BNH questions on mix types

[Tripplebeards]

I can't seem to find listings on BNH on AC 50/50 (50% WW and 50% pure lead) with adding 2% SN

Also the BNH on AC 50/50 w/o adding any SN


And also both BNH of these mixes after WQ


Anyone with approx guesses?

Thanks for your help

[williamwaco]

Google lead alloy calculator.

There are several good ones.

[alfloyd]

Using the Excel alloy mix calculator the
BNH on AC 50/50 (50% WW and 50% pure lead) = 8.83
BNH on AC 50/50 w/o adding any SN = 8.27

WQ I have no idea as I do not WQ.

Lafaun

[Grmps]

Read this http://www.lasc.us/HeatTreat.htm#chart
There is a lot of excellent information on this site.

[Ken in Iowa]

The WQ won't do anything for you with that mix.

[PBaholic]

COWW's typically contain:

Lead (Pb) = 96.50 %
Antimony (Sb) = 3.00 %
Tin (Sn) = 0.29 %
Arsenic (As) = 0.14 %
Copper (Cu) = 0.05 %
Bismuth (Bi) = 0.02 %

Their BHN is initially about 10, and age to BHN 12 in a month. This is assuming normal cooling.

By adding in more lead (BHN 5) at a 50:50 ratio you can use simple math to figure out the new BHN. [1# of BHN 12] + [1# of BHN 5] = 2# of [(12+5)/2] = BHN 8.5

Tin by itself doesn't increase hardness much. My guestimate is that the BHN would still be 8.5.

As for heat treating, simply water dropping a COWW boolit out of the mold will give you a 2 - 3 increase in BHN. When you dilute the alloy, you also dilute the ability to harden. I can't even say what your mix would do, as I have not experimented with this aspect.

[Outpost75]

Linotype-plumber's lead blends are ideal for most bullet casting and enable excellent fill out with good strength and predictable repeatability using simple weight ratios which can be produced at moderate cost.

You can estimate the hardness of your blend easily:

LinoPounds(22)+LeadPounds(5) / TotalPounds = EstBHN

A 50-50 linotype-lead blend at 13.5 BHN is slightly softer than commercial hardball or Lyman No.2 alloy. (22)+(5) /2 = 13.5

A 1:2 linotype-lead blend at "about 10.5 BHN" approximates 1:20 alloy and is well suited for revolver and black powder cartridge "smokeless" applications. (22)+2(5) /3 = 10.6 BHN

A 1:4 linotype-lead blend at 8.5 BHN approximates the hardness of 1:30 alloy and is best for black powder cartridges, in subsonic, smokeless revolver loads, or with plain based rifle bullets below 1300 fps and is satisfactory up to 1700 fps with gas checks in rifles for hollow-point hunting applications. (22)+4(5) /5 = 8.5 BHN

A 1:5 linotype-lead blend at 8 BHN approximates 1:40 alloy and is the frugal shooters best bang for the buck to make your alloy go far as possible in revolver, cowboy loads, black powder cartridge, and subsonic hollow-point hunting applications. (22)+5(5) / 6 = 8 BHN


Blends using Linotype and Wheelweights, to estimate hardness:

[Lino-Pounds(22) + WW-pounds(12)] / TotalPounds = BHN

1:10 linotype to wheelweights 1(22) +10(12) = 142/11 = 12.9 BHN
1:5 linotype to wheelweights: 1(22) + 5(12) = 82 /6 = 13.6 BHN
1:4 linotype to wheelweights: 1(22) + 4(12) = 70 / 5 = 14 BHN
1:3 linotype to wheelweights: 1(22) + 3(12) = 58 / 4 = 14.5 BHN
1:2 linotype to wheelweights: 1(22) + 2(12) = 46 / 3 = 15 BHN
1:1 linotype to wheelweights: 1(22) + 1(12) = 34 / 2 = 17 BHN

If you have MEASURED hardnesses for your source metals, substitute them into the above

[Tripplebeards]

Thanks, I've been a little confused with all my reading saying that 18 BNH is what I need to use for magnum handgun loads to keep from leading. It seems that most posters use 50/50 with and w/o 2% tin for 44 mag velocities or 100% AC WW with great success...which is 8-12 BNH

[Outpost75]

Most leading problems I have experienced in over 50 years, have been the result of bullets being too hard to upset and seal in the throat, rather than being too soft and inadequate in strength for the pressure generated in the desired load. In his book Sixguns, Elmer Keith back in the 1950s considered 1:10 tin-lead as "hard", although it is only about 11 BHN.

