Hardness tester ?'s

[klausg]

Gang-

Though I've yet to cast my first bullet, (still waiting on a few items), I've already gotten the bug & I'm starting to think of what equipment I may want should this new hobby pan out.

I think that I'll eventually want to know just how hard my alloys are, so my question is this:

a) Is there really $60 worth of difference between a Lee and a SAECO hardness tester?

I know that Lee generally makes very servicable stuff, though their choice of materials sometimes bothers me.

b) Does the Lee work well?

c) Is the SAECO that much better? And finally:

d) Does someone else make one that is somewhere in between in price/quality?

Thanks in advance, take care.

-SSG Klaus

[Ranch Dog]

I use the Lee and it seems to deliver the information I'm looking for.

[montana_charlie]

I have the Lee, and if I am reading it right everything in the world is softer than I thought it was. Haven't tried it yet on granite.

[Dale53]

I tried the Saeco a number of years ago and didn't like it worth spit! I have had an LBT for a long time and it works a treat!

Dale53

[buck1]

I had the Saeco , I sold it as soon as I got my Cabin Tree! Its great! The Saeco was not repeatable 100% of the time but my Cabin tree so far is!! Its built like a tank, My great grandchildren will love it as much as I do! I would not go back to the Saeco. I hear Lees is good but hard to read????
Gussy who posts here makes Cabin tree testers. Heres the link..........Buck
http://castingstuff.com/cabinetree_loading_products.htm

[454PB]

I think the Lee is accurate, but needs some innovative thinking to steady the microscope. For me, hardness testing is not done very often. Once you know what your alloy supply tests, there not much reason to test again. It's only when some unknown is introduced that the testing is needed.

The main advantage to the Lee is that it's cheap, small, easily stored, and quick to set up.

[kodiak1]

I bought a Carbine Tree it is one hell of a hardness tester. Will do bullets and bars it is big enough if you want to see one go to WWW.castingstuff.com
Thanks Ken.

[Dale53]

I must admit that if I had it to do over again, I would go with the Cabine Tree hardness tester (it didn't exist when I bought the LBT)

Dale53

[Lloyd Smale]

I own a lbt and a cabintree and have owned a seaco and the cabintree is by far the best one out there.

[Four Fingers of Death]

I had the Saeco , I sold it as soon as I got my Cabin Tree! Its great! The Saeco was not repeatable 100% of the time but my Cabin tree so far is!! Its built like a tank, My great grandchildren will love it as much as I do! I would not go back to the Saeco. I hear Lees is good but hard to read????
Gussy who posts here makes Cabin tree testers. Heres the link..........Buck
http://castingstuff.com/cabinetree_loading_products.htm

Dang it, every time I decide that I have spent way too much on gunz and stuff, you guys come up with something new, that I just gotta have!!!!!!!!!

[chunkum]

I think the Lee is accurate, but needs some innovative thinking to steady the microscope. For me, hardness testing is not done very often. Once you know what your alloy supply tests, there not much reason to test again. It's only when some unknown is introduced that the testing is needed.

The main advantage to the Lee is that it's cheap, small, easily stored, and quick to set up.

These observations on the Lee duplicate mine. Some sort of micorscope stand to steady it being essentially mandatory. I had the Saeco first and liked it but the Lee has better repeatability, more range, and reads differences in smaller increments. It duplicates (but with preloaded, factory calibrated spring pressure) the original mechanics of Brinell hardness testing. A very useful and, for me, indispensable tool.
Best Regards,
chunkum

[Ranch Dog]

Lee users try this...

An old jeweler told me to hold the boolit in one hand the scope in the other. If needed, support your elbows on the bench. Do not set the bullet on the bench and try to look at it. Something to do with the rhythm of your body. I must say this old fellow knew what he was talking about and now I have absolutely no problems with the tool simply holding both objects in my hands and I had tried all kinds of ways to steady the thing.

I had bought a little vice with the alligator clips but ended up giving it away.

[Four Fingers of Death]

I just went over to cabine tree's site, been there for last couple of hours, wow!

