• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

necchi lead hardness test

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Idaho Ron

58 Cal.
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
1,198
necchi sent me some lead to test for him.

Before I get into the hardness of the lead I want you all to know what kind of tester it is. This tester is a Cabin Tree tester.

Cabbintreetester2.jpg


This next picture is the chart to cross reference the hardness with.

Hardnesschart.jpg


When a guy tests the lead the dial indicator will go up. I have seen the lead so soft that is actually reads less than the .015 on the dial. I have read that as lower than 5 BHN. Some guys will argue that you can’t be under 5 BHN. OK then lets say there is such a thing as a soft 5 and a hard 5. I compare it to testing water quality from parts per thousand (PPT) to parts per million (PPM) to parts per billion (PPB)
This tester will allow for a level of testing that some guys have a hard time understanding. Especially the guys with the Lee hardness testers. So with that in mind we go to the results.
Neicchi sent me 4 samples of lead. He gave me three samples of each type which was WAY cool so I could run each sample three times. This gives me an idea of the uniformity of the lead sampled. With the lead balls I hit them with a hammer to give me a flat edge to test. A round edge will sometimes slip. This also gives me a second edge for each sample so in reality I could do each of the samples twice for a total of 24 tests.

Sample #1 Hornady RB.
#1- .025
#2- .026
#3- .026
This reading is smack dab in the middle of 5 BHN hardness.

Sample #2 Speer RB
#1- .038
#2- .052
#3- .047
The reading on this lead was all over the chart. .038 is probably about a 6 BHN. The .052 is a HARD 8.5 BHN. And the .047 is in the middle of 8.5 BHN hardness. I ran the test twice and the same results were found.

Sample #3 was marked Xray sheet that he cast into RB’s.
#1- .036
#2- .039
#3- .035
With this reading I am going to give it a 6 BHN. Some guys could argue it could be a HARD 5 BHN but I am going to say 6 BHN.

Sample #4 was four small lead plates smashed together marked Virgin sheet age unknown. Since this was a sheet so to speak I tested it three times on one side so I could have three total tests on this side of the lead.
Sample
#1- .042
#2- .044
#3- .043
I am going to call this sample a 7 BHN.

Over the last few months of testing and shooting loads in my rifles. I have found a few things. First my rifles like conicals that are a little on the hard side. By that I mean .035 to .042 about 7 to 8 BHN. Now a lot of guys are saying I like stick on wheel weights, Lead pipes, roof flashing, Xray lead from walls. As I am amassing this info I am finding out that these types of lead while some think they are pure are not. They are alloyed but to a small degree. This alloyed lead is PERFECT for large conicals. The hardness of these types of lead are between .032 to .050 so between a hard 5 BHN and a 8.5 BHN.
Maybe it helps with nose slump, maybe the stars just align. I don’t know but for quite some time you guys have said use this and from what I am finding YES this is VERY VERY good lead. I have been playing with adjusting the alloy in the pure lead lead I have for the best groups for a couple of years. Right now the pipes, flashing, Wall Xray, and stick on WW are about as good as it gets. If anyone has any questions feel free to ask. Ron
 
during my research i ran across an article that said some pure lead can read lower than BHN 5. i think it said about 4.5 BHN.

with my lee tester i've tested a bunch of different cast alloy pistol bullets for a freind. i've gotten very consitant results. i'm also getting consistant numbers from the batches of divers weights i've cast to ingots. nice soft stuff. some softer than a 0.10 indent. 0.10 is said to be BHN 5.

the Cabin Tree tester looks like the one i should have gotten. i like the idea of the portability of it. carry it along to the scrap yard and test before you buy. i wonder if they'll ship to Canada.
 
:bow:
Excellant post Ron, very well thought out, very precise measurement and interesting results. For those who haven't followed, this was the topic that started my quest for Ron and his tester; http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/250734/

I know both the Hornady and Speer ball were from un-opened boxes aquired this year, and my cast were done this past May. How long those boxes where on a shelf I don't know, lot #'s are ambigouis as to date.
Interesting the Speer, prior to casting, Speer was my favored ball. I found them more consistant in weight.(but that's been several years ago)

I guess what I'll do personaly know, is melt equal parts of Hornady and Speer to cast. That'll at least get me closer to the 6 BNH of my sheet.

I'm beginning to believe the minor differance between 5-6-7 of our lead ball isn't as important as each shooters supply of lead being consistant.
If a shooters ball/projectile is the same, as well as his loading technique, patch/lube properties,,everything consistant, even monotonously the same, is what leads to accuracy.

Thanks again Ron, your years of testing and record keeping is creating some myth-busting results.
:bow: :thumbsup:

I hope others can share and add some info here too,, :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ron, I'm not so sure smacking the ball to create a flat is such a good idea. It will try to make the area more dense and skew the results. That's why Lee has you file the flats.
 
I tested that theory with some Speer RB’s that I have. Three were hit with a hammer and three were filed.
hammer
#1- .036
#2- .032
#3- .040

File
#1- .036
#2- .041
#3- .030

In my opinion there is little if any difference in the two techniques. You might think different you are entitled to your opinion. :thumbsup:
Ron
 
If you say so, but those numbers don't tell me anything. What was the BHN.
I would have thought there would be a difference. Like I said, Lee says to file a flat.
Live and learn.
 
