I called LEE today

[David R]

I talked to Doug. Nice guy. He said they make One mold and test pour.
"If its too small, I make it bigger" They use 10 to 1 . He also said He can hold within .001 to .0015 + and No -. He told me Pat won't like the speck, but he can do it. He said this with pride. He is also a shooter. I asked him to stop by cast boolits dot com and he said No. I can't blame him cause he would be getting some real heat from some here.

I asked him about my out of round BD45CM. He said "send it back we will make you another one". He als said I could find which way it had moved, place the mold on a block of wood on a 45 and hit it with a mallet so the blocks line up.

So who ever has been campaigning about sending ww to Lee, we should just spec em to 10 to 1.

David

[Willbird]

I have talked to Doug, he seems a decent guy I agree. Why they use a prove out alloy that nobody has advocated for anything for 50 years is beyond me. personally I think we should spec the dia the molds be cut to and figuire the shrink ourselves. All 3 group buys I have sent in they came out under, it gets to be tiresome, the bigger the bullet dia the more under they end up.

Bill

[bdoyle]

When I was doing the 311440 I spke to Doug and he told me 10:1 for testing. From what I have heard RCBS also uses 10:1 alloy. Why, I don't know, but I feel that it is probably that it is a consistant, repeatable alloy. Does 10:1 shrink more or less that WW? They seem to have the 30 cal nailed for the proper shrink rate. I was going to say that all my 45's are on the small side(bd45, bd45cm) but the 454423 runs .455 in 15:1. It is all about knowing the alloy shrink rate, which (i feel) for WW material is not consistant(as we would like). I have been trying to figger a way to quantify this so we can define a cavity dimension but so far no luck. Maybe I can use this as an excuse to get a lathe...(probably need a mill and CMM as well...if your dreamin' do it right)

Brian

[Willbird]

I suggested to 452.1 that we make a set of test blocks, with say a .250 cavity, a .320 cavity, a .380 cavity, a .440 cavity, and a .500 cavity, nothing fancy, just a hole with a 118 drill point at the end of it (but bored nicely to size), then we pass it round to the boys(and girls) and have them cast test slugs, and we check them and see what we get. We could use an MTM catridge box for each person to add their samples. It can make a few hops USPS before it gets over 2 lbs, then the samples could come to home plate, and the rig move to the next person.

I have minus gage pins from tiny all the way up to at least .750, they arent Weber gage pins but they will suffice to make a mold like that, to be accurate it should have the same exact cross section and be made from the same material as a set of Lee mold blocks. If we were willing to omit the .250 test we could just use a LEE 6 cavity 32 mold block and alter it to suit our purpose.

Bill

[StarMetal]

If you look in the Older Lyman Cast Bullet bookthey have that chart of phyical characterictics of different alloys. Diameter and weights of the various alloys, plus diameters after being sized too. The thing I noticed in this chart is that shrinkage or the size the alloy drops the bullet from the mould is not the same for different calibers, that is diameters. So it is a good idea to have a standard basis to cover all calibers.

Joe

[porkchop bob]

... Extract ... I talked to Doug.
_ They use 10 to 1.
_ So who ever has been campaigning about sending ww to Lee, we should just spec em to 10 to 1.

David
I have been asking for a standard alloy to be set. If we continue to use WW as the SPEC on our drawings, then we should provide some 'certified' WW alloy for Lee and our Honchos to use.

Then in the 311407 Mod Test Casting Results, in reply #8, I suggested that it appeared that Lee was using Lyman #2 and if so, we should just roll over and start using Lyman #2 as our SPEC alloy.

Now we are being told, after all of our group buys, that Lee uses a 10 to 1 alloy. If that is the case, than I am in full agreement, let's use 10 to 1 as our SPEC alloy and be done with it.

That does open the other issue of scaling a design for 10 to 1 to be used with WW. I have seen other threads on that. It would be useful if all of this can be hashed out and settled once and for all.

Bob :veryconfu

[Willbird]

I just talked to Doug, and he told me they use LINOTYPE, but that he has other metals on hand like WW, and pure lead.

Bill

[porkchop bob]

I just talked to Doug, and he told me they use LINOTYPE, but that he has other metals on hand like WW, and pure lead.

Bill

And earlier the same day -

Originally Posted by David R
... Extract ... I talked to Doug.
_ They use 10 to 1.
_ So who ever has been campaigning about sending ww to Lee, we should just spec em to 10 to 1.

David

This becomes more confusing as we go. Does Lee have one standard alloy it uses in the morning and another in the afternoon? And a different set for each day of the week?

It does seem the same question is being asked by our Honchos but the answer each one reports back is never is the same. :veryconfu :veryconfu

_ What are we to conclude?

_ Is there a way to get Lee to state in writing what is its standard alloy?

