Interesting compaison in hardness testing.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Recently coming by a used but lightly Cabin Tree hardness tester, OS OK and I started chatt'in back and forth here on the forum about the results and pros and cons between his Lee tester and my Cabin Tree unit.

Right off the top, I'll say that I think we came out pretty close. OS OK tests the bullets on the side after filing a flat on the testing side while I test on the bullet nose.

He sent me 6 bullets of different types and dia. and I sent him 5 each of 4 bullets, groups of 5 from two different .38/357 molds, round nose flat points, and 5 from a .44/.444 Wide Flat Nose. These were all cast of clip on Wheel Weights and water quenched as they fell from the mold.

The last 5 bullet group were from a 45/70 mold, the WFN bullets cast of a 50/50 WW/Lead alloy and water quenched.

I only had 1 bullet each of the 6 samples OS OK went me, so was limited in the testing on most of the bullets as they had only a small flat nose.

I tried testing on the top of a driving band between lube grooves with mixed success, doing this on the opposite side of where OS OK filed his testing flat.

His #1 appears to be a .45cal round nose on which he found a hardness with his Lee tester of 10.4 while I tested at ll.5 BHN (once on the nose and once on the side of the bullet.

#2 is again a .45 round nose of different nose shape and OS OK tested at 12.1 while I tested in two spots at 12.5

#3 again a .45 tested 15.4 for OS OK and for me tested 23 - 24 on the nose and 12.5 on the side. Would have been good to do additional tests.

#4 once more a .45, OS OK tested at 10.7 and I tested at 12.5 on the nose and 11.5 on the side.

#5 still .45 cal tested 10.7 for OS OK and I tested 12.5 and 11.5

#6, the final bullet sent to me by OS OK appears to be a .38/357 and for him tested 13.4 and for me, 11 and 13..

Can't say that we are really testing apples to apples here because of the difference in testing points on the bullet, but all in all I'd say the bulk of the results are close.

Now, on the bullets I sent to OS OK it is again appearing to be close for the most part.

On the first two different .38/.357 bullets, the first of about 160gr tested 23 - 24 for me, testing on 5 bullets, and 22.5 for OS OK testing on a single bullet.

The second .38/.357 bullet of about 170gr tested for me 23 - 24 and 24.5 for OS OK

The 3rd bullet, the .44/.444 275gr tested 22 for me and 15.4 in three tests for OS OK. Not sure if that was on three different bullets or one bullet tested three times.

Then on the last of the four sent his direction, the 465gr WFN cast of the 50/50 - WW/Lead alloy, I tested 23 - 24 and OS OK tested 20.9.

Again, My tests were all on 5 bullets each tested one time on the meplat while OS OK tested one bullet each except as listed when he tested those I sent him.

All in all, I'd still say this is pretty close and only extended testing would iron out the tests that show a wide spread in results.

AS I see it, only testing side by side and with enough samples to establish a good average is the only way to get it closer.

I find the Cabin Tree to be quick to use and apposed to the effort I suspect is need to do the tests as OS OK did with the Lee product one of those pay your money and take your choice things.

The Cabin Tree currently costs (new) about $120.00 plus shipping and possible sales tax, while the lee product would be considerably less expensive, but I suspect a bit slower to use.

OS OK is likely to chime in with addition info and insights, so we will see what he has to say.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[OS OK]

