Hardness test for latest range scrap

[zomby woof]

After 48 hours, I've done a hardness test on my indoor range scrap. This alloy falls between WW and stick on WW for hardness. My stick on WW are far from pure lead in hardness. I was expecting a softer alloy. I sure had a lot of jackets in my scrap. I'm a little confused.

[fredj338]

After 48 hours, I've done a hardness test on my indoor range scrap. This alloy falls between WW and stick on WW for hardness. My stick on WW are far from pure lead in hardness. I was expecting a softer alloy. I sure had a lot of jackets in my scrap. I'm a little confused.

What are you using as a tester? Range scrap can vary quite a bit. If I get mostly jacketed, it's pretty soft, almost pure lead. If it's mixed cast, swaged & jacketed, it can be closer to 10BHN.

[stubshaft]

So roughly between 6BHN and 16BHN.

[GSM]

If there were a fair amount of commercial "hard cast" bullets in the mix, it will be a nice blend, BHN 12 - 16.

Hats off to the commercial guys that make their stuff nice and hard - it blends well with jacketed and 22's.

[Gunslinger]

My range scrap is 80% jacketed, 10% .22's and 10% cast and commercial lead! It measures at BHN 12

[zomby woof]

What are you using as a tester? Range scrap can vary quite a bit.

I'm using an arbor press, .312" ball bearing, 22 pound weight, calipers and a timer. I get impressions from .130" (lino) to .240" (pureish)

My WW are .160"
stick on are .185"
this batch of indoor range scrap was .175"

[Bret4207]

Wait 2 weeks and see what it measures then.

[fredj338]

I'm using an arbor press, .312" ball bearing, 22 pound weight, calipers and a timer. I get impressions from .130" (lino) to .240" (pureish)

My WW are .160"
stick on are .185"
this batch of indoor range scrap was .175"

A lot of room for interpretation w/ that method IMO. I have only used the Saeco & Cabin Tree. Both give very repeatable results. Range scrap can be so varied, almost anything depending on what you get.

[Dollar Bill]

A lot of room for interpretation w/ that method IMO. I have only used the Saeco & Cabin Tree. Both give very repeatable results. Range scrap can be so varied, almost anything depending on what you get.
Actually, this method, as long as you are getting an accurate measurement of the indentation, is more accurate and repeatable than the common commercial testers. The commercial testers all use some type of spring, which can vary tension with temp, age, initial calibration, experience of the user, etc. The method used by zomby wolf is based on the basic priciple of a given indenter size, a set applied pressure over a given time. It is the same way labs do it. It's accurate, repeatable, and will not vary as a spring-powered hardness tester will.

[runfiverun]

it's also what the lee tester is based on.

[Ricochet]

I've read that most jacketed bullet cores are between 2-4% antimony. That's about like wheelweights. The alloy's work softened in extruding into wire and swaging into the bullets. That stuff ought to really harden up with quenching and aging. .22 LR bullets are supposed to range from something like .75-2% antimony as I recall.

[targetshootr]

If ac/ww are about 13 bhn and stickon are about 8 bhn, your range lead sounds like about 10 bhn.

[fredj338]

Actually, this method, as long as you are getting an accurate measurement of the indentation, is more accurate and repeatable than the common commercial testers. The commercial testers all use some type of spring, which can vary tension with temp, age, initial calibration, experience of the user, etc. The method used by zomby wolf is based on the basic priciple of a given indenter size, a set applied pressure over a given time. It is the same way labs do it. It's accurate, repeatable, and will not vary as a spring-powered hardness tester will.

Which is also dependent on the user. If done correctly, I would bet it is accurate. I'll worry about the spring on my CT after a couple 1000 tests I guess.

[zomby woof]

Actually, this method, as long as you are getting an accurate measurement of the indentation, is more accurate and repeatable than the common commercial testers. The commercial testers all use some type of spring, which can vary tension with temp, age, initial calibration, experience of the user, etc. The method used by zomby wolf is based on the basic priciple of a given indenter size, a set applied pressure over a given time. It is the same way labs do it. It's accurate, repeatable, and will not vary as a spring-powered hardness tester will.

I agree!!

This method is very repeatable.

[Bret4207]

Which is also dependent on the user. If done correctly, I would bet it is accurate. I'll worry about the spring on my CT after a couple 1000 tests I guess.

I'm with you. The Cabine Tree used by a casual user is just as accurate as a casual user attempting to determine the size of an indent measuring in the hundreds of thousandths. The Lee for example is a joke until you mount the scope in a stand.

[fredj338]

I'm with you. The Cabine Tree used by a casual user is just as accurate as a casual user attempting to determine the size of an indent measuring in the hundreds of thousandths. The Lee for example is a joke until you mount the scope in a stand.
My point exactly. It requires good eyes & the ability to measure pretty precisely. I can't/won't do it w/o microscope.[smilie=s: