Bullet Hardness Tool question

[milprileb]

Well, you all have done it to me. I just got to have the BNH hardness
numbers and take mystery out of alloys.

I see LBT and Lee offer lead testing tools.

Are these the leading options to consider or am I missing a model/ maker of
such a tool.

I consider my active life span at age 63 to be 15 yrs of casting bullets: worse case.

So the investment in this tool is not lost on me for what it gives over the rest of

my life time. I ain't got time to waste making mystery alloys anymore and suffer

the problematic results: wastes resources of which TIME remains the one resource

that is finite and not in truck loads.

[462]

SAECO and Cabin Tree make them, too.

[MtGun44]

Not an important tool. Hardness is mostly a secondary or tertiary issue. Much better
places to spend your money unless you have plenty to spend and are just experimenting.
Interesting but not a key variable, really.

Bill

[white eagle]

what Bill says in true
however I know exactly how you feel
not knowing is a pain....
I went with the Lee tester because for my purposes it works fine

[geargnasher]

I disagree. Buy the Lee tool, make sure you have a good pair of "readers" and a bright light. The tool is foolproof, accurate, consistent, inexpensive, gives DIRECT readings, and takes a lot of the mystery out of scrap alloys.

The key is don't get infatuated with hardness numbers, while they are very useful, they aren't the whole story to a good load, they are part of a quantity that needs to be known for balancing the rest of the load, choosing a powder burn rate, and planning for intended velocity.

Gear

[cbrick]

I highly recommend the LBT BHN tester. In the time spent fiddling with the lee tester with magnifying lens, bright lights, comparing a chart with lines to the indent I can check 10-15 bullets with accurate, repeatable readings directly in BHN from the LBT.

Rick

[R.M.]

I highly recommend the LBT BHN tester. In the time spent fiddling with the lee tester with magnifying lens, bright lights, comparing a chart with lines to the indent I can check 10-15 bullets with accurate, repeatable readings directly in BHN from the LBT.

Rick
:goodpost:

[rototerrier]

I went with the lee after researching and reading thru the posted test results. I think it was a sticky. The lee had pretty consistent results.

I bought mine when it was on sale for $45. I still use it occasionally when comparing AC vs WQ WW.

Since I don't mix much, the BHN's all come out to about the same within the current 200# batch of ingots I am working through.

Unless you just really mess up the pressure, you will probably come out like me and all readings on multiple boolits from the same batch will be exactly the same.

I knew I wasn't going to use it very much once I got my initial results and didn't want to spend 100+ on a "better" one. $45 didn't seem too bad of a hit for a new cool tool.

I learned my lesson when I dropped $150 on a torque wrench I used once!! Sometimes cheap is good enough to get the job done.

But, ultimately, everything boils down to hard or soft...so the exact number hasn't been much of a help for me. But, I am sure this all depends on what you are casting and shooting. Rifles seem to be a bit more complicated in this area.

[6.5 mike]

I recently got a cabin tree, needed to figure out what mystery metal I had been using. Very easy to use, I clamp mine in a padded vise so I have both hands free & can test what I need in no time.

[MikeS]

I have a SAECO tester, and while most folks here tend to not like them, I think mine works fine. It has some limitations, in that it can only really read the hardness from an already cast boolit. It has a scale that goes from 0 to 10 and a chart that shows how those numbers compare to BHN. after a while the chart isn't really needed, once you know what SAECO number you want your boolits to be, and to see if an alloy is harder or softer than your 'norm'. It's a well built tool, and what I like about it is that unlike the Lee where you have to use their microscope to read the size of the indent, the SAECO works good with less than perfect eyes (which for me is good, some days I can barely focus when my sugar is high)

It's a bit expensive if you buy it new, but they're sometimes available used. I got mine for a fairly good price, more than the Lee, but a lot less than a new one! Somebody posted here a SAECO to BHN chart that's nicer than the one included with the tool, so if you get one of these, look for that chart, or give me a PM, and I can send it to you.

[Bret4207]

Either get the Cabine Tree(Best choice hands down!) or LBT. The Lee is better than nothing, but not much.

What Bill says is entirely accurate. Knowing the Bhn only tells a tiny part of the story. It says nothing about what the alloy is made up of, what it lacks, how it will perform or what it's faults are. That;s why you get the Cabine Tree, it's got more than one use!

[PacMan]

What Cbrick said but i say Cabin Tree because that is what i have.Lot faster and easier to use than the Lee.

Are they completely nesseary-No are they a help-Yes.

there are a lot of uses for them and here is one that does not get mentioned often. I started AC WW a lot more lately. I have been testing the bullets at diffrent stages of their curing cycle and shooting the bullets as they progress getting a better ideal if the gun or load prefers one general hardness over another. My Model 10 shows a preference for 9 to 10 BHN bullet over a cured ACWW of approx 14-15. So i mixed some softer alloy untill i got the 9-10 bhn. Without a tester it would have been a shot in the dark.

[geargnasher]

MikeS, you bring up a good point also. I wouldn't consider the fact that the Saeco only can test boolits too much of a limitation, testing anything BUT cast boolits is sort of a waste of time. Due to the different cooling rates of ingots compared to boolits, and the great unknown of most scrap metal, it's really necessary to cast and cool under known conditions to get an acccurate reading anyway.

I used a friend's Saeco once before he put it on Fleabay to get rid of it, one time and I knew why he hated it. We both got Lees and never looked back. The others are fine, but more expensive. Sometimes you don't need the best tool, you just need the correct tool.

Gear

[idahoron]

I have found that my Muzzleloaders like bullets that are a little harder than pure. I can only get that result by mixing a little harder lead with my pure. The cabine Tree has perfected my ML bullets. I would not think of making bullets with out it. Ron

[Bret4207]

http://www.castingstuff.com/cabinetree_llc___lead_testers.htm

There's the link to the Cabine Tree tester. Click on the thumbnails and you can see the unit. It's built like a tank, will last forever and a day, is dead simple to use and if you get the dual purpose set up you have a very accurate run out gauge too. It's more expensive, but it's also more accurate. It's about the same price as the LBT, which is my second choice.

[1Shirt]

Agree with Bill, and also with Bret! Wouldn't trade my Cabin Tree for nuthin!
1Shirt!:coffeecom

[DrB]

I chose the lee after reading this comparative study at lasc. The lee performed fine and was far less expensive ($45 vs. $103).

http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm

Here's an excerpt:
Cabine Tree tools produced the smallest extreme spread, while the LBT tools produced the largest. If the LBT high test is removed, then the SAECO would appear to have the highest extreme spread.
The Lee tester appeared to produce the most readings that were both consistent and closest to the actual laboratory results. Although individually other testers came in with slightly smaller standard deviations and numbers that came in closer to calibrated equipment, the Lee appeared to have the best combination between the two areas.

I really do like the lee other than the little microscope, which I have a bit of trouble reading. However if you have a suitable camera, a digital photo editor program, and some minimal computer skill you may not have to use the microscope that comes with the lee...

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=121565

Really, imho, the only downside of the lee is the microscope... It works just fine for some folks, and there are some threads here that discuss ways to make them easier to use. The rest of the lee set is good kit.

Best regards,
DrB

[Larry Gibson]

Some time back, after careful review of the results of the LASC test, I decided to get the Lee tester also. I had also seen several way to make a stand/holder for the Lee microscope on this forum and a couple others. The use of an inexpensive used toy microscope seemed the best way to go. Looking through several antique/used stores i found several such microscopes one of which looked to be the best bet. It cost me $12 - 13 OTD.

It was easy to modify it to hold the Lee microscope. It is very easy to get the proper focal length and to line up the scale on the indentation in a bullet or ingot. It gives very consistent and repeatable measurements. The most time consuming part of taking an accurate BHN reading is waiting the 30 seconds when indenting the bullet or ingot.

Knowing the BHN is usefull information to me but we must remember that "BHN" is only 50% of the hardness of the bullet. The other 50% is the malleabiltiy or tensille strength of the alloy.
Larry Gibson

[Dan Cash]

The cult of Lee over rides all.

[geargnasher]

The cult of Lee over rides all.

Sarcasm un-called for, and not appreciated.

It's not a cult, amigo, you'll find that most of us that recommend a certain Lee tool from time to time don't recommend to buy Lee EVERYTHING, and also have all kinds of colors on our benches. However, there are times when Lee makes a best-in-class product, and while this may not be it, it's certainly near the top and less than half the price.

Gear

[fredj338]

I had a Saeco, works fine but limited to bullet length. The LBT seems to also limit bullet length & diff to spot check ingots. So I now have the CabinTree, exc tool.

[cbrick]

I've never felt much need to BHN check ingots. What will determine the BHN of any Pb/Sb alloy is its rate of cooling, the faster it cools the quicker it becomes harder. Any ingot will have far more mass than any bullet and so the ingot will cool much slower than bullets cast from it.

Would be a different story with just lead or Pb/Sn but any Pb/Sb alloy will give different readings from ingots to bullets cast from the ingot.