Yes...I too have some comments, first I want to apologize to Crusty for sending only 1 sample of each boolit, somehow we got our plans mixed up in the onset. I thought we'd test one boolit of five different styles of .45 caliber...oh well, sorry Crusty!
Of the 5 each of samples he sent, of each of the five I tested only one. I file a flat on the side of the boolit and didn't want to waste all the others just to compare the accuracy of the two testers.
For Lee Testing...
When I put the divot in the boolit by putting it in the press on a v-groove shell holder and bring it up into the spring loaded divot device...if I do it correctly and do not overpressure the ram, there is no need to do it again as the rig is spring loaded and applies the correct divot pressure as you hold the ram in place for 30 seconds and release. Straight forward, no problems here.
The most intense part is next when you have to hold a 20 power loop very still to measure across the diameter of the divot. If the divot is placed on a smooth area of the boolit it makes a very clear crater and is very easy to measure across from rim to rim. At times it helps to mark the area with a red marks a lot prior to divoting the lead. That makes the black .020" increments on the scale easy to read and I always have to use a bright penlight to light the divot well or these old eyes have trouble.
The biggest problem in the Lee testing scheme is holding the scope still while taking the measurement and the other problem is remembering to move the scope in the opposite direction of what you want the scale to move while over the divot. At first it was maddening but now it is not a big deal as I'm just used to doing it that way.
If I had it to do over again...I'd spend the extra money to get one like ole Coot has, no doubt about that. I started out as a cheapskate not realizing how handy or how much I'd use this tester in making up lead that I use regularly. Big mistake and shortsighted on my part.

Now to the numbers we found...I thought that we found very close results. If we did it a little more scientifically in a controlled set of test I think we would be even closer in results. Ole Coot would be done and off to lunch while I struggle to get exact measurements with an inexact tool all day.
Too bad...I've got what I have and now I'm going to have to get used to it unless Santa drops one of the Cabin Tree's or whatever they are down the chimney. Not Likely.
The problem where I couldn't agree with his measurements on two rounds, ....45/310 grain and a huge .45/70, I tried 3 separate times on the same boolit in each case and constantly came up short. I can't explain that one.

My advise to new casters who want to become more exact in measuring BHN of lead..."Do not skimp on tools, buy the best and don't suffer like the rest."

[dtknowles]

Having to file a flat on the bullet is a pain. I mounted my Lee Scope on an old IMR powder can using a magnet to the pocket clip, that holds the scope for me. I put the bullet on a small box with double sided tape and then move the box side to side to set the scale and I can move the scope up and down by sliding it on the magnet. Others have reported more sophisticated scope mounts.

If you guys could have reported on the alloy compositions it would make the data more meaningful.

Tim

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Tim, in my case, with my bullets sent to OS OK, they were all cast of clip on wheel weights and water quenched, WITH THE EXCEPTION as stated of the 465gr Wide Flat Nose 45/70 bullet which was cast of the COWW/lead in a 50/50 ratio.

I think that OS OK's alloys are a bit more complicated.

I think that he does a remarkable job with his Lee system!

CDOC

[OS OK]

I put the boolits in a vise half exposed above the jaw and laying flat or on their sides. I then use a 12" medium tooth flat bastard file and with 4 to 7 strokes I have a flat with adequate width to test. If you try to test on the drive bands, you invariably get too close to one edge and that edge flairs out into the grease groove and I think it allows the divot to sink in farther than it would if it had an adequate perimeter of lead around it. This scenario would give a softer reading than it actually was.
The file will try to load up with the lead but a couple sharp raps on the flat of the vise and it comes out enough to keep cutting smoothly. Try to cut the flat with a smooth surface, it helps tremendously in reading the crater edge in the loop.

[Mk42gunner]

I've got a Lee Hardness tester, if I had it to do over again, I too would spend the extra and get a Cabin Tree unit. I don't use it much, just enough to get a rough idea of how hard the current batch of lead is.

Honestly, I could get by without a hardness tester.

I did have a SAECO, I didn't like it and sent it down the road.

Robert

[hardscrabble]

I find the lee useful in working up batches of alloy. To get consistent results, I set up the boolit or ingot in my X Y axis vice and hold the scope in a small ball swivel vice (I use for soldering connectors). It is a simple matter to move the boolit under the scope while maintaining the correct angle and distance orientations from scope to boolit or ingot.

[44man]

To me it is the surface in contact with the bore so filing might get into softer. I use the LBT tester and measure the nose. All my boolits have a flat nose.
Just need a perfect base so any lump does not skew readings.
I don't know how deep water dropping hardens but it would seem just the work of filing might soften some.

