High Copper Alloys- Lets discuss this further

[berksglh]

This has turned into a pissin match.

Since I've joined this community, up untill following this thread I've seen nothing but good ideas and helpful people. It has given me a lot of encouragement and driven me to think outside of the copper jackets I've lived by the last 15 years.

I like to run with ideas and find cheaper or faster ways to accomplish the goal. In this case, its avoiding expensive jacketed rounds, by scrounging for things I can use to make my own so I can shoot more for less and still try to be accurate. The more I save on bullets, the more I can spend on more guns.

With that in mind, avoiding expensive tooling for swaging, high priced babbit or having to purchase lead is what its about to me. Find a way to do it myself or source it locally for less. Sure I have some expensive equipment, but its because I like doing things myself.

In post #489 it was suggested that babbit might just be easier. I'm with Popper on finding a way to avoid being a sheep in the heard and purchasing babbit like everyone suggests. Id rather find a way I can do it myself than having to rely on others.

Everyone I know suggests just purchasing nosslers. With that sort of thinking, this forum would be a lot smaller.

If copper sulfate yields an alloy that shoots better, great! Lets explore it. Maybe it does add copper, maybe its something else, but if it improves performance and there is no test yet to prove or disprove contents, until someone does the tests, there is room for further experimentation. If it ends up not adding copper, but still shows performance improvements, lets move it to its own thread and further research the idea. If it does add copper, lets move forward. But lets not be so discouraging and shoot each others ideas down. The earth isn't flat, and Act 10 didn't ruin Wisconsin.

I've been experimenting with my own ways to add copper, I'm fairly sure I have 0.2% and 1.0% alloys, and have cast both with my Lee bottom pour. Yes the temps are a bit higher, but I've had no problems casting either of them. Maybe the problems with clogged nossels is a result of the babbit?

Being somewhat new territory, we don't know for sure how the combinations of proportions of these metals will behave, or exactly whats all in the alloy for sure unless it is tested, by shooting and maybe later by lab testing if worth it.

It does seem to me that the higher % of Cu results in slower age hardening. So I'm sitting on my cast rnds for a while yet.

[DR Owl Creek]

... Solubility of Cu in Pb at solidus has been known to be 0.3% since the late 1800's so I guess we'll just do what they did.

...

Since you have a good background in chemistry, I would expect you to know that, and understand it.

FYI. Here's a link to an "old" report entitled "The Solubility of Copper in Liquid Lead Below 950 Degrees". See: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01154a111

Table 1 shows the solubility limits for copper in lead at varying temperatures. Keep in mine the temperatures reported are in the Kelvin scale, not Fahrenheit:

600 degrees K (620.33 degrees F) = .20% Cu
700 degrees K (800.33 degrees F) = .60% Cu
800 degrees K (980.33 degrees F) = 1.56% Cu
900 degrees K (1160.33 degrees F) = 3.36% Cu

For you to get a 2% Cu/lead alloy to pour from your Lee pot, you would have to run the temperature over 1000 degrees F. You stated you were running the pot at 715 F. To then blame RotoMetals for your test being a "bust" is simply UNBELIEVEABLE!

Also, trying to pass off targets where a number of your shots have been either covered over, or intentionally left off, to make them look like something they're not is beyond UNBELIEVABLE, it's an insult to anyone's intelligence! IMHO


Dave

[DR Owl Creek]

...




If copper sulfate yields an alloy that shoots better, great! Lets explore it. Maybe it does add copper, maybe its something else, but if it improves performance and there is no test yet to prove or disprove contents, until someone does the tests, there is room for further experimentation. If it ends up not adding copper, but still shows performance improvements, lets move it to its own thread and further research the idea. If it does add copper, lets move forward. But lets not be so discouraging and shoot each others ideas down. The earth isn't flat, and Act 10 didn't ruin Wisconsin.

...

Somewhere on this forum is an old thread on that subject. It's been long buried and long forgotten. If you want, you can search for it and resurrect it from the dead. Actually, please do, so this won't be such a distraction for anyone else here.

Thanks,

Dave

[DR Owl Creek]

Whatever!

[berksglh]

Table 1 shows the solubility limits for copper in lead at varying temperatures.

Good info, but most of our alloys aren't true binary alloys consisting of just 2 metals.

I'm wet behind the ears on all this but we are combining multiple metals in some combinations that don't have much research done on them, so we really dont know how they react in said combinations until we try them.

I'm fairly certain my alloy has 1% Cu and according to my probe, I was pouring @ 650 - 750°F.

Planning on doing a smaller batch a new way this weekend as another test, and if it works, see where it melts and how it casts.

