what to believe

[catmasher]

I have three different ways to (so call) find the BHN of my lead, Lee, LBT and pencils, now all three will give me different bhn numbers, so who do you believe?
Right now I favor the pencils over the Lee tester. I can have a reading of 14 which would be 8 or so to 1 on the Lee and then use the pencils and it shows between 20 to 30-1, 4b will skid and the 3b pencil will bit in.
The LBT is worthless on ingets.

cat

[Dusty Bannister]

I would suggest that you get a pure lead sample, a sample of either Lyman #2 or 2-6-92 and a sample of linotype. Then run and record the findings of all three test devices. You might find that there is error at one end or the other with your devices.

I have a Cornaggia (Cabintree) unit and while the readings might not totally agree with the sheet provided with the unit, the test indents are very repeatable. Especially if the sample is properly prepared.

Do you file the surface on all samples or just test them as they come out of the ingot pan or mold. Sample preperation could be a factor if that is not consistant. Dusty

[btroj]

How far apart are they? a difference of 1 or 2 isn't gonna be relevant in most situations.

Rather than fret over BHn why not go shoot some and see what happens? If the gun is happy why worry?

[catmasher]

How far apart are they? a difference of 1 or 2 isn't gonna be relevant in most situations.

Rather than fret over BHn why not go shoot some and see what happens? If the gun is happy why worry?

No filing, just the smoth side of the inget

[41mag]

A couple of years back I was trying to test what I had, and got readings all over the place. It was mentioned somewhere either in a response to my question or in a post I was reading that you cannot strictly depend on the accuracy from an ingot, but that boolits actually do a much better job of depicting what the alloy actually will be.

I'm not stating fact, just what I was told or read. That said, I have poured many ingots, and boolits since that time. I have also purchased the Cabine Tree tester as well. I have come to find out that the cooling time for an ingot does indeed give a difference in the readings, from actual boolits poured using the same alloy and poured at the same time.

I got into a habit of pouring up half a dozen or so of the Lee 452-255RF's when I smelt or blend up an alloy. I can then test those as time wears on to see more or less how they are going to end up. They are also MUCH easier to test on the tester I use.

When I first got the Cabine Tree, I tested the same alloys I had been using the pencils on and didn't see much of a difference in what I had already written down for them. The big change came when I poured up boolits and tested, then it was significantly softer in some cases and harder in others.

Just my experience with testing ingots.

[10 ga]

I use the vice test. Put ingots into vice together with a steel BB between them. One of the ingots of known hardness and alloy. Squeeze them together with the vice. BB will go into one deeper easier than the other it is softer of the 2. Only takes a couple of known ingots to give you a good approximation of how hard the alloy is.

[fredj338]

The Lee is very user specific, more so than most there testers. I have never tried the pencil test but I suspect it also has to do with how it is done. My Cabin Tree is pretty repeatable, the LBT seems simple enough to get good results with.

[hickfu]

Very interesting, My lee tester tests both my ingots and boolits of ACWW's at the exact same number. I do file both and also let the ingots cool over night before testing.

Doc

[fecmech]

When casting my boolits I cast an ingot about 1/4" thick in a mini cupcake tin, you could do the same on the bottom of a pop can. That is what I use to check the hardness of the alloy if I really care and they cool very similar to boolits. I squeeze a ball bearing between that test ingot and a similar one of pure lead and do the math. OTOH full size ingots that are months old are aged out IMO and the bullets you cast from them will be the same bhn when they age out. Personally BHN is not that important to me, just kind of a "like to know" thing.

[Threepersons]

Don't fret over BNH to much. Bought a SAECO Hardness Tester
25 years ago and learned a lot. Today almost any BNH works
if the bullet fits the barrel. I have a 45-70 with a large chamber.
So I cast soft bullets that will expand. Last week made a collet
to hold the bullet, and I hollowbase these on a lathe. Only one
test so far, looked promising.

[Char-Gar]

I would not spend much time worrying about how to test the lead beyond very broad parameters. When I got started back in the late 50's, the casters would bang two ingots together. If the sound was a "thud" it was pistol alloy and if it "rang" it was rifle alloy.

