------------------------------------------------------------------ This is just one of some 80 files about machining and metalworking and useful workshop subjects that can be read at: http://www.janellestudio.com/metal/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ Here are discussions and tips about chucks used on Sherline lathes or mills, whether made by Sherline or adapted from other brands. Anyone looking for ideas for using/adapting other brands of chucks should read the Taig Chucks file, Chucks General and Atlas Chucks General. If you got to this file directly from my HOME PAGE, return there by using your browser's back button. BUT if you came to this file as the result of a web search engine, see many additional files on my home page Machining and Metalworking at Home http://www.janellestudio.com/metal/index.html SAFETY WARNING BEWARE: DO NOT ASSUME that any subject matter or procedure or process is safe or correct or appropriate just because it was mentioned in a news/user group or was included in these files or on this site or on any other web site or was published in a magazine or book or video. Working with metals and machinery and chemicals and electrical equipment is inherently dangerous. Wear safety devices and clothing as appropriate. Remove watches, rings, and jewellery -- and secure or remove loose clothing -- before operating any machine. Read, understand and follow the latest operating procedures and safety instructions provided by the manufacturer of your machine or tool or product. If you do not have those most recent official instructions, acquire a copy through the manufacturer before operating or using their product. Where the company no longer exists, use the appropriate news or user group to locate an official copy. Be careful -- original instructions may not meet current safety standards. Updated safety information and operating instructions may also be available through a local club, a local professional in the trade, a local business, or an appropriate government agency. In every case, use your common sense before beginning or taking the next step; and do not proceed if you have any questions or doubts about any procedure, or the safety of any procedure. Follow all laws and codes, and employ certified or licenced professionals as required by those laws or codes. Hazardous tasks beyond your competence or expertise should also be contracted to professionals. Let's be really careful out there. (c) Copyright 2003 - 2015 Machining and Metalworking at Home The form of the collected work in this text file (including editing, additions, and notes) is copyrighted and this file is not to be reproduced by any means, including electronic, without written permission except for strictly personal use. ========================================================================== From: Gregory Gagarin Date: Tue Nov 30, 1999 9:02pm Subject: Re: Which size 4 jaw chuck? Warren, I only own the larger Sherline 4 jaw chuck and have confronted the difficulty you alluded to when using it on the rotary table -- there isn't enough room to use the standard Sherline angle clamps around the chuck centered on the rotary table. I turned 4 small buttons with a 10-32 centered through hole which I use with t-nuts for that purpose -- easy to make and works fine. I guess the real question (as Ron suggested) is how large you need for the work you anticipate. I elected the "bigger is better" approach and haven't gotten burned yet (the above difficulty is the only one encountered) nor have I done any work that probably could not have been accomplished with the smaller chuck -- maybe tomorrow I'll be glad I got the big one. As for Dial Indicators -- I don't use one every time I use my 4 jaw chuck but sure am glad I have one. I use my Dial Indicator and Dial Test Indicators (I have two) many times every day (centering chucks, centering adjustable tailstock accessories, squaring the lathe, offsetting material in chucks, squaring the mill, sweeping the mill table (and stock on the mill) for X-Y square to Z, work locating and just to watch the cute little dial change. I'm still discovering new uses and clearly do not have the skill to get by without one. Ron, you're right -- I'm another Dial Indicator cripple; and, you've probably identified one of the reasons I'm so slow -- measure with a dial indicator, mark it with chalk and cut it with a chain saw. Greg warren chambliss wl-x~xxcol.hp.com wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/sherline/?start=781 > Hi, > I'm new to this hobby and am soon looking to purchase a 4 jaw > chuck. My question regards whether I should get the 3.1 inch > or the 2.5. The price difference is not an issue to me. Are there > any advantages to the smaller one? For example, is it easier to use > the smaller one on the rotary table? Is the bigger one a "must" > for that little bit of extra capacity? Thanks, Warren Chambliss ------------------------------------------ From: Warren Chambliss Date: Thu Dec 2, 1999 5:57pm Subject: 4 Jaw Chucks And Such Hi, No need to worry about me. My main question regarded which size of the Sherline 4 jaw chuck to pursue purchasing. Gregory Gagarin's response has me leaning towards the smaller one for simplification of mounting with the rotary table. However he also indicates that it is easy to make some custom clamps to use the larger one on the rotary table. Which one will I buy? Don't know for sure yet, any more opinions are welcome. As for the discussion on how to center/indicate work in the 4 jaw chuck on the lathe, I'll probably try with and without an indicator and decide which way "seems" to work best for me; and passionately defend such means against any challenger :) . I am sure no one means to start an adversarial discourse (least of all me). I always look forward to reading posts to this group for all the valuable information I've been able to receive. I am sure more great stuff will come this way in the future. Thanks to all. Cheers, Warren Chambliss --------------- From: Dan statman Date: Sun Mar 19, 2000 10:30am Subject: Re: Internally Gripping Chuck? Murph, I also use my Sherline tools for custom jewelry design (titanium rings with gold and silver inlays). Just purchase a set of the soft-jaws for your 3-jaw chuck. You can then machine these to accept any size ring and hold it from the inside. I personally would order about 2-4 sets of the soft jaws, since once you start custom making them you will come up with more ideas, and need more jaws. As a side note, the Sherline factory likes you to send your chuck back to them so that they can fit the proper size jaws. I would recommend just measuring the jaw thickness and having them send you ones that are close enough. Since you will be machining them anyway. it is a lot quicker to have them ship them without receiving your chuck first. Daniel J. Statman, Statman Designs http://members.rennlist.com/statmandesigns ------------------------------ From: Date: Sun Mar 19, 2000 5:41am Subject: Re: Internally Gripping Chuck? mikerx~xxu... writes: << Does anyone make a chuck that grips by expanding instead of by contracting? Everything I'm gripping is smaller than 1/2 inch. >> cut a small round piece that will fit quite closely inside, then cut a flat on one side, making it AA D shape, inset inside you workpiece along with a small rod that fits in the hole made by the D shape, it will bind up, and allow you to turn your work. It does not need to be tight leave a small amount of clearance so that the workpiece can turn and bind on the rod. You can also make an expanding mandrel, by cutting a mandrel that will slide into the work piece, tap the end and bore a v shaped hole in the end, then slit it so that you have four fingers, make a piece cone shaped with a threaded end, that will screw into the mandrel so that it will expand. The first is easier to do. Hope this helps, bill ------------------- From: Rich D. Date: Sun Mar 19, 2000 11:20am Subject: Re: Internally Gripping Chuck? Murph, Sounds like a case for a set of mandrels, plain or expanding, all homemade of course. Chuck the nearest larger stock and turn it to a snug fit in your part, well enough so that it will stay put while you work on it, but still loose enough to slip off later. Otherwise, slit this manrel lengthwise and after mounting the work enpand the mandrel with a taper driven between the two sides. Use your emagination, there is always a way. Rich D. ---------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 19:43:56 -0500 From: Jim Ash Subject: Re: 3 jaw chuck slippage I ran into this also. I guess it depends on the direction of slippage. I found that my work was working its way into the chuck. for that, I now put a little chunk of brass I cut down to fit behind the jaws (but not into the spindle), and butt the work up to it before tightening. If the slippage is across the axis (spinning), if I can, I grind a notch or some kind of irregularity for one of the jaws to bite on, then go back and do light passes to get rid of it later if I need to. Sometimes I use my four jaw (independent) for the extra bite if I expect the work to give me fits from the start. I don't have a faceplate for mine, so when I do long work I chuck it on one end and hang it from a live center in the tailstock on the other. If the center is off, it promotes wiggling in the chuck which will cause the work to slip also. Along this line of thought, can anybody comment on the 4 jaw universal chuck? I'd like to know if it gives enough more of a bite that it's worth its price. Side note: Please be careful with this loosening. The three jaw can open up while running if not tightened onto something. Those jaws will move out in a hurry and smack your cross slide or ways and stop with a bang. Just as a precaution, when I put mine away with the 3 jaw on it, I always clamp an old welding rod stub in it just in case my head isn't screwed on the next time I turn it on. Jim Ash ------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 20:53:44 -0500 From: Jim Ash Subject: Re: reverse jaws on 3-jaw Before I knew the instructions were online, I had mine all boogered up until I came up with this method: 1. Take all three jaws out of the chuck. 2. Lay them on a table, teeth up, and parallel to each other, so that the end of each jaw that you want pointing at the center of the chuck is facing you (This method works for both normal or reversed). Slide a straight edge against the edge of the jaws closest to you so they're all lined up. 3. Note that one of the jaws has 7 teeth and the other two have 6. Reposition this one so it's on the left of the set. (The teeth on the one with 7 teeth extend 'wider' than the other two.) 4. Look at the bottom tooth on all three jaws. If they are 'lined up' diagonally, then you're ok. If they form an inverted 'V', then switch the center one with the right one. They should be lined up after this maneuver. (By 'lining up', I'm talking a line drawn from the center point of each tooth to the center point of the tooth on the neighboring jaw.) 5. Grab the chuck body and rotate the spiral thread until the beginning of the thread is visible in one of the jaw slots. Back it off a few degrees until you can't see it any more. 6. Take the 7-tooth jaw from the left of your pile and put it in the chuck at the same slot. Turn the spiral 120 degrees, so that it grabs the jaw, and is also visible in the next jaw slot. Make sure it grabs the jaw, or that jaw will be off by one thread and won't center. 7. Take the tooth on the left of the table and insert as above. 8. Ditto for the remaining tooth. Reading it, it sounds a little goofy, but after having done it once or twice, you should be able to do it in a couple minutes, start to stop, without having to fumble for paper instructions. The explanation: The jaws are being screwed into the chuck by the spiral thread. If you lay them on a table right next to each other, as described, the teeth in each jaw is positioned to be off by a third of the pitch compared to its neighbor. With the teeth 'lined up' as in step four, then the spiral thread will grab the one with the 'lowest' tooth (the 7-tooth jaw), followed in sequence by the others. I know in some good four-jaw chucks the slots and jaws are individually ground to be a very nice custom fit. In these, the jaws should remain in their same slots. I don't believe any such constraint applies here, so which jaw the 7-tooth goes into probably doesn't matter. If someone knows different, please speak up. This method should work with a three jaw chuck for any lathe if the chuck design is the same, but I've only done it with the Sherline. Jim Ash ----------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:24:09 -0500 From: "Dan Statman" Subject: Re: reverse jaws on 3-jaw It really isn't this hard or complicated at all! Take the three jaws and look at the back of each. the one that has the teeth closest to the bottom (the side that will hold the chucked part) is "A", the next closest is "B" and the last on is "C". Put them in the slots labeled A, B, and C in that order. Screw the chuck all of the way down to check that you did it right. Chuck something up and start machining. Dan. P.S. it is MUCH easier to do this by removing the chuck from the headstock. ----------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:40:08 -0800 From: "Craig Libuse" Subject: Re: reverse jaws on 3-jaw Jim, The jaws in all Sherline chucks are custom fitted to the slot during assembly. The slots are all supposed to be "identical", but of course they aren't in reality. Assemblers have a selection of jaws by ten-thousandths in variation, and they fit them to each slot for best possible fit. Though #1 and #3 are swapped in their slots for reversing, it is best if they can be returned to their original slots when returning to normal position. Always keeping #2 in its same slot will keep them straight. The chuck slots are now lettered "A", "B" and "C", so with the instructions in hand, you can identify the jaws and find the original orientation if they ever get mixed up. This combination will provide the best possible accuracy for any particular chuck. Four jaw independent jaws are also custom fitted to each slot and should be kept in their respective slots, reversing them one at a time. Sherline chucks are not the most expensive around, but they are made to a very high degree of accuracy for the price. Those who are mentioning problems with "loosening up" might also want to check to see that the jaws are in their proper position. If one jaw fits too tight and another is too loose, they may have gotten into the wrong slots during reversing. --Craig Libuse ---------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:29:03 -0500 From: ron ginger Subject: Re: WANTED Second hand 4 Jaw Chuck part# 1071 ....! Cliff Griffin wrote: > My brand new Sherline Lathe with a brand new 3-jaw has about .003" of > runout. That's nowhere near good enough for what I'm doing with it. This is well within a normal range for 3 jaw chucks. Thats why collets are made :-) Even if you do grind the jaws in, you will only have it accurate at the size it was ground at, any other diameter and there will be more or less error. A 'quick and dirty' collet can be made by just a split piece of pipe of a size suited to the work. Split it along the side, chuck it up and bore it out to the size you need. Then just a slight openin gof the jaws will let your part go in, and still hold it close. This works very well for jobs like re-boring an existing gear. I think these are called 'pot chucks' ron ginger -------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:23:23 -0800 From: "Craig Libuse" Subject: Re: WANTED Second hand 4 Jaw Chuck part# 1071 ....! > I believe that if you contact Sherline directly, they will be able to > help you. It is possible that they can replace the jaws for you. > The cost will be less than a new chuck. I would definitely call them > before attempting any "improvements". Should anyone wish to have new chuck jaws installed on a Sherline chuck, the price for a set of new jaws (including factory installation because they are custom fitted to your chuck) is $35.00. The part number is P/N 10440 on the Replacement Parts Price List for 4-jaw chucks, P/N 10410 for 3-jaw chucks. Call Sherline at (800) 541-0735 for instructions on sending in your chuck and for shipping charges for the return shipment. If the chuck is "beyond repair", you will be called, but in most cases the chuck can be made like new for this price. Chuck repairs are normally turned around within a day or two. --Craig Libuse Sherline Products --------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:30:31 -0800 From: "Marcus & Eva" Subject: Re: WANTED Second hand 4 Jaw Chuck part# 1071 ....! Hi all: I made a set of jaws for my Sherline that I can bolt soft jaws onto. They work beautifully. I think you might be able to get soft jaws from Sherline. These can then be modified to accept top jaws like the ones I made. I can knock up a set of top jaws in about 15 minutes or so. That way, I get dead nuts concentricity, and I can machine all sorts of goofy shapes into the jaws if I need to. Cheers Marcus ------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:37:16 -0800 From: "Marcus & Eva" Subject: Sherline top jaws Hi Rich: I posted the pictures last August (Aug 15/00). I caught hell for just sending them as attachments to the email I posted at that time. John Guenther posted them to the files section after he jumped on me, so they should still be there. Basically, I wrote a program and made up some custom cutters to machine the jaws in a single setup on the CNC. I made them from P20 tool steel, and put cross tabs on the top together with 6:32 tapped holes. I surface ground them to thickness, and ground the cross tabs to make them identical. Making the top jaws is really simple: I take a strip of stock (usually 7075 aircraft aluminum) and mill a slot to match the cross tabs. I plan the thickness of the strip to make all three jaws at once. I drill my six holes by co-ordinates on the mill, and then slice off the first jaw. I reface the remaining strip, and then slice off the second jaw. I then face the second side of all three jaws. Bolt 'em up to the chuck, clamp up a bar to get tension on the jaws and bore out your pocket. If you need to go all the way through the jaws, turn a slot in the face of the jaws, and machine up a matching ring. That will give you something to squeeze on and load the jaws, but it still leaves the centers free to bore through. The hard part of this whole gig, is the making of the jaw bases. The scrolls are nibbled from prehardened steel with a 1/16 stubby carbide mill and it takes a lot of code to do the job without breaking cutters. They also need to be surface ground, which is beyond the capacity of most home shops. That's why I was hoping thet Sherline sells soft jaws that can be tapped to accept top cheeks, or better yet, will start making jaws like I describe. They are way better than collets, because they're a dead-length setup. Craig: are you listening!!! Hint, Hint, Hint. If you want the pix again, I will send them to you off list. I can't seem to get the yahoos at Yahoo to remember my password for more than a single session, so I'm not bothering to do that part anymore. Cheers Marcus -------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:42:16 -0800 From: "Craig Libuse" Subject: Re: Sherline top jaws "That's why I was hoping thet Sherline sells soft jaws that can be tapped to accept top cheeks, or better yet, will start making jaws like I describe. They are way better than collets, because they're a dead-length setup. Craig: are you listening!!! Hint, Hint, Hint." Dear Marcus, Sherline soft jaws (unhardened steel, not aluminum) are available as follows: set of 3 soft jaws, P/N 11420 (for chucks 1040, 1041)--$35.00 set of 4 soft jaws, P/N 11430 (for chucks 1030, 1044)--$35.00 It is recommended that you return your chuck to the factory for fitting. The jaws are ground in .0001" increments and custom fitted to your chuck. If you have the ability to grind the jaws to thickness, order "fat" ones and do it yourself, but the $35.00 includes the custom fitting if you don't mind the additional shipping and time involved in returning your chuck to have Sherline do it for you. The Sherline Replacement Parts List can be found on the web at www.sherline.com/prices3.htm. If you will send the photos of your custom jaws to me off-list, I will put them on Joe's desk. Send to craigx~xxsherline.com. Sincerely Yours, Craig Libuse Sherline Products Inc. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:43:27 -0400 From: "Dan Statman" Subject: Re: Questions about 4-jaw independent chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: > I just got the 3.1" 4-jaw independent chuck. My 3-jaw chuck has holes for > tommy bars but my 4-jaw doesn't. Is it supposed to? I'm using a rubber > mallet to loosen it from the lathe. > I'm able to remove and reinsert the jaws on the 3-jaw chuck by hand but the > jaws on the 4-jaw chuck are so tight that I have to use a mallet. > Is this normal? > I removed each jaw and reversed it seperately to make sure they didn't go > into the wrong slots. Is this necessary or are they interchangable? > I completely disassemble the 3-jaw chuck regularly and use compressed air > to clean out the circular groove. I don't see an obvious way to clean the > jaw chuck as thoroughly. How do you clean all of the swarf out of the > 4-inside threads? Todd The adjustment holes for the hex key on each jaw are recessed enough to insert the tip of the tommy bar so that you can use the bars for tightening and removing the chuck. It is best to keep the same jaw in the same slot and your technique of reversing them one at a time is a good way to do this. Removing the jaw is the best way to clean the inside of the chuck. I do not remember having any problems with the buildup of chips, but I use the 4-jaw only rarely. HTH, Daniel J. Statman, Statman Designs http://members.rennlist.com/statmandesigns ----------------------- Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 18:01:20 -0000 From: "tatkinsonavon" Subject: New Bison miniature chuck for Sherline I have just taken delivery of a new key-operated three-jaw chuck made by Bison in Poland. It is being marketed exclusively, I believe, by New England Tool & Brass. It has an incredibly low runout of only .001 which pleases me much. The jaws come down quite tight enough to allow threading with a die, which is the reason I bought it. It has a spring-loaded chuck key, the spring of which you will probably want to remove as it makes it hard to use. It's only downside is that I wish it engaged more threads on the spindle nose. It has a recess machined in the threaded hole of the chuck which it would be better off without. I have consulted with the vendor and he claims it will be alright. The mechanism of this chuck is unusual. It has an open back and the key itself provides the contact with the radial gear inside. You will have to clean it often, but it is readily accessible. I have posted a picture in the [SHERLINE GROUP] Photos area. Tracy Atkinson, Avon, CT ------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:45:05 -0000 From: "tatkinsonavon" Subject: Bison chuck I had some e-mail exchanges with Bob at New England Brass and Tool ("bobx~xxbrassandtool.com" - There, did I finally get it right?) http://www.brassandtool.com/ Bob in turn talked to the manufacturer about the threads on this chuck. The mfg. suggested it might be well to turn the back down a bit to get another thread engaged. If you reduce only the stem, I think this puts the rim too close to the housing of the lathe head. And you are very limited in how much you can turn the rim down because of the holes for insertion of the key - these are a bearing surface. I think it would be better to insert a sleeve and continue the existing thread into it - avoiding coming all the way to the back end to retain the original indexing surface. Or I suppose you could use that plastic everyone was talking about a while back. Am I needlessly worried about this? I like this little chuck very much, and it is really, really precision made. Let's hear it for Poland! Tracy ----------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:51:30 -0800 From: Alan Marconett KM6VV Subject: Sherline chuck converter for EMCO Hi to the list, I have an EMCO 5" lathe with both 3 and 4 jaw chucks. They work fine. However I also have two new Sherline chucks (largest 3 & 4 jaw), and I'd LOVE to be able to use them on the EMCO. Why? Because they can be THREADED on and off! This would allow me to go back and forth from Sherline mill to EMCO lathe (I'll get a Sherline lathe sometime), without loosing the setup in the chucks. The EMCO has either a 3 or 4 bolt pattern to secure the chuck, AND, you can't get to the bolts with something in the chuck! I've already made turning plates to fit the lathe, so I can get the bolt patterns in OK, and I can also mill (turn?) the slight recess for the spindle. I suppose I can also cut a 3/4" -16 thread on the lathe. Will this be good enough? Are there any "special" things I can do to get this adapter as accurate as possible? I have a DTI for use on the mill, haven't used it on the lathe, yet. Alan KM6VV ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:05:50 -0500 From: "j.guenther" Subject: RE: Sherline chuck converter for EMCO Alan, I made a Sherline adapter for my Grizzly 7x12 lathe, sounds like the spindles are similar. I can post a picture if necessary, but you can also see it in the Photos section of the Sherline group. Look at Chucks_and_adapters.jpg The Sherline adapter is the item on the left of the rack. I made it from 12L14 steel by first mounting it on the spindle like a chuck would mount and then turning the front down to the proper sizes to mimic the Sherline spindle nose. It also has an internal #1 Morse taper for collets, boring heads or what ever. It was really quite simple to make. I bought a #1 Morse reamer from J&L to cut the taper in my adapter after boring it to .404 to match the Sherline spindle. It seems like it was around $12.00 but I don't remember for sure. I used 12L14 because it machines sooo nice, but 1018 or anything else you can get a hold of should work just fine. My adapter is 3.12 inches in diameter, the registration recess on the back is 2.165 inches by .1 deep. It bolts to the flange on the spindle with three 6MM studs and nuts. The real key to the accuracy is how close a fit the registration recess is on the spindle flange. I use it for end mill holders, boring head, fly cutter, drill chucks, collets and someday will use it with the Sherline WW collet set. John Guenther 'Ye Olde Pen Maker' Sterling, Virginia ---------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:55:43 -0000 From: "kentfreeman" Subject: 4" Chucks Anyone ever mounted a 4" chuck on their lathe. I find myself often wanting to work on something (3" flywheels) that is just 1/2" to large for Sherline's 3" chuck. Kent ----------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:33:53 -0000 From: "jeastwoodlm " Subject: Expected run out when using a 5C collet? This may seem off topic for a Sherline, but it's not, since I'm building a 5C collet chuck for my Sherline. My question relates to knowing how much run out is acceptable; or, how do I know when I'm done finding and fixing inaccuracies? For you lucky folks with big iron who use collets: when you are holding a nice round piece of drill rod, how much TIR do you get 3" from the collet? Have you found that collet cost/quality makes much of a difference? Here's where I am with my project: after making sure the Sherlne's spindle axis was nicely aligned with the ways, I bored the hole in the chuck blank and turned the 10 degree taper on the end to fit the collet taper. Holding a piece of 7/16" drill rod, I get about .0005" TIR right at the collet, but it increases to about .003" three inches down the rod. I've fiddled with things a bit, the threaded rod and plug I use as the collet closer, but haven't been able to improve things. I have a set of cheap collets; is .003" about what I should expect? ------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:47:30 -0000 From: "jimknighton1948 " Subject: Re: Expected run out when using a 5C collet? --- In sherlinex~xxyahoogroups.com, "jeastwoodlm <"jeastwoox~xxe...