[klausg]

Hey gang, once again you guys come through with flying colors. The Cabine Tree system looks very user friendly and repeatable; and it's cheaper than what I've found SAECO's for, looks like another item on my wish list. Thanks again

-SSG Klaus

[Bucks Owin]

Can the Cabin Tree unit be purchased without the dial indicator? I have one laying around that isn't doing anything...

Dennis

[Dye]

Hey gang, once again you guys come through with flying colors. The Cabine Tree system looks very user friendly and repeatable; and it's cheaper than what I've found SAECO's for, looks like another item on my wish list. Thanks again

-SSG Klaus

Klaus

Welcome to the world of BHN. I have all of the Hardness testors and they all read different,close but different. After you get your new toy ,set up your standard of the different alloys. You might find the Cabin Tree likes bullets of .429 or larger to test and if you don't have any 99.99 pure lead PM me your address and I will send you a couple pounds for testing.

Be carefull Dye

[hopper_64]

I think the Lee is accurate, but needs some innovative thinking to steady the microscope. For me, hardness testing is not done very often. Once you know what your alloy supply tests, there not much reason to test again. It's only when some unknown is introduced that the testing is needed.

The main advantage to the Lee is that it's cheap, small, easily stored, and quick to set up.

I made a stand for my LEE microscope this weekend. Very primitive and crude looking, but it makes a big difference:-D

hopper

[Lloyd Smale]

give him a call and ask. Hes a hell of a nice guy to boot!!!
Can the Cabin Tree unit be purchased without the dial indicator? I have one laying around that isn't doing anything...

Dennis

[Bucks Owin]

give him a call and ask. Hes a hell of a nice guy to boot!!!

I checked with him and yes he will. $90
(I hadn't realized how versatile the tool is! It'll do a lot more than just test hardness...)

Dennis

[Buckshot]

I made a stand for my LEE microscope this weekend. Very primitive and crude looking, but it makes a big difference:-D

hopper

Hopper, stain that dude and people will think you went out a paid money for it :-)

................Buckshot

[charger 1]

[smilie=1: I'm itching to try the lee I ordered. Should be here the end of this week. I sure aint braggin, but I got more decades of using real testers,comparators,tool making under my XL belt than I care to remember. If its M.I.C.K.E.Y. M. I'll spot it.If it needs a jig to hold it thats no biggy. It's a given to me that things cant be dancing all over. I'll be looking for it ability to repeat readings,and on varying surfaces. Without seeing it I struggle with the whole v block reading on the radius idea. Different rads offer different resistances of their own simulating different hardnesses to the ball......We'll see

[chunkum]

You don't read on the radius with the Lee. The instructions direct you to file a flat there and place the bullet on the V block so that you are testing on the flat. You can also lay a flat base on the "V" block and test the bullet nose, and this has been the expedient I've used because it's more convenient I'll be interested in learning your assessment when you get yours. I get good repeatable readings with mine. I do have a "microscope" stand for it; A donation from a creative associate.
c.

[buck1]

give him a call and ask. Hes a hell of a nice guy to boot!!!


TRUE!!!!!! >>>>>Buck

[montana_charlie]

I do have a "microscope" stand for it;
In the absence of a microscope stand...

I have a Lee three-hole turret press. One of the turrets I use for .45-90 holds a bullet seater die (which I never use), the Lee hardness tester, and it has an empty hole.

I wedged the Lee microscope in a short plastic tube that just slip-fits into that extra hole.
My loading bench lamp is on a gooseneck, so it will crank down to throw good light on the sample.

To look at a dimple, I just leave the sample on the v-block, turn the turret one notch, and raise the ram.
CM

[charger 1]

I guess the hardness Gods were smiling,cause it came yesterday. In short my review of the Lee is.Boy do I ever wish every $40 spent today yielded something that useful.I would think I was back in the pre scam years Seriously fellas. Theres no difference in what your getting with that tester than what your getting sitting beside $40,000 worth of equipment. Sure you have to steady scope,find the best place on your press stroke to keep the plunger steady,but like I said if you want good readings without the tiniest bit of that you gotta add a lot of 0's to the price. Overall for what we're doing. CAT'S MEOW !!!!!!

