16 to 1 hardness

[mike salyards]

Can anybody tell me what the hardness is of the 16 to one bullet. Just curious it is used a lot in BPCR

[Dusty Bannister]

https://www.rotometals.com/1-to-16-bullet-alloy-5-pound-ingot-94-lead-6-tin/

Read down in the page to find the description which lists the hardness of the mix.

[Rich/WIS]

Assuming pure lead a 16 to 1 mix should be about 10 Bhn.

[gwpercle]

I have a chart printed out , don't remember where it came from ,
with the following : Tin / Lead - BHN number

1/25 bhn - 9

1/20 bhn - 10

1/16 bhn - 11

1/10 bhn - 11.5

But I have never tested these numbers first hand ...
...they may be right or they may be wrong ... but they should be close !
The Chart just says ... "Hardness Of Lead Alloys "... search that title and you can print it out :drinks: !
Good to keep on hand ...
Gary

[mehavey]

See https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?452304-45-acp-super-soft-bhn-experiment&p=5521279&viewfull=1#post5521279

1-16 is about BHN 8.2 (tested)

Note: Adding Tin to a binary lead-tin mix may increase sharp-edged castability,
but does little for end-result "hardness." (Antimony is your friend there)

[mike salyards]

So would 16 to one be hard enough to use in a pistol cartridge for a rifle say the 44 magnum in a new Ruger/Marlin?

[dtknowles]

So would 16 to one be hard enough to use in a pistol cartridge for a rifle say the 44 magnum in a new Ruger/Marlin?

I would say no and add it is a huge waste of tin. 96-2-2 would be harder and less expensive than 94-6-0 and should cast nicely.

Tim

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

So would 16 to one be hard enough to use in a pistol cartridge for a rifle say the 44 magnum in a new Ruger/Marlin?
yes and no.

[mehavey]

...16 to one be hard enough to use in a pistol cartridge for a rifle say the 44 magnum in a new Ruger/Marlin ?

- Shot a moderate (BP) velocities -- ideal w/ conventional lube and/or ALOX
- Powder coat it for (~)20-25% greater delta-V while retaining advantages of obturation and expansion

[Dom]

Just for comparison: Mt scrap wheel weight bullets register 13.5 BHN on my LBT hardness tester. In my 44 mag rifle, easily good for 1600fps with a gas check. Traditional size & lube or PC.

[Larry Gibson]

So would 16 to one be hard enough to use in a pistol cartridge for a rifle say the 44 magnum in a new Ruger/Marlin?

Yes, especially if a GC'd bullet is used. I16-1 is the alloy I use for my magnum level [1350 - 1600+ fps] 357, 41 and 44 loads. I also use 16-1 alloy for my Maxiballs [350 gr] which run 1570 fps out of my TC Blk Mtn Magnum muzzle loader. The 16-1 alloy was also one of Keiths favorites for his 44 Magnum bullets. That alloy is also the alloy Springfield Armory settled on for the M1882 500 gr bullet 140+ years ago.

[Chill Wills]

For what it is worth...

This, from the ROTO Metals website:

"Ingots are approximately 8-3/4" x 1" x 2" and weigh 5 pounds (+/- .25). This alloy is 16 parts of lead and one part of tin (94% lead, 6% tin). The Brinell Hardness scale of 16 to 1 is approximately 11.

The blend has been the standard blackpowder cartridge alloy since the .45-70 Government Cartridge was first loaded in 1873."

[Tripplebeards]

Went down that rabbit hole many times…lol. I used random dinnerware pewter to “TRY TO” mix 16 to one….lol. Probably one my very first posts here. I ended up with 7 1/2 Brunell hardness which is closer to 40 to 1 the best thing to do I can suggest us to get a hardness tester which is going to be the cheapest of a true style tester. A couple years ago I ended up mixing eight to one ratio and got around 11 to 11.5 Brynell hardness which is what I’m guessing a 16 to 1 alloy is for hardness. Never tested the alloy yet for hunting purposes, but realistically a 50-50 mix of clip on wheel weights and pure soft lead imo is essentially the same and I’m guessing we’ll be cheaper to replicate. My 50-50 mix I add 2% pewter to the total and I’m about 10 1/2 Brunell hardness. It makes an excellent hollowpoint cast boolit out of my 35 Remington at 2100 ft./s. Drop their tracks performance with a nice big entry and exit hole.

