Hardness of WW

[joeb33050]

1. If you have measured the hardness of WW lately, please tell me the BHN.
2. I shoot WW, made from a sheetrock pail of WW and repeatedly melted and mixed and cleaned. If there's somebody out there who would measure the hardness, please send me your address to joeb33050@yahoo.com
Thanks and Merry Christmas
joe b.

[joeb33050]

Are 429421's suitable for hardness testing?
Thanks;
joe b.

[drinks]

Joe;
The latest batch was BHN 13-14.

[Powderpacker]

My new Lee Hardness Tester shows about 14 (+or-) for the acww boolits I've checked so far.

[475/480]

WW bought in Houston,Tx consistently show,
WW aircooled NEW-BHN 12
WW " 2 weeks--BHN 14

Sean

[Buckshot]

............My experience follows Seans, as when I'm batching WW I will pull a sample and expect to see about 11 BHN. That's from a cooled, just poured sample.

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

[Bret4207]

My stuff is mostly cast from one really large batch I did several years ago. Straight WW runs about 8.0 on my Cabine Tree tester. If you're really curious I think "someone" should send a test standard sample around before we decide such and such an alloy is so hard. I think the testers and the guys running them vary a bit. I've tested so called 18BHN samples that come in more like 14, but it's older alloy and is allegedly prone to softening through the years. I just don't know how accurate the systems are.

[Springfield]

I've been testing my bullets for the last 9 months with my LBT hardness tester. My wheelweights consistently measure out at 9-10 the day after I cast them. This is for air cooled pistol bullets in 38 to 45 caliber. I cast hot to get the bullets to frost slightly. 17 seems awful hard for air cooled wheelweights.

[Shuz]

I've been using a Saeco hardness tester for over ten years. During that time, air cooled wheel weights have never varied from Bhn 9 to 11.

[9.3X62AL]

Using the Official Buckshot Hardness Testing System, 5 different 3# ingots from the 500# lot I got from Art Green a couple months ago show Bhn 9-10.

[canuck4570]

interesting topic by the way.... and I want to buy a tester.... could you tell me wich is best in this feild.... thank you....

[Shuz]

"I ain't gotta clue" about which tester is the best, but I can say that the Saeco is very reliable. By this I mean, several samples from the same melt, always gives me the same reading. The only drawback with this tester is that it requires a flat meplat on a boolit for testing. Therefore no ingots can be tested and no spire or otherwise pointed boolits. Also, I've found that .44 cal boolits work easily, but other cals such as .35 and 7mm and .25, are a little more finickey to get the bases seated properly in the tool. Perhaps a lot of that is due to their having gas check shanks that my .44's don't? I get around this situation, by always casting a few .44 boolits (after the .44 mould has gotten up to temp!) and then placing them with the other boolits just to check on the hardness...sometimes months later.

[canuck4570]

"I ain't gotta clue" about which tester is the best, but I can say that the Saeco is very reliable. By this I mean, several samples from the same melt, always gives me the same reading. The only drawback with this tester is that it requires a flat meplat on a boolit for testing. Therefore no ingots can be tested and no spire or otherwise pointed boolits. Also, I've found that .44 cal boolits work easily, but other cals such as .35 and 7mm and .25, are a little more finickey to get the bases seated properly in the tool. Perhaps a lot of that is due to their having gas check shanks that my .44's don't? I get around this situation, by always casting a few .44 boolits (after the .44 mould has gotten up to temp!) and then placing them with the other boolits just to check on the hardness...sometimes months later.

thank you from canuck

[Bass Ackward]

Well the difference in measurement is probably more the difference in the testers than the mixes.

I should keep my mouth shut here because I am really a hybrid user. I do not use straight WW because of the abrasive nature of antimony unless it is balanced with tin.

Year before last, I received several hundred pounds of WW from the 60s. Then, WW was .09% antimony. Those measure 18 - 20 air cooled. I have several hundred pounds of various mixes from the 70s left that are about .06% antimony. Those air cool around 15 BHN. And all of my range scrap is collected and recycled and reconstituted, so hard tellin what truely goes in to end up at 14 BHN for my current mix. Most of the recycled is added to current WW metal to form it's own batch.

That is why I always mix up several hundred pounds at a time. I make several consistent 150lb pots and these are stocked together and go into "a batch". Then I have 5 or 6 batches sitting around in different locations. When I add metal to the pot, a bar is only added when there is room for 6. Then one bar comes from each of those batches so I have a HUGE quantity where consistency always remains the same for a very long time.

But every once in awhile I will cook up a batch of current WW plain, just to see if antimony content is still around .02% and those are 11 to 13 on my tester.

[azvaquero]

In my NSHO, the LBT hardness tester wins hands down. Gives you a direct readout in BHN, unlike others which give a relative measurement only. When you test a lot of bullets, convenience counts.

My air cooled WW come in consistently around 11 BHN on my LBT tester.

[buck1]

WW bought in Houston,Tx consistently show,
WW aircooled NEW-BHN 12
WW " 2 weeks--BHN 14

Sean

I get the same readings with my current production WW. As per my SAECO tester..........Buck

[drinks]

I have the Cabine Tree tester.
It is very flexable, I can test from .22 rfn's to 2 lb muffins, the readout is by dial gage, there is nothing to get out of adjustment.
I have a sample ingot of lead, shows BHN 5 and an ingot of linotype from MidwayUSA , shows BHN 22, both conform to the book examples.
I recheck with the known samples every few months and there has been no change.
I tested a ww out of a batch I just collected, BHN 12-13.
My usual mixes test from 12 to 14 air cooled, and up to BHN 24-26 water dropped. I have not oven treated any in some time, do not remember what I got with that technique.
I would buy the Cabine Tree tester again, if I lost the one I have.

[Bret4207]

I'm real happy with my Cabine Tree tester. I got the upscale model that also tests run out. I just wish I had some real good samples of a known alloy that doesn't age soften or harden to use as a standard. My WW may just be soft.

[Ron.D]

Tpr. Bret. I'm not at all sure that you're reading isn't closer than most, and I've wondered about the BHN of WW reported by some for a while now. First, Lyman claims a BHN of 15 for Lyman # 2 which is a loooong way from WW. I have a friend that is the batcher at Canadas biggest lead foundry, and he tells me that at best todays WW have about 2 1/2 - 3% antimony and about 1/2% tin . A rough guide to the hardness of lead alloys is that for each percent of tin or ant. we add, it should raise the BHN by approx. 1 hence #2 alloy with 5% tin and 5% ant. yields a bhn of 15 when added to the 5% of the original lead. I know that the BHN doesn't go up in a straight line and that this calculation is only a rough guide, but I have a difficult time believing that 2 1/2% ant. and 1/2% tin yields a BHN of 12-14 as many claim. It's just too close to Lyman #2. When according to the rough guide, it should be closer to a BHN of approx. 8 1/2 - 9. I think there may be a lot of testers out there that need calibration. Just my .02 on the subject. Ron.D

[kenjuudo]

One slight modification I did to my cabin tree was to use different color "sharpie" markers to shade the lense for each hardness range eliminating the need to keep the conversion table handy.

Day old ACWW checks in the 12-14BHN on mine.

Bret, I have some virgin foundry type and pure lead that I cast samples from for test samples. I'd be happy to mail ya some for reference. You are right about technique, I use samples from these alloys to make sure when I get an odd reading.

jim