Here find many users' tips and information about toolholders for metal lathes. Lathe toolholders may be available as original equipment to their respective models and brands. Additionally, third party toolholders have been designed for specific machines, as well as generic models that might be adapted to a range of machines in a particular lathe size. Hobbyists have also built their own toolholders, incorporating the features they like best from amateur or commercial, sometimes obsolete, designs. 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 more than 70 additional files on my home page Machining and Metalworking at Home http://www.janellestudio.com/metal/ 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 - 2010 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. ========================================================================== Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:47:53 -0600 From: "Maxwell Sandford" Subject: Re: Harbor freight mini QC toolpost I just completed adapting this toolpost holder to my 6" 101.21400 (Timken). Here are my impressions: Quality: Made in India, and serviceable but not like US high-quality tools. One of the dovetails on the mounting block is too tight for the holders. To use it, a screwdriver is needed to apply a little pressure on the slot to expand it a few mils, and the holder slides right in. Setscrews are not up to US standards for quality. Still, for $99.00 all the parts are in the box. Mounting: Adaptable easily to the compound rest slot. I made a new bottom plate with and T-nut that fits into the compound slot and the recess in the bottom of the tool mounting block. The mounting block was drilled for a 3/8" thru-bolt, and I expanded this to 7/16" to give a bit more purchase in the UNC thread T-nut I made. It was also necessary to make a spacer plate to raise the tool mounting block to clear the rounded top of the compound-rest casting. This is a 1/8" spacer sized to fit the compound, with some of the corners removed to permit the tool holders to lower all the way to the top of the compound when the tool mounting block is set square and the compound is set at 29 degrees. Use: The tool mounting block height is fine for turning, threading, and boring, with plenty of adjustment. It is necessary to lower the cutoff tool holder considerably for use on the centerline, but there is still about 2/3 of the dovetail engaged. The holder arrangement is much more solid than the lantern-style holders and changing tools is far easier, with most of the alignment preserved by the locking adjustment screw. Using this arrangement means that you keep two Allen wrenches handy at the lathe. One fits the height adjustment screw and one fits the dovetail clamp screw. It's also quite easy to make a slight height adjustment according to the response of the tool bit to the cut. Accessories: I have used the turning and threading, and cutoff holders. The cutoff blade that comes with the unit is HSS and not particularly suitable for use with steel. I suggest buying a cobalt blade. The tool holder unit works well with square-profile tool bits, and I use a piece of tool bit stock as a spacer to position 1/4" and 5/16" bits properly, in line with the clamping screws. The unit is much more rigid than the lantern post holder. I promptly broke the points off three carbide bits by digging them into the shoulder while turning steel. The lantern holder flexed enough to avoid the breakage. Can these cheap carbide bits be resharpened with a green wheel? If somebody knows, please let me know. Otherwise I am planning to purchase a set of indexable carbide holders. The drill chuck that comes with the unit is small, but I am wondering how useful it is since you have to position the cross-slide to put the drill exactly on the centerline. It seems to me the tailstock is the place to put drill bits, because it's fixed to the centerline and you are less likely to break small bits. I think perhaps I need to turn a MT-1 shaft for the small chuck that was included in this set. The 1/2" tool holder is more useful for boring than it is for drilling. I would appreciate some words of wisdom from others regarding the use of a drill chuck mounted in the tool holder. Summary: I am not unhappy at all with this unit. The quality and simple screw-clamping mechanism is not as convenient as, for example the Aloris unit, and the quality is nowhere near as good as a US made unit. But there is a huge difference in price and the end result function is about the same. Is the Aloris unit made for a lathe this small? I don't imagine I will use the lantern-style holders for much, except for my good knurling tool and perhaps the occasional use of my threading tool. A good mill-work project would be to make a quick-change holder that will accept the standard lathe tool holders, or to mill the standard holders to fit the quick-change tool holder. The Harbor Freight catalog reference is: http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/taf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=42806 M. T. Sandford ------- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 05:35:22 EDT From: FilZepedax~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Harbor freight mini QC toolpost Notes on the HF mini quick change toolpost. I have a 618. I also had to manufacture a bottom plate to clear the hump. On the two tool bit holders and the parting toolholder. I had to change the height adjustment setscrews on the three holders after adjusting the height and found the setscrews and adjustment spools were engaged only about 3/16 to 1/4 inch. I replaced these with a two inch long 5 x .8mm hex head with a 5 x .8mm hex nut on top of the adjustment spool to lock it. For the drill chuck holder I manufactured two sleeves for drills too big for my drill press. Works, should be a help. Haven't used the knurling tool. As you mentioned the parting tool needs an upgrade. I plan to change the tool bit holder cap screws to harden hex screws. It will lessen the need for Allen wrenches. PS I called HF about additional toolbit holders without the chuck, chuckholder or the knurling holder. No dice. All in all NOT BAD. Likely in the future I make a print and make some more. Felix Zepeda - Texas ------- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:51:18 -0700 From: "Maxwell Sandford" Subject: Re: boring bar holder Mike, I have a 6" Atlas and solved the same problem in the following way: I purchased an import adjustable boring head 2" diam. that accepts 1/2" bars. The head was delivered with an RC-8 shaft that is threaded into its back with a 7/8" diam thread. I machined a MT-1 shaft and threaded it to hold the boring head. I use this in the lathe tailstock and it works well. The adjustable head gives easy control of the depth of cut and you can work to a finish diameter quite easily. For larger work I have a 3" diam adjustable boring head that accepts 3/4" bars. I mount this in a block on the compound. I purchased a 1" diam straight shank with thread to fit the boring bar and this mounts into a block that is held in the compound with a bolt and t-nut. This too works well and allows me to use larger bars. I am using bars with brazed carbide tools (import). They work ok for machinable steel and aluminum, but like all brazed carbide cutters, you must expect to sharpen them fairly often. M. T. Sandford ------- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:59:03 -0600 From: "J Tiers" Subject: Re: boring bar holder For a larger machine, (but it would work for you) I just got a block of aluminum about twice as high as my center distance (2x distance from compound up to spindle center) I faced it flat on all sides by holding in the 4-jaw. Then I drilled thru a clearance hole for a bolt to hold it to the compound with a t-nut. Finally I lined it up on the compound, chucked drills in the lathe chuck and drilled/reamed holes of the required sizes into the end of the block with it bolted in place. I used 3/8 and 1/2 because those are the size shank of one-piece bars I usually use. With some set screw holes in from top all was ready for boring. Using the drill-in-place method assures that it is perfectly at right height for bars with cutting edge at bar centerline height. Has worked perfectly. (Idea is from HSM, looking at the holders Rudy Kouhaupt uses) Jerry ------- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:03:30 EST From: SLEYKINx~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Re: boring bar head for Atlas 6" - question? Ok .. If the block of steel with a hole drilled in it to hold a boring bar is too much effort or you just want to use the lantern toolpost, you can try what I did once upon a time :) I just took a piec of steel bar stock that fit nicely in the lantern post and drilled a hole to fit the boring bars. I then cut a slot and drilled and tapped through the slot to make a clamp. If you want to get fancy you can bend it to about 45* and be very close to the store bought ones. Of course there are several styles of boring bars and you need to decide what you want to run first ... then it would be nice to run one before you decide to use it ;-) For general purpose make a hole type I prefer the cheap brazed carbide set for about $20 you get a box full of different sized bars all with a 1/2" shank. They are not real heavy duty but they give a nice finish and hold an edge well. For threading and special things in mild steel or less I like the ones with the square hole and set-screw to hold a HSS tool bit ground to the shape for the job. For heavier duty material I would go for the carbide insert style. I have a whole cigar box full of the HSS rods that are bent at 90* and ground to make a boring bar but I still need to find a good use for them :) Bottom line .. for a boring bar holder anything you can fix to the compound slide and drill for the size bar you use should work well. The block with a bolt through it is about the next best thing to a QC. You just make a hole to mount it to the compound then chuck a 1/2" drill in the 3 jaw and run it into the drill to make the hole at just the right position. Then you drill and tap for setscrews to hold the bar. I went fancy and cut slots on two other sides to hold a turning/facing tool and a parting tool. I used some shims under the block to raise it to the proper hight for cutting the slots so the other cutters come out right on center. Just chuck up an end mill and cut the slots right on the lathe. Make some chips and Enjoy! Glenn ------- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 22:01:24 EST From: loon432x~xxaol.com Subject: Newbe (sort of) In reading the posts on this group, I've noticed some of you showing interest in a quick change tool post and/or a project to make. This should fill both orders. I just completed an Aloris piston type quick change tool post that is sized for an Atlas 618. I have plans for the main tool post, a standard tool and boring bar block, a cutoff block, a knurling block, and a morse taper block. These are posted x~xx http://www.metalworking.com in the drop box. The file is "Atlas 6 inch quick change tool post.ZIP". This was drawn using DesignCAD. The files in the drop box are jepgs, but I can produce many different formats. Contact me for more information. ------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:56:18 -0000 From: "William Clemens" Subject: Re: Quick Change Tool Post In atlas_craftsmanx~xxegroups.com, AtlasTV48... wrote: > I'm considering a piston type 100 series tool post set from Grizzly > PN G5689 for $199. I also found it in MSC as a Phase II > PN 09043936 for $250. They > have same set in a wedge type for about $60 more. (see page 2549) > Has anyone had any good or bad luck with this set? Is the wedge > type $100 better than the piston type? Dave... Dave, The wedge type is far superior to the piston type. I made a wedge type for my 6" and it works very well. I need to learn how to post pictures in 'file' and I will post pictures of it. They are not all that hard to make but you will need to cut a three start thread (two will do) of about 6 TPI both internal and external. I have a South Bend 7" shaper that I cut the dove tails with (sweet little machine!). I will be glad to send sketches of it to anyone interested, but the pictures would be better. Bill C. ------- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:26:17 -0700 From: "RON Shaw" Subject: Re: Quick Change Tool Post Anyone that is looking to replace the standard "lantern" toolpost on a 6x18 ought to consider the KRF Omnipost as an alternative to the Aloris-style wedge or piston posts. For one thing, at less than $80 for the 600-series "starter kit", it is less expensive than even the cheapest of the piston/wedgies (Harbor Freight). For the 80 bucks you get the toolpost, the t-nut, and a right-angle toolholder. Secondly, it actually FITS the 618 cross-slide! No trimming of the t-nut, or whittling on the block, or shimming something else to make it work. Slap 'er on there and go. The tool holder accomodates up to 3/8 bits, so you have access to almost all of the newer carbide types if you are so inclined. Other holders for boring, cutoff, etc., are available. The only feature of this product that I would even remotely consider a compromise is the height adjustment. It is accomplished by a pointed set screw which engages one of the grooves in the "index base". To adjust the height you loosen the tool holder clamp bolt and run the set screw up or down, thus lowering or raising the holder. Satisfactory, but maybe not as spiffy as the "micrometer" adjustment on the Aloris style. I suspect KRF might agree with this since this is the only product feature that they do not fully describe in their literature. They have a web site at www.krfcompany.com. Apologies if this sounds like an advertisement for KRF. It's just a testimonial from a so far satisfied customer. Ron Shaw ------- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:55 -0700 From: lynn.chidesterx~xxxtp.varian.com Subject: Quick Change Tool Post - Atlas 618 There has recently been some discussion of quick change toolposts for the Atlas 618 lathes. There is one genuine, stock ALORIS QC toolpost that will fit the 618 - Type MA. I confirmed this with a phone call to the Aloris folks some time ago (when I first ran across the one I have). This is a dovetail type, multi-lead screw actuated toolpost, with reversible toolholders. The screw is contained within the toolpost, and has a hex recess to allow it to be turned (with a hex key). The toolholders are basically rectangular blocks, dovetail on one side, and cutter groove on the other. The cutter/toolbit is held in place with setscrews, and the height is adjusted via setscrew contact on a pin (mounted perp. to the dovetail face in the toolpost). I couldn't bring up the Aloris page (www.aloris.com) to include the link. This seems like a possible way to include this functionality on a small lathe. BUT since Aloris wants ~$400US for just the TOOLPOST (holders extra!!), I'd think about using the Aloris design as a takeoff point for a home built model. The toolholder locking doesn't have to be via screw/wedge, piston against dovetail should be fine (and easier to build). KDK also has a small QCTP (series 00) which has the same cutterbit locking & height adjustment as the Aloris MA, (see Airgas/Rutland catalog, pg. 618), for only $445/set! If I didn't already have the Aloris MA (well ab-used before I got it), the Omnipost option is looking better and better (~$80US). Or, modifying the smallest import Aloris knock-off to work on a 618 (~$125US/set). Or, build it yourself, similar to someone else's design ($???). Lynn C. ------- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:02:30 -0000 From: loon432x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: QC Tool Post ?? --- In atlas_craftsmanx~xxegroups.com, "Mike Johnson" wrote: > Ed: I have a 6" Craftsman too. Did you design the toolpost yourself? > If not, where did you find the design. I would like to make one too. Mike, the plans for a QC tool post that was designed by me specifically for the Atlas 6" lathe can be found at http://www.metalworking.com/ in the drop box. I can produce many different formats. Email me at loon432x~xxaol.com for more information. Regards, Terry Looney ------- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:51:31 -0000 From: "W.C. Gates" Subject: Re: QC Tool Post ?? The lantern-style tool post works just fine as long as you make things one at a time. When you have to do multiple operations on a bunch of parts (for example, making spokes for the wheels on a model cannon), you want a repeatable, quick-change capability. I've used an Enco 2 1/2" turret on my Atlas 6" for over 20 years, and adapted cutoff and other tools to it. Another solution is a quick-change toolholder, which usually has a screw vertical adjustment to avoid having to shim the tool bits. W.C. Gates ------- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:35:15 -0500 From: "A. G. Eckstein" Subject: Re: tool holder Why BUY the insert holders?? Made mine from an idea that I got off a web site (http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/toolholder/toolholder.html), but I bought a pack of 3/8 inserts from Enco when they had them on sale and I really like them over the HSS that I have been using for general turning. Even cut a thread or two with them and they stay sharp longer. Finish is great. My 12" is set up to use 1/2" tools and I made my holder from key stock.After all, isn't that what we are all about? Making chips that is. I spend more time making tooling and refinements to my machines than I do projects that I have in the works! At 01:12 PM 1/28/01, you wrote: >Well gang, got my new tool holder mounted to 10" and it seems to work >fine. Now have the capability of changing tools (1/4 &3/8) w/o >remounting them in the "lantern". Seems to reduce viberation and improve >finish as well. I paid $50 bucks for a used one from DFW machines in >Winston-Salem NC. Had to turn a spacer and face a holddown bolt to mount >it. That's what lathes are for, no? Looking forward to getting some 3/8 >carbide bits to use now. Not sure if I will pop for an insert holder >yet. What is the feeling of the group, go for the insert tooling now or >buy a couple of carbide tools and get some feel using them first? Iceman Bubba OLDER THAN DIRT Country Bubba (Actually the inventor of Country and Bubba) axteinx~xxsurfsouth.com LaGrange, GA -------- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:37:52 -0500 From: ron ginger Subject: Re: Diamond Toolholder Experiences? I have had one for several years for my 11" Rockwell lathe. It's a good tool. At first I used it all the time, but now I use some inserted carbide tools a lot as well. The big advantage for me was its easy to sharpen - it comes with a fixture you clamp the tool in, and its almost impossible to get it ground wrong. I did stone a small radius to one edge of the toolbit to give a smoother finish. I have dulled them on some work, and it rounds the corner off a good deal, which requires a lot of grinding to clean up. I guess you ought to stop and sharpen before it gets too bad. All in all, its a good tool - no magic, but it does what they claim. I agree it's a bit pricey, but it's not unreasonable - almost any inserted carbide holder is $50 + ron ------- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:24:42 -0700 From: "Les Grenz" Subject: Re: Diamond Toolholder Experiences? From: Dave Martindale Reply-To: sherlinex~xxyahoogroups.com To: sherlinex~xxyahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [sherline] Diamond Toolholder Experiences? Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:58:16 -0800 >>The diamond faced tool has been around for many, many years. Many pictures can be found in old machinist manuals. They are neither new nor revelutionary. I see no advantage except that they are probably a no brainer to sharpen which often is difficult for newbies. How does one grind a form tool or special shape on them? For many applications it will be necessary to revert to normal tooling that can be ground suitable for the application. << For years I have used what I think is the greatest tooling system since sliced bread for the mini lathes. I have used them for 20 years. First on a Unimat 3, then on the Sherline. The tooling is presently sold by Travers. I am taking the information from a 1997/98 catalog. It is called the Unique Tooling System by TTC. It consists of a left and right 5/16" shank tool holder, mini boring bar and cut off tool. The holders use HSS or C5 carbide inserts which are about 2" long. A quick grind on the end of the tool, and a lick and a swipe on the side gives an excellent cutting edge. The insert also has a built in chip breaker along its entire length. No more worries about rake angles. The insert is only 1/8" wide which is ideal for micro machining. I cut every thing from brass to stainless. And that is my not so humble opinion. Regards from Les Grenz & the Queen City of the Rockies. AWI 18150 NAWCC 82932 ------- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 02:35:44 -0000 From: STYSx~xxMINDSPRING.COM Subject: Phase II and Grizzly QC tool post compatable My family bought me a Phase II for Christmas. I think it has been the best addition to my lathe so far. If you don't already have one - you should get one. It lets me worry less about set-up and concern myself more with turning a part to print. Well, I wanted more tool holders, but Enco does not have them as a separate item. But Grizzly does. So I ordered one and got it today. I use the 100 series on my lathe, so I ordered G5692 (Grizzly series 100 turning holder $19.95). It fit perfectly on my Phase II. This fact may be common knowledge to some of you, but I never saw anything on it in the archives, so I thought I would pass it on. Happy turning. Rick Stys Apex, NC Craftsman/Atlas 12X24 ------- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:51:24 -0000 From: fyunchx~xxaol.com Subject: Re: 2 questions For a real quick-change tool post for the Atlas 6", you have 3 choices: 1. Acquire an older 3-rd party QC post (several sets came up on ebay last year, price range $70 to $120) 2. Acquire an ENCO 2.5" indexing 4-way turret (4 came up on eBay last year, typical price about $60----this is what I use) 3. Make it yourself. I have some photos of the 3rd party versions I can email if you want----contact me off list. You will need a mill to make them. 4. Some people have successfully adapted the 7" QC post, also. W.C. Gates ------- From: cdhinton... Date: Fri Jun 29, 2001 4:32 pm Subject: Re: Toolholder Plans --- In atlas_craftsmanx~xxy..., "Thomas Stubblefield" wrote: > I'm replacing my lantern style tool post on my 618 and was > wondering if there were any plans out there for something simple > that would hold a boring bar and an insert holder. The Aloris > and others are beyond my scope as I > don't have a mill or other means to cut the dovetails. > Don't want to buy one when I can make it myself. After all, that's > why we bought these lathes, right? Thanks for any help. Regards, Tom I use the tool holder from KRF on my Craftsman 6in. model 101.21400 They make a boring bar holder also. KRF advertises in Home Shop etc. Craig ------- From: "George Averill" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2001 10:25 pm Subject: Differences in tool posts? I have purchased a motor and a pulley. Now to make the tool post for my 109AA. Can someone please fill me in on the different kinds of tool posts? I don't know their names so I can't discuss them very accurately. The original post allows the tool to be angled up using the wedge. How can the tool be angled up with the "flat" design tool post descirbed in the AA files? I think I can make this one myself. Thanks, George ------- From: "jerdal" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2001 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [atlas_craftsman] Differences in tool posts? Angling is harder, but when made correctly, the designed-in size of cutter puts the edge on center if the edge is at the top surface of the tool. If low, it can be shimmed up by placing the shims under the cutter, this is common with block toolposts. Any cutter will end up low if it has "rake" and is re-ground. Rake is a ground-in angle, allowing the cutter body to be horizontal and still have the effect of angling. Another way is to make a ring to fit closely over the existing toolpost. Top and bottom should be flat, and thickness (up and down) suitable to put the tool on center. Set the existing ring and rocker aside, put new ring over the toolpost, and install the cutter as usual. It will be much more rigid, and will not be deflected down by cutting forces. Easier than the block, and you can easily make more rings of any thickness to suit your cutters. Existing toolpost is known as a "lantern" post, block type is what is in AADOCS2, there are also quick-change posts, which are like block posts, except that the part the cutter goes in can be removed and another substituted easily and fast. Height is adjustable with a screw for each removable piece individually, and is repeatable within a fraction of a thous. Lets you swap cutters without re-setting, and then swap back for the next workpiece, with cutter exactly reset to same place. These cost over $100 to start, much more for better ones. Jerry ------- From: kdolan... Date: Thu Jul 5, 2001 6:41 pm Subject: Re: Differences in tool posts? You might want to check out KRF Company, they make a tool post holder set in a range of sizes that I've found pretty nice on my 109AA. They don't seem to have a web page but their toll-free is 1-800-857-6664. Not cheap, I bought their 600 series 4 holder set for $200. Two different cutter holders, a cut-off blade holder and a 1/2" boring bar holder. Very sturdy. The guys name was John Robins. When I got the set, found that the cut-off holder wouldn't lower enough to get the blade on center line on the AA. Called John suggesting they could provide a larger relief on the underside of this holder and it would work on the AA. He graciously replaced the one I got for nothing (except shipping one-way back) with one specially made. I think they'll send you a brochure for free and they usually have a pretty descriptive ad in Home Shop Machinist each month if you can find a copy. I'm pretty happy with mine. I've also seen some "knock-off"s of the Aloris type tool holders (pretty nice) for the same price range. Think I even saw this in a monthly special from MSC recently. Don't know how well they'll work on the little AA though. If you go the KRF route, be sure to mention you have a AA with only a .540 center line height (check yours specifically, mine was .540) so you can get a properly made cut-off holder "up-front". Kirk Dolan ------- From: kdolan... Date: Thu Jul 5, 2001 6:56 pm Subject: Re: Differences in tool posts? George, Sorry, got ahead of myself when I posted previously. Generally speaking, I've never found a necessity for "angling" the tool. What is critical is getting the cutting edge on the centerline of the spindle and any "angle" needed seems best provided by having in in the tool itself, either ground into the cutting edge or provided by the tool insert holder. Also critical, I've found, is RIGIDITY. The original "lanter post" type holder that came with the AA did NOT provide that... Maybe there is a need to "angle" the cutter in some situation, I've just not run across it yet. But, I'm kinda new to all this as well. Kirk Dolan ------- From: "Reames" Date: Thu Aug 9, 2001 10:48 am Subject: Re: [atlas_craftsman] Tool holders I use a Phase II Series 250 100 for both my 12" Atlas and my 6" Grizzly ... I modified the one for the grizzly so it would allow the tools to ride lower. Now I can mostly change back and forth with minimal,(if any) height adjustment. I can e-mail pics if you are interested. ------- From: ballendo... Date: Sat Jul 28, 2001 6:11 pm Subject: Re: those quick change toolposts.... Des, There are two basic types. Piston and Tapered Gib. The piston type uses a sliding part(piston) which works to push the toolholder AWAY from the tool post body. This causes the dovetails to "grip". This type is easily made, and is prob'ly how the recently posted offering functions... The tapered gib type uses a sliding tapered gib moving vertically on the toolpost body to "expand" the WIDTH of the dovetail. This has the effect of drawing the toolholder TOWARDS the tool post body. For this reason, many consider it a better design. Aloris(a mfr.) is the "standard" for this type in large lathes. The actuating arm in both cases is independant of the toolpost body hold down. Usually a sleeve around the central screw is what provides the pressure to affix the toolpost body to the crosslide. In the piston type, the action is like ,well... A piston and crankshaft in an engine. An eccentric is turned in a second sleeve (which fits around the affixing sleeve inside the toolpost body). This is the "crankshaft". The piston is thus made to move in and out in relation to the toolpost body, as the handle attached to this sleeve is moved. The piston exits between the dovetail. The action of the tapered gib is a little harder to describe. Although this is the taig list, you may be familiar with the way Sherline or the asian mill drills use tapered gibs to adjust the fit of the saddle and slides. If not, here goes... As in the piston type, an inner sleeve holds the toolpost body to the lathe. This time there is also needed a heavy cover to resist the upward force shortly to be described. The second sleeve is not eccentric like the piston type, but has a multi start thread turned into its outer surface. This thread mates with a thread in the tapered gib (this part is NOT like the asian M/D's or Sherline) which causes the tapered gib to be pushed DOWN (creating the upward force against the cover disk described earlier), expanding the dovetail width in the process. This downward motion as another reason this type is considered superior on larger lathes... There is a third type which attempts to gain the advantages of the other two: This type uses a piston which works to "Expand" the WIDTH of the dovetail (which will pull the toolholder to the toolpost body), but has no downward acting force. Even less expensive versions will use a slotted toolpost body and either expand(so it can use "typical" toolholders, which have a dovetail RECESS) or contract(which means the dovetail is on the ? HOLDERS). This is done by a screw or screws acting across the slot between the dovetail flanks. Hope this helps. Ballendo ------- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:37:52 EDT From: sleykinx~xxaol.com Subject: Re: new member + 2 questions In a message dated 09/10/2001, egjamesonx~xxaol.com writes: > Hello, my name is Gene Jameson and i recently acquired an atlas 10" > (TH42) lathe . i am also new to the group and look forward to > learning a lot here. i am sytematically takign the lathe apart and > i dont want to mess someting up. [SNIP] > a second question i have concerns the ability to add a quick change > tool post to replace the rocker style the is currently on it. i was > looking at an aloris style (AXA size). the problem is the the > compound only has about two inches of space to rest the post. the > area to rest the post is lower than the main body of the compound. > from the dimensions i have, the quick change post is 2.5" x 2.5". > should i grind the compound to make enough flat area for the new > post? (would have to hire that out) Or can i use a small spacer to > raise the base of the tool post about the rest of the compound(approx > 3/16") I hope this explanation is clearer than it sounds. Your help is > appreciated. Gene Welcome Gene, there are detailed instructions for pulling the spindle on the Atlas website www.atlas-press.com/ and go to the oldies but goodies section and pull up the tech bulletins. http://www.atlas-press.com/tb_10bg.htm">Tech Bulletin 10" Back Gear Instr As far as the QC toolpost goes .. I have a shim under mine and it seems to work great. Grizzly has them on sale right now for about $132 for the phase II AXA size or Harbor freight has them for $99. I have the harborfreight version (made in India) and it seems fine. I may have gotten lucky though as several others folks have not been real happy with the HF unit. ------ Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:18:36 -0500 From: "R and J Sport" Subject: Re: new member + 2 questions There are two answers to this problem, I have used both and they both work. On the first lathe I put the tool post on I chucked the tool post in the 4 jaw and turned a step in the bottom to clear the compound. I used this outfit for 3 years with no problems yet. On the next lathe I put the compound in the milling machine and flattened off the top of the compound. No problems withthis one either. Of the two choices I think milling the compound will give a more stable fit, but it's your choice. Jim at R and J ------- Date: 6 Oct 2001 07:20:12 -0700 From: helpx~xx4mtool.com Subject: Re: Tooling for 6" Atlas - toolblocks On Sat, 06 October 2001, S1 wrote: > Avoid the 4-tool indexable or "turret" type. They are a pain in the > butt to set the tool height with, and each time you sharpen or grind, > it will have to be repositioned....they are WORSE than "lantern" > type posts. They are just not worth it. Lantern-type posts > are better on full sized machines than on a small 618 or 109. > I owned a 109 and have a Chinese 7X10....I built my own QC toolpost for it > because it cannot accept rocker tool posts and it was cheaper and more > rewarding for me to make my own. > If you want to buy one here's an excellent one for a 6" Atlas; > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~rmteo/_wsn/page2.html Here's a link to > the 7X10 page which showcases various homemade toolposts that all > look good: http://www.mini-lathe.com/Links.htm#Tools While these are > all shown on 7xXX lathes, it should be very easy to adapt them to Atlas > 6" machines. I personally made an piston-type toolpost inspired by an > old Aloris copy I saw at a shop. It is about the size of the T+S > Engineering one that first link will bring you to. -Gabe I generally find your posts to be interesting and informative,-in this case I find I may disagree with your assessment on avoiding turret or indexable tool holders- especially in preference to lantern type ones. Any good machinist can use any type of post with equal ease, however, unless one has the reasonable skills at off-hand grinding, commercial bits are a good, quick, and inexpensive alternative. Cemented carbide bits, available new everywhere follow an industry standard (ANSI B212.1). The cutting height is fixed, and work well in tool blocks, as the centerline height also is fixed. Blocks have a larger bearing surface on the compound, generally resulting in a better dampening effect (thus better finish) on some classes of work. There are also a prevelence of indexable toolbits for small lathes, by makers like Kennemetal, Valenite, and many others. In this case, you only replace (or rotate) the insert in the holder. Again, no adjustment of centerline height is nessecery. The CNC tool industry has brought these into common usage in the industry. Your comments on QC holders (Aloris and piston type) are valid and I agree with them. If you are only going to do one off jobs on the lathe, it probably dosn't matter. If, though, you are going to make several similar parts, with several tools, a 4-way post (and/or a tailpost turret) makes valid sense. We have a couple of 6" Atlases in use in out shop, and have come up with a compromise to suit both purposes. We have 4-way indexable and fixed blocks for both, which use 3/8" bits. Generally we use commercial bits, but, as in any custom work, special form tool are often required. We have a block which uses 10mm bits (in common use in Asia, Europe and other metrically inclined places). This is identical to the 3/8" ones, but the clearance for the bit is 0.0187" lower (.3937" - .375"). We shim under the bit itself to achieve a specific height for the centerline, but could just as easily put a larger shim between the block and the compound. This method (shimming) works equally well for the regular 3/8" blocks when we regrind bits which must then be raised. Having one block which has bits ready to face, chamfer, cutoff, and thread is a valuable time asset. george ------- Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 22:05:40 -0700 From: S1 Subject: Re: Tooling for 6" Atlas - toolblocks George- I base my comments on the Turret toolpost that came on the 7X10. 3/8" brazed carbides always were 1/16 above the center of the workpiece, The thing just wasn't getting low enough to use them. For carbides, brazed or indexable, the rigidity of these turrets is considerably better than a lantern tool- post. It held the bits securely, but I always found height adjustment annoying on it. For High speed bits, I prefer the traditional lantern/ holders over turrets because it is quicker for me to center the bit. The more time machining spent cutting makes me a happier camper. I use High speed whenever possible because I don't have a green wheel/diamond wheel to sharpen the carbides yet. It isn't optimal, like an Aloris would be, but with HSS bits its good. With the exception of parting and knurling operations, which are better in a turret, the lantern is decent on full sized machines. My 109 came with a lantern and I disliked it more than the turret on my Chinese machine. Of course the Aloris type posts solve all these problems. Gabe ------- Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 01:33:33 EDT From: catboat15x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Tool holders Lantern and otherwise I have used the original lantern type tool holder on all my Atlas lathes over the years. The reason being is that I always seem to have a gosh-awful collection of tool bits that I have picked up at yard sales, surplus stores, gifts from "real" machinest friends etc. 1/4 inch HSS bits in armstrong type tool holders (slide them forward for grinding, then back for use) 3/8 inch and some others directly in the lantern slot etc. Had a "block" type tool holder on a JET 9 X 20 (Till I got lucky and was able to sell it for about what I paid for it.) and was always looking for just the right shim to stick under a reground tool bit. BTW, I seem to get the best results, better cutting and better finish with the tool bits set just a hair below center height for steel and right on center for brass. Since the armstrongs with 1/4 bits give automatic back rake when doing brass I just hit the top of the bit with an oil stone paralell to the spindle and it seems to prevent "digging in" and a swipe across the front of the tool to round it improves finish for both steel and brass. So slight you can not really see that you have done anything to the tool. Among my collection of tool bits I have some that are ground in some really weird shapes and can not figure what they were ground for by the original user. John Meacham High Desert of California, Palmdale, Littlerock. ------- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 23:03:46 -0500 From: David Beierl Subject: Re: HF Tool Post [AND METHOD TO BOLT TO ATLAS] At 08:27 PM 2/19/2002, Richard Meredith wrote: >I am afraid that about a 9" lathe is as small as you want to go with this >$99 AXA size set. HF does sell an even smaller QC set for 3/8" tools that >would probably work on a six inch lathe though. I have the post listed at -- it fits the six-incher all right. I did the following, all of which I regard as necessary except #4: 1) made a round spacer to bring the height up to clear the hump on the compound slide, as wide as would fit to give as much mounting surface as possible. 2) drilled a second mounting hole halfway from the center hole to the apex between the two dovetails. This moves the tool farther from the centerline so the cross-slide doesn't have to be backed off so far. I use either hole depending on what I'm doing. 3) relieved part of the bottom of the parting-tool holder by about .200 in. to allow the tool to drop low enough to center properly. I turned it on the faceplate to let the holder drop down past the spacer. I have a milling adapter now and may take a bit more off at some point, but this was enough with the tool post mounted well left on the compound and the compound turned somewhat counterclockwise. 4) milled a groove at the top of the parting-tool holder so it could take a T-section blade as well as the wedge-shaped blade it was designed for. One thing that will take some getting used to if you're accustomed to the lantern-style post is the sheer clumsy bulk of the assembly. It's about 2 1/2" square, and the tool holders stick out another 3/4" or so to the side. Every other aspect of using it is much more pleasant than the original. david ------- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:20:54 -0600 From: "Richard Meredith" Subject: Re: Re: Source for compound lock down bolts The 12mm x 1.75mm stud screws into the short 14mm x 1.5mm stud until tight. the adapter end will stick up through the top of the tool block for the 14mm x 1.5mm hold down nut, while the 12mm end will screw into the t-nut. on smaller lathes the 12mm diameter works out better with the compound slot, and taps are easer to come by. Check the pitch of your new 14mm tap to the stud, as the more common 14mm x 2mm tap is found in most hardware stores. I have two lathes setup with these tool holders. One came with the 12mm stud and adapter, and one came with just the adapter. For the one that came with just the adapter, I bought a 12mm bolt at the hardware store, cut it off, and threaded the other end 1/2-13 UNC with a die. 12mm is close enough to 1/2 that threads work out fine, then I tapped the t-nut 1/2-13 as well. The quality of workmanship on these India made units varies all over the place, but they do work, and are much, much, cheaper than aloris. ------- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:55:56 -0500 From: "jerdal" Subject: Re: Re: tool holder sites/plans > > Do any of you have links to sites with plans for home brewed tool > > holders? > There is currently a series of articles,by Rudy Kouhoupt, in The > Home Shop Machinist on building a QC toolholder. It began in the > Mar/Apr 2002 issue and installment #3 is in the current Jul/Aug > issue.The one he describes is being made for a 9" South Bend but > probably could be scaled down. He makes good use of his shaper for > the project but it probably could be done on a mill also with the > proper tooling and setup. I don;t know about you, but I am not impressed with the Kouhaupt QC holder, it seems not as positive as others, depending too much on the drawbar and not enough on carrying side and end forces on the geometry of the holder. If you look on the rec.craft.metalworking site, in the metal removal section there are plans by John Stevenson, which are a great deal more positive in holding than Kohaupt's holder, and not much harder to make. Plus, Mr Kohaupt seems unaware of the right way to set the clapperbox on the shaper. He never angles it to get the tool lifted off on the return stroke in the pictures, on any of his articles involving shaper pics. Jerry ------- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:45:39 -0000 From: "rick_kruger" Subject: Re: tool holder sites/plans Here is a collection of links that could be helpful: http://www.mini-lathe.com/Links.htm#QC_toolpost Rick K. Portland, OR ------- Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 21:29:44 -0000 From: "renaissanceman04002 " Subject: puzzled about thread/tool post stud My second novice question for the month: Just got my A/C 101.07 12X24" mounted & running on it's cabinet I made and have been futzing around trying to mount the Phase II QCtool post I bought for it. I quickly obesrved that out of the box it don't fit. Problem is the stud anchor plate is too fat and wide to fit the T-slot in the carrage where the OEM tool post anchored. "Well, hell" says I to me, "that's no problem to fix...if I mike the post and determine the thread I can hop over to the machine shop and have one of the guy's drill and tap a hole in a 1" wide piece of bar - and I'm in business.....!" Then I got smarter and thought "why not look in MSC catalog for a T- nut the right size and that's even better". Well....., there isn't one with the right size stud or thread or fit. So...struck out on that. Back to the mike and the first idea. I measured the major diameter of the post threads and shank of the stud and got 0.5385 & 0.5427 respectivly.. and went to the charts on bolts and studs in my tool box. That diameter falls bewteen a 17/32 and a 35/64 and the closest stud/bolt thread size to that is a 9/16- 12 which seems like a strange size....but, hey, what do I know ? I'm the novice here. Then I got worried and thought; what if the stud is metric? U never know what those clever asians are going ot come up with - and spent another futile 30 minutes trying to convert my SAE into a close metric and finding that size in the book. Bottom line - I'm not the first guy to try and fit a Phase II QC tool post to an 12" A/C - how did you guy's do it? ------- Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 16:44:57 -0500 From: Charles Gallo Subject: Re: puzzled about thread/tool post stud That bottom plate they give you is intentionally too big - you're supposed to put it in the milling machine and mill it to fit your lathe. Charlie (who fit his Phase II to his Atlas 12") ------- Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 19:37:42 EST From: n8as1x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: puzzled about thread/tool post stud just finished the same job......thrd is 14x 1.5 pitch ......largest i had was a 12 .....i made a 14x1.5 tap ( wanted to try out metric on my 1895 Reed..& hadnt made a tap in abt 10 years...forgot to put the driving flats on first & ended up having to file them w/ no simple way to now hold the tap...) other options are ,single point the thrd w/ any 1.5 pitch tap used as a chaser ( u do have metric capability????) or single point w/ q 3/8 boring bar & bit............OR buy a tap,,,,,,,OR get a SAE thread bolt & nut1/2x 20 ....OR 9/16 fine if it will go ..........OR borrow a tap.,......OR unload the job on a friend BTW ...... had to polish the sleeeve to avoid binding ,......one dovetail wouldnt receive holder due to screw sticking out (shallow counterbore ) & one soft allen head stripped out before even used.................x~xx .07 cents/hour , one would think it would be good business to pay some poor unfortunate to do a little final fitting.........at this point,not sure i dont like my shop built 2,3,&4 sided q/change blocks better ....when they dropped down to $89 , i bit!!!!!!! best wishes for the new year docn8as ------- Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 23:44:20 -0600 From: Jon Elson Subject: Re: puzzled about thread/tool post stud Yup, it IS metric! I have a mill, so I milled the plate into a T-nut. I think you could probably do this with a hacksaw. It is not a real precision fit. That would take a while, though. The nut is probably 22 mm, but a 7/8" wrench seems to work fine. Jon ------- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:29:06 EST From: JMartin957x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Quick Change Toolposts - Why? This newsgroup spends a lot of time talking about quick change toolposts. Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to understand just what their appeal is. Most of us probably started with a lantern toolpost, using Armstrong holders. Great adjustability, but lots of flex. I went from that to a homemade four-sided steel toolblock. Actually a couple of them, which I keep loaded with almost all the 3/8" bits I need. Takes only a couple of seconds to rotate a new tool into cutting position, and only a half minute or so to change blocks. Also a homemade cylindrical block with different holes for boring bars. The toolblocks are more rigid than quick change posts. No moving parts. Just a solid block of steel with a slot milled across each face, with bits held by cap screws. The quick change posts do a couple of things the plain blocks don't: 1. They allow easy height adjustment of the cutter. My toolblocks are made to put the top face of a 3/8" bit on the center line. If I have ground the top face down I can easily shim under the bit, but frankly I don't often have the need. For most operations, running a few hundredths under center causes no problem. If I have to be right on center, I use a new bit or shim it. 2. The quick change blocks index. This means that you can quickly set a bit at exactly 90 degrees to the work (provided the compound is in the right position). There are, however, only a couple of operations that require an accurate setting: threading and parting. OK, maybe knurling as well. I can usually position the tool block close enough by eye for most work, and if I need greater accuracy it's only a few seconds with a thread gauge, square, or 1-2-3 block to set it perfectly. 3. The indexing of the quick change block allows you to set different bits to cut to exact dimensions, so that you can use the block in production like a turret. Turn a shaft to a dimension, then thread, then turn the shoulder dimension, then chamfer, etc. - all without changing the cross slide. To me, this is the real advantage of the quick change posts, but does anybody do this? The turret lathe generally has stops easily adjustable for each position. The quick change posts don't, which means that you have to either spend a lot of time adjusting each bit in its holder or use different cross slide settings for each. Doesn't really save much versus a plain rotating tool block, to my way of thinking. What am I missing? John Martin ------- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:37:08 -0000 From: "cmtwork " Subject: Re: Quick Change Toolposts - Why? You make a variety of good points. Perhaps I do not truly need a QC toolpost, what I do need is a simple tool holder that I do not have to manufacture myself. I do not have a mill or other means of making my own toolholder at this time. How about I change my question to getting a recommendation for a tool holder (QC or toolblock or other) that will function properly (again without the need for milling to fit) on an AA 109 lathe. Thanks for the input everyone, Craig ------- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:47:25 -0600 From: Rodent Subject: Re: Re: Quick Change Toolposts - Why? This is a smaller setup and will work on a mini-lathe. It should be OK for a 6" Atlas / Craftsman also. http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=42806 Keep in mind you may have to machine / modify a T-nut or do away with your compound to use an quick change setup. ------- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:56:57 -0500 From: "Bill Hardin" Subject: RE: Re: Quick Change Toolposts - Why? I answered Craig's mail out of group so that I could attached a picture. I am forwarding the text to the group for those who may not have seen Earl Bower's tool holder, and will send pictures to those interest who contact me directly. >>I am answering your tool post question out of group in order to attach a picture. Earl Bower makes an excellent little tool post optimized for the 109.20630. In the attached picture, the square block just SE of the set of boring bars. The boring bar holder shown with bar inserted is included. The block holds two tools at the same time. The picture has a parting tool and knurling tool that work with the holder. The holder takes 3/8" square tools. 1/4" can be used with a shim. The tool post and boring bar holder sell for $35. I have a shipment due from Earl within the next week. If you want, I can take some more photos that would be better than these.<< Bill Hardin www.homeshopsupply.com Craftsman & Atlas Lathe Support ------- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:03:01 -0500 From: "Dr. Robert Harms" Subject: Re: Re: Quick Change Toolposts - Why? Im not sure if the reference is to a 10 inch or the smaller machines but the normal Phase II qc is available for 10 inch machines quite cheaply. I also believe that there are various suppliers of qc's for the small machines. That being said. BUY A QC. I went without for a long time and it was stupid. QC's are so much better, so much faster, so much more enjoyable and lead to much greater productivity.You cannot realize how bad you have it until you get a QC. They are worth the expense which, all things considered isnt much. Since buying my setup I have purchased several extra holders and spend my time turning, facing, boring knurling etc rather than stopping constrantly to change and readjust tools. ------- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 00:40:27 EST From: JMartin957x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Re: Quick Change Toolposts - Why? In a message dated 1/24/03, Charliex~xxTheGallos.com writes: << The QC tool post has 2-3 major advantages 1)When you sharpen your bits, it's easier to set on height (advantage somewhat negated by the fact I use Carbide tooling most of the time) 2)Having a MUCH wider selection of tools ready to go! I probably have 8 or 9 #1 or #2 holders sitting on the shelf next to the lathe - each has a DIFFERENT tool in it! I've got A turn/face tool (+ 5 deg lead), 2 different 0 deg lead turning tools (one has a 1/64th insert, one a 1/32 insert - Note these are setup with a grade of carbide for Al alloys, where the 1st is setup for steel), 2 different facing tools (see turning tools), 2 boring bar setups, my knurling tools, 2 different parting tools (one is setup for grooving ). The ability to select the tool that I want, when I want it counts 3)Easier to mount things like parting tools>> Charlie: Agree about the ease of setting height. Generally when I sharpen I take metal off the front and sides of the bit though, and don't have to re-set height. A little bit off the top and often I don't bother re-setting, unless I'm working on a really small diameter. I've got two square blocks set up with four tools each, so that's eight tools ready to go. Each block with its own tee nut, stud, and clamping handle/nut. If I don't like any of the four tools on the block that's mounted, takes only a few seconds to back the handle off a couple of turns and switch to the other block. For most parting, I usually use just a square 3/8" HSS bit ground to a slender tapered neck. For deep parting I use a toolholder in the lantern post. I suppose it's about time I make up another block or two to take some parting blades. Maybe one to hold a knurling tool. A scissors type, I think. Please understand that I'm not disagreeing with you about the convenience of the QC toolpost, and its much greater rigidity vs. a lantern toolpost. But I think that you get about 95% of the convenience, and even more rigidity, with a plain tool block. Plus, all it costs is a few pounds of steel, some socket screws, and some time. There have been an awful lot of questions from newcomers to this group about QC toolposts. There's no question that upgrading from a lantern toolpost to a QC will enable them to do better work. I'd just like people to know that there are some very viable alternatives that they can make themselves. Or that they can buy (Mert Baker is selling one, maybe some other members of this group are also) much cheaper than a QC toolpost. John Martin ------- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 01:17:14 EST From: catboat15x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Digest Number 1349 In a message dated 2/8/2003, atlas_craftsmanx~xxyahoogroups.com writes: > Keep in mind you may have to machine / modify a T-nut or do away with your > > compound to use an quick change setup. For my 12 inch, I took the supplied T nut, measured the slot in the compound and scribed lines on the T nut to match the slot. Then took a look at my hacksaw and said OH-NO! Thought a bit and then chain drilled just outside the lines. (Hint: when chain drilling, drill every other hole first. Keeps the drill from wandering off into the next hole.) Then short work to cut between the holes, cleaned up on the milling machine where even a mini mill will clean up that casting with little strain. After all this was done I discovered for many operations I like the old lantern post with Armstrong tool holders and HSS bits with back rake better than the 0 rake carbide set I purchased. Seems to leave a much better surface and I can step over to the grinder and make that odd shaped bit I need for that tricky operation. A swipe with the stone on the HSS leaves a better finish on the work than the carbide also. John in the high desert of California 12 inch Atlas Mini Mill Rusty file -------- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:07:00 -0800 From: Frank Evan Perdicaro Subject: Another followup on quick change toolpost [ATLAS GROUP] Yesterday I had a few hours in the shop and was able to get back to the problem of properly mounting the PhaseII QC. It has been about 15 months since I got it, so it was about time. Althought the toolpost was physically bolted to my lathe, I never did like the layout. When starting I had two issues in mind -- better distribute the clamping force and prevent rotation of the unit on the compound. Both of these required me to mill the unit to fit the T slot in the compound. Fitting the bottom was fairly easy. My cheap cutoff bandsaw chewed throught the PhaseII nut/blank and made a piece 1 1/16 wide. This went right in the milling machine vise and two passes on each side at 1/2 the width of a 3/16 TiN endmill got me really close. One more cleanup pass and I was done. Although I was quite worried about the hardness of the actual toolpost assembly, it proved to be machinable. With everything clean, I disassembled the unit and mounted the toolpost upside down. Cutting at a depth of about 1 mm, it took about 5 passes per side to get very close, using a new 3/8" HSS endmill. All milling was done in 2nd speed on my J-head. Total time expended was somewhat less than 2 hours. Now I have a QC toolpost fitted to the compound so the reading on the compound reads directly to the toolpost. Off-angle turning can be done without worrying either about spinning the toolpost on the compound, or tightening the toolpost bolt enough to break the compound. I recommend this modification. No, I do not have a digital camera, and no I did not take any pictures. If you are local to SoCal you can stop by and take a look. If you bring you parts you can even machine them yourself! ------- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:22:30 EST From: catboat15x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Digest Number 1403 In a message dated 3/19/2003, atlas_craftsmanx~xxyahoogroups.com writes: > It is a holder for the 7" import lathes and anybody know if that is > about the same size as the height for the 6" craftsman lathes? You may have to make some adjustments to the piece that fits the T slot on the Craftsman. I did one from Harbor Frieght on my 12 inch Craftsman and had to cut the block for the T slot narrower. Not a bad job (I chain drilled just outside the lines and then finished up on the minimill, could leave it rough if you wanted to. John in the high desert of California 12 inch Atlas Mini Mill Rusty file ------- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:33:58 -0800 From: Frank Evan Perdicaro Subject: Re[2] Handles, storage, tool posts, etc. > I was thinking about doing this - does this lock you in to always > have the compound at a certain angle ? > > As I and others have noted in the past the PhaseII and Aloris type QC > > tool posts work well for some of us. Just this month I milled my > > PhaseII so it is a quick-mount to the compound slot and no longer can > > rotate relative to the slot. Bolt tension is dramatically reduced > > too. Get the PhaseII 5-piece insert tooling kit too. You will like it. Perhaps I was unclear in the previous message. This mod does not effect the compound. The major idea is to have the base of the toolpost drop down into the T slot on top of the compound. In practice you cannot mount the PhaseII too many ways on a 10" compound because it interacts with the screw hump on the top of the compound. But if the hold-down bolt is not tight, the PhaseII can rotate a bit, perhaps 30 degrees. So the temptation is to bolt the PhaseII down TIGHT to the compount T slot. This can break the compound right along the inside lower sharp edge in the T slot. I have seen it. So the best thing is to secure the PhaseII to the compound some other way. One way is to bolt or pin a piece onto the bottom of the PhaseII so the piece just fits in the T slot. Another way is to mill away most of the bottom of the PhaseII, to a depth of 1 or 2 mm, leaving a strip up the middle so the toolpost drops into the T slot. With this mod the PhaseII cannot move around nearly as much, and you do not need to screw the center bolt down nearly as tight. ------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 05:54:49 -0000 From: "Larry Wayne Teague" Subject: Re: Re[2] Handles, storage, tool posts, etc. I obviously was asleep at the switch when I couldn't find anything in search about the phase II info, I checked again and there was all kinds of stuff there, thanks to all of you for the input. I thinking I'll gonna get the wedge style post for the 10-15 inch from ENCO. I still think my idea about mounting the post on the 'table' I wrote about could work, of course loosing the use of the compound. I understand what frankx~xxd was talking about that required the milled slot on the bottom of the post. Since the tools slide up and down the post, the tool would just be moved up a little to compensate for the height loss off the bottom. ------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:50:37 +0100 From: Brian Squibb Subject: Re: Re: Re[2] Handles, storage, tool posts, etc. Larry, I think this is what you mean? http://www.hemingwaykits.co.uk/w10.htm "One remarkable tool holder was described by Tubal Cain and called the <'Gibraltar'"http://www.fotec.co.uk/mehs/hemingway/w10.htm> 'Gibraltar'toolpost. This large casting bolts to the cross-slide directly and its only function is to hold the tool as rigidly as possible. It's particularly useful for machining crank axles where tool overhang is unavoidable. The fact that this holder is so successful serves to demonstrate the importance of rigidity." I have the book describing this if interested. Brian ------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:53:38 -0000 From: "gppaine2001" Subject: Re: Re[2] Handles, storage, tool posts, etc. > > In practice you cannot mount the PhaseII too many ways on a 10" > > compound because it interacts with the screw hump on the top of the > > compound. But if the hold-down bolt is not tight, the PhaseII can > > rotate a bit, perhaps 30 degrees. I recently finished my mounting of a Phase II toolpost to my 10" Atlas, but I went the other way. You are right that the hump on top of the compound interferes, but I chucked the toolpost in the 4 jaw and simply turned off the corners about .130 deep and a diameter just under the square body size. That let the toolpost sit flat to the compound, yet rotate and clear the hump as wanted. I briefly considered registering it to the compound, but want to be able to use a compound angle that varies with what I am doing; ie. 29 degrees for threading, etc. without swinging the tool post with it. On breaking the compound T slot, the trick is to keep the loading on the cast iron in compression and as widely spread as possible. If you are pulling a flat surface down with a good fit T nut, you will not be able to damage anything. I do avoid "round T-nuts", though, at all cost, because I have seen these bust through a slot. There is simply not enough area to grab onto the T-slot with a round nut. The other factor here is leverage - use as large a diameter on top of the compound as possible so side forces lose leverage on the T-nut slot. ------- Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 00:38:05 -0000 From: "jrw064" Subject: Re: HELP WITH QUICK CHANGE TOOLPOST FOR 12" LATHE I have a 12x36 Atlas lathe that I mounted a PhaseII wedge type toolpost on. I was swayed to the wedge type after reading a lot of posts on this forum and others. I also looked at the Aloris toolpost as it was supposed to be the cadillac. I agonized over the specs that I could find, between the axa and bxa; I purchased the axa(wedge) and could not be more pleased. Seems very solid and easy to adjust etc. I was a bit surprised at the amount of milling on the t-nut that came with the PhaseII axa set but finally got it cut down; the shipped t- nut is plenty big for the atlas. I thought that I might move up later to a larger machine and gave the bxa some thought, but I think after getting the axa that the bxa might look a little large for my 12x36. I hear of folks using the piston type