[berksglh]

Did some searching and more reading here. There are quite a few threads here about copper additions. Some as far back as 2010.

Sounds like Edd has done quite a bit of testing and discussed balanced alloy, where Cu + Sb = Sn content. I'm convinced there is a relation ship there, but wonder if its more a balance between Cu and Sb. If Cu doesn't mix with lead, and has such a high solubility in Sb, maybe they have to have a balance of sorts.

If 3.5% Sb was where Edd was working to come to 0.3% Cu max, and we wanted a cast rnd to be able to handle more velocity, what about starting with that balance, and increasing both proportionately. Adding more Sb to make it harder, but also more Cu to keep it from becoming brittle.

It seems to me higher Cu makes it more malleable, and if more Sb makes it harder, to the point of being brittle, then use the copper to keep it from being brittle when using more antimony...

Say go to 7-10% Sb and 0.6-1.0% Cu? Or maybe more of both? As long as casting temps are reasonable.

My 1% Cu seems to squash easier then the 0.2% making me think it needs more antimony. Why use copper at all? Well at some point Sb makes it too brittle, so maybe upping the copper will compensate and keep it in balance while being able to handle more pressure.

Unless anyone has thoughts, I may have to source some antimony and further play with the idea.

[badgeredd]

Did some searching and more reading here. There are quite a few threads here about copper additions. Some as far back as 2010.

Sounds like Edd has done quite a bit of testing and discussed balanced alloy, where Cu + Sb = Sn content. I'm convinced there is a relation ship there, but wonder if its more a balance between Cu and Sb. If Cu doesn't mix with lead, and has such a high solubility in Sb, maybe they have to have a balance of sorts.

If 3.5% Sb was where Edd was working to come to 0.3% Cu max, and we wanted a cast rnd to be able to handle more velocity, what about starting with that balance, and increasing both proportionately. Adding more Sb to make it harder, but also more Cu to keep it from becoming brittle.

It seems to me higher Cu makes it more malleable, and if more Sb makes it harder, to the point of being brittle, then use the copper to keep it from being brittle when using more antimony...

Say go to 7-10% Sb and 0.6-1.0% Cu? Or maybe more of both? As long as casting temps are reasonable.

My 1% Cu seems to squash easier then the 0.2% making me think it needs more antimony. Why use copper at all? Well at some point Sb makes it too brittle, so maybe upping the copper will compensate and keep it in balance while being able to handle more pressure.

Unless anyone has thoughts, I may have to source some antimony and further play with the idea.

You are on the correct path with your thinking, I believe. The problem I see with some methods of adding copper is getting consistent results. R5R has worked with some different ways to enhance his bullet alloys and may pop in eventually with some experiences.

One major problem I have with a lot of the charts and graphical phase shift information is NONE of them have all or even most of the elemental metals in them we use. I haven't yet seen a phase diagram that includes Cu, Sb, Sn, As, & Pb. Add Ag, Bi, and Ni to the mix if you will. I know from experience that some metals when included in our alloys require very little to make a big change in the alloy so ignoring any of the elements will give us skewed answers.

Cu is a grain refiner as is As. I have said before that the ONE way we will really know what is going on is to use ALL certified alloys. I simply cannot afford that now so I have read and experimented enough to feel I have a handle on what works with consistency and what doesn't. I have tried the copper sulfate and agree it does improve the toughness of an alloy. But my problem is it has not been consistent for myself. I have asked questions about the process that have gone unanswered. The babbitt addition is not that expensive when one actually uses it as needed with the idea of a balanced alloy in mind. Considering the money I save by not using jacketed bullets, babbitt is CHEAP!

A few years ago (3 or so) I exchanged PMs with Felix on the ideas I had against the experience he had with adding copper. He helped me with his thoughts and observations. Unlike some, I don't think I have all of the answers on this idea of adding copper to our bullet alloys. I DO know enough to realize some things I have read are lacking in verified informational backing.

There has been a lot of discussion on the various ways to get to a goal with copper addition. Dr Owl Creek has had success as have some others. I quit trying to explain my method because of a constant distraction with NO verifiable proof. If you build on the experience of others, I will bet you'll have success. Keeping the balanced alloy in mind will save you time and money, I assure you.

Enough from me. I'll retire to my usual haunt which is NOT here.

Edd

[DR Owl Creek]

Edd, BABore, Jailer, and others,

Thanks for coming back here to try to clean up the mess. I really appreciate all the help you have given me.

