Lee Lead Hardness Tester

Status
Not open for further replies.

castmiester

Active Member
How accurate is it compared to other brands ? Is it a reliable tester ?

On my other thread "the weight of a bullet part 2" You all believe my casts are lino from the weight drop with a certain mould.
 

Rick

Moderator
Staff member
Never used the LEE BHN tester myself but I have heard some incredibly wild claims about BHN tested on one. I use the LBT tester and it is repeatable and no magnifying glasses, vices to hold anything, no interpreting dent sizes.
 

castmiester

Active Member
Never used the LEE BHN tester myself but I have heard some incredibly wild claims about BHN tested on one. I use the LBT tester and it is repeatable and no magnifying glasses, vices to hold anything, no interpreting dent sizes.
what kind of "wild" claims ? And what interpreting dent sizes ? I use a clear plastic bottle top with a hole drilled in the cap to hold the scope still. It's consistent from what I can see. What I was wondering is the mechanics behind it... the spring loaded plunger and the size of the ball that makes the impression verses say the LBT. How is the LBT better ?
 
Last edited:

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
I have a tester and have not used it in at least 5 years. I am far less concerned with the BHn that I am having consistent alloy. I melt down large amounts at one time to have some level of consistency.
For my shooting that works well.
 

castmiester

Active Member
I have a tester and have not used it in at least 5 years. I am far less concerned with the BHn that I am having consistent alloy. I melt down large amounts at one time to have some level of consistency.
For my shooting that works well.
What I am looking for in consistency is a Kieth's 421 11 BHN for controlled expansion that he tested to hunt with. I guess other than thin skinned and maybe black bear.. and I'm know Rick knows the write up on LASC article about Keith's findings.
 

Rick

Moderator
Staff member
what kind of "wild" claims ? And what interpreting dent sizes ? I use a clear plastic bottle top with a hole drilled in the cap to hold the scope still. It's consistent from what I can see. What I was wondering is the mechanics behind it... the spring loaded plunger and the size of the ball that makes the impression verses say the LBT. How is the LBT better ?

One such claim that comes to mind is the guy that swore up & down that his WW bullets were 30 BHN because they had to be, his LEE tester said so.
 

Rick

Moderator
Staff member
What I am looking for in consistency is a Kieth's 421 11 BHN for controlled expansion that he tested to hunt with. I guess other than thin skinned and maybe black bear.. and I'm know Rick knows the write up on LASC article about Keith's findings.

A link to that article please.
 

Brad

Benevolent Overlord and site owner
Staff member
What I am looking for in consistency is a Kieth's 421 11 BHN for controlled expansion that he tested to hunt with. I guess other than thin skinned and maybe black bear.. and I'm know Rick knows the write up on LASC article about Keith's findings.
To me a 429421 doesn’t need expansion to work well. That said i too would avoid something like Linotype. I don’t like brittle alloy for hunting.
My primary alloy is range scrap that runs in the 2.5-3% Sb and .75 Sn range. Shot a couple black bears and 5 or so deer with it in a variety of rifles with very good results.

Dont get hung up on BHn. It is just ONE measure of a bullet.
 

castmiester

Active Member
One such claim that comes to mind is the guy that swore up & down that his WW bullets were 30 BHN because they had to be, his LEE tester said so.
The only thing l can attribute to that number is the plunger wasn’t flush or not even close to being flush with the top on the die.
 

Glaciers

Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
I have a Lee tester but never bothered to make a stand for it.
I have a Cabine Tree tester which is far easier to use and it’s repeatable without having to hold your mouth just right.
The Art Pencils are probably easier than anything.
But not getting wrapped up in BHN is good advice.
 

castmiester

Active Member
A link to that article please.

Heading title is "44 Mag"

The 240-250 grain SWC's are excellent general purpose .44 Magnum bullets, for silhouette competition to hunting deer, black bear and even elk. If the hunter wants an expanding version of these bullets, the Keith and Thompson SWC's were also made in HP form. Cast to a BHN of about 12 (e.g. WW alloy sweetened with about 2% tin), these bullets expand fine on game
 

castmiester

Active Member
nope,,, just, nope.
nope to what ? to ~ 12 BHN isn't needed for controlled expansion or controlled expansion isn't a factor at all?

So you don't agree with this then.....
What started out as a bullet designed solely for competitive paper punching, morphed into a general purpose bullet, and ultimately resulted in an outstanding series of handgun hunting bullets.
 
Last edited:

JBinMN

Member
I have & use the Lee BHN test thingy. Use it & once I figured out how to locate the dimple in the little scope thingy, it works OK., but not what I would like to do often.

I have seen on the internet how some folks use a soda pop bottle & cap to be a microscope stand to read..
Did not try that, so can't give any opinion on it.

I got a microscope type holder to try it, though.

It actually worked pretty well, but not my "thing" to use it. But, it was a good way to do it if yu are Okay with such things & don't have bi-focals & shaky hands.
( Big hands, Bi-focals...etc. You know... Stuff happens. But it was pretty good to try to use.)


My BEST way of using it is to make just set the die up correctly, make the dimple, highlight it with a red sharpie pen inside the dimple & use a Calipers to measure the indent.

Never failed me yet & I don't have to dink around with anything else.
YMMV< but try it sometime.

Ya might be surprised.
BTW, it is more accurate than ya might thing, if ya set the die up properly.

Your caliper is WAY EASIER TO READ than the little microscope doodad scale.

You can use a different color sharpie pen to highlite the dimple, but I found Red to be the easiest for "ME".
;)
P.S. - IF someone wants the link to the "microscope deal", I can share it for ya if ya want it.
 

castmiester

Active Member
red marker, I'll give it a try. Yeah I'll look at the link.. sure.

Tried the marker, And it doesn't help....
 
Last edited:

JBinMN

Member
red marker, I'll give it a try. Yeah I'll look at the link.. sure.

Tried the marker, And it doesn't help....
OK. Ya did not like the marker method.

Fine.

I will give ya the link.

No need to mention if ya like it, or not.

Won't matter to me. My doins work fine, just as I do them, whether they work for you or not.

I offered some experience ya may not have had... YMMV. Do as ya like.



BTW, You are not making it easy for me to help ya anymore.

I am being as polite & civil as I can, without breaking any rules...

I have helped out as best I could now & don't feel like doin it anymore.

You can figure that one out.
 

castmiester

Active Member
I have & use the Lee BHN test thingy. Use it & once I figured out how to locate the dimple in the little scope thingy, it works OK., but not what I would like to do often.

that would have been good enough. Appreciate it.
 

Bronco72

New Member
+1 for the LBT tester!
That Veral Smith has a whole lot of knowledge on casting and alloys! His book is a must read!
IMHO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.