PhaseII but no experience here. Guess I am glad I got the axa for my 12x36. Regards, Rick W. ------- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:00:46 -0500 From: "WDSmith" Subject: Which Toolpost for 12" Atlas Lathe AXA or BXA From: "yodapug316" > Does anyone have any input on which quick change toolpost would work > better on a 12 Atlas/Craftsman lathe. I am unsure if I should get the > AXA or BXA. Any input would be appreciated. Thank you! I don't know AXA from a hole in the ground but I did a lot of research (BS-ing with guys that know stuff :o) and wound up buying a Phase II 100 Series from Enco. It was on sale for >$100 and I was floored by it when I got it. It was massive!!! It also looked very well made. I was suitably impressed and am quite sure anything heavier would be overkill on an Atlas lathe. As it is, it will take some work to cut it down to fit the skimpy Atlas toolpost slot. A lot of the guys I respect as machinists told me the difference between wedge and piston is subject to debate and any tilt in either direction (aside from price) is probably mostly imagination. "Save your money," seemed to be the uniform opinion. There is no doubt that a rigid tool post will make for better cutting but once your toolpost gets more rugged than the rest of your lathe, anything else would best be spent on a heavier lathe. Don't get me wrong, I have 2 Atlas 12 inch lathes now and have owned nothing but Atlas lathes since the '60s. I love 'em but I still yern to make 1/2 inch x1/2 inch chips fly :o) BTW: A "T-nut" from one of those $26 import "Bridgeport Workholding Kits" is almost a perfect push fit for the Atlas toolpost slot. Mine too just a little file dressing to make it a comfortable fit. WDSmith ------- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:51:44 -0500 From: Jon Elson Subject: Re: Which Toolpost for 12" Atlas Lathe AXA or BXA >Can you tell me what size it is the AXA or BXA phase II. Thank you. Phase-II's series 100 is the same size as the AXA. Their series 200 is the BXA. The toolholders are supposed to be interchangable, but I've never tried it. Jon ------- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:27:25 -0500 From: "Richard Meredith" Subject: Re: Which Toolpost for 12" Atlas Lathe AXA or BXA Either one will work on a 12 inch lathe, though the BXA will allow using up to a 5/8" square tool. The AXA will work on a 12" lathe, but is really sized more for a 9 inch lathe and will mount only up to a 1/2 " square tool. You don't need the tool extra size for the limited horse power on an atlas lathe, but sometimes 5/8" tools are easier to scrounge from surplus industrial sources. The BXA size costs more than the AXA and both will work with good results. I personally use the AXA on both a 9 inch South Bend, and a 12 inch Atlas without any problems. I have used both plunger and wedge style units. With the low horse power of home lathes, its hard to tell the difference in use. Hope this helps, Rich Meredith ------- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 20:56:14 -0700 From: "GSNEFF" Subject: Re: Which Toolpost for 12" Atlas Lathe AXA or BXA I have the older style 12" atlas (Rounded headstock timken bearings) with the newer squared off style compound slide. I bought the AXA/100 size QCTP and had to add almost 1/4" shim under it. The older crossfeed is not as tall as the newer one and the older compound is taller. All that being said the tollpost is plenty rigid even with the shim. I don't think the shim would be required on a lathe with all the matching parts. I know of at least one fellow that bought the BXA/200 size and put it on a newer square head lathe and thinks it is too big. Since making it taller is way easier than making it shorter I would go with the AXA size. YMMV Glenn Neff Medford, OR ------- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 00:27:07 EDT From: catboat15x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Digest Number 1458 I have bought two of the cheap knock offs from Harbor Freight for my 12 inch Atlas. The smallest they catalog was too small, and returned, so what can I say the second size up fits fine after altering the base that fits into the compound slot. The height was OK but the base was too wide. Fixed that by chain drilling just outside the line, hacksaw then final milling to size. So far a love/hate relationship with it. Like it fine for some jobs, but when doing some of the fine model work it is back to the old lantern style and armstrong tool holders. I like the feature on the lantern style with wedge for ease of adjusting tool angles at the work piece on some of the fantastic wrong things I do. But for plain turning I like the rigid tool block of the quick change. John in the high desert of California 12 inch Atlas Mini Mill Rusty file ------- Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 02:53:49 EDT From: anthrhodesx~xxaol.com Subject: Re: QC tool post In a message dated 5/20/03, atlas_craftsmanx~xxyahoogroups.com writes: << > How is the wedge type noticeably better? >> There have been a lot of responses to this question but nobody seems to actually answer the question. The piston and wedge type QC Tool Posts work exactly opposite to each other and, between the two methods, the wedge type is *inherently* superior. Draw a section view looking down on the top of the tool post with the dovetail guide sticking out from the main block. Draw the tool block more or less surounding the main block. Visualize that, to get everything to lock up, the piston type pushes the tool block away from the main block so that all the support and resistance to motion comes from the contact between the two sloping surfaces of the dovetail and the small area of the piston pushing the tool block away from the main block. This is much more rigid than the lantern type setup, but --- . Draw another section of the main tool block. Draw the tool block more or less surounding the main block but with extra clearance on one side. In that clearance draw a gib. (This gib is tapered so that when it's pushed down it uses up the clearance between the main and tool blocks.) When you push the wedge (gib) down it forces the tool block to draw over to meet the other face of the dovetail. As you continue to push the wedge down the tool block follows the dovetail and is drawn back against the main block giving full bearing against the sloping surface of the dovetail and the flat surface immediately adjacent to the dovetail. On the other side the wedge is accomplishing exactly that same full bearing between the sloping and flat surfaces. The downward motion of the wedge also helps to draw the tool block down to the setting of the adjusting screw, thereby helping to assure repeatability of the final position of the tool. So the difference is the wedge type has almost twice the bearing area of the piston type and also beds the tool block solidly against the main block instead of it being pushed away from the main block and having some opportunity to shift around due to a less effective support system. Whether the wedge type is worth the extra price is something for each person to decide for themselves. An excellent piston type might be superior to a less perfect wedge type. And some people say the hobbyist machines are so flexible that they can't take full advantage of a really rigid tool post. Along those lines, some people say it's ridiculous for hobbyists to aspire towards Monarch lathes and such. For myself, I'd love to have a Monarch. And, while I don't yet have a wedge type tool post, that's the direction in which I intend to move. Anthony Berkeley, Calif. ------- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:41:54 -0000 From: "Steve Forslind" Subject: Phase 2 toolpost fit I just bought the Phase II (251-100 9-12") quick-change toolpost for $89.95 for my TH42-10F from Enco. I cleaned the rust preventative from it, and proceeded to machine the square base to a "T" shape to fit my compound. When I placed the body of the toolpost on the compound to check the fit, it was immediately obvious the post was WAY too large to fit on the compound without machining either the post or the compound (no way!), or adding a large, thick washer under the post to allow it to clear the crown on the compound. Am I missing something? Anyone care to comment or advise? I'm ready to sell it on eBay. Steve ------- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:03:34 -0000 From: "carbure2003" Subject: Re: Phase 2 toolpost fit Don't sell your tool post. Like you suggested, manufacture a thick flat washer that will clear the crown on your compound. Then, you are going to be using A "cadillac" as tool post. I have used a Phase II tool post for the last 11 years and I would not replace it with anything else (but maybe a Aloris?) A friend of mine borrowed my tool post last June and had to fit a washer on his compound rest in order to use it. It worked fine. With this tool post I am able to do very fine work on a 12" lathe (machining 1/32" dia stock to less than 0.020" dia without problem.) The tool post allows a very fine height adjustment, required for such fine work. Good luck Guy Cadrin Gatineau, QC Canada ------- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:21:08 EDT From: jmartin957x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: qc tool post question....again [atlas_craftsman group] jgourlayx~xxmindspring.com writes: > Gents, can you guys point me in the right direction for a QC > toolpost? I've found several folks claiming to have one that will > fit a 12" A/C lathe. But when questioned, they all say that a T-Nut > has to be milled to fit. > Is there anyone that makes one that is truly bolt on for this > lathe? I don't have a milling machine, and thus don't have a way to > mill the nut. Where can I go to get what I'm looking for? Try armstrong. That is, the armstrong method and not the Armstrong company. Hacksaw and file. Or, find someone to mill it for you. That's the way they come. John Martin ------- Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 08:27:55 -0500 From: Charle B Vincent Subject: Re: qc tool post question....again Actually, I would tend to reach for a course cut sixteen inch file, but I am a file fanatic. Its the blacksmithing coming out. You can "mill" it in your lathe. Mount the t-nut in your four jaw using a spacer behind it and take a facing cut. I have two milling machines, an 1892 B&S with a three phase motor which I have to spin up the rotary converter for and a CNC mill that I have to program ( no handles) so I end up doing a lot of small "milling" jobs on one of my lathes. Charles ------- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:07:38 -0600 From: lynn.chidesterx~xxxtp.varian.com Subject: Re: qc tool post question....again Milling (while available in most modern shops) is not required to custom fit a QC toolpost to your lathe. Minimalist