For anyone interested in adding Sb to your alloy, here's a link to a really good article on an easy and repeatable way of doing it. It's probably been posted here before, but I thought I'd throw it out there again for anyone who's missed it. It was written by someone else who doesn't post here anymore either because of all the BS. See: http://www.lasc.us/SuperHard.htm

It's really sad when so many people who could contribute something valuable to this forum have left and don't, but others who you wish would leave won't.

Dave

[MBTcustom]

Or a Raptor riding a great white while toting an RPG. LOL!
Attachment 144942

[Budzilla 19]

at the risk of fanning the flame, this is what I've been casting 30 caliber boolits out of!!! After this XRF gun reading, I cut back on the Sn to 3% trying to balance out the alloy somewhat.tin originated out of Grade 11 Babbitt.(the Babbitt was a gift) Observe the Zn content, as I have no idea where it came from except from poor attention being paid during remelt process!!(hey, I tried to get them all out).The Cu % is high. it takes about 720-750Fto cast out of a Lee bottom pour pot, but its a PITA (some nozzle clog issues )so I just ladle them out using my dutch oven remelting pot @725F with a HOT mold.They are easy to cast with the ladle, water-quenched,drop as-cast at .309" just Hi-Tek coat three times and final coatings baked at 430-440F for one hour! Gas-checked, sized, and ready to load. Hardness tester is next on the list to buy so I can report the BHN of said projectiles, but, boy do they shoot good. Again, this works for me.I have enjoyed reading this exercise very much. thank you for allowing me to add my .02 cents to this discussion.

[berksglh]

Going to have to check the local scrappers to see if they have a scanner.

I keep a small butane touch handy and heat the nozzle a few seconds if it ever cools or clogs.

I also keep a small stainless bowl from a pet supply house under the spout and waste a 1-2 second shot into it before each pour. Just be carefull when it builds up in the pan, it can splash and spray you. Rotate pan every 3-10 molds, then add it back into melt when it suits you.

[Budzilla 19]

berksglh, you do the same thing I do with the spout and torch,till I get aggravated and go out to the big pot and let the Lee cool down till next time. Popper,I agree about the Zn clogging the spout. You better cut that spruce immediately when it frosts over! I have shot the 200 grns at 2,067 fps out of an '06 with real good 50 yd groups! .750" or less if I do my part. I have pushed them to 2497 fps, but accuracy went south in a HURRY,so back to 2067! The recoil was so bad at that 2497 fps mark I was flinching terribly! I WD them after the hi-Tek cook ( last cook is the h/t part) I try to size them immediately after the h/t so I can put the GC on them ASAP. I agree that this is about what works,because this is what I have to work with so I have make it work for me, even if it's a little aggravating at times! Good shooting to you and everyone else.

[DR Owl Creek]

Whenever I'm working up a load, I keep an 8 1/2" x 11" note pad on the bench beside me. For each target in a particular string, I have a diagram of the target on the note pad, and I keep detailed notes for each shot I take. I number each shot on the note pad, and write comments about it, such as: where the bullet impacted on the target, whether or not it was a "called flier", any anomalies, pressure signs, etc. After the shooting session is over, I can then study the target, along with my load notes. I've found this to be very helpful in analyzing what's going on with a particular load. I also think I've gotten to be pretty good at identifying problems and possible solutions this way.

I would like to go back and finish fully discussing the .750" target posted in Post #495 on Page 25, and the "full" target posted in Post #502 on Page 26 of this thread.

First of all, I want to offer a few comments about the rifle used in this particular test. I don't mean to be putting down the DPMS LR-308, but an off-the-shelf, garden variety LR-308 isn't a match grade target rifle. At best, I would expect a LR-308 to be able to shoot about 1.5 MOA at 100 yards with a decent type of factory loaded jacketed bullet ammo. Using a haphazardly loaded cast bullet load, I would seriously doubt it could come anywhere close to this standard of accuracy. If garden variety LR-308 was a match grade rifle, I would bet a lot of the CBA competitors would be using them, because their top guys are usually only getting about .5 MOA for 10 shot strings, and this is at about 1000 fps lower velocities that those claimed for this particular load.

From my experience over the years of analyzing my targets, I believe that the .750" cluster in the lower left-hand corner of the "full" target posted in Post #502 would be about what a LR-308 could do with a decent factory loaded jacketed bullet load at about 50 yards. I believe this "cluster" could have been a string to establish zero with the new scope that was somewhat recently mounted on this rifle. I also believe that the other bullet holes that were around, and underneath, that first cluster (the ones that were either covered over, or omitted on the close-up photo posted in Post #495) were then probably the cast bullet loads that were fired to confirm point of impact at 50 yards. That's why the visible circle was drawn around all of these bullet holes.

