1/2 boolits for lee hardness tester

[Bret4207]

I don't think the price is the deciding difference in this discussion. I got mine before Lee had even thought of theirs. Lee get's half what Gussy does for a plastic toy. Is that real value? To each their own I guess.

[geargnasher]

As long as you have a tool and method that's consistent, I don't see the problem. Most of the time we use our own tester in our own experiments, and if we find that the most accurate load happens to be 3 BHN points harder than the alloy we normally use, and we can repeat that test next year when we make a new batch of alloy to match, then that's what really matters.

Gear

[Hamish]

6 or 8 months ago there was a thread I found where a feller made one with a weight hanging off the handle of a press,,,,,

Still having trouble getting past the idea of "working" the surface of a boolit to check it. If even pushing it through a sizer alters the tension of the molecules,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Bret4207]

That's why you size right after casting if you are trying to get super hard cast stuff to work. AC allot takes 2-3 weeks to reach it's nominal Bhn, WQ needs a couple days, maybe more, I haven't got that down quite yet.

[Sonnypie]

As long as you have a tool and method that's consistent, I don't see the problem. Most of the time we use our own tester in our own experiments, and if we find that the most accurate load happens to be 3 BHN points harder than the alloy we normally use, and we can repeat that test next year when we make a new batch of alloy to match, then that's what really matters.

Gear

Exactly, Gear.
None of this stuff is laboratory grade science.
None of it is molecular testing.
So this brand or that, make your choice and enjoy.

Meanwhile, back to the shop.
I have a very special project to work on. I only came in to warm up...

PS: Read the bottom line in my signature....
The labs I have worked around (and it's been more than a few) usually would send samples to like labs for reference testing. Just to see if their finding jived with each others.
Not to argue if this spectrum analyzer was better than that one.

[jimkim]

Once I got the little microscope still, I started moving. I still measure the dimple with my calipers.

[madsenshooter]

I ran across a post somewhere, not here, can't find it again. But these little "can't see through them scopes" aren't a necessity, if you have a digital camera to snap a pic of the indent. You can measure in pixels, then convert pixels to inches, and you have a nice precise measurement. If I ever find it again I'll post more.

[jeepguy242]

i know this thread is over a month old, but couldnt you just pour out a small sample from your ladle onto a flat peice of steel, and then test that with the lee tester, i have been doing this, and now i am wondering if i am getting an in-accurate reading, does it matter if the test peice has been poured into a bullet mold?

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Jeep,
that is an interesting idea.
I guess the only way to find out is to compare...
I might have to try it.
Jon

[largom]

That's why you size right after casting if you are trying to get super hard cast stuff to work. AC allot takes 2-3 weeks to reach it's nominal Bhn, WQ needs a couple days, maybe more, I haven't got that down quite yet.

I do not size right after casting. Did once on some long 8mm boolits and found that the soft boolits grew in the ogive as a result of sizing and seating gas check.
To determine if sizing removed hardness I took some 45-70 boolits and cut them in half on my milling machine. I got the same hardness reading on the cut portion as I did on the nose. I repeated this test by also filing a flat on the boolit and got the same results.

I believe the hardness of AGED air cooled boolits is thru-out the boolit and not affected by minimal sizing. If you bend a piece of steel once it's strength is not greatly affected but if you bend it back and forth several times it will eventually break.

Larry

[mdi]

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.

Can't understand why anyone would bitch about an "unwanted" suggestion! And who's to say it's unwanted? edsmith, I like your idea. I personally have no trouble filing a slug (I make mine by pouring lead into an empty case and using a hammer type bullet puller to remove the slug.), but I may try your method anyway. I've just about given up on the Lee microscope and am now using my magnifying visor and dial calipers to measure the dents; I can get pretty accurate measurements and it's easier...

[montana_charlie]

am now using my magnifying visor and dial calipers to measure the dents; I can get pretty accurate measurements and it's easier...

Me, too ...

i know this thread is over a month old, but couldnt you just pour out a small sample from your ladle onto a flat peice of steel, and then test that with the lee tester, i have been doing this, and now i am wondering if i am getting an in-accurate reading, does it matter if the test peice has been poured into a bullet mold?

You method sounds reasonable to me as long as the 'puddle' is thick enough to take the dimple without distorting.
But, there are people on this forum who say that only bullets from a mould can give correct readings. Ingots cannot.

