Lyman #2 from 1986, wondering what it really is?

Looks like it's my turn to ask a question....

I have some Lyman #2 alloy (55 pounds) from when I used to cast bullets back in the mid 1980's. I know that it was made using the standard recipe (9 lbs wheel weights + 1 lb. 50/50 Solder = 10 lbs. Lyman #2) because I mixed it up back then.

So, based on that, I know that it is pretty darn close to 5% tin (maybe just a bit more). My big question is, how much Antimony is in the mix? I doubt that it is really 5%, but I guess it could be.

Any body know what a batch of wheel weights from that era would likely contain in Antimony as a percentage? I really hate guessing, so I'm hoping someone knows!

I think that, based on what I have read here and my prior knowledge, I really only need around 2% Tin to get the job done, so I was thinking of mixing it with current wheel weight metal to that level. I have some of everything to work with (linotype, 50/50 solder, soft lead and wheel weights).

What would you do with this lead alloy for handgun bullets in 9mm, .38 Special, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, etc.?

Thanks in advance for any info or advice,

DC-1

I don't know about the composition of the old WW, but I can give you the numbers of your mix with today's generally accepted numbers.

1 lb 50/50 solder
9 lbs WW (0.5% tin, 3% antimony)
= 10 lbs alloy with 5.45% tin, 2.70% antimony, hardness @ 13

If you want 2% tin, you can mix the above alloy with pure lead:
4 lbs mixed alloy (5.45% tin, 2.70% antimony)
7 lbs pure lead
= 11 lbs mixed alloy with 1.98% tin, 0.98% antimony, hardness @10
This should be fine for the 45 acp and 38 special.

If you want 2% tin and a little harder alloy, you can mix it with WW lead:
3 lbs mixed alloy (5.45% tin, 2.70% antimony)
7 lbs WW (0.5% tin, 3% antimony)
= 10 lbs mixed alloy with 1.99% tin, 2.91% antimony, hardness @12
This should be fine for the 9mm and 40 S&W.

Bumpo628:

Thanks for the great information. I expected it was pretty close to (5,3,92) but I still have no clue whether wheel weights back then were higher in Antimony, and Tin for that matter, than they are now. I suspect that they were. Anybody know?

If I can not get a definative answer, I'll likely go with your last option and do the additional wheel weight mix for the (2,3,95) alloy and use it for all my handgun bullets. Thanks for the recipe. It's a great place to start.

DC-1

That is not the last answer!. You might be real happy with the Lee hardness tester or one of the others available. My Lee is very repeatable and reliable for me. I use the Lee method of matching alloy ultimate compressive strength in PSI to load pressure in PSI minus 10% for plain base bullets and this works well for my plain base cast bullet loads to determine what alloy hardness I need. Of course you can stretch those numbers quite a bit with gas checked bullets.

Gary

Gary (thanks for the reply) or anybody:

Coincidentally, The next thing on my list is a hardness tester!

I have looked at the Lee ($50) which works with a reloading press, no problem there as I'm pretty sure that I have a couple, but I have heard that it is hard to read and it does not always give repeateable results, especially at the harder end of the scale (Over 14 BHN).

I have looked at the Saeco ($150) and must admit that I know very little about it. It appears to work on some kind of a vernier scale with a refernce chart. I'm wondering if it is more reliable, repeatable and frankly worth the extra 100 bucks.

Anyone have opinions based on actual experience with these units?

Also, knowing the hardness is a big help, but it does not really get me the answer on what the antimony content is, just more evidence to guess what it might be, which in itself is a help. I looked at an old Lyman manual from 1980 and they had Clip-on WW metal at 4% Antimony, so I may just assume that, or take the compromise position and go with 3%. I would assume that testing the alloy would be costly and time intensive, so I have ruled that out. I guess in the end it is like you said Gary, more about the hardness then the actual mix. As long as there is some Tin and Antimony and the hardness is where it should be, I should probably just cast it into bullets and shoot them.

The little scale microscope with the Lee kit is easy once you get used to it. Getting sufficient light is the key. Someone recently posted clipping a little single AAA cell Maglight to the scope. I have one and tried it immediately and gotta say it works great.

Some operators use a dial or digital caliper to measure the indentations, I think that is harder but it may be easier for you.

The Saeco unit conversion chart does not directly convert to BHN like the Lee does but it is a good reliable tool also.