A good page for quick reference on alloys is: http://www.lasc.us/castbulletnotes.htm

[jsizemore]

Post #7 on this thread is pretty good:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-weight-bullet

[Tripplebeards]

Post #7 on this thread is pretty good:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-weight-bullet

That's a good one. I'll have to test my WW AC. After a month They tested 15bnh after pc and dropping in ice water right out of the oven. Wq in ice water w/o PC put them at 33. The WW I use were New old stock from sears auto from the late 70's early 80's

[Grmps]

This quote might help
Hardness
A couple things about your test; it is well thought out and executed, just to small of a sample to draw a reliable conclusion from is all. As mentioned the results need to be repeatable. I do agree with you and others, however, that Lee's min/max psi table is not correct as to the absolute conclusion drawn and many times that table/chart is misleading to many new cast bullet shooters. Among the other things mentioned in other posts here is how well a particular alloy does with regards to accuracy is directly related to the rate of accelleration. With a given max peak psi a fast burning powder accellerates a bullet faster than a slower burning powder. Nothing new there. What is misunderstood about it though is how uneven obturation, slump, set back, etc. or as Bass puts it; "not establishing and holding bore center" can adversely affect the balance of the bullet and it's accuracy during flight. Given equal psi a faster burning powder can cause more unbalance to the bullet than a slower burning powder and thus not be as accurate, even at a lower velocity. I beleive this is what 357shooter demonstrated with his test.
With regards to "hardness" what does "Hardness is like everything else, it only matters if it does." mean? While to those who understand about hardness it might point in the right direction. To those who don't understand it means as much to me as "where ever you go, there you are." Not trying to be critical of Bass here at all, just pointing out that it is somewhat misleading to those who don't understand "hardness" in cast bullets as is Lee's table.
Given the parameters of Lee's test, specifically what powder(s) were used and the specific alloy used, the min/max psi chart for alloy BHN is probably correct. The problem is as 44man says; " It always comes back to the same problem, none of us has the same lead." So what do I mean by that? Going to what Bret4027 mentions about trying to get an agreement on definitions for "hardness" . Not having a concenses on that definition (and many other terms we use) causes us confusion many times and specifically this time. Most want to give the BHN as the measure of "hardness". That is only half of it though. The malleability of the alloy must be taken into consideration as at least half of the equation/definition, perhaps more than half. I do know that a malleable alloy with a lower BHN (50/50 WW/lead & linotype/lead at 70/30 for example) can almost always be driven to higher velcoity (that means higher psi) with better accuracy using the same powder than a brittle bullet (straight linotype for example). So we see here that BHN alone does not tell the story but only part of it.
How do we measure malleability of an alloy accurately? I don't know. I use a hammer and anvil. Not very scientific but it's worked for me. I place a cast bullet (aged properly) on the anvil base down and hit it hard with a large hammer. I do this with 10 such bullets of a given alloy. If they squish with no shattering then the alloy is good for upwards of 2600+ fps. An alloy that does this will not chip or unevenly set back in the bore during the push into the lands or during acceleration. Thus it will be a more balanced bullet and less adversely effected by such during flight. Ergo more accurate. I've also found this test to be relavent to accurate cast bullets in the .357, .41 and .44 magnums at 1400+ fps velocities. Caveat here; the use of GC'd or PB'd bullet also adds another factor to consider as someone mentioned.
Malleability of the alloy, BHN, the acceleration, the "fit", "enter(ing) the barrel straight on, whether GC'd or not, etc. are all important factors for accuracy. Unfortunately Lee's table leads many to believe that just BHN is important when considering the "hardness" of a cast bullet and as you've discovered, that isn't correct.

Larry Gibson

[Grmps]

and this one
Cast Bullet Alloys and Obturation
By: Glen E. Fryxell

Bullets cast of very hard alloys seem to be quite the rage these days, especially with the commercial bullet casters. Sure, hard alloys have their place, but there's not really much need for ALL cast bullets to have a Brinell hardness of 24, especially not for use in everyday sixguns. In fact, these hard bullets may well be inadvertently causing leading. How?
These commercial alloys are commonly too hard to "bump up" (or obturate) and seal the bore at typical revolver pressures. The resulting blow-by of the hot gases past the bullet's bearing surfaces can leave significant lead deposits in the barrel.
What is obturation and is it really an issue? Obturation is the plastic deformation of the cast bullet alloy due to the force of the expanding gases on the bullet's base. How do we know about it? Many years ago, some intrepid sixgunners fired lead bullet loads from barrel-less revolvers into snow banks, oiled sawdust and such. Recovered bullets showed significant evidence of base expansion. These experiments may not be conclusive, but they do suggest that cast bullets do indeed obturate, given that the alloy is appropriate for the pressures generated. In the intervening years, extensive experimentation has revealed the empirical correlation of 3 x 480 x Brinell Hardness Number (BHN) (or more simply, 1440 x BHN) as an estimate of the minimum peak pressure required for bullet obturation (the reason for the "3 x 480" format is the number "4 x 480" also has significance, and this format makes it easier to remember both formulae). Thus, a bullet with a BHN of 24 (typical of commercial hard-cast bullets) will not undergo plastic deformation and obturate until pressures exceed 34,000 psi.
So why are commercial cast bullets made so hard? Simple, hard bullets withstand the rigors of shipping much better than do soft bullets. Nobody wants to order cast bullets made of the ideal alloy for their pet .44 Special Triple Lock, only to have the bullets show up on their doorstep looking like chewed up pieces of bubble-gum. Also, the commercial caster has to make a product that is as generic as possible so it will satisfy the greatest number of customers, and hard bullets handle rough guns and sloppy loading techniques better than soft bullets. The bottom line is commercial cast bullets are usually cast to a BHN of 24 as a means of damage control, not because hardness makes for a better projectile.
Recently, I did a simple little experiment that demonstrates the concept of bullet obturation and the value of matching the alloy to the internal ballistics of the cartridge. Using the RCBS 45-255 Keith SWC mould, I cast one batch of bullets with wheel-weight alloy (plus about 1% tin), and a second batch using linotype alloy. The wheel-weight bullets weighed an average of 266 grains, while those cast of linotype weighed an average of 255 grains. All bullets were sized .452" and lubed with my homemade moly lube (equal parts beeswax and Sta-Lube Extreme Pressure Moly-Graph Multi-Purpose Grease), loaded over 9.0 grains of Universal Clays into W-W cases, and primed with Federal 150 primers. These .45 Colt loads were then test fired for velocity (all chronographing was done within a 1 hour period, under constant weather conditions). The results are summarized below:
Velocity Data From .45 Colt Trials with RCBS 45-255 Keith SWC
Bullet/Gun 3" S&W M625 4 5/8" Ruger Black Hawk 6" S&W M25 7 1/2" Ruger Black Hawk
Linotype (255 gr) 838 fps 887 fps 872 fps 940 fps
WW (266 gr) 879 fps 942 fps 947 fps 999 fps
Difference 41 fps 55 fps 75 fps 59 fps
No, the numbers are not transposed. The lighter, harder bullet was traveling an average of 58 fps slower than the heavier, softer bullet in what was otherwise identical ammunition. The same amount of chemical energy was released each time the hammer fell, it's just a question of how efficiently that energy was converted into velocity. All else being equal, the lighter bullet should end up going faster, and the fact that it was found to be slower indicates that some of the energy was lost as a result of gas leakage around the linotype bullets. This is due to the fact that this .45 Colt load generates only moderate pressure (about 16,000-18,000 psi) and the linotype bullets (BHN 22) were too hard to "bump up" and seal the bore effectively, whereas the softer wheel-weight bullets were able to do so (wheel-weights have been variously reported to have a BHN between 9 and 12, I generally use 10 as being representative). Using the empirical correlation outlined above, the linotype bullets would require a peak pressure of almost 32,000 psi to seal the bore effectively, while the wheel-weight bullets accomplish this feat at a modest 14,000 psi (easily surpassed by this load). Clearly, the handgun hunter is better served with the more moderate alloy, since more weight and more velocity results in greater penetration and better wound channels.
- Glen E. Fryxell

[Tripplebeards]

Is PC going to protect a softer boolit from getting dinged around as much? I would think it would.

