Hardness Testers

[Yellowhouse]

Whats your preference in terms of durability, accuracy, ease of use, and portablity (like scrounging scrap yards). LBT, Cabin Creek, or SAECO?

[Bkid]

Whats your preference in terms of durability, accuracy, ease of use, and portablity (like scrounging scrap yards). LBT, Cabin Creek, or SAECO?
I did a search on this and most like the Cabin Creek. That will be the one I get.

[beanflip]

Plus on the Cabine Tree

http://www.castingstuff.com/

[blackthorn]

My vote goes to LBT!

[fecmech]

This might help. http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm

[Springfield]

I like my LBT, it's fast and consistent. I tried a LEE and didn't like it, never tried a Cabine Tree.

[Yellowhouse]

This might help. http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm

Thanks! Interesting stuff.

[JeffinNZ]

If you go to the Castpics site (link at bottom of your page) and look in the 'members articles' I did a write up on the Lee.

[Bret4207]

Cabine Tree #1, LBT #2, Lee....like their bottom pour pots, just forget it unless you have no other choice. I have lots of Lee stuff and love it, but those items and their "ladle" suck swamp water.

[largom]

After some modifications my Lee is the most accurate. Also have a LBT and did have a Saeco which I sold. Same with my Lee 20# pot, after modifications it works great.

Larry

[JeffinNZ]

In my article I mention that most figures in handloading a 'nominal' at best. Specifically pressures and hardness of alloys. I don't get too hung up on whether or not the BHN from my Lee tester is 100% correct as long as it is consistent. My focus is on having a 'nominal' figure to use as a base line. My clip on WW, for the most part, is just shy of 10 BHN on the Lee. Now a laboratory may getting a 'true' reading of 9 or 11. Doesn't matter to me. What I know is THAT batch read just shy of 10 BHN.

[stubert]

Largom, What mods did you do to your Lee tester?

[Bret4207]

Largom, What mods did you do to your Lee tester?

Yes, and what criteria did you use to determine it's the most accurate?

[largom]

The modifications I made were: Adding a dial indicator to the tester body and putting the scope into a childs microscope body. The indicator allows me to raise my press ram the exact same amount for each test. I also hold the ram in the up position for a timed duration each test. The microscope body allows the tester scope to be adjusted up and down and held steady for better control by my old shakey hands. There are pictures on the forum in the hand tools section I think.

Accurate is probably not the correct word. I should have said most consistent. When I blend an alloy I always cast some sample 45-70 boolits to use for hardness testing. I put these boolits in my mill and cut a flat on one side so I will have several test areas on the same boolit. I do the same when casting boolits. During the hardness testing I test each sample with the Lee and the LBT testers. The Lee has given me the most consistent readings.

I don't believe the readings of either tester are actual BHN and I do not really care. I am looking for a base number for hardness of an alloy I have tested for performance.

If you can't find the pictures I can try to post them again, but I am not very good at posting pictures.

Larry

[ghh3rd]

Nice article Jeff! I agree that knowing the precise BHN is not necessary, but getting consistant measurements is the key.

I just got my Lee tester, and think the idea of putting the viewer in a childs microscope in order to adjust and steady it is a great idea. Hard part will be trying to figure out if I'll be able to rig one to accept the viewer without being able to actually see the microscope before ordering one.

[Bret4207]

The modifications I made were: Adding a dial indicator to the tester body and putting the scope into a childs microscope body. The indicator allows me to raise my press ram the exact same amount for each test. I also hold the ram in the up position for a timed duration each test. The microscope body allows the tester scope to be adjusted up and down and held steady for better control by my old shakey hands. There are pictures on the forum in the hand tools section I think.

Accurate is probably not the correct word. I should have said most consistent. When I blend an alloy I always cast some sample 45-70 boolits to use for hardness testing. I put these boolits in my mill and cut a flat on one side so I will have several test areas on the same boolit. I do the same when casting boolits. During the hardness testing I test each sample with the Lee and the LBT testers. The Lee has given me the most consistent readings.

I don't believe the readings of either tester are actual BHN and I do not really care. I am looking for a base number for hardness of an alloy I have tested for performance.

If you can't find the pictures I can try to post them again, but I am not very good at posting pictures.

Larry

Larry, did it occur that the Lee may not be so consistent? That the LBT is picking up the differences in grain structure? I have little faith in optical comparisons, but that may be my eyesight too.

[largom]

Larry, did it occur that the Lee may not be so consistent? That the LBT is picking up the differences in grain structure? I have little faith in optical comparisons, but that may be my eyesight too.

Very well could be, I don't really know. An issue with the LBT, which may be my inability, is zeroing the gage on a test sample. I have trouble getting the pointer to zero at the exact same place for each test, remember "old shakey hands". Instructions for the LBT say the pointer should be zeroed while coming up [turning the adjusting screw down], if the pointer passes the zero line you should not adjust the screw to zero on the down stroke. As said the problem may be my ability in adjusting the tool. I like precision dials and gages, takes guess work out. I understand Cabine Tree uses a dial indicator on their tester, I may order one in the future.