[Froogal]

So would 16 to one be hard enough to use in a pistol cartridge for a rifle say the 44 magnum in a new Ruger/Marlin?

I use 20-1 lead from Roto-metals. About 10 bhn. I cast 38 special and .45 colt. Pistols and rifles all the same. NEVER a problem with leading in the bore.

[mehavey]

Calibration folks.

30-1 is BHN 5.8 -- Tested by myself*and metallurgical Lab/Atlanta earlier this year. (RotoMetals composition verified at same time)
20-1 is BHN 7.8 -- Tested by myself* using the above 30:1 w/ added 50-50 bar solder.
16-1 is BHN 8.2 -- Again tested* by myself as above using 30:1 and 50-50
Lym#2 BHN 14.9 -- Again self test* (Rotometals). That brackets all the alloy's in-between/simple spring constant*

Bottom Line: Binary Lead/Tin is far softer than the internet would have you believe.

Two separate *Lee Testers/back-to-back (separate testers 10-years apart - direct 60# imprint with 5/32 ball,
Celestron microscope to measure depression - actual BHN calculations from primary equation)

[gwpercle]

Elmer Keith 1936 book "Sixgun Cartridges & Loads"
Chapter 4 - Bullet Casting - Tin/Lead Bullet Alloys

"1/20 - For most revolver , light and normal pressure loads up to a velocity of 1,000 fps ."

"1/15 or 1/16 - Heavy and magnum revolver loads at or above 1,000 fps."

(I believe the 1/15 alloy was later changed to 1/16 ... but either one should do fine .)


"1/10 - Automatic pistol and rifle bullets ."

This is what Elmer Keith wrote in 1936 ... I bought this book because I have a lot of lead and 50-50 bar solder ... wanted to know what tin/lead mix would work ... My wheel-Weight supply retired from the tire business !
Gary

[mehavey]

44 mag came out in 1955.
357 came out in 1935... so he "could" have been on the cusp of discussing that cartridge in 1936

As far as 10-1 goes, 50-50 is only BHN 9 (tested), so 10-to-1 isn't going to buy you much between 16-1 and a mere 50/50 9.

When all is said & done, fit it still key -- especially w/ relatively soft binary lead/tin.

[Willie T]

Not exactly what you are asking but you might find it pertinent. Lyman has 44 Magnum rifle data for 10:1 in their Cast Bullet Handbook. They push a gas checked RCBS 430-225 225 grain SWC 1881 fps in a model 94 AE with a 20” 1:26 twist.

[gwpercle]

Not exactly what you are asking but you might find it pertinent. Lyman has 44 Magnum rifle data for 10:1 in their Cast Bullet Handbook. They push a gas checked RCBS 430-225 225 grain SWC 1881 fps in a model 94 AE with a 20” 1:26 twist.

:goodpost:
LIKE !

That is very interesting :drinks: !
Thanks
Gary

[Rapier]

Elmer Keith + Gas Check is a never, never deal, he did not believe in gas checks to start with and so stated many times. So keep in mind that Keith did not ever use gas checks in his bullet designs. If you ever find an original and bonfire Keith mould for a GCed bullet you have a rare bird for sure.

[mike salyards]

Thank you Larry.

[mike salyards]

Thank you all I appreciate your information.

[mehavey]

FWIW, 10-1 is effectively expensive air-cooled wheelweights ;)

[Chill Wills]

FWIW, 10-1 is effectively expensive air-cooled wheelweights ;)

They are night and day different if you are shooting game or BPCR.

