Those that mess with concocting your own alloy, how do you test the hardness?

Reason I'm asking:
I'm no expert bullet caster by any measure, but I'd like to be. I don't own any kind of hardness tester.

I have a good supply of "pure lead" that casts a nice roundball for the flintlock, that engraves perfectly on a patch.

I used to have 500 lbs of "linotype". I helped smelt down the many boxes of letter blocks obtained from the basement a local newspaper. My since deceased old gunsmith buddy said it was legit stuff and we were supposed to split it, but I ended up in possession of it all. I've since given some away but still probably have 450 lbs left, and been saving it for dark and gloomy days.

In the middle I hoarded wheel weights back in the 80s and 90s and have probably 300 lbs stashed. It's probably a potpourrie of who knows what throughout the entire lot. I've cast some plinker pistol bullets with it and my one son is using it in his cap & ball revolver with the 45LC conversion cylinder.

I'd like to start using this wheelweight stuff in a couple project rifles in a serious sense, and want to maintain a consistent alloy. So knowing hardness would be a big help in that should I need to tweak it one way or the other.

I have an old LBT tester, but Veral Smith's shop burned down and the testers are no more. If I were looking for one now I would probably go with the Cabin Tree model.

Quite the trove of lead! I would start scrounging as much dead soft lead (as pure as possible) to mix with the type metal and/or wheel weights. Either one alone is rather harder than needed for even rifle bullets pushing close to 2000fps. A little type metal goes a looooong way. Once you have a pile of soft lead gathered up, then I would sit down and consult charts that abound for the purpose of making "X" alloy from known additives. The trick is to do as big a batch as possible to achieve consistency in subsequent casting sessions.

Might be worth while to start sorting those wheel weights now too. If they're newer then you'll likely find three varieties: clip-on style lead (the all time standard for this work), stick-on lead which are awfully soft maybe pure lead (useful in their own right), and the dreaded clip-on zinc types. Sh*t can the zinc ones and take great pains not to allow any to end up in the lead pot. With a little practice you can identify them. Basically they're harder than the lead clip-ons and that's how guys separate them (use your imagination).

I've borrowed lead testers in various price ranges, done the ball indent formula, and after all that I keep going back to lead hardness testing with quality drawing pencil sets. Go to a search on the subject or better just go to Cast Boolits, where they have a complete description of the process with lots of tips.
later edit...the best one I have is a Mars Lumograph, 12 pencil set in a metal box, made by Staedtler in Germany. Maybe was about 14 bucks on ebay?

gnoahhh,


Already sorted the wheelweights a couple decades ago and melted everything down into ingots. They were all clip on weights from before stick on became much of a thing and the changeover to zinc.

I'll check in that, thanks.

I can't emphasize enough, what Gnoahhh said above about bullet hardness above. Bullets that are soft enough to obturate to seal gases are the key to success. I don't know why, but mass producers are still beating the drum and using the term "hardcast" as if it was a good thing. It never has been a good thing IMO. As a matter of fact I will go so far as to say, the much ballyhooed standard of Lyman #2, around 15 is harder than needed 75% of the time. Here is a simple formula for guesstimation of pressure needed to deform a given hardness of bullet, (BHN) X 1422= PSI...this will get you in the ballpark and keep you out of the leading zone, assuming you have some idea of the PSI of your load.
If you want to go a different direction, you can use about any hardness, IF! your bullet perfectly seals the throat. Of course, the newer powder coating covers so many sins of hardness and fit that it should have been called blanket amnesty, or so I'm told, having never fired a single one...yet.

Thanks for that info, I'm sure it will be useful. "What hardness?" was going to be my next question in a series of questions on this.

I won't be powder coating anything. This is old school from beginning to end.

What cartridges will you be casting for and what velocity levels are your aim?