After that, I believe the target was moved back a further distance, possibly even to about 100 yards, where another group with the cast bullet load was fired at the larger target on the center of the page. This larger target in the center showed an overall group size somewhere in the 8 to 9 inch range, depending on how many other bullet holes weren't actually shown. This would be consistent with the approximate overall 4 inch size of the other 50 yard cast bullet group shown in the lower left-hand target, which was all circled.

How did I do with my analysis?


Dave

[DR Owl Creek]

Whatever!

[popper]

Attachment 145571
Cast some more 2% this afternoon, yea 101F in the garage but whatever. Really good fillout, never could get them frosty so I assume the Sb is in alloy with the Cu, even ran the temp up a bit. 1% gets frosty. Oh, same 720F alloy temp. I've loaded some to shoot when the temp drops a bit. Ingoted the rest of the alloy, cleaned the pot so I can make thin muffins of the superhard. Has Dr Owl gotten to China yet with the ax he's been grinding?
Oh, thought I'd posted this before:
Attachment 145575
Also, Cuprostibite Cu2Sb

"c 2001-2005 Mineral Data Publishing, version 1
Crystal Data: Tetragonal. Point Group: 4/m 2/m 2/m. As fine-grained aggregates, to
1.5 mm in diameter. Twinning: Platy [sic].
Physical Properties: Cleavage: One direction. Fracture: Uneven. Hardness = n.d.
VHN = 216–249 (50 g load). D(meas.) = n.d. D(calc.) = 8.42 "

Vickers vs brinell vickers 200=BHN 640
Hardness is due to Tetragonal structure vs FCC of other parts of alloy.

[berksglh]

What I've found so far with my testing, it is the temp they are baked at during heat treating that determines age time and final hardness. Using a PID controlled convection oven, I tested straight CWW castings, and they also get super hard after Heat Treating like the Cu added ones. But the ones with Cu aren't as brittle.

So copper appears to not only make the castings more malleable, but increases the melt temp and seems to allow for a higher heat treat temp, resulting in harder and tougher bullets.

Ive been HTing my 0.2% at 463-466°F and after quenching and aging for two days they are super hard and yet tough.

Now that I have my HT oven set up and the mystery of the harder bullets figured out, today I'm going to heat treat my 1.0% Cu rnds, age them a few days, then compare to the 0.2%.


My new convection oven with digital PID temp control using a K type thermocouple that was verified with a NIST traceable transcat temp calibrator. The barbeque unit was also checked.

[DR Owl Creek]

The comparison of your 1.0% to the 0.20% bullets should be very interesting.

Dave

[popper]

I ESPC so haven't taken the temp over 415 yet. I dropped these into ice water, for reference.
My probe is tempermental now, new one (omega with ceramic insulation - not cheap) won't get shipped til the 15th so - shucks. I've got them loaded (sized 3085 over 41 gr.) but H.I. is going to be 105F or so this week. Tried to pull a couple goofs, cam puller wouldn't even hold on the alloy, just scraped off PC. I pull 1% H.T. easily with the puller. Had to revert to the wire stripper/PVC tube pulling. Oh, didn't loose a single GC of the ones I pulled. 1% I lose about half. Gee, if I H.T. @ 460 I might have the equal of heavy Cu solids?

[berksglh]

415°F should affect your hardness to a degree. I've found if i heat treat at say 465°, they are very hard, but then after that, if you powder coat at 400, it erases the previous heat treat and they are now soft and take a long time to age based on the last heat cycle at 400°. Still aging a batch to try to prove or disprove this.

If you PC and then heat treat but get them too hot, the outer metallic skin of the bullet peals off if bumped hot or cracks when water dropping and some if the PC flakes off with silver skin on the underside.

So the my challenge has been trying to find a temp that heat treats hard enough to your
liking, but not so high that the outer most layer starts to become plastic like and slip off the rest if the metal when water dropping.

The amount of hardness required is determined by fit and load pressure.

Heat treating COWW alloy to hi temps can achieve very hard bullets, but to the point they can become brittle based on antimony content and temp their treated at.

Copper seems to cancel out the brittleness while allowing them to still be very hard if heat treated as such.

Im about ready to squash test my 1.0%Cu and compare to 0.2 and COWW

[berksglh]

Haven't shot any of my hard heat treated Cu rnds yet. But the 0.2% i put a binder clip on a few and it pinched them in half at 478-480°F.

Same alloy if quenched at 468 has skin like pieces flake off when dumping into water. Drop temp to 463 and I have no issues.

Not sure id the 1% can take more temp, or if its needed.

Will see how fast i can push them as is.