[mehavey]

10-1 and/or air-cooled/aged WW are nearly exactly the same hardness.
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=322970&d=1706978415
Mid-Upper "8s"
(surprised me)

FWIW: I shoot BPCR/200-yd ram/silhouette a lot softer than either of those:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6657922&postcount=1

[Chill Wills]

I agree 10-1 is about the same hardness. The number you have assigned to it is not what most of the published data would agree with. But that is fine. I have no desire to go into that.

The "I shoot BPCR/200-yd ram/silhouette a lot softer than either of those:" is lost on me. Sorry. Maybe you are saying you use softer alloy for your bullet and rifle? If so, no doubt. Different rifles and bullet designs, different requirements.

[mehavey]

Chill, there are a couple of points here.

First, that high/expensive tin ratios aren't necessary for the same hardness as 10-1 might achieve.

Second, high tin ratios don't really achieve much in increased hardness.

Third, (at least in the BPCR regime), not much hardness is in fact req'd -- and may actually be detrimental at relatively low BPCR pressures.

But last.... the hardness touted for all these binary alloys is way over-stated in internet lore. Actual testing reveals them to be fairly low,.

[rat44]

Elmer Keith + Gas Check is a never, never deal, he did not believe in gas checks to start with and so stated many times. So keep in mind that Keith did not ever use gas checks in his bullet designs. If you ever find an original and bonfire Keith mould for a GCed bullet you have a rare bird for sure.

None of Elmers bullet designs had gas checks, but he did say he used them in 32-20 loads.

[Chill Wills]

Mehavey, Respectfully, I'll make a few points back. My reply in red. Hopefully with few typo... You wrote:
Chill, there are a couple of points here.

First, that high/expensive tin ratios aren't necessary for the same hardness as 10-1 might achieve. Correct - you can produce the same hardness either way

Second, high tin ratios don't really achieve much in increased hardness. Correct - diminished returns is in full effect with a Pb-Sn alloy.

Third, (at least in the BPCR regime), not much hardness is in fact req'd -- and may actually be detrimental at relatively low BPCR pressures. That could certainly be true in some cases. Not so much in many others! We use harder alloys for better accuracy BPCR. The limitless number of bullet designs used in BPCR allows the use of soft alloys or often demands hard alloy. Testing proves this out.

But last.... the hardness touted for all these binary alloys is way over-stated in internet lore. Actual testing reveals them to be fairly low,. I don't know about internet lore and hardness. Published data, NRA and various authors on my bookshelves dating back to WWII to present agrees with current listings like Roto Metals is what is familiar to most of us. I don't really care what the number you want to assign if it works for you. My hardness tester works well enough for me and agrees well with published sources. Respectfully, if you want to make hardness your project and are able to convince those sources they are putting out bad data, and can prove it, I will start using your system. I have no dog in this fight. It is just a tool for me.
BPCR and the subject of hard and soft bullet is a different mater. I have some strong and hard earned opinions on that. 8-)

I apologize to any or all if you feel this thread has been hi-jacked.

[mehavey]

Chill... this is not a fight.
But I do feel an appreciation for Galileo before the Inquisition.
(actually more akin to today's vison of the late-great term "settled science" w/ Al Gore's favorite subject.)

Last Feb I sent a RotoMetals 30-1 sample to ATS Labs in Georgia for just this reason.
I had measured BHN 5.8 using (two separate) Lee Testers, and a Celestron microscope to measure impressions.
All the Internet (and old accepted sources) said BHN 9.
Again, I got BHN 5.8.
I must be wrong.

The Lab came back with BHN 5.88, and an alloy assay of 96.4% Lead / 3.6% Tin

That kind of "settled" things for me in that the Lee Testers are nothing more complicated than a known diameter indent ball under calibrated pressure -- the very definition of the Brinell number.

