are engraved longer on the bullets than other alloy ratios I've used

[waksupi]

It would be interesting to see samples from across the country tested. At one time, I looked at wheel weight suppliers, and there were dozens and dozens of suppliers. I'm sure they were not all using the same alloys all the time. I guess that would mean everyone has to send you wheel weights for testing.

[AndyC]

I'd suspected that the tin content of COWW was low because I've normally had to sweeten them with a little solder to get the cavities to fill-out properly. It was good to hear this info from you - thanks for your efforts :)

[MBTcustom]

You bet! Like I said I did these tests over a year ago for personal education. The samples that I tested were very close in their makeup. I dont remember the exact numbers, but I do remember that none of them had more than 2% antimony. I averaged them out and saved that information, but I threw away all the original figures. It was a downer for me because I was trying to build a special alloy for my rifle (actually what I did was make a 160lb batch of "sweet mix that was heavily laden with tin and antimony; about 6% so that I could cut it with WW to get what ever I was after) I kept having trouble cutting the alloy with the WW's because the antimony was dropping too fast. Once I started adjusting for the lower antimony I started hitting my numbers withing .5% of what I was going for.
At this point I feel confident that I can build an alloy very close to what I am after just by using a good scale and being picky.
For what its worth, I also measured some monotype and linotype metal and it was very close to the chemistry that my alloy calculator asserted. So close in fact that I didn't bother changing the calculator to make it square with my actual alloy. (They must have been very picky with that stuff!!!)
I did test quite a few samples for BlackBike as he is selling lots and lots of rangelead. What we found is that range lead is almost pure with an average of .5% garbage that was just as varied as the stuff in the WW lead. I did send him a detailed chemical breakdown of what I found.
Anyway, I am running with this information as being true. If you dont believe it, then disregard it. No harm, no foul.
If anyone has run tests like I have and have come up with contradictory information, I would appreciate your insight. I dont want to steer folks in the wrong direction, but it seemed to me that is what is already happening, so I figured no harm could come from posting my findings.
P.S. I dont have a hardness tester to double check the results I have posted, and I dont know what effect all of the garbage in the alloy has on the hardness of the alloy. I want to get into the hardness testers, but I really want a good one, and so far, the monies have not manifested themselves. However, I would think that a hardness tester is a far removed indicator of what elements are in a particular alloy.

[bearcove]

Thanks buddy but I am happy with the knowledge I have gleaned already, and its good enough for me. I'm not really even sure if it matters, but I thought it was worth laying out the truth as I know it for the benefit of the forum. I set on this info for quite a while, cause I didn't want to become known as "the guy who can get your lead tested for free". Its not free. It cost the company a lot of money. I have a clear mind about testing a few pieces for my own use, because I asked permission and was granted it. However, at this point I am not going to get any lead tested for the members of this forum because I believe it is dishonest.
I just posted these findings for you to take as you will.
I have already been asked by three people, so the answer is no.

Not testing it for me, it was just in reference to old verses new. I only have about ten pounds of it. It is used for spline weights for drafting. And I know they were smelted before 1980.

[gbrown]

All I can say, is thank you goodsteel for sharing. All the naysayers and doubters, can you produce information useful to us, the forum members here? I'm not trying to start a controversy or problems, but goodsteel has done a good thing here, and we should appreciate it. As goodsteel said, "If anyone has run tests like I have and have come up with contradictory information, I would appreciate your insight. I dont want to steer folks in the wrong direction, but it seemed to me that is what is already happening, so I figured no harm could come from posting my findings." In my estimation, anything that adds to the knowledge base here is good.

[bearcove]

It is good info to have . Interesting that the results were that consistant. I figured it would vary more cause I assumed a lot of the material was scrap recycled into new WW.

[zxcvbob]

I would be willing to bet that WW's now are made (in China) of any and all scrap lead except for battery plates, all mixed together. Then it's die cast, so the mold fill-out is OK whether it has any tin or not. All they care about is that the weight is kind of consistent and there's no obvious porosity. The impurities give it the necessary hardness.

ETA: that's really all they should care about

[468]

Great info Goodsteel. Thanks for posting. This certainly expands our collective knowledge base.

[UnderDawgAl]

I would be willing to bet that WW's now are made (in China) of any and all scrap lead except for battery plates, all mixed together. Then it's die cast, so the mold fill-out is OK whether it has any tin or not. All they care about is that the weight is kind of consistent and there's no obvious porosity. The impurities give it the necessary hardness.

Agree with zxcvbob. It makes no financial sense at current prices for WW providers to waste money on tin or antimony for wheel weights.

[gbrown]

+1 with zxcvbob. What's not recycled today? I have pure lead? that comes out at 8 or 9 bhn. All I can say is test it! Let the buyer beware!! There is not much material, especially metal, that is not recycled, period. I have a sneaking suspicion, that modern wheelweights are so recycled that they lose some of the constituent metals, such as goodsteel has pointed out. Don't know, just my gut feeling.