Rick

[rintinglen]

I vote with the Lee, unless money means nothing. While I don't consider a hardness tester essential equipment--I've cast many hundreds of pounds of boolits in the past that were perfectly acceptable without one--in this case the lee works well, is cheap, and for the rare time you really need to know hardness, it is more than adequate. It is very easy to turn this hobby into an expensive equipment race, which is ok if you are old and wealthy, but not so good if you are not. There is no real substitute for time at the pot, sometimes you just can't buy experience.

[mold maker]

I've had Lee, Saeco, and now Cabin tree.
And yes there are reasons to measure ingots, or odd shape/sizes. Are you gonna have to cast boolits and wait for them to harden, before measuring, to mixing for an alloy. Yes ingots do measure different from boolits, but a finger nail isn't accurate either.
Ya gotta start somewhere, and ya don't have to buy a pig in a poke, every time ya find lead offered.
If ya have a Cabin Tree, you wont be looking again, ever.

[HangFireW8]

I ain't got time to waste making mystery alloys anymore and suffer the problematic results: wastes resources of which TIME remains the one resource that is finite and not in truck loads.

I would recommend adding a hardness tester to your tool set, the results you get will depend primarily on how careful and repeatable the procedure you, the operator, use. I smelt in small batches (40-50 lbs), at first due to zinc avoidance, now that I have a thermometer, because I like having different batches with known hardness. Most come out near the WW average, but a few batches quite high or low, and some batches water harden better than others.

Some folks marry different batch ingots and make 200 lbs or more of like ingots all at once, for the consistancy. I keep dozens of batches of slightly different ingots around and mix them to suit as needed. I label every ingot, I test the boolit casting hardness results and record everything.

As for tools...

With the Lee, you are required to hold the press arm exactly still for exactly 30 seconds, with the plunger exactly flush with the top of the tool. You can use your fingertip to feel the plunger if you don't have your reading glasses on. If you don't like this performing this procedure, you might consider one of the other tools.

This thread amuses me, though. Other boards have their Brand Name arguments, usually it is the Cult of Dillon vs the world, with Lee users as the scrappy underdog. This is the first forum I've seen Lee users identified as the High Cult. That probably has to do with the frugal nature of most cast boolit shooters.

My loading bench spans from Smart Reloader to Sinclair. No tool is accepted by brand name, but must prove itself. I have concentric Lee dies and eccentric Reddings (but more the other way around). I use the eccentric resizing dies to straighten crooked cases and the concentric dies for the straight cases. If someone is happy with their fine brand-name tool, I have no problem with that, I own some pretty fine tools as well. But, with proper technique, my Lee hardness tester exceeds my needs, and that is all I can ask of it.

[Centaur 1]

Check out this thread and read post #2 by RobS. All you need is a 5/32" ball bearing, a drill press and a bathroom scale. I used 5 minute epoxy to hold the ball bearing in hex head of an 8-32 socket head cap screw, and I chuck the screw by the threads in the drill chuck. The bathroom scale sits on the drill press work table. What I do to get consistent results is I place a 12" ceramic floor tile both under and on top of the scale, this evens out the pressure. All it takes is to hold the handle on the drill press when the scale reads 60#, it's very easy to hold the exact pressure. Instead of using a microscope like the Lee, I use a magnifying visor and my digital calipers to measure the diameter of the indent. The chart that RobS posted as an attachment tells the hardness.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=117965

[ColColt]

I have the Lee and having a scale within the magnifier it's not going to vary-only the method used for measuring. The Cabin Tree is in my future, however.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I have the Lee tester but I made a couple of mods that others may be able to follow.

First, I made another platen to sit the bullet on that was flat. I did this so I could just sit a bullet on it and then dimple either the nose or the base, without having to file a flat on the boolit. Why Lee decided to make a vee block for this application I do not know?

The second is instead using the little pocket microscope/comparator which is very difficult to use accurately without a fixture, I use the Nikon Optical Comparator in my shop. It has a digital readout that goes to .000010,,,, thats 10 millionths. :veryconfu

A little closer than is usually needed but I get very accurate and consistant readings. :holysheep

I feel if you are using the pocket microscope you need some kind of fixture to hold the bullet in proximity to the microscope so you don't have to try to chase the two around the table. I have seen some ideas here at the site of just such fixtures made for this purpose.

Any of them would greatly inhance the accuracy of the Lee system, which is totally contingent on getting an accurate measurement of the indentation. Without something holding the bullet and the microscope's relationship, it is hard to get repeatable measurements.

Also, if you adjust the penetrator die so that the plunger comes to it's top position just as the press goes over center, it makes it much easier to make the 30 second test time without moving the press handle. I just sit a bullet on my flat platen and push the press handle all the way down and leave it there for 30 seconds.(NO hands needed)

There is no way you won't get the same reading on the same bullet everytime.

When you are doing testing, repeatable results are the only way to insure test validity. Otherwise you are just guessing. [smilie=p:

After doing these simple things I think as a tool maker, that the Lee system is definately the best out there. It is definately the easiest to get repeatable readings from. :cbpour:

Randy

[MikeS]

It's not a cult, amigo, you'll find that most of us that recommend a certain Lee tool from time to time don't recommend to buy Lee EVERYTHING, and also have all kinds of colors on our benches. However, there are times when Lee makes a best-in-class product, and while this may not be it, it's certainly near the top and less than half the price.

Gear

I couldn't agree more. I find that most Lee products are just a good as any other brand. I don't care what company you're talking about, they're going to have products that slip by QC. Lee makes many products that are different than the other companies make, and some people have trouble with new ideas, or ways of doing things. I have reloading dies from Lyman, RCBS, and Lee, and find they all work just as well for doing what they were designed to do. If I was a bit younger, with better eyesight I would have gone with the Lee hardness tester, but I'm not younger, so for me, in this case the Lee wasn't the best option.

I think that anyone that says a tool is junk just because of who made it, or that a tool is great, also because of who made it, is just being an equipment snob. I know what works for me, and if it happens to be a Lee tool, or an RCBS tool, then so be it.

And being a snob isn't something that is only a shooting related thing! One time about 30 years ago, I had a 1914 Ford Model T (all original period correct, not a hotrod), and when I pulled into my driveway, and my new neighbor saw it (he was 103 years old at the time) he walked over, and said "That's a Ford. Fords are a workers car, I won't ride in a Ford!" He told me later on that he used to be a labor negotiator, so I'm guessing he worked for management, not labor.

The bottom line is: Use a tool that does the job you need done, that does it the way you want to do it, regardless of what label is on that tool.

[MGySgt]

I bought a SAECO a LONG time ago. Used it, but I felt I wasn't getting consitant readings. I bought a CabineTree (correct spelling there is an e on the end if some one is googleing it).

I have received 'lead' from many different sources, my BIL, a nephew, son-in-law, etc. Already smelted down. They were usually in the 1 lb ingot from lyman, RCBS, etc..

The SAECO I would have to cast some boolits to measure the hardnes. With the CabineTree I could test the ingot.

That made it much easier to sort for smelting into a 'lot'.

Also as I air cool most of my stuff - If I smelt and cast in the winter, my ignots and boolits (after 3 weeks of setting) come out pretty close average. In the summer - same thing. although when I cast in the summer the boolits and ingots are a few BHN lower. Not much to worry about for general type shooting.

If I want them hard - I oven treat them.

FWIW

[OuchHot!]

I got a Cabine Tree after decades with another tool. I used it very often and was quite satisfied....given that I have used prof. hardness testers that is a bit of an accolade. Then I discovered the pencil method......that is pretty much all that I use now as it is instant and very reliable.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Could someone post a picture of the Cabin Tree? I have never seen one.

Randy

[maglvr]

My "hardness tester" is a steel BB, placed between the mystery alloy and a piece of known wheel weight, a light tap with a hammer leaves a dent in both, it's easy to see whether the mystery allow is harder, softer, or equal to WW's.
My alloy of choice is WW's or something of relatively the same hardness, and all that I use.
This "test" does the trick for all I need to know. YMMV.

maglvr

[HangFireW8]

Why Lee decided to make a vee block for this application I do not know?

Randy,

The Lee instructions are clear that readings are taken from the side of the boolit, after filing a flat. Thus the Vee block.

When I started using the tool, I forgot that part of the instructions and was taking readings from the base. I found they were usually harder and not as consistant, once I re-measured those slugs on the filed shank, as per directions.

-HF

[W.R.Buchanan]

HF: I did read the instructions again and you're right.

I took readings on those bullets shown on the nose of the bullet which is supposed to be OK. Making the flat platen was what makes testing on the nose easier, as you don't have to try to balance it on the vee.

I did 5 with Air cooled , and 5 more with Water dropped. All were cast of wheel weights.

Air Cooled measured .0645, .0656, .0658, .0663, .0671 or between 11.4-11.9

Water Dropped measured .0515, .0518, .0522, .0533, .0534 or between 18.3-19.7 I had to extrapolate the BNH numbers as the Lee chart is only in Thousandths, and I coudl easily measure to tenths.

There was a Fifth digit on there also(one hundred thousandths or more commonly called tens of Millionths.) but I didn't bother with it cuz the 4th digit is well past splitting hairs.

This is pretty much where I figure these boolits should be hardness wise.

I then tested a few aircooled ones with flats and there was no appreciable difference to the ones done on the nose.