The timed 30 second press hold with the Lee is important. 35 seconds doesn't give a better reading it gives a bigger indention and a false softer reading. So, study the directions and follow exactly.

It depends how good you are with your hands too. Some members have designed novel scope holders for the Lee. I have no difficulty just holding the thing against the bullet and looking under a bright light shining on the bullet to read the scale across the diameter of the indentation. Then reference the chart and it tells you BHN and ultimate compressive strength in PSI and recommended maximum load PSI. That all makes a lot of sense if you study the Lee 2nd manual.

Gary

does it really matter what its consistency is
after you shoot it ?
just shoot it up and start new if it worked in your gun then it should now
as they say let the professor tell you what he likes

The 1980 Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook says that WW are 4% antimony, and that you can make No. 2 Alloy by using 9 lb WW and 1 lb 50/50 solder. Obviously that formula did not really produced No. 2, it gave 3.6% antimony. However my testing indicates that 3.6% antimony is sufficient, and is very close to the right amount to give you maximum toughness and maximum response to heat treatment.

Modern clip-on WW are either 2% antimony or 4% antimony, depending on which manufacturer produced them. However stick-on WW have much lower antimony, and a substantial tin content. They should not be included in your mix if you are trying to make something close to No. 2 Alloy.

The essence of developing accurate bullets is to use a consistent alloy, and then do a lot of experimenting with bullet shape, weight, size and hardness. If you are prepared to heat treat your bullets, there is very little advantage in exceeding 2% antimony, and none in exceeding 3%. Then you choose an amount of tin that will give you the toughness that you want if you will use the bullets for hunting. The amount of tin should not exceed the amount of antimony.

Quote:

---

Anyone have opinions based on actual experience with these units?

---

Lee Hardness Tester: Quality of results as a function of cost? Excellent

Quote:

---

Coincidentally, The next thing on my list is a hardness tester!

---

Geez, if I had been casting since the 80's (Lyman #2 & WW's) I'd say you are 25 YEARS LATE buying a hardness tester. What did you do before the Internet? Stand and look at and wonder what the hardness was?

Thanks to everyone for the answers and opinions. I will likely be getting a Lee Hardness Tester soon. The price is right!

John Boy:

I cast a lot back in the mid 1980's then got married, a family and never got back to it. Now things are calming down and I have some time and the interest to get back into the bullet casting game. However, I still have this 55 pounds of lead stored away that really wasn't Lyman #2 (5,5,90) after all. Thank Lyman for that recipe and grumpy one for the real info. on that mix. Just what I thought!

New times, new questions. Back then I was younger and less worried about things like leading and hardness. I just got some wheel weights, through in some Tin to make the alloy and I cast them and shot them. If I dropped them and they thumped when they hit the ground, they were hard enough for me. If they put round holes in the target, I was really happy. Now I have more time, more interest and I want to do it right! Besides as an Engineer by training, I like to know what I have, exactly.

I melt my stick-on wheel weights separately and use them as pure lead to thin out an alloy or for muzzle loader fodder.

If "modern clip-on WW are either 2% antimony or 4% antimony", then bumpo628 is right when he assumes and uses 3% Antimony in his alloy calculator as the standard content for clip-ons. I think that I'm gonna go with 3% as my assumed standard, also. It is probably as close as you can get and it is an average of available data. From that point on I guess the big issue is to find an alloy that I like and then make it consistantly the same way. If it works good for me and I can reproduce it again and again, then the exact Antimony content is really not that important as long as it is in there.

I have been casting since 1970 and have found that in Louisiana the WW's that I used at that time were much harder than those of today. The WW's That I receive today are around 9-9.5 As far as hardness testers the Cabin Tree made by our own Gussy is the best in the business. I say that after having used all three. The saeco does not give a direct read out. If you are past 55 and taking meds for any illness then forget the Lee. It gives good readings but requires a steady mount or hands with extra light to read the scale. The Cabin Tree is built like a tank and shows the read out on a dial indicator that may be read quick. If you buy the combo model it will also give you read out on the run out of loaded rounds or bullets. The cabin Tree is fun to use and I wore myself out playing with it for the first week I owned it. I wish I had one from the start of my casting time. How many times did I look at scrap lead and was only able to guess. Look up Gussy on this forum under vendors.