[a.squibload]

Hold on there pardner! The purpose of this info is to tell you what is actually in WW alloy. That has no bearing on performance in your guns....

Don't read too much into what I said.
My 50/50 alloy using "recent production" WWs works pretty good.
(edit: I add a little tin to it.)
All I meant to say is that if my straight COWW ingots and heavy boolits left over
from the 70s have twice the antimony in them, I might consider melting and re-alloying them
into new, improved Better Boolits!
Thereby stretching the WW stash.
Yes I'm cheap, I blame it on genetics but it could be social/environmental conditioning.

[PbHurler]

I'd suspected that the tin content of COWW was low because I've normally had to sweeten them with a little solder to get the cavities to fill-out properly.

Same here Andy,
I see alot of people say they use straight WW. but my experience has been hit or miss on dropping well filled-out castings with straight WW, (within a specific smelted batch). I either add pure Sn or solder to improve fill-out.

[master caster]

Sure wish I would of not melted all my really old wheel weights and mixed in the new ones. Figured I could have a pot of nice lead and put in some new WW and find the floaters easier that way. Now i read all this and wonder why. Looks like I got a blend of different ages. Thanks for all the info.

[MBTcustom]

The reason why I posted my findings on linotype as well, is so that you can feel confident about adding a little of that to "sweeten up" your alloy to original specs or close to it. You can depend on the alloy calculator to give you real numbers on linotype, and if you adjust your WW ratios, you can hit it pretty darn close.

[Roundnoser]

Thanks Tim. Great information. It didn't hit me until I read your post...There is no reason for the WW manufacturer to add tin to the alloy unless it in someway aided in the manufacturing process. It would make no sense for them to add tin "just because". -- Since I use COWWs almost exclusively, I will keep your research in mind if I notice fill out problems, etc.

[Dutch4122]

I think it's always best to get a hardness tester and test the clip on wheelweights for yourself. Last night I grabbed a cast iron biscuit pan ingot of clip on wheelweights from a smelt I did 2 months ago. I tested it on my Cabin Tree tester and it came out 12 BHN; which should = approximately 4% Antimony.

YMMV,

[MBTcustom]

Dutch4122 has a point, at the end of the day hardness/toughness is the most important qualities that we are after. It doesn't matter weather you get there with antimony, arsenic, gold, tin, copper or what, as long as you get a usable alloy.
However, I seriously doubt you have 4% antimony there.

[gbrown]

Again goodsteel, thanks for the info. Dutch4122 has a point, and it is a very good one, test it! Don't assume anything. goodsteel pointed out in the opening post that what you see is not, necessarily, what you get. If nothing else, that's the whole point to this thread, from my point of view. All those charts and calculators are nice, but the bottom line is the Bhn. I mixed linotype and "pure" lead. Did it come out as hardcast? No, harder. 17-18. As I have pointed out, and others, all the stuff we are dealing with is recycled. Who knows what's in it?

[Dutch4122]

However, I seriously doubt you have 4% antimony there.

I based my belief that I had 4% Antimony on the following thread from 2004 on another cast bullet forum:

http://forums.handloads.com/archive/forum_posts.asp?TID=364

The OP used a scanning X-ray flouresence spectrometer to test a sample from a 700 lbs. batch of wheelweights. His results as he posted were:

Pb 94.1818%
Sb 4.2431%
Sn .3751%
Br .031%
As .2723%
Cu .0534%
Ni .0246%
Fe .5955%
Cr .0442%
K .0312%
S .0069%
P .0094%
Al .0539%
Na .0776%

The OP also stated that this wheelweight alloy gave a BHN of "around 12" when air cooled. My clip on wheelweight alloy, air cooled, measured 12 on my hardness tester two months after smelting. The above list he gave for his wheelweight alloy lists Antimony at 4.2431%

Just thought I'd explain where I got the idea that my clip on wheelweights with a BHN of 12 must have roughly 4% antimony.

[MBTcustom]

Good stuff! That's totally different than any of the samples I had tested. Was there anything special about the WW you used in that test? I didn't test any big truck weights or old weights. If that was just regular WW picked up from the local tire shop, then obviously there is a lot of variance possible in WW quality.
Also, was there anything special about the place you got the WW's? Like was it your local Rols Roise dealership? (ie, was it the kind of place that might pay more for the WW's?)
Thanks for contributing!

[Dutch4122]

Good stuff! That's totally different than any of the samples I had tested. Was there anything special about the WW you used in that test?The gentleman at Handloads.com who ran the test would have to answer that question. He goes by the handle "rhead" and I think he may be or used to be a member here at Cast Boolits as well. I didn't test any big truck weights or old weights. If that was just regular WW picked up from the local tire shop, then obviously there is a lot of variance possible in WW quality.I agree that is very possible.
Also, was there anything special about the place you got the WW's? Like was it your local Rols Roise dealership? (ie, was it the kind of place that might pay more for the WW's?)Nope, the sample I checked on my hardness tester came out of 3 buckets obtained from a family owned garage & wrecker service on the north end of beautiful Flint, MI
Thanks for contributing!

