Lee Hardness Tester

[Fireman45]

I have been browsing for some time but this is my first post, I hope someone more knowledgeable than me can help. I have a Lee hardness tester and am wondering just how accurate they are. According to it my straight wheelweights are about 14BNH, the list I have says they should be about 9. Anyone else have that problem.

[Ricochet]

Wheelweights are pretty variable. They could be that hard, depending on what went into 'em and how quickly they cooled down.

[drinks]

Fireman;
I have the Cabine Tree and the Lee testers, on another forum we are having round robin testing comparisons.
The LBT and Saeco testers seem to show the 9 figure on most wws, but the Cabine Tree and Lee show a lot of different hardnesses.
I did a test run on wws in the original condition, clips still attached and all, just filed a flat spot to poke, has results from 10 to 16, depending on the name marked on the ww, this was with both the C.T. and the Lee, both testers were close to each other and the hard ones with Lee were also the hard ones with C.T..
A really close comparison is difficult, as the info with the C.T. is in broad strokes, while the Lee readings are sharply outlined.
I am too old and shakey to do a good job holding the Lee microscope, so I mounted it in a rig that gives me rack and pinion focusing and a solid, stable platform for the test object.
I shall try to post a picture of my rig.
Sorry, cannot find picture, I shall take one tomorrow and try again.
Don

[Fireman45]

Thanks for the great info. I knew there would be some difference but I did not think they would vary that much. BTW. I checked the hardness 30 min after I poured and the boolits were 8. I know they will harden as they age. :lovebooli

[chunkum]

Don,
I don't think I've ever gotten a 9 on WWs with my Saeco, though testing with the Saeco, by virtue of its design, is on groups of bullets cast from "batches" of wheel weights rather than the individual weights. And I am now correlating all my Saeco test with test done on my new LEE tester. I don't think it's just the testing devices if it's them at all that's contributing to the variations being seen. I have gotten 13.2 BRN, 14.3 BRN, 10.4 BRN, and 15.4 BRN from four batchs of WWs melted and cast into ingots at different times. The question arises of where are the majority of our WWs coming from? Perhaps the predominence of the WWs from the east and west coast states come more from sources in those areas whereas that of WWs collected in the middle and south come from more diverse sources. Admittedly this doesn't fit with the concept of the modern "mobile" society but as isolated as the coastal areas are in other parameters, I don't think it's too far fetched to postulate that they may be somewhat isolated in this regard as well. All this is not necessarily bad, but it surely is different from the "classic" published material that took it as a "gimme" that the BRN of all WWs was pretty much a 9 universally. The principal of the Lee with it's factory calibrated 60# load at the point of compression and the 5/32" ball derives directly from the classical method of detecting BRNs and, properly read, is likely the most reliable of the testers.

What this variance has meant for me, once I got over the notion that all WWs were the same is that I can no longer take it for granted that my WW alloys either sweetened with tin or softened with cable lead will come out the same. I was finding that anyway and couldn't understand why. With the more wide spread distribution of reliable BRN testers, I think we're going to see more similar findings as more casters are doing their own testing as opposed to route acceptance of the "classic" published (though perhaps outdated by a changing economy) data.
Best Regards,
chunkum
PS oh btw, I found your picture if you want me to email it to you? :razz: