Inline FabricationLee PrecisionWidenersReloading Everything
Load DataTitan ReloadingRotoMetals2MidSouth Shooters Supply
Repackbox
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: LBT bullet hardness tester initial review

  1. #1
    Boolit Bub solman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    54

    Thumbs up LBT bullet hardness tester initial review

    I just got my new LBT hardness tester and gave it a trial run. Very easy to use and the results seems very consistent. I thought about getting the Lee tester which is cheaper but I didn't want to do a magnified check and interpretation of results. The LBT gives a direct BHN readout and is fast as well. Ingots fit the tester if not too thick but Veral suggests that the reading may not be accurate as ingots cool at an unpredictable and inconsistent rate. I realize that this is perhaps not essential equipment but I do like having it. I found what I have been casting recently to be about 11-12 BHN which is just fine and what I thought them to be. I tried it on some purchased cast boolits as well and found them to be about 18 BHN.
    I am not affiliated with LBT in any way just thought to post my initial impressions.
    Last edited by solman; 04-07-2018 at 05:11 PM.

  2. #2
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pleasant Hope MO
    Posts
    2,225
    I have used the LBT tester for 30 years and never seen the need for any thing else, I like to test the bullets when first cast then at 1 week and at 2 weeks.

  3. #3
    Boolit Master


    Walter Laich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cypress, Republic of Texas
    Posts
    3,483
    my tester, different brand but not Lees, is used a lot after I get unknown lead. Nice to have a good idea what I'm starting out with.
    NRA Life
    USPSA L1314
    SASS Life 48747
    RVN/Cambodia War Games, 2nd Place

  4. #4
    Vendor Sponsor

    Chill Wills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Was-Colorado, Wyoming now
    Posts
    3,149
    I have used LEE and Cabin Tree, no experience with a SAECO.
    I am ALL IN on the LBT as being fast, wonderful direct read-out and accurate! I use it all the time to track batches and changes in hardness over time. I have certified metal alloy in the common flavors I use as a baseline. Two thumbs up for LBT. In my opinion, the Cabin Tree is a distant 2nd.
    I have had the LBT since the early 1990's and would buy it again, hands down.
    Last edited by Chill Wills; 04-22-2018 at 09:52 PM.
    Chill Wills

  5. #5
    Banned



    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Color Me Gone
    Posts
    8,401
    ^^^ Testing shows the Lee and Cabintree are the most accurate
    So, no you have it bass ackwards
    The information is available here so you can rely on fact and not opinion

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Casa Grande, AZ
    Posts
    5,526
    I looked and used them all and then purchased the cabintree tester.

  7. #7
    Vendor Sponsor

    Chill Wills's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Was-Colorado, Wyoming now
    Posts
    3,149
    Quote Originally Posted by jmort View Post
    ^^^ Testing shows the Lee and nCabintree are the most accurate
    So, no you have it bass ackwards
    I don't have anything backwards.

    User ability not withstanding, test agreement with known samples is the standard I use. I am able to competently perform the tests. Get into a wi$$ing contest with someone else. I am not interested in going any farther with you.

    I am able to write an opinion with out belittlement. I would enjoy the same from you.
    My experience stands.
    Chill Wills

  8. #8
    Boolit Bub solman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    54
    I thought the LBT was the most consistent tester giving the most reliable results. After reading up on testers I went with it and believe I will stay with it. I like to believe that they're all good ( Lee, Cabintree, Saeco and others) and give results that are useful to the hobby.
    Last edited by solman; 04-08-2018 at 08:37 PM.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Casa Grande, AZ
    Posts
    5,526
    I won't make any friends by saying this but I found the Lee to be the hardest to use and the Cabintree the easiest to use. I like the dial indicator redout that allows you to take that reading to their sheet that tells the hardness. The results on each batch for me seem to be spot on and it will test a variety of different shapes and thicknesses.

  10. #10
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,775
    I have a LBT tester, it's a good 12 years old now, the sticker for the read out is a bit tatty, it really hasn't held up real well for the 10 odd times it has come out of the box to use.

    It gives consistent readings, i have not tested the numbers against a known hardness but it does show a difference between known hard and soft metals.