By running the press over center and leaving it for 30 seconds with no disturbance and then measuring with such an accurate tool the consistancy for the test is definately there, and the test is valid to the limits of the tool's calibration to a standard. In fact the only variable in this test is the calibration of the Lee tool. I would bet it is probably very close to being right on.

Also with a fixture to hold the bullet in proximity to the microscope so the two didn't move around, your measurements could become very accurate, which I see as the main variable with the Lee kit.

I don't think you are going to get better results with any other tool, as there really is no way to improve on what I was doing. As long as you apply the same pressure everytime for the same length of time, the only other variable is the method of measuring.

Believe me,,, my Nikon 6C Optical Comparator is NOT a variable.

Consistancy is what makes the test valid. The only way to get any closer to the actual BNH number is to test the samples on a hardness tester that has been calibrated .

Then by comparing the results with what you got, You would be able to calibrate your tool.

Like I said, all of this is relative and as long as you are somewhat in the ball park it isn't going to change much of anything if his lead is 11, and your lead is 12 .

Randy

[DrB]

WRB... That's a really nice tool you've got there! (The nikon, not the lee... :))

Were those diameter measurements you gave time ordered, and if so, do you think they reflect the hardening of the alloy (are they reverse chronological order)? Pretty neat if you were resolving that.

Best regards,
DrB

[Bret4207]

Could someone post a picture of the Cabin Tree? I have never seen one.

Randy

Go to my link on page 1 of this thread. If you want repeatable and accurate then get the Cadillac, get the Cabine Tree from www.castingstuff.com

[W.R.Buchanan]

Dr B: those measurements were taken on five different bullets in no order last night at 11:30 PM.

I ordered them from lowest to highest in the post, however they were random during the test. The actual order was .0534, .0515, .0533, .0522. .0518, for the WD bullets, and the AC were similar. Nothing other than average hardness was determined from that test. Other than maybe the consistancy of the test, and thus validity. (to the limits of the calibration)

The WD bullets are 7 months old, and last time I did a check about 5 months ago, they were about 20-21BNH So things do appear change, however I did not use the same technique last time so I can't absolutely state that the earlier 20-21 was as accurate as the numbers I got last night.

There is alot of difference between BNH numbers versus dimple diameter in the higher hardnesses. The difference at .051-.052 is about .8-9 BNH. So the measurements get less critical the higher the hardness and more critical the lower you go. Between .070 and .071 there is only.3 BNH

I only figured out moving the press handle over center a few months ago, and now I am doing any test exactly the same way everytime.

Since the Lee Comparator only has resolution to .002 per graduation it makes it hard to get dead accurate measurements on your dimple. With a fixture to hold the bullet and scope in proximity a certain amount of extrapolation could be managed.

The accuracy level of the Lee tool is not in the die, it is in the comparator. The die is a mechanical thing and can be made to do the same thing everytime by just adjusting it so the press goes over center and stays there with hands off. Thus repeatability on the process.

Using the Nikon is a no brainer as it sits within 10 feet of my reloading bench, and you just can't argue with the accuracy of the tool.

In the pics below you can faintly see the crosshairs on the comparator glass and the vertical one is lined up with the left edge of the dimple.

You pick up the edge of a part differently each time by a few Millionths but if you do it enough you will get a consistant pick up on both edges of the part, and a few millionths are nothing. I do look at tenths when it matters, but usually you can round that number up or down with no consequences too.

Randy

[Huntducks]

My "hardness tester" is a steel BB, placed between the mystery alloy and a piece of known wheel weight, a light tap with a hammer leaves a dent in both, it's easy to see whether the mystery allow is harder, softer, or equal to WW's.
My alloy of choice is WW's or something of relatively the same hardness, and all that I use.
This "test" does the trick for all I need to know. YMMV.

maglvr

:bigsmyl2: I do the same here except I use a #BBB it's easier to PU.

My my how did I ever cast a bullet 45 yrs ago without knowing the hardnes

[JIMinPHX]

I think that the cabin tree gizmo is probably the nicest one to work with. The Lee is the least expensive ready-to-go item that I trust to give an accurate number.

[DrB]

Randy, thanks for the amplification. Do you think the remaining variation is due to hardness variation or technique (pressure hold time)?

I agree about the lee microscope... I ended up using a canon eos 40d with a macro lens and doing photogrammetry on the picture using a photoeditor software. Its easy to do a bunch of pictures/indents at once, dump the photos, and measure them on the laptop. I was able to get within around .001 fairly consistently (using the mic'ed bulet diameter or caliper jaws as a standard), and alot more easily than using the lee microscope (I'll bet that if the lasc study were ever redone with a better indent measurement tool the lee would perform substantially better than it already did).

