lead hardness testing

[MattOrgan]

Any advice on the best lead hardness tester or method to determine alloy hardness?

Thanks

Matt

[R.M.]

Gee, who makes the best pick-up. Sorry, couldn't resist. You're going to get a good variety of recommendations. I have a LBT and think it's the cat's backside. I've used the home-made one using the drill press and bathroom scales. It works well, but more work. They all work well enough for what we need.

[altheating]

Like R.M. said they all work well for what we are doing. Lee, Saeco, LBT and Cabine Tree. My thoughts on them. Lee ($50.00) to cheap, owners have to make stands and add lights to see results or something. Saeco ($150.00) to expensive and limited on what you can test. LBT ($100.00), priced right but limited on what you can test as far as size of the sample. Cabine Tree ($103.00), priced right and is more versatile as far as the size of material you can test. From big ingots down to 37 grain 22 cal boolits. I'm glad I went with the Cabine Tree. You can test in less than 10 seconds, probably more like 5, but who's counting.. The Cabine Tree unit can also be used to check bullet runout and for checking case wall thickness. The upgrade is $24.00 more. The best? Its more like what fits your needs and pocketbook the best!

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I like the Lee, simple and cheap and acurate.
other ones are probably better ???

But there is a bunch of threads on this.
this website has a great search option.
Here are the search results I did.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/search.php?searchid=3116877
Happy reading.
Jon

[cbrick]

Matt, here is an article that explains your question. With this you can easily make up your own mind.

Cast Bullet BHN Test Equipment (http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm)

Rick

[Longwood]

I made one of the Cabin tree testers and it works great. I already had some dial indicators so have about $8 in it.
I used known metals to test in order to make up my own chart. I can test just about anything including a full sized 25# Linotype pig.

[MattOrgan]

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to respond to this. It has shortened my learning curve considerably.

Matt

[Larry Gibson]

I've found the Lee tester to work fine for me. With a $12 toy microscope from a second hand store I made it into a very easy to use hardness tester. The results are also very consistent.

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

Two things about the LEE BHN tester. 1 is the microscope and the other is reading all these posts that say "my bullets are 12.7 BHN or 18.3 BHN.

That's simply nonesense. First NO currently available lead BHN tester in the cast bullet market could possibly read accurate enough to say .2 or point whatever. There is variation in the testers themselves and even more variation with the person doing the testing from test to test. If there were one that good no one could possibly afford it. Next is that most calipers used for reading that dent in the bullet are only good to about .001" so how accurate could that 18.2 BHN reading be? Second, I have done a tremendous amount of accuracy testing changing only the bullets BHN, same exact alloy & load but oven heat treated to different BHN's. All of my testing indicates that minor variations in BHN do not affect long range revolver groups. By long range I mean 200m. By minor variations I mean say, 17- 18 BHN bullets in the same 5 shot group. Larger BHN variation will open up groups, say with bullets of 15 - 22 BHN in the same 5 shot group as an example.

Most all of the available BHN testers will be accurate enough to tell you your alloy is say 17 BHN + - 1 BHN. That is plenty good for keeping accurate notes as long as the tester is ("repeatable") with your cast bullet loads and you will be able to repeat a given load in the future for even the most anal bullet caster (like me :roll:).

Choose your BHN tester by ease of use, repeatability and if you must, price. Not by a reading of point anything.

To say that my alloy is point this or that is . . . well, rather amusing.

Rick

[Larry Gibson]

Two things about the LEE BHN tester. 1 is the microscope and the other is reading all these posts that say "my bullets are 12.7 BHN or 18.3 BHN.

The Lee microscope, if held steady, can give a very accurate and consistent reading. The key is in holding it steady and at the correct height above the bullet. The correct height is determined by the focal length. I've found that an error as much as a .2 on the scopes scale can easily be made between what appears focused at one end of the focal length and the other end of the focal length when the scope is not held steady. That is why myself, with the microscope, and others with similar made stands find the Lee scope quite satisfactory because it can be consistently held stead at the correct focal length. Very sure and, again, consistent readings can be taken. The indent die is also quite accurate and easy to use as the ball is the correct diameter. With the die set and used in the press the same way each time and the pressure time consistently timed at 30 seconds reliable and reproducible indentions are made.

The ".2 or .3" are taken from the Lee table that comes with the tester and can be correct relating to one bullet and one reading only. It is fairly reliable if you calibrate (adjust the scale) against known pure lead. For example if you find a Lee reading of 5.7 BHN for known pure lead then simply add .7 to what ever reading you get from then on. I concur that in the end it is best to deal with whole numbers on the BHN scale as the variance in BHN from spot to spot on any bullet varies to much to say for certain using a ".2 - .3" etc.