>" wrote: > This may seem off topic for a Sherline, but it's not, since I'm > building a 5C collet chuck for my Sherline. I don't have any answers for you, but I am certainly interested in your project. I plan to build my own 5c chuck over the holidays. I've been contemplating this for a couple of months now, and have the collets and (hopefully) suitable material on hand (a large block of 7075 aluminum). I thought I was alone in pursuing this notion and I'm pleased to find someone else with similar ideas. I first became interested in this topic when I discovered Ty Hoefler's (sp?) web site on which he describes in great detail the 5C chuck he built for his 7x10 lathe. With a few modifications his design seems suitable for a Sherline lathe with riser blocks, such as my own 4400. I've since researched the topic in more detail and found old issues of HSM describing 5C chucks that might be suitable and also some commercial products with design elements that could be scaled to a Sherline sized chuck. The research has actually confused the issue a bit and I am now puzzling over which design approach to actually build. I won't have much shop time until after Christmas but this is the next project in the queue. I, for one, would appreciate more info about your project... it's design, materials used, spindle mounting, problems encountered, things you would do differently, etc. If you have pics, I would love to see them. Thanks, JBK ------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:13:24 -0500 From: "John Guenther" Subject: RE: Re: Expected run out when using a 5C collet? You don't really want to build this according to Ty's plans. I offer the following quote from Ty in a recent message on the 7x10minilathe group: >>Don't go there!! The Design looks good but is VERY FLAWED. A better design would be to make the collet holder solid & use a drawbar to close the collet on the workpiece. Some day when I get some time, I'll redo the design. Ty << The problem is the threads on the closer nut cause it to introduce significant runout into the collet as the collet is closed. Great idea, nice looking but not workable in the real world. A better design was put forth by Pat Loop in Projects in Metal, June 1988 issue. I have redrawn this design in a smaller version for my 7x12 Grizzly lathe, and it works just fine. I think you could build one from aluminum and it would work ok on the Sherline lathe but you will loose a lot of work space. The chuck is 3.646 inches long and 3.12 inches in diameter. I made mine from 12L14 steel and it weighs about 4 pounds which I think would be way too heavy for the Sherline. Aluminum would most likely work, Fortal would be stronger and just a light as aluminum. I plan on submitting my design to Home Shop Machinist for publication so at this time I cannot provide any drawings but if you get the Pat Loop article you can figure it out. John Guenther 'Ye Olde Pen Maker' Sterling, Virginia ---------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 05:26:08 -0000 From: "jimknighton1948 " Subject: Re: Expected run out when using a 5C collet? John, Thanks for your comments. I'll not pursue Ty's design and I'll see if I can track down the Pat Loop article. I'm pretty well committed to some form of 5C collet chuck and intend to see it through to completion. My lathe has been extensively modified and hopefully will be adequately strong and robust for the collet chuck, but I am indeed concerned about weight. The weight issue is why I've been leaning towards 7075 T6 aluminum rather than 12L14. The fact that I have on hand a couple of relatively large blocks of the stuff was also a contributing factor as well. I'm open to the choice of materials, however. Concerning your suggestion regarding Fortal, some time ago my metal supplier led me to belive that 7075 T6 and Fortal were quite similar and largely interchangeable, particularly for home shop projects. He stopped short of saying they were identical, but that was the impression he left me with. I'm not a metalworking pro and since then I've relied on his advice using 6061 when tensile strength wasn't an issue and 7075 when I thought it might be. Is there a differance between Fortal and 7075 I should be aware of, and if so would it be significant in a project of this type? Regards, JBK ------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 08:24:35 -0500 From: "John Guenther" Subject: RE: Re: Expected run out when using a 5C collet? Jim, 7075 T6 should be just fine for the chuck. I have also heard that 7075 is very close to Fortal. I am not a metals expert so I just have to go on what information I get from various sources. Good luck with your project, I found that making a 5C collet chuck is not all that difficult, it just takes time to make sure you do it right. When I made mine I did about 90% of the machining with the thing mounted on the spindle just as it will be when in use. I bored the recess for the closer nut with the material mounted in the 4 jaw chuck but after that I mounted it on the spindle as it normally mounts and finished it from there. I have placed a picture of mine in the photos section, it is John's 5C collet chuck at the end of the photos section. John Guenther 'Ye Olde Pen Maker' Sterling, Virginia ------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 23:28:41 -0000 From: "jeastwoodlm " Subject: Re: Expected run out when using a 5C collet? Here's my 2nd attempt at replying; the server ate my first one: I'm using Sherline's faceplate with a small shoulder turned on it to match a recess I machined in the chuck blank. The chuck blank is a piece of 12L14 steel, 2.75" diam. and starting out at 4.5" long. I used a piece of 2.75" diam. x 4" 12L14 steel in my collet chuck. I also was concerned about the Sherline being able to handle that much mass, but it's worked out quite well. I do plan to turn a taper at the end to trim away a little more metal, and to leave a ring that I can later cut a thread into to provide a way to close the collet without blocking the spindle bore. Don't know how well such a "pusher ring" will work, but it's worth a try. This diameter is the largest I can hold in the 4 jaw chuck. A pretty straightforward design; once you've made sure your lathe spindle axis is well aligned with the ways, step drill and bore the interior to 1.250" and then bore the 10 degree taper at the end to fit the collet's taper. I had hoped to use the steady rest while boring, but found that the cross slide saddle can't get close enough to the work due to that piece on the back of the saddle that projects toward the headstock. Unless you have a really long boring bar, which has its own problems, you really can't get close enough. I found that such a massive piece of steel doesn't deflect much during boring and was able to keep the bore diameter pretty constant; use light cuts as you approach the final diameter. Needless to say: sneak up on that final ID; it's easy to go over size. I use a threaded plug threaded 1.04" - 20 screwed into the rear of the collet, and a 1/4-20 threaded rod threaded into the plug for the closing mechansism. On the other side of the spindle you can provide whatever kind of nut/handle you want. I had a nice design that would have used the Sherline threading hand wheel, but it can't be used since it won't clear the motor. I expect Sherline designed it this way on purpose so that the handwheel wouldn't spin at high speeds when attached to the spindle. I was going to use springs to make sure you couldn't leave the handwheel attached; oh well. My results are OK so far; about 1/2 thou or less runout at the collet, but up to 4 thou when measured 3 inches down the test rod. BUT, this will vary; it seems that a given collet will have a "sweet spot" at a given angular position in the chuck. If you rotate the collet a bit, tighten it down and measure the runout, and repeat this several times, you will find a position of minimum runout. I've had it down to less than 1 thou at 3 inches from the collet. I'm investigating the source(s) of this error. It's a fun project, and one that just about anyone can do if you take your time and work as accurately as you can. Keep us posted on how you do. I'll try to get some pix posted over the holdidays. ------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 07:51:32 -0000 From: "jimknighton1948 " Subject: Re: Expected run out when using a 5C collet? Thanks for the info. If I am visualizing this correctly, your chuck body is a single turning mounted on a Sherline faceplate. Your closer consists of a plug that engages the interior threads on a 5c collet and a drawbar that extends through the spindle to pull the collet into it's tapered seat in the body. Have I got it right? Functionally, that's how the R8 collets work on my mill/drill. Of course, the R8 collets don't need the plug since the base is threaded for the drawbar. Have you had any problems inserting/removing the plug from your collets? The interior threads on my set of 5C round collets are a bit rough, no doubt a reflection of their modest cost. I have a few Lyndex square collets that are much smoother. I wouldn't expect any difficulties with these threads, but I'm a bit nervous about the imported round collets. Not being a professional machinist I don't know if your measured runout is atypical or not. Do you think the runout is a product of the chuck design or might it be something else? I don't have ground and hardened reference rods (or whatever their real name is) that would allow me to measure any closer than I could get with drill rod. I use a lot of 3/4" and 1" O-1 drill rod in my projects and have found that while its very close, it's not perfectly round or straight. I've seen variances comparable to those you measured in new stock right out of the box. Could your runout be related to imperfections in your test rod or possibly in the collets themselves? Regarding the handwheel... You've probably already solved the closing problem using another approach, but have you considered remounting the motor farther away from the headstock? I've done this and am quite pleased with the results. No doubt purists would recoil in horror at the thought, but the ability to rotate the headstock isn't of much use to me and I wanted a more rigid and secure motor mount. I built my own motor mount that preserves the original geometry and spatial relationships between the components but that places the motor approximately 1" farther away from the headstock. The additional clearance has been quite useful. Obviously, I couldn't use the stock belt. I found a longer but functionally identical belt from a sewing machine repair shop for less than $4.00. Regards, JBK --------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:12:28 -0000 From: "jimknighton1948 " Subject: Re: Expected run out when using a 5C collet? John, Thanks for the photo. I hope my chuck turns out looking as nice as yours. I noticed that there is also a photo showing an assortment of chucks, including what appears to be your 5c chuck. I'm assuming the group photo is yours as well. I haven't tracked down the Pat Loop article as yet, but on close examination of the chuck photos I think I can visualize how it works. I have a 5c fixture for my mill/drill that uses a threaded collar to draw the collet into the tapered seat in the body. The collar engages the collet's external threads and is rotated by a short tommy bar that fits through a slot in the body. The slot allows a couple inches of travel and there are several holes in the collar so that a new one is exposed when the engaged tommy bar is turned to it's limit. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the photos, but it appears that your chuck operates on the same principle without my fixture's lever operated opening and closing mechanism. If I've got it figured out, your chuck doesn't have or need a "through-the-spindle" drawbar as that function is performed by the threaded collar. Is this close? Thanks, JBK ------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 03:55:19 -0000 From: "gbesch " Subject: Greg's Amazing Collet Chuck for Sherline Lathe A while back I had a chance to use a Bison 5C collet chuck on a bigger lathe, and it completely spoiled me. I simply had to have a collet chuck for my Sherline. I couldn't find something I liked commercially, so I decided to make one. I had a definate set of criteria in mind. I wanted to have a large range of collet sizes, preferably from 1/8" all the way up to 1- 1/8". I didn't want something that used a draw-tube through the spindle, like Sherline's WW collet set. I didn't want to have to make the collets myself, so that meant deciding on a particular series of commercially available collets. I selected the ER-40 series of "spring" collets. They had the range I wanted, were physically small enough to work on the Sherline, and it didn't look like it would be too difficult to make a chuck for them. I also discovered that the collet closer nut was available at a reasonable price, so I wouldn't have to make one. I had to wait a while, but the AccuPro ER-40 collet set went on sale at MSC for half price. I bought the set, a collet nut, and a wrench. Then the fun began! After some careful measurement and design work, I picked up a nice drop of 2" steel bar stock from the local Metal Supermarkets outlet and began to make chips. I cut the bar a bit long, carefully center punched one face, mounted it in the drill press vise, and drilled a hole through it. I'd already purchased a 3/4-16 tap from Enco for just this purpose, so next I tapped the hole clear through. Once the spindle mounting threads were cut, I mounted the part on the Sherline's spindle. I faced the exposed end nice and clean, then reversed it on the spindle and faced the other end. Now to turn the outside to size and bore the internal taper for the collets. Of course, the part is so large it wouldn't fit over the lathe saddle, so I had to make a new tool post. I made the tool post from a 2x3x6" length of aluminum bar stock for rigidity. I made it long enough to span the entire width of the cross slide and mount with screws and t-nuts in both t-slots to get as much rigidity as possible for the section which hung off the left side of the slide. I carefully measured and milled the tool slot and drilled the holes. I had to take light cuts when using the new tool post, but it worked. Now the new chuck was the right diameter and had a relief area behind where the threads would be cut for the collet nut. Now for the internal taper. I scratched my head for a while trying to figure out how to get the taper exactly the right angle. I finally decided to just dive in and see what happened. I centered a short length of aluminum bar stock in the 4-jaw chuck and turned the outside down to a size which would be a tight fit on the hole in one of the collets. I pushed the collet on, mounted a dial test indicator on a tool post on the cross slide, and indicated against the tapered part of the collet while I adjusted the headstock offset until the indicator read zero the length of the collet taper. I started boring and kept going until the taper was deep enough to insert the collet most of the way in, then checked the fit with blue dye. Perfect! I continued boring and testing until the collet fit to the correct depth. Now on to screwcutting the threads for the collet nut. Hmm... a quick check with a thread gauge revealed metric threads on the purchased collet nut. Set everything up, then spent a *long* time whittling away metal until I got a nice fit on the collet nut. Finally, it was time to mill the wrench slots in the rear of the chuck body. I discovered that I should have done this before boring the taper. I have the Sherline indexing attachment, but when the chuck screwed down on the spindle there was no room to get behind it with an end mill. If I'd done this before boring the taper, I'd still have threads clear through, so I could just reverse the part and cut the slots. Instead, I ended up having to turn the chuck around so the rear end was sticking out, run a length of threaded rod all the way through both the chuck and the indexer with nuts on each end to clamp it, and fool around with a dial indicator and a small brass hammer to center the work on the indexer. Tap, tap... check for runout... tap, tap, check for runout... you get the picture. I finally got it all done. Now to put the finished chuck on the spindle and test for runout. What??? FIVE THOU!??! How could this be? I bored it in place on the spindle nose! Think, Greg. Ahhh, I see! The accuracy depends upon getting it to seat exactly where it did when I bored the taper. Okay, let's see what we can do. Take the chuck off, carefully clean and oil the threads of both the chuck and the lathe spindle again, and try re-seating it. That's better, down to two thou, but not nearly what I'd hoped for. Another try, snug it up a bit tighter. This time it's within .0005", which is as good as I can measure with the tools I have. That's more like it! As with most projects, immediately after it's finished I can already see ways to improve it. Now I understand how important that "set- tru" stuff is in the advertising for expensive adjustable chucks. Next weekend I'll be starting on Greg's Amazing Collet Chuck, Mark II. In the meantime, pictures of Mark I are in the files section in the "Collet Chuck" folder. Greg ------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:22:51 -0500 From: "John Guenther" Subject: RE: Greg's Amazing Collet Chuck for Sherline Lathe NICE job Greg! I made an ER-32 chuck for my Grizzly 7x12 lathe and really like it. I just wish the collets cost less. I might make an ER-32 chuck for my next Sherline. You might want to check out http://warhammer.mcc.virginia.edu/ty/7x10/vault/Projects/ER_Collet_Chuck/ for a drawing that gives the specs for ER collets from ER-16 thru ER-45 including the proper angles. I made my ER-32 chuck from these drawings. John Guenther 'Ye Olde Pen Maker' Sterling, Virginia --------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:31:12 -0000 From: "lan_brooks " Subject: Re: Greg's Amazing Collet Chuck for Sherline Lathe It looks good Greg if a bit large. Useing essentially the exact same process for setting the internal angle, I built an ER-16 collet holder from a Sherline 3/8 in end mill holder. I did not want to have to worry about getting everything aligned to the spindle nose. This is my favorite method of holding end mills on the mill and stock smaller than 1/2 inch on the lathe. Have fun with it! Lan Brooks ------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:36:05 -0000 From: "gbesch " Subject: Re: Greg's Amazing Collet Chuck for Sherline Lathe Thanks for your comments! I call it Greg's Amazing Collet Chuck because it's amazing that I ever got it done ;) I know it looks huge, but it's actually a smaller diameter than either the Sherline 4-jaw or 3-jaw chucks. It's just longer. I suppose one could bend the spindle if you have a large diameter work piece in the chuck and snag it with a tool while running the spindle at high speed. However, larger diameter work pieces should be turned at slower speeds, and it's more likely the motor belt will begin to slip before any damage is done to the spindle. The collets are drilled clear through, so yes, any stock that would fit through the spindle without the chuck will still go through with the chuck in place. Greg ------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 03:08:28 -0000 From: "jimknighton1948" Subject: Re: Drill chuck question The 3/8" chuck shipped with the lathe is a Jacobs 2BA. The 1/4" chuck shipped with the mill is a Jacobs 1BA. I'm have both in front of me as I write this and the model numbers are taken directly off the chucks themselves. I hope this helps. JBK -------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:32:27 -0500 From: Jim Ash Subject: Re: Re: Drill chuck question Yes, it does. I've got an older lathe with a 1BA. I was curious if they changed the chuck they were using since mine. Apparently not. I saw a 1/4" chuck for sale relatively cheap, but it was a Jacobs MC2AD. I don't even know what multi-craft means. I suspect it's a nice way to imply light duty. My understanding is this chuck has a minimum capacity of .028 inches instead of zero. I suspect that chucks approaching zero are a myth anyhow, especially for centering accuracy, but I might like to go smaller than .028 sometimes. Jim Ash ---------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:24:21 -0000 From: "jimknighton1948" Subject: Re: Drill chuck question Jim, I'm not particularly knowledgable about Jacobs chucks, but I believe that the Multi Craft line was intended as relatively light duty keyed chucks for portable power tools. I found a short blurb to that effect on an industrial supply house's web page, but I don't recall which. The MSC catalog lists the 2BA as a "medium duty" chuck, but I don't have a clue just what that means. It is certainly a beefier, larger, and much heavier chuck than the 1BA that came with my mill. According to the MSC catalog several chucks including the 0B, 1B, 2BA, and the 41BA close to 0.000. Sherline sells a couple of 5/16" chucks with pressed on arbors. I haven't seen one personally, so I don't know if they are from Jacobs or not, and I also don't know their minimum capacity. An email to craigx~xxsherline.com (Craig Libuse) should get you the definitive answer. I've found Craig to be very helpful and also very prompt. I've never had the need to drill really small holes in metal. I've got the standard #60-80 wire drill set that I use occasionally with wood and plastic, but I use them with a hand held pin vise. Several years ago I experimented with a small chuck on an approx 1/8" shaft that was in turn chucked in the drill press. I found it to be an extremely awkward approach and I think I broke a bit just about every time I used it. It's still in the drawer, but I haven't touched it for years. Maybe the watch and clock makers in the forum can offer suggestions about this subject? Regards, Jim Knighton --------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:14:09 -0000 From: "notinsync10" Subject: Re: Drill chuck question Jim, et al.... I don't know if this will be of any moment, but for small hole drilling I use an Albrecht 0-1/16" (15J0) and a Yukiwa 0-1/8" with an 0JT to MT-1 adaptor even though Joe Martin claims the're not a good investment. However, for holes smaller than #60, I have found that HSS jobber length bits are too fragile no matter how precise the chuck. As a result, I started using solid carbide bits as manufactured for the electronics industry to drill PC boards when several different hole sizes are required necessitating frequent bit changes. They are shorter and considerably more rigid but brittle and expensive. In order to prevent breakage to both the bit and your bank account, the workpiece should be mounted as perpendicular to the spindle as possible. Another thing...since these bits are designed to operate at extremely high speeds (10,000 rpm), it takes some experimentation with feed rates in order to achieve the desired results at 2800 rpm. Cutting fluid is highly recommended. J.B. Neiswander ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:38:37 -0000 From: "n2562001" Subject: Re: Drill chuck question Jim For most of my work on the Sherline I use a 5/16" Rohm keyless chuck MSC part no. 05931563 at $58.73. Quality and Repeatablity of this chuck is excellent and has a min. capacity of .002". I would also strongly recommend it be used with the Sherline chuck centering holder (p/n 1202) for drilling small holes. Jerry Kieffer -------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:28:21 -0000 From: "notinsync10" Subject: Re: Sherline 3 jaw chuck runout --- In sherlinex~xxyahoogroups.com, "builder4wd" wrote: > I was wondering, what is the typical runout of the Sherline 3.1" 3 > jaw chuck? Are there ways to improve its accuracy? I can't attest to the accuracy of the 3-jaw chuck but my 4-jaw self centering runs out at .00275 (+ or - .00005) with a 1/4" grade 'X' pin gage measured at the jaw line. Insofar as more accuracy is concerned, I suppose you could try shimming between the "high" jaw and the workpiece. But, frankly, that would probably require as much effort as 'dialing in' a 4-jaw independent which, to my way of thinking, is a much more consistent means of achieving accuracy. J.B. Neiswander -------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:15:09 -0000 From: "Jeff Gauvin" Subject: Re: Sherline 3 jaw chuck runout Can't really answer your question, but I can say that my 3.1" has a fair amount of runout (don't yet have a dial to measure it). The instructions said that even the most expensive 3-jaws had runout, so I just accepted that it was normal. It's not really an issue unless you want to chuck up a piece and machine just a section of it. If starting from raw stock, it will turn concentric after a pass or two. Well, I guess it's also an issue if you have to remove a piece and then chuck it again later, or if you have to loosen the chuck to pull more of a long thin piece through the spindle. In such cases if you mark the jaw location before moving the piece, concentricity issues can be minimized. I was also surprised to see that the pulleys had runout; for some reason I thought they would be perfect, but that is obviously not a problem. The spindle itself does run true. One thing I've wondered: are the jaws hardened? If soft, you might be able to bore them to turn true (this is what Taig tells you to do). - Jeff Gauvin --------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:16:48 -0500 From: "Daniel J. Statman" Subject: Re: Re: Sherline 3 jaw chuck runout The standard jaws are hardened, but you can purchase sets of soft jaws from Sherline. I have several sets of jaws for each of my chucks and I could not live without them. For some reason Sherline lists the soft-jaws in the replacement parts section of the website. At least they used to when I originally bought my sets of them. Daniel J. Statman, Statman Designs www.statmandesigns.com dan.statmanx~xxrennlist.com ------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:21:20 -0800 From: "Dave Hylands" Subject: RE: Re: Sherline 3 jaw chuck runout Boring (or grinding) the jaws to run true will only make them run true at the exact diameter that you bore or grind them at. The lack of concentricity is caused by inaccuracies in the scroll which moves the jaws in and out. If you really need the accuracy, use an independant 4-jaw chuck. Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ -------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:38:59 -0000 From: "builder4wd" Subject: Re: Sherline 3 jaw chuck runout Thanks for the responses guys. I'm asking because mine has a noticeable amount of run-out. It's not severe, but it's noticeable. I have a 4 jaw chuck, but haven't used it yet. The reason I am thinking about the 3 jaw chuck runout is that sometimes I want to chuck things with no surface to use dial indicators on. For example, how would I chuck a screw accurately? There's no surface to use a dial indicator on, so I don't see how I can use a 4 jaw with greater accuracy. ---------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:55:30 -0800 From: "Dave Hylands" Subject: RE: Re: Sherline 3 jaw chuck runout In order to chuck a screw in the 4 jaw, you can create a smooth surface. For example, if you take a piece of brass tubing that the screw just fits into, and put a slit in the brass tubing lengthwise, then you have a mostly smooth surface that you can use for indicating when it's wrapped around the screw. This will also protect the threads from the chuck jaws. Another approach is to indicate on the jaws themselves (this only works if you've previously measured the jaws to ensure that they're uniformly thick. If your indicator has a wide enough probe (you can usually buy different tips for the ends) that it crosses several threads, you can indicate on the screw directly. You could also use any old piece of metal which is of uniform thickness and press it against the threads and indicate on the other side of it. The piece of metal needs to be wide enough to cover several threads. I normally just use my 3 jaw for chucking up screws, but I use a couple of nuts with slits cut into them: See: http://www.davehylands.com/Machinist/Projects/Inkle-Loom-Screws/Small/18-Rea dy-for-Chucking.html (Use: http://makeashorterlink.com/?A19851AF3 if the above doesn't work). If you're doing lots of screws, you might want to make a jig for holding them. You could make a round nut with a slit in it and threaded appropriately, and then indicate on the round portion. Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ ---------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:26:25 -0800 From: "Marcus & Eva" Subject: Re: Re: Sherline 3 jaw chuck runout Hi Builder: Did you know that with a cheap (under $10.00 CDN) 10X magnifier, you can pick up a runout error of less than 0.001" easily. The secret is to run a toolbit right up close to the side of the part and slide a bit of white paper under it. Look at the edge of the part with your spyglass and you will be able to see the variation in the gap as you rotate the chuck by hand. The white paper allows you to see the gap easily. If you're too cheap for even the magnifier, you can fake it with a feeler gage and the cross slide dial. Slide the feeler between the side of the job and a flat ended toolbit. Advance the toolbit using the crosslide until you can just nip the feeler. Zero the dial. Now spin the job 180 deg and nip the same feeler again. Halve the difference with the dial and then spin the job so the high side is next to the toolbit (feeler won't go in.) Now adjust your 4 jaw until the feeler just slips in. Spin 180 deg to check and do it again if you need to. You can get within 0.001"TIR easily this way too. Hope this helps Cheers Marcus By the way, the best ways to set up for screws that you can't dial in, is to spin them in a collet or in bored out soft jaws. MC ---------------------------- Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 21:37:20 -0400 From: Stephen Brown Subject: Slippery 3-jaw chuck I'm having trouble holding things in the three jaw chuck. It works fine for items large enough to pack against the chuck face or transverse faces of the jaws, but other things like to move in or out of the chuck under the cutting forces, no matter how tight I make it. The specific example I've run into this week is 3/16" drill rod. I'm building Rudy Kouhoupt's little steam engine from his video, and it requires a 2" axle faced to length from 3/16" drill rod. Every time I tried facing the piece, however, no matter whether I took a light or heavy cut, the piece would retreat into the chuck, toward the headstock, resulting in a domed end. The tool is sharp and works fine with material thick enough to be mounted against the chuck face. I think I know what's probably at least one answer--I should be using a collet. But I don't have the WW collet set, and I have the video showing Rudy Kouhoupt doing exactly this operation in a three jaw chuck. As an experiment, I put my 3/16" milling collet in the lathe and tried it. I could face 3/16" drill rod in that collet without it moving, even under a heavy cut. But for a 2" piece, too much sticks out of the milling collet -- it no longer moves toward the headstock, but it does flex laterally. It's academic for the moment. I gave up and finished my drill rods (I'm building several identical one to make the most of my set-up time) on the mill, holding them horizontally in the vise with the end sticking out a bit, and side-milling to length. But I sure would like to be able to use the 3-jaw for this kind of thing. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Steve Brown n8hfix~xxbellsouth.net ----------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 20:58:16 -0700 From: "Marcus and Eva" Subject: Re: Slippery 3-jaw chuck Hi Stephen: Something is very wrong. You should have no problem holding your stock with sufficient clamping force to do what you're intending. Is your problem confined to this one diameter of material, or are you having difficulty with every diameter that you try to chuck? I'm at a loss to explain your difficulties with the limited information of your post: maybe you could post some pictures of your setup and your tool. I've never had this problem with my own Sherline chucks...so I'm very curious to find out what's going on. Whatever it is, it ain't normal... so we should be able to figure out how to fix it. Cheers Marcus ---------------------------- Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 08:01:28 +0200 From: Geert De Pecker Subject: Re: Slippery 3-jaw chuck Stephen, Your problem seems very odd to me. You should be able to hold everything with a reasonable clamping force. The only thing I can imagine is too much dirt in the chuck and suggest you take it apart to clean thoroughly. I have the impression the force applied is diverted to the chuck itself instead of the claws. Hope this helps (as it is the only thing I can come up with), Geert --------------------------------- Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 19:31:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Pete Brown Subject: Re: Slippery 3-jaw chuck I had a problem parting off some material (delrin, IIRC) that was in my 3-jaw chuck. The parting tool would pull the material out of the chuck. Changing my feed/speed fixed that problem. FWIW, I also picked up a 4-jaw (not the self-centering) chuck, but haven't used it yet. I suspect it will hold better than the self-centering 3-jaw. Pete ----------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 13:34:28 -0700 From: "Carol & Jerry Jankura" Subject: 4-Jaw Chucks Folks: I've noticed that Sherline offers both a 3.1 and 2.5 inch diameter independent jaw chuck for their lathe. Other than the difference in cost, are there any advantages to purchasing the 2.5 inch chuck instead of the 3.1 inch chuck? Thanks, -- Carol & Jerry Jankura Strongsville, Ohio So many toys, So little time .... --------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 20:33:34 -0000 From: "n2562001" Subject: Re: 4-Jaw Chucks Jerry I have both but use the small one 90 percent of the time because it is less obstructive to work around. However when I need the larger one it is because it is the only thing that will do the job. I would suggest both if you are a active Machinist Jerry Kieffer p.s. Let me rephrase my last statement . I suggest both if you are an active machinist who must have one of everything and you can afford to have a extra one laying around. ----------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 21:58:47 -0000 From: "n2562001" Subject: Re: 4-Jaw Chucks > Unfortunately, my wallet does not match my desires. :) > I take it that you're saying that the smaller chuck will handle > most of the work and that its physical size - allowing more > access from the headstock side - is its advantage. > Thanks, -- Carol & Jerry Jankura Jerry J., Your assumption is correct. Jerry Kieffer ------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE TO FILE: I have left the following thread "-jaw but just a bit bigger" fairly complete as there is some useful information about chucks and problem-solving. Probably could have been resolved for the square plastic stock by hacksawing over-long, then clamping (and indicating) the piece vertically on a precise angle plate attached to the table, and then simply flycutting each end. Shows there is more than one way to solve most problems, including some without chucks. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:21:12 -0300 From: "Neil Albert" Subject: -jaw but just a bit bigger My newly purchased Sherline 4-jaw self centering chuck does a wonder job of holding a relatively thin wall plastic ring on the I.D. by opening the chuck until it grabs tightly. It is a beautifully machined and smoothly operating small chuck. Unfortunately, I am have difficulty finding a self centering chuck (3 or 4 jaw) which will hold 3-1/2 O.D. solid rod...something that weighs less than the 20lbs which the 6in chucks I've come aross in my search do. Does anyone know of the chuck a bit larger than the Sherline 3-1/4in, but not that much larger which I would use on my Sherline mill? I see that Sherline does make a 4 inch industrial type chuck for a lathe, but it's mount seems incompatible with the mill, since it has a long shaft at its base. Neil ---------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:55:43 -0700 From: "Dave Hylands" Subject: RE: -jaw but just a bit bigger Hi Neil, I'm assuming that you have riser blocks (Otherwise it isn't possible to hold a 3.5" piece). A couple of thing to consider: 1 - Is it possible to mount the piece onto a faceplate? I was able to turn a 3.125" piece on my lathe with no riser blocks by using the faceplate. 2 - Open up your 3 jaw chuck and reverse the jaws. You should be able to grab a 3.5" piece with the jaws protruding about 1/2 way out of the chuck. How safe this is will depend on whether you're using a center and how heavy the piece you're working with is. Make sure that you follow the directions on the Sherline web site for reversing the jaws. I seem to recall that two of the jaws don't go back into the same place that they came from. 3 - You could construct a simple 4 jaw (independent) chuck using a larger faceplate (not sure where you'd get such a beast) and having 4 screws which can adjust the position of the piece. You could construct a larger faceplate by clamping a larger round piece of metal to the existing faceplate. This isn't self centering. You could probably get away with using wood (not as repeatable or rigid, but it depends on what you're machining). Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:19:56 -0300 From: "Neil Albert" Subject: RE: -jaw but just a bit bigger Thanks Dave, Riser block: I have a 2000 and I am using the column extension. I know already that there sufficient clearance. 1) My plan is to keep a slice of the 3-1/2 O/D. rod square so that I can face off both ends. The chuck would do this, and I would able to get it in and out quickly. 2) I only own a 2-1/2in 4-jaw s.c. chuck so far, but if the 3-1/4" Sherline 3-jaw chuck will work with the jaws hanging out 1/4", than I can order one. The work is a 1 inch tall or less slice of polypropylene. Think she'll fly Wilbur? 3) Constructing my own chuck? An independent (non s.c) chuck might be sufficient, if necessary. Probably, not some I would rush into, though, if not necessary. I just reread your note, and since your reference to a "center" sounds like a lathe operation, I want to point out that I'm do this on a 2000 mill, and I do not own a lathe (other than a rotary table.) Thanks again. Neil ----------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:40:31 -0700 From: "Dave Hylands" Subject: RE: -jaw but just a bit bigger Hi Neil, I realized that after I had typed the post, but alas it was already sent. So how exactly are you planning on mounting this? Using the mill, I would probably just clamp your piece to the table. Why do your want to use a chuck? Normally you would use a chuck when you want to perform some lathe operation and then mount it on the mill to perform a milling operation and then go back to the lathe (so you don't lose your position). A set of 4 clamps like this: http://www.sherline.com/tip3.htm could be used on the table to clamp your piece in place. Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ ------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:12:56 -0300 From: "Neil Albert" Subject: RE: -jaw but just a bit bigger Dave, The reason that I would like to use a 3-jaw chuck is that when the rod is sliced, the ends of not flat at all ( I wish I had at a band saw) , so I would like to use its O.D. to keep it square. It's also an issue of setup time, since I need to experiment with the subsequent milling operations and would rather not shim the piece and use a dial test indicator to align it on the O.D. The vertical sides of the jaws in the chuck are at 90deg. to the faceplate (if that's what the round part of the chuck is called) Unforetunately, the Sherline site seems to be at the moment, so I can't view the clamping tip. You say that you have used the Sherline 3-1/4in chuck opened up to a full 3-1/2in with the jaws reversed? It doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need to be very tight to be able to fly-cut the large piece. If the fly-cutter isn't large enough, then I can mill the surfaces flat. Neil -------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:51:07 -0700 From: "Dave Hylands" Subject: RE: -jaw but just a bit bigger Hi Neil, I haven't USED the Sherline chuck opened up that far, I just tried opening mine up to see if it would open that far. Unfortunately, you'd be gripping with the shorter stepped portion of the jaws, so it won't have as much of a squaring effect as when you use the jaws normally. Here's another option. Lee Valley sells a OneWay chuck, designed for woodworking. It only weight 4.5 lbs. http://tinyurl.com/gbqr You can get a 3/4-16 arbor for it, which means it should also work on the Sherline lathe (I haven't tried this myself). And if you get the #3 jaw set, it will hold 3-3/8 upto 4-3/4" http://tinyurl.com/gbql Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ -------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:36:06 -0000 From: "n2562001" Subject: Re: -jaw but just a bit bigger Neil When the 3.1" Sherline chuck is opened to 3.500" with jaws reversed, the jaws are still half engaged in the chuck body. Since the bottom of the holding jaw surface is still engaged in the chuck body squareness of the work piece should not be a problem, especially for plastic. If you want a custom fit you can order a set of soft jaws from Sherline and machine to fit your project. You may also want to consider mounting the chuck on the spindle and clamping a lathe tool bit vertical in your vice and use the mill as a lathe. This method can also be used to machine the soft jaws on the chuck if you were to go that route. The largest Item I have faced off in the Sherline mill was a 6" cast Iron gear blank. It is very very slow and I would not recommend this size in metal unless you abolutely have no other way. On the other hand I have cut 3" and 4" plastic with no problem at all. You can`t take heavy cuts but you won`t want to anyway. To me using the mill as a lathe is simpler, faster and more controllable than a fly cutter. With a properly ground round nose sharp tool, I think you will find that you will also get a better finish. Jerry Kieffer ----------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 11:56:09 -0000 From: "Devin Cox" Subject: Make your own faceplate I am considering making a faceplate for my 4400. I am currently building the steam engine from Rudy K's video. (Love this video/engine) I noticed a nice little faceplate Rudy uses in the video that is perfect for making flywheels. I was wondering how I go about making the threads on the faceplate, accurately. I just purchased the threading attachment but not sure about cutting the internal threads on the faceplate. I assume I would cut the threads, mount the faceplate and then finish the faceplate to true it up to the threads?? Thanks for you help, Devin ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:43:51 -0000 From: "Antonius J.M. Groothuizen" Subject: Re: Make your own faceplate Devin: I haven't seen the video, but... Can you modify the Sherline faceplate to perform the task? These are semi-disposable, and extras are available through Sherline. You can also bolt a piece of 1/4" to 1/2" aluminium to the faceplate and treat it's surface as your faceplate for the flywheel. If you have the 4-Jaw chuck and an 'inside thread cutting tool' you can thread your new faceplate on the lathe (providing it will fit in the chuck). Take the time to ensure that both the surface of the faceplate contacting the spindle's shoulder, and the 'parts face' are square to the spindle's axis, especially if the flywheel mounts directly to the faceplate. Just some ramblings... Tony ------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:55:58 -0700 From: k6sufx~xxdirecway.com Subject: Re: Re: Make your own faceplate If the Sherline has a threaded spindle first make a "fake spindle nose" just like the one on the lathe. Outside threads are much easier for a beginner to make. Then when you start your face plate you can check the fit on your "fake" without removing the faceplate from the chuck. You are correct when making a face plate, do the threads and register first then true it up on lathe it is to be used on. -------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:55:34 -0700 From: "David" Subject: Re: Re: Make your own faceplate Devin: Please note that the original Sherline faceplate will not work to hold the flywheel in RK's design: you would have to enlarge the slots to the point that they would cut into the threads on the inside of the Sherline faceplate. If you want to use his method, you must make a faceplate from scratch. As much as I respect RK, this whole business of the special faceplate really bugged me. It didn't ruin my enjoyment of continuing with the project; I just thought that it was a dirty trick. I made such a faceplate from brass. But I wound up not using it because it is really difficult to center a part on a three-axis faceplate. You'll remember in the video that RK had trouble himself and that there was a cut in the video while I'm sure he struggled some more. And he said somewhere that it wasn't as square as he thought it was. If you watch that portion of the video that shows the engine running, you'll see significant wobble in the flywheel. I gave up on the special faceplate after finally ruining the part. I started over with a new disk, lightly faced both sides (of course, they won't be square to each other by a bunch), center drilled and reamed the axle hole. Then I made up a mandrel from about four inches of 10-32 all-thread steel rod. Carefully set it up with the steady rest and center-drilled one end of it. I turned the flywheel blank with one nut on the tailstock side and two nuts on the headstock side, using the 3-jaw chuck but centering up on the live center in the tailstock. You can turn one side of the flywheel with the left-hand nuts near the 3-jaw and have room for the tool; for the other side, move the right-hand nut as near the tailstock as you can and bring up the two left-hand nuts to lock it in place. Finally, turn the outer diameter. My wheel runs true on the axle. Because I didn't have RK's three holes, the flywheel didn't "look like a flywheel." So I very carefully used cardboard stock to protect the surfaces and mounted the flywheel on the mill. Found the center with a center finder I'd made from RK's design, did the trig, located five evenly spaced holes at the half-way point of the diameter, center drilled, drilled to letter U, and finished with a 3/8 reamer. With holes, it looks like a flywheel. Dave Wood ----------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:26:23 -0400 From: "Marshall Pharoah" Subject: Re: Re: Make your own faceplate I haven't watched Rudy's video in a while. But rather than constructing a new faceplate from scratch, it may be sufficient to simply make a sacrificial face for your existing faceplate. Generally faceplates themselves are considered sacrificial. When you get a new one, you take a fine facing cut to true it up. With the Sherline, I did this and then bolted on a piece of 1/2" thick aluminum. Drill and tap as required for jigs. When it looks like swiss cheese, start over. I usually turn flywheels on a tapered mandrel, between centers. This means the first operation is to drill and ream the through hole. Sounds pretty much like what you did on the second attempt. Marshall ----------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:05:32 -0700 From: Dave Martindale Subject: making a faceplate I recently made a faceplate-like thing for a Unimat lathe. I don't think the threads need to be terribly accurately cut, as long as the threaded axis is pretty close to perpendicular to what will be the "back" face of the faceplate. You want the faceplate to screw on and register solidly against the "step" on the spindle nose. Then the face is trued with the faceplate in operating position. I started out with a square chunk of aluminum, and belt-sanded three flats situated so the 3-jaw chuck would hold it adequately. This wouldn't be necessary if you have a round blank to start with, or you have a 4-jaw chuck, or you mount the blank to an existing faceplate. With the blank mounted on the lathe, I faced the outer end, which will eventually become the back face of the faceplate. This needs to be flat. Then I drilled and bored a hole in the centre of the blank. Most of the depth is bored to the inner diameter of the spindle thread (M12x1 for the Unimat, 3/4-16 for the Sherline). The outer part needed to be bored out to the full 12 mm for the Unimat, but the Sherline may not need this. (The Sherline headstock appears to have a smaller-diameter area, with diameter equal to the 3/4-16 thread root, behind the thread). After boring, I tapped the M12x1 thread in the blank. If you have the thread-cutting attachment, you should be able to do single-point threading on the lathe, but the tap was my only option on the Unimat. I used the tailstock to guide the tap as I was starting to cut the threads, but I eventually had to take the blank out, sand some flats on it, and hold it in a vise in order to apply enough force for the tap. At this point, I removed the chuck from the lathe, and screwed the new blank onto the spindle, reversing it so the faced surface was at the back against the spindle register surface. Then I turned the outside down until it was round, and took a facing cut across the new face. You probably also want to drill some holes or cut some slots in your new faceplate somewhere in this process. Dave ---------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:16 -0000 From: "Devin Cox" Subject: RK's Flywheel Mandrel In another post, I spoke about wanting to build a faceplate that I saw in Rudy K.'s steam engine video. The faceplate is used to finish the flywheel for the steam engine. A few of you advised against making the faceplate, and David Wood mentioned the idea of making a mandrel of sorts to mount the flywheel to the finish the outside diameter. David's setup seemed the best fit for the job, so I made one. I posted some pictures of the mandrel I made and the finished flywheel. I also posted an explanation of the parts. I just thought I would share as this was way more easy than making the faceplate and then trying in vain to center the flywheel on it. I am still just a beginner, so view the pictures with this in mind. Regards, Devin Cox --------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:27:13 -0400 From: Stephen Brown Subject: Re: Make your own faceplate I'm working through Rudy's video also. I finished the connecting rods this weekend. Making the faceplate was straightforward but time-consuming. I started with a 1.5" disc held in the 3-jaw, did one face and the threads in on set up. I checked fit by taking the chuck off the spindle, turning the whole set-up around and trying it, without unchucking the part. The rest of the turning was done with the part mounted directly on the spindle nose. The slotting was a pain, I don't have a lot of experience mounting parts on the rotary table and even for a 1.5" part there isn't much room around it for clamps. I did six flywheels on the faceplate once done and had little trouble centering the flywheels, but once again it was a little tedious. You have to get it tight, but not too tight, while you knock it around, then take it off to do a final tightening. It took care to not disturb it when removing it for the last tightening. It helped that I drilled the mounting holes in the flywheels by coordinates on the mill table, rather than laying out and centerpunching as Rudy shows--I think I got them closer than I would have his way, not having his experience. If I were doing it again, I'd try to come up with some kind of mandrel instead. I thought about it at the time, but couldn't think of an arrangement that would hold it securely and still let me machine the whole face. Steve Brown n8hfix~xxbellsouth.net ------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:28:43 EDT From: Holyelvisx~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Re: Make your own faceplate Steve, I did opt to make the mandrel instead of the faceplate. It only took about 10-15 mins to make and I finished the flywheel in not much more time than that. I have uploaded a picture of the flywheel and the mandrel in the photos section under "Flywheel Mandrel". The mandrel attached the part very securely and the flywheel turned out very nicely. Devin Cox ----------------------- Note to file: earlier messages in this discussion are contained in the Taig Chucks file as the Bison is actually threaded more for the Taig. Certainly it can be mounted on the Taig lathe or a rotary table by either maker. See the Taig Chucks file and also the Sherline to/from Taig Adapters file. Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:24:01 -0000 From: "Jim Knighton" Subject: Re: Bison chuck > Just curious, why are we interested in the Bison chuck for use on the > Sherline? Sherline makes some fine chucks! I can't speak for anyone else, but my experience with my lathe in my shop is consistently that the Sherline 3-jaw (3.1" version that came with my 4400 lathe) simply doesn't hold work as securely as I think it should. I've had work shft in the chuck, sometimes rotating and either pulling in or drawing out. This is particularly noticable when using the parting tools, but it also happened when knurling and threading. Attempts to more tightly close the jaws had no effect other than to bend the tommy bars. In my early attempts at turning with hand-held gravers I had workpieces loosen and fall out of the chuck in the middle of a cut. (A visit to the Sherline web site and the "gravers" page will demonstrate they are aware of this problem and firmly recommend that work be held in collets when using gravers). I should also note that I had no problems working with small diameter stock, up to say under about 3/8". I've also had very few problems with large stock, say greater than 1". That middle range (3/8" to abt 1") is where I'm at most of the time and it is in this range that I've had the most difficulties. Maybe there are those who will attribute my experience to operator error or something else, but the problems completely and totally disappeared the moment I first mounted the Bison chuck. Please note that I still use the Sherline chuck for certain setups. I reversed the jaws to better hold large diameter stock. I keep it in that configuration rather than mess around with the Bison's second set of jaws. The Sherline works fine with these larger pieces. It also works well for me on the rotary table. I am not damning or condemning the Sherline 3-jaw chuck at all. Far from it - I think it is a fine chuck. The Bison, however, is a better chuck that is more closely suited to the work I do most frequently on my lathe. It's been upwards of six months now and the Bison chuck is used virtually every time I work in the shop. So far, I've had a nearly perfect track record with it. The only problem I've had is that on a couple of occassions I didn't have the chuck sufficiently tight on the spindle and on shutdown it spun off the threads. This really was operator error, and in any event both of my Sherline chucks (3-jaw and independant 4-jaw) have exhibited the same behavior. Regards, Jim Knighton -------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:08:16 -0800 From: Alan Marconett KM6VV Subject: Re: Re: Bison chuck Thanks for the comments. I might look into a Bison chuck. I've just recently found out how convenient the 4-jaw chuck is on the mill. I DO need to install the longer column. If I have the chuck, rotary table and adjustable angle plate installed, there isn't much room left! If I'm just using the chuck for holding (are you?), then I have the 3 & 4 jaw chucks from my EMCO 5" lathe to borrow. I even figured out a mounting plate for Sherline chucks for the EMCO lathe. The thought being that I could move work back and forth between the EMCO late and the Sherline mill. But now I have a Sherline long bead lathe as well. I'm currently enjoying making parts for a "Baby Beam Steam Engine". The 4-jaw chuck secured to the ways made it convenient to do some of the machining of the cylinder. Alan KM6VV ------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 06:02:56 -0000 From: "Jim Knighton" Subject: Re: New photos [sherline group's photos] The 5C collet chuck was made mostly on the Sherline lathe. Just for the record, the chuck is machined from 6061 aluminum and weighs less than the Sherline independant 4-jaw chuck. The blank was milled flat on both ends and the clearance hole drilled for the spindle threads on the Jet mill/drill. The clearance hole was drilled completely through the blank so that I had a large void from which to start boring out the chuck. The threads were carefully tapped by hand and then the blank was mounted on the Sherline's spindle. The rest of the machining was done on the Sherline lathe. The drawbar and closer nut/knob might not be clearly evident in the photos, but they, too, were machined on the Sherline. Not knowing what folks might be interested in, I didn't upload a photo showing the other parts of the chuck. Let me know if you're interested and I'll add that as well. I added a couple of extra photos showing the 5C chuck from different perspectives to the 4000 Lathe subfolder. The closer nut/knob is shown in one of the photos. It looks like a Sherline Spindle Handwheel accessory, but it's not. Like the chuck body, it is aluminum and was easily turned with hand-held gravers. I also had to make a special horing bar holder for 3/4" shank tools, the longest of which was just over 4". That is the one I needed for the long and deep bore in the chuck. I've a photo of that as well if you're interested. All-in-all, it was a relatively easy machining operation. It took me longer to figure out the setups than it did to actually machine the parts. I don't recall exactly how long it took, but it wasn't more than a couple of evenings, one evening for the body and I think I did the drawbar the next day. The closer nut/knob was done later as a hand-held turning project with gravers and that didn't take much more than maybe an hour or so. Regards, Jim --------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:51:44 -0000 From: "neilalbert2001" Subject: Soft jaws I have a 1075 self-centering 4-jaw chuck, and I would like to tap a hole in each of the jaws flat(ish) side. I called Sherline to order a set of jaws, and was told they don't guarantee the fit unless I send my chuck to them. Are the jaws that come with the chuck much harder than the "Soft Jaw" sets, and would I have difficulty drilling and tapping them? Thanks. Neil ---------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:23:04 -0500 From: "Statman Designs, LLC" Subject: Re: Soft jaws If you call Sherline and speak with them over the phone, they can help you get a set of soft-jaws without returning your current chuck. I have done this several times with my 3-jaw chucks. You need to measure the width of the jaws and let them know what you need. They will then find their closest matched set to your chuck from your measurements. Since the jaws are soft you can use emery cloth to make them slightly narrower if they are a bit too wide to fit. Since a 4-jaw chuck needs to be dialed in every time you chuck a part, I don't think it will be very critical to the function of the chuck if the jaws are a bit loose. Daniel J. Statman, Statman Designs www.statmandesigns.com dan.statmanx~xxrennlist.com ------- Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:21:18 -0700 From: "Wm. Dubin" Subject: frozen chuck... It has been quite awhile since I needed to remove my 3 jaw chuck, and now I find it's absolutely frozen in place. Even lightly tapping the tommy bar wouldn't budge it. I've also tried WD-40.... same results - nothing! Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks, Wm. ------- Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:02:03 -0700 From: "Dave Hylands" Subject: RE: frozen chuck... Hi Wm, Try tapping harder. Seriously, because the chuck is self tighening, it can take quite a bit of force. You could also put a piece of wood next to the ways, and put a tommy bar in the spindle and run it up against the wood. Then tap on the tommy bar on the chuck. Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ ------- Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:15:52 -0700 From: "Wm. Dubin" Subject: Re: frozen chuck... Dave, I've now tried "tapping harder" to the point where the tommy bar has bent! This thing is "welded" on... probably the result of a "coolant" getting in the threads and drying... I've considered a torch, but would hate to mess up the paint.... Any further thoughts? Wm. ------- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:37:31 -0700 From: "Wm. Dubin" Subject: Re: frozen chuck... [EARLIER MSG] >I appreciate all of you writing such detailed >instructions, but this morning I pulled the headstock, wrapped it up, >and in 2 hours will drive it up the coast to Sherline where they can >figure it out. I'll write again to let everyone know how this came out. Well the problem is now solved... and the solution was simply a version of the first ideas offered.... here's what was done: The main difference was that the man at Sherline (Luis) held his thumb down on the end of the tommy bar that went into the chuck. This kept it from "bouncing back"... which I gather reflects the energy of the hammer blow away from the direction you want it to go. Luis also hit it so close to the chuck rim that there was hardly air between the two, his hammer was quite heavy, and the blow itself was FAR heavier than I would try to take (much less that close to either the chuck or my thumb!). Took a couple of hits like this, and then it was loose. As I thought, it was dried coolant that got gummy & hard and locked it up. Last time I leave a chuck on when I"m done working! Thanks again to everyone who wrote and suggested ideas. Wm. ------- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:32:00 -0000 From: "Jim Knighton" Subject: Re: Newbie: ? about chucks > > I personally don't like the Sherline 3 jaw chuck. It just doesn't hold > > tight. I almost always use the 4 jaw chuck. > Any ideas why it doesn't? Any solutions - are there any other 3 jaw chucks > with 3/4-16 threads that don't have this problem? Hi, All... I think the Sherline chucks are decent for most purposes (I have five of them, all different. I think that's every chuck they make excepting the industrial products). I like them and use them frequently. Regardless, there are instances when they really don't hold work tight enough. From my experience, there seems to be a size range (roughly .5" to 1") where holding power is problematic. I've had few problems with stock both larger and smaller than in this range. Working with stock in this range, however, I've frequently had work move on me (slide in or out depending on what I'm doing). Also, Sherline notes that their chucks don't hold work securely enough when turning with gravers. They recommend using collets for this purpose. I have to admit that in spite of the warning had to try, and I've learned through personal experience that this is a very true statement. It isn't any fun at all to have a brass or steel workpiece pop out of the chuck in the middle of a cut. Ask me how I know this! This experience provided the motivation for machining a simple 5C collet chuck. Photos are in a folder in the photos section under my name. My chuck works well in the limited situations for which it was designed. I'm not advocating this approach for general purpose machining, however. From a practical engineering perspective my chuck isn't even close to the same class as the Bison 4" or 5" 5C chucks, which are seriously way too big and much too heavy for the Sherline lathe. I use my 5C chuck most frequently when turning large stock with gravers, when working on the ends of square stock, etc. and for this it is excellent. Since I have a lot of work-holding options, I use whatever seems to be most convenient for the task at hand. All of the Sherline chucks serve their purpose and are useful/valuable to me in special situations. I'm glad I have them and won't part with any of them. Since the aforementioned problematic size range is where I'm at most of the time, I purchased a 3" Bison plain back chuck. At approx $150 they aren't cheap, but they are well made, accurate, and hold really well. They are tightened with a key and can be tightened much more securely than the Sherline models. I'm pleased with the results and have no regrets. To be sure, it looks overly large and out of proportion to eyes accustomed to Sherline accessories. It works really well, however, and in my eyes that's whats most important. Photos are in my folder in the Photos section. For the majority of my turning on the "big" lathe (a heavily modified 4400) this is my preferred chuck. Other forum members with whom I've corresponded have also successfully used the 3" Bison. In order to use this model Bison you have to machine your own threaded back plate. If you take it slow and easy this isn't an overly difficult task. I had mine machined, installed, and dialed in in less than an hour. I have no experience with the smaller Bison chuck that ships with 3/4 x 16 threads. Although advertised as being Sherline compatible, I've seen reports that the threads are set back into the chuck and don't engage fully on the Sherline's spindle (although they apparently do on the Taig). That's something to look into if you consider this smaller model. My interests run simultaneously in many different directions and I use my "small" Sherline lathe (a 4000) for woodturning, among other things. Since I'm am admittedly a bit nuts and like to experiment, I'm machining an adapter so that I can use my Nova (original 4" model) woodturning scroll chuck on one of my lathes (the 4000 with risers). The Nova chuck is no heavier than the Bison and for small woodturning projects it looks very promising, indeed. For those of you familiar with the Nova chuck, mine is the model with interchangeable inserts. The insert I'm currently using is the 5/8" plain shaft designed for use with Shopsmith lathes (I just happen to have one of these as well, although since I no longer do "large" turnings I think its days are numbered). The Sherline adapter is a simple turning - 1MT and threaded for a drawbar on one end and that duplicates the Shopsmith output shaft on the other. This is one of several projects I'm pursuing simultaneously and consequently progress on any one might seem slow. It might be a while before I'm ready to post photos. Even it seems like I'm just plodding along, all this stuff is cumulative and eventually it gets finished. Regards, Jim Knighton ------- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:09:51 -0400 From: "Shorty Leatherwood" Subject: Re: Re: Newbie: ? about chucks Jim,I have purchased one of the bison 3 jaw chucks that is threaded already. The threads only engage by 2 or 3 threads, I thought this was a concern and the man that sold it to me told me he could tell me how to fix this if I contacted him but since it has worked great all this time with no problems I have not attempted to modify this. The back of the jaw contacts the same point on the spindle and aligns up perfectly everytime it goes on the machine. The 2-3 thread contact seems quite enough to hold and have never had a problem. I would recommend this chuck as a replacement for the sherline standard 3 jaw chuck. I had so much problem with mine that I finally quit using it and just put everything into a 4 jaw and dialed it in (what a pain). See Ya, shorty. ------- Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:16:09 -0400 From: "Shorty Leatherwood" Subject: Magnetic chuck body >> In the photo archive in a folder bearing my name you will find photos of my custom tailstock. Look in the subfolder "4400 lathe". Among other things, my tailstock uses a modified Taig Regards, Jim Knighton << Jim, I took some time and looked at your photo folder on Yahoo, I am to say the least very impressed. I have a couple of questions though. What is a magnetic chuck body? and how can I make one of those 5C collet holders? Thanks Shorty ------- Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:14:06 -0000 From: "Jim Knighton" Subject: Re: Magnetic chuck body Shorty, I made the magnetic chuck to hold thin steel parts for facing operations. Think in terms of custom washers or similar parts that that needs to be a precise thickness. As you are no doubt aware, standard commercial washers are stamped and vary considerably in thickness. This variation may not be optimal or appropriate for some projects. I patterned the magnetic chuck after one published in HSM three or four years ago. I didn't follow the plans exactly, but the end result is similar. Not shown in the photo are three brass clips that keep the work piece from sliding around on the chuck's face. The magnets are amply strong to hold the work piece to the chuck, but without the clips they can slide. This is how they are positioned on the chuck and also removed. The 5C collet chuck is easy enough to make provided you can machine the deep flat bottomed pocket. It's 1.250" in diameter and approx 3"+ deep. I'm writing this from memory and I don't recall the exact depth I used. The collet chuck works quite well for me, but it's not an end all workholding solution. I use the 5C collets more on the milling machine (not Sherline) with index blocks and fixtures than on the lathe. I use the chuck mostly when doing freehand turnings with gravers but not so much for general purpose machining. There are other collet systems that might be a better choice than the 5C depending on the work you are doing. For instance, Sherline's WW collets are great, although expensive and designed for small workpieces less than about 1/4" in diameter. Also, you might consider the ER series collets. For what it's worth, I just purchased a stubby ER20 collet chuck and a set of matching collets with the intent of using it on the Sherline lathe. While this no doubt sounds outrageous to some, it presents no serious difficulty and I fully expect to have it done before the end of the week. I might have it done this afternoon, but I have some other commitments I have to work around - it's not a hard or tricky adaptation. I'll post photos and make an announcement when it's finished. The ER20 series holds work/tools up to just over 1/2" inch and seems an ideal match for our small lathes. Other ER series collets can probably be used as well. Sherline makes an ER16 spindle/headstock and sells it through their industrial division. There is at least one gentleman who posted photos in the archives about his shop-built ER40 collet chuck. I'm seriously considering an ER40 collet chuck myself, but that's down the road a bit. Regards, Jim ------- Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:49:14 -0000 From: "Jim Knighton" Subject: Re: Magnetic chuck body - now ER20 collet chuck Shorty (and other interested parties), I had more time this afternoon than I expected and the ER20 project didn't take very long at all. I've added a a new subfolder under my name with a few photos of the ER20 collet chuck and adapter. This project is well within the capabilities of most hobbyists. If you can accurately bore a 1.000" hole abt 7/8" deep, you can make the adapter necessary to mount a stubby ER20 collet chuck on any Sherline lathe. The adapter is machined from a Sherline threaded blank, pn#3070. You can make your own adapter but this simplifies the process since the blank's threads match that of the spindle nose. Since the blank is in fact a partly machined body for a 4 jaw independant chuck, its threads are as precisely formed and as tight fitting as that of the 4-jaw chuck - that is to say it's excellent. The theaded blank was mounted on the spindle nose and machined in place. This ensures concentricity and as long as the threads on both spindle and adapter are clean and undamaged the collet chuck should be as accurate and repeatable as the highly regarded Sherline chuck machined from the same blank. The collet chuck itself is manufactured by Craftsman Industries and is their Stubby ER20 model. It comes complete with closer and backup nut. At 3.75" long it is a nice size for a Sherline lathe. Its 1" diameter shank is intimidating to many as it isn't possible to directly mount it to the spindle. As the photos illustrate, however, when mated with the afore -mentioned adapter it is a match made in heaven. This same approach may be suitable for other chucks in the ER series. Certainly, it is for the smaller collets. Craftsman Industries' ER11 and ER16 stubby chucks are slightly shorter than the ER20 model. ER25 and larger chucks are a couple of inches longer, but not so long as to preclude their use. It may be possible to shorten these chucks a bit as well. Hobbyists interested in using larger and less expensive collets than Sherline's ww series might do well to consider this approach. The ER20 collets I'm using hold stock/tools up to just over 1/2". ER40 collets very nearly cover the range as do 5C collets. Anyway, here's some more food for thought. Jim Knighton [NOTE: the following are Jim's replies to later posts.] >What holds the two pieces together. I see where you bored the blank out >but don't seem to see any threads or set screws. Shorty The adapter is bored so that there is a tight press fit between it and the chuck. Not having a "real" arbor press, I used my big milling vise (6" Kurt) as a makeshift press to seat the chuck firmly in the bore and it's definitely not going anywhere. I'd probably have to turn the adapter's body off in the lathe if I ever wanted to take them apart. I don't think any other locking mechanism is needed - and this is by design. I figured that if the fit was so loose that I needed a pin or setscrew, then the bore wouldn't be tight enough to ensure concentricity. As is, it's just about perfect. >Why don't you start manufacturing these items? Regards, Jerry G This is supposed to be a hobby to get me through being disabled, medically retired, and growing old. My small shop is just right for experimentation and prototyping, but not for production. I don't have the health or financial resources to go commercial with this stuff. I also don't have the incination to be an entrepreneuer. I'm having fun, and I don't want to be bothered with schedules, commitments, and all the rest of the shit that goes with being a "businessman." Been there, done that, and now it's time for something new. I hope that by sharing these ideas in this forum and elsewhere I can help other hobbyists solve problems that vex them and maybe encourage them to try something new. I read the magazines and browse the relevant sites actively looking for stuff that interests me. I experiment and plagerize shamelessly when I find an interesting notion. Who knows, maybe others do as well? I'm completely self-taught and until abt 5 years ago had never seen a milling machine or metal lathe in the flesh. I'm still like a kid in the candy store when I go out to the shop and I've got so many crazy notions to explore that I don't want to do the same thing twice. As it is, I find it difficult to focus on just one thing at a time and find myself with half a dozen projects going at the same time. While a few get lost in the shuffle, the best of the "good ideas" get finished eventually. It's been said that the "reward" for doing a good job is the tedium of doing it over and over again. I just don't want to go there. ------- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:20:01 -0000 From: "n2562001" Subject: Cheap Chucks Every so often the discussion of cheap chucks comes up. I would like to pass along my personal experience with these chucks compared to the more expensive Sherline chucks. This is not intended to start a flame war but to pass along personal observations I was never able to get when I asked questions about chucks years ago. I have owned four 3" three jaw Chinese chucks that were all almost identical. Three of these were on mini lathes and the other is an extra one of current production. The 3" Chinese three jaw chuck is 1.750" longer than than the Sherline and about four times as heavy. Because of the size and the step dimensions of the jaws it is more difficult to work up close to the chuck when installed on the Sherline lathe. The run out on the Chinese chucks has been from .0015" to .006". All of my Sherlines have been .002" or under. Repeatability has been good with the Sherline but inconsistent with the chinese chucks. The center hole in the Chinese 3" chuck is about .625". This will not allow for full jaw contact on anything over .625". (this is a pain) The Sherline chucks will allow full jaw contact inside the body up to .780". The Chinese 3" chucks have very limited jaw travel for the physical size of the chuck. In fact my 2.5" Sherline chuck has a larger holding capacity both inside and outside. The smallest holding capacity of my Chinese chucks has been about .075". The smallest on the Sherline has been about .020". The key driven scroll on the Chinese chuck will generate more holding power than the Sherline. However in most cases if it can`t be held tight enough in the Sherline Chuck it should probably be done in a larger machine. (My personal opinion) I also have three Taig three jaw chucks. To properly and securely fit a Sherline lathe the rear of the chuck will need to be recessed .165" deep by 1.000" in diameter. The aluminum jaws also have very limited travel but are easily machined and very handy for special projects. They are just not very practical for holding small things. Both the scroll (only has two threads) and the jaws are soft metal making repeatabilty a problem under regular use. Because of the $50.00 or so price tag I personally think the Taig Three jaw is a bargin for special projects. For me personally it is to time consuming and difficult for general use. Again this is my personal experience and information I was never able to get at the time I asked. Hopefully there will be something of value for