[Wayne Smith]

I see two variables uncontrolled. One 44Man mentioned, filing changes where in the boolit the test is done. Second, how long were these in the custody of the PO? WDWWs change hardness over time.

[mozeppa]

how long were these in the custody of the PO?

where do you see this?

[OS OK]

where do you see this?

From Ingot to Target:
A Cast Bullet Guide for Handgunners
Glen E. Fryxell and Robert L. ApplegateForeword by John Taffin



1



Metallurgy of the Cast Bullet Lead-tin (Pb-Sn) - Which metals do we add to lead to make better
bullet metal and why? The first and most obvious need here is to make thealloy harder, but there are other factors that play into this answer as well.Historically, tin was used because it was readily available in pure form, mixedeasily with molten lead and contributed desirable properties to both the moltenand solidified alloy (castability and hardness, respectively). Tin also increasesthe hardness of the alloy but does not interfere with the malleability of lead (akey point that we‘ll return to). Tin lowers the viscosity and surface tension ofthe molten alloy, allowing it to fill out the mould more effectively, resulting in ahigher quality bullet. Tin is limited in its ability to harden lead, achieving amaximum hardness of about 16 BHN at 40% tin. These binary lead-tin alloysundergo slight to moderate age softening upon storage (1-2 BHN units), withthe harder alloys undergoing more of a change than the softer alloys. Thehardness of a binary lead-tin alloy generally stabilizes after about 2-3 weeks.Heat treating binary lead-tin alloys does not provide any change in hardness. Attypical lead pot temperatures, lead and tin are infinitely miscible with oneanother, at the eutectic temperature (361o F) tin is still soluble to the tune of19%, but at room temperature tin is still soluble in lead at the 2% level,meaning that as the bullet cools down there is significant precipitation of a tin-rich solid solution in the form of granules and needles in a matrix of lead-richsolid solution.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

To me it is the surface in contact with the bore so filing might get into softer. I use the LBT tester and measure the nose. All my boolits have a flat nose.
Just need a perfect base so any lump does not skew readings.
I don't know how deep water dropping hardens but it would seem just the work of filing might soften some.
Whether air cooled/water dropped/heat treated...I thought boolit hardness was same throughout the whole cast boolit (that was never work softened)?
I can't see how filing could work soften that area of a boolit, at least the way I do it, I gently hold it while making one long smooth stroke of the file.
Correct me if my thinking is wrong.

Also, I have done two tests (Lee tester), measuring a 44 cal flat nosed boolit (air cooled) and a similar 38 cal SWC boolit...on the nose as well as on the side where I filed it...results were same hardness both times. Now two tests could be anecdotal, and surely not conclusive.

[OS OK]

I relate work hardening to either stretching or compressing a metal...as in sizing brass for instance. The way a file cuts metal there is no stress that I can see...shouldn't make any difference.
As far as cutting into lead and exposing the interior that might be of a different BHN or composition, Fryxell says that since the metals are miscible so long as the ratios are not exceeded the boolits should be the same material through and through...you think?

[dtknowles]

Whether air cooled/water dropped/heat treated...I thought boolit hardness was same throughout the whole cast boolit (that was never work softened)?
I can't see how filing could work soften that area of a boolit, at least the way I do it, I gently hold it while making one long smooth stroke of the file.
Correct me if my thinking is wrong.

Also, I have done two tests (Lee tester), measuring a 44 cal flat nosed boolit (air cooled) and a similar 38 cal SWC boolit...on the nose as well as on the side where I filed it...results were same hardness both times. Now two tests could be anecdotal, and surely not conclusive.

Filing a bullet should not work soften it, it does not work the material not removed. I use a Lee tester and water dropped bullets test as harder than air cooled.

Tim

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Filing a bullet should not work soften it, it does not work the material not removed. I use a Lee tester and water dropped bullets test as harder than air cooled.
Tim
the question is, are water dropped boolits the same hardness throughout ?
Is the surface harder than the interior, like some heat treated steel gets?

