Testing scrap lead

[burbank.jung]

Will two lots of bullets cast with the same bhn but different alloy group and expand differently? If so, can malleability be tested by using a sample cast lead rod and bending it with a consistent weight on one end? A pure lead rod would bend more than a rod cast with Lyman #2 for example.

 

[Brad]

To answer the first part- absolutely.

I can heat treat a reasonably soft alloy to a higher BHN and it will expand like the softer alloy it is. A “richer” alloy air cooled to the same BHN will behave very differently.

You just hit on why BHN is one factor but hardly the most important. I own a hardness tested but haven’t used it in many years.

 

[358156 hp]

For the second part I vote "no". Malleability covers all aspects of deformation. It is possible to bend some alloys with minimal deformation, but this is unrelated to how the same alloy would deform upon sudden hard impact. I've tested a lot of cast hollowpoints in my days, and even though I was able to mix alloys to nearly identical air cooled hardness, cast them in the same moulds, fired with the same loads, in the same guns on the same day, results would vary. And there was no rhyme or reason to the results. The results were pretty consistent by alloy lot, but different alloys always seemed to perform noticeably different. At that point I switched away from salvaged components to foundry mixed alloys from virgin elements and got much greater consistency and performance.

The design of the bullet also has a huge bearing on expansion, literally everything matters when relying on bullet expansion. Velocity, environmental conditions, distance to the target (a biggie). Everything.

All you can do is test and retest. That's why I don't mix for hollowpoints, and am a bit soured on the idea of relying on cast bullet expansion.

 

[Josh]

This is a rather lengthy topic, but, I'll try to summarize. BNH is only hardness and has little to do with malleability, COWW quenched and aged will be roughly the same BNH as air cooled Lyman #2 but no where near as brittle.

Brittleness has more to do with the Antimony and Tin in an alloy as they are the hardner and surface tension reducer. They seem to work the crystalline structure of the alloy into a more uniform structure, making it harder and more brittle.

Lyman #2 is a workable alloy, I tend to mix it 3:1 with pure so I get an alloy with similar composition to COWW. As far as your testing of flex with weights, that would work but you'll have to figure out how to get the same diameter alloy in your test. I've been known to crush a known alloy in a vise and see if it tends to mash or fissure. I rarely use the BNH of an alloy at this point because it's such a small piece of the puzzle.

 

[popper]

I contemplated making a drop/smash test rig once. Compressed air anvil aimed at another anvil with target bullet. Required pressure is higher than I want to mess with. 100# dropped 10 ft = 1k ft-# @ ~ 10 fps. Then I decided a 5# mall swung overhead was the best I could do ( 5# @ ~10 fps). Watch out for ricochet. Now I just squish an unknown with a known together in a vice and measure the indented part. Tells me if I got hard or soft alloy.

 

[Spindrift]

I believe the best practical "test" for malleability would be to shoot the bullet in a standardized expansion medium, like water.

 

[Bret4207]

The design of the bullet also has a huge bearing on expansion, literally everything matters when relying on bullet expansion. Velocity, environmental conditions, distance to the target (a biggie). Everything.

All you can do is test and retest. That's why I don't mix for hollowpoints, and am a bit soured on the idea of relying on cast bullet expansion.

BINGO!!!

 

[burbank.jung]

I believe the best practical "test" for malleability would be to shoot the bullet in a standardized expansion medium, like water.

The closest place I've found near me to do that is a 3 hour drive, 106 miles away public land area. I can shoot at a private range 3 hours away and 96 miles away.

 

[Ian]

Like has been said, the best way to test an alloy is by shooting it and making observations of the results.

 

[burbank.jung]

I contemplated making a drop/smash test rig once. Compressed air anvil aimed at another anvil with target bullet. Required pressure is higher than I want to mess with. 100# dropped 10 ft = 1k ft-# @ ~ 10 fps. Then I decided a 5# mall swung overhead was the best I could do ( 5# @ ~10 fps). Watch out for ricochet. Now I just squish an unknown with a known together in a vice and measure the indented part. Tells me if I got hard or soft alloy.

I was thinking of this too. Either I could drill a hole near the base of a 20lb mallet handle and allow it to pivot at that point and drop at a distance where the handle is held at a 45 degree or 60 degree angle; or drop it straight down with ingots used as a weight, the height TBD, and the gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/second squared. mgh = 1/2 mass x velocity squared. Remember HS physics?

 

[burbank.jung]

Like has been said, the best way to test an alloy is by shooting it and making observations of the results.

I agree that range time is best but my options are limited. Foundry lead is not in my budget. At best I have pellet lead ingots and .22lr ingots and jhp core lead ingots. Among each, the bhn differs. I was thinking that say two pieces of wood with a long hole drilled between the two halves to act as a mold and lead poured in it to cast a lead round bar could be used to test specific alloy resistance. I thought of the idea from those that test various woods for self-bow construction by bending thin sticks made from each wood.

 

[RBHarter]

About 1.7 life times ago in HS I wrote a breaking energy program in Basic for TRS-DOS . The math doesn't work exactly like you would think . The backstop in motion isn't the same as the projectile in motion .

I'll be the record skip . BHN can be reached 10 different ways and all 10 will behave different on impact and launch . The only way to know absolutely how a projectile will behave in a given medium is to launch them into that medium .

We have lots of similar stuff to test with .
Can't underestimate water .

 

[RicinYakima]

Like has been said, the best way to test an alloy is by shooting it and making observations of the results.

Known as empirical data.

 

[Missionary]

I tend to use the softest mix that will not lead.
If going hunting a little lead in the barrel matters not. Only needed one round. At my river bottom ranges (33 yards and less) a soft FN rips and snorts plenty. That all will change in AZ I feel.
I do like the vice "squeeze" for an idea if it will expand or split apart.

 

[JonB]

I was thinking of this too. Either I could drill a hole near the base of a 20lb mallet handle and allow it to pivot at that point and drop at a distance where the handle is held at a 45 degree or 60 degree angle; or drop it straight down with ingots used as a weight, the height TBD, and the gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/second squared. mgh = 1/2 mass x velocity squared. Remember HS physics?

I'd think bullet samples on a Anvil and a 3 lb sledge hammer. Give 'em a "relatively equal WHACK" Redneck style, this will give an approximate malleability comparison, unless you are looking for specific numbers or something?
.
Also, if you do this, be sure and try the heat treated vs non heat treated with similar BHN (as Brad mentioned). That's something I've always wanted to do, because I have a hard time wrapping my head around that, and seeing is believing for me, LOL.
...When I did my 1% zinc experiment, I did some vice smash tests as Missionary suggests, but the more I think about it, I wish I did the 3 lb hammer test.

 

[nanuk]

….distance to the target (a biggie).

Actually, that is irrelevant

Think about it…

 

[Rick]

Actually, that is irrelevant

Think about it…

He was referring to bullet expansion and distance to the target could be important simply because the further the target the lower the velocity. A decrease in velocity can certainly affect expansion.

 

[nanuk]

But he had already mentioned velocity, therefore distance to target is not “a biggie”

In fact, Impact Velocity is a biggie