[charger 1]

In the absence of a microscope stand...

I have a Lee three-hole turret press. One of the turrets I use for .45-90 holds a bullet seater die (which I never use), the Lee hardness tester, and it has an empty hole.

I wedged the Lee microscope in a short plastic tube that just slip-fits into that extra hole.
My loading bench lamp is on a gooseneck, so it will crank down to throw good light on the sample.

To look at a dimple, I just leave the sample on the v-block, turn the turret one notch, and raise the ram.
CM

GOOD ONE
I'll bet one of those black rubber stoppers with the hole in it that pharmacists/chemists use would be the real thing there

[wcb_gabe]

I have to give my three cheers to the cabin tree. Great for testing ingots or mystery metals before buying them quickly at the scrap yard. Although I don't think I'd mind having the lbt either for a direct bhn number... if only they were a little easier to get.

[HiWayMan]

I just got a SAECO tester for "free" this past weekend when I bought 365 of #2 from a guy for $150. I also have a Lee model. I find the Lee very easy to use and I believe it is more repeatable. The bad thing is that most of my Lee readings are 2 - 3 BHN points higher than the SAECO. So, I really don't know which to believe.

[felix]

Absolute values don't tell you a thing, anyway. Use the device(s) as determining the difference between various lead samples only. Only high dollar lab equipment can tell you what alloy you REALLY have, but, then, you really don't care. You should only care about how each sample shoots! ... felix

[chunkum]

HiWayMan,
I have both and agree with you on the Lee. The Saeco, in my estimation, is only accurate for the "inbetween" BRNs. It's gradations are so close that it's difficult to get fine distinctions in its readings and my experience parallels yours on the higher ones. It has its uses but the Lee has been, for me the more reliable and the one I'd have more confidence in if the micorscope is stabilized for the readings.
c.

[charger 1]

For what its worth. The first 12-15 times I used the lee when I got it, I plugged the numbers in and acrually did the math. You know the old 2xfkg div. by the x ,and so on. and found it to be either knock on every time or if off not by enough to mention

[montana_charlie]

Does anyone know what the BHN of tin should be?

The stuff I have (which was sold as 'pure' but might be 25% tin and 75% lead) gives me a reading of about 10.5 BHN when using the Lee tester.

Somewhere, I got the idea that tin should be about 51 BNH.

If it is not pure metal, I might have found the reason that everything I test (alloys I mix up) with the Lee seems to be softer than expected.
CM

[charger 1]

Does anyone know what the BHN of tin should be?

The stuff I have (which was sold as 'pure' but might be 25% tin and 75% lead) gives me a reading of about 10.5 BHN when using the Lee tester.

Somewhere, I got the idea that tin should be about 51 BNH.

If it is not pure metal, I might have found the reason that everything I test (alloys I mix up) with the Lee seems to be softer than expected.
CM

Not mixed,not quenched.Around 7

[chunkum]

charger,
If you moulded two identical bulletss, one of tin and one of pure lead, the tin would be discernable by being lighter, would it not?
chunkum

[charger 1]

Yes if both were pure. Theres a paragraph toward the bottom of this page that answers that,and its an overall handy page.IMHO
http://www.lasc.us/CastBulletNotes.htm

[montana_charlie]

Hey charger,

I go often to that page, and have been there recently because of my 'tin questions'. There is something on there that confuses me. Maybe you can explain it so I can understand.

That table shows lead with a hardness of 5, and tin at 7.
20 to 1 alloy is shown to be 10, and that is without any antimony to confuse the issue.

If the hardest substance in the alloy is a 7, and only 5% of the mixture is that hard, how does the alloy get up to 10?

If I need a semester of metallurgy to understand it, then don't bother to explain.
But, if there is a simple way to say it...I'd like to hear it.

On the other hand...
If tin was about as hard as antimony, I could see how a small amount could have a large effect on an alloy.
This page shows tin at a Brinell Hardness of 51 (51 MPa, whatever that means).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin
CM

[charger 1]

By combining the two you've created a finer structure(we know this because of tins wetting properties,it couldnt do that if it didnt create a finer molecular structure) which we know is going to compress more merely due to the fact that the lead you've put it in shrinks more...Did I make any sense there...I know I know it,and I know your not a stupid person,I just dont know if I come accross clearly..