Larry

[largom]

Nice article Jeff! I agree that knowing the precise BHN is not necessary, but getting consistant measurements is the key.

I just got my Lee tester, and think the idea of putting the viewer in a childs microscope in order to adjust and steady it is a great idea. Hard part will be trying to figure out if I'll be able to rig one to accept the viewer without being able to actually see the microscope before ordering one.

I bought my microscope at a auction for $2.00, all I had to do was remove the original eye piece and make a bushing to adapt the Lee scope to fit in place of the eye piece. I think most any cheap microscope will work but you will have to make a bushing. I made my bushing out of plastic on my lathe.

Larry

[Bret4207]

Very well could be, I don't really know. An issue with the LBT, which may be my inability, is zeroing the gage on a test sample. I have trouble getting the pointer to zero at the exact same place for each test, remember "old shakey hands". Instructions for the LBT say the pointer should be zeroed while coming up [turning the adjusting screw down], if the pointer passes the zero line you should not adjust the screw to zero on the down stroke. As said the problem may be my ability in adjusting the tool. I like precision dials and gages, takes guess work out. I understand Cabine Tree uses a dial indicator on their tester, I may order one in the future.

Larry

Okay, now I see. Yes, the LBT can be a pain in that respect. The Cabine Tree is far easier to use than the Lee or SAECO IME. The LBT is easier to use and has the nifty direct read out, but it's not really adjustable as far as "zero" goes. The CT just seems like the best option to me in terms of accuracy vs ease of use.

When I first got mine I was convinced it was off because my WW alloy was all reading 3-4 points low. Stupid me forgot that WW hardens over time. A 2 week wait cleared my misconceptions up. In fact, the CT is sensitive enough to determine the hard and soft spots in large ingots, we're talking from .5- 1.5 Bhn. That's pretty darn good IMO.

[Colorado4wheel]

I don't find the Lee to be hard to use or not consistent. I don't have a comparision to make to another tester but once you get used to it it seems to work fine.

[Tinbullet]

I have a Lee tester also and I find it to be fairly consistant as long as I set up the the test consistantly. I have made a simple holder for the sight glass tube, from two hardwood blocks with a hole bored to fit the sight tube outer diameter. (1 1/2 square x 3" long base with 3/4 x 1 1/2 x 3" top that has the hole for the sight glass tube.) This sight glass holder helps me hold the scale steady so that I can make a good reading on the indent in the bullet. My problem with the Lee is the pressure thats being applied each time a test is done. The bathroom scale says 60 pounds plus or minus but if one knows the exact pressure applied during a test and the ball diameter the BHN can be calulated. What we need is a pressure transducer and readout attached to a press. I have also found that tests on bullets tend to provide harder BHN readings than tests on ingots from the same melt. This may have something to do with mass or deflection i'm not sure, i'm still trying to figure that one out.

[HORNET]

Weaver, I think what you're finding is the hardness difference due to the cooling rate effect. The boolits are going to cool much faster than the ingots which will result in greater hardness. This is what can cause the core of large caliber boolits to be softer than the skin layers if they're quenched. Felix once said that cast .22's were basically self-quenching due to the low ratio of mass to surface area creating such a high cooling rate.

[Colorado4wheel]

I have a Lee tester also and I find it to be fairly consistant as long as I set up the the test consistantly. I have made a simple holder from two hardwood blocks with a hole bored to fit the sight tube. My problem with the Lee is the pressure thats being applied each time a test is done. The bathroom scale says 60 pounds plus or minus but if one knows the exact pressure applied during a test and the ball diameter the BHN can be calulated. What we need is a pressure transducer and readout attached to a press. I already have an Excel program that calculates the BHN based on ball diameter, pressure and indent diameter if anyone is interrested. I have also found that tests on bullets tend to provide harder BHN readings than tests on ingots from the same melt. This may have something to do with mass or deflection i'm not sure, i'm still trying to figure that one out.


I'm not sure I understand what your referring to with the wood blocks and the scale. The Lee Kit mounts to your press. You lower the handle keeping the indicator flush with the top of the die. Wait the time stated (30secs?) and read the hole with the scope. Scope is pretty basic and moves backwards compared to your eye. Takes some getting used to. I don't find it difficult to get the indicator level with the top. I just don't see it as a hard to use setup and don't understand whats so bad about it considering it's relative cost to other testers.

[mpmarty]

+1 and the trick to using the LEE magnifier is to make yourself think you are moving the boolit around not the magnifier. Then it doesn't seem backwards.

[JeffinNZ]

+1 and the trick to using the LEE magnifier is to make yourself think you are moving the boolit around not the magnifier. Then it doesn't seem backwards.

As I said in my article, if you can't back a trailer, you ain't gonna like using the magnifier much. [smilie=l:

[BLTsandwedge]

I already have an Excel program that calculates the BHN based on ball diameter, pressure and indent diameter if anyone is interrested.