Moreover, the Lee(s) gave a BHN of 14.9 for true (RotoMetals) Lyman#2 -- Which has been lab tested ad nauseum.
And since a spring constant is a spring constant, every reading between 30-1 and #2 (and all the binary Lead/Tin alloys) are also calibrated -- including 20-1, 16-1, and 10-1 (even 50-50 bar solder and air-cooled/aged WW))

This is where we came in -- "16-to-1 Hardness" -- so the discussion is far from hijacked.
... and hardness does matter.
:drinks:





as a side note, I'll PM both Lab reports to any that want same.

[Delkal]

There has always been a disconnect with alloy calculators and the real world when you get into the softest alloys. Everyone knows pure lead is supposed to be BHN-5 but all alloy calculators i know of the calculations assume in is 8.6. I use a calculator that has a listing for pure lead as BHN=5 but when you put in only one pound of pure lead (and nothing else) the calculated hardness is 8.6!

then when you read the fine print it says


Estimated hardness calculated by Rotometals formula: Brinell = 8.60 + ( 0.29 * %Tin ) + ( 0.92 * %Antimony )

If your alloy has 3.6% tin a BHN of 5.8 is in line if you assume lead is 5. (BHN=5 + (.29 x 3.6%) = 6)

[Chill Wills]

Chill... this is not a fight.


Well, I hope not. I am not sure why you would think it is! Only a difference of opinion.

Carry on. I have said everything needed in my above posts.

All the best!

[Barry54]

This is always worth a re-read

http://www.lasc.us/CastBulletAlloy.htm

[Forrest r]

Perhaps the hardening or softening of alloys come into play.

Bullets cast with antimony are known to "age harden". Countless times it's been posted on this website to test your cast bullets after they've sat/age hardened a couple weeks.

Bullets cast with tin "age soften" pretty fast. For some reason you don't see this posted nearly as often as the antimony/age hardening.

Both processes tend to slow down after +/- 30 days.

[mehavey]

Chill... with your 3,000++ posts, I always listen to what you old guys have to say...
(Reeeeeaaly big grin :bigsmyl2:)

[mike salyards]

Well thank you everybody for all the comments. My original reasoning asking about 16 to one was it being hard enough for a hard cast bullet for handguns. I do know the BPCR guys who shoot long range on average of 1000 yards tend to use 16 to one with some using 12 to one. As this was mentioned it is for accuracy mainly nose slump. I know the shoots and guys like to shoot around 22 or 23 to one but they mainly don't go over 200 yards. One of the old top shooters in the game explain this to me. His name is Tom Mason and I know he's holds at least three national records. Myself I don't shoot anything but my own targets or game.

[mehavey]

See : https://www.go2gbo.com/posts/955627/
for interesting "slump-vs-nose_radius-vs-hardness" discussion note.

Also some back & forth here: https://forum.castbulletassoc.org/thread/3442-alloy-hardness-for-bpcr-vs-accuracy/

[Tripplebeards]

Well thank you everybody for all the comments. My original reasoning asking about 16 to one was it being hard enough for a hard cast bullet for handguns. I do know the BPCR guys who shoot long range on average of 1000 yards tend to use 16 to one with some using 12 to one. As this was mentioned it is for accuracy mainly nose slump. I know the shoots and guys like to shoot around 22 or 23 to one but they mainly don't go over 200 yards. One of the old top shooters in the game explain this to me. His name is Tom Mason and I know he's holds at least three national records. Myself I don't shoot anything but my own targets or game.

If you’re using it for a 44 mag and gun and for hunting, I tell you even go softer! My original try at 16 to one pewter and pure mix ended up with a Brunel hardness of 7 1/2. I use the alloy in my Lyman devastor hollow point .430 mold in my Ruger 77/44 44 magnum rifle. It shoots super accurate at 1600 fps. Pushing it all the way to max loading, but it opens up from SUB MOA to almost 2 MOA at 100 yards. I Like expansion on my hunting loads. I haven’t tried it in my cold Anaconda, but I have tried it in my Smith & Wesson 329 night guard with good expansion on targets.