[Mk42gunner]

That would be easy enough to test, just file a series of three or more steps in the side of a boolit and test it. I don't think I would go more than half the diameter of said boolit, other than that I think it would work.

I don't have any water dropped on hand, plus my tester is buried in the back of the die shelf right now.

Robert

[mozeppa]

i meant the part about police having custody of the boolits.

i'm not reading that anywhere in this thread.

[WebMonkey]

Post office not po po.
As in travel time possibly a week skewing bhn results.
;)

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

I water quench my 50/50 alloy (WW/Lead) used in my 45/70. The maker of my mold said to allow the 50/50 bullet to age a minimum of 7 days with a week being better.

He said he had tested bullets of less then a week aging and said the tester said they were good to go, but his rifle told a different story.

I haven't tried that, but know that the aged bullets work well and are very deadly on deer and elk,

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[mozeppa]

Post office not po po.
As in travel time possibly a week skewing bhn results.
;)
ah! when they type "po & custody" in the same sentence ....i feel a disturbance in the force!

[Wayne Smith]

Ah Ha! I am a forensic psychologist, but did not think of that confusion! Yes, I meant the Post Office, travel time between the two testers. If they were working on benches next to one another, no problem, but days of travel time suggest some possible changes.

[6622729]

For the most part I am a huge fan of Lee products. I have the Lee tester too and the mechanics of the tester are very well engineered and simple to use. That 20X scope? Forget it! It didn't take much to convince myself to try something different. The pencils were intriguing so I tried them and never looked back. They are plenty accurate for 9mm handgun and 300AAC rifle that I cast for. The pencils are very simple to use and their results are close enough.

If I didn't already spend the money on the Lee hardness kit I would absolutely go for the Cabin Tree. I watched a quick video on Youtube about it and that's enough to sell me on it's results.

[RedHawk357Mag]

Cool thread. Found this to be an interesting read, http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm
As for holding the Lee scope, top 2 1/2" of a water bottle with a lid with the scope pushed through makes a quick down and dirty scope holder. I am a believer in the artist pencils for mobile use when visiting the scrape yards.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[MT Gianni]

the question is, are water dropped boolits the same hardness throughout ?
Is the surface harder than the interior, like some heat treated steel gets?
I think this is determined as much by diameter as anything else. Water dropping is also effected by water temps, but a 22 cal will have a greater percentage of hardness than a 50 cal.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I think this is determined as much by diameter as anything else. Water dropping is also effected by water temps, but a 22 cal will have a greater percentage of hardness than a 50 cal.
My question, that you responded to, may have been poorly worded. It originated from a question/comment asked previously...

Whether air cooled/water dropped/heat treated...I thought boolit hardness was same throughout the whole cast boolit (that was never work softened)?


Anyway, I'll try asking again, is a water dropped boolit the same hardness on the surface as it is throughout the center?

[44man]

I don't think so but have been wrong before. I just know my WD shoots better then any other way.
Oven heat treating is good but I never determined any difference in how they shoot. I only heat treat a softer alloy.
You don't need ice water to drop either, my water is from the faucet from the well. A dropped boolit will be around 400° or more. A few seconds in the drop rate can be ignored. Nit picking is a waste of time.
My only suggestion is what the target says. I know air cooled and aged will give me fliers. Softer alloys give me fliers.
Getting it right is like trying to turn lead to gold.
Soon you stop the foolishness and just make good boolits, the hardness tester is like finding accuracy with a chronograph, chasing numbers.
Measuring a dent might be the silliest thing ever so I love the LBT hardness tester---SOOO easy. Even then I never use it to try and match alloys since there must be a billion alloys that read the same. What do you do when you add type metal or stereo metal and get a LOWER reading then plain WW's???? Stop chasing your tail.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Well 44man, that pretty well says it!

