just gots me a Lee

[white eagle]

alloy tester
sit still long enough I will file a flat on ya
annaway
how long should I wait from the time I cast to the time I go for a reading :popcorn:
Ehhhh?????[smilie=s:

[geargnasher]

Just use a small-caliber shellholder and check the nose unless it's a RN or SP design. You can check it anytime, but there is no meaningful answer to your question unless you tell us your alloy composition.

Gear

[white eagle]

any alloy really
good......no time like the present

[onondaga]

I find it interesting to test hardness the day I cast, then again at 7 days, then again at 30 days. Air cooled boolits stay pretty much the same hardness for me after the 7 day mark

Lee claims that the flat filed on the bullet side is recommended specifically because that is the bearing area on the barrel when shot and that that area has the most even cooling rate after casting. I did a comparison with filed flats on bullet sides and flat nose bullet measurements. I could not find a very significant difference but some FN measurements were a tiny bit harder. I can tell you that measuring hardness on a bullet base near where sprue was cut does give significantly higher hardness measurements than a filed flat on the same bullet.

Gary

[white eagle]

Gary
glad you saw this thread
I know you know the ins and outs of this tester
do you recall a thread where someone built a holder for the scope ?
haven't been able to find it
Thanks for your help

[onondaga]

There have been several posts on holders for the Lee scope in the hardness test kit. Wish I could credit the originator here on the board, but I saved the picture and made one from this picture. It works great:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c338/rhymeswithwhat/Leescopeholder.jpg

Gary

[white eagle]

thats the one thanks

[geargnasher]

any alloy really
good......no time like the present

Some alloys age-harden, and can do so at drastically different rates depending upon how they were cooled and if any heat-treating as done. Some age-soften, and fairly quickly, so the timeline can matter a great deal. That's why I was asking.

Gear

[white eagle]

well I cast ww,50/50,hardball,#2 and mix some babbit and ww16/1,20/1,10/1
then there is lino
so I am all over the alloy board
if I just cast one alloy it would be easy

[Larry Gibson]

Using the Lee by hand can be frustrating to say the least. The holder shown is a good one but I found a "toy" microscope at a second hand/antique store and got it for $12. The top and bottom of the lens assembly came off easily. I wrapped duct tape around the Lee scope to bring it to diameter to fit inside the lens housing and drilled the bottom view hole out the same size as the scope tube. It fits tight and doesn't move. The fine adjustment up and down of the microscope makes viewing easy, quick and sure.

I made a cover for the slide view plate (sorry, don't remember the real name) out of the aluminum sheeting I make GCs out of. It covers the view hole and makes adjusting the slide holder easy and smooth. The "slide" is a card cut out from a Coke half rack container. A dab of modelling clay sticks on it and bullets stick to it in any position you want them for viewing. The card makes the horizontal adjustments easier and steadier, just have to remember that it's like backing up a trailer---it goes in the opposite direction of the move.

I also measure the BHN on the meplat if the bullets have one. When I file a flat as per Lee's instructions the bullet is easier held in a vise of a pair of vise grips for filing. I also prefer to take BHN measurements of a minimum of 5 bullets and then average the results for an average BHN for those. However, I've found that most BHN measurements on the meplats are within +/- 1.5 of the average so just measuring 1 or 2 bullets will get you pretty close.

Many criticise the Lee and point out the greater "accuracy" of much more expensive testers but if you use the Lee consistently it will give you a base line of measurements to compare the alloys you use. Also if you get some known pure lead and measure it with the Lee tester it will give you a "reference" to "calibrate" your particular tester. Lead is 5 BHN so if your Lee measurement says it is 5.2 you can then add the ".2" to other measurements to be technically correct if that matters to you.

One last thing to remember; BHN only measures the "hardness" of the alloy. It does not measure the malleability of the alloy or what some refer to as "toughness". A malleable alloy with a BHN of 20 will most often shoot more accurately and perform better on game that a brittle alloy with the same 20 BHN, especially at higher velocities.

Larry Gibson

[geargnasher]

Good post Larry, you made a good tool into a really good tool.

Gear

[white eagle]

pretty darn clever Larry
finding that bhn of my alloys is
adding to my cast tool box
and although this tester may have its faults
it give a reference and that is all I want

[captain-03]

Got a little carried away!!

http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss241/captain-03/IMG_3396.jpg

http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss241/captain-03/IMG_3395.jpg

http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss241/captain-03/IMG_3394.jpg

http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss241/captain-03/IMG_3393.jpg

[geargnasher]

Captain, all that thing needs now is a nice "jewelled" finish all over, and maybe some nice gold border inlays.....:mrgreen:

Gear

[Larry Gibson]

"necessity" certainly is the mother of invention......So far several very good ways to amke the Lee tool much better.

