If you have a lead hardness tester please get in touch with me.

[yammerschooner]

If you have a lead hardness tester please get in touch with me.

I’m going to try an experiment to gauge the accuracy and variances of various lead testers on the market. I will be looking for a certain number of people with various types of testers.

I realize this experiment has been done in the past and is published on the lasc.us website, but would like to expand on their test because the number of testers used was inconsistent between brands and fairly limited. It is my desire to get results from a greater number of testers, to be able to make comparisons between brands and check for consistency within brands. I have access to a machine that gives me pretty tight control over constants tied to the production of the bullets, so hopefully I can eliminate most, if not all, variables outside of the specific tester and operator combination.

Here is what I am asking from you.


Send me a PM with the type of lead hardness tester you have.
I will choose a similar number of each type of testers, and ask those people for their snail mail address.
Using a commercial grade machine I will cast a bunch of bullets using a consistent speed, alloy, temperature, and time to quench.
Sometime after 21 days from the cast date I will mail you ten bullets.
On a given day specified in the letter that comes with those bullets I will ask you to test the hardness of all ten of your bullets with your lead tester, and email me the results.
I will post the results on this website, linking measurements taken to tools used to measure.In order to encourage a wider range of participants, I am posting this request in the reloading sections of the following websites that I lurk or post at. Please respond to me via PM at only one of them.

AR15.com
Castboolits.gunloads.com
Glockpost.com
Glocktalk.com
Thehighroad.org

I’m going to let this float for a while to see how many of you would like to participate, and then I will send out bullets to be tested on an equal number of tools. I am probably looking at another month to a month and a half before I actually get bullets in the mail, if all works out as planned.

If you can think of anything that would eliminate any variables I haven’t thought of please drop me a line.

Also, if you’ve got a link that can convince me that this experiment is a waste of time please forward that as well. Remember, I am concerned with the accuracy of testers, and the consistency of results obtained by their users.

Thanks.

ETA 3/18

I am only looking for Saecos now. Thanks for the help everyone.

[Anvil]

so... what standard will you use as the benchmark by which all other lead hardness testers will vary?

[yammerschooner]

I am actually looking for consistency within each product, and how far it differs in measurements from the other products available.

Mainly, I am looking for consistency more than accuracy between tester/user combinations, because that has more impact on the accuracy of a group of bullets than the actual bhn.

[AdamN]

Ive got the Lee tester but I use my own microscope with a graduated reticle to measure the dent. Just let me know when youre ready

[Anvil]

Hang on... I'm a bit confused.

You want to compare how the lee hardness tester varies with multiple readings then see how much the RCBS varies compared to itself?

Or are you comparing Lee to LBT for variance (with no benchmark to know which one is more accurate) but just getting variation relationships between brands?

Consistancy without reference to accuracy? for what? testing batches of bullets so that this lot has a hardness of x and that lot has a hardness of y where x and y are both unknown. You would only be able to develop a relative scale only meaningfull within the context of YOUR hardness tester and each other hardness tester would measure within it's own context and the x hardness of Lee may translate to a z hardness on the RCBS.

Relative measures?


Am I missing something?

[Anvil]

Ive got the Lee tester but I use my own microscope with a graduated reticle to measure the dent. Just let me know when youre ready

that's hardcore man!

[MakeMineaP99]

yammer,

I have access to a REAL Brinell machine, at least for the next two weeks. Be interested in doing a head to head evaluation?

I will need the lead right quick, I'm leaving for GA at the end of the month.

[Anvil]

P99 What is a REAL brinell machine?

You know if you could test a piece of lead for Yammer he could use that as a base line for accuracy on the other testers.

[MakeMineaP99]

The actual Brinell machine, not a home brewed tester.

http://www.hardnesstesters.com/brinell-hardness-tester.htm

[yammerschooner]

Hang on... I'm a bit confused.

You want to compare how the lee hardness tester varies with multiple readings then see how much the RCBS varies compared to itself?

Or are you comparing Lee to LBT for variance (with no benchmark to know which one is more accurate) but just getting variation relationships between brands?

Consistancy without reference to accuracy? for what? testing batches of bullets so that this lot has a hardness of x and that lot has a hardness of y where x and y are both unknown. You would only be able to develop a relative scale only meaningfull within the context of YOUR hardness tester and each other hardness tester would measure within it's own context and the x hardness of Lee may translate to a z hardness on the RCBS.

Relative measures?


Am I missing something?

Yep, I think you are missing it.