The .2 or .3" may be accurate for that one reading but an appropriate sample should be done using various spots on the bullet or piece of alloy. I like to test the nose of FB bullets and file a flat on others. A sample of 3 readings gives a much better idea than just one reading and the average of 5 readings is pretty close to what the lot of bullets or alloy will be. I have done eight and ten samples but there's not much difference than the 5 sample. The average of those 5 readings is what i use. However I usually use a one two whole number BHN such as 12 - 13 or 16 - 18 as a better representation of the BHN of a particular batch of bullets or a batch of alloy.

I'm not recommending one type of tester or another. I'm just stating what my choice was and how it works. If anyone wants to use another tester feel free to do so. The extensive test shown at the site listed in cbrick’s post shows the variance that can be had with each different testers. The conclusion; “The differences between the various testers, the simplicity of using the tester making consistent readings possible, the users ability to use the tester consistently and interpret the results. This test also has shown how close to the lab tested sample (most of) the various testers really are.” seems quite consistent with my own findings using the Lee tester.

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

I wasn't slamming the LEE tester or promoting any other, simply pointing out the sillyness of saying that my alloy is point this or that. Even if you had a tester that was that accurate (you don't) ballistically it just does not matter (re-read post #9 of this thread). Even if your tester is that accurate you still need to take a measurement with calipers that are accurate to about .001". Look at your chart from LEE and see how much of a difference in your final BHN determination a full thousands in measuring the indent will make. Given that where does this point this or that come from?

Yep, agreed with your cut & paste sentence from Cast Bullet BHN Tester Experiment (http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm)

The differences between the various testers, the simplicity of using the tester making consistent readings possible, the users ability to use the tester consistently and interpret the results. This test also has shown how close to the lab tested sample (most of) the various testers really are.

Very wise author wouldn't you say? :mrgreen:

Rick

[mold maker]

I have had a Saeco tester for many years, and was never satisfied with my ability to get consistent readings. It also wouldn't test much of anything but a flat nosed boolit. I needed another hand to keep everything aligned in the little window, but there wasn't room for my two.
I now have a Cabin Tree, that I mounted on a piece of plywood that fits in a 50 cal ammo can, with all the accessories. I can test anything from small cal boolits to ingots 2"+, and I have enough hands to do it with consistent, repeatable results.
Just goes to prove, you don't always get what you pay for, but you do always pay for what you get.

[cbrick]

I agree with Veral Smith on testing ingots for BHN. In his book he explains (correctly) that what determines the final BHN of any Pb/Sb alloy is the cooling rate, how fast it cools will determine the final BHN. A one pound ingot (or larger) has far more mass than any bullet and it will cool far slower than the bullet giving it a different BHN than the bullet. Comparing ingot BHN to the BHN of bullets cast from that ingot is apples and oranges.

I know that a lot of people here BHN test their ingots but . . .

Rick

[sh00ter787]

I got a Lee a while back, I also do not trust the results "exactly" however what it does give me is the hardness of "my" alloy in comparison to another that "I" have tested - that is a real benefit to me as it is all useful data and I certainly have changed the way I cast because of it. For the better I hope!

I now air cool all of my lower velocity boolits, as the water dropping i was doing was making them way too hard - and because of the tester I could see that. Nothing like seeing the results for yourself.

[Larry Gibson]

cbrick

No need getting in a nut role over little here. There can be a fairly large discrepency between various BHN measurement methods as adequately demonstrated via the test in the article. I gat an extreme spread measuring the BHN of 5 bullets, velocities of 5 shots, pressures of 5 shots, etc. I do agree with you that if someone just measures the BHN of 1 bullet then being that precise probably isn't precise enough to state the BHN of that bunch of bullets. This is just the same as chronographing 1 shot and stating the velocity of that load was what the 1 shot was. It takes a reasonable sample to have a reasonable idea of velocity, pressure, BHN, etc. If you measure 10 bullets for instance and state the average BHN to be 12.4 then that might be reasonable. However, I do agree that a 1 bullet measurement of BHN with any tool and stating the BHn with such a degree of "accuracy" is only guessing.

I think most of us with any experience understand this and usually use a spread of say 12 - 14 BHN for a lot of bullets and that after measuring a sample of 5 - 10 bullets. Also what I measure with my "WWs" using my tester may very well be different than what you get with your tester. As stated the rate of cooling and actual alloy do make a difference let alone the differences between our casting techniques, the conditions and how we use our testers.

