Lbt hardness tester

[4719dave]

Hey guys,im looking to buy one of these .Need to ck some ingots and boolits .
Any one use this ? :coffee:

[Roundnoser]

I have not used it, but I did ask a similar question about hardness testers some time go. I wanted to know which of the popular types of testers was the best, as I was thinking of buying one.

All things considered, the gents on this forum said that LBT was better than the others.

[Dale53]

I have an LBT hardness tester and have had it for many years. It has been a very easy to use and reliable instrument.

Dale53

[Dan Cash]

I do not have and have not used the LBT tester though LBT products are held in high regard in this baileywick. There is an article/test report on a stickey on this forum that is most informative regarding hardness testers. It led me to buy the Cabine Tree tester. For me, it is extremely repeatable and lets me check some pretty big ingots which is useful when buying scrap. Bullets cast from a given ingot show the same hardness as the ingot and the hardness test correlates with bullet weight when I am building a pot of alloy. I don't care so much about Birnell hardness as I do about a repeatable number or unit of relative hardness. The Cabine Tree does that for me.

[Firebricker]

I have used mine the last few years and got consistent result's from it. I like the direct reading in bhn that makes it fast and easy. If I had to buy a new one I would take a look at the Cabin tree it looks versatile and I have heard good thing's about them. FB

[largom]

I have a LBT and a Lee tester. The LBT is very good with direct reading, however, after some modifications I like my Lee best and it is more consistant.

Larry

[bobthenailer]

i have been useing the LBT hardness for over 15 years ? i bought them when they first came out. im very satisfied with mine .
just a note ! you will not get the correct readings trying to ck ingots with the LBT tester, even though 1 lb ingots will fit . to ck the hardness of ingots you will have to melt the ingot and pour a few bullets to ck hardness, as stated in the instructions or in LBTs book on cast bullets.
bob

[bhn22]

To add to Bobs post a little bit, ingots & bullets cool at a different rate, because of the difference in mass. You won't be able to get the same reading between the two because of this. IIRC, the bullets will always be harder because they cool quicker. I have the LBT too, I previously owned a SAECO, which I was happy to get away from.

[CJR]

I've got a LBT hardness tester and like it. Fast, accurate, direct BHN readings, and repeatable measurements.

Best regards,

CJR

[Suo Gan]

Remember that your samples will need to be bullet size in order to fit and get correct readings for the LBT.

[.30/30 Guy]

I am happy with my LBT hardness tester. Have not tried any of the others and see no reason to do so.

[bhn22]

Remember that your samples will need to be bullet size in order to fit and get correct readings for the LBT.

This is true for all testers. Different size samples cool at different rates, causing different readings. I use my LBT tester to sort unmarked ingots that I've lost the content information for.

If you want to see a fussy hardness tester, spend a couple of years with a SAECO.

[MtGun44]

Have and like the LBT hardness tester.

Bill

[Lloyd Smale]

Ive owned the lbt and the seaco and now have a cabin tree. I like the cabintree one much better.

[stubshaft]

+1 - On the Cabinetree. IIRC - the LASC icon on the bottom of the page has a comparison test of all three hardness testers.

[Dan Cash]

I am doubtful about the difference in hardness of a bullet and an ingot of the same alloy. In my experience, there is no statistically significant difference. If any, the ingot tends to be slightly softer. When creating a melt from scrap lead to include WWs, I check the hardness of the alloy by pouring an ingot then checking it when it is cool enough to handle. When my target hardness is achieved, I start casting. The bullets show the same hardness as the test ingot when at about the same temperature. The cooled bullets also weigh out in the proper weight population, i.e.,<> 1 grain for a 555 grain bullet. Been working that way for several years.

I use a Cabine Tree because it lets me measure ingots and odd shapes of mystery metal. It is very repeatable for me. I am sure that the LBT is an excellent tool as are LBT moulds.
Dan

[Dale53]

My experience has been a bit different.

I have found, with my LBT hardness tester that ingots DO measure differently than bullets from the same metal. However, the difference has proved to be slight. Generally, only one BH difference. For me, while it is technically true that there is a difference, for all practical purposes, it matters NOT...

NOTE; To get consistent readings with ANY hardness tester, the samples NEED to be prepared. LBT includes specific instructions. Both surfaces need to be filed flat (if there are "hills and valleys" they need to be leveled. Voids need to be avoided. Like any tool, a little experience with using will go a long ways.

My first hardness tester was the Saeco. I got rid of it shortly after getting it. I have been VERY happy with my LBT. However, the Cabine Tree tester would get a hard look from me if I were buying all over again, simply due to it's versatility. That said, I am still happy with my LBT.

Just my take on it.
Dale53

[HARRYMPOPE]

I have had SAECO,LBT,Potter,Cabine Tree,Lee And Tioga.All worked well and are more usefull as a comparison between alloys than anything.Didn't like the SAECO due to the awkwardness and small sample size limitations..LBT and Cabine Tree are my two tops.

HMP

[Rio Grande]

Most any hardness tester can be used for comparative judgements of boolet hardness.
But I wonder if anyone here can substantiate their hardness numbers, by whatever scale. Without a certified test block, in the appropriate range of hardness, any 'numbers' obtained by LBT or others testers, are highly suspect.
I'm looking at availability of test blocks in the 5 to 35 brinell range.
LBT claims "1 BHN repeatability". Really. It's my understanding that it is extremely difficult to tell the physical differences of test samples between say 17 and 18 brinell. Even 17 and 19.

[Bret4207]

I have used the LBT and Cabine Tree. I like the direct readout of the LBT, but the CT is a far more versatile instrument and I believe it to be just as accurate as any other tester, if not more accurate. I'm not sure what Uncle Veral gets for his rig, but the CT was about the same price at one time and you got a lot more for your money. For darn sure the CT will stand up to far more abuse than any other rig I've seen out there. The thing is a TANK!

[buck1]

Ive owned the lbt and the seaco and now have a cabin tree. I like the cabintree one much better.

me tooo!

[pls1911]

The LBT is tough to beat.
Simplicity of design, durability of materials, consistent and repeatable results , and accurate readouts when verified against other equipment are great charactoristics.
Unless you're in a laboratory environment where finer measurement granularity is required, the LBT is the one for you.

In this application, the LBT really is tough to beat...and I've been trying for many, many years

[mold maker]

I paid for the experience of using a Saeco, then I enjoyed a Cabintree. Anybody looking for a Saeco?