I put a thread up on it but it is poorly produced right now as the pictures are difficult to see. I might try it again with a digital pocket camera and see if the approach can be done with a more economical camera... Like your optical comparator, my camera approach is cost prohibitive if you don't already have one. :)


Best regards,
DrB

[MikeS]

What photo edting software are you using? The software lets you measure the indent, or are you doing it outside the software? If there was an easier way to measure the indent I might get a Lee tester just to see how it compares to my SAECO. either that, or go with the home made one somebody did using a ball bearing, bathroom scale, and drill press as I happen to have most of those items already!

[W.R.Buchanan]

The whole hardness test relies on a consistant amount of penetration into the test material. Matters not whether we are talking BNH or Rockwell A,B or C scales.

As long as your penetration has the same force behind it on each shot, you will get the same or nearly the same diameter dimple everytime you test the same piece of material, discounting aging effects.

As long as you have some good way to measure the indentation your results will be consistant.

When you are doing testing, eliminating variables is the main concern. But how deep you want to go with that only comes into play if you REALLY want or need dead-on accuracy in your results.

Me telling you that my results over 5 bullets were 11.4, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9 BNH only shows the consistacy of the test, and that batch of boolits.

I have this Optical Comparator in my Machine Shop, and I can replicate readings using that tool down to tenths of a BNH number. But without that tool I'd be right in there using the Lee microscope like everybody else.

Point is,,, It's not data useful for any purpose in loading handgun or rifle bullets when all you use is Wheel Weights.

If you mix your own concoctions then you might want to check to see what you are doing once in a while, just to see if you are actually doing, what you think you are doing.

For me it looks like these boolits were between 11-12 BNH which is fine. 10-13 would be fine too, and so would a wider range than that.

I looked at the Cabin Tree tool. it looks like it does the job. After looking at the cross reference list, I don't see any better accuracy potential than the Lee tool or any of the other brands. It may be easier to use but it doesn't appear to be any more accurate....

But, do you really need any better accuracy? I don't see much use for better accuracy at my level beyond something to play with on rainy days. Just because I can do something doesn't mean I will do it that often or again.

But at least I can split hairs if I need to.

As long as you have some way of decerning if your lead is hard enough for your application I think you are ahead of the game. Shooting it might work too?

Someone above said he didn't know how he got by for 45 years without testing his lead.

You know,,, maybe he got by just fine.

Maybe all of this is just about having a few more toys to play with.

I have a friend who's opinion of useful information usually digresses to the phrase. "doesn't amount to a pinch of s*&^ in a dark room".

Maybe our noses are better measuring tools than we give them credit for?

Randy

[DrB]

What photo edting software are you using? The software lets you measure the indent, or are you doing it outside the software? If there was an easier way to measure the indent I might get a Lee tester just to see how it compares to my SAECO. either that, or go with the home made one somebody did using a ball bearing, bathroom scale, and drill press as I happen to have most of those items already!

I am sure there are a large number that you could use that would work fine... If it lets you draw and position a circle of a specific size that's really all that's needed.

I used GIMP photo editor running on an ubuntu linux platform... But like I said, most any photoeditor that would draw/measure would work. Check out the thread link I posted in an earlier post for more details. You measure the indent diameter relative to a known standard.

Best regards,
DrB

[DrB]

Randy I didn't think the precision of your results mattered regarding shooting the bullets. I agree you are measuring the gnats ****. Personally, I'm not looking for more precision now in my hardness measurements (for bullets, actually I am for another application), just greater ease of measurement which I think I've found sufficiently, for now.

It seems true that there is measurably different hardness from base to nose (and bullet to bullet in the same run), and that this doesn't appear to be just an artifact of insufficient precision. That may not mean anything at all in a given application... but it might. Given your precision, I was curious where your measurement variability was coming from (thank you for answering). :)

Also, regarding your statement about penetration being dependent only on force for a sample... That's not quite true, particularly for a soft material, is it? Time is also important as the test sample will trend to creep.

That's why lee has that thirty seconds... To get down the curve on the creep a bit to where the slope is more shallow, right? It should cut down measurement variability. Conversely, if I understand it right the cabine tree approach is to get a peak reading before it decays. I would guess this may be more susceptible to load rate/error than lees approach with softer alloys, not that it necessarily matters. If true, I don't think it would be inherent? You could probably just redo the conversion table based on a spec'd hold.

