If you have a lead hardness tester please get in touch with me.

[yammerschooner]

If you have a lead hardness tester please get in touch with me.

I’m going to try an experiment to gauge the accuracy and variances of various lead testers on the market. I will be looking for a certain number of people with various types of testers.

I realize this experiment has been done in the past and is published on the lasc.us website, but would like to expand on their test because the number of testers used was inconsistent between brands and fairly limited. It is my desire to get results from a greater number of testers, to be able to make comparisons between brands and check for consistency within brands. I have access to a machine that gives me pretty tight control over constants tied to the production of the bullets, so hopefully I can eliminate most, if not all, variables outside of the specific tester and operator combination.

Here is what I am asking from you.

1. Send me a PM with the type of lead hardness tester you have.
2. I will choose a similar number of each type of testers, and ask those people for their snail mail address.
3. Using a commercial grade machine I will cast a bunch of bullets using a consistent speed, alloy, temperature, and time to quench.
4. Sometime after 21 days from the cast date I will mail you ten bullets.
5. On a given day specified in the letter that comes with those bullets I will ask you to test the hardness of all ten of your bullets with your lead tester, and email me the results.
6. I will post the results on this website, linking measurements taken to tools used to measure.

In order to encourage a wider range of participants, I am posting this request in the reloading sections of the following websites that I lurk or post at. Please respond to me via PM at only one of them.

AR15.com
Castboolits.gunloads.com
Glockpost.com
Glocktalk.com
Thehighroad.org

I’m going to let this float for a while to see how many of you would like to participate, and then I will send out bullets to be tested on an equal number of tools. I am probably looking at another month to a month and a half before I actually get bullets in the mail, if all works out as planned.

If you can think of anything that would eliminate any variables I haven’t thought of please drop me a line.

Also, if you’ve got a link that can convince me that this experiment is a waste of time please forward that as well. Remember, I am concerned with the accuracy of testers, and the consistency of results obtained by their users.

Thanks.


ETA 3/18 only looking for saecos now. Thanks to all who I already have signed up.

[cbrick]

Anyone here with any interest in the testers available on the market, in the accuracy and users ability to properly use these testers or even the consistency of their alloys should get in on this oppurtunity.

A couple of years ago on another board there was a lot of discussion about how much variation there is in WW alloy. One guy would say his WW's were 15 BHN and another said 10, one said his quenched WW was 35 BHN. There were as many answers as posters. I tried to say that a lot of the variation they were seeing was the tester, not the alloy. Of coarse WW has some variation in it from mfg to mfg, age of the weigths etc. Also the experience each person has with some types of testers does influence results. They seemed to think I was blaming "their" tester and it kinda turned into a pissin match. Shame.

Here is an opportunity to have various people from all over the country using all of the brands of testers and BHN test boolits from the same pot of alloy, cast at the same time, aged the same and have all of the results compiled by brand.

yammerschooner is willing to do the casting, bear the mailing expense and compile the results. This could answer a lot of questions for all of us, be a real shame if not enough people are willing to take advantage and simply BHN test a few boolits & email the results, we would all loose.

Rick

[45nut]

I have an old LBT I can do some tests with.

[randyrat]

I've been contacted already and am a willing.

[idahoron]

PM sent. Ron

[LeadThrower]

Count me in, PM sent.

[mtnwinds]

PM sent. Count me in also.

[kirb]

I can help, older LBT

Kirb

[fivegunner]

I have a older all steel Saeco tester and a TEC tester made by Ticga Engineering (WM. C. Davis , Jr.) it is calibrated 200lb to a 7/16 ball indenter . this test would be intersting.:Fire::castmine:

[Alchemist]

PM sent...I'll help out

[RANGER RICK]

PM Sent.

RR

[NSP64]

PM sent.

[HeavyMetal]

PM sent have Lee tool added to a microscope

[unique]

I have a new Saeco just calibrated by the factory. Any chance your test can provide feedback to the individual on how their tester did realtive to the average.

[cbrick]

This is a start but with as many boolit casters as there is on this forum I would think there would be many more here willing to test a few sample boolits. I don't know how big yammerschooner is willing to make this but the more participants and testers of each brand the more valid the results. Much can be learned from a test like this if enough people are involved.

Rick

[buckndee]

I have a CabinTree and a LBT hardness testers. PM sent.

[yammerschooner]

I have a new Saeco just calibrated by the factory. Any chance your test can provide feedback to the individual on how their tester did realtive to the average.

I will post all of the data I receive, other than your contact information, so that you can see how you compare to everyone else who participated.

Unique, I am about to send you a PM. Everyone else who has posted here should of heard from me my now. If you haven't let me know.

Right now my lowest numbers are in LBT, Saeco, and TEC (which I had never heard of before tonight) testers.

Thank you for all of your help gents!

[Springfield]

Have an LBT, sent a pm.

[Bill*]

I have a Lee and will help if needed (PM sent) .....Bill

[stocker]

yammer: PM sent.

[yammerschooner]

By the time I got through all of my emails and private messages early this morning I was truly amazed at the response this has gotten. Thanks for all of the response gents. Right now I have about 40 volunteers, with a wide range of tools.

At 12 apiece, I probably have enough Cabine Tree and Lee testers to get fairly accurate results.

Right now I am only looking to add saeco brand testers, and maybe one LBT tool.

Once again, thank you all for your assistance.

[montana_charlie]

Any interest in getting results for my method of hardness testing?
I just 'bite the bullet'.

Actually, I have the Lee tester, but I bet you have plenty of volunteers who use it.
CM

[yammerschooner]

Which tooth do you use to make the indent, and how consistent are your readings?

You are right in that I have enough Lee and Cabine Tree testers. I think adding any more would only be adding to postage at this point.

So far this has been a pleasantly surprising experience. Thanks for all of the help folks. I will bump this thread as things progress.

[johnly]

I can perfom an XRF analysis of the base alloy used in in the evalauation if you think that would be of value.

John

[jefats]

PM sent

[yammerschooner]

I can perfom an XRF analysis of the base alloy used in in the evalauation if you think that would be of value.

John


I'm not sure if it would matter or not. I can't think of a reason the type of alloy would matter for what I am testing, but I am in new to me territory here, so maybe I am missing something.

What do you all think?

Does it require much extra effort for you John?

By the way folks, I am only looking for Saecos now. I have at least 10 of everything else.

Thanks.

[abcollector]

PM sent.

[1Shirt]

Am very interested in the results of this test. When will you be posting results?
1Shirt! :coffee:

[yammerschooner]

I will cast the bullets later this week. Three weeks later I will email everyone who has contacted me for snail mail addresses. On the fourth week I will ship. I should have results shortly after that. Rough estimate= a little over a month and a half.

[cbrick]

yammerschooner,

Did you get the additional SAECO testers you needed? Can't believe it's only been two weeks, seems like two months waiting, oh well patience is a virtue (I've been told that, I don't really know it).

Rick

[yammerschooner]

I have 9, but really want one more.

Casted the boolits on Easter. I will send out a call for snail mail addresses late next week.

Here is a preview of what will be sent. 45 cal. Will have everyone test the nose according to their tool's instructions.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i54/yammerschooner/45bullets.jpg

[Ken]

I'm in with my SAECO tester if you need me.

[yammerschooner]

Great!

Either PM me your snail mail address or I will send you an IM for it next week.

Rick, it looks like I have 10, so no need to bother your friend.

Thanks to all.

[cbrick]

Already emailed him but that's ok.

[yammerschooner]

I can't seem to edit the original post, but I would like everyone to know that I now have 10 of each type of tester, and am just waiting for the bullets to sit long enough so that any changes due to age hardening take place.

Thanks!

[bohica2xo]

I use a Shore Scleroscope, and the magnifying hammer for lead & copper. I would be happy to test a few for you.

B.

[yammerschooner]

PM incoming.

[Reloader06]

if you want another Saeco I'll be glad to help out.

Matt

[yammerschooner]

I think I am all set. I will be in touch if anyone has something come up. Thanks for the offer.

[joeb33050]

Yammerschooner;
We did the original test of hardness testers that you cited. The lasc site guy is talking about our test, now in the Second Edition of "CAST BULLETS FOR BEGINNER AND EXPERT", chapter 3.3.
(A WORD copy of the book with all EXCEL workbooks and ERRATA is available at no charge on http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/CB-BOOK/, in FILES.)

Your current test looks like a much more comprehensive and detailed test than ours, mo better.
I will warn you (all) about one element of testing that comes up over and over. Testers sometimes "fudge" or "trim" their results. This is a natural and common and well-studied phenomenon. When I'm chronographing and the results are centering nicely around ex 1450 fps and then there's this 1623, I'm strongly tempted to ignore this strange result-to edit it out of the results. I mostly resist the temptation and include this outlier.

Data is messy. I hope that the results will include all those outliers, and that the testers report ALL the results.

Thanks;
joe b.

[yammerschooner]

Thanks for the heads up. I will add that to the instructions I am sending.

I am going to ask testers to report all 10 readings, and hope they don't edit out or redo any tests that are on the outside edges.

In the case of the Cabine Tree and Saeco tools I am going to ask testers to provide both the measurement, and how they would report the BHN, since there is room for interpretation between the two.

ETA: The link to the yahoo group is great. Thanks for pointing it out. I just joined.

[alamogunr]

Somehow I missed this thread until now. Glad you got enough participants to get a good test. I'm looking forward to the results. I've got both the LBT and Cabine Tree testers but have never tried to compare results from them. Mostly because I just like gadgets and they qualify IMHO.
John

[yammerschooner]

I just sent an email or an IM to anyone who I didn't already have a snail mail address for.

Once I have all the addresses I need I will post in this thread to let you all know when I send the bullets, and provide a more definite timetable on when to expect things.

Thanks,
Lance

[Down South]

Ill be very interested in the test results. I just ordered a Saeco yesterday.

[Old Ironsights]

I have an older LBT Tester too if you want an LBT cross check.

My only concern is calibration... are you also sending a known piece of Lino or somthing so you get a Control Sample along with your Boolit/Alloy Sample?

Without a Control for each tester your test will be pretty much (scientifically) meaningless...

[yammerschooner]

Hello all,

I have all of the addresses I need and everything that wasn't mailed out tonight will be mailed tomorrow.

The date I will ask you to test is Saturday, May 10.

The following instructions will be in with the package of bullets:

Hello,

Enclosed you will find 10 bullets that were cast on March 23, 2008. Please use your tool to measure the hardness of the nose of the enclosed bullets. You should measure the bullets using the same technique you usually use with your tool.

Please take your measurements on Saturday, May 10.

If for some reason you test on a date other than the following, please let me know:


A few notes:
· If you are using a Cabine Tree tester please include both the depth readings on your tool, and what you judge the BHN to be
· If you are using the Lee tool all you need to include is the BHN measurement, as the chart included with the instructions will let me know what the diameter of your indent is.
· If you are using the Saeco tool please include both the Saeco number and what you would judge the BHN to be.
· It is my understanding that the LBT provides the BHN directly on the tool, so no other measurement should be needed. Please send me an email if this is incorrect.
· If you have another kind of tester and it provides a measurement that is not read directly as BHN please provide that number as well. Also, if possible, please email the instructions/charts that are associated with the tool to provide a better idea of how the tool works.
· During the initial test of each bullet, please do not redo any of your measurements if they seem to be out of line. If you find a bullet that appears to be harder than the others, and decide to retest it, please report the retest number separately and indicate that it is a retest. I am really interested in the spread of numbers on the initial test.

Please email your information for all 10 bullets to yammerschooner@yahoo.com.

Once again, I would like to thank you for all of your assistance with this endeavor. I will compile the results and write up a review, which will be posted in the thread where you found this test. If you contacted me for a reason other than direct exposure to the threads I have posted (word of mouth), I will email you a copy of what I post.

Take care,



Lance
yammerschooner@yahoo.com

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Lance, I think this is a really valid test you're doing, and long overdue, especially with the problem of time changing the hardness. Unfortunately I don't have any of the hardness tester's you're comparing, but if you'd like, as a comparison, or just out of curiosity, I can test them on my Rockwell tester (H & R Scales). Send me a PM.
Morgan

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Lance, Info sent.
Morgan

[NSP64]

only concern is calibration... are you also sending a known piece of Lino or somthing so you get a Control Sample along with your Boolit/Alloy Sample?

Without a Control for each tester your test will be pretty much (scientifically) meaningless...

Maybe, maybe not... What if in the 10 boolits sent out there is 1 or more that are 'control boolits'??? Without the testers knowledge, would that not be a control.

[Old Ironsights]

Maybe, maybe not... What if in the 10 boolits sent out there is 1 or more that are 'control boolits'??? Without the testers knowledge, would that not be a control.

Point. That would eleminate reporting bias/recalibration issues...

OTOH, for someone like me I have no idea whether my (quite old) LBT is still in calibration.

Anybody got a known sample they want to send me since I'm outside this test cycle? [smilie=1:

[Dye]

Old Ironsights

Anybody got a known sample they want to send me since I'm outside this test cycle?
What do you want to test Pb -ww+1Sn or ? Send me your address and I will send you some bullets to test
Becarefull Dye

[Old Ironsights]

Somthing with a known BHN between 10 & 20 Don't really care about the specific alloy, I just want to be able to test it and set the scale bar to match.

PM forthwith.

Thanks.

[yammerschooner]

My only concern is calibration... are you also sending a known piece of Lino or somthing so you get a Control Sample along with your Boolit/Alloy Sample?


A gent in a metallurgy lab with regularly calibrated equipment has offered his services. I had two such gents, but was unable to get a snail mail address for the second one.



Without a Control for each tester your test will be pretty much (scientifically) meaningless...

Not true. One of my main concerns is consistency between testers and those who run the tools.

In other words, I care more about how much the readings I take compare to yours than I do about how hard the material actually is. The practical use of this is that when you tell me you have a LBT that measures at X hardness then I can figure out how that compares to how hard the metals I test with my cabine tree are.

I also get a sense of variances that occur over a wider range of folks who test.

Finding out exactly how hard the bullets I am sending out really are has simply been an unexpected, very pleasant, surprise.

It will be interesting to see if this works out as planned. So far, it appears to be well worth the postage on the front end. I never expected it to get as big as it did, but am pleased it has. In the end, I ended up sending out 49 sets of 10 boolit samples.

I look forward to hearing from everyone after May 10.

[Old Ironsights]

DYE: Testing Complete. PM sent.

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Lance, I received the bullets today, and was surprised they weren't labeled. I was expecting ten different alloys, so that hardness conversion charts could be developed for the different testers. Thinking it might be a "blind test", I THEN, went to your original post and saw that it wasn't. Is this a possibility in the future? We could all contribute bullets, and it wouldn't matter when they were cast, as long as they were all tested the same date.
As it is, a comparison will only be able to be made for one hardness reading. It will, however, show the repeatability of the testers, which will be nice to know.
Morgan

[yammerschooner]

Morgan, as you realized when the bullets showed up, for right now I am just looking for consistency between testers, and figuring out how much of a spread is measured both within and between testers.

I will probably go the different alloy route in the future, once I sit down and think about how to get the most consistent results. I think the next $100 I have is going to go into a firearm, but after I quench that thirst I will probably try something different with figuring out lead.

Like many of us, I am but a novice trying to figure out things that interest me. Once I have a baseline from this I am sure I will have more questions, which will lead to something more like what you describe.

I look forward to getting everyone's results after May 10. The response I have received to this request has been, at a minimum, overwhelming.

[Newtire]

I got mine in the mail today. Will test them next weekend then on Saturday.

I have the Lee which says to file a little section flat to test. I still have a question regarding those instructions that say to file the flat spot... If we file away some of the surface skin, won't that be a different hardness? I'll do like Lee says & then just take another set of measurements on the flat base section as a comparison then & include those readings also.

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Lance, I'd like to make a proposal. After this experiment is over, and you've got the free time, I'm willing to cast enough bullets for the number of participants, of ten different alloys, from pure lead to 95-5 tin- antimony solder. And since you've got the contact info, ship them to you, and you can mail them out. I think it would be nice, if everybody sent you $2, to cover the cost of mailing. Don't know how much small brown payroll-type envelopes to separate the samples will cost, or whether "snack" size baggies would be better, we'll need ten for each participant.
What do you think?
Morgan

[LeadThrower]

I'm with Newtire: "my" method of testing with Lee is to file a spot. I file the sides of my boolits. I'll test the naked nose per your instructions and will provide the additional info of "my" testing protocol -- that comparison will certainly be valuable to me, if not all.

This is such a fantastic effort! Thanks for making it happen!

This is also valuable research, and it's encouraging to see the "next experiment" ideas popping up. If research didn't raise more questions than it answered, we'd have all the answers by now. I for one would be happy to pay the cost of shipping for my samples.

[bohica2xo]

Received the samples this week, and have marked the calendar for testing day.

Should be interesting...

B.

[RANGER RICK]

Got the package and the calendar is also marked .

RR

[yammerschooner]

I got mine in the mail today. Will test them next weekend then on Saturday.

I have the Lee which says to file a little section flat to test. I still have a question regarding those instructions that say to file the flat spot... If we file away some of the surface skin, won't that be a different hardness? I'll do like Lee says & then just take another set of measurements on the flat base section as a comparison then & include those readings also.

You will find the base readings to be softer than the nose. This is either because of the difference in cooling or stress left by the the cutting of the sprue. My guess is the latter.

If you file the nose you will find that there is no difference in reading between testing directly on the flat nose and filing and then retesting. At least there isn't when I test with my cabine tree. The hardness of the bullet should be throughout, unlike steel where the hardness from heat treating is only on the surface.

That said, I ask that everyone test all ten bullets in the manner that they would normally test a piece of lead to figure out its hardness. If you normally file (like most instructions indicate) then file. If you don't normally file, don't file. I am looking for the number you would provide me with if you were testing any normal piece of lead outside of this experiment.

[yammerschooner]

Lance, I'd like to make a proposal. After this experiment is over, and you've got the free time, I'm willing to cast enough bullets for the number of participants, of ten different alloys, from pure lead to 95-5 tin- antimony solder. And since you've got the contact info, ship them to you, and you can mail them out. I think it would be nice, if everybody sent you $2, to cover the cost of mailing. Don't know how much small brown payroll-type envelopes to separate the samples will cost, or whether "snack" size baggies would be better, we'll need ten for each participant.
What do you think?
Morgan

I would be willing to help with something like this once school is out. It might be easier if I just sent you everyone's info so things aren't getting shipped twice. I would hate for us to pay the post office twice.

Of course, I would make sure with everybody passing along their personal info was ok first. The last thing I want to do is violate the trust anyone had with me when they sent me personal info. I honestly believe that is more important than any results I will get from this experiment.

I'll look forward to something else once I get this wrapped up and analyzed.




<----- never was good at multitasking.

[MT Gianni]

Mine arrived yesterday. I will test as noted. Gianni

[MtGun44]

Yammershooner said
"The hardness of the bullet should be throughout, unlike steel where the hardness from heat treating is only on the surface."

Hardness from heat treating in steel is not just on the surface unless
some special surface hardening process like case hardening or nitriding
is being used. Ordinary heat treating will heat treat very nearly the same
thru the thickness of ordinary parts, altho extremely thick parts can cool slowly
enough in the center to have somewhat reduced hardness. The hardness
comes from rapid cooling, and if the part is extremely thick the center
can't cool quickly enough to reach full hardness.



Bill

[454PB]

I also received my package and will follow your directions.

I did a test of some water quenched WW boolits some time ago. I tested on the nose first, and then I filed a flat on the side as Lee's directions say and did the test. The results were identical. I then filed through about 1/3 of the diameter and tested again, and the results were the same. Heat treating hardens more than the surface.

[idahoron]

I got mine today. Ron

[NSP64]

Got mine the other day, any particular time on the 9th you want these tested?

[NSP64]

Lance, were these boolits cast from the same mother smelt? you probably had to refill casting pot at least once. I usually smelt a hugh batch, pour ingots and etch them as to lot, to try to keep variables down.

[yammerschooner]

Lance, were these boolits cast from the same mother smelt? you probably had to refill casting pot at least once. I usually smelt a hugh batch, pour ingots and etch them as to lot, to try to keep variables down.

I've got a 100 lb pot. It drops bullets at exactly the same interval. The extreme spread on the melt temperature I used to cast every boolit I sent out was 5 degrees.

This might help explain a little.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i54/yammerschooner/th_DSCN6357.jpg (http://s69.photobucket.com/albums/i54/yammerschooner/?action=view&current=DSCN6357.flv)

[yammerschooner]

Got mine the other day, any particular time on the 9th you want these tested?


No. When folks have time during the day should be sufficient. I hope you will aim for the 10th though.

Since these were casted on Easter weekend, there shouldn't be much daily change with them by now.

[yammerschooner]

Yammershooner said
"The hardness of the bullet should be throughout, unlike steel where the hardness from heat treating is only on the surface."

Hardness from heat treating in steel is not just on the surface unless
some special surface hardening process like case hardening or nitriding
is being used. Ordinary heat treating will heat treat very nearly the same
thru the thickness of ordinary parts, altho extremely thick parts can cool slowly
enough in the center to have somewhat reduced hardness. The hardness
comes from rapid cooling, and if the part is extremely thick the center
can't cool quickly enough to reach full hardness.



Bill

Thank you Bill.

[Bill*]

Got em, waiting for the 10th....Bill

[NSP64]

No. When folks have time during the day should be sufficient. I hope you will aim for the 10th though.

Since these were casted on Easter weekend, there shouldn't be much daily change with them by now.

my bad:killingpc

[45nut]

Got em, waiting for the 10th
Ditto

[yammerschooner]

I am bumping because the test is scheduled for tomorrow. I have received one returned package (zip 90631), and haven't allowed time for customs on at least one package, but I hope the rest of you have them in hand.

If you don't have them, just test when they arrive and send a test date along with the numbers.

Thanks to all who are participating in this.

[LeadThrower]

PM sent with test results.

[yammerschooner]

Hello all-

Please email me with results. My email address is yammerschooner@yahoo.com

This makes it much, much easier to keep track of and organize on my home computer. Unlike IMs, I am able to throw all of the relevant emails into one folder so that there is no need to sift through other communications.

Thanks,
Lance

[LeadThrower]

*bonk self*
My mistake, email coming.

[yammerschooner]

Thanks LeadThrower. I appreciate the extra step.

[NSP64]

Testing complete e-mail sent:drinks:

[MT Gianni]

e-mail sent

[Ken]

results sent by PM

[RANGER RICK]

Test results done and PM on the way .

RR

[EDG]

Testing complete. Results sent by Email
EDG

[mtnwinds]

Completed testing today. Sent results via email.:drinks:

[Bill*]

sent results also

[454PB]

Me too. I both e-mailed and PM'd them. Gee we're being awful silent about the results....I guess that's a good thing.

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Results sent.
Morgan

P.S. Used the "Send E-mail" function on this forum. Went back to check if it went through, and it seems I can only bring up sent PM's. Let me know if you don't get it, and I re-send it to the e-mail address you've posted.

[MT Gianni]

My results were fairly uniform.

[TCFAN]

Test done and E-mail sent......Terry

[Morgan Astorbilt]

My results were fairly uniform.

What type of tester did you use? Did you prepare the samples? My tests weren't uniform until I finished off the sprue marks on the bases. The tester was reading compression of these marks as ball penetration. One Rockwell number equals eighty millionths of an inch penetration (.000,080").
Morgan

[Alchemist]

Testing complete...e-mail sent.

What, report not posted yet??? :kidding:

Thanks for running this test...looking forward to reading results.

Cheers :drinks:

Alchemist

[45nut]

Test done and E-mail sent,, my LBT tester is now for sale !

[Newtire]

These are the readings I took off the nose of the boolit this afternoon with my Lee Hardness test kit.

I used a magnifying glass and a dial caliper to do the measuring as the little glass included with the kit is just too hard for me to hold steady. I double checked all measurements just to be sure. I did not file a flat spot on the nose.


#1=.057=16 BHN

#2=.056=16.6 BHN

#3=.051=20.1 BHN

#4=.051=20.1 BHN

#5=.051=20.1 BHN

#6=.053=18.6 BHN

#7=.057=16 BHN

#8=.057=16 BHN

#9=.057=16 BHN

#10=.057=16 BHN

[KYCaster]

I'm glad I checked in here before going to bed. I almost forgot to do the test, but it's done and results e-mailed.

Jerry (always runnin' about two steps behind)

[yammerschooner]

Test done and E-mail sent,, my LBT tester is now for sale !


I got a chuckle out of those comments. Your sense on your results is correct, as you will see once I get these organized and posted.

I am putting together a spreadsheet as things come in.

At this time I am waiting on 23 testers. At this point the numbers appear to be half collected.

Results are a lot easier to find and keep straight if they are emailed. This is especially true if you are including comments about idiosyncracies in your test. My PM box will need cleaned out shortly, but I can keep emails in a folder indefinitely.

If you have already PM'd don't re-email- I just got through with the PM box.

Email address: yammerschooner@yahoo.com

Thanks all.

[bohica2xo]

Testing completed, 1100 hrs today.

The data from my tester needs to be entered before I can send it to you, but I will get to that tonight. E-mail formatting might be a pita, so I need to attach it - any particular type of document you prefer? (80+ data points, 8 tests per bullet, plus control tests)

The bullets were fairly uniform, but had a few surprises. I will be sending them back to you, with hard copy data - you can still run them through the lubrisizer & shoot 'em...

B.

[yammerschooner]

don't send them back. Shoot them yourself or cast something you want with them. I will just throw them back into my ww bucket anyway. I don't even own a 45.

excel works best. I will probably just use your first test on each bullet for the spreadsheet, and attach the rest to a second sheet.

[mtnwinds]

Newtire....Your findings are quite different than mine. I'm wondering if we all got the same hardness boolits or if some were intentionally different??? Seems strange that we could be 8 BHN points apart:-? Anxiously awaiting the results from Lance:coffee:

[LeadThrower]

This is absolutely a "kid at Christmas" moment... I'm not going to sleep until the final report is posted... or until midnight, whichever comes first ; )

Yammer, we've seen a lot of your avatar on this thread and I've got to ask; whose finger is that, and did it handle the boolits you sent me? I never did sanitize them prior to testing...

[yammerschooner]

Chances are I won't have results posted until Monday or even later. With all of the testers I am waiting on, it may take a while for everything to trickle in. Most importantly for the curiosity this has generated, I have a gent who works in a metalurgy lab who will get us some "correct" numbers.

These testers rely on a lot more voodoo than I would have believed. As one of you pointed out in the email, there is probably a sweet spot to these testers.

Trust me, it is the night before Christmas here too.

Oh, I almost forgot...

Yes, that is my finger, and I am convinced that boogers in the melt improve consistency.

[NSP64]

You don't even own a .45??? Do you make boolits for a living then? I noticed they were for a .45 and was going to ask what you shot it in. I might have to size/lube/load them in my acp.

[yammerschooner]

I have a ton of molds that came with the caster when I purchased it. I may be able to make part time money casting someday, but right now it is just an expensive hobby that has cost me much more than I ever figured it would. I may morph it into something someday, but right now I am still in the process of getting my hobby organized exactly how I want it.

[leftiye]

Yammer, Is that the old thing about picking yer friends noses?

[bohica2xo]

Yammer:

I just e-mailed you the spreadsheet - hope it makes sense.

You know the HogSnot flux was supposed to be kept secret right? The first rule of Hog Club is we don't talk about Hog Club...

Please keep the HogFatLube under yer hat ok?

B.

[MT Gianni]

What type of tester did you use? Did you prepare the samples? My tests weren't uniform until I finished off the sprue marks on the bases. The tester was reading compression of these marks as ball penetration. One Rockwell number equals eighty millionths of an inch penetration (.000,080").
Morgan

Cabintree tester. The preparation consisted of making sure that the needle or pressure point was on about the same point of contact at the meplate. Gianni

[Springfield]

Just to quench some curiosity, my batch tested between 16 and 17.5 with an LBT tester. It has always been pretty accurate for me. I like to test all the time. I have ben buying lead from teh same guy a for a couple of years now. He says the bars are pure lead, but I always alloy it up. I ran out of my "pure" lead, some old fishing weights. So last time I alloyed I made some ingots of the "pure" lead bars. It seemed harder then the previous pure lead bullets, so I tested both. The old fishing weight bullets measured about 3 on the scale but the newer pure lead tested 5-6. Both can be easily scratched with a fingernail so they are pretty close, but apparently there IS something in these bars besides lead. Be interesting to know what. There was a guy on this wire who tested some unknown bars I had, but I lost his name and everything, but if you read this, I would apprecialte it if you could do another small test for me. mwwhyte@comcast.net

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Gianni, So, your tester tests across the diameter, not the length? If so, I would imagine the bullet rests in some sort of V block. Do you have to make sure any mold line, if present, doesn't contact one side, which might reduce the support given the bullet?
Morgan

[randyrat]

My testing all done and E-mailed out. i'm not telling what mine were. I went by the book and filed a flat spot on the side of the bullet. The bullets i tested looked like Lee 452-160 RF I'm guessing little harder than #2 water dropped. Nice hard tough bullets.

[mtnwinds]

randyrat..........looks like you & I got similar results.

[KYCaster]

I'm guessing WQWW, and if that's correct I'm amazed at how consistent the hardness is...or maybe it's like my bathroom scale...gets stuck at 185# and won't go any higher.[smilie=1:

Jerry

[MT Gianni]

Morgan, The Cabintree tests across the bullet length. I place the sample whether bullet, ingot or scrap into the tester and run a threaded device into the sample until it just touches it at which point a dial indicater on the opposite end of a spring loaded device should read zero. I then make one full turn of the threads, which are marked 0-9 including 1/4 marks in between and there is an indicator pointer marking where I started. http://www.castingstuff.com/cabinetree_loading_products.htm
This can probably explain it much better than I can. Gianni

[stocker]

yammerschooner:
Boolits arrived an hour ago. results sent to your yahoo address. Thanks.

[yammerschooner]

Ok- have been away since Saturday night. I am putting together the info that has shown up since then. I will post a list of what I am missing after I go through everything. I have gotten a few requests for verification of email. I will get to those as soon as I find out what I have. It could take a bit, but I will have everything replied to this evening.

Spreadsheet may take a little longer, depending on what I am missing.

Thanks all.

[yammerschooner]

Yammer, Is that the old thing about picking yer friends noses?


I always wondered why my friends always squealed on me.

[yammerschooner]

You know the HogSnot flux was supposed to be kept secret right? The first rule of Hog Club is we don't talk about Hog Club...


B.

I can certify that all of my hogs are certified boogie free. Past that I have nothing to say.

[Morgan Astorbilt]

I can certify that all of my hogs are certified boogie free. Past that I have nothing to say.

Yea, but are they BOOGER free?:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
Morgan

[NSP64]

Leadthrower and I came up real close 24BHN. WDWW+ SN is what I use and they age the same.[smilie=1:

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Morgan, The Cabintree tests across the bullet length. I place the sample whether bullet, ingot or scrap into the tester and run a threaded device into the sample until it just touches it at which point a dial indicator on the opposite end of a spring loaded device should read zero. I then make one full turn of the threads, which are marked 0-9 including 1/4 marks in between and there is an indicator pointer marking where I started. http://www.castingstuff.com/cabinetree_loading_products.htm
This can probably explain it much better than I can. Gianni
That works a lot like the Rockwell. The sample is raised against a penetrator, by a jack screw, until the dial reads near "0", at which point a minor load(10kg) has been applied. The dial is set to "0", and the major load is applied. (In this case 60KGF). The major load is then removed, leaving the minor load, and the reverse reading dial indicator, reads the depth of the impression, one number equaling .000,80"( eighty millionths of an inch). The deeper the impression, the lower the reading. The many different Rockwell scales are based upon combinations of penetrators (120º diamond cone, 1/16", 1/8", 1/4" and 1/2" steel or carbide ball) and major loads(60kg.,100kg., or 150kg.) All Rockwell machines can be checked using certified test blocks available for all scales, and readings within scales.
I used the "R" scale, 1/2"ball @ 60KGF. for my tests.
Morgan

[randyrat]

WOW my Lee tester read real hard, i wonder if somthing is wrong with my tester...Now, dang it, i'm waiting for Christmas eve like the rest of you. i tested the nose and the side, i still ended up with a high BHN.

[yammerschooner]

In order to head off follow up emails that are beginning to come in, below is a list of cities I am waiting to hear back from. As you can see, I am almost there. I should have had more foresight and replied as I worked through IMs and emails, and apologize for the inconvenience. As it stands, a couple of IMs had to be deleted to make room at castboolits and glockpost, so I don't have a good idea of who I have communicated with.

I am only missing info from folks in the following cities. So far I have collected 473 points of data that I will use directly, and much more that may or may not have bearing as others look over it. The below constitutes tests for 6 more batches of 10.

Dublin
Soda Springs
Mission Viejo
LaVerne
and the gent at the lab who has been kind enough to work me in.

I expect to hear back from the lab gent on Wednesday. The testing is done, it just needs to be measured. Since he is a busy man, it is possible there may be a slight delay.

Thanks for all of your patience folks. I know this is a long time coming, but I want to do it right.

As a heads up, I may get sidetracked with my full-time real job. Although it may slow me down a little, I intend to get numbers up as soon as I have them gathered, sorted, and figured out a couple of initial comments on them. A full write up will probably not happen until well after the numbers are posted and my kids have been released for the summer.

Please believe me when I say that the bulk of the waiting is over on this.

[Newtire]

Newtire....Your findings are quite different than mine. I'm wondering if we all got the same hardness boolits or if some were intentionally different??? Seems strange that we could be 8 BHN points apart:-? Anxiously awaiting the results from Lance:coffee:

Hi mtn. My tester is the Lee one. I pushed down until the center pin was level & then read the results. I found what looked like 2-distinct hardnesses. I don't know what your results were?

[Bill*]

Hi Newtire
I used a lee also. How did you measure the 30 second hold? Did you just guess or time it? I'm wondering how much variance there could be if it was held for say a few seconds either way. I timed it but it wasn't easy keeping the projection level with a Lee hand press while watching a clock....next time I'll clamp it to a table or something

[Alchemist]

WOW my Lee tester read real hard, i wonder if somthing is wrong with my tester...Now, dang it, i'm waiting for Christmas eve like the rest of you. i tested the nose and the side, i still ended up with a high BHN.

What he said....only I have a Saeco. I came up with a very high hardness level, and was a little concerned that my tester was out of whack. I'm checking in here daily (at least) to see how the data is progressing.

We must all be like little kids at Christmas.

Alchemist

[45nut]

I came up with a very high hardness level, and was a little concerned that my tester was out of whack.

Wow, I wasn't the only one with a real high reading?
I have a LBT, followed the directions as closely as possible but came up with what I thought were extremely hard results.

BTW,, my LBT is still up for sale,, $75.00 shipped :)

[mtnwinds]

Newtire, my results were very uniform across the 10 boolits I tested. The hardness came out to BHN 23-24, the equivalent to water quenched wheel weights....fairly hard.

My Cabintree measures via a dial indicator and my reading went from .092 to .0935 for the 10 boolits.

I'm not aware of any request that we not post our results....if there is, I'm sorry!:roll:

[Rick N Bama]

My 10 boolits measured with my Cabine Tree from a low of .091" to a high of .094" which puts all 10 in the 23-24BHN range. FWIW, 6 of my boolits measured at .093" Very uniform in my opinion. I tested them just as they came out of the package, no filing or any other prep work.

Rick

[randyrat]

Hi Newtire
I used a lee also. How did you measure the 30 second hold? Did you just guess or time it? I'm wondering how much variance there could be if it was held for say a few seconds either way. I timed it but it wasn't easy keeping the projection level with a Lee hand press while watching a clock....next time I'll clamp it to a table or somethingI held mine with a steady hand,steady as a rock:kidding: Dang i counted 32 (seemed like forever) seconds. I know if the button goes over you have to start over on a different spot. I don't think the numbers will change unless you go under 30 seconds.

[yammerschooner]

I'm not aware of any request that we not post our results....if there is, I'm sorry!:roll:


No request of that kind at all. High test value from you all was 35 and low was 10.5. Most testers grouped together. As pointed out by one of you in their notes, it is likely they have different sweet spots.

I will have something to measure them against soon. I will probably have one or two questions for a few of you afterwards.

[Bill*]

Randyrat;
Did you by any chance come close to BHN 22? I'm curious to see if the Lees come out near each other (I think that may tell me more than if they get close to the true hardness number)

[NSP64]

I have a lee tester and I adjust the die so the indicator is flush with the ram all the way up, so I can't overcompress it. And I use a stop watch to time. BTW all my samples tested at BHN 24.8:drinks:

[Springfield]

24 seems kinda high since I could mark these bullets with my fingernail. For reference I can't make a mark on commercial smokeless bullets like Lasercast. Seems like I remember Linotype is about 22 and they sure don't use that for their bullets. When I test dead soft lead I get 4 on my LBT and my 50/1 lead tin BP bullets come out at 11. Be interesting to see if different brands are consistent with each other but different than other types/brands.

[ANeat]

I used a Lee tester and a different microscope to measure the dent. The majority of mine were 26bhn with one at 24.8 and 3 at 27.2.

So it looks like at least a few of the Lee's are in the same ballpark. Considering any operator differences and how close the spring may or may not calibrated it sounds pretty consistent.

Remember were only talking .001 difference one way or another.

I figured Yammer should have thrown a ringer in the mix. Something either softer or harder by a large margin and see if everyone would catch it....

[NSP64]

24 seems kinda high since I could mark these bullets with my fingernail. For reference I can't make a mark on commercial smokeless bullets like Lasercast. Seems like I remember Linotype is about 22 and they sure don't use that for their bullets. When I test dead soft lead I get 4 on my LBT and my 50/1 lead tin BP bullets come out at 11. Be interesting to see if different brands are consistent with each other but different than other types/brands.

Man you got some tough fingernails, mine won't scratch!! He may have sent different people in the groups different lead composition boolits?

[randyrat]

Randyrat;
Did you by any chance come close to BHN 22? I'm curious to see if the Lees come out near each other (I think that may tell me more than if they get close to the true hardness number)No mine weighed inbetween 28.5 and 29 something. I'm waiting to find out how screwed up my tester is. I still have this feellin something is haywire/gremlins with my tester. I have a few gremlins in the area they are 6,7,8 yrs old. i've never caught them in my gun room,but if they are like me when i was young,well you know,but i'll never know,they are smarter than the old man.

[LeadThrower]

My Lee measured very consistently, averaging about 23.5. I used a stopwatch held right next to the indicator so I had no trouble keeping the indicator flush for 30 seconds.

[Bill*]

Newsmokepole:
That's a great Idea, Trust you wont mind I steal it? As an old guy I used to work with would say... "Thank you to small pieces":mrgreen:

[NSP64]

Any totals yet, It's 5am christmas morning:drinks:

[mtnwinds]

It's noon now.....yawnnnnnn....and there isn't a single present under the tree. [smilie=1:

Hey, all you Cabintree guys & gals! Care to post your results? Mine were .092 -- .0935. Very uniform, I thought.

[EDG]

Those of you that have doubts about your testers could try them out on metals of known properties.

Bottom end --- Pure lead is supposed to be about Brinell 4 or 5

Mid-range --- 63-37 solder is supposed to be Brinell 12.

Linotype --- if you have any you can trust is supposed to be about Brinell 22.

Those 3 metals should serve as calibration standards.

[Rick N Bama]

It's noon now.....yawnnnnnn....and there isn't a single present under the tree. [smilie=1:

Hey, all you Cabintree guys & gals! Care to post your results? Mine were .092 -- .0935. Very uniform, I thought.

Your results closely matched mine & yes, the boolits were very uniform.

Rick

[MT Gianni]

It's noon now.....yawnnnnnn....and there isn't a single present under the tree. [smilie=1:

Hey, all you Cabintree guys & gals! Care to post your results? Mine were .092 -- .0935. Very uniform, I thought.

Mine were .088-.0865.

[yammerschooner]

spreadsheet and very initial intro and analysis is done. I have been fighting getting it posted for a good part of the evening. I will not be home tomorrow, but will give it another shot on Monday. This is the week before finals, so I may run into some time issues. I will do my best.

I will try to talk my wife into seeing what she can do tomorrow while I am gone, but that may be an effort in futility

Sorry folks.

[yammerschooner]

OK. I am going to be super busy this week, so I sat down and figured this out tonight. Information can be found at the following link.

If I missed a piece of personally identifying information that should have been left out please let me know so I can zap it. I have no desire to spread any of your personal information out onto the web.

Thanks to all. I will make it back here as time allows.

http://yammerschooner.com/firearms%20reloading%20etc%20section/lead_tester_experiment.htm

By the way, initial analysis only focuses on the four major groups so far.

[LeadThrower]

Beautiful presentation of the data!

[454PB]

That's a lot of work, Lance. Thank you for your efforts!

It's really interesting to see the extreme spread of the readings, but makes you wonder about what we read on the net about various alloy hardnesses reported.

[Bill*]

WOW.....very impressive, NICE JOB. :drinks:

[NSP64]

:drinks:Bravo!:drinks: I got dizzy digesting all the data. The lab tested came out to BHN 19?

[mtnwinds]

Lot of hard work, Lance! Looking forward to your final digest. Speaking of 'final', best wishes for exams. I'm sure you've approached them with the same thoroughness as you have this project & you'll do great.:drinks:

Will you be making the spreadsheet available for download? It would be fun to play with the numbers.

[Gussy]

Very nice job. It really raises question for me. I've had a lot of users say they thought it was reading softer than the alloy they were using. I guess not!!
Gus

[EDG]

Wow excellent interesting to have the lab instrument to compare against.
Looks like I have 10 bullets to use as references in the future.

[ANeat]

I cant believe this hasent been stickied, great info

[45nut]

Generally I wait til the thread quiets down some and then copy the entire thread to classics and stickies so as not to lose out on late posts with good info, I have this one tagged to go there.

[alamogunr]

Those of you that have doubts about your testers could try them out on metals of known properties.

Bottom end --- Pure lead is supposed to be about Brinell 4 or 5

Mid-range --- 63-37 solder is supposed to be Brinell 12.

Linotype --- if you have any you can trust is supposed to be about Brinell 22.

Those 3 metals should serve as calibration standards.

A few years ago I bought ingots of pure lead, Lyman #2 and linotype from Bill Ferguson. I figure that is as close as I'm going to get to a Standard (?). I haven't actually used them yet since I need to cast some bullets from each and then measure. Up to now WW is all I have used just for handgun bullets and I wasn't too concerned about hardness. I've got both the Cabine Tree and LBT hardness testers (I'm a gadget freak) and I'm sure that individual technique has a lot to do with results. I'm looking forward to additional analysis by those who are much more knowledgeable than I am.

John

[Springfield]

I guess I'll keep my LBT. It measured about 1.5 to 2 less then the lab, but good enough for me.

[EDG]

A few years ago I bought ingots of pure lead, Lyman #2 and linotype from Bill Ferguson. I figure that is as close as I'm going to get to a Standard (?). I haven't actually used them yet since I need to cast some bullets from each and then measure. Up to now WW is all I have used just for handgun bullets and I wasn't too concerned about hardness. I've got both the Cabine Tree and LBT hardness testers (I'm a gadget freak) and I'm sure that individual technique has a lot to do with results. I'm looking forward to additional analysis by those who are much more knowledgeable than I am.

John

My old LBT gives varying results unless you use a consistent technique and time on the indenting load. I used a count of 4 and got results that were about 2 under the lab equipment.
A longer count will give a softer reading and a shorter count will give a harder reading on the same piece of metal. Maybe I should try 3 seconds.

[Alchemist]

I see that myself + 3 other Saeco testers got straight 35 (estimated) BHN on all 10 boolits. When I came up with those results I thought I would surely skew the data, but apparently not.

What effect do you all suppose age of tester (equipment-not user) has on results? Mine was purchased about 2 months ago...shortly before yammerschooner's post looking for participants. Perhaps older units got softer readings due to spring setting????? Strictly technique???

Am I full of sheep dip?

Alchemist

ETA...AWESOME job yammerschooner!!!

[ANeat]

Alchemist I would try a test of some of the accepted "standards" if there available. Test some pure lead, pure tin, 50/50 solder, lino or something that is a known reference.

I also wonder if some testers are more accurate within a certain range and these bullets may be a bit outside of that.

[ANeat]

Generally I wait til the thread quiets down some and then copy the entire thread to classics and stickies so as not to lose out on late posts with good info, I have this one tagged to go there.



45nut even just a link to the final data or even a copy of it here if Yammer would allow it would be fine.

Im not sure if a sticky for the entire thread would be necessary.


Thanks; Adam

[Alchemist]

Alchemist I would try a test of some of the accepted "standards" if there available. Test some pure lead, pure tin, 50/50 solder, lino or something that is a known reference.

I also wonder if some testers are more accurate within a certain range and these bullets may be a bit outside of that.

I need to do that, then annotate my Saeco chart....

Alchemist

[mtnwinds]

Gus, here's my take on the accuracy of the various testers. I have them listed by standard deviation & extreme spread. I use the Cabintree and was very surprised to find it rated so low in the initial results. I believe the reason it did is because the factory conversion factor may need updating/refining. The general catagory was right on the money: water quenched wheelweights.


7534

[yammerschooner]

Will you be making the spreadsheet available for download? It would be fun to play with the numbers.

Done. Go to the bottom of the results, before participant info.



I see that myself + 3 other Saeco testers got straight 35 (estimated) BHN on all 10 boolits. When I came up with those results I thought I would surely skew the data, but apparently not.

What effect do you all suppose age of tester (equipment-not user) has on results? Mine was purchased about 2 months ago...shortly before yammerschooner's post looking for participants. Perhaps older units got softer readings due to spring setting????? Strictly technique???

[/B]

The responses I have gotten to my queries seem to indicate there is not a correlation between the jump in numbers on the saecos and age of the tools. I am waiting on a couple of responses, but I doubt they will shed much more light on it than the initial ones already have.




I also wonder if some testers are more accurate within a certain range and these bullets may be a bit outside of that.


This is my perception as well.



45nut even just a link to the final data or even a copy of it here if Yammer would allow it would be fine.




Feel free to put up a copy here. I put this together so you boolit artists could use it. There isn't much point in having the info if it isn't easily available so we can use it to compare our testers.



Gus, here's my take on the accuracy of the various testers. I have them listed by standard deviation & extreme spread. I use the Cabintree and was very surprised to find it rated so low in the initial results. I believe the reason it did is because the factory conversion factor may need updating/refining. The general catagory was right on the money: water quenched wheelweights.



I think the more telling numbers as to its accuracy are the actual measurements. The BHN numbers are simply too skewed by how the user interprets them.

Since I have a cabine tree, it is my intention to map out the conversion numbers in much greater detail this summer, and place them against actual, accurate, tested, measurements. I will let you all know when it happens, but don't expect anything before way-the-heck-out in the future.



Is there any way to get the results link posted in the initial post so folks don't have to dig for it? Edit feature for that post appears to have gone the way of the buffalo.

[EDG]

One of the issues with any data is variability introduced by the tester's technique and the variation of an individual tool from the norm.
These tools need a method of basic calibration such as a known hardness sample. The user should then test the sample to determine how much his technique varies from one test to the next and how much the tool varies from the standard.
I mention this because some tools appear to have been so far off that they require attention to determine if the operator's technique need improvement of if the tool is faulty.
I mention this because the first time I ran any hardness tests was on steel with a Wilson Rockwell tester. A reasonably competent baboon could be trained to get consistent results with that machine. The LBT tester is very touchy in regard to the time the penetrator is loaded. Trying to use a single data point from it for a bullet is not very dependable. When you see variations of 2 to 5 points on the same piece of metal you know it has to be your technique. I trust it only when I have 5 or 6 points on the same bullet and toss out the extremes if there are any.
I have SN 63 solder bars that according to Kester are supposed to be 12 Brinell. I have tested one of the bars many times months apart and still get occasional fliers. It is sort of the nature of the tool.

[joeb33050]

There seems to be some question about what the question is, the question that this experiment is intended to answer.
Our 2006 experiment was intended to answer the question "Can reloaders, using available hobby hardness testers, estimate BHN with reasonable precision?"
The answer was a pretty clear "No".
This current experiment confirms that "No".

joe b.

[unique]

Saeco Info relative to this test.

I got my Saeco at Christmas time and immediately noticed it read higher than what I would have expected for a range of lead hardness. I also noticed that the softer lead was less consistent than the hard lead but even the hard stuff could vary significantly with slight change in technique. The Saeco is pretty easy to use. Put sample in place and turn knob until lines mark up. What I found was that turning the knob at different speeds made a difference. Also if the sample turns or not when turning the knob has significant affect on reading. The Saeco instructions are pretty simple but do not address these finer points.

Anyway, I sent my Saeco back to the factory (Redding) and they said it was slightly out of cal (reading high) and that they recalibrated it. I asked them to send me samples to test with which they did, along with expected reading. Well I found I could get the expected reading or not by very subtle changes in my technique.

I had lost confidence in my Saeco before this test. My conclusion based upon my past experience and reinforced by this test is that my Saeco, at best, is good for comparing relative hardness of my bullets on my bench. I wonder if the majority of the lead testers fall into this category.

[bigborefan]

I have been reading this thread with much interest. As Joe has pointed out in his posting, it appears that in both tests, consistancy seems to be lacking in accurate readings. I have been using a method that was in an article published in Handloaders ""The Art of Bullet Casting". It is very simple and consistant for me while also not costing anything if you have a drill press, bathroom scale, rivet tool bit and a 7/16" ball bearing. When testing pure lead, I get consistant readings of 4.7 BHN + or -. When checking Linotype, I get readings in the 21-22 BHN and readings for wheelweights are in it's correct range of 14-15BHN. I have posted the method on another gun board in the past and was told by someone that the method had its flaws but after reading about the two different tests performed using the above mentioned lead testers, I can't see my chosen method as being flawed at all. In fact, after using this method for a while now, I can just look at the size of the indent in the lead and guess its hardness without measuring it and come very close to guessing its BHN.

[454PB]

Obviously this was a test of testing devices AND the people that run them. After reviewing the results, I have confidence in my Lee tester. My results yielded readings only off 1.5 BHN from the lab results. I had one boolit test considerable softer than the other nine, and at the time of the test I rechecked that particular boolit several times. If I ignored that one low reading, the difference in hardness among the other nine was less than 2%. That's accurate enough for my needs.

[Gussy]

The most important factor in any of these testers is that the results are consistent. Finding the alloy that works for you then being able to duplicate it. Any of the testers tables can be adjusted by the user, based on standards, to get exact BH if that is importent to you.

Most of the people using testers are trying to maintain a certain hardness. If that reading is off some is doesn't matter as long as the next batch of alloy comes in at the same hardness. It is also useful when buying unknown metal.

Gus

[cbrick]

There seems to be some question about what the question is, the question that this experiment is intended to answer.
Our 2006 experiment was intended to answer the question "Can reloaders, using available hobby hardness testers, estimate BHN with reasonable precision?"
The answer was a pretty clear "No".
This current experiment confirms that "No". joe b.

I disagree Joe, here's why.

These are not laboratory grade pieces of equipment; no one should think they are, no one could afford them if they were. What is important with these testers is consistency. It doesn't really matter if a lab tested piece of lead is 20 BHN and your tester says it's 18 BHN and someone else’s says 22. What is important for your handloads is that your tester ALWAYS says 18 BHN plus or minus about 1 BHN and the other guys always says 22 + - 1. That's close enough for you to keep accurate notes and use it to assemble very consistent ammo from batch to batch.

In Lances experiment there were nine different LBT testers. Of the 9 two were very clearly out of calibration, the remaining 7 testers where easily consistent enough for consistent BHN readings for cast bullets. The other two testers can be calibrated (and should be). With each of the brands tested if you throw out the various obvious erroneous readings (chalk these readings up to machine and/or operator error) they are easily close enough (accurate enough) for cast bullets.

I did an extensive long range BHN test with my FA 357, many hundreds of rounds in 5 shot groups that took a year and a half shooting scoped from the bench at 150 meters. All loads where as identical as I could make them using only virgin brass, powder, primers and alloy from the same lot numbers. BHN changes ranged from air cooled 11 BHN to convection oven HT 30 BHN and many BHN ranges in between. My revolver shot the best groups at 17-18 BHN. A BHN range of 1 or 2 within the same group seemed to make no difference. Shooting a group with a wide variation in BHN (say 15 BHN to 22 BHN) destroyed groups and repeating the same tests over and over proved this out. Without a consistent method of determining BHN "ranges" this testing would not have been possible.

So yes, these testers are a valuable asset to the bullet caster. Does my tester say an alloy is 18 BHN and the lab says no . . . its 20 BHN . . . So what? Doesn’t matter as long as mine always says 17-18, consistency matters not an exact match to lab results.

So what does Lance's experiment prove? 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 and in reality how close to the lab tested sample (most of) the various testers really where.

I use an LBT very simply because of it's simplicity of use and its direct read-out in BHN numbers, nothing to calculate or mis-read or mis-measure.

Lance's experiment is a valuable asset to casters and I thank him for what had to be a lot of time, work and expense. We are all better off for his efforts.

Rick

[alamogunr]

+1 to you, Rick. I was going to comment but your post expressed it much better than I could. I think by using those standard alloys that I got from Bill Ferguson, I can develop a consistent technique that will give me adequate results to be able to duplicate alloys within my requirements, which are not extremely strict.
John
W.TN

[mtnwinds]

Great post, Cbrick:drinks: I do believe you have hit the proverbial nail (boolit) smack on the head.

Consistency appears to be the single most important ingredient when brewing up a pot of accuracy. The only problem with your post is that it says what a lot of guys were thinking and now they don't have to say it because you have stated the case so well!:-D

[joeb33050]

There's consistency, linearity and precision. Precision EX: NIST BHN vs. tester BHN. Precision was important since we were dealing with, (and disproving), the pseudo-scientific argument that BHN and pressure are mathematically linked in CB accurate loads . EX: BHN * 3 * 480 = accuracy threshold.
Hobby BHN testers do not exhibit precision allowing reasonable estimation of BHN, as seen in our test and this test.
If we can't estimate BHN fairly precisely, we can't rely on the/a formula.
(We also can't estimate pressure precisely.)
Fortunately the/all these formulas are wrong, as are the several premises upon which they're based.
Defend your tester if you will, the test results, at least some of them, don't lie.
joe b.

[mtnwinds]

.....snip.... since we were dealing with, (and disproving), the pseudo-scientific argument that BHN and pressure are mathematically linked in CB accurate loads . EX: BHN * 3 * 480 = accuracy threshold.

Joe, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you reference this formula. I find it hard to believe that a BHN multiplied by any series of numbers is going to give me a meaningful accuracy threshold. If that is what you are disproving, I agree with you. There are just too many variables the formula you reference does not consider. I didn't know that Lance's experiment was intended to disprove any formula.


Hobby BHN testers do not exhibit precision allowing reasonable estimation of BHN, as seen in our test and this test.

I haven't seen any post indicating that hobby hardness testers are equivalent to industry standard laboratory instruments. I have seen and do agree with the posts stating that they are precise enough to establish a baseline for hardness (not necessarilly BHN) for a given lot of boolits. I think the experiment has conclusively established that. Speaking of boolit hardness in terms of BHN is an attempt to establish a common language.....we all say BHN. It's convenient but not necessarilly required nor particularly helpful unless we are all using laboratory quality instruments.

When you say that hobby testers can't establish a 'reasonable estimation of BHN' you're painting with a pretty broad brush. What's 'reasonable'? I might, by the way, be inclined to agree with you on this point. However, more importantly, what if BHN is not the standard we should be chasing after. What if the standard we want is actually a standard of relative 'hardness'? If so, the results of the experiment demonstrate the consistency the testers are capable of.

So what if the testers' results were not 'reasonably' comparable to lab results for BHN? That comparison is not a critical criteria when determining the usefulness of the hobby testers unless the testers are intended to precisely relate to a BHN.


If we can't estimate BHN fairly precisely, we can't rely on the/a formula. (We also can't estimate pressure precisely.) Fortunately the/all these formulas are wrong, as are the several premises upon which they're based.

Again, is it really required that we must express boolit hardness in terms of precise BHN? If my tester say that a particular lot of boolits reads within .002", I can assume that, whatever their BHN/Rockwell/Burnell/etc number is, they are consistent. If they shoot accurately, I know what 'hardness' I'm looking for; I want a 'hardness of .092" to .0935" and I really don't care what their BHN is.


Defend your tester if you will, the test results, at least some of them, don't lie. joe b.

I believe the results of the experiment are very useful. I initially took part in it because I wanted to prove that I made a good choice by picking a Cabintree over any of the others. However, the experiment has shown me that almost any of the hobby testers are capable of establishing a 'hardness' baseline. I'm happy with my choice because it offers me both versatility and a consistency that I appreciate. I don't need to defend it....it's neither better no worse than any other until I factor in MY personal preferences. So, I would like to throw a bucket of cold water on the flame of 'mine's bigger/better than yours'. I'm pleased with the experiment (and with cbrick's excellent post) because it has taught me that what I'm after is MY baseline and it isn't necessary to chase after the BHN holy Grail. Frank

[EDG]

There seems to be some question about what the question is, the question that this experiment is intended to answer.
Our 2006 experiment was intended to answer the question "Can reloaders, using available hobby hardness testers, estimate BHN with reasonable precision?"
The answer was a pretty clear "No".
This current experiment confirms that "No".

joe b.

Purpose of this experiment: Understanding of hobby Brinell testers.

This set of test data showed some of the strengths and weaknesses of the testers. If anyone suspects that he has a stinker of a tester he can calibrate or correlate to known standards.

Joe on the other your argument is flawed. If you just say no you are claiming these tools have no utility in our application. You also say that a shooter either spends hundreds to thousands of dollars on a tester that will produce exacting results or do without.
For our application these tools are better than the expense of an industrial tester and are far better than nothing. Based on your argument you should be willing to: either do without any tester or be willing to pay for a tester that meets the requirements of ASTM E-10.

[NSP64]

After reading all the posts, I adjusted my lee tester to get a reading of 19.3 with the test samples sent to me. I then went back and retested some boolits that I had tested earlier in the year. Their BHN numbers were lower as I suspected. Now everyone in the test has a 'known' sample to 'cal' their testers.

[joeb33050]

Purpose of this experiment: Understanding of hobby Brinell testers.

This set of test data showed some of the strengths and weaknesses of the testers. If anyone suspects that he has a stinker of a tester he can calibrate or correlate to known standards.

Joe on the other your argument is flawed. If you just say no you are claiming these tools have no utility in our application. You also say that a shooter either spends hundreds to thousands of dollars on a tester that will produce exacting results or do without.
For our application these tools are better than the expense of an industrial tester and are far better than nothing. Based on your argument you should be willing to: either do without any tester or be willing to pay for a tester that meets the requirements of ASTM E-10.

Ed G.;
I don't need you to tell me or others what I claimed or said. I said what I said, you may have read it, you quoted it. This ain't high school debating class and you ain't a political candidate. Read what I said, agree or don't. I don't care. Don't try to put your words in my mouth.
joe b.

[cbrick]

Joe, I think you are turning this thread and this test of the BHN testers into something it is not, has not been and was never intended to be. Who, in this thread or anywhere else has ever said these testers are or where even supposed to be "scientifically accurate or precise"? Who has said that this test was to prove "BHN and pressure are mathematically linked in CB accurate loads"? What is the /a formula and what does it have to do with a comparison test of these testers?

I spent a year and a half sending a lot of lead down range, I used a 500 round box of WW brass and every shot fired was with virgin brass. All brass was prepped exactly the same, length trimmed to +- .0005", primer pockets and flash holes uniformed, every primer was from the same 5,000 lot number of primers, all alloy was from the same 40 pound pot with nothing added except the sprues and rejects (the same alloy). All powder was from the same 8 pound can. No die adjustments where made throughout the tests. All powder charges where weighed. All ammo was as consistent as I could make it with only the alloy's BHN changing by convection oven heat treating. All groups fired where repeated several times to confirm results and help take out shooter error. All groups where fired from the bench with a Burris 12X scope. All bullets where BHN tested with the LBT tool.

In test after test for a year and a half groups followed very consistently what BHN of the load said the group should be. Large BHN spreads and large groups and the tightest groups across the board were with 17-18 BHN. I spent a lot of time, powder and lead trying to confirm that 1 or 2 BHN affected groups and couldn't but larger BHN spreads did and in a big way.

I am eager to hear your explanation as to how any of this could be possible but for the consistency and "usefulness" of the BHN test tool.

Defending "my" tester? Hardly Joe, but I am defending using these testers for a uniform BHN for top end long range loads and I have a note book full of test results to confirm their usefulness and consistency. Minimizing BHN variation reduces group size and without these testers there would be no way to do this.

Rick

[Bass Ackward]

Accurate or not, my hardness tester let's me do the impossible. I know that because people here tell me so everyday when I post. :grin:

[joeb33050]

Rick;
I'm not doing, nor have I done, anything but comment on the results of the test.
I just read the test results again, too make sure I understood.
My comments were and are in the context of the section of the book where our 2006 test was done. The book "Cast Bullets For Beginner And Expert", Second Edition, can be found and read online at: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/CB-BOOK/
The book is in "FILES", the Table Of Contents is in "The Beginning"
The book is also, now, on the lasc site, www.lasc.us.
"3.3 CAST BULLET HARDNESS REQUIREMENTS" is the chapter.
You might also be interested in the hardness testing methods explained in "3.2 BULLET CASTING METALS", where staple guns and drawing pencils are some of the instruments used.
We found, in 2006, that the "hobby" hardness testers available did not allow reasonably precise estimation of BHN.
The current test confirms that conclusion. I like the current test. I love the current test, because it confirms my/our opinions derived from the 2006 test. I've asked Lance if we may include this test in the book, and he agreed-I hope I haven't made him angry. This is a wonderful test, I wish I was able to get so many people to participate in my tests.
Anyone is free to disagree, to consider consistency in readings of more importance than other measures of accuracy.
If it works for you, keep going.
(We had folks test cabintree testers in 2006, the interpretation or translation schedule didn't seem to make any sense, so the results weren't included.)

This thread reminds me of the "Do chronographs help in accurate load development?" thread, where threats against me, my family and my dog (I don't have a dog.) were made by chronograph owners defending ownership and use of the instruments; and a grand total of ZERO explanations of how chronographs were used in the accuracy search procedure were provided.

I am interested in your testing, and would like to see the data; with the idea of including your test in the book.

Thanks;
I ADORE this test!!!!!!!
joe b.






Joe, I think you are turning this thread and this test of the BHN testers into something it is not, has not been and was never intended to be. Who, in this thread or anywhere else has ever said these testers are or where even supposed to be "scientifically accurate or precise"? Who has said that this test was to prove "BHN and pressure are mathematically linked in CB accurate loads"? What is the /a formula and what does it have to do with a comparison test of these testers?

I spent a year and a half sending a lot of lead down range, I used a 500 round box of WW brass and every shot fired was with virgin brass. All brass was prepped exactly the same, length trimmed to +- .0005", primer pockets and flash holes uniformed, every primer was from the same 5,000 lot number of primers, all alloy was from the same 40 pound pot with nothing added except the sprues and rejects (the same alloy). All powder was from the same 8 pound can. No die adjustments where made throughout the tests. All powder charges where weighed. All ammo was as consistent as I could make it with only the alloy's BHN changing by convection oven heat treating. All groups fired where repeated several times to confirm results and help take out shooter error. All groups where fired from the bench with a Burris 12X scope. All bullets where BHN tested with the LBT tool.

