Lee lead hardness tester

[bowenrd]

Two days ago I cast some 44 cal. using Lyman mould 429421 245 grain. The alloy was 50/50 WW and indoor pistol range salvage. The "frosty" bullets were water dropped. I do not have a thermometer. Using the Lee tester it indicates a BH of 30 to 33. Is this about right for hardness? Seems extra hard.

[dromia]

Does seem a bit hard for quenched more heat treated hardness, still you were casting hot and the alloy content is unknown so it could be.

The Lee tester seems to work well enough just a pig to use.

[sqlbullet]

I see similar results using isotope lead. Water dropped when casting with the lead at 750 I get an average of 32 bhn.

[MT Gianni]

If you want to send me a couple I will test it with my Cabintree. PM for address.

[montana_charlie]

I have something to pass along concerning the Lee hardness tester, so I pulled up this older thread rather than start a new one...

The dimple made by the Lee tester is so small. it requires strong magnification to measure it's diameter. So, the kit provides the microscope to feed that need.
People would be happier with the Lee tester if it wasn't so tricky to read the scale in the microscope. I have no trouble keeping it steady enough for a reading, but the optics don't quite match my 'perscription'. I can make out the dimple clearly, but the little lines get kinda fuzzy.

My cure is simple.
I have a headband magnifier like jewelers use...and, while not 'expensive', it's a pretty decent quality one.

Using that and my dial caliper, I can get a good read on the dimple diameter...and it's a lot faster than finding (and using) the microscope. After all, a reading of (say) '85' in the microscope is supposed to be .085"
I have done some careful comparisons, and find that my caliper measurements closely agree with the microscope results.

I have a little note that is always on my bench which has the BHN numbers listed for all diameters from .070" to .100" in increments of .005". All of the alloys I use fall in that range.
If I need to split the difference between two of those, I'll dig out the microscope and conversion table.

CM

[462]

This is interesting, because I had a friend measure some of my boolits, using his Lee tester, and the readings were much higher than I would have thought. The test was conducted twice and the results averaged.

1. Air-cooled 100% wheel weight -- 13.4
2. 50/50 wheel weight/stick-on, air-cooled -- 14.3
3. Another air-cooled 100% wheel weight -- 15.4
4. Water-quenched 100% wheel weight -- 20.9
5. Another water-quenched 100% wheel weigh -- 27.2

Boolits were from 3-weeks to many months old.

I don't understand how a 50/50 mix could be harder than 100% wheel weights, nor the big disparity between the two water-quenched readings.

I've seen test comparison results between Lee, SAECO, and Cabin Tree, and the Lee was the most accurate, if memory serves.

Answers...thoughts...suggestions...hmmms...

[454PB]

I've also used a dial caliper to measure the depression diameter. I'm near sighted, and can see extremely well at close distance when I remove my glasses. In experimenting with this method, I've found I can measure the dimple within .005" of the same reading using the microscope.

[outdoorfan]

I've also used a dial caliper to measure the depression diameter. I'm near sighted, and can see extremely well at close distance when I remove my glasses. In experimenting with this method, I've found I can measure the dimple within .005" of the same reading using the microscope.


That's what I do too, and it's very close. However, I'll have to try a loup as well to see if there's any advantage to it.

[montana_charlie]

This is interesting, because I had a friend measure some of my boolits, using his Lee tester, and the readings were much higher than I would have thought.
Did your friend make the combinations himself, or rely on the word of some supplier? I have some alloy that I bought from one of our members that is much harder than expected. He advertised it as 'soft lead', but it tests right up there with wheelweights.

Answers...thoughts...suggestions...hmmms...
My first Lee tester gave unexpected results, and I eventually discovered they were erratic, too. Problem was a loose lens in the microscope.

Look through that one and gently thump the outside of the tube. See if things move around...

CM

[462]

montana charlie,

I cast all the boolits. The 100% wheel weights were the clip-on kind, and the 50/50 was a mixture of clip-on and stick-on weights.

My friend lives in another state, so I don't know how the tester works or its condition, other than it was new.

[cajun shooter]

I never thought of doing what you do with the Lee MC but it should work great. I bought a old child's microscope and put the Lee in it so that it would be steady. It worked fine but my eyes needed more help. I bought one of Gussy's testers and have been one happy camper ever since. It's so easy to use that when I got it I tested every piece of lead I could find. I think the Lee is accurate as I cross tested it with the cabin tree and received the same readings. It's a matter of convenience and the cabin tree won hands down. The cost is about three times that of the Lee but it's built like a tank and will be here for your great- great grandchildren to use.

[largom]

Don't know how your friend checked your boolits but it is important that the Lee testing die be held at the correct height for each test and for the correct time duration. I mounted a dial indicator to my testing die so I know each test is the same and I hold each test for a 40 second duration. I also have a LBT tester which is faster than the Lee but the Lee gives the best results.
There are pictures on this forum SOMEWHERE that shows my Lee tester with the dial indicator and the scope mounted in a childs microscope.
Also, when comparing alloy samples, they should all be aged at least 3 weeks, longer is even better. My aged wheel weights usually test around 13BHN.
Larry

[helg]

Using the Lee tester it indicates a BH of 30 to 33. Is this about right for hardness? Seems extra hard.

Lee BH tester uses standard hardness test method that was originally proposed by Johan August Brinell. The method is described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinell_hardness_test).