CDOC

[44man]

I have strict methods to follow when loading but it is from experience and none are hard, so the flow is second nature. Casting is boring to me but is easy.
I really think my hardest job has been to make everyone relax and enjoy the things you do. You really need to let numbers and book reading alone.
I can't tell you that a point of BHN is important because it is NOT. It irritates me when someone says you NEED 12 BHN and 11 or 13 sucks. Hard boolits lead bores, Soft seals better!
The game of cast is a pleasure if you let go all the notions and find your place. If you shoot 7 BHN, so what, does 8 BHN fail? Is 16 BHN bad? Don't pick at straws.

[OS OK]

44man...The OP and I did this little exercise just to compare how close the two different testers would read the same piece of lead.
Neither of us are touting one hardness over the other...so, you can untwist your panties on this one.

[44man]

I try to untwist panties to make things easy. Yes I understand you are comparing one tool to another. But is it important? You need a microscope and worry about a few BHN but do you NEED it? What purpose does it have? I hate BHN because it has nothing to do with an alloy, just a number.
i am not against your work and appreciate all but it is what it means for the rest here.

[JSnover]

My Lee tester worked as well as I needed it to. Instead of filing and fiddling, make a fixture (anything with the right sized hole), stand the boolit on it's nose and test the flat base.

[wlkjr]

I have a Lee tester that I acquired with a big buy of lead. I could never get the hang of it so I have ordered one of the LBT testers that I hope arrives next week.
From what I read in other threads, fitment to the barrel is more important than bhn, but that is another topic.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

44man,

I have cast for years without a hardness tester. However, I do have some mystery metal on hand and desired to know where it falls in the hardness scale.

Is that wrong?

I think not, even though it may not have a great deal to do with how the bullets shoot/fly.

I have for years cast mostly with clip on wheel weight alloy, that is until I bought a great 465gr mold for my 45/70, and was instructed by the mold maker to use a 50/50 WW/lead, quenched, alloy that I allowed to age for a minimum of 7 days.

The mold maker also said that he had tested quenched bullets of less then 7 days aging and they tested fine but his rifle told a different story.

So, will having the Cabin Tree tester make me a better caster, a better shot, a more efficient hunter? No, it will not likely make a lot of difference in those area, but it will answer questions and eliminate potential problems and having paid my money and made my choice, I am glad I went the direction I did for that choice.

So, no one is making you part with your hard earned bucks, few though they may be if you heaven forbid bought a lee tester, no, no offence intended to those that do, I am not a lee fan, buying only very selectively from that line, but I am not sorry I bought a tester, glad I bought the one I did and really have grave doubts that doing so will make me a worse caster and shooter even if some think BHN is just a bunch of hooky nothing.

The tests/trials that OS OK and I preformed in our bullet exchange and he with his Lee tester and me with my Cabin Tree, did show that both methods can for the most part do as advertised.

I would how ever, no matter what difference it may or MAY NOT make, like to sit side by side with him and see if we could iron out the few discrepancies that showed up.

Some times, a person just wants to know because they want to know.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[OS OK]

I just bought a used Lyman 230 grain SWC-HP mold and especially want to shoot ash trays with a low pressure low velocity Colt 1911.
How else can I adjust the mix of metals to get down around 9 BHN, possibly even less. The most recent test with this round was with 9.2 BHN at pour which turned into 11.2 BHN today, 7 days later. They barley started to expand and mushroom...not soft enough.
Now I'm testing all my soft stock of lead for the softest I can find for the next test.
How do you suppose I do this without testing hardness and how do you expect me to learn how BHN increases with age if I don't continually test them. Just take another forum members word for it and cast blindly and wrestle with the results until happenstance and good fortune hit in the same batch of lead...come on, use your noggin, think about that.
I have never and will never just throw any old supply of lead in the pot and cross my fingers and hope it shoots well. I don't do things that way.
I have an inquisitive mind, this hobby keeps it mulling constantly about load work-ups and the such...this hobby is a little deeper than the ole quip..."I've been doing this for 40 years, worked then, works now!" ... Nope, that doesn't cut it...never will.
Oh, and by the way, I have been at this since 75 give or take a year or so...you do the math!