I want to find out which testers have more consistent measurements. The biggest variable will be the user. The consistency obtained by a specific tester over a wider range of users is actually more interesting to me than which one has the closest bhn measurement. This is because boolits that lack variance in bhn are more accurate than harder or softer bhns. In other words, the more similar their hardness is, the more consistently accurate they will be, irregardless of hardness. Consistency of context is more important than actual hardness.

Also, I want to find how the different measuring tools compare to each other in their reading of what should be a very consistent lot of boolits.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to get everything together in time to get them sent to makemineap99 to find the actual brinell hardness- which would actually add something that I never dreamed of having available in this experiment. I won't get the boolits casted until next week, and I definitely wont have a diverse enough list of folks to send them to in the time period that is available to him. Crap! I should have posted this three weeks ago when I was still considering whether the money I would be out postage was worth the knowledge.

[yammerschooner]

The actual Brinell machine, not a home brewed tester.

http://www.hardnesstesters.com/brinell-hardness-tester.htm

I am just not going to be able to get my poop in a group in time, for which I am very sorry right now.

[AdamN]

that's hardcore man!


I actually had the microscope setup for doing trigger work. Its 10x - 20x and the reticle can measure .100 of an inch.

Its great when youre setting the sear angle on a 1911. Much easier to tell the difference between .025 and .035 of sear engagement.

It just happened to work out with the Lee tester. The microscope they include with the tester is a pain to use.

[yammerschooner]

You'll be getting an email Adam, and probably an asteriks in the numbers I post.

[MakeMineaP99]

Yammer,

I'm traveling for the next three months. If I can get access to the machine I will, but I can't make any promises being on the road full time. I will be back in July, and will be able to get you results then, if you're still interested.

[yammerschooner]

I'll be interested. It is my understanding that anything after three weeks should not have as much effect on bhn as everything leading up to it, although there will probably be slight changes.

[gokyo]

Hey Yammer I have a Cabinetree tester. I would be happy to help out.

[ISUSteve]

Even real Brinell testers do not get the same results on the same piece of material every time. In fact, there is a lot of variance.

[freakshow10mm]

I responded over on GTR.

[yammerschooner]

Thanks gokyo and freak.

PM sent to gokyo. Working my way over to GTR, so one will be forthcoming there soon.

[MakeMineaP99]

Even real Brinell testers do not get the same results on the same piece of material every time. In fact, there is a lot of variance.

Are you questioning me?

j/k

You're a mechanical engineer, so you should understand all the jargon.

Lead is a nearly plastic material, which will strain or work harden when subjected to a load. Work harden is the correct term, but a bit misleading, lead actually softens as it's worked. This makes it naturally harder to get an accurate reading.

Additionally, since the lead in question has been cast, you WILL have inperfections--voids, intrusions, etc. that will cause different properties, hardness among them, throughout the sample. The best way to control this is to take multiple readings from different samples, from the same lot number of a known alloy.

[yammerschooner]

I received an email from a gent who works in a metalurgy lab of some kind who wants to help out. He said he has some pointers on getting the best data, and is willing to do hardness tests using regularly calibrated machines.

I intend to take his suggestions to heart.

This is going to be cool :cool:

[MakeMineaP99]

I received an email from a gent who works in a metalurgy lab of some kind who wants to help out. He said he has some pointers on getting the best data, and is willing to do hardness tests using regularly calibrated machines.

I intend to take his suggestions to heart.

This is going to be cool :cool:

Glad he can help you out. As you know, my travel schedule is chaotic at best, so I don't always have access to the lab.

[yammerschooner]

P99, I seem to be getting pretty lucky on this one. I wonder how long that will take to change.


All,

I currently have enough Cabine Tree and Lee testers. I am looking mainly for LBT, Saeco, or TEC testers. Right now I have about 40 participants. I hope to post results in a little over a month and a half.

I'll also update this in the initial post.

[yammerschooner]

Only looking for Saecos now.

[freakshow10mm]

I know a guy on DC.com that has a Saeco. Want me to see if he wants to help out?

[yammerschooner]

sure. I have 6 saecos, and about 10 of everything else.

[freakshow10mm]

Just sent him a PM with the link to this thread. He's a good guy, should help out. One of the super mods/admins over there. Loader/caster.

[yammerschooner]

I just sent IMs and emails for the snail mail addresses I need to get. I will post in this thread again once I have all of the addresses. I will be able to provide a more definite timetable on when to expect the bullets then as well.

Thanks.

[Anvil]

Hang on... I'm a bit confused.

You want to compare how the lee hardness tester varies with multiple readings then see how much the RCBS varies compared to itself?

Or are you comparing Lee to LBT for variance (with no benchmark to know which one is more accurate) but just getting variation relationships between brands?

