Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Okay. And are you testing ingots or bullets? You will get different readings from them. I understand it's a matter of mass, especially with the impact type testers.
Super Hard Bullet Recipe
- Thread starter stlg67
- Start date
I'm testing bullets after water quenched. I powder coat them, lube and then size them. I'm new at this, just got some powder in to start loading. Have reloading regular bullets for about 10yrs, this lead like I said is new me.
What Bret is getting at is what determines the final hardness of the alloy is how fast they cool. An ingot has far greater mass than a bullet and will cool far slower than a bullet when quenching giving a big difference in hardness readings.
JonB
Halcyon member
While the Lee tester seems real simple, there is a learning curve in regard to the techniques...doing the exact same technique for each bullet tested. If you are still getting "crazy readings" you need to analyze all your techniques, and see if there is something inconsistent.
Issues I had during the first year of using the Lee tester.
For making the dimple, I was using a cheap press with some ram slop, I learned if I "leaned" on the handle during the 30 seconds, I'd get oblong dimples, giving me incorrect and inconsistent readings...until I figured that out and quit doing that. Also, that tiny scope needs REAL GOOD light to read the graduations.
I had seen some information about high velocity rounds and that they needed to be above 20 BHN
Nope. I was shooting 145gr GCd from 1:8 16" BO yesterday, 2k fps (IMR 4227). Alloy is 3%Sb, 0.5%Cu; WD. No 'tester'. I've used H110 & cfeblk on other loads. I use a tad more Sb for 308W, 2700 fps - works fine. I have shot high BHN (like superhard but NOT SH) 145gr PB, worked fine @ 2k fps. Hitek coated. Good hard hammer test didn't cause much damage. Results, really hard bullets work but not needed unless target is a tank.
Nope. I was shooting 145gr GCd from 1:8 16" BO yesterday, 2k fps (IMR 4227). Alloy is 3%Sb, 0.5%Cu; WD. No 'tester'. I've used H110 & cfeblk on other loads. I use a tad more Sb for 308W, 2700 fps - works fine. I have shot high BHN (like superhard but NOT SH) 145gr PB, worked fine @ 2k fps. Hitek coated. Good hard hammer test didn't cause much damage. Results, really hard bullets work but not needed unless target is a tank.
I agree John, the microscope is the hardest part for me, its hard for me to focus and get it on the exact line, LBT is so much simpler and user friendly, not to mention made by some really good seeming folks. Ill still keep the lee just for comparing purpose, but the LBT tester is used on the regular now.
I was wondering in your opinion if BHN around 10.7-16 would be okay around 2000 - 2100 fps? I have some 150 and 160 g 30cal I'm fixing to load for 300 blackout. I was trying to stay around 2000 or a little lower according to the Lyman 4th addition for the powder I'm planning on using, IMR 4227, IMR 4198.
blackthorn
Active Member
Question---what if you cast say a half-inch thick medallion the size of say a fifty cent piece and heat treated it along with your bullets, water quenching both together? My thought was, the medallion could then be tested several times, at intervals, using my LBT tester, over a period of time, without the fear of disturbing the BHN by filing a flat on a bullet. Sorry for the thread drift.
Ian
Notorious member
BHN has almost nothing to do with velocity potential of an alloy. Throw your copy of Modern Reloading in the trash.
Nobody mentioned the time ut takes for precipitation-hardening of antimonial lead alloys to occur, particularly after heat treat.
IT TAKES UP TO A MONTH FOR THE ALLOY TO FULLY HARDEN.
Testing BHN after only a few days tells you absolutely nothing useful.
Nobody mentioned the time ut takes for precipitation-hardening of antimonial lead alloys to occur, particularly after heat treat.
IT TAKES UP TO A MONTH FOR THE ALLOY TO FULLY HARDEN.
Testing BHN after only a few days tells you absolutely nothing useful.
Mitty38
Well-Known Member
Yep yep , and sometimes no.
When you start fooling with antimony the alloy can take a little time to find itself. Or not.
Especially if
containment like calcium, carbon, copper, zinc, or iron is introduced ( from water pipes, wheel weights, flux, jackets etc.)
Practiced that method for a long time, still do with most loads.
It works pretty good as long as you do not start jumping down rabbit holes.
Like pushing a 22 caliber bullet at 2200 fps in a semi auto. But then EVERYTHING MATTERS with stuff like that.
When I do test it has been with a file and pencil set btw. Always gets me close enough.
Last edited:
462
California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
I'm not a metallurgist, have never stayed at a Holiday Inn, and to each his own, but . . .
If lead works softens, and to use a Lee hardness tester one has to file a flat area on a to-be-tested bullet, does that not give a false reading? Too, how does one know the amount of pressure that one applies to the press handle is the exact pressure that Lee recommends?
Seems to me that work softening, too little pressure, too much pressure, and a microscope that is all but impossible to read accurately all lead to dubious results, and wasted time and effort.
If lead works softens, and to use a Lee hardness tester one has to file a flat area on a to-be-tested bullet, does that not give a false reading? Too, how does one know the amount of pressure that one applies to the press handle is the exact pressure that Lee recommends?
Seems to me that work softening, too little pressure, too much pressure, and a microscope that is all but impossible to read accurately all lead to dubious results, and wasted time and effort.
Joshua
Taco Aficionado/Salish Sea Pirate/Part-Time Dragon
I have pushed two different alloys to around 2150fps (based on Quickload data). The alloys were homemade mixtures roughly approximating Lyman #2 and COWWs. Alloy hardness was tested with artist pencils and both alloys fell within your range of 10.7 to 16 BHN. Both alloys had similar results accuracy wise. The bullet was a powder coated gas checked Lee C312-155-2R, sized .001”over groove diameter. Cartridge was 30-06. With this load my best ten shot groups have been right around 2 1/2 MOA. This rifle and I do a little better with jacketed, maybe 2 MOA ten shot groups.
2000 is definitely doable.
I’ve also shot some full power, 170 grain Ranchdog, PC & GC, loads in my 30-30. Again using my mystery lead mixed with a little Lino, that pencil tests like it’s COWW. These loads were also above 2000 fps and have done well for me.
RBHarter
West Central AR
How you get to the target velocity matters too .
For a visual a fast powder Red Dot or Unique is like a 12 second drag car with really fast 60 ft times I gets all of the acceleration in the first half then goes flat .
Then you have H110 , 4227 5477 , that car has just so-so 60' times but it's actually faster and still accelerating at half way even though it runs the same clock speed as the first car .
Then you waddle in with stuff from 4895 on down to 4350 even 4831 and that's like that big block sled , the 60' sucks the halfway is about same as the second car at 65% of the run but it runs out of push about 10' from the last light .
The last half in a side by side is a race to watch .
The results with any alloy will change if you spike it to speed in a chamber length , 3 lengths or 5 . Generally what works with alloy #1 doesn't with #3 the opposite is also true .
For a visual a fast powder Red Dot or Unique is like a 12 second drag car with really fast 60 ft times I gets all of the acceleration in the first half then goes flat .
Then you have H110 , 4227 5477 , that car has just so-so 60' times but it's actually faster and still accelerating at half way even though it runs the same clock speed as the first car .
Then you waddle in with stuff from 4895 on down to 4350 even 4831 and that's like that big block sled , the 60' sucks the halfway is about same as the second car at 65% of the run but it runs out of push about 10' from the last light .
The last half in a side by side is a race to watch .
The results with any alloy will change if you spike it to speed in a chamber length , 3 lengths or 5 . Generally what works with alloy #1 doesn't with #3 the opposite is also true .
Mitty38
Well-Known Member
IMHO
The Hardness test is not going to be that accurate, as far as actual hardness. With the exception or some very expensive equipment, like 10 k expensive. In a lab situation. Along with some very consistent calibration samples.... And they still take three samples of the same material and give you an average.
Especially concerning the minimal amounts of hardness lead alloys test at, compared to other materials.
But it can be useful in giving you a base line. It can get you close enough to make a decision. If you do it as consistent as possible.
Plus testing will let you know if you had a change in hardness. Or for consistancy. I generally use testing as a consistancy check, not as a hard set fact.
It does not tell you malability, structure, break down pressures etc.
But this is just my opinion, as someone who works in a metalergical lab as a grunt and does not work professionally , except occasionally, with lead. So take it for what it is Opinion based on my limited experience. My knowledge of casting and shooting cast is probable the least of those others responding here.
The Hardness test is not going to be that accurate, as far as actual hardness. With the exception or some very expensive equipment, like 10 k expensive. In a lab situation. Along with some very consistent calibration samples.... And they still take three samples of the same material and give you an average.
Especially concerning the minimal amounts of hardness lead alloys test at, compared to other materials.
But it can be useful in giving you a base line. It can get you close enough to make a decision. If you do it as consistent as possible.
Plus testing will let you know if you had a change in hardness. Or for consistancy. I generally use testing as a consistancy check, not as a hard set fact.
It does not tell you malability, structure, break down pressures etc.
But this is just my opinion, as someone who works in a metalergical lab as a grunt and does not work professionally , except occasionally, with lead. So take it for what it is Opinion based on my limited experience. My knowledge of casting and shooting cast is probable the least of those others responding here.
Last edited:
Mitty38
Well-Known Member
Amen brother!!
Ian
Notorious member
Bingo!
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Here's some free advice- Take what you have, start a good 10% lower than you think you want to end up, seat the bullet so it just kisses the lands (if it will feed) and shoot them. See what happens. I'm honestly not trying to rain on your parade guy, but you're worrying about Bhn waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much. I've told you this before, I'm telling you again. Bhn is NOT the answer you are looking for. Fit is the answer. So go shoot, see what happens and then we can start the real work.
Ian
Notorious member
Good question, I've wondered this myself. First, if there is any meplat, I test on that surface. Second, I've actually compared meplat readings to filed flat readings and found them close enough to not consider it a factor....with air-quenched, wheelweight-ish alloy. Water-quenched is a different story; the surface is harder than the core (generally), and water-quenched alloy seems to "work soften" much more easily than air-quenched alloy.
Regarding consistency with rhe Lee tool, the user has to get a feel for how to apply the pressure and exactly when to stop and hold based on the plunger coming up to the top of the die. The tool comes with detailed instructions which seem quite valid. One can also calibrate the tool with a bathroom scale. All things considered, I find the Lee hardness tester to be very reliable, consistent, and likely pretty accurate if used properly.