|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 19, 2015, 02:33 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2007
Posts: 1,707
|
Casting lessons, I guess...
So I traded a bunch of 223 brass which I will never use for a 50 cal ammo can full of ingots. Some of the ingots say Linotype on them, but had a suspiciously dull finish. None rings when I drop it on concrete, causing me to wonder whether there is any lino in them.
So I load up my new RCBS bottom pour pot with lead, and add "lino" ingots to arrive at an approximate #2 alloy. After some initial teething issues with the pot, I got a good rhythm going and cast a bunch of really pretty boolits. Let them cool. Next day started lubing some of them, and for kicks, ran my thumbnail across some. Dent. Noticeable dent. Tested some I had cast before, very small nick, but quite obviously harder than those more recently cast. I'm pretty sure that those ingots which said linotype on them, weren't. Next purchase will be a BHN testing tool of some sort... I'm leaning towards the Lee tool. But until then, and perhaps it is the eternal optimist in me, I'm really tempted to run a few of these boolits through my 357 mag rifle, rather than toss the lot back in the pot and add verified linotype to increase the hardness. I loaned my Cast Bullet Lyman book out some years ago, and I don't remember who I loaned it to, but I suspect that if the thumbnail scratches them, these softer boolits will probably lead my bore to kingdom come. What say ye, fellows? |
June 20, 2015, 12:50 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 436
|
Slugging your bore and sizing one or two thousandths bigger is far more effective at preventing leading than bullet hardness.
At slower velocities softer alloy is preferable. |
June 21, 2015, 07:46 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2007
Posts: 1,707
|
Thanks Axelwik. Bore size is .356, bullets .358. Should work then?
|
June 21, 2015, 08:05 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
Quote:
|
|
June 21, 2015, 08:59 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,883
|
Quote:
impression left by an exact force. Just put it in your press and run the ram with the sample up into it. The key is using a simple stand for the calibrated microscope: |
|
June 21, 2015, 09:36 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2007
Posts: 1,707
|
Da Hermit. Respectfully, I think we are saying the same thing. The ingots themselves were casted in a mould that had the manufacturer (local) and Linotype casted into them, in raised letters. Not like someone took a sharpie or something and scrawled "lino" on a generic ingot.
As I said, I don't think lino is what alloy was cast up in that mould. Without a hardness tester, which at present I lack, there is no way to know what any given ingot is composed of. And yes, if actual lino, in equal parts with pure lead, one can approximate #2 alloy. Thank you. Mehavey, as always you do have ingenious methods to arrive at just the right tools for the job! From your posting I take it that you find the Lee hardness tester to be a good tool? Last edited by stubbicatt; June 21, 2015 at 09:42 PM. |
June 22, 2015, 01:49 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,883
|
The tester/little microscope arrangement above measured an impression 0.059" -- which calculates
directly to a BHN of 14.9. Since this bullet was cast from a RotoMetals alloy I got directly from them as Lyman#2, it was spot on. I them measured the same impression using the Celestron Digital Microscope I picked up after another poster here mentioned using it for parts inpection, and found it measured exactly what the Lee microscope was able to resolve. So the Lee tester performs as advertised (as long as the microscope is given a stable fixture when reading.) |
June 22, 2015, 08:49 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 20, 2001
Location: Oshkosh wi.
Posts: 3,055
|
One of the problems with Linotype alloy,(well there's more than one), is the alloy would get depleted of tin and antimony as it was run through the type casting machine. If it was not "sweetened" by adding tin and antimony periodically, it may not be full-boat as hard as it should be.
Another problem is the spacers used in some machines were soft lead. If someone was cleaning up/junking an old Linotype machine, they may have combined the soft spacers in with cast type sticks. That results in a variable mix much softer than pure Linotype. The Lino ingots that were hung in the lead pot for the machine had hooks on the end and were 20+ pounds. Here's one I still have; The one that's cut up and shinier I got off fleabay, advertised as pure lino. It was close but a bit softer. The other type casting alloys mentioned by dahermit are also still to be found. Stereo type, foundry type and a couple of others are harder than Lino. I built a wooden stand to hold the alloy being tested with the Lee hardness tester, I can't claim that kind of ingenuity just copied it. Looks like a wooden microscope. I'll take a pic of it later and post it. Yes, the Lee works well IF you can hold the microscope steady enough to see the tiny grid inside the scope. AND get enough light on the indentation. I was told to use a driving band of the bullet, but first take a file to remove some of the surface to provide a flat for the indent-er . Theory is the surface of the lead is a bit harder than just under the surface, and you need a flat surface anyway. Some just use the nose or base, it works too.
__________________
The more people I meet, the more I love my dog They're going to get their butts kicked over there this election. How come people can't spell and use words correctly? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|