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.
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.
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.
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
Tim, I have some WW alloy that I smelted in the late 70's. Want to try one of those?
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.
No offense to anyone I hope?
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_Chap...Metallurgy.htm
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
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?Quote:
I just posted these findings for you to take as you will.
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
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.
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 :)
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodsteel
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.
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.
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
Great info Goodsteel. Thanks for posting. This certainly expands our collective knowledge base.
Agree with zxcvbob. It makes no financial sense at current prices for WW providers to waste money on tin or antimony for wheel weights.Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
+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.
Don't read too much into what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodsteel
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.
Same here Andy,Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC
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.