Accuracy of lead hardness testing

[leadmonkey]

I just got a Lee hardness test kit. I made a microscope holder out of a piece of 2x6, and it makes reading the microscope a lot easier. I have been testing numerous samples of my stock of lead ingots and linotype plates and I can get pretty consistent hardness readings from the tester.

I have about ten pounds of linotype cast print plates. I consistently get hardness readings of about Brinell 20 on each plate.

I have three batches of muffin tin ingots smelted from a mix of fairly new wheel weights and range lead.

Batch one, mostly SOWW, maybe a few COWW and a little range lead. I consistently get hardness readings of about Brinell 12 on each ingot.

Batch two, mostly SOWW, maybe a few COWW and a little range lead. I consistently get hardness readings of about Brinell 12.5 on each ingot.

Batch three, mostly COWW and a little range lead. I consistently get hardness readings of about Brinell 14 on each ingot.

I was hoping that the linotype plates could serve as a reasonably good accuracy reference. Shouldn't the hardness of the linotype be about Brinell 19? Can there be some variation in the linotype?

I was expecting the hardness of the wheel weights ingots to be maybe a maximum of about Brinell 12.

Could the Lee tester be a little optimistic about these hardness figures?

[Toymaker]

You're applying the pressure to make the indent by hand. That's not going to be as precise as a mechanical application. Then, building the microscope stand is a help, but the scale and reading the scale is going to have a degree of error also. You're consistent and you're close. Those are the factors that should be of concern. Bullet hardness for different velocities and applications has a range, which your hardness tester will help you attain.
Spot on accuracy would require a lab analysis. And having done lots and lots and lots of lab analyses I'm pretty sure there'd be a variation there too.

[454PB]

I also use the Lee tester. Linotype can read all over, but for me, it's very close to 22 BHN. My type metal hoard is a mixture of everything from foundry type to linotype spacers, and I mix it all together. The mixture is around 26 BHN.

Over the years, I've grown confident in the accuracy of my Lee tester, but as in anything that is mass produced, that accuracy can vary. In my opinion, as long as there is a valid comparison between alloys, I'm happy.

During the Shay lead hardness testing experiment some years ago (of which I was a participant), the Lee tester compared well with laboratory grade test instruments.

[OS OK]

This article linked below will probably answer your questions on these various testers we all constantly argue about.
One helpful hint I can give you is to color the area you test with a red Marks a Lot to help to see the edges clearly of the indent.



Testing The Consistency Of The Commonly Available


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






Initial Analysis of Results:
Top of page (http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm#top)





At initial glance, LBT and SAECO tools seem to have the highest standard deviation. Throwing out the high LBT tool reading and eliminating the early test that was redone with a different batch of bullets closer to the testing date moves the standard deviation more into line with the Cabine Tree and Lee testers.
Cabine Tree, LBT, and Lee tools appear to have been equally consistent within their groups for this particular batch of bullets. SAECO seemed to have more variance, due in part to conversion factors.
SAECO and Cabine Tree BHN estimates were more dependent on user conversion from the raw data reading into a BHN number than the LBT and Lee tools.
The Cabine Tree numbers could be more accurate with more “mapping” of the correlation between indent depth and actual lead hardness.
LBT numbers were closest to the actual lab results, with all other tools measuring the samples as harder than reported by the laboratory. This is especially true if the “high tester” set and the early duplicate test are eliminated from the data. SAECO and Cabine Tree testers measured the farthest from the actual lead hardness.
Cabine Tree tools produced the smallest extreme spread, while the LBT tools produced the largest. If the LBT high test is removed, then the SAECO would appear to have the highest extreme spread.
The Lee tester appeared to produce the most readings that were both consistent and closest to the actual laboratory results. Although individually other testers came in with slightly smaller standard deviations and numbers that came in closer to calibrated equipment, the Lee appeared to have the best combination between the two areas.
The differences in the SAECO numbers raised the question of if there was any correlation between the age of the tester and the BHN that was reported. A query was sent out to the SAECO users to determine if their tools were the older, metallic colored ones, or the newer, yellow anodized aluminum ones. Testers 5, 9, 12, 16, and 17 were reported to be the newer yellow testers. Testers 15, 26, and 44 were older, metal colored units. This information seems to indicate there is not a correlation between the jump in numbers on the SAECO'S and age of the tools. There has been no response from tester 37 yet, but at this point it is doubted the age of the tester (equipment) will shed much more light on any age to measurement connection than the initial responses already have.
An experience that may be relevant to this experiment was reported by user Dye (with SAECO testers 16 and 17). He sent his testers back to the company when the measurements of one of his alloys did not come back the same between the two testers. When they were returned to him they still provided different readings. Although the deviance did not appear to be present for this particular alloy (in this test), Dye's experience may or may not shed light on other differences that have appeared between SAECO'S in this test. There simply isn't currently enough information collected to determine the cause of the differences beyond the shadow of a doubt. It could be simply that this alloy was harder than the "sweet spot" that this particular brand of tester measures accurately.




There is a chart of different Linotype hardnesses here...page 11 .... http://www.lasc.us/Kelter_Cast_Bullet_Alloys2.pdf

[runfiverun]

the tool doesn't matter.
if your getting a consistent reading and it's off a little who cares?
you can test stuff and go yeah,,, that's clip on ww alloy.
if your tool says it's 12.5 bhn and mine says it's 11 [shrug] we both know it's ww alloy and we are gonna make some boolits with it.
the gun won't know or care about your tool not knowing exactly the alloy or the 2 bhn points less/more the projectile is supposed to have.

[OS OK]

Could the Lee tester be a little optimistic about these hardness figures?

This was the question I was addressing, after all a fella with a new tool doesn't have any idea what to expect from it...the article states what you've said also r5r.

[Toymaker]

a fella with a new tool doesn't have any idea what to expect from it

There's some humor there.

[OS OK]

There's some humor there.

Ha! Good point! This is the first time that something I said went right over my head too!

There is something to be said about 'hardness' and a 'new tool'..."A cat couldn't scratch it!"

[6bg6ga]

All I can say is there are better easier more accurate testers on the market.

[leadmonkey]

All I can say is there are better easier more accurate testers on the market.

That statement is meaningless without elaboration to back it up. I'm listening with great interest.

[6bg6ga]

the tool doesn't matter.
if your getting a consistent reading and it's off a little who cares?
you can test stuff and go yeah,,, that's clip on ww alloy.
if your tool says it's 12.5 bhn and mine says it's 11 [shrug] we both know it's ww alloy and we are gonna make some boolits with it.
the gun won't know or care about your tool not knowing exactly the alloy or the 2 bhn points less/more the projectile is supposed to have.

The tool doesn't matter? Maybe it doesn't to you but it does to me. I can check 3X as many bullets as you can using the Lee tester with a Cabine Tree. Its a heck of a lot easier and provides a more even pressure and in the right hands I believe better results. Its a lot easier to take the reading to the chart as opposed to the lee method. To each his own I guess. The Cabine Tree is a little more expensive and doesn't depend on using a reloading press.

[OS OK]

How many boolits do you really have to check at any one time? Is that really a constraint? You that hard pressed for time?
Then having to use a press? Makes no sense at all...we bolt them on the bench to use them. Leverage against the ball indent die is precise and easy to maintain for the 30 seconds. How's that aspect a restriction or a problem?
I think you are trying to convince yourself that you do in fact have the right tester...after all it doesn't take too much talent and wherewithal to use the Lee...just have to be smarter than the tool.
The above test was pretty comprehensive...I don't see anything they overlooked.

[6bg6ga]

Try a Cabine Tree hardness tester for just a few minutes and then go back to a Lee. Its a no brainer because the cabine tree is much faster and easier to use. With the cabine tree there is a dial indicator which gives you the amount of depression which is then compared to a printed list. No more looking thru a make shift microscope. I tried both before I purchased the cabine tree. But then again for those that can't justify the price difference the Lee is cheaper which equates to a cheaper product. I guess taking a readout off a dial indicator of say .030-.035 looking at a list which would show a hardness of 5 brinell might be hard for some people with a mental disability.

[OS OK]

Try a Cabine Tree hardness tester for just a few minutes and then go back to a Lee. Its a no brainer because the cabine tree is much faster and easier to use. With the cabine tree there is a dial indicator which gives you the amount of depression which is then compared to a printed list. No more looking thru a make shift microscope. I tried both before I purchased the cabine tree. But then again for those that can't justify the price difference the Lee is cheaper which equates to a cheaper product. I guess taking a readout off a dial indicator of say .030-.035 looking at a list which would show a hardness of 5 brinell might be hard for some people with a mental disability.

Try a Cabine Tree hardness tester..Its a no brainer..for some people with a mental disability.

So you found the one that 'suits your special needs'...but...it's just a sad commentary when adults are not able to evaluate a tool without getting snide and trying to belittle the opposing view with personal attacks. How old are you?

[6bg6ga]

Take a look at your post #12. I view it as offensive too. I'm just happy you were able to read it without help.

[OS OK]

"Gotta be smarter than the tool!" A blue collar statement of fact, it's been around forever and was always meant to remind you to use the tool properly or ask for help if you needed some instruction. That statement was coined back when people who worked around each other actually enjoyed themselves and were always poking harmless fun back and forth.
It's the new attitude of today and with people like you with 'thin skin' and 'alligator mouths' that typically over load their 'bunny rabbit butts' that also take advantage of being a keyboard jockey where you are not held accountable for your generally nasty attitude...where I grew up in Texas you got busted in the chops for carrying around a bad attitude.
Funny...here you people always trip yourselves up and then start crying foul...it's an old sad story now...get over it.

[6bg6ga]

Gott to be smarter than the tool? Most here are not. This is why I push the Cabine Tree tester which works great for those of us unable to read without 3X glasses on. The cabine Tree takes the guessing out of the equation. How you ask? For those like myself (you did mention special needs) that cannot see good there is no need to try to match the size of the indent with a piece of paper to guess what the hardness is. The cabine Tree gives you the read out in thousanths which as I mentioned before can be taken to a sheet which give the brinnel hardness. Since I am old like most here I do not have the patience or strength to keep the bullet in the correct position in order to use the Lee properly. The only thing that could make the Cabine Tree any better is if they re-did the dial indicator scale to equate to brinnel hardness directly. Have a good day OS OK

[OS OK]

Excellent observations, factual and to the point...very well stated and clearly understood...you have a nice day too.

[MyFlatline]

Not everybody can afford a $3500 hardness tester....

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I just got a Lee hardness test kit. I made a microscope holder out of a piece of 2x6, and it makes reading the microscope a lot easier. I have been testing numerous samples of my stock of lead ingots and linotype plates and I can get pretty consistent hardness readings from the tester.

I have about ten pounds of linotype cast print plates. I consistently get hardness readings of about Brinell 20 on each plate.

I have three batches of muffin tin ingots smelted from a mix of fairly new wheel weights and range lead.

Batch one, mostly SOWW, maybe a few COWW and a little range lead. I consistently get hardness readings of about Brinell 12 on each ingot.

Batch two, mostly SOWW, maybe a few COWW and a little range lead. I consistently get hardness readings of about Brinell 12.5 on each ingot.

Batch three, mostly COWW and a little range lead. I consistently get hardness readings of about Brinell 14 on each ingot.

I was hoping that the linotype plates could serve as a reasonably good accuracy reference. Shouldn't the hardness of the linotype be about Brinell 19? Can there be some variation in the linotype?

I was expecting the hardness of the wheel weights ingots to be maybe a maximum of about Brinell 12.

Could the Lee tester be a little optimistic about these hardness figures?
No.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?266546-Why-are-my-lead-ingots-testing-hard
read post 12 and 13 carefully.

[6bg6ga]

183737183739

Pretty easy to use. No reloading press needed. Can be carried easily to another location to check someone else's bullets. The read out is easily compared to the sheet on the right. Slightly more money than the Lee which is praised so highly on the board. No need to keep the bullet in position for 30 seconds or what ever it takes with the Lee.

[6bg6ga]

Just as accurate as the Lee per prior threads on hardness testers here. A heck of a lot easier to use too. Slightly more money. Those that are currently using 2X or 3X magnifiers to read print will enjoy the fact you can actually see the dial without your glasses on. Easy to take the reading and compare to the printed sheet for a hardness read out. What's not to like?

[6bg6ga]

The Lee Lead Hardness Testing Kit will determine the exact Brinnell Hardness Number of an alloy in a simple six step process. The process involves pressing a hardened steel indenter ball into the bullet through the use of a standard single stage press. The indentation is measured with the Lee Pocket Microscope (included). The measurement is located on the supplied chart to determine the Brinnell Hardness Number. Never again waste time and components working with the wrong alloy.

Technical Information:

Includes:
20 power, 4 lens optical microscope
V-Block Cradle
Calibrated hardened steel ball indenter
Brinell Hardness and maximum pressure chart
Function: To determine the hardness of blended alloys
Notes: Kit must be used in conjunction with a reloading press. This die is a standard 7/8"-14 threaded die that will work in almost all reloading presses.

[6bg6ga]

The Lee is about $60.00 Sure its twice the price. You get to screw the unit into a reloading press fumble with a 20 power microscope and keep the bullet in perfect position to insure the reading is correct or as correct as a reading can be with any tester under say $4k.

My reasons for purchasing the Cabine Tree is its simply a hell of a lot easier to use. Its not a matter of the money for me as I have learned its better to wait on a purchase than it is to purchase something that is inferior. If I have to save up for something then fine I will and this way I purchase good products and I only purchase once.

[leadmonkey]

No.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?266546-Why-are-my-lead-ingots-testing-hard
read post 12 and 13 carefully.

Okay... I guess I should have mentioned that all of the ingots and boolits I tested were air cooled. I'm just trying to get some kind of idea about the baseline hardness for the lead, and then I'll start experimenting with the effects of water cooling it.

I guess even air cooling has a certain amount of hardening effect, likely more pronounced on boolits because of their smaller size.

I did cast a few boolits from one batch of the wheel weights and tested them. I saw no significant difference in hardness from the ingots I cast them from.