Consistancy without reference to accuracy? for what? testing batches of bullets so that this lot has a hardness of x and that lot has a hardness of y where x and y are both unknown. You would only be able to develop a relative scale only meaningfull within the context of YOUR hardness tester and each other hardness tester would measure within it's own context and the x hardness of Lee may translate to a z hardness on the RCBS.

Relative measures?


Am I missing something?


NOW I GET IT. I thought you were getting one of each tester then testing multiple pieces of lead.

Here you are getting multiple testers to test one piece of lead. That makes ALOT more sense!

[yammerschooner]

Hello all,

I have all of the addresses I need and everything that wasn't mailed out tonight will be mailed tomorrow.

The date I will ask you to test is Saturday, May 10.

The following instructions will be in with the package of bullets:

Hello,

Enclosed you will find 10 bullets that were cast on March 23, 2008. Please use your tool to measure the hardness of the nose of the enclosed bullets. You should measure the bullets using the same technique you usually use with your tool.

Please take your measurements on Saturday, May 10.

If for some reason you test on a date other than the following, please let me know:


A few notes:

If you are using a Cabine Tree tester please include both the depth readings on your tool, and what you judge the BHN to be
If you are using the Lee tool all you need to include is the BHN measurement, as the chart included with the instructions will let me know what the diameter of your indent is.
If you are using the Saeco tool please include both the Saeco number and what you would judge the BHN to be.
It is my understanding that the LBT provides the BHN directly on the tool, so no other measurement should be needed. Please send me an email if this is incorrect.
If you have another kind of tester and it provides a measurement that is not read directly as BHN please provide that number as well. Also, if possible, please email the instructions/charts that are associated with the tool to provide a better idea of how the tool works.
During the initial test of each bullet, please do not redo any of your measurements if they seem to be out of line. If you find a bullet that appears to be harder than the others, and decide to retest it, please report the retest number separately and indicate that it is a retest. I am really interested in the spread of numbers on the initial test.
Please email your information for all 10 bullets to yammerschooner@yahoo.com.

Once again, I would like to thank you for all of your assistance with this endeavor. I will compile the results and write up a review, which will be posted in the thread where you found this test. If you contacted me for a reason other than direct exposure to the threads I have posted (word of mouth), I will email you a copy of what I post.

Take care,



Lance
yammerschooner@yahoo.com

[AdamN]

Everyone remember to test your bullets today

[yammerschooner]

Today is the day folks.

My email address in case anyone lost it. (Gotcha taken care of Adam, no need to resend.)

yammerschooner@yahoo.com

ETA: Now there is some odd timing Adam.

[ISUSteve]

Freaky.

[freakshow10mm]

I have to run to work right now. I'll have to test them tonight when I get home.

Someone send me a PM to remind me. Thanks.

[Anvil]

RESULTS!!!

LANCE, WHICH ONE TO BUY????

[yammerschooner]

Waiting on 23 testers still Anvil. It may be a while.

[MakeMineaP99]

Worse than election night.

[BigSlick]

It a be most interesting to see if CT's vary by user wit same alloy bullets.

Simple concept to read it, but I think there is enough variation in individual technique to produce different readings.

It'll be good to know the range of measurement across several brands.

Hell of an idea Yammer :thumbsup:

[Shadowdog500]

I nodded off right after dinner tonight but luckily woke up around 11PM and ran out to the garage to perform the measurements.

They should be in your email inbox.

Chris

[freakshow10mm]

'Slick, the one thing I've noticed is that you need to start with the same tension on the bullet before you make the full turn. That is where the "techniques" is and differs. I have the dial set to -.002" at rest so I make contact to hold the bullet in place and turn in until it zeros, then make the full turn. It could be an error of .002, but on the supplied chart, it's almost insignificant.

I'm very interested in the results. I can see some results being just off the wall.

[Shadowdog500]

Lance,

Any idea on when we will see the results. The Anticipation is killing me.

Thanks,

Chris

[yammerschooner]

working on it now. I can't tell if I am still waiting on anyone at this point or not. I will know within a couple of hours who is outstanding.

[Crazy4nitro]

http://www.motichoor.com/images/005%20-%20Lazy.jpg

'Nitro

[yammerschooner]

You called that one. I took a nap shortly after that post.

Sent out a couple of emails and am waiting on responses.

[yammerschooner]

In order to head off follow up emails that are beginning to come in, below is a list of cities I am waiting to hear back from. As you can see, I am almost there. I should have had more foresight and replied as I worked through IMs and emails, and apologize for the inconvenience. As it stands, a couple of IMs had to be deleted to make room at castboolits and glockpost, so I don't have a good idea of who I have communicated with.