In test after test for a year and a half groups followed very consistently what BHN of the load said the group should be. Large BHN spreads and large groups and the tightest groups across the board were with 17-18 BHN. I spent a lot of time, powder and lead trying to confirm that 1 or 2 BHN affected groups and couldn't but larger BHN spreads did and in a big way.

I am eager to hear your explanation as to how any of this could be possible but for the consistency and "usefulness" of the BHN test tool.

Defending "my" tester? Hardly Joe, but I am defending using these testers for a uniform BHN for top end long range loads and I have a note book full of test results to confirm their usefulness and consistency. Minimizing BHN variation reduces group size and without these testers there would be no way to do this.

Rick

[MT Gianni]

Joe you seem to be reading a different purpose in to this than I see. The way to prove your results would be one operator and 50 testers.
I use my tester to see if an alloy previously shot is the same as an alloy currently cast. Hobby testers work great for that. Operators will always have a different feel to any tool.
Gianni

[Bill*]

Joe- "This thread reminds me of the "Do chronographs help in accurate load development?" thread, where threats against me, my family and my dog (I don't have a dog.) were made by chronograph owners defending ownership and use of the instruments......."
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????

[bohica2xo]

Wow, I never expected to see this kind of conflict over this experiment.

My observations are that with a given lot of metal, the testers exhibit the sort of results I would expect.

Testing for BHN at the hobbyist level helps to improve lot-to-lot accuracy of castings. As a comparison between batches, I think any of those testers will do fine.

Testing for BHN for commercial purposes is a whole different game. The only way to get repeatable results is to use a laboratory machine, with tracability to NIST. If you order 300 BHN steel, and you test it with an old valve spring & a ball bearing your results may not be the same.

Repeatability is important in testing. If you own a tester that had a high ES or SD, you should work on using it to see if you can improve those numbers. You can use a known material for calibration runs like fully annealed copper. Work on your technique, and the tester (settings, lubrication, etc.) for the most uniform results. More magnification is always good when reading impression diameters.

This link has some handy formulas for BHN calculations:

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phphardness/brinell_hardness_number_p.php

B.

[joeb33050]

This is a unilateral conflict, I ain't in it. I can only guess that the conflict exists because of my inability to clearly say, or explain what I said.
I do love the test!
joe b.





Wow, I never expected to see this kind of conflict over this experiment.

My observations are that with a given lot of metal, the testers exhibit the sort of results I would expect.

Testing for BHN at the hobbyist level helps to improve lot-to-lot accuracy of castings. As a comparison between batches, I think any of those testers will do fine.

Testing for BHN for commercial purposes is a whole different game. The only way to get repeatable results is to use a laboratory machine, with tracability to NIST. If you order 300 BHN steel, and you test it with an old valve spring & a ball bearing your results may not be the same.

Repeatability is important in testing. If you own a tester that had a high ES or SD, you should work on using it to see if you can improve those numbers. You can use a known material for calibration runs like fully annealed copper. Work on your technique, and the tester (settings, lubrication, etc.) for the most uniform results. More magnification is always good when reading impression diameters.

This link has some handy formulas for BHN calculations:

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phphardness/brinell_hardness_number_p.php

B.

[cbrick]

If there is any conflict here it’s in the use of terms such as "scientific" and "precise". These testers are neither and where never intended to be nor do they need to be to be very useful and effective in cast bullet use. As I said in previous posts, I tried to prove that a variation within a 5 shot group of 1 BHN could hurt groups, I couldn't but wider variations in BHN did. Most of these testers will get you to within 1 BHN "reasonably well. Is within 1 BHN reasonably well scientifically precise? Hardly! Is within 1 BHN a huge benefit in long range cast bullet accuracy loads? Well, I think so.

Another error introduced here is attempting to relate the formula 3 x 480 x Brinell Hardness Number to a rock solid, set in concrete scientific rule. It is not. This formula is a guide to "minimum" pressure for a given load. It is not a set in concrete rule, it is a guide, a starting point, an estimation, a place to BEGIN testing. If you attempt to use this formula as something "scientifically precise" you will probably be very disappointed. If you expect "scientifically precise" from your BHN tester you will probably be very disappointed.

If you use your BHN tester as another tool, a guide, chances are you'll be happy. If you will accept nothing but "scientifically precise" cast bullets are probably not for you anyway, I don't know of anything relating to cast bullets that could reasonably be related to "scientifically precise", far too many variables.

I have proven to my satisfaction that keeping BHN variation to a minimum goes a long way in keeping good groups good groups. I have also proven that my BHN tester is "consistent, repeatable and accurate" enough to enable me to do that. No, it is not scientifically precise but it dosen't need to be.

Lance's work has a tremendous amount of valid information for anyone willing to look through the charts and compare it your own results.

Rick

[cbrick]

I also placed Lance's results here: LASC (http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm)

Rick

[NSP64]

:drinks:Can't we all just get along:drinks:
What I took from this test is......... My results vs Lab results. I have since made adjustments to my tester to read 19.3 on test boolit. Whether those adjustments hold true up and down scale for other hardnesses remains to be seen.

[Morgan Astorbilt]

NSP64,
What Rockwell scale are you using? I'm using HRR scale(1/2" ball at 60kgf ) Everything but HRC uses the RED scale, which runs from 0-130, and these bullets ran just a bit over 100, about like WW's. On this scale, pure lead runs 50-60

I would have liked to go up to 100kgf ("S" scale) Pure lead 3-4 and WW's 78-81, but a tech at Wilson suggested the "R" scale, and I'm doing some testing with another fellow who prefers it.
Morgan

[cbrick]

Mr. Morgan, I would be very appreciative if you would post a chart of your results of checking the Rockwell scale. This would be very interesting to see.

Rick

[mtnwinds]

Me too![smilie=w:

[Morgan Astorbilt]

I don’t know of how much use these tests will be, I was hoping Lance was going to send each tester several different alloys, which would have allowed me to compare my Rockwell readings with the readings obtained with the other test instruments. With this information, I could have set up a conversion chart, which while not precise, would have given a practical method of Rockwell testing alloys for Brinell Hardness (BHN). There is no way to establish a precise hardness chart with lead alloys, or would it be valid, except for a moment in time, due to their changes in hardness due to aging.

This is just a sample, nothing would be gained by posting all of them,

Below the results, are the five samples we used in our tests. I cast them using a stainless 1/8cup coffee measure, and mailed a set to another fellow so we could test on the same day and compare results. Regarding the purity of the samples, only the pure lead, and the 95-5 solder which is lab grade, are reliably accurate in their purity. The WW’s are as variable as usual, the Linotype is subject to the condition when it was scrapped by the printer, and the Lyman #2 was carefully alloyed by me, using Lyman’s formula, but using my Lino which can’t relied upon.

The other photo is how the Rockwell tester works, showing the ½” ball pressing on a sample, the indicator reading the depth of the impression. This particular machine is a Model A, their first model, made in 1918, and tests out perfectly on the test blocks used for calibration.
'
'
These tests are "R" Scale 1/2" ball @ 60kgf (HRR), and "S" Scale 1/2" ball @ 100kgf (HRS)

Averages are in parentheses, I typed this up in Word, but after copying and pasting, couldn't get the columns to line up.

Morgan

1- (WW) 100kgf... 76 76 78 81 79 (Avg.78.0)
............... 60kgf... 99 99 100.5 101 100 (99.9)

2- (Pure lead) 4 3 3 4 (3.5)
............... 61 56 62 52 57 (57.6)

3- (95-5 Solder) 74 73 79 75 (75.3)
............... 95 93 92 94.5 (93.6)

4- (Linotype) 69.5 70 70 70 (69. )
.............. ..... 94 95 96 95 (95.0)


5- (Lyman #2) 38 47 51 56 41 (46.6)
............... 82 80 79 80 (80.3)
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa159/pgfaini/samples.jpg
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa159/pgfaini/tester.jpg

[joeb33050]

No aggravation intended or wanted.
If there is interest in calibrating testers or correlating a tester with "true" BHNs, then it might be that testing a sample/maybe 5-10 samples using the known pure lead/ball/vise method would give results that are allegedly accurate and reproducible.
This would then be independent of any tester, no matter which, and also independent of time; which seems to be one testing problem.
Just a thought.
joe b.

[Morgan Astorbilt]

Joe, That's exactly the point. I've always tested with a 1" ball bearing between two samples, in my arbor press. One of pure lead, and the other, the piece in question, measuring the indentations under 10x magnification with a digital caliper, and doing the math. This takes about ten minutes, five minutes when I still had my stereo microscope with a scale reticle. I can do a Rockwell test, which is much more accurate, in about ten seconds. If I could develop a conversion chart, the benefit is obvious.

Morgan

[Dye]

No aggravation intended or wanted.
If there is interest in calibrating testers or correlating a tester with "true" BHNs, then it might be that testing a sample/maybe 5-10 samples using the known pure lead/ball/vise method would give results that are allegedly accurate and reproducible.
This would then be independent of any tester, no matter which, and also independent of time; which seems to be one testing problem.
Just a thought.
joe b.

joeb
What are you going to use as a standard alloy for this test.

Becarefull Dye

[joeb33050]

joeb
What are you going to use as a standard alloy for this test.

Becarefull Dye


Midway sells pretty pure 99.97% pure lead. I googled and found many other sources.
joe b.

[joeb33050]

So, yammerschooner, now that the dust is settled, may I use the results in the book?
Thanks;
joe b.