Home Forums Reloading Bullet Casting testing on BHN testers

Just a link about hardness testers.... hope you like it.

BTW Lee beats them all.

https://www.artfulbullet.com/documents/Shay_BHN_Tester_Exp.pdf

Been using a Lee for near 10 years and have zero complaints and consistent results.

do you test multiple casts to see if they all have the same consistency or just test one and just load ?

appreciate some feed back boys

Please

I use the LBT.

Kinda hard to see how Smith makes his work. Others l can understand but not his.

The LBT tester can be manipulated, but its also quick and the number is right in front of you.

If you don't follow the directions exactly, you will get some wider variance, but its quick enough to use repeatedly on the same projectile and get a definitive rating.

It uses the strength of the projectile under tension, or a reverse tension, to get a rating.

The LBT tester is a simplified version of a Rockwell hardness tester. I had a Rockwell tester in my office back in another lifetime and it's a simple joy to use - set the material on the anvil, lower the penetrator to pre-load the machine until the pointer on the dial points to zero for the hardness scale being employed, trip the lever/trigger and it presents a precise further load to the penetrator and the ram goes in a bit farther depending on the hardness of the material, then read out the hardness on the dial. Different penetrators for different hardness scales - diamond points for Rockwell "C", rounded points for Rockwell "B", larger rounded penetrators for Brinell, etc. Damned accurate and was industry standard 50 years ago, and even though that technology is far outpassed by current technology it would be the last word in accuracy for a lead casting hobbyist. Trouble is they're fairly large and heavy and I see used ones on eBay fetching $800-1000 which is a helluva lot more than I care to spend just to know what my exact bullet hardness is.

Back when I got my LBT tester I had occasion to compare it to the results provided by a Rockwell tester in an acquaintance's machine shop. With several different alloys it read within a BHN point or two of the Rockwell machine. Close enough for me, and I've kept it jealously stored in a padded wooded box I made for it so it couldn't get messed up.

Other testers are good and maybe better but the LBT has served me faithfully for I guess around 20 years now. I'll not be switching at this point. Testers I just can't warm up to are those that requires the operator to make a judgement call with a pair of dial calipers - too much room for error for my tastes, but it works for a lot of people and that's all that matters. Drawing pencils are right out there for similar reasons - too much subjectiveness in interpretation.

Only fly in the ointment these days is Veral Smith ain't makin' the LBT tester anymore, last I heard.

What's more important than knowing the exact BHN of an alloy is being able to duplicate that hardness, if that alloy works for you. It doesn't matter if it's 11bhn or 13bhn or 20bhn by your tester as long as it's repeatable - and that's where a tester comes into play. Of course it's of much greater importance to a guy who's mixing stuff out of mystery components. If a fella keeps his alloys simple and constructs them with known components (ie: pure tin and pure lead in carefully weighed amounts) his hardness will be scary consistent with no need to bother with a tester.

I watched the video and saw another lever that was depressed for the preload after the knurled knob was thread down to make the indentation on the bullet.

So the ram that is depressed after the preload, (knurled knob). After the indicator arm reaches the "set" line, then the other lever is depressed to show the actual BHN. So that ram, when depressed, allows the knurled knob to penetrate even deeper, or is that when the actual hardness ?

I don't mix alloys, but considering some debate about WW's and varying mixture I test. SO far it's consistent and threw out the window that debate. Hardness does not increase with time I believe.

Bingo....you are the second person to agree with me on this.

why wouldn't it matter ? I think it matters..... wouldn't want brittle hard casts to hunt with. Maybe not for target shooting it matters.


So the LBT is History, then. Did you read the link I sent ?

so if you don't have the pointer on the "set" mark, that's what you mean about reverse tension ?

It's too simple of construction.... to say it's accurate, but hey what do I know ! LOL

You missed my point (or I communicated it poorly) as far as not mattering. Of course hardness (or lack thereof) matters, my point is that no matter what hardness you want/use the only thing that matters is consistency from batch to batch, no matter how large or small that batch may be. If one's tester is out of whack by X points on the Brinell scale, so what as long as it's consistently X points out every time it's used - as long as it's indicating ones desired hardness goal then it's correct for you in your world.

I'd like to be in a certain place, number wise, in order not to be "out of whack" and to be consistent with a bullet that wouldn't be brittle upon impact on game. Doesn't matter at the range as long as it's accurate.

Would that be your point ? And what's your definition of being "out of whack". From what to what? What is your desired hardness in your college lab world? For hunting big game with a 44 Mag, anyway?

Moot point. I don't hunt with a .44 Magnum, nor do I own one and never have and never will. I have absolutely zero need or desire for one. My needs are simple, I've whittled down to a pile of .32's, .38's, and 45ACP's. A simple 1:20 alloy works for me in all of them for the target ammo I shoot (no "self defense" loads in play here either, a dusty box of .45ACP Speer Gold Dots await the remote need for that). Where I get a bit fancier with alloys is with rifle stuff, and frankly I'm shooting mostly tin:lead alloys there anymore also. After 50+ years of fretting about alloys I came to the realization that the K.I.S.S. principle applies here as well as in most things in life.

doesn't sound like you hunt. So there's no moot point about it is there professor ?

I hunt, but not with handguns. Never interested me to do so. I've killed a lot of stuff with rifles and cast bullets, mostly .30 caliber and mostly with bullets in the 180-220gr. range, and never over 2000fps, with soft-ish alloys the average guy who worships at the alter of "hard cast" would snicker at. So what??? It works for me and at the end of the day that's all that matters, as what works for you should be all that matters at the end of your day.

These days as gimpiness sets in frankly I get equal if not more satisfaction messing with vintage single shot target rifles, where the tin:lead alloys are ridiculously soft. As I said somewhere else my pile of linotype and monotype and wheel weight ingots is getting a serious layer of dust on it. I should sell the crap.

As you seem to be a contentious sort who derives a certain pleasure from drawing folks out, back on ignore you go.

Hey we're all learning here, right ?

I believe he does know what he's talking about; at least on what he's done and tested himself, not a link of what someone else did or says.

The LBT tester only gives variance when variance in the "set" process is introduced or the base is not true. For example, if you are short turning to "set" and give another slight crank to hit "set", you will have variance. The same as if you go past set and reduce. You want an even turn on the anvil under load and that process needs to be precise and fluid to the set mark without hiccups or hitches, like throwing charges from a powder measure if you want exact volumetric precision (which differs from exact weight that anyone can trickle). It's not variance in the tool, it's slight human error in the process.

The only fool here is asking for feedback from people who didn't get their "experience" from an article.

I see anotherkunt has shown back up in typical predictable fashion.

Made perfect sense to me.