[44man]

To know what you have is OK but lead does not cooperate. Testing does not tell you what mix you have. How much antimony or tin. arsenic, etc or what it will harden to.
My math goes back to 66 years of casting something. Sinkers, jigs to boolits.

[44man]

I have tons of lead dating back before you were born. I have pure antimony and tin and can make what I need. I am close to 79 years old in Dec. Maybe I shot more lead then anyone here.

[OS OK]

Without a XRF test, or whatever they call it, we can't know what exactly is in the lead...unless we roughly assume it's contents by knowing the leads source, those are listed and easy to determine.
It's all a + or - estimate in the end but with a little care we get pretty close to what we want.
If you haven't already, read Glenn Fryxell's book, 'From Ingot to Target' or some such name...you'll better see where I'm coming from.

[OS OK]

I have tons of lead dating back before you were born. I have pure antimony and tin and can make what I need. I am close to 79 years old in Dec. Maybe I shot more lead then anyone here.

Well, I guess in a peeing contest, you have us all beat! But...here we go once again, it's the old cliche..."Mines bigger than yours!"

[JSnover]

the question is, are water dropped boolits the same hardness throughout ?
Is the surface harder than the interior, like some heat treated steel gets?
Maybe. Water-dropping cools them so quickly the core-to-surface hardness may not change and there's no iron/carbon matrix so it shouldn't work the same way as heat-treating steel.
A better question might be "does it matter?" since the surface is the only part of the boolit touching the barrel. Firing probably work-hardens the whole thing, at least a little but recovered boolits known to be soft or hard when they were loaded are known to perform differently when they hit meat.
A better answer might be "It depends on your alloy." Lead/tin is pretty simple but it's a different world when you add arsenic or antimony.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/search.php?searchid=3540830

[44man]

Well, I guess in a peeing contest, you have us all beat! But...here we go once again, it's the old cliche..."Mines bigger than yours!"
NO, farthest from the truth. I want things simple and to over complicate can make a guy spin. Why add more numbers to chase? A BHN number has nothing to do with what is in your lead.
Many shoot a boolit considered soft on the BHN scale but they might be tough enough.
My point is can you tell the percentage of antimony and tin with a BHN test? Can you say how it will age harden? Many say to add tin to pure to harden, goes so far until you have tin boolits that cost $2 a shot. Tin has a limit and you NEED antimony.
I melt a pot of WW metal and drop in a pound of stereo metal, tin and antimony rich that measures a boolit BHN SOFTER then WW's but it shoots better. Could you tell anyone what I did?
Bring your .44 here with your loads and I will tell you the primer you used. But there is no stinking way I can tell the alloy but will know if too soft. I can actually tell between air cooled and water dropped, just by the target.

[OS OK]

NO, farthest from the truth. I want things simple and to over complicate can make a guy spin. Why add more numbers to chase? A BHN number has nothing to do with what is in your lead.
Many shoot a boolit considered soft on the BHN scale but they might be tough enough.
My point is can you tell the percentage of antimony and tin with a BHN test? Can you say how it will age harden? Many say to add tin to pure to harden, goes so far until you have tin boolits that cost $2 a shot. Tin has a limit and you NEED antimony.
I melt a pot of WW metal and drop in a pound of stereo metal, tin and antimony rich that measures a boolit BHN SOFTER then WW's but it shoots better. Could you tell anyone what I did?
Bring your .44 here with your loads and I will tell you the primer you used. But there is no stinking way I can tell the alloy but will know if too soft. I can actually tell between air cooled and water dropped, just by the target.

"God...Help me with this guy!"

I'll attempt to give you an answer, you may not want to hear it though...
You take a pot of WW, since you don't mention whether or not they are Clip-On or Stick-ON or just all mixed together, so I will assume that they are Clip-on just for arguments sake.

Ingredients: 1 pot of WW, weight unknown (known BHN of 12, + or - a smidge) + ADD... 1 pound of stereotype, (known BHN of 23)
heat up and melt together...pour into ingots of softer than original WW hardness...