Larry Gibson

[Frank]

I check them right after casting because I know what they'll do in a day, two days and a week. I did four hundred a few days ago and they're all good. The Lee tool enabled me to produce the alloy I need. There is no measuring of metals to add to the pot. I start off with one mix, test it and bump it up or down as needed. My system works great. I don't file any flat. Just lay a flat piece of metal on the ram and measure the nose. Hold the tool with your fingers in the light.

[ilcop22]

Question for you fellows who use the Lee. I have one, but my lead readouts are often surprising, and I can't tell if it's the tool or the fool working it. I did several measurements today; WW (WQ'd), WW+Pewter & what I was told is pure lead. Pure lead reads at about 11 BHN, with the WW at 13.6 BHN - and that was consistent among various boolits, ingots and even different batches of WW cast (mine and a bunch of 45 boolits I purchased ages ago). The WW+Pewter was around 15 IIRC. Knowing that pure lead is 5 BHN, is this a case of me just doing it wrong, or perhaps a faulty unit?

[geargnasher]

Prolly bad information with what you were told "pure" really is. Most people call lead "pure" if they don't think it has much tin or copper or any of the babbit metals in it. The tester scale doesn't even go below 8.0, you have to rely on a chart like Montan Charlie has posted here for that.

I've been given many things over the years by well-meaning folks that were called "pure lead". Had one fellow who wanted to sell me a frying-pan ingot, about 40 lbs, said it was "pure lead" he got from melting some wheel weights. :-P Turned out to be a nice lead/antimony/zinc/whoknowswhat alloy that was only good for proving the sulfur method does indeed work if you're patient and live in the country. [smilie=f: I eventually turned it into pistol boolits that got left in the berms of the local range, no additional alloying was required for .45 ACP ammo.

Gear

[geargnasher]

Here's the sub-chart for the Lee tester Montana Charlie posted, takes you down below what you'll probably ever see in the real world.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31496&d=1302885467

Gear

[pdawg_shooter]

A 45 ACP size die in your press works good too.

[ilcop22]

Thanks, Gear. I shoulda figured as much. Guess I'll be melting down my .50 cal balls and go back on the search for "pure" lead. Some 7.62 bullets I pulled measure well outside the Lee measurer's scale (after I dissected the jacket)... I'm going to assume that's pure lead given the indent diameter of over .10. Wonder if anyone has filled up the "dud box" at my club recently... :cool:

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Gary
glad you saw this thread
I know you know the ins and outs of this tester
do you recall a thread where someone built a holder for the scope ?
haven't been able to find it
Thanks for your help

white eagle,
I made that holder. Below is a copy of a more recent post where I made
a Revision II holder. I no longer have a use for the original version.
It's yours free of charge (without the flashlight and mount) if you want to pay shipping. I sell those flashlight and mount kits for Pistols with accessory rails at Gunshows for $12 if your interested in that too.
Jon



Here are some things I recently tried in regards to my Lee Microscope stand.

Last fall, I bought a Lee hardness tester for some testing
of different alloys and how fast they age harden.

well, two weeks ago, I finally started my alloy testing,
which includes lots of hardness testing.
after several tests, I realized my microscope stand was a poor design,
though when I posted photos months ago,
I did get many complements that it looked nice,
well looking nice doesn't allow for adjustment problems.

So, I built a "Revision II" stand.
the main problem I had with "Revision I" was that the bullet wasn't horizontal,
so it was a pain to move/adjust the boolit position and
my fat fingers would block the light while doing so.

So, I had an idea to use a modified 223 case drilled and tapped for 1/4x20 to
hold and adjust the boolit.

Another thing I did was drill the hole for the microscope "oversized",
then I lined the bottom portion of the hole with some beeswax type boolit lube,
This is kind of a coarse adjustment.
so I could move/adjust the microscope to line up with the center
of the boolit dimple,and it would hold it's place....

After coursely adjusted, Then I can turn the
bolt to gently move the boolit dimple to
precisely line up with the graduations in the microscope.

Rev I design (original)
http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu127/JonB_in_Glencoe/100_1301.jpg


the following 4 photos are the new design "Rev II"
http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu127/JonB_in_Glencoe/100_1701.jpg

http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu127/JonB_in_Glencoe/100_1702.jpg

http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu127/JonB_in_Glencoe/100_1703.jpg

http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu127/JonB_in_Glencoe/100_1704.jpg

[white eagle]

Jon
I truly appreciate the offer but now that you have posted the pics
I have something to go by
seems like that design is one even I could make
thank you for the kind offer

[kbstenberg]

Is there an advantage to indenting the side of the bullet rather than the flat on either end of the bullet? I prefer to indent either end because of having a larger flat area to work with.

[ilcop22]

Is there an advantage to indenting the side of the bullet rather than the flat on either end of the bullet? I prefer to indent either end because of having a larger flat area to work with.

The flat (base) end of the boolit will give you an innacurate reading, as the base of the boolit does not make contact with the mould and therefore hardens differently than the rest of the boolit. Taking a measurement from the top of flat nose bullets or from the side will give you appropriate, accurate measurements.