Please do share!

Many thanks,

Tom

[mastercast.com]

Folks,

I hate to tellyou this, but there is only one way to know the BHN of a bullet or alloy.

It works the same way as a test for the harness of steel, as in Rockwell Hardness.

A weight is dropped from a known height, with a diamond point, that indents the metal....you then read the hardness on the dial supplied with the tester.

The Rockwell Scale hardness tester will give you the hardness on the dial....the BHN will require you go to the dial reading, and apply that to the hardness scale.

Hope this helps.

[Tinbullet]

The input data required to calculate BHN hardness is ball diameter, applied pressure and diameter of resultant indentation in the test medium. NO DROPPING IS REQUIRED!
Thats why the Lee tester is such a nice tool for the money. I have used a 1/2 diameter tooling ball chucked in a drill press and bathroom scale to achieve the same thing.

[mastercast.com]

Tinbuillet,

I am sorry sir, but you are full of prunes.

The indentation from a weight dropped from a known height, with a tip that will not deform, is the standard. It is not ball diameter, applied pressure..... the resultant indentation in the test medium,is the test.

Use your "potty scale" to weigh family members.

[Gohon]

Well someone is certainly full of prunes. What's that old saying..........people who eat prunes shouldn't throw prunes. The Rockwell test and the Brinell test are not done in or measured in the same manner.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2z6xnyh.jpg[/IMG]

[mastercast.com]

Sir,

It is not the diameter in the indentation that measures hardness....it is the depth of the penetration in the metal being tested for hardness.

Think about this for a moment. If the tip of the metal that produces the penetration is 12" inches around at the tip, as in flat(It will most certainly bounce off the metal), what does that tell you? Answer? NOTHING! It has to have a SHARP tip to indent the metal being tested.

Brinell and Rockwell hardness testing are done the same way here.


Throw a prune, and get back to me on this when time permits.

[Gohon]

Brinell hardness testers allow employing heavy loads in quite simple and rugged structures. The indentation diameter is read with an optical system (eyepiece or microscope).

Maybe you should give this 50 year old company http://www.hardnesstesters.net/ a call and let them know they are full of prunes.

Brinell:
Brinell hardness is determined by forcing a hard steel or carbide sphere of a specified diameter under a specified load into the surface of a material and measuring the diameter of the indentation left after the test.The Brinell hardness number, or simply the Brinell number, is obtained by dividing the load used, in kilograms, by the actual surface area of the indentation, in square millimeters.The result is a pressure measurement, but the units are rarely stated .

The Brinell hardness test uses a desk top machine to press a 10mm diameter, hardened steel ball into the surface of the test specimen. The machine applies a load of 500 kilograms for soft metals such as copper, brass and thin stock. A 1500 kilogram load is used for aluminum castings, and a 3000 kilogram load is used for materials such as iron and steel. The load is usually applied for 10 to 15 seconds. After the impression is made, a measurement of the diameter of the resulting round impression is taken.

[mastercast.com]

I am going to try this again, for what it is worth.

To test the hardness of a metal, you need to indent it...the way to do that, is to drop a known weight, from a known height, with a tip that will indent the metal, without being distorted by the drop. The readings are repeatable...any other method is just In "The Ball Park".......not worth a prune.

[JeffinNZ]

Actually, any other method is worth a 'prune' if you don't need a scientific analysis. As I point out in my article, I don't need to know the REAL BHN but just require a consistent way of measuring what I have from batch to batch.

Just like my scales might measure difference to yours. By volume I might be measuring 50gr on my scales, your scales might say 49gr or 51gr. Doesn't matter.

[lead4me]

I am going to try this again, for what it is worth.

To test the hardness of a metal, you need to indent it...the way to do that, is to drop a known weight, from a known height, with a tip that will indent the metal, without being distorted by the drop. The readings are repeatable...any other method is just In "The Ball Park".......not worth a prune.

I love prunes!! You seem to have alot of them send some this way. I've been an aircraft machinist, Tool & Diemaker & a metallurgist for the last 30 years and the method we used in this reality is depth for ferrous & area for non ferrous metals.
Its alright to be wrong sometimes...that's:veryconfu how we learn

[Lloyd Smale]

ive owned a lbt and a seaco in the past and sold them both when i got a cabin tree. I tried the neighbors lee and thought it was a pain in the but.

[cajun shooter]

I will say this, If you are young with good eyes and a steady hand then you can use the Lee and obtain good enough results to use for anyone who is not in a LAB. Now with that being said if you have passed the age of fifty in my case then the Lee is a PITA to use. The cabin tree is like a gift from heaven for older people. Buy the deluxe model and you can measure bullet run out on ammo. It is fast and easy to use and you can go from measuring a bullet to a lead ingot in just seconds. Springfield I bet if you used one you would be on that to buy list. As much lead as you fool with. You can take this to a junk yard and measure all your lead. If you drop it on an old transmission, you might have to pay for the transmission. Later David