Glad to be of help, :popcorn:

[hickfu]

I use a 3 (COWW) to 1 (PURE) mix with around 8 to 12 oz of pewter per 50lb pot smelting down to pour my ingots. I have never tested how hard they are air dried or water quenched but they seem pretty hard. I think i will get a hardness tester just to see.

Tim, great information....


Doc

[bearcove]

One thing that has kept me from getting a hardness tester is lack of calibration. I have a uncalibrated tester that doesn't give a number in bnh. 4lb hammer dropped on a 490 rb cast from an alloy. Pure smashes good, lino not so good. Then inbetween for others.

I've thought of making a stand with a pin in the handle and a height stop. Drop on rb would be consistant. Measure with caliper...

That would give as good of info as most testers I've seen in a casters price range.

[MBTcustom]

I like the way you think! I'm considering making a boolit guillotine tester. Works just like a guillotine except instead of a blade, it will drop a weight. That should get me a good reference for the toughness of a boolit. I think I'll make a special mold that casts a cylinder just for the guillotine. Then I could just measure the height of those aristocratic boolits.

[felix]

Tim, make the machine a machine to measure the practical TOUGHNESS as well as HARDNESS. Use a push through die mechanism using closely calibrated hydrologic measurements. The amount of force to push the cylinder through at a calibrated fixed speed would be called hardness, and the amount of cylinder growth (rebound) after push through would be called toughness. Ideally, the die should be a cut-off gun barrel, and the plunger mimicking a parabolic point (very wide and shallow) to emulate typical powder expansion results. ... felix

[bearcove]

dang felix, I read that twice!

But I think I'll stick to my hammer.

If you want a toughness test just swing it harder!

[303Guy]

If you want a toughness test just swing it harder!Can you elaborate? Does that measure fracture resistance? Can one measure hardness and compare the hammer flattening to find a correlation, assuming a consistent hammer blow? What about a fast blow from a light hammer compared with a slow blow from a heavy hammer? A third test could be a weight with a conical spike on it.

[bearcove]

Drill a hole in the end of the hammer handle, mount so it hits test specimen when handle is horizontal. Hold the hammer vertical and let it tip over. This is very repeatable. Do test with 4lb hammer. Now make up one with a 20lb double jack. I use a 490 round ball out of a worn out thompson mold. Just cast a few while you are casting your boolits.

The 4lb will tell you hardness the 20 lb should give a good indication of toughness. I haven't done the 20lb test but now I'm going to make one to test the theory. My tests are informal. put a boolit on the anvil and whack it. I use a hammer a lot so its probably more consistant than it sounds.

Toughness would be indicated by less fracturing and cracks. By using both weight hammers you could adjust alloy to get a combination of hardness/toughness.

[gbrown]

Have ya'll seen Grumpy one's sticky up there with the Classic Sticky? I think its titled "Testing alloys of lead, tin & antimony. He made a pretty neat set up to test alloy. I think I saw a post on there by Felix. I thought it was pretty interesting reading.

[bearcove]

No, I been beating on stuff with hammers for so long I just carried on with it.

I will go look though!

Most of my great ideas were some one else's also.

Hard to invent something original these days.

[303Guy]

Here's the Link to grumpy one's sticky

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=40767

[bearcove]

Have to go back and read when I have time. The hammer will stay cause its a very good calibrated eyeball test that can be done in about 5 seconds.

I also work with mostly unknown alloys and a quick whack gives a good feel for where I'm at.

[gbrown]

That's the thing about it. Whatever works for you, keep at it. I do stuff that friends are always asking "Why you doing that?" "This works better." I stick with what works for me, unless it is, indeed, a better mousetrap.

[bearcove]

I worked the "Lab" type of weapon shop and my rule of thumb ain't far from their $100,000.000 theory.

[303Guy]

Well, I went and beat on a boolit and flattened it out quite thin with no cracking around the edges. Funny how it hardens with beating. I drilled the hammer but haven't done the mounting yet.

Grumpy's energy test looks interesting. It'll be impossible for me to do the energy math with the swinging hammer but a dropped weight would be quite do-able. Not sure there's any need though but it might be more compact with a dropped weight. My alloys don't get hard enough to fracture.

[MBTcustom]

My alloys don't get hard enough to fracture.
Thats because your alloys are 2% paper!:kidding:
:2_high5:

[bearcove]

I think a malleable alloy is "tough"

[bearcove]

Well, I went and beat on a boolit and flattened it out quite thin with no cracking around the edges. Funny how it hardens with beating. I drilled the hammer but haven't done the mounting yet.

Grumpy's energy test looks interesting. It'll be impossible for me to do the energy math with the swinging hammer but a dropped weight would be quite do-able. Not sure there's any need though but it might be more compact with a dropped weight. My alloys don't get hard enough to fracture.