What these tester do do is give us a relative BHN that we can compare our own alloys to each other and how they perform in our rifles/handguns. Besides, the BHN only measures the tensile strength of the alloy, it does not measure the yield strength. The BHN (tensile strength of an alloy) does not tell us the malleabilty of the alloy which is the ductile or plastic deformation of the alloy. The BHN is only half, if that, of the consideration for alloy selection for a particular bullet for a particular need. Many times a particular alloy works well across a large spectrum (WWs and Lyman #2 alloy) but sometimes we must consider not only the BHN but the malleabilty of the alloy. For example; a brittle alloy such as linotype is not a good choice for a HP bullets where smooth expansion and weight retension are desired. Many times heat treated WW/lead 50/50 alloy is prefered. It can have close to the same BHN as linotype yet it remains malleable on impact giving the desired expansion charactoristics instead of shattering or fragmenting as linotype does.

Larry Gibson

[cbrick]

I got a Lee a while back, I also do not trust the results "exactly" however what it does give me is the hardness of "my" alloy in comparison to another that "I" have tested - that is a real benefit to me as it is all useful data and I certainly have changed the way I cast because of it. For the better I hope!

Yes, exactly.

Larry, yep, that is exactly what I am trying to say.

Rick

[white eagle]

one mans trash is another s treasure

[montana_charlie]

I wasn't slamming the LEE tester or promoting any other, simply pointing out the sillyness of saying that my alloy is point this or that.
How many times have you used a Lee tester?
CM

[Longwood]

I made a tester very much like the Cabine Tree tester and keep it in my truck for when I stop by the scrap yards to search their lead barrel. I now have good idea what I am buying.

[geargnasher]

Rick, I don't get you on this one. You keep saying you have to measure with calipers when using a Lee tester. In fact one of the great things about that little device is that it comes with a machinists 20X microscope that has a scale etched into the field of view, and that scale is used for measuring the indent, not calipers. The scope is very accurate and repeatable if you can see worth a &$^%$^%$ and don't drink coffee, which is why so many of us make cool stands like Larry's.

As to the "point whatever......." that many of us use when refering to our measurements, I'll just say that from me, it's a habit born of reading the Lee scale. Very few round numbers on that scale. So if it measures clearly at 15.6 BHN, why would I call it 16? Or 15? Or 15-16? I'm not insinuating that it's accurate enough, or that it even needs to be, I'm just posting what the measurement was that I got. I think a lot of others do the same. Being educated formally as both a mechanical engineer and an automotive service tech, I tend to write measurements to limit of the tool's readable accuracy anyway. Just a habit, you can do the rounding in your head if it makes you feel better!

Gear

[cbrick]

Hhmmm . . . Someone, somewhere told me that with the LEE you used calipers to measure the indent. So much for that.

Rick

[geargnasher]

I know, heard it on the internet so it has to be true! :kidding:

One more thing, I realized I wasn't clear on the "point" thing above. The graduations on the Lee scale go like this: ......14.3 14.9, 15.4, 16.0, 16.6, 17.2...., etc. That's how the measurement of the indent in thousandths scales to BHN with the 5/32" ball and 60 lb test, so that's what I post, except I occasionally remember the decimal wrong when posting like I did in post #20 where I used "15.6" as an example, shoulda been 15.4.

I have to agree that just about any hobby tester, with the exception of the useless and esoteric piece of junk that Saeco wants $140 for, is plenty good for our purposes. I would argue that the Lee is probably the best overall, but that's considering price and it's very simple, direct and effecive way of indenting and measuring the indent. It's really the only "true" Brinell-type tester available as far as I know. You can buy the Lee hand press and use the tester in the field while junkyarding, too

MattOrgan, I hope some of this is helping you, didn't mean to hijack your thread, I think you have the info with all the posted links to make a good decision on your own, as you can see most of us of us will just throw in the Ford vs. Chevy thing until the cows come home!

Gear

[zomby woof]

I made my own tester to compare my alloy's. I like using a .312" ball with a heavier weight. I find the larger dimple is easier to measure. I cross referenced my dimple with the 5/32 ball chart listed a while ago.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/100_2996.JPG
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/100_29981.JPG

[montana_charlie]

Hhmmm . . . Someone, somewhere told me that with the LEE you used calipers to measure the indent. So much for that.
It would appear that the answer my question would be, "never".

CM