someone. Jerry Kieffer ------- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:46:37 -0700 From: "Marcus and Eva" Subject: Re: Cheap Chucks Hi all: Jerry K, I think your comments are timely and very useful. This is a hobby in which you have to spend some money...the trick is to determine what constitutes money "well spent". Buying tooling that is of inferior quality can make even simple jobs impossible to do, but there are plenty of instances where the more expensive item is no better than the less expensive one, and it can be very difficult to tell. With regard to workholding, I personally like the quality of the Sherline chucks, and wouldn't consider getting a cheap chuck because the hassle of using it is worse than the few bucks I'd save at purchase. A tool like this will get tens of thousands of uses in its lifetime...per use the cost is negligible. A crappy chuck might cost 50% of the cost of a good quality tool, but every part scrapped because the chuck runs out adds to its cost, and the infrequency of its use once you learn its intrinsic inadequacies (and stop using it because you can't do anything worthwhile with it) actually makes it more expensive per use than the expensive chuck, even if you don't actually make scrap with it. Now if your use doesn't demand precision, if you intend it to be abused and consider it disposable, if longevity is of no importance to its purpose, then all these comments don't apply. Relentless bargain hunting can be a worthwhile end of its own, but if the bargain is more important to you than what you can accomplish with your purchase, you can't expect to do work of exquisite quality with it...and what's really important, you may never understand why you can't get your projects to work properly, or why they're so hard to make. I go through this from time to time about cutting tools like drills or taps. For example, a novice will come to my shop and see me run a 4:40 tap into a toolsteel block with ease, then wonder why he can't do the same in his shop. The big difference is my taps are top quality industrial taps, not cheapo Chinese or Pakistani taps like he's trying to use. Using tools of good quality will open up capabilities you never dreamed of, and once you've used them, you'll never want to go back. So my recommendation is...if you go to the trouble to get a Sherline... there's not much point in going cheap on the chucks. Cheers Marcus ------- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:39:57 -0700 (PDT) From: BRADFORD CHAUCER Subject: Re: 3 jaw chucks Jerry K makes some good points about the practical diferences between the Sherline and "standard" 3 jaw chucks; the latter being quite a bit longer. However I have found, contrary to the comment regarding gripping power of the sherline chuck that even for smaller work I was continuously having problems with slippage, even in brass lass than 1/2 in dia. I picked up a 3in Bison at Cabin Fever in 2003, from New England Brass and have been quite happy with it. One caveat is that it was designed for the Taig so while it is directly useable on the sherline, you only get a thread or two of engagement. I never had a Bison chuck come off, but I didn't feel comfortable, so I did finally turn down the face to get more engagement. I am quite happy with the Bison and keep it as my basic chuck. It does however not meet your price criteria - I paid more like $135 for it. ------- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:30:30 -0000 From: "dan pines" Subject: drill chuck on spindle Sherline introduced a new accessory 3074 a few days ago. Female thread 3/4-16" on one end, male 3/8-24" on the other. It is hailed as helpful for cnc setups, to keep the drill length fixed. I have made the same accessory quite some time ago as a replacement for the MT1 mounting of the drill chuck with drawbar. I was looking for a way to do away with hammering the drawbar to remove the chuck. I tried several methods (as suggested by other users) and was not satisfied with the results. This solution, now surprisingly with Sherline's blessings, has worked very well for me. regards dan pines ------- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:22:56 -0700 From: waydecgutmanx~xxrobsoncom.net Subject: Grizzly on a Sherline In the photo section, within the wcgutman folder, is a photo of a Grizzly 4-inch three jaws mounted via a littlemachineshop.com's backing plate on my sherline lathe. Best thing I ever added to the machine. Wayde Gutman ------- Date: Mon Apr 18, 2005 Subject: Re: [sherline] using "cheap" alternative drill chucks >I think Sherline's prices for a drill chuck are insane. Little >machineshop sells J33 chucks for $10 or less. The problem obviously is >one of converting that to a #0/1MT which turns up pretty much nothing. >But when I did searches for chucks with 3/8" and 24TPI mounts, I got >some at $20. Now we're talking!What do you folks use for 3/8 or 1/2 chucks? >Matthew Patton Matthew- I have some 5/16 Rohm chucks that I have packaged with the Sherline arbors (#0 & #1) and have been selling on ebay. These are West German NOS. David Eiman watchmakers lathes accessories, and tooling Authorized Sherline Products Dealer ------- Date: Mon Apr 18, 2005 Subject: RE: [sherline] using "cheap" alternative drill chucks You can buy just the chuck (same quality, minus the arbor) slightly cheaper from other suppliers but the chucks that cost $10 aren't very good quality. I would recomend the Sherline stuff just because of the fact it comes ready to go with no modifications. Bad Brad ------- Taig 4 jaw chuck on a Sherline 4400? [sherline] Posted by: "Brad Browne" coffeex~xxns.sympatico.ca Date: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:53 am (PDT) There is a Taig dealer locally, and they have parts in stock, on hand. I need a 4 jaw chuck for my 4400. It's really the one thing I should have now that I don't. I observe that the threads on the Sherline and the Taig are compatible (3/4-16), but has anyone here run a Taig 4-jaw before on their sherline? Will it work, or should I just save up and pick up the Sherline part. The Taig one is $78.50, and I could pick it up tonight. The Sherline is going to run me almost $150, and I have to wait to order it in, then drive an hour to pick it up. Which way should I go gang? Brad Browne ------- Re: Taig 4 jaw chuck on a Sherline 4400? Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:49 pm (PDT) Brad: First if you check Sherline's price list you will find the 2.5" OD independent chuck at $110.00 and the 3.25" OD at $135.00. I would suggest that you have Sherline or a dealer ship a chuck to your door in a couple of days rather than driving an hour. The Taig chuck is a good value and certainly far better than the poor quality imports at about the same price. However the Sherline chuck is more than worth the extra cost and the few days additional wait. The first issue is the different threaded spindle lengths for the Sherline and Taig even though they are the same thread. The Sherline spindle is .300" long while the Taig is .500" long. The Taig Chucks have a .200" recess before they start to thread. This means that the Chuck will only be held on the Sherline spindle by about one thread. While others have used various chucks this way, you risk damaging that first spindle thread under load. If the first thread is damaged it will affect the accuracy of your sherline chucks when installed. Even if the spindle is not damaged and you use this chuck on a sherline lathe, it will not accurately transfer to other accessories because of the one thread engagement. A 1.000" diameter .200" recess can be machined in the chuck for full thread engagement. But I suspect if you have the skill and equipment for this, your time will be worth more than the extra cost of the Sherline chuck. For the extra cost of the Sherline Chuck you get a much more refined Chuck. The Chuck has a much higher quality finish especially on the jaws that are also properly hardened. The Sherline adjustment screws have a much finer thread -- making adjustment more controllable as well as more secure. And of course it is accurately transferrable and compatible with all other Sherline accessories. Jerry Kieffer ------- Re: Taig 4 jaw chuck on a Sherline 4400? Posted by: "Brad Browne" coffeex~xxns.sympatico.ca Date: Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:56 pm (PDT) Hey Jerry: Thanks for the fast reply! RE the prices, be aware, I'm in Canada, so the whole cross-border + shipping + exchange will bring the price on the chuck up to almost $150, plus taxes, plus the $15 in gas it'll cost to pick it up. So a Taig one for ~$80 + taxes seems VERY Tempting. That said, I did note the difference in the spindle lengths, and the fact that the taig has the first couple of threads machined off. The issue of finer threads on the adjustment screws is one I didn't know of, and that's probably of equal importance to the depth of the mounting threads. I guess I'll save for a bit longer and wait on the Sherline one. Thanks! Brad ------- Re: keyed scroll chucks for Sherline lathe? [sherline] Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 6:38 pm ((PST)) Alan Wright wrote: >Today I'm annoyed with using tommy bars to operate Sherline lathe chucks Alan: Personally I have never had any problems with the Sherline Chucks. Several on this list have complained about the holding ability but Ire gularly take heavy cuts on steel without a problem. However I have recommended the Sherline lathes to many people over the years and the only problems anyone has complained about was the chucks and the Tommy Bars. First let me say that I think you will find the Sherline Chucks to be one of the better quality/practical chucks for the Lathe. The biggest problem seems to be opening/closing the Chuck using Tommy Bars with two hands. This only allows minimal pressure to be applied. As the chuck is set up, rarely are the tommy Bars close enough together to squeeze both bars with one hand safely applying maximum hand pressure. When this position presents itself, it is easy to open or close the chuck. To resolve this problem with those who have complained I drilled a minimum of three additional evenly spaced Tommy Bar holes in the scroll ring. The additional holes will leave the tommy bars close together for most settings allowing you to squeeze the bars together with one hand making the operation much easier. No one has ever complained after this modification. But then again maybe it was because I never shut up when presnted a problem. Jerry Kieffer ------- Re: keyed scroll chucks for Sherline lathe? Posted by: "David Clark" dcclark111x~xxcomcast.net Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 6:20 am ((PST)) Final duh (I hope). Drill holes into the back face of the knurled scroll ring corresponding to the holes in the spindle pulley in Sherline tip #34. http://sherline.com/tip34.htm Then make the locking pin slide both ways to lock either the pulley or the scroll chuck. DC ------- recommendations for a better3 jaw chuck for the sherline. [sherline] Posted by: "Tom Bank" trbankx~xxpaonline.com Date: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:29 am ((PST)) Chuck Johnston wrote: > Any other recommendations for anything better the stock Sherline > 3 jaw chuck? Chuck: The consensus of opinion is that the Bison chuck sold by New England Brass with the 3/4" - 16 mount is made for the Taig lathe, not the Sherline. The difference between the two is that the chuck on the Taig has a recess before the threads start, whereas the Sherline threads start flush with the back edge of the chuck. This means that the Bison chuck when mounted on a Sherline lathe will only engage one or two threads. NEB will tell you that this is enough, but no real objective machinist would do so. The Bison chuck is a nice one. If it could be purchased with a plain back that would let you make your own mount, you could have a very good, accurate, and solid gripping chuck for the Sherline lathe. On the other hand, the grip on the Sherline chuck can be improved. Call Sherline and arrange to send your chuck back to the factory to get a set of "soft jaws" installed. The soft jaws are fitted very accurately to your chuck. You could also have them send you two sets of the soft jaws, which would save you the expense of shipping on a second order. The soft jaws are made from the same metal as the regular jaws you have now, but they are not hardened, whereas the standard jaws are. The soft jaws also are not cut down with the steps that the regular jaw set has and they stick up slightly higher than the regular jaws, which gives them a better grip. Not being hardened, they can be modified. The set I have I turned around and drilled/bored a hole down the center of the jaw back ends, about 3/16" diameter and 1/4" deep. That lets me grip small objects with six points and limit the depth they seat in the jaws to the 1/4" point at which they bottom in the recess. Another option I am toying with is to cut my soft jaws down nearly flush with the face of the chuck at the two jaw ends while leaving the center portion raised maybe 3/16"; then drill and tap a hole in this center section and mount hardened pins in holes in the two end sections. After doing so, I will be able to make interchangeable top pieces for the jaws which I can modify as necessary for each job that requires such special treatment. I have a pair of W-W mount chucks on which the jaws are constructed this way. Obviously, this approach requires very accurate production of the jaw pieces so they fit together with no slop and center accurately. The other thing I would do is take the thus modified Sherline soft jaw base pieces to a local tool & die shop and have them heat treated. Hope this helps, Tom Bank ------- Can't seem to get it true. [sherline] Posted by: "quamit51" timx~xxjolenet.com Date: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:45 am ((PDT)) I've created a new set up for cutting clock gears using my sherline rotary table and an arbor that I turned between centers and had .001 error. I mounted it in a sherline 3/8 mill collett and still had .001 error. I turned the brass blank on the arbor with no change and then mounted the arbor in the collet on the rotary table with the theaded center and a tail stock. I have a .005 error. Unlike the 3 jaw that I can wiggle things around in the collet doesn't seem to be as forgiving.I played a bit with the threaded center to no avail. Should I go back to the chuck for my setup. Regards Tim ------- Re: Can't seem to get it true. Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:03 pm ((PDT)) Tim: Personally I have found cutting Clock size Wheels on centers to be very time consuming and cause more headaches than what it was worth. And that's not to mention the drive Dog issues. However if it works for you it works and you should not listen to me. The most accurate method I have found is as follows. I first mount a .500"-.750" diameter Arbor blank FULL JAW LENGTH in the three jaw chuck on the Lathe. If your chuck is in good condition, the Arbor will be very solid and will not move. If not you need to call Sherline and discuss rebuilding your Chuck. I next machine the arbor to fit the Wheel Blank. The blank should be no further in front of the Chuck than is required to clear the cutter from hitting the Jaws or anything else. I then machine the blank to size and transfer the Chuck/Arbor/Wheel Blank (Without removing the Arbor) to the Rotary Table. I do not use any type of support when wheel cutting other than of course a Wheel blank Backer. This process will not work if you are using the "Bison" chuck as discussed on this site from time to time. This chuck cannot be accurately transferred from the Lathe to the Rotary table because the outer lip of the chuck extends beyond the spindle register. This only allows for about 1/2 of a thread engagement on the rotary table unless the adaptor is not completely seated. In either case repeatability and accuracy suffers in part because the register is never seated. Jerry Kieffer ------- Re: Can't seem to get it true. Posted by: "Marcus" implmexx~xxaxionet.com Date: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:53 pm ((PDT)) Hi Jerry: Have you ever clocked in the turned blank after you got it set up on the rotary table? I have, and on my setup I get 0.0015" runout when I transfer. I've used several different Sherline centering plugs with no improvement, so I know the thread in the RT is not concentric to its axis. My fix is to set up in the 4 jaw instead of the 3 jaw. That way I can easily tweak it in dead nuts. I'm curious to know if your RT runs better than mine...I'll be most seriously jealous if it is. Cheers Marcus ------- Re: Can't seem to get it true. Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:06 pm ((PDT)) Marcus: Of course nothing is perfect. This reminds me of the time I asked a Old German Machinist if he could drill a hole in the center of a work piece larger than would fit in my Equipment. However being young and stupid I said I wanted it perfectly centered. He said "You can`t Afford it". At any rate I have checked runout from time to time when it has been critical. I have a manual and CNC rotary table and neither is absolutely repeatable when transferring chucks. Runout will range anywhere from about .0005"- .002" depending on how clean things are, chuck tension, indicator setup, work piece surface finish etc etc. If it's critical I check runout and if needed I use my alignment kit that has never failed. It consists of a 1" square x 6" long piece of Oak soaked in wood hardener and a Steel handled Stanley Claw Hammer found in the middle of the Highway 20 years ago. The correction generally takes between 1.1-1.3 seconds the best I can time it with my favorite C.L. Guinand Split second Chronograph. While the four jaw chuck is certainly the correct solution if you have a problem, I don`t have the patience to use it if the alignment kit will do the same job. Tools that generally require the alignment kit move on in favor of those that do not. Jerry Kieffer ------- Re: Can't seem to get it true. Posted by: "David Clark" dcclark111x~xxcomcast.net Date: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:58 am ((PDT)) Hello Jerry, Marcus, et al. The most time consuming operations in setting up to cut gears are getting the axis of the rotary table mutually perpendicular to the spindle and cutting axes, and getting the center of the cutter on the rotary table axis, and getting the depth of the cut right. For a gear cutting arbor I use a 3/8" shaft secured by a tapered set screw in a milling cutter holder. Transfer from the lathe to the rotary table with chuck adapter. No chucks involved, nothing to loosen (but nothing to adjust either). For gears that are small enough to cut from bar, I hold the stock in a 4 jaw. In either case, I'm finding TIR after transfer about .001" which seems acceptable to me. So, my question is, what's acceptable to you? Given all of the factors that affect accuracy on any milling machine (rigidity, straightness and perpendicularity of the ways, trueness of axes, to name a few of the most significant), and the overall qualities of a Sherline, it seems to me that +/-.001" positional and .0001" per inch angular is about as good as we can reasonably expect. And, given the cost of a Sherline, that's pretty damn good. How much better does anyone think they need to be? During my working days, if an engineer submitted a drawing with tolerances of less than a couple thousandths, I'd demand a good reason that he thought he needed that. Nine times out of ten, it turned out that he didn't, or, that there was a better way to achieve the intent of the design. (Third runner-up in the Dumbest Thing I Ever Heard From An Engineer Contest: "Gee, with CNC machines, every thing's perfect anyway; so why do I need to worry about tolerances?") Tolerance in a gear affects constancy of velocity, running friction, and wear. The size of the effect depending on the diameter of the gear. A few parts per thousand overall accuracy in a gear seems to me more than adequate for any application I'm considering. If anyone needs gears for high speed, high powered applications demanding great precision, then I think they either need to buy them (maybe a couple $100 apiece depending on size) or buy the equipment that can make them (maybe a $100K total investment). My $.02 (cheap), DC ------- Re: Can't seem to get it true. Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:22 am ((PDT)) David: You bring up a good point. We all talk smart on the internet (Well at least most of us) but truth be known in real life it's more like what you have described. Precision parts can of course be machined to tenths but it is very time consuming and seldom required in a home shop setting. Personally most of my work is scale recreation and or repair/restoration of smaller parts. For this type of work operation perfection of parts and appearance is far more important than machining to a specific size in tenths. Most existing clock wheels and new common commercial gears from places such as Boston gear will have as much as .005" runout depending on size. Also under magnification you will be lucky to find even a few teeth of the same size and in some cases the same exact profile. Gears/wheels cut on typical Sherline Equipment will be far more accurate even with the .001"-.002" runouts from whatever than most existing examples. Of course you can purchase precision Gears but they are far more expensive and not needed in most applications. For small watch size Gears/Wheels/pinions I use ww collets from the lathe to the rotary table. Since the ww collet holder is indicated to the Rotarty table accuracy is only limited by the collet that is normally within the required limits. Or at least the expensive hardened and ground ones I use for this. If perfection is required I machine the arbor and blank in the rotary table with an endmill in the mill. I set Cutter alignment by cutting a tapered point on the end of the Gear blank arbor. The tip of the cutter is then centered to that tip under magnification. I determine Cutter depth by observing the tooth tip profile also under magnification. Both items are very easily set if the setup provides a clear open view of the cutting operation. Jerry Kieffer ------- Sherline Special of the Month - Jan 2007 [sherline, with wrong year] Posted by: "too_many_tools" too_many_toolsx~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Jan 4, 2008 4:32 pm ((PST)) Well it is that time of the month...Sherline Special time ;<) This month is three different chucks http://www.sherline.com/special.htm Which ones would you recommend a new Sherline user buy and why? Thanks TMT ------- Re: Sherline Special of the Month - Jan 2007 Posted by: "Michael" kbuiltx~xxverizon.net Date: Fri Jan 4, 2008 6:39 pm ((PST)) I would recommend both the 4-jaw chucks mainly for holding power. I use the 4 jaw independent more than I do my self-centering chucks. I can dial it in and know my work is centered. Just my .02 from a rookie. Michael ------- Re: Sherline Special of the Month - Jan 2007 Posted by: "DA Dossin" danatlx~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Jan 4, 2008 6:57 pm ((PST)) Assuming you have one 3 jaw self centering chuck............ then A. 4 jaw independent chuck for material that is not round. More versatile than the self centering 4 jaw chuck. B. 3 jaw self centering chuck...... then reassemble to accept the larger material. This reassembling always takes time...so why not have one 'ready'. ONE MORE? Then, a second 4 jaw independent chuck reassembled for larger material. Time is money even if it is just a hobby. Why spend 10-30 mins getting the jaws assembled to accept larger material and then reassemble back to the original setup? Just my opinion. Dan. ------- Re: Sherline Special of the Month - Jan 2007 Posted by: "Greg Procter" procterx~xxihug.co.nz Date: Fri Jan 4, 2008 6:59 pm ((PST)) That's easy - all of them! ;-) Three jaw scroll for round and hexagonal material. Four jaw scroll for round and square material. Four jaw independant for square, rectangular and odd shapes. So, in order; - 3 jaw scroll if you only buy one chuck. - 4 jaw independant for your second chuck to hold everything that isn't round or hexagonal. - 4 jaw scroll for ease of centering square material. - 3 jaw independant for holding odd shapes. This all really depends upon what you do on your lathe. Greg.P. ------- Re: Sherline Special of the Month - Jan 2007 Posted by: "Alan Haisley" alanhyx~xxroadrunner.com Date: Sat Jan 5, 2008 12:08 am ((PST)) If I had none and had the cash: 1) I'd buy the 3 jaw, the 4 jaw independent, and a decent DTI. The 3 jaw is fine for a lot of work. The fact that it won't center is not that important to a beginner so long as they know that. Put stock in it and finish all circumferential cuts and all central bores without ever removing the work. Also, if you keep the work in place you can transfer the chuck - work and all - to the mill and do many operations there. If either good centering is needed or the part needs to be removed and rechucked it's time to learn how to use the 4 jaw independent and the DTI. If I had less cash: 2) I'd buy the 4 jaw independent and a cheap DTI. Even an inexpensive DTI will probably allow centering of a part in a 4 jaw independent chuck. Although working hex stock would be unrealistic with just a 4 jaw, there would be a lot of round, square, or rectangular materials that I could still work. I would plan on upgrading the DTI as early as possible though. If I had still less cash: 3) I'd buy the 3 jaw. See note (1). In addition, I'd just have to avoid situations where a part needed to be rechucked, or offset in the chuck. That would mean that there would be parts that I just couldn't turn until I was able to get a DTI and 4 jaw independent chuck later. I wouldn't want to wait too long though before buying a 4 jaw independent chuck and DTI though. Alan ------- My new Sherline lathe (help?) [sherline] Posted by: "seatlanta00" jhs44x~xxbellsouth.net Date: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:03 pm ((PST)) I've had my new Sherline lathe for about two weeks now, and I'm nearing completion of the Bill Smith (Sherline) tool rest. I've used the Sherline for as many parts as possible so that I could learn about its capabilities. So far, I'm pleasantly surprised. The lathe exceeds my expectations. But a few things are giving me trouble. First, I'm frustrated with the three-jaw chuck's work holding (or lack of same). On some cuts, especially if a chatter develops, the chuck jaws loosen. Is this typical? Second, I'm having a terrible time parting-off work pieces. I've tried varying feed rates, speeds, parting tool profile, etc. and my results vary from acceptable to terrible--usually the latter. I've wrecked a few parts when the jaws loosened during the parting. I'm used to using a larger Grizzly lathe, and perhaps I'm just pushing the Sherline too hard. I'd appreciate some comments and advice. By the way, I'm machining steel at the moment. Thanks. James (seatlanta) ------- Re: My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "a3sigma" dcclark111x~xxcomcast.net Date: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:41 pm ((PST)) What alloy steel? What diameter are you trying to turn and part, and at what distance from the chuck? What sort of cutting tool? Lubrication? Each of these things can make a huge difference. For steel, I use 12L14 almost exclusively. It's the most machinable steel alloy. I've found I can work with 1.5" diameter in a 4 jaw chuck out to maybe an inch without additional support. More than that, I'd suggest a live center or steady rest. For much larger parts, consider bolting the work to a surface plate. I use carbide insert cutters. 