The swinging hammer has the same energy as a straight drop, less a tiny loss due to friction

[bearcove]

OK not exactly. But it is a constant that can be factored out.

[John Boy]

I averaged them out and saved that information, but I threw away all the original figures.Well, since goodsteel was careless and has nothing to show us ... here's some percentages to ponder on ...

The garden variety wheel weights that are on probably 99% of all vehicles in the US.
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Wheel%20Weights/13.jpg
Composition: 2.96% Sb, 0.41% Sn, 0.174% As, balance lead

The next most common is the adhesive weight.
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Wheel%20Weights/3.jpg
Composition: 0.377% Sb, 1.45% Sn, 0.029% As, balance lead

An adhesive type, but in a shape unlike the "Tape-A-Weight" style.
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Wheel%20Weights/11.jpg
Composition: 4.94% Sb, 0.017% Sn, 0.107% As, balance lead.

Not sure how it is affixed to the wheel but here it is
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Wheel%20Weights/12.jpg
Composition: 3.10% Sb, 0.053% Sn, 0.039% As, balance lead

Compliments from dwebb210 back in 2004. All weights tested in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology reference standards as well as other NIST traceable standards were used to analyze these samples.

I was really waiting for some percentages from goodsteel to compare against these percentages by WW type ... Oh Well

[bearcove]

The whole thing depends on the smelt.

WW's are dirty. When you melt them all that **** goes in the pot. Some of the **** is alloyed into your melt, you flux and reduce the "****" but some remains.

The differences are background noise that has some regional ancestory but those "Whatever" state WW have a chaotic mix of WW from all of North America and beyond.

[bearcove]

I can't believe poop spelled c r a p is censored

[bumpo628]

Well, since goodsteel was careless and has nothing to show us ... here's some percentages to ponder on ...

The garden variety wheel weights that are on probably 99% of all vehicles in the US.
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Wheel%20Weights/13.jpg
Composition: 2.96% Sb, 0.41% Sn, 0.174% As, balance lead

The next most common is the adhesive weight.
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Wheel%20Weights/3.jpg
Composition: 0.377% Sb, 1.45% Sn, 0.029% As, balance lead

An adhesive type, but in a shape unlike the "Tape-A-Weight" style.
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Wheel%20Weights/11.jpg
Composition: 4.94% Sb, 0.017% Sn, 0.107% As, balance lead.

Not sure how it is affixed to the wheel but here it is
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Wheel%20Weights/12.jpg
Composition: 3.10% Sb, 0.053% Sn, 0.039% As, balance lead

Compliments from dwebb210 back in 2004. All weights tested in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology reference standards as well as other NIST traceable standards were used to analyze these samples.

I was really waiting for some percentages from goodsteel to compare against these percentages by WW type ... Oh Well

The "garden variety" numbers seem to match the typically accepted values for wheel weight alloy. Surprising to see how much tin was in stick on weight.

I'd be interested in seeing a current day comparison to these 2004 numbers too if anyone has has it.

[MBTcustom]

Sorry, I found all the tests that were done after the WW's as I was dialing in my rifle alloy, but none of the WW tests. I didn't think it was important at the time and to tell you the truth, after some of the abrasive challenges that have come out of this, I can honestly say that I couldn't care-less.
I invited and encouraged anybody with differing information to speak up and give perspective as I admitted that I had only tested five samples of different batches that I had received and I averaged the results. I meant no one any harm by what I posted and I only brought it up in an effort to help. I am simply saying that there are no hard and fast rules about what is in WW alloy. I believe that they are skimping like crazy as of late, but thats my theory based on the few samples I ran. I still think that if you have WW lead that has over 2% antimony you are blessed, and if you have any tin in there, you are lucky. Either that, or I had the bad luck to only pick the crappy ones. I set on this for a while, but I thought it was worth mentioning. If you think that all WW lead has 96.5/3/.5 then good luck to you 'cause you're going to need it!
All that being said, I do appreciate the additions to this thread in that I have renewed hope that one of the batches I received might actually be "as advertised" WW lead, but I'm not going to pester the fella at work to do any more tests unless I have a darn good reason. (Tell you the truth I think he figures we're even by now.) He tested over ten alloys for me multiple times, and I learned a lot about alloys and I found out that you can predict the alloy in your pot pretty closely if you are anal about your mix weights, and thats all I wanted to find out in the first place.
For me, I figure I can depend on everything except the WW alloy. Every other thing I tested was very close to what it should have been except the WW's. John Boy and Dutch 4122 have only further proved this point by kindly posting their results which differed so greatly from my own.
The whole point is that when you are smelting WW alloy, you cannot depend on the content therein, it is a shady and unstable reference that claims that they are always such and such alloy. I think that we are the only folks in the world who give a hoot in heck about what exactly is in a wheel weight and the rest of the folks just want them to stay on a tire. If I wanted to go all "wild eye, conspiracy theorist" on you, I would say that it was in certain peoples interest that the WW's be made week so that they would fall off, and make the steel ones look more Eco-friendly, while making lead WW's look like a good way to seed lead among the masses and poison everybody.:lol:
If you have a 50 year old business in this time of lead persecution, that makes WW's you would have to find ways to make them cheaper to offset the cost of all the regulations (a lot has changed since 2004 in case you hadn't noticed). How, prey-tell is the easiest way to cut cost in that business? Lead is still cheaper material than everything but Styrofoam and plastic....Tin and antimony are a different matter all together.
In a few more years all this will all be a mute point, and we can argue till the cows come home about what WW's used to have in them whilst buying our lead for $3 a pound from rotometals.
OK, I'm done with the soap box and theorizing and ranting. Thanks for all the contributing information. I do apologize for not posting this back when the information was fresh. I foolishly thought that if I mentioned that some WW's had less than 3% antimony and no tin, then some folks would get mad at me. :mrgreen:

[Piedmont]

You've done us all a good turn Goodsteel.

I was reading something not long ago from the 1960s or earlier. It was either a very old Handloader or an old American Rifleman someone put on the internet and they had analyzed wheel weights from whatever era that was at 6% Antimony. How would you like some of that!

[bearcove]

Just remember Tim, "most" of us are here to have fun.

Some take things a little serious.

[40Super]

In another couple years we will be using synthetic lead, or a "lead substitute",[smilie=w: that will give everyone in california cancer.[smilie=s:

[OBIII]

Relax Tim, there are always a few trolls that peruse threads and cast their lures. Let not your heart be troubled, as you (and others) have provided me with information I could probably not obtain elsewhere. Keep on posting, my man. Thank you.
OB

[Flinchrock]

One thing that has kept me from getting a hardness tester is lack of calibration. I have a uncalibrated tester that doesn't give a number in bnh. 4lb hammer dropped on a 490 rb cast from an alloy. Pure smashes good, lino not so good. Then inbetween for others.

I've thought of making a stand with a pin in the handle and a height stop. Drop on rb would be consistant. Measure with caliper...

That would give as good of info as most testers I've seen in a casters price range.

Kind of like the "crusher" method used to measure chamber pressure.

Could be pretty useful for comparison purposes, use pure at low end and maybe lino at the high end.

Actually, if enough known hardness samples were tested and recorded, it could be "calibrated" and "fracture" characteristics could also be observed and recorded,,not a bad idea in my opinion.

[white eagle]

oh the old grey ww she aint what she used to be

[375RUGER]

Not sure how it is affixed to the wheel but here it is
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd220/Meadowmucker/Wheel%20Weights/12.jpg
Composition: 3.10% Sb, 0.053% Sn, 0.039% As, balance lead
[I]


I think that might be a german invention. The only ones I've seen were branded mercedes, VW and some other unknown european trademark. They attach with a regular steel clip, it is just not fused to the alloy. Got a pile of the clips out behind my lead shed.
I recently melted down a 15-20 yo bucket of european wheel weights. Lots of zinc in the bucket for even 20 years ago. Some of the clipons were good and hard. Some were nearly butter soft. Same with the stickons, some hard some soft.
I melted them in 2 batches hoping to get one hard and one soft batch.

[LUBEDUDE]

I melted a sample of the lead to be tested, poured dollops onto a sheet of steel with a bottom pour ladle, and then filed about .015 off the top of each sample with a new file that was cleaned with acetone. The parts were cleaned with alcohol, and handled with nitrile gloves from that point forward until they were placed in the testing machine. All testing was done in a static free, clean room environment. If there is a better way, I dont know it.



Impressive-

Smart, scientific, and looking ahead.

Good Job!

[MBTcustom]

I FOUND SOME OF THE TESTS!!!!!!!!!!
I was cleaning up the office with my wife today, and I found a pile of papers that slid off the back of my desk and low and behold, one of those papers was some of the tests.
There are six results here, three of them are from the alloy that I was developing, (we dont care about that because it doesn't exist in that form any more) but the top three were some WW that I had tested.
Sample #1:
Pb= 98.74%
Sb=.16%
Ni=.23%
Col=.35%
Au=.52%

Sample #2
Pb=98.97%
Sb=.34%
Ni=.21%
Cd=.15%
Au=.33%

Sample #3
Pb=97.94%
SB=1.10%
Ni=.30%
Au=.60%
Ga= .07%
These were some of the worst ones. Most of the ones I tested had about 1.5% antimony but these were extremely low. Some had almost 2% antimony, so I averaged them all together to get about 1.5% antimony give or take. I say again, that none of the samples I tested had even a trace of Tin in their makeup.
But, I have an overabundance of tin available to me at all times so I geuss you could say that I couldn't CARE-LESS what % tin the alloys have.;-)

[zxcvbob]

The gold content is surprisingly high, and the zinc and tin are surprisingly low.

[Aaron]

Yeah, is there a way to get the gold out?

[MBTcustom]

Believe me, I tried. Turns out that gold will dissolve in molten lead very quickly and quite easily. I did some research to try to find out why some of the samples had gold in them. It turns out that a common way to strip gold from gold plated contact leads is to dip them in a molten pot of lead for a second. (don't ever drop your wedding ring in the pot fellas!)
I found strange deposits in other WW samples too. Some had a high percentage of cadmium. I was told that was from recycling battery lead (that was only a guess from a smart guy). Another one had a high amount of copper. That's why I said that I wandered if I could tell where in the country it was from based on the garbage that was in it. Each batch of lead had its own personality. What does this do for the hardness of the lead? who knows? but there is definitely some variance in what you get.

[John Boy]

Tim, thanks for the update on the tests. They are some very interesting alloy compositions - all which I never expected to see in wheel weights. Were all the tested weights clip on one's?

I can relate to a pile of papers which for me is very poorly organized. That's why with casting or reloading data, I either scan the information or type it into Word or put it on an Excel spreadsheet. All into the computer sub directories with regular backups

[MBTcustom]

They should have been clip on WW. Remember that the above results were one batch from some guy on S&S. I traded solder for the WW ingots. I suppose he could have been stingy with his WW, so he cut them 50/50 with pure lead and his wife dropped an ear-ring in there on accident, after the dog bit her heel.......
I just dont think most testing places set the machine up to read this accurately. At first, the guy at work set the machine up and it spit me out a percentage of lead, antomony, and tin. I asked him if the machine would tell me if there was zinc in the mix. He informed me that there are two ways to set the machine, one way is where you tell it what you are looking for and it finds out the average percentage of those elements that you asked for. The other way is where you tell the machine to give you the skinny on every winkin,blinkin,and noddin, element that is in there! I told him that I very much prefer the latter, and would he kindly run the test again? He agreed and I was pleased to find that there was no zinc in the mix, but a little bewildered by all the other stuff that was there. So I grabbed another dollop of lead from another batch, and another, and another. The results were different than what I had been taught in boolit school, hence the name of this thread. I asked the guy if the machine could be messing up? He gave me one of those "You're kidding, right?" kind of looks. He told me that he re-calibrates the machine every day as per procedure with a sample of known value that is kept under lock and key, and he said he re-calibrated it on the spot when he saw gold in the alloy. The general consensus was after all this, that with a WW ingot, you never know what your going to get.

[Defcon-One]

Tim:

Great job! I appreciate the information!

I pursued the "True make up of COWWs" about a year ago. That thread is probably still out there somewhere. I got a ton of good information and a bunch of abuse, like you feel you have received. Guys kept asking why I wanted to know exactly what was in there. I would explain that I make my own alloys and I need to start with good information to get exactly what I want in the end product. Good in, good out!

They would then fill a couple of replies with "why do you need it EXACTLY?" and "who cares as long as it shoots"...... "the target doesn't care"..... etc.

A battle over nothing trying to put me down and make my quest harder.

My conclusion was that some guys are just jerks, fortunately as you have seen here, most are not.

I for one appreciate any new information that I can get. The more I know, the better my alloys and my bullets will be. For me that is what matters and that is why I like to know exactly what I have. I enjoy it. I suspect that you are the same.

To the guys who want to just dump "LEAD" in a pot and cast it, then shoot it; Go ahead and I won't give you any grief. To guys like Tim here and I, thanks for the effort, it all matters to me!

[40Super]

Thats how I am also, I even have a four stacks of WW ingots that each stack is from only one "brand". When I was sorting a couple buckets for zinc or steel, I just made several piles that I would toss the lead ones one depending on the brand. I want to find out if any are "better" than others. I have one stack of "MC", one stack of "GM" , and 2 other stacks from those that had some sort of symbol. I don't know if I'll continue to or not but so far I have so I can get some big batches.
The rest are all just clumped together, It doesn't bother me to seperate them,I'm in no rush.

[odfairfaxsub]

i never really mind the hardness, whatever seems to be in the ww it seems to be just fine in my pistol/revolver when you mix it half and half and if you gas check the ww byitself it seems to be perfect for rifle. multiple batches of ww never really made a remarkable difference in rifle accuracy

[mold maker]

goodsteel, I to have noticed over the last 50 years that COWWs have varied from time to time. The current made stuff seems to be the worst in consistency.
I guess as the end of lead WW nears, the quality will degrade as they attempt to use up cheaper materials, or inventory, from their suppliers.
I checked a couple years ago, and it seems that the majority of WWs are made by only a couple casters.
If you've paid attention, we now see much more Fe marked WWs than Zinc. Reason being that Zinc is as expensive as Lead, and harder to cast with the clip. If they have to be assembled, it makes sense to use cheap iron stampings instead.

[handloder]

Dear goodsteel;
What standards are you using to calibrate your Xray machine? I assume you are talking about Xray Fluorescence Spectroscopy. Are there standards available from the NIST (used to be the NBS) today, or do you make up your own? Your inability to find minor and trace elements has me wondering about overall results.

[MBTcustom]

Dear handloder, check out post#81.

[MBTcustom]

and quit trying to start a fight on a friendly forum.

[MBTcustom]

and handloader has an "a" in it.

[handloder]

Goodsteel...so you didn't run the tests YOURSELF (from posting #86). Your data is therefore hearsay. I'm an American and can spell my name anyway I want. Tell your 'analyst' you want at least a three point calibration curve and a written report that you can post on this thread. Your results smack of 'garbage in...garbage out'.
I like friendly postings, too. But misleading data needs rebuttal...call it friendly or anything you want.

[MBTcustom]

Nah, I think I'll leave it where it is. You only consider it misleading because it contradicts something else you read somewhere. The information that got the numbers in your head now was not provided with a calibration curve, you read them and took them for fact because of the name on the cover of a book.
Good science there buddy.
Instead of slandering my character on public forum, why don't you have some WW tested and post your findings?
I figured lots of people have their lead tested and would contribute their findings to this thread and give everybody an idea of what can be expected in a random sample of WW alloy.
So far, there have been a bunch of folks who argue with me based on old information. The newest tests were done in 2004 which was 8 years ago. We have experienced a war and an economic meltdown since then.
If you are looking in a book that references information that was gathered in the fifties and are applying it to modern day you are on shaky ground unless we are talking about scientific laws.
I got news for you, the world has changed in the last five decades! We seem to have no problem with the decline in strength and quality of our entire vehicle but somehow you think that the WW's are sacred to the industry?
This post should be a reality check to those who are stuck in the past, but if not, well its just a darn WW after all. Its still going to shoot.

[PbHurler]

its just a darn WW after all. Its still going to shoot.

Exactly Tim,
We could all use assayed materials to produce our boolits if we "by God" wanted to assure ourselves of the composition of our alloys. (a little too expensive for my blood). Thanks for your efforts & contribution.:drinks:

[Defcon-One]

Good steel:

See what I mean, this stuff just brings them out of the woodwork. You'd think you were attacking his religion or something.

When I did my research, one thing that I found out was that more and more wheel weights are being made in China and imported back in to the USA. Where do they get there Lead? They buy scrap lead here, ship it over there, make wheel weights and then ship them back to sell here. They save enough on labor costs to make all that work at a profit.

My understanding from my research was that they don't work too hard to seperate the Zinc out, they just pressure cast at higher temps. to get good wheel weights. So, that will be the next battle on here. Zinc content?


QUESTION: "I hand sorted everything, and I watched my temps. carefully, so how did all this Zinc get into my pot and alloy?

ANSWER: "The Chinese put it there!"


Things always change. The economy, the processes, the players (manufacturers) and the laws controlling this stuff, like the Lead bans in CA.

Right now we worry about Zinc in our bucket, later we'll all be carrying little bottles of Muriatic Acid and testing the lead that we buy like a cocaine dealer on TV. If it fizzles, don't buy it.

It is all part of the hobby. I find it kind of fun and interesting. I enjoy the research and keeping ahead of the information curve. But, whether it bothers you or not, those are the facts. Nothing is static, everything changes with time and conditions!

[evan price]

The copper comes from babbitt metal. Some of the high strength babbitt alloys use copper and I would say from my experience that the lead scrappers just throw anything vaguely lead-like in one large tub and call it "lead" so it is not surprising.
The cadmium is most likely from battery lead. It is used extensively in maintenance free batteries.
I would also surmise there are traces of bismuth and silver in there quite often.

[waksupi]

I will point out to new users, that there is a rule about adversarial postings here.

[btroj]

Defcon-one, I am one of "those guys" who asked all those "rude" questions.
I still stand by my comments. Wheel weights are obviously quite variable in their makeup. If you want precise alloys but the, from a foundry. Use of scrap for an alloy negates any ability to know precisely what the composition is. Well used Linotype isn't the same as fou dry new Linotype, is it?

In the end, most of us just don't worry over this stuff. I find a mix that works for me so I use it. Wo cares what the exact composition is, it works!

Wheel weights of today vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Throw in weights from different eras and who knows what exactly you have. To my way of thinking of I know a ballpark figure it allows me to make up a mix of scrap that will get me the properties I want.

If I want to know preciscely what is in my lead I will need to find a place that can test it for me. I don't know of any, haven't really looked.

This isn't meant as any form of an attack. It is only my opinion. The info from Goodsteel only shows that wheel weights are not a very homogenous source of alloy. What you get can vary from batch to batch. In the end, does it matter in the gun or on the target? That is what counts to me.

Use what you want, test what you want, just don't get so wrapped up in details that you lose sight of the big picture. Most guns will never, ever know the difference.

I like to keep things simple. I cast, I load, I shoot. I dont fret over small details about alloy as it isn't very fun to me. I try to keep my shooting fun.

[zxcvbob]

It is interesting that a bucket of WW's could contain over $1000 worth of gold. It is extractable; I think by adding a bunch of zinc but I don't know the process. Then you have to remove the zinc, then extract the gold from the zinc...