Best regards,
DrB

[Bret4207]

That's why lee has that thirty seconds... To get down the curve on the creep a bit to where the slope is more shallow, right? It should cut down measurement variability. Conversely, if I understand it right the cabine tree approach is to get a peak reading before it decays. I would guess this may be more susceptible to load rate/error than lees approach with softer alloys, not that it necessarily matters. If true, I don't think it would be inherent? You could probably just redo the conversion table based on a spec'd hold.

Best regards,
DrB

Thing is with the Cabine Tree you can watch the dial indicator for hours if you want. If it moves, you'll see it happen. IME using alloys from near pure lead to HT WQ high lino that went over 30 (35ish IIRC) once you make the turn of the screw the pointer doesn't move much at all.

[cajun shooter]

I have casted since 1970 and in my early years, my mentor had a source for lab type alloy that tested the same with each ingot. It was Lyman #2 and that is what I used for all my smokeless bullets. He received pure lead for the MZ loaders we shot, which were T/C 50 Hawkens rifles. The C&B revolvers were sold by Lyman and I had both 44 and 36 caliber. If I did not know which lead was what he marked it for me. Many years later my mentor died and I was on my own and the word of others. I think if you are buying lead then you need a tester as people will lie to you to sell you the bridge. My first was The Lee and although it worked once I had it mounted into a child's microscope, the readings could vary with my hold and pressure exerted on the press. This process could vary from tester to tester and to me was the flaw with the Lee. The Cabin Tree was my next and last purchase. I bought it with the run out gauge for loaded rifle ammo and that was a wise move. The cabin Tree is not only fast but fool proof as each user has only to make one complete turn from your starting position. The dial is large and easy to read for older eyes. If you do as I do now and scrounge for lead you need to have some idea of what you are mixing when it comes to your alloy production. If you try to guess you are headed for trouble. A good tester will let you start with the correct alloy and that is the foundation of all shooting.

[MikeS]

I used GIMP photo editor running on an ubuntu linux platform... But like I said, most any photoeditor that would draw/measure would work. Check out the thread link I posted in an earlier post for more details.

ok, I was just curious what software you were using. I use a Mac, and sometimes it's hard to find software that does what you want for it. I have GIMP (just never used it much), so will look into it. If I can get my iPhone to take a clear enough picture of an indent, I should be all set. I've decided rather than going with the Lee, I'm going to do the home made route with a 5/32 ball bearing and scale. I actually have an old UPS shipping scale which is similar in shape to the usual bathroom scale, except that the readout is such that it's right side up when looking at it from the opposite direction from a bathroom scale, and has a lock. I use that scale for stuff over 10lbs, a USPS scale for stuff under 10lbs, and an MTM scale for little stuff (like boolits).

By going the home made route, and using my drill press, I can stick even fairly large pieces of lead on it, and be able to measure them (like a complete 26lb brick of lead like I used to sell, or other pieces that size)

Between a home made tester, my SAECO tester, and a set of pencils, I think I have most all bases covered when it comes to measuring hardness. While the pencil method isn't the most accurate, it certainly is cheap, and easily transported, and unlike my SAECO tester, if I'm using them to test some lead at a remote location (remote meaning anywhere not at home), and something were to happen (get dropped, ran over by a fork lift, etc.) I won't loose any sleep over it!


You measure the indent diameter relative to a known standard.

I'm aware of that, it was just the method of measurement that I wanted to fine tune.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Dr B: I agree that for the shooting applications I can go well beyond necessary with this testing method.

The whole point really was to show what the exact variables are in the process, so guys could get the most out of whatever tools they used.

With the Lee tool running the press over center and letting it sit there hands off, completely eliminates one variable.

All the Lee tool is, is a die body with a spring and a plunger with a 5/32 ball on the end. It is calibrated so that when the plunger is flush with the top of the die it has 60 lbs of force on it. It is a mechanical thing and as long as you push the plunger into the die the same amount everytime it will return the same results every time. or very close.

Running the press over center accomplishes this the same way everytime. As long as the bullets are the same length. Obviously there is a re-setup every time you change bullet types.

I did not time exactly to 30 seconds which could be another variable. but it will be a small one as long as you are "around 30 seconds".

The use of the optical comparator pretty much eliminated the measuring variable.

I don't think the variations I showed were that different, and the compression time might be the variable that made them slightly different. But it also might be slight variations in the time the bullets spent in the mould during casting, or how fast they cooled on the towel.

I think once you have gotten to tenths of a BNH number you have to average the results to obtain a true idea of reality. And even then you are way better than needed for this purpose.

Also you guys out there that would like to measure your dimples better with calipers, if you just buy yourself an Opti- Visor with a 2.5X lens you will be able to position your caliperrs much more closely.