You can see the BNH by refering to the chart on top, (IR's 1st post) :wink:

To be honest, in the distant past I've struggled with Ron's postings about lead hardness, after all he'd just gotten this fancy "Gadget" to measure with.
But he's currently got more than a few years in useing it, and I know he's recieved samples from guy's all over this country,(from this forum and others), his experiance has taught him to keep records.
He measures all the lead he comes across the same way, and I don't think he's trying to be bias in any way, too many samples will do that to a guys,,just read it an weep.
What I want to understand is this "Age Hardened" thing,,is there substance too that or is that another myth? Even the charts list "Aged WW".
 
necchi said:
What I want to understand is this "Age Hardened" thing,,is there substance too that or is that another myth? Even the charts list "Aged WW".

I'm well acquainted with age-SOFTENING in lead bullets, especially alloy bullets that have been "temper hardened" after casting.

I'd have to see some serious science to explain age hardening before I believed it. I'm putting it in the category of internet myth, and it's staying there till I talk to a bonnified metallurgist and a good physicist.
 
I just happen to know a certified In Real Life Metallurgist. If you'd like me to pass the information & results on to him please let me know.
(add any exactly worded questions you'd like to as as well & I'll l pass them on at the same time.) :hmm:
 
BrownBear said:
necchi said:
What I want to understand is this "Age Hardened" thing,,is there substance too that or is that another myth? Even the charts list "Aged WW".

I'm well acquainted with age-SOFTENING in lead bullets, especially alloy bullets that have been "temper hardened" after casting.

I'd have to see some serious science to explain age hardening before I believed it. I'm putting it in the category of internet myth, and it's staying there till I talk to a bonnified metallurgist and a good physicist.
The library is handy:

Title
Lead and lead alloys : properties and technology
Author
Hofmann, Wilhelm, 1903-1965.
Call Number
669. 4 HOF 1970
Publisher
Edition
Publishing Date
1970

For a long time this has been THE reference according to what I had seen from outside the profession. It's been too long since I read it and can't recall if there was anything about age hardening in addition to age softening. I see they also have a new(er) book:

Title
Lead and its alloys
Author
Blaskett, D. R. (Donald Reginald), 1915-
Call Number
669. 4 BLA
Publisher
Edition
Publishing Date
1990

I guess I'm going to have to spring some time for more reading.

Regards,
Joel
 
My problem is I never see the sources reporting their qualitative analysis, much less the quantitative analysis to confirm that it's pure lead, in order to find the actual measurement of alloy versus the reported. Without that, it's a SWAG.
 
I am going to add a link to a hardness test I was in on. I don't remember when this went down but I was one of the guys with the cabintree.

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

On age hardening. I have done one test on this. It was with stick on wheel weights. I used the same ingot for both tests so it would be more accurate. I tested the ingot first the day after I poured it. Then one month later.
Day 1- .035 to .040
1 month- .047 to .052

My take on that test was the ingot went from about a 7 BHN to a 8.5 BHN. After that test I haven't done another one since.
I have tested some pure lead that my grandpa gave me. It was at least 30 years after he poured it. It was at the lower end of the scale of 5 so CLEARLY the pure lead had not hardened with age. I am another one that wishes he knew more about age hardening. I also have heard that pure will not water quench harden. It might be only lead with alloy.
I am sorry if some think that the methods I use were not lab quality or something but I just test and show the results. I do hope it was of some help. Ron
 
Ron, I was part of that test also, with the LBT tester. I think it was a couple of years ago now. Very interesting results.
It's my understanding also, that pure lead can not be hardened, thus, will not age harden or soften.
 
Interesting read;
And Thanks to both of you guy's for participating;
I found this summery to be valuble;
These are not laboratory grade pieces of equipment; no one should think they are, no one could afford them if they were. What is important with these testers is consistency. It doesn't really matter if a lab tested piece of lead is 20 BHN and your tester says it's 18 BHN and someone else’s says 22. What is important for your handloads is that your tester ALWAYS says 18 BHN plus or minus about 1 BHN and the other guys always says 22 plus/minus 1. That's close enough for you to keep accurate notes and use it to assemble very consistent ammo from batch to batch.
That's kinda what I figgured, for someone without a tester, haveing a large supply of the same stuff is key.
 
BINGO!!
Like I said before I have been testing groups and hardness. .015 and .035 are both 5 BHN but in my rifle I can see HUGE differences in groups. The .015 or less will just be a 4" or sometimes larger groups. The .035 to .042 will shoot sub 2" groups. Since finding this out I am planning on more tests with groups and lead hardness this winter. Ron
 
Hi Ron....I read in the N.R.A. cast bullet book by Col. Harrison that lead alloys containing antimony will age harden. Lead/tin alloys will harden very slightly for about 2 weeks then slowly get softer over a period of several years. I'm using lead/tin alloys as hard as 24:1 in my Gibbs with excellent results. Cheers Paul
 
nice post

I suspected they were harder maybe just the way they sound rolling around in a partially full box!
 
paulab said:
Hi Ron....I read in the N.R.A. cast bullet book by Col. Harrison that lead alloys containing antimony will age harden. Lead/tin alloys will harden very slightly for about 2 weeks then slowly get softer over a period of several years. I'm using lead/tin alloys as hard as 24:1 in my Gibbs with excellent results. Cheers Paul

Thanks for the info. I have not tried lead that hard in my 50. I tried some clip on WW's and some that was harder in my 45 Paper patched. While it shot ok I HAD to clean every after every shot or the next one was in another time zone.
I am most interested in the lead in the 40-1 or 30-1 range. This winter will be a time for testing. Again Thanks for the info. Ron
 
Back
Top