I am only missing info from folks in the following cities. So far I have collected 473 points of data that I will use directly, and much more that may or may not have bearing as others look over it. The below constitutes tests for 6 more batches.

Dublin
Soda Springs
Mission Viejo
LaVerne
and the gent at the lab who has been kind enough to work me in.

I expect to hear back from the lab gent on Wednesday. The testing is done, it just needs to be measured. Since he is a busy man, it is possible there may be a slight delay.

Thanks for all of your patience folks. I know this is a long time coming, but I want to do it right.

As a heads up, I may get sidetracked with my full-time real job. Although it may slow me down a little, I intend to get numbers up as soon as I have them gathered, sorted, and figured out a couple of initial comments on them. A full write up will probably not happen until well after the numbers are posted and my kids have been released for the summer.

Please believe me when I say that the bulk of the waiting is over on this.

[Anvil]

Lance, this study of yours is going to become part of the bullet casting gospel. You're going to route ALOT of sales to one company.

[yammerschooner]

OK. I am going to be super busy this week, so I sat down and figured this out tonight. Information can be found at the following link.
If I missed a piece of personally identifying information that should have been left out please let me know so I can zap it. I have no desire to spread any of your personal information out onto the web.
Thanks to all. I will make it back here as time allows.
http://yammerschooner.com/firearms%20reloading%20etc%20section/lead_tester_experiment.htm

[freakshow10mm]

You should contact the people who run www.lasc.us and see what they have to say about it. Very well done. Thanks for all your hard work.

[Shadowdog500]

Lance,

That is a good dataset that you have there. I didn't realise how many people you had involved until I saw all of the data. Thanks for taking the time to take on such a large test.

Chris

[gokyo]

I do not like how the CabineTree tester and other non industrial harndess tools measured the hardness higher than the actual brinnel test determined. makes me think that we need to calibrate a whole new table for my Cabin Tree tester.

[BigSlick]

+1

[yammerschooner]

already on it, maybe.

Gokyo, I was gonna carbon copy you on the IM I sent to another member last night, but decided I would wait to see what that person's thoughts were first.

[gokyo]

already on it, maybe.

Gokyo, I was gonna carbon copy you on the IM I sent to another member last night, but decided I would wait to see what that person's thoughts were first.

Let me know. I have friends how are really into Material Science and have access to the labs.

You know we are all members of the secret ASM club. I know of a place in Cleveland that has some really good toys. Let me just say it has something to do with Buckminster Fuller.

[MakeMineaP99]

I have access to a lab, but it will be July before I get there. If you can do it sooner, by all means, do it.

[yammerschooner]

Damn, I thought Aneat had the only famous balls in OH.

Edit: I missed the ASM club reference, but if they have a secret handshake I am all about finding out what I can do to join.

[gokyo]

ASM used stnad for American Soceity of Metals

Then it became Amercian Soceity of Materials

Then it became ASM International.

At the ASM center in Cleveland is a very large Geodesic Dome. This was invented by Buckminster.

[yammerschooner]

I just remembered bucky balls from somewhere in my prior education.

[Crazy4nitro]

So from what I gather. The Hardness Perceived differs greatly in opinion.

Correct?

'Nitro

[yammerschooner]

Opinion plays more into saeco and cabine tree numbers.

[BigDog[RE]]

OK. I am going to be super busy this week, so I sat down and figured this out tonight. Information can be found at the following link.
If I missed a piece of personally identifying information that should have been left out please let me know so I can zap it. I have no desire to spread any of your personal information out onto the web.
Thanks to all. I will make it back here as time allows.
http://yammerschooner.com/firearms%20reloading%20etc%20section/lead_tester_experiment.htm


That link doesn't work for me, do you still have this posted?

I'm thinking about geting a hardness tester.

[yammerschooner]

Sorry. Had to take the link down for a little while after my head ended up on a Queen Elizabeth powerpoint last semester. I will get it back up shortly.

You can find it at the following link as well:

http://www.lasc.us/Shay-BHN-Tester-Experiment.htm

I suggest downloading the excel spreadsheet and throwing out a few of the oddball numbers on the edges.

I have a cabine tree and am happy with it. I may pick up an LBT sometime.

[BigDog[RE]]

Thanks for the info! I was offered a NIB Saeco tester for $100, but I passed on it. Do you have a link for the LBT?

Edited to add: nevermind, I got over my laziness and googled. Those LBT testers look like a pretty good deal.

[yammerschooner]

I finally made it back to the board.

I think it was a good idea to pass on the Saeco.

From experience, I am sure you would like a cabine tree.

From what I have read, it is my guess you will like LBT.

Someday I will take the time to better map out my cabine tree. It probably won't happen any time soon.