I mostly just separate my lead into "soft lead" and "hard lead", based on a thumbnail test. 99% of the boolits I cast will work with either, or a mixture of the two. I wonder how much of the hardness in indoor range scrap comes from dissolved copper dust from jacketed bullets hitting the backstop.

[MBTcustom]

btroj hit it right on the head. I agree with every word of your post. This information makes no difference to the gun or the target. Thats exactly why I didn't bring it up for a year. But it bugs me when I read posts where the fellas are assuming that they have a certain percentage of tin and antimony when I know that is very unlikely. This is also interesting to me, because if you apply these numbers to what they recommend in the old Lyman books, you get a much better idea of what they were shooting back then. For instance, my Lyman ammunition reloading handbook 41'st edition is laying open in front of me and clearly reads: "Wheel weight metal contains 90% lead, 1% tin and 9% antimony." Copyright 1957
In 1973 they are saying the same thing in the Lyman cast bullet handbook, but none of us believe that. However, lots of books give recipes based on alloy, not hardness. If you are trying to build an alloy that will perform like the book says it will, then WW metal is an unknown quantity. That's the only place where any of this makes any difference to anybody.
I don't mind constructive criticism when the fella is basing his argument on current information, and means no personal injury or slander to the OP, but just bludgeoning me for daring to post my findings without the aid of a certified notary is ridiculous and uncalled for. I'm only trying to help and I invited anyone with information as current as mine to post it up for the education of myself and others.
There was no reason for a friendly thread to go this way.

[Defcon-One]

Defcon-one, I am one of "those guys" who asked all those "rude" questions.

I have followed your posts for a long time and I know better. At least until today!

Why quote me as saying "rude", I never did. I never said "those guys' either.




In the end, most of us just don't worry over this stuff. I find a mix that works for me so I use it. Who cares what the exact composition is, it works!

I do!

I think that Goodsteel does! Or, he would not have done all of that testing. That is the whole point of this post, isn't it? If we care about this, why can't we talk about it here without all of the replies telling us that YOU don't care and it doesn't matter? We get that it doesn't matter to YOU. So just go to another post and let us be. No reply, no BS.


I did say this in my reply:


To the guys who want to just dump "LEAD" in a pot and cast it, then shoot it; Go ahead and I won't give you any grief.

Read it, then give me the same courtesy, please!



I like to keep things simple. I cast, I load, I shoot. I dont fret over small details about alloy as it isn't very fun to me. I try to keep my shooting fun.

Great, do what you want. Let us do what we want.

It does matter to me! I even said in my previous replies, "I enjoy it." and "It is all part of the hobby. I find it kind of fun and interesting."

Why can't you just let US have OUR fun?



....There was no reason for a friendly thread to go this way.

That has been my point all along! If you can't say something good or useful, then don't say anything at all!

[MBTcustom]

btroj, I don't recall you ever having said anything rude! I have no problem with you whatsoever. We are all friends here, and that's my stand. There is a big difference between a respectable member like yourself, and a guy who has only 11 posts to his name and half of them are negative and unhelpful. I will jump on a guy like that.

[MBTcustom]

On a lighter note, does anybody have an easy, safe way to get the gold out of this lead? All this time, I thought the Lone Ranger was crazy for shooting silver boolits, and then I find out that I have been shooting gold!!!!

[Defcon-One]

I would assume that it is not cost effective to do so. Based on some math, I think that 100 pounds of your lead from one sample would have had about 8.3 ounces of Gold in it!

If they could get it out for less than it is worth, I bet they would. That is $14,000 worth of Gold. (Check my math!)

Maybe you should get a bullet trap if you don't have one. Maybe we all should.

[303Guy]

I've heard of frontiersmen using gold round ball when they had no lead. It was recoverable from the game they shot. I wonder if that really ever happened?!

[40Super]

If there really is $14,000 worth of gold in that lead, maybe just take it to the bank with the analisis and cash it in:razz: Let them worry about recovering it. Tell them the lead is a portable saftey deposit container. See what they say.[smilie=l:

[btroj]

I have a feeling that if it was cost effective to remove the gold from the lead a smelter along the way would have done so. It is most likely a "spend 100 dollars to recover 10" sort of thing.

I agree entirely with agoodsteel that people who assume they know exactly what they have in a bucket of wheelweights are fooling themselves. The formulations are just too variable.

I do know that I get a bunch of variation in the range scrap I use a fair amount. What I can't say is that I have noticed a difference. If I was shooting BR or other target games I would mix up a big batch to get a large batch of a consistant alloy.

I do like to know if I have 3 or 5 percent Sb, what I don't get is worrying about having 2 or 2.25 percent Sb. That difference just isn't going to matter.

Yes, people who call anything old alloy "lead" are annoying. I do this at times when speaking to non casters as they wouldn't understand what I meant if I mentioned Linotype or monotype. Sometimes we just need to dumb things down.