I made very small parts for a living for many years, the basic rule is "you can't make what you can't see". That's why I have that comparator and a microscope, and use an Opti-Visor all the time. I also have a 10X jewelers loupe I use frequently to inspect cutters while in the machine.

I am 61 and have pretty good eyesight for 61. I work everyday under an opti-visor. This is because even if I had perfect vision, I would still not be able to see detail on something that is only .05 in diameter. When I was younger I could move items into close range and see them pretty well . 40 years old stopped that. So now I use an opti-visor, as 61 is worse!

You older guys will not believe what you have been missing. I found you get used to not seeing very well, and when you get a new pair of glasses it is night and day. Well I wear cheaters to do all of my work including what I'm doing right now, and then I wear the Opti-Visor over them!

You can not do work right, that you can not see! (Disclaiimer: I do not own the Opti-Visor company)

Also I measure chamfers all the time by using calipers, even with the Opti-Visor I am no better than +/- .005. so this method has it's limits.

Another hot tip for you guys who want to measure things closer is to actually buy an Optical Comparator. If you look under machine tools or for that matter Optical comparators on Ebay, you can find small MicroVue comparators for less than $100. I saw one go recently for $25 and somone got a helluva deal. I had one before I got my Nikon and it worked fine. I traded a guy some work for my Nikon or I would have never been able to afford it either. Nikon 6C's were $12K new, and usually $6K used. I got a deal. But I use that tool for alot more than measuring dimples in bullets so it is an investment in my shop.

Just spending a few bucks on an Opti-Visor will change the way you reload ammo. It's a simple fact that better shooters usually are shooting better ammo. Anything you can do to improve your process is a good thing, and being able to see what you are doing is one of the keys to better ammo loading, bullet making, and even shooting.

Randy

[DrB]

Mike, just remember that relative distance to the camera matters, as well potentially the angular separation between the measured and reference dimensions. I look forward to hearing about your results! :)

Bret, et al... I hear you. I expect if I get a second tester or ever need speed things up, I'll go with the cabine tree. I don't think its going to be as precise in the low end (with some improvement to the basic lee microscope), but I also doubt that that will matter much in most reloading situations. Since I already have a concentricity set up, I think I'm more likely in the near term to buy one of the cabine tree over center mold handles...

Randy, I confess I looked at used prices on the nikon when I saw yours (no, I don't "need" one just yet, but golly, does that have to be a requirement to get anything?) The first site I found was asking >~$10,000 for a certified used one. :shock: Maybe I'll keep an eye out for one of those used microvues. :) Thank you for the tips.

Best regards,
DrB

[W.R.Buchanan]

DrB someone has a very high opinion of that $10K comparator. And as far as "certified" goes,,, Unless it was certified /calibrated by a real competant Metrology Lab, the Certified part means nothing.

Try RDY Sales in Ventura CA ,,, you'll have to google them as I don't have thier web address.

He owns Mcbain Instruments in Chatsworth. McBain is the only source for every brand of optical device,,, other than the Nikon brand,, in the US. RDY sales is his used equipment outlet. Basically 20,000SF floor to ceiling fillied with neat junk. If you want a used Nikon anything, he is the best outlet for that. He has more neat junk than any person or company I have ever seen,,, Bar none. I usually stop once a year to check and see if there is anything I can't live without.

I traded him some machine work on a Satellite image viewing machine for the CIA, for that Comparator. He had 2 dozen of them at the time. He probably still has 10 of them. Probably doesn't have a working readout though. Main light bulbs are a problem for the Nikon, I got the last one he had, and I will have to convert mine to a different bulb when this one cacks.

Ebay is a good source, but find RDY Sales, and see what they have. You might be surprised, and what is available.

Randy

[Lutzy48]

Larry,

Just read your post about using the toy microsope to hold the comparator. I use a magnetic dial indicator holder with an adapter I made. the fine adjust helps get the focus right. As for the tester, I fashioned my own very similar to the Lee unit based on the data Richard Lee has in his reloading manual. ie 5/32" ball with 60 lbs. of force applied.

[Larry Gibson]

Lutzy48

Many ways to skin the cat; before I found the microscope I used one of the metal magnetic clothes pins that is use to hang notes on refrdgerators, etc. It held the microscope very well and well stuck on the side of my mill table I could use the mill adjustsments to line up the scale. Not great but better than trying to hand hold it. There's been several good ideas posted. Tests have revelaled the lee is about as good as any other tester, especially when you are comparing your own alloys BHN agains pure lead. Sounds like you've a good way to use it.

Larry Gibson

[Lutzy48]

You're right, Larry. I used a piece of "pure" lead as a baseline. As far as I know the soft stick-on wheel weights are close to pure lead.

Lutzy