  11. #11
    Boolit Master



    Springfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    3,684
    I like my LBT. I don't need to know hardness with half a number, so it works fine re-affirming what I probably already know. Drop test, fingernail test, using my "calibrated" swiss army knife After testing hundreds of pieces of lead you get a good feel for ti, but it is nice to see the expected number on the LBT scale anyway. As for consistency, I remember the test someone did a few years ago here, with people using their testers and someone else was collating the results. As I recall ALL of them were off a bit, but the LBT didn't seem to have so many way off results. Maybe because it is just so much easier to use, less room for human error. IMHO

  12. #12
    Boolit Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    94
    nice looking piece of gear.

  13. #13
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    249
    I have the Lee, its a bit of a pain but works good for me

  14. #14
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,612
    The LA Silhouette Club has a very advanced collection of cast bullet alloy and casting articles. One of those articles is a comparative test of most of the common lead hardness testers. Participants did blind tests of sample bullets all cast in the same lot. I was one of the LBT testers using a 30 year old tool that agreed well with the standard results. The standard result was from a calibrated commercial brinell test machine in a metals lab. It is better to read this article than it is to argue.

    http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm
    Last edited by EDG; 04-21-2018 at 12:49 AM.
    EDG

  15. #15
    Banned








    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    munising Michigan
    Posts
    17,725
    had a lbt first and then bought a seaco. When cabin tree came out with theres I bought one and after a couple uses sold the seaco and lbt. Hands down the best tester on the market.

  16. #16
    Boolit Buddy parkerhale1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands Europa
    Posts
    209
    Sorry, LBT for me, quick and accurate.
    I borrowed others, but no thanks.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Casa Grande, AZ
    Posts
    5,526
    Quote Originally Posted by EDG View Post
    The LA Silhouette Club has a very advanced collection of cast bullet alloy and casting articles. One of those articles is a comparative test of most of the common lead hardness testers. Participants did blind tests of sample bullets all cast in the same lot. I was one of the LBT testers using a 30 year old tool that agreed well with the standard results. The standard result was from a calibrated commercial brinell test machine in a metals lab. It is better to read this article than it is to argue.

    http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm
    I read this report when it first came out. I then conducted my own tests that weren't flawed. I was most impressed with the cabintree unit after checking my results on the cabintree against the mother of all hardness testers. I will admit that in my hands the cabintree and the Lee producted the same results it all depends on how long you wish to play with the bullet before you get results. That is why I purchased the cabintree unit.

  18. #18
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,612
    It is hard to fault the test method used in the LASC article. All the various testers were compared against a high quality lab instrument after all had tested the same bullets.
    That you can't define where that test was flawed says a lot.
    EDG

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Casa Grande, AZ
    Posts
    5,526
    I can comment on several areas. The alloy being used was basic wheel weight metal instead of being a verified alloy that was purchased from a supplier. I own a Ballisti-cast bullet caster and can attest to the differences in hardness between wheel weight material being used verses alloy of a guaranteed mixture available from a vendor. Secondly it would appear that a number of test people are being used in this experiment as opposed to a select few that are experienced in the act of testing and control. Yes, I find this very flawed and a simple exercise that is trying to masquerade as a bona fide controlled experiment.

  20. #20
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,612
    Apparently you did Iot read the article very well.
    There is no masquerading other than I don't think you bothered to read all of it.

    1.It was real world testing in a group of typical users.
    The goal was to test using real bullets all cast from the same metal in the same casting run.

    2. The same bullets were tested using a metallurgical lab machine that was calibrated to the NIST.

    It was an excellent test and gave a much better statistical comparison than your very limited attempt at comparison..

    Perhaps you might want to study a text on designed experiments.

    The metal used was all from one batch and the bullets were all cast in the same batch. If you had actually read the article you would know that. The bullet metal therefore was a constant.
    It makes no difference as long as all users were testing the exact same bullets and they were. Their results were all compared to the calibrated test machine. The calibrated test machine also tested the same bullets.

    Quote Originally Posted by 6bg6ga View Post
    I can comment on several areas. The alloy being used was basic wheel weight metal instead of being a verified alloy that was purchased from a supplier. I own a Ballisti-cast bullet caster and can attest to the differences in hardness between wheel weight material being used verses alloy of a guaranteed mixture available from a vendor. Secondly it would appear that a number of test people are being used in this experiment as opposed to a select few that are experienced in the act of testing and control. Yes, I find this very flawed and a simple exercise that is trying to masquerade as a bona fide controlled experiment.
    E
    Last edited by EDG; 04-21-2018 at 10:50 AM.
    EDG

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check