[OS OK]

6bg6ga...You woke up this morning chewing on this huh? The methodology is 6 of one and 1/2 dozen on the other. The fact that we have to use our presses...well, that's sorta what they're here for...a tooling platform.
The fact that you can't see...on and on. That's the individual reasons we choose our tools...well, that and some choose cheap every time but here it's clear that Lee made an effective tool.
Heck a set of quality art pencils are just as effective, I know because that was my previous method. The drawback there is making sure the point is correct and then trying a 1/2 dozen different pencils...point is, they get the job done also.

I was almost sold on the cabin tree, purchase price was not the issue...the issue was that I wanted to test lead before it got into cast boolit form...I needed to be able to test my little hockey pucks...how do you handle these ingots of varying sizes?


183742

[6bg6ga]

183744183745

Like this

[6bg6ga]

OK OS,

I'm glad that we have such a good repore and can share information. I merely thought I would share some information on the Cabine Tree tester that some here might feel valuable. I'm sure we both have the same goals and that would be to share our valuable information that we have accumulated as a result of our age. Some here have no idea of the workings of the Cabine Tree tester and beings that I am a sharing and caring person like yourself I felt it my duty to inform if I could.

[6bg6ga]

With respect to post 27 which will not let me edit it. I find that if I run across an ingot that is too large I simply cut it in half. I also find that cutting said ingot in half does not hamper its ability to lend itself to making a number of good bullets.

[OS OK]

183744183745

Like this

I'll have to cede this point to you...this was my first and foremost objection in not buying your tester.
When I read slanted reviews from the other camp they made a point of saying that the unit you have was too shallow to accept these ingots of varying shapes and non-right angled sides.
Pictures I had seen were like yours...showing at best, a 'two dimensional view'.

I had used the Lee before and have mastered the backwards movement of the scope and have good enough eyesight in one eye and a steady hand so...it was an easy choice.

If I had seen these two pictures before...well, you and I would be selling them to everyone else here together.

[6bg6ga]

OS OK,

I can see plus's for both units. As I pointed out the cabine tree didn't need a press to function. Let me elaborate just a bit. I sometimes get asked to check someones lead bullets for hardness. Sometimes this happens where they are setup making bullets and where they don't happen to have a reloading press setup. I like the mobile functionality of the unit.

Having said and having posted some pictures are there any views that might help in someone's ability to understand this particular tester better? I like to try to present both sides if I can and that is why I post info on the Lee from a vendor so that people could read what the Lee had to offer and possibly provide a better understanding of the product. Yes, I will admit I may have come into this thread a little harsh and for that I apologize.

[OS OK]

OS OK,

I can see plus's for both units. As I pointed out the cabine tree didn't need a press to function. Let me elaborate just a bit. I sometimes get asked to check someones lead bullets for hardness. Sometimes this happens where they are setup making bullets and where they don't happen to have a reloading press setup. I like the mobile functionality of the unit.

Having said and having posted some pictures are there any views that might help in someone's ability to understand this particular tester better? I like to try to present both sides if I can and that is why I post info on the Lee from a vendor so that people could read what the Lee had to offer and possibly provide a better understanding of the product. Yes, I will admit I may have come into this thread a little harsh and for that I apologize.

Not a problem...like you said, I offended you first. So, touchet'...
I too like to share knowledge as you said, it's hard earned but here I get as much or more than I give! The problem here in this forum is that we have so many obstinate detractors that sometimes you can't get a word in edgewise before they are reading between the lines and telling you what you said, then the spitting match starts taking the thread off course, sometimes permanently.
So...in that spirit, I keep my armor on at all times around here and I don't take any spit off anyone. It's doubly hard if you are from California because half the fellas here just can't wait to kick you in the teeth over anything at all...it's automatically Cali's fault for all their woes in life, hemorrhoids included. I am damn tired of these vacuum heads.
So, let me apologize to you also and restart on a different footing.

charlie

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Okay... I guess I should have mentioned that all of the ingots and boolits I tested were air cooled. I'm just trying to get some kind of idea about the baseline hardness for the lead, and then I'll start experimenting with the effects of water cooling it.

I guess even air cooling has a certain amount of hardening effect, likely more pronounced on boolits because of their smaller size.

I did cast a few boolits from one batch of the wheel weights and tested them. I saw no significant difference in hardness from the ingots I cast them from.
Maybe I shouldn't have given you such a definitive no. I suppose Lee could not have 'calibrated' the spring weight of your detention die correctly. Also, I use mine on the tiny Lee "c" press, and there is enough side-to-side movement in the ram, caused by movement of the handle (if I'm not careful), that can cause the making of a oblong hole, giving a inaccurate reading. There could be other factors in someones technique, that I haven't thought of, as well.

But generally, for repeatable accuracy, you should be measuring boolits, not ingots. But measuring ingots may get you close?