Lyman #2

[donjose]

I was wondering if Lyman #2 is a good lead for casting hunting boolits?




Jason

[cbrick]

That's not a question that has a pat answer.

What caliber?
What boolit style?
What type of firearm?
What powder and what charge?
What velocity?
What type of critter are you hunting?
At what distance will you be hunting?

So to answer your question . . . Is Lyman #2 is a good lead for casting hunting boolits?

Maybe . . . Maybe not.

Rick

[donjose]

44 mag
300 to 320 grain wide flat
1200 or so fps
Raging Bull 44
hogs,deer, coyote
h110 powder
under 100 yards

[donjose]

Or would wheel weights, water quenched be better for expanding?Not sure what I really need.



Jason

[Hardcast416taylor]

Not trying to sound coarse, but you should give us a tad more info about what you would use #2 for and in what cal. Water quench ww expand less than #2 or straight ww.Robert

[cbrick]

With a 300-320 gr WFN you do not need and should not expect expansion. As per my answer to your first PM to me the very purpose of a WFN is that it is very effective without expanding. The WFN is not an expanding bullet.

Regards your second PM, sorry, I don't give out my phone number via email or PM requests. Far better that you post your questions here so that others have the benefit of the questions and the many varied answers, which is the purpose of the forum.

Lyman #2 should work well for your stated purpose. Quenched WW should also work well and be in the same general BHN as #2. My own preference would be to not strive for anything harder than quenched WW.

Rick

[geargnasher]

Rick, I'm not sure what WW you're using, but water-quenched WW turn out 22-23 bhn at my house, IIRC Lyman #2 air cooled is about 15 bhn, up to about 25 water quenched.

I was about to go off on the WFN and expansion, but you beat me to it, thanks!

Donjose, if you're shooting 1200fps with boolits that heavy in the .44Mag, #2 air cooled should be perfect, but like Rick said you might have better luck making it harder by water-quenching. Remember that boolit fit in the gun is the MOST important factor to accuracy and reduced leading.

Gera

[donjose]

Thanks Guys

Sounds good

Jason

[cbrick]

Rick, I'm not sure what WW you're using, but water-quenched WW turn out 22-23 bhn at my house, IIRC Lyman #2 air cooled is about 15 bhn, up to about 25 water quenched. Gera

Hhmmm . . . 22-23 BHN quenched? Let me guess, a Lee tester? I get 17-18 from quenched WW with enough age time. Yes, #2 should be about 15 but 15 to 17-18 is fairly close for boolit making, consistency with BHN is much more important than it being 15 or 18 BHN.

I've heard some remarkable claims from folks quenching WW from the mold right up to and including 33-35 BHN and every time it turns out they are using the Lee tester. Happens often enough that it has to make a guy wonder . . .

Rick

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

i've heard some remarkable claims from folks quenching ww from the mold right up to and including 33-35 bhn and every time it turns out they are using the lee tester. Happens often enough that it has to make a guy wonder . . .

Rick

eyes !!!

[9.3X62AL]

There's always soft-point casting if expansion is a real need--but with the WFN design in 44 caliber you might be gilding the lily a bit. It's already 44 caliber, and that big-azzed meplat won't do ANY good to whatever it connects with.

[lwknight]

You don't need no water quenching for a 44mag unless your trying to make armor piercing ammo in which case lead won't work anyway.

[pdawg_shooter]

You don't need no water quenching for a 44mag unless your trying to make armor piercing ammo in which case lead won't work anyway.

I hit a 1/2" thick steel swinger plate with a .458WM shooting a 430gr PP cast from AC wheel weights and punched a neat round hole clear through it. Might not stop stop a M1A1 but it would be hard to find something to hide behind.

[BABore]

Hhmmm . . . 22-23 BHN quenched? Let me guess, a Lee tester? I get 17-18 from quenched WW with enough age time. Yes, #2 should be about 15 but 15 to 17-18 is fairly close for boolit making, consistency with BHN is much more important than it being 15 or 18 BHN.

I've heard some remarkable claims from folks quenching WW from the mold right up to and including 33-35 BHN and every time it turns out they are using the Lee tester. Happens often enough that it has to make a guy wonder . . .