I've pretty much switched completely over to simple binary alloys, tin/lead - 1:20 for simple old school revolver bullets and low-vel rifle stuff, 1:15 for .45ACP, and 1:10 for rifle stuff 1400-1800fps. I have a monstrous amount of WW, linotype, and monotype gathering dust, but it ain't going anywhere.

The first project rifle is my 1958 Marlin 35 Rem with a 200 gr FN, the second project is my 2016 Remlin 45/70 with a 405 grain FN which I still need to source the mold for. There may be a 3rd Marlin rifle at some point in 375 Win that will be primarily for jacketed loads but I'll find a good mold just in case i decide to use cast in it. That one still needs to go to JES for a rebore from 30-30.

I'll probably want all three on the same diet of alloy. No?

As far as velocity let's marry a good alloy with an appropriate velocity to use these rifles in the hardwoods breaking the front running gear on whitetails, out to 100ish yards if the accuracy is there. That'll be their primary use other than just having some fun stuff to shoot off season.

Straight wheel weights or similar alloy will work for your rifles. The marlin 35 rem will probably have a very short or non existant throat, so be aware that any cast bullets for it will probably be into the rifling. I have the RCBS gas checked moulds for my 35 Rem, 38-55 and 45-70. They work very well.

We are throwing a lot on your plate at one time. But examples are easy, let's take your .35 Rem, Lyman Cast manual 4th edition (current I think). Most of the published max loads run around 30,000 CUP, let's convert to psi... (1.516X 30,000)minus 17,902=27,578 psi. Then dividing 27,580 psi by 1422...we come up with roughly 19 Bhn for max loads in the .35Rem. But, IMO I think you will find happiness down in 15k-20k pressure and 1400-1500 fps...but I've never hunted a .35R.
Because the formulas call for a 19 BHN for max loads...don't take that as gospel, I have friends using wheelweights with gas checks at 2000 fps in the Krag and Lee Enfield with great success.
Avoid pointy mold styles, go with moderate velocity and nice flat meplats....thwock, meat in the pot. IMO, Your old .45-70 will become your favorite, I'd bet. I have 3 .45-70's, 2 trapdoors and a Ballard Pacific....the worst carbine can do 3" 5 shot groups at a 100yds. Plain ol' 405 Lee mold.

Certainly no harder than wheelweights with a pinch of tin to aid mold fillout. Personally I would go even softer because none of them are particularly hot screamers, say 50/50 WW/lead - I would load a box and see how they shoot and make sure they don't lead the bore. If poor performance is the result I would switch up to 75/25 WW/lead. Still add a pinch of tin for fillout.

It's been so long since I sweetened soft lead with type metal that I don't remember the proportions. I would have to consult the charts. Maybe 75/25 lead/type metal sticks in my mind. Remember, any time you alloy with type metal the hardness will shift a bit harder with age. A bullet composed of a lot of type metal that registers, say, 15bhn out of the mold will harden a couple points after a couple weeks.

Wheelweights with a "pinch of tin" will expand reliably on game at somewhat sub-2000fps, but as you know bullet shape has a lot to do with it too. This one was a .30 190 FN cast of WW+tin, at about 100 yards, muzzle velocity 1900 fps , .303 Savage. .308 bore, .310 throat, sized .310"

👍

👍👍

Let me get past my daughter's wedding this next weekend and the next couple months of deer season and then we'll have some breathing room to do a deep dive on this where i can put my mind right to it. I certainly appreciate everything so far!!!

This^^, that's what I use. Get a quality German pencil set and read the procedure on Cast Bullets. There are also YouTube videos on the subject.

👍

http://www.lasc.us/CastBulletNotes.htm

Thank you DigitalDan

I have a set of those pencils if you want them. The method is too subjective for me. I rate it as ballpark at best, and my thumbnail is as good as that! I guess I'm prejudiced toward a direct reading Brinnell penetrator as I had a Rockwell hardness tester set up in my office for many years. I've calibrated my LBT tester a couple times with a Rockwell machine and it's dammed close.