As others have said, the fit of the bullet to the barrel and chamber throat will trump any differences in alloy. At any rate don't get bogged down in the minutia, just go shooting and listen to your rifle. It is the best teacher.

[Defcon-One]

What do I think about hardness testing?

Anybody want to buy a SAECO hardness tester. 1 year old, only used twice?

That is what I think!

Build a good alloy, test it, prove it, repeat it forever!

[geargnasher]

A couple of years back I was trying to test what I had, and got readings all over the place. It was mentioned somewhere either in a response to my question or in a post I was reading that you cannot strictly depend on the accuracy from an ingot, but that boolits actually do a much better job of depicting what the alloy actually will be.

I'm not stating fact, just what I was told or read. That said, I have poured many ingots, and boolits since that time. I have also purchased the Cabine Tree tester as well. I have come to find out that the cooling time for an ingot does indeed give a difference in the readings, from actual boolits poured using the same alloy and poured at the same time.

I got into a habit of pouring up half a dozen or so of the Lee 452-255RF's when I smelt or blend up an alloy. I can then test those as time wears on to see more or less how they are going to end up. They are also MUCH easier to test on the tester I use.

When I first got the Cabine Tree, I tested the same alloys I had been using the pencils on and didn't see much of a difference in what I had already written down for them. The big change came when I poured up boolits and tested, then it was significantly softer in some cases and harder in others.

Just my experience with testing ingots.

I believe I told you that. My experience has been identical, and I too cast a few out of an easy-to-preheat Lee two-banger as test samples from each batch of alloy I "smelt". Unless it's pure lead or a straight binary lead/tin, the hardness will depend upon rate of cooling. Ingots cool SLOWLY, so they have antimony in them they test more soft than bullets cast from the same batch of metal.

Gear

[geargnasher]

Very interesting, My lee tester tests both my ingots and boolits of ACWW's at the exact same number. I do file both and also let the ingots cool over night before testing.

Doc

A note: Overnight means nothing with anything containing antimony. It takes weeks for the dentrites to stabilize. Test both after a month and see what you get.

Gear

[Recluse]

How far apart are they? a difference of 1 or 2 isn't gonna be relevant in most situations.

Rather than fret over BHn why not go shoot some and see what happens? If the gun is happy why worry?

I would not spend much time worrying about how to test the lead beyond very broad parameters. When I got started back in the late 50's, the casters would bang two ingots together. If the sound was a "thud" it was pistol alloy and if it "rang" it was rifle alloy.

I've never worried about ingot hardness, but instead concerned myself more with ingot content. To that end, I use different ingot molds to denote the (primary) composition of the alloy. The Lyman ingots are for WW lead, the Lee ingots are pure lead, the RCBS ingots are those with a high content of linotype, and the little 1/2 pound Lee ingots are pure linotype.

That's about as scientific or specific as I care to make my boolit-casting so far as hardness is concerned. I've gotten into more trouble with boolits that were too hard more than I ever have with boolits that weren't hard enough.

And to repeat the endless mantra, correct size matters more than boolit hardness--and unless you have a very specialized gun that fires weird shaped boolits, ingot hardness doesn't matter whatsoever.

[WILCO]

No filing, just the smoth side of the inget

The LEE tester directions say to file sample before testing. The LEE tester is a precision unit that will yield accurate results when used correctly.

[Larry Gibson]

I can test 3 different spots on a bullet (large one) or an ingot and get 3 different readings with the same instrument. That's why I take a minimum of 5 readings for any alloy (7 - 10 if I really want to be sure) and average them. It is not "precise" with any instrument, let alone individual "technique" used in measuring, and doesn't need to be. Some one else can use the same instrument and more than likely will get a different reading, especially if only one reading is done.

As mentioned one needs to get some pure lead (a known product) and use that the get a "reference" for your particular instrument and the technique you use in measuring. Consistency in you measuring the BHN is the name of the game.

Larry Gibson