Your answer..."I have no freaking idea of what you have done, I don't even know whether you picked up a bar of stereotype or a bar of pure lead, tossed it in the pot and called it what you may.
I can tell you this...what you say does not make sense 'mathematically', does not compute no matter whether you use the X-Cell spreadsheet or do simple math of ratios...it does not compute.

In my estimation you have discovered how to make softer lead and spend more money to do so...another 'doesn't make any sense' statement.

[hardscrabble]

Repeatable results that meet the objective is a worthy goal. When dealing with unknown variables results can vary. Trying to apply scientific methods to boolit casting is a bit like alchemy to me. If I can get a usable batch of alloy that works for my intended purpose I have met my goal. The hows and whys remain largely speculation and points to ponder. I enjoy the process.

[44man]

I got a 75# ingot marked stereotype. Melted to 1# ingots.
I know pure lead and have a few tons of it.
I only use CO WW's, afraid of SO's with all the zinc.
But YES I get a few points lower BHN reading but boolits are real tough and shoot better for me.
BHN means nothing. I think the rich tin causes a lower reading. If you know metals, stereo contains no arsenic. I added tin and antimony but diluted arsenic. Reduces age hardening.
Your little BHN tool will never tell you what your metal is, sorry, can't happen. It will not tell you what the gun likes either.

[OS OK]

I got a 75# ingot marked stereotype. Melted to 1# ingots.
I know pure lead and have a few tons of it.
I only use CO WW's, afraid of SO's with all the zinc.
But YES I get a few points lower BHN reading but boolits are real tough and shoot better for me.
BHN means nothing. I think the rich tin causes a lower reading. If you know metals, stereo contains no arsenic. I added tin and antimony but diluted arsenic. Reduces age hardening.
Your little BHN tool will never tell you what your metal is, sorry, can't happen. It will not tell you what the gun likes either.

You have pretty thick skull there 44...
This thread never states this...not by me or anyone else...I've tried to explain what we are doing over and over but you seem to be just 'cantankerous' just for the heck of arguments sake.

This happens in threads here too many times...some old goat like yourself turns a good thread into a peeing match about something never said or you just flat out imagine something that is not here...if you want to continue with this maybe you can re-read from the start and try to concentrate on whats being said and discussed or...just go and interrupt someone else's thread with your imaginative suppositions.

Either way, I don't care...I've wasted enough words on your behalf...I imagine you've heard that one before in your 79 years of existence.

"You go ahead and take the parting shot now...I'm done with you pard!" ... charlie

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Look at it this way 44man, You saved yourself the price of, "Your little BHN tool-----" which makes you happy and those of us that spent the bucks are happy having some information which you care not a tick about.

BE happy, go talk to your "tons" of lead, that will make you and your lead both happy!

I get the image of old Scrooge McDuck laying on his back in his over flowing money bin, entertaining himself by throwing handfuls of coins into the air.

Mean while scratch your mad spot and back off a bit as your rant is doing nothing but raising your blood pressure and I'd guess that the most of us have had quite enough considering the intent of this thread from the very beginning.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[OS OK]

My Lee tester worked as well as I needed it to. Instead of filing and fiddling, make a fixture (anything with the right sized hole), stand the boolit on it's nose and test the flat base.

175280

JS...I'm sorry to get back to you so late in this thread but...I've been somewhat distracted and forgot to mention this to you.
This is a photo of the instructions provided by Lee, in the footnotes it mentions not to use the base as a test area.

charlie

[44man]

I admit to being thick. It's OK. But when thousands of alloys have the same BHN readings and you think you can match all. Why am I suspect?
Still I refuse to argue about it. You are good friends with opinions that I respect. Are we still friends?

[OS OK]

OF COURSE WE ARE...I don't like to make enemies here, as I see it, there are too few in this mass forum that have an informed point of view in the first place, why alienate them?
You have your angle, 'what works with 66 years of casting without commingling science or mathematics.' I get that but, I come from a different angle, have worked with various instruments all my life and enjoy splitting hairs so to speak. I have that insane 'need to know why'.