_ Assuming Lee has available an inventory of the various alloys, how do you really know the individual is not going to use whatever is in the pot to save the time of cleaning the pot out and putting in a new ingot of the alloy that we specify?

_ And if they did, do you think they would know what was in the pot and be able to mark the ingots they make as they empty the pot. That take a lot of detail inventory control and rigid quality control. You know what is in the pot would not just be thrown away.

After thinking about this, we have been rather lucky.

Bob

[castalott]

And not all linotype is the same....I have always heard that it 'wears' out from constant reuse. That means it loses something....tin?

Someone else can address this better...

Dale

[bdoyle]

The trick here is to KNOW what your alloy is going to do and dimension the CAVITY, and hold them to the cavity tolerence given. That is what Willbird is talking about. If you want a .454 bullet of WW material and the alloy shrinks 1% then you need a cavity of .458 +.002/-.000. I don't know what the coefficient of expansion is of our various alloys but leaving it up to Lee obviously is not working. From a letter from Lee when I did the 311440. "We do not make custom bullet molds to cast a specific diameter, because of the variations in diameter due to the alloy used. Our manufacturing tolerance for the mold cavity...blah, blah". We need a way to decide our cavity dimension not just say the alloy we want to use.

Brian

[Oldfeller]

Better yet, think of what Pat can do with this alloy shrinkage thing as he manufactures excuse scenarios that all result in "we shared in the blame for the discrepancy".

============================

BTW, We actually HAVE tried to spec a bullet with a measured & calculated alloy shrink value before.

I remember the first LEE deal that Bob and I worked on together, we actually sent LEE an "as cut" drawing (with the calculated shrink amount as plus on all dimensions) and an "as cast" drawing (showing how the bullet was to be after it solidified and fell from the mold). It didn't make any difference, they screwed it up anyway and used "confusion" as the excuse.

Pat took the dodge that having two drawings sent on the same bullet had confused poor old Doug (it might be harder to confuse him than they will let on, but sometimes it seems he gets confused mighty easily when they need him to have gotten confused).

Yes, confusing Doug HAS been used as an excuse for screwing up a mold run before and we "shared responsability" for a driver band relief angle screw up as well, so snix snax -- no takes backs on that mold run for those errors. So has "unclear dimensioning" on a nose (dimensioning which was clear as glass). This was on a +/- .001" critical nose dimension that measured .006" in total as-cut range (100 molds measuring the nose area on every one of them on a Zeiss Calipso CMM) including a .0025" worst out of roundness number.

But that was also our fault (partially) according to Pat. We confused Doug by giving him 2 drawings and talking to him over the phone while he was setting up the mold (yeah, we explained it all to him and answered all his questions as he did it so he wouldn't screw up).

Now, according to Doug the boring bar had dulled twice and he had to set that job back up a total of three times (and since he was asked to mark the molds seqentially as he cut them you could watch the errors come and go from boring bar to boring bar to boring bar).

It didn't matter, in the end nearly 80 molds required hand lapping to be right. I only sent back the ones that I couldn't recover to have them recut.

That was a run of 100 single cavity molds. Just a measly 100 cut cavities .....

At six holes a piece and 69 molds cut that's 414 holes cut for Chargar's loverin mold, which is one hell of a lot more cut cavities actually.

Dutch's 8mm job (the one that had the nose variation of .003" that we know about) was not unusual at all in the amount of nose variation that showed up.

Which is why we need to provide print protection to our members when LEE's inherent variation produces an individual cavity that is out of print in a direction that makes it unuseable to the individual mold buyer.

And it could be 1 out of six cavities, too, all you got to do is get lucky and hit a tiny bit of included slag in the extruded aluminum material while cutting that hole. (little bits of slag are always there, BTW just waiting for you -- aluminum is riddled with it as it is one of the most recycled of all materials and it isn't really totally pure when it is made from virigin bauxite alloy).

Of course if the boring bar gets dulled or micro chipped on the actual tiny cutting surface, then it cuts funny from then on until the CNC guy catches it in a test cast and replaces it (and do you really think they throw all the funny molds away ???)

Now, post a list histogram poll with the full range of possible nose diameters on it by .0005" increments and let all of Dutch's buyers click in their nose diameter numbers off of each of their six cavities as they cast them the first time.

Now that would be some educational information ..... it would give you a feel for the alloy thing and the LEE variation thing acting together.