Funny thing, the guy who owns the Rockwell machine I referred to offered to sell it to me. Price roughly equivalent to a new gun, not unaffordable. Trouble is my space is cramped now as it is, but it is tempting! Probably make it pay for itself by offering a service to casters to calibrate their hardness testers!

Just got back from looking over the cast boolit site (might have to sign up over there. Knew of it but never joined). Anyway, that's kind of the concensus over there too with the pencils. I'm sorta anal enough to want hard numbers to go by. Might just drop the coin on a Saeco tester, or something similar, and call it good. Pretty sure I can make myself justify it.

My employer has some sort of “gun” that gives the exact content of alloys. From there I can easily estimate the hardness based on content and info found on the internet. Neat tool but way too expensive for the hobby caster to purchase.

It has since come to my attention many scrap yards have the same or similar units. Check around and see if one might be willing to analyze what you have. From there you can research and develop a suitable alloy from you stash.

I was gifted some 'certified' alloy samples by a rich friend, 30:1, 25:1, Lyman #2, hardball, etc...upon which I tested against my pencils...they are closer than you would think, at least as close as the ball indent formula IMO. There IS a technique employed, described by one of the Cast Boolit gurus that lends some uniformity to the process, mostly to do with a filed cape chisel type point, and angle, and down pressure. Just sayin'.

Yeah, the scrap yards around here are pretty much just bubba shot the juke box types.

My old man years ago did a part time side gig as a chemist for an alloy recycling outfit. High end stuff, .gov contracts and the like. Nothing lead alloy that I know of though. In their lab he certified the contents of batches of alloy so they could sell it. That place is long gone though, sadly. Probably had the same machine in there.

I hear you flintlocke....the pencil set is cheap enough to try and see. Won't hurt to try it anyway.

I use a Lee hardness tool. I only use wheels weights that run 12 to 15 BHN. And it’s consistent. Before that a lead pencil kit.

Noone here or anywhere I've asked that question of has suggested the Lee tester. If it was worth a sh it somebody who actually knows casting would recommend it.

Straight WW vary too much for what I want to do, which is find and keep a consistent hardness, and be able to go back and replicate it at a later time. I'll also be likely using a mix of ww/Pb or Linotype/PB for hunting purposes as well, not just straight WW. It will take a decent hardess tester to get there.

I'll either fabricate my own tester, or buy a Saeco, the Lee thing isn't even up for consideration.

WW is fine to hunt what you're gonna hunt with even if it's not as consistent as you want it to be.

50 50 WW and pure lead. 35 Whelen at 1900 FPS, for deer, what do you want to hunt ? Bear, Elk. Doubt you have an Elk tag where you live, so it's either deer or Black bear. You're over analyzing it. I know guys who don't get wrapped up in what year the weights were made or manufactures.

If they don't cast well add a little tin to it.

You're thinking I care what you think, or say.

You are mistaken.

Just yesterday you insulted my dead mother before you went back and edited that comment.

Your participation on my threads is not welcomed.

F uck off.

Get off my thread.

You bring insult on yourself…. I’d tell you to grow up but you can’t.

By your own admission, you "don't shoot much". I'd bet very heavy odds you don't hunt either. And I highly doubt you even cast bullets.

All you have, is your low rent bottom feeder childish insults.

Shut the f uck up and go away.

aaaannndddd loook whoooooossss calllllllling theeeeee keeeeettttllleeee blllaaaaaaaaaack !!!!!

Kettle black?

Oh DO tell us how you figure.

Mr. Don't shoot, don't hunt, don't cast, but has all the answers.

that's all you got on somebody you don't know. And arguing with a toxic friggin JO was my mistake

Sign is easy to read when an obvious window licker obviously licks windows.

Here's a suggestion, go suck start a 12 gauge if you can't leave people alone on this forum with your mentally ill bulls hit.

Not a freaking soul here is forcing you to be that way except YOU.

Now get the f uck OFF my thread.

Nah l think l’ll stay and shove info you need. You don’t need it, who cares, but others will. I forgot more about casting then you’ll ever know

See, that's the problem. Nobody wants what you got. 99% of what you post is either, childish insults, ridiculous misinformed idiocy, or it's just dangerous. Most have you on ignore because of that. You've worn out your welcome just like on other forums where you've been banned because of it.

oh gee what shall I do? then? Oh yeah I'm so dangerous, oh my, nobody but you is the expert ! Oh my ! I guess I'm beat, I wish I was like you ! NOT !

you have no experience with Lee Collet dies but will bash them anyway, retarted bastard, and never used thier hardness tester or ANY tester either retart !

Never been one myself, to need tasting the s,hit sandwich to know it's a s,hit sandwich.

Nitwits like you though, crave the s,hit sandwich, pursue the s,hit sandwich, relish in having a fist full of s,hit sandwich in both hands.

did your momie teeech you how to talk that way ? Or did she feed you [bleep] sandwiches?

When the bottom feeding window licker goes to childish insults he's long lost the fight, and you're a quick loser.

Awww yeah hypo…. Crit

I don't think that word means what you think it means sport.

You're a friggin hypocite SPORT, and you definately sport it around on other people and think you're not part of the equation, SPUNK ! the reason why you can't relate is, You are clueless of the fact of what a pathetic Yack azz you really are.

You're just a poser dude.

An internet know-it-all poser.

I may infact consider the Lee hardness tester, but I would approach it as an opportunity to do right what Lee has miserably failed to do with it. Two things with the Lee tester that would annoy me enough to NOT consider it if I were not a tinkerer with a high level of mechanical aptitude and a shop full of tools.

1) the microscope is too small and too hard to view through when held by hand. To improve upon that I would pay a little more for Lee to include a stand to mount the microscope in. I would do better than Lee can do by fabricating a stand to hold it and the bullet steady.

2) the design of the V-block and the requirement of measuring the size of the impression to determine hardness dictates that a bullet must be filed flat enough on one side and laid in the V-block. All of the bullets I cast have a wide enough flat nose to obtain an impression on the nose without wasting time doing any filing and without wasting the time spent on casting the test bullets in the first place. To do right what Lee didn't do right I would have to fabricate a "shell holder" that allows the base (or the nose) of the bullet to set in with the bullet positioned vertically to obtain the impression either on the wide flat nose or on the base.

In principle the Lee tester makes a fair bit of sense. The execution of the idea by Lee though simply sucks. As said I would pay a bit more than $75 for the kit to have a stand for the scope and a ram block that didn't require filing a bullet. As cheap as Lee makes their stuff the total price would still beat out the price of a Saeco tester. It's too bad the Lee engineers stopped before they got it right.

Disclaimer, this post is in no way whatsoever in response or in concensus with member anotherposer and his fan boi pimping of Lee products ad nauseum. His opinion is meaningless in the overall scope of things and purely coincidental to my considerations. I'm basing this consideration SOLELY off of testing of hardess testers done by the Los Angeles Silhouette Club and their in depth findings. People that shoot a fair bit more than "not much".

Since when is how much you spend dictate what you want to settle for ? LMAO

I'm sure you can improve their tool boss..... it sounds like to microscope is the biggest issue, and you can can rig something up to get rid of the shaky hand. You don't have to hold it over the impression that long anyway.



Saywat ????? AAAAgain... the ego takes over and if you'd loose it, you'd be an all right of a guy.


well good for you, but it's funny how it follows my post though, doesn't is guys ?

I tried a Lee hardness tester way back when they first came out. I too didn't care for the fiddly-ness of it but moreover I preferred then (and do now) a direct reading device. Hence the LBT tester. But, since the vast majority of my bullet making anymore is done with simple tin:lead alloys I don't bother with hardness testing very much - use known elements and mix them uniformly then hardness is a given. Whenever I deign to mix up an alloy employing type metal/wheelweights/lead/tin/God knows what then I'll dust off the hardness tester.

Agreed. Not needed much once you have your mixture. But knowing him he has to test each bullet multiple times.

Well, that's where I'm at with my stash of bullet metal. The amount of wheel weight material I want to use is substantial. There's nothing "known" for sure about it other than what it came from.

Not to be redundant because I'm sure you know gnoahhh, but others reading may not, and I can guess one for sure, probably not. When WWs were made by many different companies for the auto industry hardness wasn't any kind of major factor, requirement, or consideration. Weight was. The recipe was whatever it took to cast WWs close enough to the prescibed weight and send tons of them out the door with as low an overhead as possible.

No tire guy anywhere ever, said, wait this WW is too hard we need softer ones. Infact, no tire guy anywhere ever, cared if a 1 oz weight actually weighed 1 oz.

What tires guys worry about is can we balance this tire good enough for a smooth enough ride, and will the steel clip hold the weight on long enough to get paid for this.

Now, even the "linotype" I have, which is also a substantial amount, was old letter blocks bought from the basement of an old newspaper that was cleaning house. Who knows how many times that metal had been cast, or how much tin has been cooked out of it, etc.

I'll be taking the vaguely known stuff I have and mixing up something to experiment with. When I dial in on something that does what I want it to do, I want factors of hardness, weight, and as-cast size written down to go by to replicate it later when needed later on.

No ego anotherposer, just the the ability to recognize that Lee products are generally half-assed and not completely thought through. This is a prime example.

Then whole ass them then, you can do it. The ego will make it 100 percent! Oh wait, your gonna buy the tester just to prove your point… yeah ok l got it. 🤣 you don’t have to you know. I believe you!

Say TWAT ???


You sound confused, Ferret.. hey there's always room for improvement, been there, done that ! There is hope for you after all. That makes me happy !

Anotherposer, study the meaning of the words, "may in fact consider". A great attribute possessed by even modestly intelligent people is the ability to evaluate and change course. You on the otherhand stop WAY SHORT of qualifying as even remotely intelligent.

On aside, you should be ashamed of pimping something that needs rethinking and reworking just to get it right. Then again, it's easy to see that you simply can't possibly know any better. Lee should be ashamed as well to bank profit from such garbage.

I have a scrap bucket to throw the f-ucking thing in if it turns out to be unusable junk.

Well there is one thing l’m sure of, you are confused and have nothing better else to than act like someone you’re not, poser

Careful sad little man, you might hurt somebody's feelings someday, somehow.....or something.

LMAO

Poser

Poser

Poser

Poser

Little pisser

Big fat ass pisser

What else should we call you

I’ll keep on listing to see where l can stop. It may take all night

Yawn

I never saw you but I’m sure you’re a dic with ears

It's your time to waste Nancy, and your Campfire reputation to flush down the shtter.

You GO GIRL, give it your BESTEST shot.

Why don’t you two clowns get a room?

Don't swing that way myself.

Any opinion on a lead hardness tester?

That was the point of my thread here afterall.

Have you considered a Lee? Alot of the dudes on cast bollits forum do… go brake thier balls too !

you don’t need anybody to tell you what to use, just read what others say they use, and make a decision.

What's your handle over there....or did you get kicked off that site too for what you're doing here.

I don’t go on and post just read after googling.

Kicked off, that's what I figured.

Once but l got back on. You would get banned for good though

BTW… WW ‘s are 9 BHN. You were right ! And guess what l tested with ?

SAECO Lead Hardness

Pure Lead BHN 3-5

40-1 BHN 7-8

25-1
30-1 BHN 8-9
Wheel Weight

20-1 Tin/Lead BHN 10

16-1 BHN 11

1-1 Lead/Linotype
Taracorp
Magnum BHN 15
Lyman #2
Hardball

Linotype BHN 22

Monotype BHN 27-28

Heat Treated BHN 35