Could be...I have a thick skull also but I ain't no fool...I'll listen to sound reasoning, go and try something else, 'iffin it don't work', I'll ask some more questions...but in the end, I have a basic need to understand what I have done.

That's the beauty here in this forum, you can 'Monkey' something for years and someone comes along with a simple explanation or solution and suddenly that 'light bulb' comes on and I wonder why I didn't think of that years ago...something akin to 'not seeing the forest for the trees!'

Yes, friends...charlie...and please forgive me for calling you an 'old goat'.

[JSnover]

175280

JS...I'm sorry to get back to you so late in this thread but...I've been somewhat distracted and forgot to mention this to you.
This is a photo of the instructions provided by Lee, in the footnotes it mentions not to use the base as a test area.

charlie
That's correct (and it might answer John B's question about whether or not the core is softer than the surface) but if the user feels the need to know the exact BHN they'll probably want a more sophisticated tester. I bought mine as a cheap way to check my alloy for batch-to-batch consistency.
You can see by the chart, the BHN readings are less accurate as the hardness increases, so in stead of getting hung up on precise readings I mixed and tested on the side per instructions and then started measuring off the base because it was easier to set up. Once the alloy tester shows me I'm at (roughly) the right hardness, take a reading off the base. Whatever that second reading is, that's my go-to indent size for the next batch.
Like I said, the Lee unit worked ok but since it varies by +/- .3 BHN when you're in the neighborhood of 10, +/- .7 when you get near 20 and +/-1.5 BHN when you're closer to 30, I can't really call it a precision instrument.

[OS OK]

Thus far, I haven't had a need for anything harder than 16 since I've started PC'ing everything.
Thanks for the info on accuracy.
I figure that this little tester gets me to within + or - 1 BHN at my low numbers I'm working and that's good enough. After all, we see here in this thread that measuring hardness is an inexact science on any given day considering their propensity to age harden and eventually drop back a point with even more age.
Heck...I was getting this close with my artist pencils.
If I ever need to split hairs any finer, I'm getting the Cabin Tree tester...at least it's faster and more consistent.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Plop plop fizz fizz oh what a relief it is, oh what a relief it is!

Thanks guys that is a lot better!

The Very Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[44man]

You all know I love you guys. My vision of the world is to have you all close to have a beer or whatever, to shoot the breeze and shoot together.
You can call me anything but if we were sitting together it would be a life long friendship.
Thanks fellas. You are good people.

[OS OK]

175303Hey fellas, check this thread out... Lyman 452423 HP...single cavity...new to me..."Any suggestions?" (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?314060-Lyman-452423-HP-single-cavity-new-to-me-quot-Any-suggestions-quot) ...I finally figured it out although I have no idea what I did!
Here you go 44... When you said BHN don't mean anything, well...I might be inclined to agree now! This would be a dang good discussion over a case of cold beer.

SeeYa over there, looking for your comments...I think?

charlie

[44man]

I would say for a perp, GOOD. Mine would not work. Take the perp and my 4 runner out. Maybe Carols too! I shot gallon jugs of water with the .475, blew 4 sky high, split number 5 and penetrated 17.175304 Not to use in the house. Yours are better.
I have no carry guns, just deer hunt. My boolit would take 4 perps in a row and the car they came in. I would go to jail for excessive force.

[OS OK]

You have to drink a lot of milk just to do one test!

[44man]

You have to drink a lot of milk just to do one test!
Yeah, friend brought most. Still not enough. One shot and all are gone. Just getting a board long enough is a problem. The .475 did 37" in soaked phone books.

[OS OK]

How did you explain to the whole neighborhood how you ended up with their phone books and a hole in the center to boot?
That .475 could prolly use a rifle stock instead of pistol grips!

Did you see the other thread with the pic.'s?

[44man]

Yes, good stuff. But I think a .475 rifle will HURT.

[wlkjr]

I'm sure glad the sparring is over before someone got poked in the eye.:wink:

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

:goodpost:

CDOC