1/2 boolits for lee hardness tester

[edsmith]

I don't like how the lead boolits flat place made with a file so the hardness can be checked, it seems fuzzy, making it kind of hard to get a good reading. so I cut a square of alu thatI use to make gas checks with, I cut so it just fits inside the mold, I close the spru plate, make sure the edge is against the spru plate, close the mole, pour, 4 1/2 boolits, they a have nice smooth surface to test, it makes it easy or me to read the microscope. just thought I would toss this out there.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

maybe this would help ?

when I'm filing a 'flat' on a boolit for using the Lee hardness tester,
the Last stroke of the file, I'll run it diagonally to get what appears
to look like Machining lines. When I look through the microscope,
the lines help me see where the edge of the dimple is and makes it
easier to judge which hash marks the edge lines up with.
AlSO, Lots of light really helps too.
Jon

[slowhand47]

I don't like how the lead boolits flat place made with a file so the hardness can be checked,..... pour, 4 1/2 boolits, they a have nice smooth surface to test, it makes it easy or me to read the microscope. just thought I would toss this out there.

=Back in the day=
Dad - and other guys would reply to other peoples usually unwanted suggestions, with these words: there is more than one way to skin a cat. Animal crulity aside I had not figured out how to catch one, let alone any sane way to procede with a task like that?

So my way of thinking says a Pb Boolit is fairly soft and a hammer blow of even low force would create a very prominent area to test ; and pretty quick too. I do not have a hardness tester yet, but assume you must consider the test sample unusable after the procedure? I would keep the mini-microscope out the way. I am sure someone would suggest reading the directions also.

JHBercovitz@lbl.gov (John Bercovitz) Has an interesting brief on hardness testing and a simple home made tester; including comparisiojn chart.
Also he has an interesting Mathematical formula that seems simple enough. He has some other Ammo -weapons related items also. I found the link at LASC.

[largom]

I run my test samples on a piece of 600 grit sand paper placed on a flat surface which gives a very smooth surface.

Larry

[edsmith]

if this is a unwanted suggestion, I suggest you don't you don't read it. just a suggestion.

[slim1836]

Can't a piece of aluminum foil (or another material) be inserted between the mold halves during casting operations in order to make 2 half boolits which in turn should give you the desired flat surfaces in which to use the tester?

Slim

[edsmith]

that is what I posted,please reread the first post. Ed

[slim1836]

Ed,

How right you are, sorry, my mistake.

Slim

[edsmith]

no problem, I do the same thing myself.

[John Boy]

For the correct reading of Brinell hardness, it is taken on the bottom of the metal - whether a bullet or an ingot

[Sonnypie]

...no surprise there, I reckon.

Ed,
Get you an old microscope. Then tape the Lee scope to it.
I use a very old Tasco and some new age rare earth magnets under the deck for the V-base that goes in the presses ram.
Ben sez pictures sure help. So here are some:





If I had a bit better camera you could see the scale in there.

Also, I use a 1/4" die grinder with 100 grit disk on it. (I have a large air compressor and air piped around my shop)
I put my sample in a very small vise, and grind a nice flat slowly and gently.
Does two things for me...
Gives me fairly consistent flats.
And let's me take even slower passes to get fine hash marks.

Whatcha think?

[edsmith]

Sonny, I have put mine into a microscope, I got one at a yard sale for $2, I removed the top and bottom lens, and put o-rings on each end of the scope to hold it in place, the way you did your boolits really look good, really smooth edges, easy to measure by the way it looks. I hav'nt tried the half boolits yet, I do have a small milling machine, I think I will try milling a flat on a boolit with it, just to see what is best. I do know that that any thing is better than a file.

[Bret4207]

Get-a-Cabine-Tree.

[edsmith]

the lee is more accurate.

[Sonnypie]

Sonny, I have put mine into a microscope, I got one at a yard sale for $2, I removed the top and bottom lens, and put o-rings on each end of the scope to hold it in place, the way you did your boolits really look good, really smooth edges, easy to measure by the way it looks. I hav'nt tried the half boolits yet, I do have a small milling machine, I think I will try milling a flat on a boolit with it, just to see what is best. I do know that that any thing is better than a file.

Well now, there ya go, Ed.
You are probably the inspiration to dig out the old microscope.

Yep to the mill.
I clamp mine base/nose in the small (Jewlers?) vise.
I just happen to have several air driven sanders and grinders, so it was kinda natural for me to grab that way.
Then I spray the lead dust all over myself....
No doubt there are more expensive testing set-ups out there. But for what I'm doing, I can get good results with my Lee git-up.
I do use a digital timer for the 30 second squash cycle. So I do try and get as consistent of results as I can. And I like the double tap to compare.

[bumpo628]

I don't like how the lead boolits flat place made with a file so the hardness can be checked, it seems fuzzy, making it kind of hard to get a good reading. so I cut a square of alu thatI use to make gas checks with, I cut so it just fits inside the mold, I close the spru plate, make sure the edge is against the spru plate, close the mole, pour, 4 1/2 boolits, they a have nice smooth surface to test, it makes it easy or me to read the microscope. just thought I would toss this out there.

I think that is brilliant. I always thought that filing or otherwise working the metal would somehow change the reading. Just putting a thin piece of metal between the mold blocks is a simple solution.

[Sonnypie]

I think (Ugh-Ohh) trying several different methods might be good.
Work hardening might definitely have an effect on the results.

But I do try to adhere to what the instructions say. (SHUDDER!)
After all, they made the thing.
But filing was a PITA.

I do know my RotoMetals Lyman #2 has tested out (for me) at ↕ 15-16 BHN, which is in line with the about 15 Brinell Hardness they advertise.

I also think (ugh-ohh) a lot of this is over thought.
A lot of mental masturbation.
Cast it, Lube it, Size it, Shoot it, Forget it.

[Bret4207]

the lee is more accurate.

Not from what I've seen. And that test that was published here said the same thing IIRC. I'm sure user error can affect either. Besides, if you have to file or cut a flat on your sample then you are work softening your alloy and altering your test, aren't you?

[mold maker]

??????? Isn't it the surface that you need to know the hardness of?
Doesn't machineing, fileing, sanding, of the surface, work harden/soften lead?
I have a Seaco hardness tester that I could never get consistant results from, because of the inability to do several tests on the same piece (boolit).
The LEE and my tired old eyes weren't a match.
The Cabintree I use now is a real jump above of both Lee and Seaco. I can test any size (within reason) piece of lead.
I can compare fresh/aged ingots, rough lead, unknown scrap, etc.
The results are repeatable and easy to preform.

[Sonnypie]

Well sure.
If I spent that much to test WW, I'd argue it was the bestest in the Westest too.
But I got a Lee... and powder and primers instead....