If that's true, your 'puddles' can't, nor can blocks of certified alloy from a commercial supplier. Anybody else believing that?

CM

[W.R.Buchanan]

I could see what all the hubbub is about if you are testing RN boolits but on flat nose boolits I just test on the flat nose.

The kicker on the Lee system is not making the dimple, that's the easy part. measuring the dimple is the hard part.

Here's what I do.

I adjust the Lee tool in my Rockchucker press so that the little plunger is flush when the press handle is over center and all the way down. This insures the same amount of pressure every time, and it also makes leaving the tool in contact for 30 seconds effortless.

Then I measure the dimple on my Optical Comparator. It has a readout that goes to 10 millionths. I can literally interpolate to tenths of a BNH number using the Lee chart and a calculator.

A typical run of boolits might vary one full BNH number or less from end to end.

The problem with the Lee system is not the indent tool. It is as consistant as anything you could make or buy. The chart they include is also just fine.

The microscope is the weak part. it is only graduated in .002 increments. If you hook it to a good stand like an old microscope you can get it into focus well enough to be able to study the reading and get close enough for Boolit work, which is all they intended.

But if you carry it one step farther and get a graduated eye piece for the old microscope you'll be able to measure much closer and yeild a much closer idea of what your product actually is.

My Nikon Comparator with DRO is the best way, but there are much less expensive comparators out there. Microvue has one that is inexpensive, and they come up frequently at machine shop sales and tool houses. typically less than $75.

The Lee microscope is the most inexpensive comparator, and I've had a comparator like that in my tool box for 30 years, long before Lee started using them for their tools. They are available from any machine shop tool supplier for $10 and are useful for checking cutting tool edges and points.

Just finding a better optical measuing device will increase the accuracy of your hardness test. Like I said you can get graduated eyepieces from microscope suppliers for not much money, and have somethng that is many times more accurate than any of the existing hardness testers we normally use. I have seen eyepieces that were graduated down to tenths of a thousandth,. Also most eyepieces for microscopes are the same size so if you get one it probably will fit into your microscope tube, assuming you have a real microscope and not a toy one.

Or you can buy a used lab hardness tester whcih would be the last word,,,after it was calibrated.

Randy

[jeepguy242]

Jeep,
that is an interesting idea.
I guess the only way to find out is to compare...
I might have to try it.
Jon

i have compared it to a flat nose bullet, and i get about the same on both, that is why i have been using it. i always wondered if it was accurate. the bullets seem to shoot good, and they don't lead the barrel, so that is what i am sticking with i guess, as far as the thickness of the puddle, it usually comes out around 1/4" thick if i pour all of whats in the LEE ladle out onto the steel.

and as far as the lee microscope goes, i don't use it, i use the scanner on a computer method i found here

http://www.tacticoolproducts.com/brinell/

[fryboy]

i dont file .... call me lazy call me crazy i dont care , i just picked the biggest flattest metplat mold i have and use it to cast "testers" with and they show up great woth a bunch of other boolits ( easy to pick out ) ...easy breezy beautiful ,pure simplicity and no plastic parts on my lee tester ( except for the box it came in ) thankfully i was graced with a fairly steady hand and good hand eye coordination :P

[Budmen]

the lee is more accurate.

Really have you ever tried to compare the two on a known sample I just did it on Rotometals #2 pure lead known WW and some unknown alloys. CABIN TREE and best of all no wasting valuable casting and loading time trying to figure out how to file mill or machine a flat!!!

[williamwaco]

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

Ditto except I am too lazy to use 600 grit. I use a piece of used 220 grit. It makes lines but they are very fine and do not interefere with the reading.


.

[AR-15 Cowboy]

I use an old Intel kids microscope with a styrofoam insert to hold the Lee tester. Works great. Since I'm doing a study on boolit hardness I have a lot of problems getting a flat surface without working the metal. EdSmith has the answer with the split bullet mold. Gives you a great surface and doesn't change the properties of the metal. I have my son check some of my results with the scientific equipment at the university he attends. Thanks Ed. You saved this old man a lot of work.

[williamwaco]

Flat surface?

Yet another related question.

Why can't you just heat up your ingot mold and pour an ingot of approximately the same thickness as the bullet you want to test, let it cool and it will have a beautiful flat surface on the top.

I can't be the only person who has ever wondered this?


.

[mdi]

Hmmm. Try filling a bottle cap. That will give you a "ingot" small enouth to fit in the press, and a flat surface (the open side) to test...