Formula for the metod connects 4 variables: applied force, ball (indenter) diameter, cave (impression) diameter and the hardness.

On my Lee tester the ball mikes to .156" (3.965mm). Using one line from the BHN table that comes with the test: .050" indent is 20.9 BHN, and the BHN formula from the above link, I calculated that the applied force has to be 27.19kg or 59.94lbs.

The applied force measures 62lbs on my tester. I used floor scale, which I put between ram and the ball of a tester in a press. Put some bushing on top of the scale - to prevent making a cave on the scale.

With the above data, the BHN tester accuracy seems to be around 3% plus whatever microscope measurement adds to this. I believe that it is even better, as my $10 floor scale, which is more than 5 years old, does not even hold zero in 2lbs range.

The other measure, microscope, is also easy to check by looking through it on a rule.

Now, back to original problem.

I would suggest to check ball diameter, microscope and applied force like described above. Ball and mike are unlikely to be wrong. Spring, at the other side, may become loose, which results in lowering the force, decreasing of the cave diameter, and suspiciously high BHN readings, which was reported by the OP. When the above parameters are checked and found correct, there is full confidence that BHN is measured accurately.

[JIMinPHX]

BNH of 30 sounds high for the mix that you have. It's not impossible, since you don't know what the other guys at the range were shooting, but it sounds high. I get a BNH of 30 from water dropping a mix of recovered trap shot + 1% tin, but I only get about 23BNH from water dropped wheel weights. I would double check the diameter of your spot with calipers as suggested above. I would also check that the spring loaded penetrator cylinder in your hardness tester moves freely & smoothly. If all looks good, then I guess that you just have a hard batch of alloy.

You are holding the penetrator on a flat part of the boolit for 30 seconds with the pin on the top of the gizmo even with the top surface...right?

[snaggdit]

I agree it sounds high. While you might get that hardness from water dropping, it usually takes a week or more (typically 3) to reach full hardness. Two days after casting, 30bhn seems high.

[montana_charlie]

The applied force measures 62lbs on my tester. I used floor scale, which I put between ram and the ball of a tester in a press. Put some bushing on top of the scale - to prevent making a cave on the scale.
My first Lee tester was was inaccurate (as stated in an earlier post). For that reason, I was in contact with Lee while trying to figure out why. When it came to discussing the spring tesion, Lee told me that it should take twenty pounds of force (if my memory is correct) to depress the 'nose' far enough to make the 'pin' come even with the 'top cap'.

CM

[helg]

Lee told me that it should take twenty poundsFormula, which I put a reference to, gives 60 pounds for the measured ball diameter and provided BHN table. It is standard Brinell test, and it does not rely on equipment manufacturer, once everything is measured correctly.

You may check with Lee. It may be possible that some earlier kits used 20lbs spring, ball of the other diameter, and have different table to get BHN. The 20lbs kit may be calibrated the same way as described in the post above.

[wallenba]

I have something to pass along concerning the Lee hardness tester, so I pulled up this older thread rather than start a new one...

The dimple made by the Lee tester is so small. it requires strong magnification to measure it's diameter. So, the kit provides the microscope to feed that need.
People would be happier with the Lee tester if it wasn't so tricky to read the scale in the microscope. I have no trouble keeping it steady enough for a reading, but the optics don't quite match my 'perscription'. I can make out the dimple clearly, but the little lines get kinda fuzzy.

My cure is simple.
I have a headband magnifier like jewelers use...and, while not 'expensive', it's a pretty decent quality one.

Using that and my dial caliper, I can get a good read on the dimple diameter...and it's a lot faster than finding (and using) the microscope. After all, a reading of (say) '85' in the microscope is supposed to be .085"
I have done some careful comparisons, and find that my caliper measurements closely agree with the microscope results.

I have a little note that is always on my bench which has the BHN numbers listed for all diameters from .070" to .100" in increments of .005". All of the alloys I use fall in that range.
If I need to split the difference between two of those, I'll dig out the microscope and conversion table.

CM Thanks for sharing this! I was struggling with my old eyes to see through the microscope clearly. Remembering that I had a cheap plastic jewelers loupe that I had bought a while back at Harbor Freight, I got it out and checked my known samples with the caliper. MUCH EASIER!!!

[montana_charlie]

Formula, which I put a reference to, gives 60 pounds...

You may check with Lee. It may be possible that some earlier kits used 20lbs spring...
Frankly, you have me doubting my own memory. I will check my Lee tester in much the same way you tested yours.
I still have the jig I made up to be able to use a hydraulic shop press while retaining the ability to observe the 'pin' and 'cap' alignment.

Maybe I can get that done tomorrow...

CM

[John Boy]

The Lee Hardness Tester applies 60 lbs of pressure with a 5/32" ball. It's on the paper that comes with the tester.

And if wants the Lee Hardness tester Bhn's from 36.6 to 5.0 ...
http://www.frfrogspad.com/miscellm.htm#Brinell

[montana_charlie]

helg and John Boy,
You are correct in saying that 60 pounds is the what the Lee tester is calibrated for.
I just ran the pressure test on the shop press.

Interestingly, that is also a good method for checking hardness on some huge ingots that are WAY too big for the reloading press.
One was poured in an 8-inch skillet, and is two inches thick. It would be a cumbersome thing to test even on a Cabine Tree tester.

CM

[cajun shooter]

John Boy ,Thanks for the link. It has some good info and I saved it for future referral.

[mrbill2]

This helps with the Lee tester.