12L14 generally cuts well dry, but for tool steel or stainless a drop of Kool-Tool helps a lot. DC ------- Re: My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "Shorty Leatherwood" Shortylx~xxbtes.tv Date: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:42 pm ((PST)) Hello James, I understand your frustration about the chucks. I have had many tell me that they work great but I have had to go to another brand of scroll chuck to eliminate the loosening problem. New England brass company sells a 3 jaw scroll chuck for the Sherline that works great. I have two of them and swear by them. It is a little more work but the 4 jaw independent chucks from Sherline are great, They hold the work very secure. Parting off material is tough on any small size lathe for a number of reasons. Lack of power and lack of rigidity. I would recommend a couple of things to remember. Never part off very far from the chuck as the farther you get out the worse things get. Use plenty of cutting oil when parting. Use a slow speed and slow even infeed. And one of the best things you can do is get the adapter from Sherline to put the parting blade on the back side as this is a lot more forgiving. I popped over to the internet to look for those chucks to give you a link and wow! They have really jumped in price over the last couple of years. I think I paid around $135 for the last one that I got. I think if you call them you might get a better price but anyway here is the link if you are interested. You will need the 3/4-16 version: http://brassandtool.com/Chucks-Lathe.html Hope that helps Shorty Come see some of our Hobbies http://leatherwoodplayground.com ------- Re: My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "Chananiel Wizman" madmachinist54x~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:36 am ((PST)) Sadly so I have also learned to get by on 12L14 on my own projects. Whenever I use real steel I am constantly sharpening that .060 wide cut off tool every use for every cut. Also, with the low rigidity of the lathe meaning lower feed rate, I have been finding that I must cut dry because glazing gets to be a big issue with such light feeds in cut off operations. ------- My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:54 am ((PST)) To All: The subject of chucks has come up on this site many times. It is always of interest to me since I have not had a problem with Sherline Chucks. I suspect that it is because of one practice and one modification. First with any Chuck I never work on stock that extends out in front of the jaws further than the length it is gripped by the jaws without support. Second the earlier Sherline chucks had two or three tommy bar holes in the body and one hole in the scroll. With this arrangement the spacing of the tommy bars in many cases required the use of two hands to tighten or loosen. Even with the strongest hands this can sometimes be a challenge especially if the jaws need to be tight. I resolved this problem by adding four tommy bar holes in the scroll evenly spaced. With the additional holes the tommy bars are always closely spaced so that they can be squeesed with one hand to tighten or loosen. Increased pressure is easily applied in this manner improving the holding ability of the chucks. It is my understanding that current production chucks come with these additional holes for more efficient use. At any rate due to discussion on this group and others I purchased a Bison chuck code #7-810-0225 awhile back. While this is a very nice chuck it is certainly not a cure-all when used on Sherline equipment. The Chuck is nicely made from mostly castings. The scroll is soft as in Sherline chucks but the jaws are not as hard as in the Sherline chucks. It has a longer body taking up more space. The geared closing key works smoothly and may be easier for some to use than Tommy bars. However I checked jaw pressure on both this and Sherline chucks by the ability to crush various thickness of tubing. (Certainly unscientific.) At least in my hands I found little difference comparing the two with modifications mentioned above for the Sherline Chuck. The Bison chuck while threaded for 3/4X16 thread will only engage the Sherline spindle by one thread. It showed greater runout and repeatability issues increased by 001"-.002" as compared to being installed on a longer Taig spindle thread. While I have not had problems with the Chuck mounted on the Sherline Lathe, one thread engagement is not comforting. The other major issue with this chuck is the inability to accurately transfer to other Sherline accessories especially the Rotary Table. The outer lip of this chuck extends past the mounting register. So when attempting to mount on the R/T, the mounting register will not seat against face of the table. In addition it will only engage the mounting thread by about one half of a thread. Not near enough for safty in my opinion with only a fraction of the accuracy/repeatability of Sherline's chuck under the same conditions. The quality of both the Sherline and Bison chucks are very similar. However the design limitations of the Bison should be considered before purchase for Sherline Equipment. Jerry Kieffer ------- Re: My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "David Wood" dave.woodx~xxcomcast.net Date: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:19 am ((PST)) Group: It takes a great deal of moxie to disagree with the JK, who has helped me personally and on the group more times than I can count. But I must disagree with him about the Bison vs. the Sherline 3-jaw. I have ruined more work from the sole cause of the wimpy grip of the Sherline than from any other cause (and I've ruined a _lot_ of work). I have never ruined work because of the lack of grip in the Bison. That's a lot of admittedly apocryphal evidence; but for me, it's still a lot. And although I realize that this is an entirely unscientific conclusion, it works for me. Dave Wood ------- Bison Chuck engagement update. it now is full thread engagement. Posted by: "Chuck Johnston" crjx~xxfrii.com Date: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:39 pm ((PST)) Thought I should clarify my last post about the Bison Chuck. My new Bison chuck has full engagement same as Sherline chucks. So anything ordered should come machined for full engagement on the Sherline spindle. I have both and think the old Bison with only 1 ˝ threads of engagement is a far superior chuck to the Sherline. Chuck Johnston ------- Re: My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "Kevin Martin" kpmartinx~xxthinkage.ca Date: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:33 am ((PST)) This could all just be a matter of how much you tighten them. Full-size scroll chucks drive the scroll with one extra level of gearing that the Sherline chucks don't have, so if you are used to how hard you have to turn the chuck key for a full-size chuck, and try to use the "same" force to tighten the sherline chuck, the actual torque applied to the scroll will be quite a bit less. Another possibility is that the people having trouble are performing operations that create a lot of vibration: interrupted cuts, or feed/speed that produces a lot of chatter. Finally, they may be gripping the work with just the tips of the chuck jaws, a condition that, even in the best of chucks, causes a bell-shaped grip which will loosen under sufficient force. Kevin Martin ------ My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "a3sigma" dcclark111x~xxcomcast.net Date: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:54 am ((PST)) All good points, Kevin. (Temperature changes could be another factor as the material expands and contracts during machining.) But some of the people having problems are very experienced machinists on a variety of equipment and, I'm sure, understand all of these things. Also they're not having problems on the very similar Bison chucks. I suspect there's a real problem with some Sherline chucks and I hope someone can get to the bottom of it. As Jerry K. pointed out, it's a topic that keeps coming up. Could be a huge source of frustration to the newer hands, maybe enough to turn them off on the whole business. And we all hate to see hours of work destroyed because a setup failed. DC ------- My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "James Stephens" jhs44x~xxbellsouth.net Date: Tue Mar 4, 2008 11:43 am ((PST)) As the one who started this thread, I think I need to update everyone. I e-mailed Fred at Sherline and he said to return it for an exchange. I received the new chuck, and while it may be marginally better, it still loosens when I turn anything bigger than 1/2" diameter, or if I get a brief chatter on almost any diameter. I can actually see it loosening and see the workpiece moving as I cut. If I stop and tighten everything, I can continue for a while. It's a frustrating way to work. And it's a quick way to lose concentricity. I'm now looking at the more expensive Bison at around $225. It may be a worthwhile investment because I love working with the Sherline lathe, but can't tolerate the chuck. The newer Bison chuck designed for the Sherline has additional threads for better engagement. The model number is 7-810-0225S. Thanks again for all the great advice. James ------- Re: My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "William Rutiser" wruyahoo05x~xxcomcast.net Date: Tue Mar 4, 2008 12:02 pm ((PST)) This doesn't sound right to me. Some questions... Is the chuck loosening its grip on the work or is the chuck coming loose on the spindle? What material are you machining? How far does it protrude from the chuck? What cutting tool are you using? Bill Rutiser ------- My new Sherline lathe (help?) Posted by: "a3sigma" dcclark111x~xxcomcast.net Date: Tue Mar 4, 2008 12:16 pm ((PST)) James: Thanks very much for following up. Will you please send me the chuck to evaluate? I absolutely guarantee to return it and reimburse the mailing cost. I'm really not trying to be a wise guy, or dispute anyone's reported experiences. Several members, whom I respect, and have every reason to believe are experienced and competent machinists, have reported problems with Sherline chucks. I'm just very interested in trying to understand what's happening. Which is not to say that I can. I may learn nothing. But at least if I test your chuck and one of mine, side by side under as near identical conditions as I can achieve, I may demonstrate conclusively that there's a variation in performance between different Sherline chucks. I may even be able to take them to into the Metrology Lab at my former workplace and do some micron-level dimensional comparisons. I'll be happy send you one of my chucks first, so you'll have one to use, and to see how it performs for you. Email me direct if you're interested. Otherwise, I make the same offer to anyone else who's got a problem chuck. Best regards, DC ------- Re: My new Sherline lathe (help?) -- survey! Posted by: "Tom Bank" trbankx~xxpaonline.com Date: Wed Mar 5, 2008 2:24 pm ((PST)) My answer to the survey on chucks loosening is yes and no. I used to have that problem when I first bought my Sherline lathe. I traced it to the tailstock (old style), not the chuck. The tailstock ram came forward at a very slight angle, not more than a few thou over the inch and a half of its travel, but enough that a workpiece could not be tightened up to hold it from both ends without pulling it to the rear at the outboard (tailstock) end. Turn the motor on and the workpiece would immediately start working loose. It was probably also working bad magic on the chuck jaws. I bought a new model tailstock and have not had the problem since. At the same time, I bought a set of the soft jaws for both my chucks. They stick out further than the standard jaws and thus get a better grip on the workpiece. I recommend them. For those having problems with their chucks loosening, I would recommend checking the alignment of the headstock. Several methods of doing this have been described on this list. The quickest is to move the tailstock in front of the cross slide (if you have the new model tailstock -- if you don't, put that at the top of your list of accessories to buy), put dead centers in both the head and tailstock after dusting the tapers, then with short projection of the tailstock clamp a thin feeler gauge between the two points. If the headstock is properly aligned, the feeler gauge should line up at right angles to the lathe bed. If it twists, the headstock needs to be adjusted. Repeat this test with the tailstock ram extended out near the end of its travel. If the two center tips slide past each other on the second test but not the first, you have the problem I did with the alignment of the tailstock ram. Regards, Tom Bank ------- Poll Posted by: "Corndodger" corndodger2x~xxhotmail.com Date: Wed Mar 5, 2008 4:52 pm ((PST)) I voted that I wasn't satisfied with the 3-jaw chuck. Mine loosens automatically, but infrequently with metal stock of .25 to 1.25" diameter, and nearly every time, when I want to turn the head down on a screw, sized #10 and smaller, or other threaded stock. But it happens all the time with any kind of plastic, nylon, Teflon or acrylic, and of any length, even shorty ones an inch or less long outside the chuck. Unless I use tail stock centering, that is, in which case I don't recall ever having a "loosening event." The pattern I have experienced sounds like it is a matter of the jaws not gripping tight enough to withstand the horizontal force of the tool, but it doesn't seem to matter - in happens even when I'm trying cut something thin to prevent the problem. Further, if I tighten plastics of any kind really tight with the tommy bars and it actually holds, then I darn near have to use TNT to loosen the jaw after machining. This is not the case with my 4-jaw (independent) chuck. It works swimmingly, but I hate the centering process. The reason I bought it was only to machine offset patterns, not general purpose use. The gripping power of the 4-jaw chuck over the 3-jaw chuck is virtually night and day. If I had an extra few hundred $$$ and already had all the options I am entitled to, but the war department doesn't think so, I'd go for a 4-jaws self centering chuck immediately. Maybe it works better. Jim ------- Re: Problems with the Sherline 3-jaw chuck?? Posted by: "cnc2x~xxdigitalfires.com" Date: Fri Mar 7, 2008 12:22 pm ((PST)) If I may interject... Somewhere or the other (the chuck directions perhsps?) Sherline has documentation saying not to over tighten the chucks or damage to the scroll will result. I submit that that's almost proof positive that people have tried tightening the heck out of 'em. Probably because they weren't holding. I don't recall having anything loosening up in my Sherline chucks on the lathe. But I have had serveral occations where, despite tightening them more than I was comfortable with, parts could still be pushed further into the chuck while either trying to face the part (less often), chamfer the part or when trying to drill/bore it. The solution offered to me was to buy one of the Bison chucks, which are proported to "grip" better. Which I did. (The Taig version before there was a Sherline version.) And, subjectively, it does seem to grip much better. I've never bothered to investigate how much or why. The scroll might be a different pitch, I don't know. Certainly it's operated with a gear-like key instead of tommy bars which might tighten it better. I suspect, however, that it's the finish on the inside gripping part of the jaws. I can't look at it right now, but I'd swear I recall the Sherline jaws are a bit more finished or polished than the Bison. You might want to compare one of these too, but "tommy bar to chuck key" comparisons would kinda be apples to oranges. At the very least, trying to "push" parts through jaws and into the spindle should probably be added to the tests. Somewhere else (the users suggestion page I think) Sherline also has a description of how to use T-nuts, clamps and tommy bars left in the chuck mounted to the rotary table to keep the chuck from loosening while milling. Again, I submit that this is provided because people have had this problem. Indeed *I* have had this problem and used that very tip to attempt to keep the chuck tight. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Alas the Bison won't fit the rotary table... I suspect that the "letting go" people are reporting is probably a fuction of the same "slippage in the jaws" I've experienced, only around the part instead of deeper into the chuck. Certainly if the part is not perfectly round and it rotates in the jaws it will either "catch" on a wider section or rotate till a "narrower" part is under the jaws. A narrower section would make the chuck appear to have "loosened." Once so "loosened" the friction holding the scroll would have been removed and there's nothing left to hold it, the jaws or the part in place. I would also suggest witness marking the position of the part relative to a jaw and checking for slippage in that direction as well. Hope that helps in your quest, Jeff ------- Re: Problems with the Sherline 3-jaw chuck?? Posted by: "David Wood" dave.woodx~xxcomcast.net Date: Fri Mar 7, 2008 1:32 pm ((PST)) DC: Although Kevin separates possible events into interesting categories, I think that /all/ his listed phenomena are the proper subject for this thread. I would hate to see your experiments be limited. As I said before, there's too much anecdotal evidence for there not to be problems out there, and it doesn't really make that much difference why. I think we all expect a chuck to /grip/. If you limit your tests to discount chucks that don't grip under very narrow circumstances, you'll probably find that there /could/ be hundreds of such circumstances. Even if the problem it limited to a certain diameter, who wants a chuck that can't hold that diameter? If the problem is limited to stock that is not perfectly round, who among us is going to specify the limits of "out-of-cylindricity" for our raw stock? Within reason (some ratio of diameter of stock to length protruding from the jaws), we should all expect to put the work in the chuck, tighten it according to instructions, and make cuts of a reasonable depth. "Reasonable" here doesn't mean anything ridiculous: I don't expect to chuck up a piece of 1.0" stainless and reduce it to .5" in one pass. But we should be able to make a cut of .01" without the chuck losing its grip. Please keep us apprised of your results and how you got there. I personally look forward to each entry on this thread and can hardly wait to see some results. Dave Wood ------- Tolerances and such [sherline] Posted by: "piedrj" otebgnx~xxcore.com Date: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:57 pm ((PST)) Hi: In line with some recent discussion on accuracy etc, I thought some of you might find the following useful. Over the last thirty years I have had a number of used lathes and mills. After I cleaned them up and before using them I would check out the machines tolerances. I did it just to make sure there was nothing really out of whack, but also so I knew the spindle taper run out, the shoulder run out the chuck registered on for threaded spindles, the three jaw run out etc. I also made test cuts on a bar with rings to check the bed. This was done just so I had an understanding of the machine. I did my usual tests on my first ever new lathe -- the Sherline. My expectations were that the tolerances would be around .001 as that is what is implied in the literature. I have two tenths reading indicators and take all the readings with both, just as a cross check. I also use a set of dowel pins and wrist pins for the tests. I first got the headstock aligned so a test bar with rings about 1.750 inch apart read exact on my tenths mic. Using the sherline 3 jaw chuck: Spindle taper .0005 TIR Spindle shoulder .0002 TIR Three Jaw Chuck .0015 TIR x~xx chuck, .002 TIR x~xx 1.125 inches using a .375 DP I also have the small deluxe set of Sherline WW collets, the one with about 12 or so collets, the adaptor, drawbar and wood box. I used a .187 and .125 dowel pins for the tests. First set of tests: Collet Adaptor .0008 TIR .125 collet .0015 TIR .187 collet .0012 TIR This told me the collets were no better than the three jaw chuck. Not only that when I was rechecking I inadvertently rotated the collets and was getting different readings on the recheck. This meant I could not take a part out of a collet and put it back and expect any better centricity than the three jaw. On the other hand since there were three different parts involved - the lathe spindle, the collet adaptor, and the collet maybe the best I should have expected was .003 TIR ie .001 for each component which again is the implied tolerance from Sherline. My next step was to put a temporary witness mark on the collet adaptor and rotate it in the spindle to see if there was a spot where I got better than the .0008 TIR. This is a dodge I have used with Jacobs adaptors. I actually found both worse and better TIR. I did the same with the collets, i.e. rotated them to see if there was a best spot. Second set of tests: Collet Adaptor .0003 TIR .125 collet .0001 TIR to .0004 TIR .187 collet .0003 TIR all positions This tells me I can get closer than the three jaw if I put a permanent witness mark on the adaptor and mount it the same way all the time. Some of the collets are out of center. The .125 is out in one direction so it gets better than the adaptor. So I need to check each one just to make sure it is not really bad. So what understanding of this machine do I now have as I start my first project. That this little lathe should do just fine from its inherent tolerances and the variations I get on a part are entirely based on my ability as a machinist, which of course is true even if the machine was really out of whack. I would be curious if anyone else has done a test on their spindle for run out ie taper and shoulder. I have just received the mill as a Christmas present and will be checking it out when I get a chance. Bob ------- Re: Tolerances and such Posted by: "Alan Haisley" alanhyx~xxroadrunner.com Date: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:19 pm ((PST)) Bob, I thought I had read something on collets and so when I read your note I rechecked. The Sherline instructions suggest taking a light cut at a 20 degree taper on the bore of the WW collet adapter to improve accuracy. They also imply that their collets are not as accurate as more expensive ones on the market. I believe that Jerry K recently mentioned that he used longer WW collets than those sold by Sherline. It sounds like you could tune the WW set to reduce runout. Alan ------- Re: Tolerances and such Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:26 pm ((PST)) "Alan Haisley" wrote: > I thought I had read something on collets and so when I read your > note I rechecked. The Sherline instructions suggest taking a light > cut at a 20 degree taper on the bore of the WW collet adapter to > improve accuracy. Alan: You are certainly correct. A light cut on the Sherline WW adaptor will provide accuracy equal to bearing accuracy. However for anyone doing this there is one caution. The cross hole in the spindle can be a problem if abused. If at any time only one hole was used under torque by the tommy bar rather than both holes as intended, you may have distorted the hole inside the spindle. If so this will raise a small metal bump in the MT and not allow the adaptor to seat properly. And of course it certainly would not be repeatable until the MT is restored to original condition. > They also imply that their collets are not as accurate as more > expensive ones on the market. I believe that Jerry K recently > mentioned that he used longer WW collets than those sold by Sherline. > It sounds like you could tune the WW set to reduce runout. I have a set of Hardened and ground Moseley Collets that I was able to purchase at the right price Many years ago. They are identical to WW/8MM collets as sold by Sherline and others but have a body that is about .250" longer. Accuracy is determined by the nose taper not the body length so they have no accuracy advantage over standard WW/8MM collets. These collets are used along side of a Sherline set. The accuracy of Sherline WW collets is very similar to more expensive collets. The major difference is that Sherline collets are not hardened and ground like typical collets supplied with jewelers Lathes. This is not an issue if the collets are not abused. One issue I do have with Sherline collets is that the size marking easily wears off under the heavy use that I give them. On the other hand they are only about $17.00 each new compared to hardened and ground collets that can be as much as $100.00 to $300.00 each new. Some sizes of used hardened and ground WW collets are common with many others difficult to find. Complete sets are almost impossible to find these days but do show up occasionally at very high prices. Jerry Kieffer ------- The Great Sherline Chuck Test , Part I [sherline] Posted by: "a3sigma" dcclark111x~xxcomcast.net Date: Fri Mar 7, 2008 2:10 pm ((PST)) Thanks very much to Alan, Tom, Brad, Kevin, Jeff, David and anyone else I missed for your excellent inputs. And of course to Jim Foster for supplying the Guinea Pig. I knew not to tighten an empty collet, but appreciate the warning anyway. Where safety or equipment damage is concerned, its always better to assume someone doesn't know something. I think I'll forget about using a torque wrench on the draw bolt anyway, since it would only work to tighten the chuck on the spindle, and is not the usual way of doing that. Instead, I'll use a spring scale on the tommy bars