[charger 1]

I didnt look at the sight to see what form of tin their referring to but the machineries handbook gives refined tin metal as 7-7.3

[drinks]

I have the Cabine Tree and the Lee, I like both, the Cabine Tree is much easier and faster, especially since I calibrated the dial face from tests with the Lee, now have a direct reading Cabine Tree.
I made some supports for the Lee, just too shakey to hold it still any other way.

[montana_charlie]

Did I make any sense there...I know I know it,and I know your not a stupid person,I just dont know if I come accross clearly..
Well, I dunno if I can make heads or tails of that. I understand what you're saying about the internal structure becoming more 'compact'...kinda like dropping black powder through a drop tube to make the granules settle in better...but there must be something else going on that just isn't 'visible to the naked eye'.

At least not apparent to an eye as naked as mine.

If you start with lead and add a little tin (say 2.5% which makes 40 to 1) you get up to a hardness of 8...one notch harder than pure tin.
Go up to 10 to 1 (or 10% tin), and the number is 11

So, as you add tin to lead the alloy gets harder...up to what point?

There must be a break-over point someplace because once you get to where the lead is a minor part of the alloy, you must be getting back down toward the original 7 which is pure tin.

I have an ingot cast by NEY. It was sold as pure tin and because it is obviously from the foundry, I never questioned it's content.
But now the seller says it might be 25% tin and 75% lead.

So, I check it with my Lee hardness tester and get a BNH of 10.4.
Should I believe that I have so little tin in the ingot that it is essentially 20 to 1 alloy (5% tin instead of 25%)?
Or...do I believe that there is so much tin in the alloy, I am on the downhill slope and am at 10.4 on the way down to 7?

Is it possible that a lead/tin alloy will be BNH 10 at both 5% and 25% tin content?

The reason I want to know...
I have about 5 pounds of this stuff left from a six pound ingot that cost me 32 bucks.
I'm trying to figure out if I have 1.25 pounds of tin (and some lead) which I can use to make 37 pounds of 30 to 1 alloy......or do I simply have 5 pounds of 20 to 1.
There is an important, and rather costly, difference.
CM

[charger 1]

Your right there is a point of max saturation. I dont know what it is.I've never seen it written. I just know I screwed up here one day and got a really high %tin content batch and their softer by 5 bhn. I'm guessing when the tin gets around 15% or more things start to go backwards. Thats just my guess from playing

[454PB]

FWIW, I did a hardness test on some "pure tin" ingots that I bought at a gun show many years ago. I don't know if it truely is pure tin, but appears that it is by it's performance. It measures BHN 27 with my Lee tester.

While I was at it, I also tested an ingot of babbitt that I have, and it was exactly the same.

[chunkum]

fwiw,
A certified pure tin ingot purchased from Midway, give an indentation dimple with the lee of 0.100, and this extrapolates to a BHN of 5. So my Lee spring may be off by a couple of BHNs but one thing for sure. the pure metal is dead soft.
c.

[charger 1]

fwiw,
A certified pure tin ingot purchased from Midway, give an indentation dimple with the lee of 0.100, and this extrapolates to a BHN of 5. So my Lee spring may be off by a couple of BHNs but one thing for sure. the pure metal is dead soft.
c.


Ya 7-7.3BH
Did you hold for the 30+ seconds of dwell. My guess is that this would be even more important in this peanut butter we're measuring,to allow enough metal flow. If referring to bearing babbit there is to different compsitions,and the one is severally harder than the other

[454PB]

While having a babbitt bearing built for one of the turbines I used to maintain, I learned that there are many recipes for babbitt. Some have copper added, which screws them up as candidates for use in boolit alloy. The modern babbitt as was used for the bearing I had poured has tin, antimony, and lead, and appeared to be much like linotype.

This new bearing cost $60,000 dollars, and weighed just over 300 pounds when delivered. It took another week to fit it to the shaft, and hundreds of trips onto and off of the shaft.