[felix]

Linotype is a specific alloy which instantly freezes to a complete solid from a complete liquid, that is the metal exhibits zero slush time between the liquid and solid phases. The alloy is lead with close to 12 percent antimony and 4 percent tin. Close to means CLOSE to. To be EXACT, the three elements must be adjusted to give that zero slush time at the LOCAL temp and pressure. So, in theory, pure lino in Denver will not be pure lino in Houston (without adjustments). Adjusting the tin upwards might or might not work, depending naturally on the amount af antimony. ... felix

[Willbird]

Then add to that when machining the molds they can only really measure the rear band dia (Doug said they use a plug gage)

The 454-275 molds that I am sending back will accept a .453 minus pin, and will not accept a .454 minus pin, the toolmakers amoung you will know right off that the cavities themselves are between .453 and .454, general practice is a .454 hole will not quite accept a .454 pin, the tolerance on the pins is .0002 and "minus" means it is -.0002 +0, plus pins would be +.0002 -0

with 4 sets of gage pins that being .001 and .0005 increments in both plus and minus you can nail a hole size down pretty close. I used to do it daily, machine a hole so a .454+ pin would not go in but a .454- would. or in some cases a .454+ pin WOULD go but a .4545- would not go. Any out of round would make the actual average size bigger, BUT most holes have things sliding into or pressed into them so the "real" size is what matters.

With "real" tolerance on our molds we could actually inspect the work, Weber gage pins are very good pins, and they run 10-12 bucks each as I recall, and to check "go" and "no-go" we would really only need 2, this would add 1 dollar to the cost of a group buy until we built our gage library and had most of the ones we need to insepct molds, they are not heavy so they would ship usps for under 4 bucks each time. They shouldnt be abused, BUT checking aluminum molds with all your stuff on a soft clothe so they don't fall on the floor unless you used a claw hammer it would be hard to ever wear them out, use them, oil them, send them back,

Bill

Bill

[old goat]

...Real linotype, that which is used in a linotype operation, is NOT a specific alloy. The linotype in a linotype operation is constantly reheated. Any lead alloy constantly reheated, will result in the antimony and lead being lost through oxidation. Since the lead does not change, this results in a change in percentages of the alloy. Linotype operators only cared if the alloy was hard enough to resist the pressures applied without deforming. If it wasn't hard enough, they added "plus metal" which was simply antimony and tin. This would again make the alloy hard enough for their purposes. Thus, the percentages of "real" linotype was a constant variable.
...My information came via a conversation with a linotype operator in the mid '80's.
...A lot of misinformation re linotype has been passed around over the years, causing confusion.
...Suppliers of alloy for bullet casting, state their linotype IS a constant alloy. If anyone uses linotype for a standard, it should be their alloy. And it should be heated only when necessary.


...old goat

[StarMetal]

Old Goat,

Well we know now that tin, and a very low percentage of it, only hardens the alloy to a point. Mainly it makes the alloy fill the mould cavities better. Antimony on the other hand does make the alloy harder. I think they lost alot of the alloys throught the dross and slag that forms on the top and was skimmed off.

Joe

[mroliver77]

So it seems that somebody or two armed with what we know needs to talk with Doug. Sombody looking for a solution, not looking to grind an axe or lay blame. There is a solution and I believe we are close to it if Doug will work with us on this.
We have a bunch of moulds between all of us in diferent calibers. We need to come up with a standard. Ours seems to be WW. Lets figure out a standard on WW while we are at it. .05 tin, 3 antimony and 96.05 lead or whatever we can agree on. Some of us could adjust some virgin alloy to aproximate our WW stash and mebbe we could come up with a formula. If they insist on 10-1 we need to figure the diferance between the shrinkage of the two alloys.(if they always have 10-1 in the pot and if the tin has not been "burnt" out and if...) If I was cutting a mold at home I would see that my 452423 drops WW @ .4535. I would add .001 to what my mold is now and PRESTO I would be close enough for me. I can size boolits down some, it is hard to add some to it.
A concerted effort with one or two fellers talking to Doug and possibly input/lab time from others and I think we can work this out. This all is contingent on Dougs abilities to cut a cavity to the specs he has on paper. My 8th grade educated opinion. Jay

[old goat]

...StarMetal,
...The linotype operators didn't use tin for hardness. It was used because it was necessary to make antimony alloy with lead. The pressures, in their operations, were such that their main interest was in antimony. Without antimony, the alloy could not be raised to the degree of hardness necessary for their operations. Linotype metal used by them, had a high percentage of antimony.
...Please note, my post was directed to the issue of a "standard" and not about bullet casting per se.
...The degree of hardness necessary for linotype operations, is not normally needed for bullet castings.


...old goat

[Oldfeller]

Doug has a lot better gaging than a plug gage, he has diatest ID split ball variable type gaging good to .00005" resolution, digital gaging that was purchased after our first fun & games that he can preset to a known ring gage diameter and then he can reach down into the hole and acutally read off the diameter of a nose section while it is still bolted up in his lathe.

Or else I got some all wrong info back when I was trying to collect up list money to buy him one of such ..... I heard his bosses had broken bad and gotten him one to support this business.

Oldfeller