for everything. Have to devise something to keep the scale from slipping off and smacking me in the face. I'll check all loosening torques as well. Just for fun, I'll also see if I can measure how much force it takes to bend a tommy bar, since that pretty much represents a limit. I've ordered a 50lb spring scale from McMaster which should arrive tomorrow. To get a starting point, I'll tighten a chuck as I always do, with my calibrated fingers, then use the spring scale to measure the force needed to tighten it just a bit more, and less. I too have read that Sherline hand matches their chuck components. Which makes me wonder what criteria they use to select a good match. And, if they're going to all that trouble, do they test the chucks while they're at it. Regarding debris in the scroll: my periodic maintenance on a chuck is to fully disassemble it, clean with mineral spirits, and spray mating surfaces with PTFE (Sherline part number 7555). I find the dry film lubricant works better and attracts debris less than any grease I've tried. I've gotten to where I use it on the ways, lead screws, and just about everything else. It also doesn't migrate into places you don't want it; like between the vise jaws and the work piece. Regarding where the loosening is occurring: that's never been clear to me either. Once I've got a chuck that actually loosens, I'll be trying to determine that. One thing I've thought of is torque striping. Hard As Nails brand fingernail polish is as good a torque stripe as I've ever used. I'll paint a dab on between the workpiece and each jaw, between the sides of each jaw and the fixed ring, and between the fixed ring and the scroll ring. Also, for good measure, between the chuck and the spindle nose. The idea is that if any of these things move in relation to the others, the paint will show a visible crack, or just pop off. I'm not as sure how to inspect for worn or damaged spots, or manufacturing defects on the scroll, other than visually under as high a magnification as I can manage. I do plan on testing various diameters. I've spent the past hour cutting test pieces. I've got a fair amount of 12L14 in 3/4", 1", and 1-1/2" round. I've also got about 3 feet of 1-1/4 hex which I just picked up really cheap. And some 1-1/2" gray cast iron, as well as odd lots of brass and aluminum. If I find a spot on the scroll that seems suspicious, I'll turn a diameter to try to exploit it, another to try to avoid it, and see if there's a difference. If anybody has a request for a particular material or diameter, let me know. Jim has emailed me that the chuck is in the mail. Watch this space, and keep the advice and suggestions coming. DC ------- Re: The Great Sherline Chuck Test , Part I Posted by: "William Cox" wtcox_listx~xxcomcast.net Date: Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:13 pm ((PST)) Comment on the hand matching. I read somewhere that it's the selection of jaws so they fit the precise width of the slots. I know (don't ask why) that this is a very snug fit, both in the three jaw and four jaw (independent) Sherline. On the other hand, the ends of the jaws don't seem to be particularly different, except in the three jaw in how they align with the scroll via the teeth on the underside. BTW, I'm one who hasn't had the loosening problem; the only times I've had difficulty have been with wood - the compression while working with it "loosens" the chuck by making the work diameter effectively smaller. Bill ------- Re: The Great Sherline Chuck Test , Preliminary [sherline] Posted by: "a3sigma" dcclark111x~xxcomcast.net Date: Sun Mar 9, 2008 2:39 pm ((PDT)) Hello group, I received Jim Foster's chuck yesterday, and have been using it today to make some test pieces and fixtures for the more quantitative evaluation. Did some plain turning, facing, drilling, tapping and parting in 1" diameter 12L14. Already I can see that Jim's chuck does not hold as well as either of mine: A work piece came completely out of the chuck while taking a pretty light (less than .010") facing cut manually. The piece was 1-1/2" long, which I realize is pushing things, but I do such pieces routinely with my chucks. After it came out, I transferred the piece to one of mine and finished the job easily. Plain turning went OK. I took .025" deep cuts manually, spindle speed of around 800 rpm, with a HSS tool. Drilling a 5/16 tap hole through was no problem. I was not able to tap a 3/8-16 thread while holding the piece in Jim's chuck. The piece just spun in the jaws by the time the tap was well started. Again, that's a pretty heavy load, but again, I moved the job to my chuck and finished the thread with no problem. Parting with a .04" tool went OK. But, when I began to remove the remainder from the chuck, I noticed that the piece seemed to have actually moved away from the chuck face, in the +Z direction. I can't imagine how that is even possible, and I'm not sure just when it might have happened. I will take care to try to observe all movements (including the unexpected ones) in future, to see if I can verify or reproduce them. Given what I've seen today, I expect be able to document a significant difference in holding ability between these chucks. What I'm working on is a way to measure the torque needed to rotate a piece in the jaws. I'm hoping this will produce some good data. More to come, watch this space. DC ------- Re: The Great Sherline Chuck Test , Preliminary Posted by: "David Wood" dave.woodx~xxcomcast.net Date: Sun Mar 9, 2008 3:07 pm ((PDT)) David: Thanks for the report. At least this first experience shows you that some of us weren't just joshing, that there /is /some fire behind all that smoke. Dave Wood ------- Re: The Great Sherline Chuck Test , Preliminary Posted by: "Chuck McManis" cmcmanisx~xxmcmanis.com Date: Sun Mar 9, 2008 3:42 pm ((PDT)) Something that might be useful would be to take apart your chuck, get good measurements of all pieces, and then do the same for Jim's chuck. I'd pay close attention to the nose of each chuck piece. If you can, a surface hardness test on each nose would also be useful. If the qualities of a "good" chuck can be determined by the differences between a bad one and a good one, perhaps we can figure out how to remanufacture bad chucks into good ones. Chuck ------- Re: The Great Sherline Chuck Test , Preliminary Posted by: "William Rutiser" wruyahoo05x~xxcomcast.net Date: Sun Mar 9, 2008 3:49 pm ((PDT)) It might be interesting to check how well the jaws contact the work. Perhaps some jaws are being manufactured so that their jaw face is not perpendicular to surfaces that slide into the chuck. Alternatively, perhaps the slots in the body aren't quite perpendicular to the axis. Either of these could be called by a worn or damaged fixture or (dare I say) a glitch in a CNC program. Good luck with your investigations. Bill ------- Re: The Great Sherline Chuck Test , Preliminary Posted by: "Jerry Jankura" toolzngluex~xxsbcglobal.net Date: Sun Mar 9, 2008 7:05 pm ((PDT)) Please write this all up and E-Mail it to Craig Libuse at Sherline. I suspect that they've received several complaints about their 3-jaw chucks, but probably have never received anything as detailed and carefully thought out as you're doing. Perhaps it will allow them to find where the problem on their end is and fix it. If your chucks hold something that Jim's do not, that indicates to me that Sherline is capable of making a decent chuck, but has some internal quality control problems. One other thing - In what time frame did you purchase your chucks? In what time frame did Jim purchase his? This might go far in helping them troubleshoot their problems. Jerry Jankura ------- Re: The Great Sherline Chuck Test , Plan A Posted by: "Bob Breslauer" bbreslauerx~xxscalehardware.com Date: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:05 pm ((PDT)) Let me throw my two cents (or .013 Euros) into this discussion. I have turned tens of thousands of parts using Sherline chucks (maybe that's how I weaseled my pics into the "Tabletop Machining" book!) I know the scenario - I turn off the motor driving the spindle and all of a sudden here comes the chuck unthreading itself and heading towards my carriage! I think Issac Newton said something about this in his First Law. That's how I developed "Sherline Thumb." I keep my left hand on the headstock and use my thumb as a brake when shutting the motor off. Bad practice but I'm an old dog and new tricks aren't my bag. Better idea! Read Jerry K's input. Keep the spindle thread dry and keep the chuck tight. BB ------- Re: The Great Sherline Chuck Test, First Results Posted by: "a3sigma" dcclark111x~xxcomcast.net Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:55 pm ((PDT)) Good evening group, I am completely satisfied with my test fixtures and method. All of the data is very smooth, consistent, and repeatable. When measuring the torque needed to rotate a work piece in the chuck jaws, the apparatus behaved like a good running friction clutch. I was able to rotate the work piece at a constant rate with a constant torque. This torque varied with the tightening force applied in an almost perfectlylinear fashion. At least, that is, with my two chucks. However, I'm having a hard time getting the test chuck to hold anything tightly enough EVEN TO MEASURE. (Yeah, I am laughing out loud as I type this.) Regardless of how much force I apply to tighten this chuck, the piece rotates in the jaws while barely deflecting my torque wrench. It just doesn't seem to grip the piece AT ALL. Even with 40 lbs force applied to the end of a Tommy bar (that is 13.3 lb/ft of torque) I measure only about 5 lb/ft holding torque. This amount of tightening is at least as much as anyone would reasonably apply in normal use. It flexes the Tommy bar about 1/8 inch. With that tightening force, my chucks average 20 lb/ft of holding torque. So, it's looking like a slam dunk that the test chuck doesn't hold. I'm frankly astonished at how weak it is, and that I could machine anything at all in it. There's still a lot more I want to do, though. I'll carry on with different materials and diameters. I may be able to get some (non-zero data on the test chuck with brass or aluminum, 12L14 is actually pretty slippery. I'm also observing some interesting things about how the jaws of my chucks grip, their footprints on the material. The test chuck is too weak even to make a footprint. It's just possible that this particular diameter is a "dead spot" on the test chuck. I may get a very different result at different diameters. After I've finished the first round of testing, I'll disassemble, clean, inspect, lube, and try again to see if that makes any difference. I'm posting a spread sheet of this first test result. Much more to follow, including many photos. DC ------- New file uploaded to sherline Posted by: "sherlinex~xxyahoogroups.com" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:42 am ((PDT)) Hello. This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the sherline group. File : /D.C.Clark/Chuck Test/Sherline Chuck Tests.pdf Uploaded by : a3sigma Description : Final Report You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sherline/files/D.C.Clark/Chuck%20Test/Sher line%20Chuck%20Tests.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/in dex.htmlfiles Regards, a3sigma ------- Holding Larger Unsupported Pieces In The Lathe Chuck [sherline] Posted by: "Tom Bank" trbankx~xxpaonline.com Date: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:55 pm ((PDT)) Pardon me for being out of it, but I have been in a fog for the last two weeks. It finally dawned on me that in all the thread on chuck performance, which was originally (I think) a request for help on holding a work piece securely without tailstock support, nobody has mentioned a very simple technique for doing just that. Cut the work piece square as best you can and center drill it both ends. With the piece held between the chuck and tailstock, face the outboard end in far enough toward the center that the unfaced part around the center hole will loosely fit into the center hole in the chuck. Then drill the workpiece center hole in that end #7 for about 3/8" and tap the hole 1/4"-20. I then have a 7-1/2" length of all-thread rod with a wide nut and one of the shouldered washers for the 1/4" draw bolt that accompanies a number of the Sherline lathe/mill accessories. This goes through the lathe head and chuck, and is then threaded into the (reversed) work piece. Tighten the chuck and then tighten the all-thread rod. You can hold at least two inches beyond the chuck jaws unsupported by the tailstock this way. Depending on the material being used and your depth of cut, you may be able to hold 3" or more. The 7-1/2" length on the all-thread rod is needed to work with chucks up to the large 4-jaw model and with the jaws in both the normal and reversed position. Regards, Tom Bank ------- Larger Capacity Chucks [sherline] Posted by: "VINCE PUGLIESE" gigitreoseix~xxrogers.com Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 9:44 am ((PST)) I suspect the answer is "Don't do it" but here goes: Has anyone attached a larger capacity (say 4") chuck to their Sherline lathe presuming of course riser blocks have been affixed? This is more to satisfy my curiosity but I did find that Little Machine Shop has a "plain" adapter plate (http://www.littlemachineshop.com/products/pro duct_view.php?ProductID=2335&category=) that can be threaded to fit the Sherline spindle after which a 4" chuck can be mounted. Thoughts anyone? vp ------- Re: Larger Capacity Chucks Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Wed Dec 3, 2008 10:28 am ((PST)) Vince: The only reason I can think of to mount a 4" or larger chuck on a Sherline, would be to work on work pieces much larger than the lathe was designed for. If so I doubt very much if anything good will come of it. In addition the accuracy of Sherline chucks and other spindle threaded accessories rely at least in part on the condition of the spindle threads. You always run the risk of damaging those threads with inexpensive low quality adaptors. Just a couple of several reasons I personally would not do and have not done this as you described. Jerry Kieffer ------- Re: Question regarding chucks [sherline] Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:56 pm ((PDT)) "Jim Dantin" wrote: > I want to buy a 4-jaw independent chuck. Is there any reason (other than > price) to choose the 2.5" one rather than the 3.1" one? I know that I > can't extend the jaws past the body of the 3.1" without running into > the bed, but since the body is bigger, I still can chuck the same > diameter stock, right? Why would I want a smaller chuck? Jim: Chuck size is normally determined by the size of your work. If you need the larger chuck to hold work you normally do, then you of course need the larger chuck. On the other hand, if your normal work is smaller and the 2.5" chuck will handle it, I would suggest the 2.5" chuck. The smaller chuck will provide more clearance and a wider range of setups when working on smaller items held closer to the front of the chuck jaws. For this type of work it also provides less vision obstruction of the machining process. Also, if your work requires turning the motor on and off frequently, you have far less chance of the small chuck becoming unthreaded when the motor is turned off. Jerry Kieffer ------- Re: Question regarding chucks Posted by: "Pierre Coueffin" pcoueffinx~xxgmail.com Date: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:26 pm ((PDT)) There's a lot to be said for having more than one chuck as well. It is handy to be able to swap chucks without removing the workpiece, make some bit of tooling that you need to continue with your work, then swap back without losing concentricity in the workpiece. ------- Re: Question regarding chucks Posted by: "Art Fish" 1art2fishx~xxcomcast.net Date: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:12 pm ((PDT)) I have two chucks, 3.1" and 2.5"...I keep the jaws reversed in the 2.5", seldom have a use for the 2.5, so this saves taking the time of changing, then changing back. Art Fish Corvallis, OR ------- Re: Question regarding chucks Posted by: "lhbakeland" digitaltorquex~xxaol.com Date: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:49 pm ((PDT)) I've always used the original 2-1/2 inch chucks on the Sherline. I've never owned a larger one. I have two three jaw, one four jaw independent and one four jaw self centering (great for turning square stock). It gives me plenty of room for moving the tool post mounted to the top slide table, when I need to drill with the tailstock. If you really need to work with large items often, you need a bigger lathe. Regards, Leo ------- Re: 3 jaw chuck problem and intro [sherline] Posted by: "Bert Harless" bharlessx~xxq.com Date: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:57 am ((PST)) I saw this in an earlier thread and followed the whole thing but never saw any reply from Sherline or final conclusion as to why some chucks seem to hold better than others. I seem to have two that are questionable. I have large and small three jaw chucks, I have things come loose all the time. Sometimes it will pop out of the jaws and other times it will slide in or out while I'm cutting. I also have the four independent jaw chuck which never has this problem, but I don't like having to DI everything that I turn to get it centered. It's almost impossible to part anything using the 3 jaw chucks, it always ends up climbing and jamming. I have broken the parting cutters several times because of this. I am not cutting hard stuff either, aluminum, brass, plastic, machinable steel, with liberal amounts lube/coolant. I figured it was just a limitation of the equipment and have taken steps to get around these limits, like using a steady rest or live center in the tail stock and finishing the cut with a hacksaw. I do have a couple of ideas about it that I'd like to bounce off the wall and see what you guys think. First, I think is that the jaws tend to get cocked so that the cylinder they form when they are spinning is tapered with the inside being the small end. This seems to be born out by DC's pictures showing the insides abrading material more than the tips. Next is that the surface of the jaws is a tad on the low side because they tend to crush soft material like brass or aluminum and if something does bind it puts deep gouges in the part. I don't have a grinder setup to true the jaws but I going to make one ASAP and see if they work better. I think the slight increase in area and the grinder marks would give the jaws a little more bite and taking out some of the taper would give them a firmer hold. Bert ------- Re: 3 jaw chuck problem and intro Posted by: "Bert Harless" bharlessx~xxq.com Date: Tue Feb 2, 2010 2:06 am ((PST)) Jerry, I have to admit that many of the projects that I do are at or slightly beyond the limits of the machine, but it's all I have. I don't have access to a Bridgeport or a big honkin lathe so I make do with what I have. I make a lot of parts for one of my other hobbies, high power rockets. They often are a tad longer than the bed or at the limit of what I can hold in the chuck or swing over the bed. Sometime I may be turning something like a tube where the wall is too thin to really crank down on the chuck with out distorting the piece. I know that if I had a piece on the inside to prevent it from distorting I could get a better grip but it may be a one off project that doesn't really justify making a special tool to hold it. I know I should, but I don't. I have made tools for several things that I have done and they have worked well. One thing that has helped me on several occasions is using a long piece of 3/8ths all thread through the head all the way to the end of the part with spacers, washers nuts and whatever it takes to hold the part snug up against the chuck. This works great for parts that have a hole in the center. So I guess my complaints about the chuck are that the jaws could be a bit longer. On a part that doesn't fit inside the chuck and must butt up against the face of the chuck there is not very much surface to hold it, and as parts get over an inch in diameter there is a lot of distance between the points that are holding it. And, the way the steps on the jaw are so short it makes gripping anything on the inside impractical. So, it comes down to a rather limited design with a narrow range of things it does well. I would be happier if spare jaws weren't so expensive and I could have three or four sets that I could grind to my specifications for different jobs. Like I said I don't have so many problems with the 4 jaw independent chuck, it seems to be made much better to start with. But having said all that I still curious as to reason why some 3 jaw chucks are better than others, and if there is a way to improve the ones we have. Bert ------- Re: 3 jaw chuck problem and intro Posted by: "n2562001" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Tue Feb 2, 2010 9:33 am ((PST)) Bert: Personally, I have found that chucks of like quality, type and size have similar issues. If one type will not work, you need to find something with greater advantage. (Such is life.) When a three jaw self centering is desired but not workable, I go to a four jaw self centering. In many cases it is more flexible with greater holding power over a greater area. For complex holding issues I use Sherline's soft jaws in both the three jaw and four jaw self centering chucks. This allows you to machine or adapt the chucks to the required application. As an example,I will post a photo of a setup with soft jaws under my name. In this example I needed to hold a delicate sharp edge watch bezel very accurately without distortion for rethreading. Four aluminum post were installed in the soft jaws with a "V" groove machined in the ID to securely hold the bezel. Because the soft aluminum jaw was used to hold soft metal, only light finger pressure on the scroll was required to secure the bezel in place. While not the whole story, you have to equip yourself to adapt to whatever is required if you are to be successful. Several on this board have suggested a Bison Chuck as a Sherline replacement. Because it was suggested as the greatest thing since sliced bread, I purchased one. It is an excellent chuck, however in actual use for every advantage it has over the Sherline, I can demonstrate at least one disadvantage. Each time you change one thing on a tool/chuck for a particular application you will create a problem for another. In the end it will depend on how creative one becomes at simple and effective setups. Carefully selected options for most applications are generally not that expensive. In my personal case, if doing a project to a quality standard is not worth any required additional tooling cost, it simply is not done. Jerry Kieffer ------- NOTE TO FILE: Normally I only put a conversation into one file here. The following discussion wandered between adapting a Taig chuck to a Sherline machine (how to) and why, and the topic of Sherline chucks. Rather than break the conversation between the two files, it was placed in both: "Sherline to/from Taig Adapters" and "Sherline Chucks". ------- Taig Chuck for my Sherline Mill [sherline] Posted by: "m0nkshon0r" m0nkshon0rx~xxyahoo.com Date: Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:44 pm ((PST)) Fellas, I was thinking of buying a Taig 4 jaw chuck for my mill. I know the size of the Taig chuck causes clearance issues on the lathe, but I think it should work just fine on the mill. I figure, just keep one chuck dedicated for the mill. Any thoughts? p.s. one my future projects is stamping letters, I saw a tip on the Sherline website where they used a self centering 4 jaw to hold the letter stamps. AL ------- Re: Taig Chuck for my Sherline Mill Posted by: "Flosi" flosigudx~xxtalnet.is Date: Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:02 am ((PST)) You can machine a recess that makes the chuck fit. There was an article describing this in Machinist Workshop recently. I found the article, it's in April/May issue this year. The recess has to be 28mm [approximately 1.1"] wide and 3.8mm [approximately 0.15"] deep. rgds, flosi ------- Re: Taig Chuck for my Sherline Mill Posted by: "dbvogt" dbvogtx~xxyahoo.com Date: Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:32 am ((PST)) Don't know about the Taig chuck on a Sherline mill but A2Z sells all sorts of adapters. I went the opposite way and have an adapter to attach the Sherline chucks to the Taig Mill. The only drawback is the adapter does not have a through hole but drilling/boring it may get you 1/4 to 3/8 capacity. ------- Re: Taig Chuck for my Sherline Mill Posted by: "jerry kieffer" jlkiefferx~xxcharter.net Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:53 am ((PST)) Al: The Taig chucks require a machined recess to properly mount on the Sherline spindle as mentioned. Personally I use a recess that is .150" deep by 1.010" in diameter. The Taig chuck can be held using the jaws for machining but the jaws should be trued using Taig's instructions on a Taig Lathe before machining. For letter stamping, the large diameter of the Taig chucks obstructs working vision for setup and stamping. Even the 2.5" Sherline chucks will obstruct vision somewhat, but are sufficient for a quick hassle free setup. If you do not want to purchase a chuck for stamping, you can easily machine an adaptor for use in a three jaw chuck. Start with round stock and machine at least a 1.000" long pocket in the stock. This pocket should be about centered in the stock with a snug fit to the square stamp. Next machine a flat across the top of the round stock deep enough to form the fourth side of a square hole that fits the square stamp. Then solder a plate over the flat and machine round for mounting in the three jaw chuck. Jerry Kieffer ------- Re: Taig Chuck for my Sherline Mill Posted by: "timgoldstein" timgx~xxktmarketing.com Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 ((PST)) "m0nkshon0r" wrote: > so, the recess is necessary in order for the threads to get enough > "bite"? AL Sort of. The Sherline spindle nose has the area between the threads and the shoulder relieved with a groove that is a little deeper than the thread root. So items that screw onto a Sherline spindle are threaded all the way to the top. The Taig spindle the area between the threads and the shoulder is to not grooved so it is roughly the diameter of the crest of the threads. For items to screw on all the way the top .100" or so of the female threads are counterbored so the diameter is larger than the OD of the area between the shoulder and threads. So it is not to get more thread engagement that you need the