Hiya grumpyone. I got a chance to read this, so I'm posting here instead of the other thread.
1. First, a suggestion. Instead of mailing off your bullets to get their exact composition certified, why not order laboratory-grade lead, tin, and antimony - scale weigh each into the alloys you want to test - and cast a few sample bullets to test? Thus, you'd avoid all the issues of lab GCMS, as well as "contamination" (or maybe more accurately) variation in alloy. Just a suggestion.
2. Second, I'll have to re-read your posts here several more times, but on our discussion on the other thread, you (very paraphrased) said that high-tin with low-antimony alloys have a poor quality consistency of hardness. I don't doubt that assertion, but I don't see the data here to support it. (Like I said, I'm going to re-read it a couple more times - being neither an engineer or chemist, you're going pretty fast for me...
) It SEEMS to me that most of Weaver's testing was done with very high concentrations of tin/antimony vs. what I was talking about with a low-BHN cowboy bullet. Could it be the conclusions with those "strong-alloy" bullets do not translate to the "weaker-alloy" bullets I was talking about? (Without any proof I assert that high-lead-content alloys display good ductility. This property may counter the fracturing/tearing action one would be worried about with the inconsistency of the alloy due to the higher tin content.)
3. Third, I want to compliment you on your methodology. I see the scientific method often messed up, but you've done an excellent job. I believe results would be easy to correlate and proove by others.
4. Fourth, you state at one point that the ideal level of antimony for hardening is around 4% (but you're not sure exactly where). Does that mean, you'd assert that the best alloy would be around 92-4-4 (depending on exactly where that antimony percentage falls)?