Rick

I get 28-30 bhn from water dropped or oven heat treated WW's. I sort my WW's of all stick-ons. No I don't use a Lee hardness tester either. I designed and built my own to mount in my RockChucker. The force and penetrator ball replicate an actual Brinell tester. I calibrated the die spring compression of this unit with a digital load cell and scribed witness marks for repeatability. My original tester was sent to Dan at Mnt. Molds for testing and comparision to his own testers. He has a thread on it in his forum. Several members here have the same tester now. One of them lives only a hour or two away in Michigan. His WW hardness is comparable to mine as well.

WW composition varies accrossed the US. Older WW's had higher levels of antimony and arsenic as do some current truck weights. Just because you see a lower average hardness in your WW's does not mean everyone else is full of it.

[snsbpb]

WW composition varies accrossed the US. Older WW's had higher levels of antimony and arsenic as do some current truck weights. Just because you see a lower average hardness in your WW's does not mean everyone else is full of it.

I think he was just implying that lee testers are not reliable. I don't know, are they reliable?

[cbrick]

I think he was just implying that lee testers are not reliable. I don't know, are they reliable?

No, I just think they are much more susceptible to operator error.



Just because you see a lower average hardness in your WW's does not mean everyone else is full of it.

Now that statement is interesting. Please do a "quote" where I said anyone was . . . "Full of it". Saying that seems to have slipped my mind, perhaps you could help out and post it here. Perhaps an apology is in order?

Most published data refers to 18'ish BHN for quenched CWW.

In the fairly exstensive BHN tester experiment done right here on Castboolits a sample of quenched WW was sent out to a lab and tested 19 BHN.

http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm

Rick

[fredj338]

You'll get no expansion out of #2. If you want expansion, you want softer alloy. You can run 25-1 to 1200fps w/o leading & it will at least deform on heavier game, but @ 1200fps, it will not expand unless it's a LHP.

[Barstooler]

I hit a 1/2" thick steel swinger plate with a .458WM shooting a 430gr PP cast from AC wheel weights and punched a neat round hole clear through it. Might not stop stop a M1A1 but it would be hard to find something to hide behind.

There are various ways that projectiles can "penetrate" steel. It is a combination of the physical characteristics of the projectile (material, length and diameter, mass per unit area on target, flight stability, and penetrator nose shape) the physical characteristics of the steel (its shear coefficient, tensile strength, density, and thickness), and the conditions of impact (velocity, and obliquity). This determines how the steel fails (ductile penetration, brittle penetration, spalling/scabbing, fragmenting, or plugging). Given these three factors it is probable to assume that you blew a "plug" out of the swinger plate. Plugging is where a blunt projectile knocks out a plug of the steel that is roughly cylindrical in shap and equal to the diameter of the projectile. It can be thought of as one piece of spall. (I used to teach A-10 30mm internal, external, and terminal ballistics and weapons effects at the USAF Fighter Weapons School.)

Barstooler

[stephen perry]

donjose
Since you mentioned Lyman #2 alloy have you read what the Lyman 'Cast Bullet Handbook' #3 has to say about Lyman #2 for Cast Hunting Bullets? It is a good read. Most Casters cut their teeth on Lyman handbooks. Some are satisfied with the info others go their own way. I feel the Lyman Handbooks are prepared very well. Hard to go wrong using a Lyman Handbook.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR

[EMC45]

I cast with clip on WWs and air cool them. I have tested several bullets of different caliber through the years and all have come up to right at Lyman #2. I used a SAECO tester and the chart they provide. I have killed deer and plenty of paper targets with my loads and none have complained.

[Lloyd Smale]

water dropped ww can vary alot depending on how hot the bullet was when it hit the water, how cold the water was, what the compostion of that batch of ww ended up being ect. I test with a cabin tree tester and have gotten results from @17 to @25 when doing it. Thats one reason i really dont care for water dropping. Oven treating is much more accurate. Notice too that i put the little @ sign there as NO lead hardness tester is precise. There more of a comparison tool then an actuall measuring tool. Me i like to do it he old fashion way. I alloy for hardness. #2 is a very usealbe alloy for what your doing. It the alloy i use the most for big game hunting.

[Thecyberguy]

Oven treated WW 30-32...per http://www.lasc.us/CastBulletNotes.htm

There seems to be a great deal of people here on this forum that have negative things to say about Lee products.

I do not have a hardness tester, but I have many other Lee products that I think work just fine.
Have a good 'un, thecyberguy