counterbore, but to allow the chuck to screw in all the way. "dbvogt" wrote: > A2Z sells all sorts of adapters. For the direction of putting a Taig chuck on a Sherline machine, boring the chuck to relieve the threads at the top is a far better solution than an adapter. Anytime you use an adapter you compound any runout. Boring does not have this issue as long as your face is parallel. We do offer "bored" versions of Taig chucks. It is not cheap to do as sometimes things go wrong and it is a very expensive piece of scrap. You can find them at: www.a2zcorp.us/store/SearchDisplay.asp?Keyword=bored Tim Goldstein A2Z Corp 3955 S Mariposa St Englewood CO 80110 720 385-2118 Phone 877 754-7465 Toll Free www.A2ZCorp.us/store ------- Re: Taig Chuck for my Sherline Mill Posted by: "timgoldstein" timgx~xxktmarketing.com Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 8:17 am ((PST)) "wongsterwish" wrote: > Hi Tim, I look up the Taig Chuck bored for the Sherline on your site. > It has a note that says hole in spindle will be covered by the chuck. > Do you mean the holes for tightening the chuck onto the spindle? Dear Wong, Yes, you are correct. It does not matter if we bore the chuck or if you do it yourself. The end result is you get a counter bore. So when you place the chuck on the spindle it goes over the shoulder of the spindle and covers the spindle holding hole. Tim Goldstein ------- Re: Taig Chuck for my Sherline Mill Posted by: "Yi Yao" yix~xxyyao.ca Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 12:13 pm ((PST)) On 01/12/11 02:44 PM, Ken Condal wrote: > Can someone explain the benefits of the Taig chucks over the > Sherline ones? For me, it was cheaper. I needed a 4 jaw independent chuck. The Taig one was about $70 (in stock) while the Sherline one was about $140 (special order). So, I said to myself, I'll get the Taig one since the mounting thread is the same. I also noticed that the Taig 4 jaw chuck looks a lot beefier than the Sherline one. Looks can be deceiving, but the Taig 4 jaw chuck has a body which I think is made of solid 12L14. When I got the new Taig chuck, there was a problem with not many threads being engaged. So, I: 1 - Attached my Sherline 3 jaw chuck to my Sherline lathe 2 - Chucked in some 1" CR steel into the 3 jaw chuck 3 - Turned down the diameter so that the rod was concentric 4 - Attached the 4 jaw chuck and made it concentric 5 - Faced off the back to reduce the depth of the register This seems to work pretty well. Quite happy with the performance of the chuck. I missed the rest of the discussion, and I hope no one takes offence to my words if I repeated anything. ------- Sherline Spindle and chuck and Taig [taigtools] Posted by: "Ali Ghazizadeh" alighazizadehx~xxaol.com Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:32 pm ((PST)) Hi everyone, This is just a curiosity question but I would like to know how a Sherline chuck is centred on the spindle as opposed to a Taig that uses the shoulder to center the chuck, as I understand the Sherline does not have a shoulder at the back of the spindle. Regards, A.G ------- Re: Sherline Spindle and chuck and Taig Posted by: "a_b_aldus" a_b_aldusx~xxpodzam.com Date: Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:54 pm ((PST)) Ali: Cylindrical shoulder is not required for centering (seems so) -- well made thread and flat, perpendicular surface chuck will butt to, will center your tool also. Unimat group had many discussions on this topic as it's hard to modify 'all-threaded' Sherline chucks to Unimat (or Taig) kind of spindle if recess should be exact. My results show that it's not a case. Arcady ------- Re: Sherline Spindle and chuck and Taig Posted by: "alighazizadeh" alighazizadehx~xxaol.com Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:56 am ((PST)) Hi Arcady, I am much obliged to you for your reply, I have a Sherline SC chuck for my Taig micro lathe and up until now have been unsuccessful in machining a collar that would centre the chuck to within 0.001", the best I have achieved is about 0.003, I believe that other people have had better results (I only have the Taig and a small chinese mill in my loft). If there is method of getting this collar right then I'd be grateful for any advice as this is driving me mad. Regards, A.G ------- Re: Sherline Spindle and chuck and Taig Posted by: "GordonR" blscopesx~xxsympatico.ca Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:48 am ((PST)) Sherline uses a higher tolerance 3/4 x 16 thread for the spindle than Taig. Consequently, the thread centers the chucks on Sherline. The Sherline tolerance is H1 and the Taig tolerance is H3, a difference of .001". When making accessories for the Sherline spindle it is inportant to use a 3/4 x 16 tap with an H1 tolerance otherwise the accessory will be a sloppy fit on the spindle. An H3 tolerance tap works fine for the Taig as the register centers the accessories. Hope this helps. ------- Re: Sherline Spindle and chuck and Taig Posted by: "ED MAISEY" holmes_ca_2000x~xxyahoo.com Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:50 pm ((PST)) The register on both my Taig 3 and four chucks are 4 thou bigger than the same register on my spindle. Edmund ------- Re: Sherline Spindle and chuck and Taig Posted by: "alighazizadeh" alighazizadehx~xxaol.com Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:46 pm ((PST)) Good evening Gordon, Thank you for your informative post, I have long suspected that the Sherline thread is probably more accurate than the Taig's. The Taig thread is vey sharp and there is no way in my opinion that a chuck could centre itself on this thread without a shoulder or register. I am still however, baffled as how some people have managed to centre the Sherline chuck on the Taig by just using a collar to any degree of acceptable accuracy or repeatability. Regards, A.G ------- Re: Sherline Spindle and chuck and Taig Posted by: "Tony Jeffree" tonyx~xxjeffree.co.uk Date: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:30 pm ((PST)) Ali - I would seriously doubt whether your SC [Self Centering] chuck is itself capable of that kind of accuracy. SC chucks are notoriously inaccurate - the centering of the jaws depending as it does not only on the centering of the chuck body on the spindle but also on the accuracy of the scroll - hence the use of soft jaws so that the chuck jaws can be "bored" for greater accuracy on a particular job. So I have to say, I am reading this thread and asking myself why you are bothering - it sounds like an exercise in turd polishing to me (you can buff up a turd all you like, but at the end, it will still be a turd). Regards, Tony ------- Re: Sherline Spindle and chuck and Taig Posted by: "alighazizadeh" alighazizadehx~xxaol.com Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:01 am ((PST)) Hi Tony, I have come to the same conclusion myself as once or twice the run out of a test piece turned on the chuck and then remounted again have differed by at least 0.002" so the chuck itself is probably has a run out of about 0.002" at best, add to this the spindle run out and the mounting inaccuracy then I am in the region of 0.003" at best. As I said this has become kind of an obsession so I just try a few other collars that I have made, if I get it to about 0.002" repeatable, then I'd probably stop. Now I have to call Peter at Peatol machine tools to order the mill that he has kept for me for a couple of weeks. Best regards, Ali ------- ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe [sherline] Posted by: charvellx~xxpixius.net herbyguitar Date: Wed Feb 5, 2014 3:25 pm ((PST)) Hi. I'm new here. Howdy y'all. The ER 40 collet seems perfect for holding HO scale wheels for re- profiling of the treads without taking them off the axles. The collet would hold the wheels without putting undue stress on them. I've been to Sherlinecollet.com but I don't really need anything that elaborate or expensive to do the job. I think what would be apropriate would be a ER 40 chuck with Sherline (3/4-16) threads to adapt to the lathe. It would be nice to find someone who has already made this conversion or has a better idea and would share their knowledge and advice. I've looked through the posts but can't find (or don't know how to look for) specific info on this subject. Can someone point me in the right direction please? ------- Re: ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe Posted by: "Martin Dobbins" trainnutzx~xxyahoo.com Date: Wed Feb 5, 2014 4:42 pm ((PST)) Hello "charvell". I have an ER16 collet chuck bought from that auction site (maximum capacity 0.375"). It's not too bad considering it screws on the spindle nose with the tolerance stack up that implies, TIR with a decent collet is around 0.003". Do you want to hold the wheels by the flanges or the axles? How big are the axles? It could be that ER16 will work for you provided you can put up with that runout. I don't know of any similar ER40 collet chucks. Welcome aboard Martin ------- Re: ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe Posted by: procterx~xxihug.co.nz kwstse Date: Wed Feb 5, 2014 5:17 pm ((PST)) Hello, Haven't tried, but Sherline's chuck blank machined to size might make a suitable ER 40 mount. I have used one to mount an ER 16 collet chuck - had to remove most of the blank. Greg.Procter, Hukerenui, New Zealand ------- Re: ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe Posted by: iagarridox~xxyahoo.com Date: Wed Feb 5, 2014 5:35 pm ((PST)) Hi. A couple of years ago I bought a plain back ER32 chuck and a 3/4-16 adapter plate: http://metaltronics.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/runout-13.jpg I wanted accuracy and no-marks gripping. Here's the buy: chronos (chronos) : $60 wrench (ctc) : $15 19 pcs er32 collet set (ctc) : $109 3/4-16 adapter plate: : don't remember, maybe $15 Nothing special, just chinese brands. Runout of my setup, at the chuck nose, was about 0.016 mm. The fact is: I had never used it. Centering with a 4 independent jaw chuck would always give better accuracy; I use a strip of copper or aluminum sheet around the part to avoid damage. Anyways I dont' think it was a loss; I'm sure they would be useful to me some day. In short, I would not recommend this for general use, but I don't know, maybe it works for you. Regarding sherlinecollet.com, they seem, at least to me, a very good option for small production (that's why, in fact, they develop this mod). regards, Ignacio ------- Re: ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe Posted by: procterx~xxihug.co.nz kwstse Date: Wed Feb 5, 2014 8:47 pm ((PST)) Hi, back to the original use: railway wheels have a 1:20 taper on the tyre. (Not to mention a fillet between tyre and flange.) Gripping this with a three or four jaw chuck will create ugly marks. Greg.Procter, Hukerenui, New Zealand ------- Re: ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe Posted by: anthrhodesx~xxaol.com Date: Thu Feb 6, 2014 8:33 am ((PST)) And with such a taper will jump out of the chuck or collet unless you support the outer end with the tailstock or something similar which will prevent movement away from the headstock. Just sayin'. Anthony Berkeley, Calif. ------- Re: ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe Posted by: "David Underwood" dave.underwoodx~xxsympatico.ca Date: Thu Feb 6, 2014 12:30 pm ((PST)) No one has mentioned full circle soft jaws. I realize this is a Sherline group, but have a look at these jaws, from Taig. http://www.taigtools.com/c1051.html For me, these jaws alone would be all I would need to make me figure out how to adapt a Taig three-jaw chuck to a Sherline lathe. You need to understand that they are meant to be machined to suit the work piece. In the case of the model railway wheels, I would bore a tapered seat for the wheel, with a groove to accept the flange, so the wheel wouldn't work loose. This would be very simple and run absolutely true, as it would be bored "in place". If Sherline offers something similar, I would definitely suggest getting a set or two. If not, perhaps someone can speak to adapting a Taig chuck to a Sherline spindle, which has a shorter nose than the Taig spindle. Something to think about... Dave Underwood http://toolingaround.ca/ ------- Re: ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe Posted by: procterx~xxihug.co.nz kwstse Date: Thu Feb 6, 2014 1:03 pm ((PST)) Hi Dave, The Taig shaft is threaded all the way while the Sherline headstock shaft has a short non-threaded section. The Taig item needs the thread removed for a short distance inside. Even I can do that :-) The Taig chuck isn't as accurate but one turns the jaws in the position they are used in so they come out about perfect. Greg.Procter, Hukerenui, New Zealand ------- NOTE TO FILE: There are a number of messages in the text file here titled Sherline to/from Taig Adapters that describe how chucks from one system can be adapted to be used on the other. ------- Re: ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe Posted by: "Mike Bauers 55" mwbauers55x~xxwi.rr.com Date: Thu Feb 6, 2014 12:50 pm ((PST)) In a like thought.... Consider using hex bar stock to make a thick axle collar that the wheel- set slips into, set-screw locks into, and then you chuck on the hex-stock. You use your tools on the out-board wheel. To true a wheel that is being shaped for the first time, you again make another fixture that you will bolt the partly machined wheel into, to shape the tires or prep the rough wheel center for the tire blank or previously tooled tire. Your first step with a raw center is to accurately indicator mount it into the chuck, most likely a four-jaw chuck, to true-bore the center. Then bolt fixture the center-bored driver center into a solo wheel holding fixture to true the O.D. of the wheel center. If you are working in a metal where you can also make the tire from the rough driver, adjust your procedure to suit. Mike Bauers ------- Re: ER40 collet chuck wt 3/4-16 for lathe Posted by: "Steve Wan" stewanx~xxgmail.com Date: Thu Feb 6, 2014 6:31 pm ((PST)) Hi Dave. Yes! I agree that no one has mentioned about using soft jaws in Sherline forum. I have started making one a year ago using Woodcraft metal wood chuck which has the same thread pitch. Moreover, it comes with screw in jaws but the weight is a bit heavier and bigger. I'm in the process to machine away some metal. Steve Wan [Steve Wan in a later message] Here's the link, do note that the thread spindle adapter has to be shortened. Also the chuck is slightly bigger than Sherline 4 jaw chuck, you would need to use the extension block on the headstock. http://www.woodcraft.com/product/2020042/18871/woodriver-4-jaw-lat he-chuck-wcase-34-x-16-tpi.aspx ------- Re: Lathe (chuck) advice / help [sherline] Posted by: "Sullivan, John" john_sullivanx~xxbmc.com Date: Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:24 am ((PDT)) Greg, I understand your point and it is a good one. When I had it apart, I could see no signs of wear on the Jaws, the teeth on the back of them, or the spiral wheel that tightens the teeth. So I concluded it is not a worn out chuck, just a slightly off center chuck. The mounting plate with its 3 screws is probably what I need to deal with to get the chuck better centered upon it. Thank you, John G. Sullivan Austin, Texas 512-340-6078 ------- Re: Lathe (chuck) advice / help Posted by: procterx~xxihug.co.nz kwstse Date: Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:51 am ((PDT)) Hi John, I can't picture a mounting plate that could cause the chuck to sit inaccurately! That may of course be because I am an amateur and have had only a limited number of chucks from only a few manufacturers appear before me. I suppose burrs on the mount might make the chuck body sit crookedly but the mounts I have seen have minimal clearance. Greg.Procter, Hukerenui, New Zealand. ------- Re: Lathe (chuck) advice / help Posted by: procterx~xxihug.co.nz kwstse Date: Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:11 am ((PDT)) Hi John, Assuming a separate mounting flange and a chuck that screws to it, (I had this with my Unimat) the mounting sequence was to mount the flange on the lathe spindle and then turn the face and step of the flange so that it has no runout on the specific lathe. The chuck is accurately made at the factory, so when it is fitted to the mounting flange it should be as accurate as the bearings and spindle allow. If we now transfer the chuck to another lathe, the accuracy will cease to exist, depending on the spindle. As I still have my old Unimat chucks I purchased a Sherline chuck blank and turned a new mounting flange so the Unimat chuck mounts accurately on the Sherline. As I have Unimats with 12x1 and 14x1 mounts as well as the Sherline choosing the most suitable chuck can be a little confusing sometimes - I'd rather have multiple choices than having to utilise just one :-))) Greg.Procter, Hukerenui, New Zealand ------- New Products [sherline] Posted by: "Tom & Judy Bank" trbank1x~xxverizon.net eimcr28 Date: Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:15 am ((PST)) If you haven't looked at Sherline's new products page recently, check it out: Two new chucks for those with humidity problems; two-piece chuck jaws with top parts in soft materials like DelrinŽ, TeflonŽ and nylon, plus harder but non-rusting materials like brass and aluminum; 3/4"-16 threaded blanks like the ones from Taig, but that we won't have to shave the unthreaded end off; a vertical sheer bit for smooth finishes on lathe work; and several more special purpose items. Regards, Tom Bank ------- Re: New Products Posted by: dcclark111x~xxcomcast.net a3sigma Date: Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:25 am ((PST)) Good Morning Tom and All, Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Re the Interchangeable Top Jaws for Sherline Chucks -- kind of pricey, but, if you just buy the bottom jaws, and have a milling machine, it should be easy to make top jaws out of anything you like. Best, David Clark in Southern Maryland, USA ------- Re: New Products Posted by: "Tom & Judy Bank" trbank1x~xxverizon.net eimcr28 Date: Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:56 am ((PST)) David, I have wanted split jaws for my Sherline lathe chucks for some years. Now they have brought them out, I can't afford them. Three quarters the price of the basic chuck is a little much. I do have a pair of W-W chucks (inside and outside holding) with two piece jaws. I guess I will have to make special jaw tops for them. The other option would be to put a strip of A-2 steel on my next order to MSC and figure out how to hold pieces of it on the rotary table to cut scroll teeth. Regards, Tom Bank ------- Re: New Products Posted by: anthrhodesx~xxaol.com anthrhodes Date: Thu Jan 1, 2015 6:29 pm ((PST)) Tom, The teeth on the back of the jaws are helical, which is to say the radius increases as it goes from one side of the jaw to the other. Additionally, the inside curve has a helix to match the scroll curve close to the OD of the chuck whereas the outside curve has a helix to match the scroll curve closest to the center of the chuck. How will you meet these very unusual requirements? Obviously it can be done, witness the back of the jaw of any self- centering chuck, but the setups for correct form as opposed to an approximation will be very unusual. Anthony Berkeley, Calif. ------- Re: New Products Posted by: jowhowhox~xxyahoo.com jowhowho Date: Thu Jan 1, 2015 10:15 pm ((PST)) Theoretically, the shapes of the jaw teeth are not trivial. The angle of the Archimedean spiral changes with the radius. There is a method akin to incremental gear hobbing that would work to give you best jaw tooth forms. I'd bet that the teeth on Sherline chuck jaws are only approximate, and you could match their tolerances with some pretty simple geometry and a manual rotary table -- fix the teeth to the table at a bit of an angle, with the jaws close to the center of the table, and cut circular arcs. The circular arcs would be pretty close to the spiral arcs. Or just buy the dang things. ------- Re: New Products Posted by: "Tom & Judy Bank" trbank1x~xxverizon.net eimcr28 Date: Fri Jan 2, 2015 4:08 pm ((PST)) "I'll bet that the teeth.................close to the spiral arcs." True, When you remember that Sherline's scroll chuck jaws are designed to be installed in either direction, there isn't any difference between the arc of the teeth on one end and the arc of the teeth on the other. On my W-W chucks, the lower half of the jaws aren't removed except for chuck cleaning and the jaw teeth somewhat follow the curvature of the mating scroll on both the inside and the outside edges. There, I wouldn't be surprised if the teeth toward the center of the chuck had sharper curvature than those on the outside. The Swiss have a reputation for things like that. Regards, Tom Bank ------- Re: New Products Posted by: anthrhodesx~xxaol.com anthrhodes Date: Sat Jan 3, 2015 10:36 am ((PST)) Tom, The curves of the teeth can't be configured as you say. If the inside curve fits nicely to the scroll close to the center it will only bear against the scroll at the ends of the curve as the jaw is moved outwards to hold larger stock. Therefore the inside curve must match the outside curve of the scroll at the most outwards position of the jaw. Anthony Berkeley, Calif. ------- Re: New Products Posted by: anthrhodesx~xxaol.com anthrhodes Date: Fri Jan 2, 2015 8:52 am ((PST)) jowhowho (?), Having posted the original question, I have to admit your response is valid. Because the curves, both inside and outside, are not matched to the spiral of the scroll at all positions of closure they basically have single line contact between each tooth and the scroll. Anthony Berkeley, Calif. ------- Re: New Products Posted by: "Ian Newman" ian_newx~xxyahoo.com ian_new Date: Fri Jan 2, 2015 2:52 pm ((PST)) Hi, Anthony, Here is a picture that shows the point you make: http://www.mini-lathe.com/Mini_lathe/Chucks/teeth01.jpg Note that the "top" of the teeth are a much smaller radius than the "bottom" of the teeth. The scroll will make a single point of contact with the teeth in the centre of the tooth crown, rather than two points one at each end of the tooth. The top radius being in use when gripping an outside diameter, the bottom radius is used when gripping the inside of a tube. All the best, Ian ------- Re: New Products Posted by: "Tom & Judy Bank" trbank1x~xxverizon.net eimcr28 Date: Fri Jan 2, 2015 3:48 pm ((PST)) Anthony, The first question is not getting the precise helix on the teeth, the first question is whether and when I will get the required Tuit for the job. The second question is which chuck I would try to make two piece jaws for first. Obviously, my two Sherline independent four jaw chucks don't have the problem of the tooth form. Then as I say, I have a pair of Swiss watchmaker's scroll chucks already with two piece jaws, it's just a matter of installing the W-W adapter and draw tube to use them. So going to the trouble of cutting the teeth on the inside of the one Sherline three-jaw and one Sherline four-jaw scroll chuck I own will likely be on a back burner. The only reason for making same would be as a tour de force. If I did it, I would start by making a thin sheet steel template, bring the teeth close to requirement on the mill with a jig on the rotary table, and then hand file to the template form. Regards, Tom Bank ------- Re: New Products Posted by: craigl2x~xxearthlink.net craigl_2 Date: Fri Jan 2, 2015 11:07 pm ((PST)) All the teeth likely have the same radius of curvature on one side. The radius of curvature is different for the two sides in the case of jaws where the are two sets of jaws (one for internal and one for external gripping). The teeth can only contact the scroll at one point centrally along the tooth or at two points, one at each end of the tooth. Two point contact would be more problematic, especially as wear occurs. Since the tooth only has one point of contact there would probably be no benefit to using a different radius of curvature on the same side of each tooth. To understand why the tooth can only contact at one point (or two points), picture the outer face of the outermost tooth. If it were in perfect contact with the scroll, when the chuck was tightened one turn that tooth would bind since its radius of curvature is now larger that the radius of curvature of the adjacent portion of the scroll. It follows then that in the case of jaws where the outer face is convex and the inner face (the face towards the center of the chuck) is convex the radius of curvature of the outer face is equal to or less than the radius of curvature of the innermost side of the innermost turn of the scroll and the radius of curvature of the inner face is equal or greater than the radius of curvature of the outermost side of the outermost turn. In the case of jaws that can be reversed like the Sherline jaws both curves would have a radius of curvature equal to or less than the radius of curvature of the innermost side of the innermost turn of the scroll. There is another important point regarding the geometry of the tooth shape. The crest of the arc is not along the center line of the jaw and is offset to one side. There are two articles in Model Engineer's Workshop that describe making soft jaws and give different methods for determining the offset -- "Making Chuck Jaws" by Ken Thornton, June 2006 (#116) pg. 34 and "Making and Using Soft Jaws, part 2" by Harold Hall, January 2009 (#146) pg. 12. The material from Harold Hall's article is also reproduced on his website at . Both use a tooth shape which is circular rather than helical. Neither person gives a good or clear reason why the offset is necessary. A reader, Alan Munday, commented in Model Engineer's Workshop August/September 2006 (#118) pg. 53 that the reason is that the center of curvature of the scroll (an Archimedean spiral) is on a line at a right angle to the tangent at that point and that line is not the radial line from the center to that point on the scroll. He states the offset from the radial line (center line of the jaw) is calculated as: pitch/2*pi, which does not explain the two different offsets as described by Harold Hall. It does make sense that the line of force should be as close as possible to a right angle to the tangent(s) of one or both curves at the point of contact. Craig ------- NOTE TO FILE: This discussion of complex curves has now gone beyond what this average human can comprehend. I too buy my chucks ;-) ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ This is just one of some 80 files about machining and metalworking and useful workshop subjects that can be read at: http://www.janellestudio.com/metal/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------