[Larry Gibson]

Another point to make regarding the above equations and additions of the BHN of their various parts of a ternary alloy containing antimony and tin; The sum of the BHNs does not equal the final BHN.

In a ternary alloy of lead, antimony and tin where the antimony and tin are of equal proportions to each other (or close) yet of less than 5% each they will combine to form the submetal SbSn. The characteristics of that submetal in solution with the lead produce a higher BHN than the sum of the individual BHNs. COWWs having 2.5 - 3% antimony and .5 or less % tin when an additional 2% tin is added will have a BHN of 13 - 16 after 10 - 15 days AC'd aging. WQ'd they will have an 18 - 20 BHN after 48 hours aging.

Adding lead at 50/50 to the COWW + 2% tin alloy will reduce the AC'd to 9.5 - 11 BHN. I don't know about WQ'd because I don't use it that way.

The above BHNs were measured not calculated. A sample of 10 was used for each alloy. I give the entire range of measured BHN for each alloy as giving the "average" means little because I don't shoot an "average" bullet. Within each sample tested there is usually an "extreme spread" variation just as in velocity and psi measurement. Just as with velocity and psi measurement knowing the ES of the BHN measurement tells us the consistency.

[popper]

Is PC going to protect a softer boolit from getting dinged around as much?

Not really. Last nite I was loading PCd 185gr 30 cal. and a couple rolled off onto the floor. Dented! Alloy is very low Sb/Cu/Zn %. BLL blows off and leads, PC stays on, no leading. Accuracy isn't bad but more testing needed.

[Nose Dive]

well....

Read this http://www.lasc.us/HeatTreat.htm#chart...

And reread what Larry offered above......

Now..you want a TRUE...Brinnel hardness of your smelt....Hmmm ... What did Larry say above...take a random sample of 10%....

get your tester out....wait 30 days or so after casting and or quenching....test away....

Charts are great...BUT...'my pure lead' and my 'pure WW's' ain't NEVER....NEVER pure...

So my friends... Hmmm 'you pay your money,,,,you takes your chances'...... Testing is the true 'test'....

So boys and girls.... I do WATER QUENCH...BUT... I DO IT IN AN ICE BUCKET...yep... bottom of bucket is full of ice,,
water is COLD... boolits hit clean, cold water with NO ICE floating at top..Ice is weighted at bottom of bucket...CAST AWAY...CAST AWAY...

let'em soak of an hour or so...retrieve from ice bucket...set on clean dry towel...dry there overnight....set in boxes..label...
let them sit for 30 days at least...usually 75 to 90... and quess what?.. first day castings show harder than 90 dry cures... yep

as we say out west,,,,thangs change.... Oh yes....Oh yes....forgot......

when boolits are sized and lubed.... testing on 'sized and shaved' edges of boolits are indeed DIFFERENT than ones that are not
resized. yep....what did i day above.....'thangs change'.....

I shoot 45 and 50 caliber black powder rifles.... high charges of BP...yes...yes... the BP is home made by me and I do not 'enjoy'
leading...out of either resized or non-resized boolits... but both are lube with...OK...OK...my home brew lube....

So...gee guys...'what is my point' here? hmmmm geeee... 'philosophy' or procrastination is NOT MY BAG....

But... here goes nothing... or my 2 cents worth...[and i note...my 2 cents is worth every penny!]

1. your smelt material will change
2. your alloy mix will change
3. start with 'bad data' in a mix chart, you will end up ...wrong...or..garbage in...garbage out.
4. how you handle your smelt with effect you BHN
5. How you cast will effect your BHN.
6. Unless your are a scientist working in a lab, your smelt, data, technique will be 'variable'...
7. This hobby is a GREAT KICK and I love it as....
8. THANGS CHANGE....

Nose Dive

Cheap, Fast, Good, Kindly pick two.