[chunkum]

454B,
I've also been told that the babbits that contain copper won't do for bullets. Once, back before I knew that, I melted some babbit and a substance that looked a lot like little bits of copper separated from the melt and came off with the dross when I skimmed it. I poured it into ingots that were very soft (no hardness tester back then), but it mixed will with wws and lino and I made some pretty good bullet alloys out of it that cast up into good bullets. I have some more that I've had for years but never tried it again. for what it's worth.
c.

[felix]

Copper is in an alloy to make it tougher. Trouble is, the copper is not "magnetically" attracted to the other constituents in the melt and will slowly migrate through the alloy. How slow makes all the difference in the world for casting. Slower the better. As long as the copper is burried enough to get through the spout without hitting the surface, it won't gum up (via quick freeze) the spout. Boolits made have to be accuracy tested on a per batch basis because of this quick freeze potential of the boolit surface. Here is where a terribly hot mold makes more accurate boolits. ... felix

[charger 1]

While having a babbitt bearing built for one of the turbines I used to maintain, I learned that there are many recipes for babbitt. Some have copper added, which screws them up as candidates for use in boolit alloy. The modern babbitt as was used for the bearing I had poured has tin, antimony, and lead, and appeared to be much like linotype.

This new bearing cost $60,000 dollars, and weighed just over 300 pounds when delivered. It took another week to fit it to the shaft, and hundreds of trips onto and off of the shaft.

Scrapping for % contact no doubt. Radial or thrust bearing?????

[sundog]

Copper alloy is a bitch to work with, but like Felix said, a hot mould, and just the right mix, makes some wonderfully accurate boolits. You'll know right away if the coppper content is too high because you will not be able to pour a stream. It's more like a sheet. The stuff freezes as it comes out of the pot or dipper. Dilute it in half with WWs or range scrap and try it again. sundog

[drinks]

I recently got some babbitt, the alloy info came with it.
I do not have my notes with me now, but it was mostly lead, with 6-8% antimony, 3-4% tin, .3% copper and .4% nickel.
It checks BHN 26 as cast , will not harden any more if waterdropped and make a very nice, shiney , bullet.
The material is available in commerce as the company is still in business and still selling it.
I have some other babbitt that came from a power plant in Canada, the alloy is 48% lead, 45% tin and 7% antimony, the BHN is 16, it will not waterharden and makes really pretty bullets, but I use it as a source of tin

[charger 1]

I recently got some babbitt, the alloy info came with it.
I do not have my notes with me now, but it was mostly lead, with 6-8% antimony, 3-4% tin, .3% copper and .4% nickel.
It checks BHN 26 as cast , will not harden any more if waterdropped and make a very nice, shiney , bullet.
The material is available in commerce as the company is still in business and still selling it.
I have some other babbitt that came from a power plant in Canada, the alloy is 48% lead, 45% tin and 7% antimony, the BHN is 16, it will not waterharden and makes really pretty bullets, but I use it as a source of tin

When I worked at the power plant I shot like crazy,but wasnt into the casting scene yet. When I think of the literally hundreds of tons of various babbitts I heat washed off of housings to scrap I could and do cry. I mean God that 26 bn ,tell me that wouldnt make some peachy magnum projectiles. You lucky smuck

[454PB]

charger: it was a thrust bearing on a horizontal shaft, 225 rpm. The turbine was a double camelback Francis runner by S. Morgan Smith built in 1912, hooked to a 5MW GE generator. It sounds like you've had prussian blue hands too.

With the tough OSHA and EPA regulations, it's tough to even scrape a bearing in anymore without a full hazmat suit.

[charger 1]

With the tough OSHA and EPA regulations, it's tough to even scrape a bearing in anymore without a full hazmat suit.

I remember where the ingots of different babbitts were kept at work, so I called up a chum I used to work with to see bout getting some. Don't even have em no more. Supposedly the main bearing pours are sent out and for the fittings specially trained contractors are brought in to handle everything. I'm told the new apprentices dont even get a bearing course taught..He11,we used to waddle in the stuff like it was candy. guess that splains why I am the way I am