tooling such as hacksaw, drill & tap, and perhaps a (lathe or file or grinder) are. See details below. All that is required for the toolpost hold down nut is a piece of flat stock of the correct thickness. The thickness of the flat stock should allow the "nut" to slide into the undercut portion of the compound slide toolpost clamp groove. If you wish, you can turn a thick washer to (almost) fill the space between the flat plate, and the bottom of the toolpost. When you have found a piece of material of the correct thickness, cut the "nut" to width and length using whatever means at hand (hacksaw, cutoff saw, chop saw, "Skil" saw with abrasive blade, cutting torch, etc. The cleaner the cuts, the less filing or grinding is needed (one reason to avoid using a cutting torch). After the "nut" is to size, you will need to drill and tap a hole for the post support rod in the center of the "nut". If you want to use the "nut" blank that came with your toolpost, you can cut it to the proper width & length (see above) using your available cutting means. If you really have FEW tools, you could pay a shop (machine, metal fab, welding, etc) to make the 4 or so cuts needed to get your custom size "nut" blank (solving the problem with your wallet, since MONEY is also a tool). Then mount the "nut" blank in the 4 jaw on a lathe (centered on the support rod hole, supported from the back so you can machine out to the edges of the "nut"), and turn a circular protrusion of the correct diameter & depth so that the "nut" will slide into the tool holder clamp slot on the top of your lathe's compound slide. You could also just GRIND down the edges for the custom "nut" blank with a 4" angle grinder (~$20 at Harbor Freight) until it fits. Check the fit OFTEN, and work carefully. Filing the recesses (as mentioned by others) is also an option. The same thing cound be done with a piece of cyl. stock, but the center hole will need to be drilled & threaded to match the QC toolpost clamp bolt. Think of an oversize flanged washer with a threaded center hole. Things like this are why the lathe is called the KING of the machine tools. With proper setups, and lots of time, a lathe can perform all the operations needed to produce (from castings at least, maybe from bar stock) another lathe, AND make the new lathe have BETTER accuracy than the machine it was produced on. While the modern method to get this part may be to program the $200K CNC milling center to make the cuts, this isn't the ONLY way to accomplish the task at hand. The emphasis in most modern machine shops is through-put, getting the parts produced quickly and economically. The old timers in any machine shop have LOTS of experience getting the job at hand done with the available tools (rather than the latest modern methods). Home shop machinists aren't under the same constraints as modern shops, but are more like the old time shops. Home shop machinists usually have to substitite innovation & time for other un-available resources (like milling machines, etc.) British home shop machinists do remarkable things with only a (WELL EQUIPPED) lathe. David Gingery gives some ideas like this in his "Metalworking Tools from Scrap" series, available from Lindsey Pubs. Even if you don't want to build a lathe, the methods of solving the problems encountered in building the lathe/shaper/mill/etc. (from self-made castings) are worth the cost of the books. Lynn C. (in SLC, UT) ------- Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:09:29 -0400 From: "mertbaker" Subject: Re: qc tool post question....again A T-nut does not have to be milled to fit. If you can find bar stock to fit the T of the slot, & some more to fit the smaller part, you can cut 2 pieces to length, hard solder 'em together, drill & tap for the stud, & you are in biz. This will make you a thicker & stronger T nut than the one that comes with the post. I have a mill, so didn't need to do this, but it's what I would have done, if needed. Mert ------- Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:33:36 EST From: n8as1x~xxaol.com Subject: roller tool finally fabbed one ...shud have done it years ago !!!!!! take a piece of bar that will go in ur tool post/holder ...braze /weld a 1/2x 2 disc to end ....put a vertical flat on end of disc & a vertical slot to take a 3/16 (1/4) x 1 hardened disc running on a 3/16(1/4) hardened pin, roller extending beyond the flat....roller is positioned tangent to front edge of unflattened disc, & then, when front of large disc is flattened, it extends properly ..... use ...#1. apply to face of thin washer types held in chuck lightly ...immediately trued (instead of tap,tap, tap, rub,rub,rub, he--, thats gud enuf ! , or putting a parallel/bit behind & having it fly out when not removed, or disturbing true when driven out, or all kinds other stuff....) use ...#2. shaft held lightly in chuck, needing center drilled in end ... instead of setting up a stdy near chuck & then sliding it out to end, press roller against the rotating bar till it very quickly trues up, & center drill end.......oh yeah ...tighten chuck after these proceedures.... tnx to frank mcleans writeup several years back in HSM mag for finally encouraging me to make one forty years after first seeing one used.(pathetic!) best wishes docn8as ps ..getting ready to put a draw on the roller temper to abt a dark straw, when realized it wasnt glass hard...whaaaat !!!! .turns out i picked up a piece of W -1 stead of 0-1( yeah ,i know ,shud have checked the spark on the stone, ...but alls well...no need to temper ...oil quench was just abt right on .....even a blind hog roots an acorn once in a while ...... pps ..spent some thought trying to describe it so it cud be built w/out pic. ...read it over couple more times & if u still need more, email me off board & a SASE gets u a dimensioned sketch .......if u have a cache of funds for textual material , village press has a drawing in "the wisdom of frank mclean "...collection of VERY practical info/projects from previous mag.issues... part of the apprenticeship that some of us missed ....from a well schooled machinist,shop teacher.designer ------- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:33:17 -0500 From: Jon Elson Subject: Re: AXA or Series 100 Toolholders [atlas_craftsman group] spncrcrktrnsx~xxaol.com wrote: >Why bother cutting a ring on the bottom of the toolpost to avoid the >compound "hump" when you can cut back the "hump"?? The compound is a >lot easier to machine. Yes, but especially the old, 10" compound was such a flimsy casting to begin with, that any removal of metal would just make it worse. The pressure of the gib screws is trying to split the casting in two, removing any metal in the middle will just make it easier for a crack to start. At least, that was my logic to not take anything off that compound. Jon ------- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 17:38:56 EDT From: jmartin957x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Tool holder In a message dated 5/20/2005, machiii2000x~xxyahoo.com writes: > I'm new to this group and thanks for all the imformation, also new to having a lathe, the bits that came with my Lathe, Craftsman 101 07403, are 1/4" and have to ground, post type holder, original I guess, I'm not to good at sharpening yet and wanted to try some ready to use, I saw them in a Travers and an Enco book, also saw a tool holder that said it was for the carbide tipped cutters and that got me to thinking about the bit holder, I am certainly no machinist and don't know correct terms for things, Thanks again, David < You can use any type of cutter in any type of holder. The Armstrong-type toolholders, made to be held in a lantern toolpost, were made in two versions - for steel bits and for carbide bits. The difference was that the carbide holders presented the bits level, while those for the steel bits presented them at an upward angle. This was done so that you could get the proper back rake angles without grinding the tops of the bits. But it's a little more complicated than that. First off, the Armstrong holder in the lantern toolpost can be tipped forward or backward to vary the back rake angle, with the bit extended more or less from the cutter to keep the edge on center. Second, different materials demand different rake angles. The Armstrong holders are about right for steel workpieces, but if you're cutting cast iron or brass which calls for zero back rake, you might be better off using a HSS cutter in a carbide holder. For a very abrasive plastic, which requires carbide but also likes some back rake, you might want to use a carbide cutter in a HSS holder. You would have to grind in enough front clearance. Third, you can of course grind the tops of either carbide or HSS cutters to give whatever rake angles you wish. Fourth, grinding a chip groove into the top of a bit will increase the rake angle, even though it's not done for that purpose. To start with, you're probably better off with HSS cutters in holders designed for HSS. The HSS cutters are a lot easier to grind. If you find yourself tackling some materials that demand carbide, get a carbide holder and some carbide bits too. Whatever you do, though, it's my guess that before too long you will be considering one of the more rigid toolpost designs. Most people favor the quick change designs. I use a couple of homemade four-sided tool blocks, which are even more rigid and not too difficult to make. John Martin ------- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:54:47 -0000 From: "knucklebuster54" Subject: Re: Can't get toolbit in correct position...Craftsman 101.21200 [atlas_craftsman group] My lathe is a 6" A friend of mine lent me his MSC and ENCO catalogs. I noticed a Phase II kit for about $130 that has the post and a few holders. I have no idea what type 1 or type 2 means, though. Can someone point me in the right direction? If I'm not mistaken, this is the set I want, but would I be better off just buying the individual pieces. I hate to say it, but I'm a little lost. Usually I can fake my way through things until I get the hang of it, but it seems like theirs a hell of a lot to know. I work with a guy who claims to know all there is to know about machining, but when I ask him something I kind of understand, he'll say he's never heard of such a thing and that it's not possible (like using a dead center, or that a quick change tool post was a pain in the rear end and not as exact as the one I have now, for example). So, I have no local guidance. I apreciate the help you folks are giving me. I can't wait to start turning things!! Thanks, Jay ------- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:29:39 -0400 From: "David G.Sampar" Subject: Re: Can't get toolbit in correct position...Craftsman 101.21200 Actually, Phase II has two sets which will go on a 6" lathe. The Hobby, which is the piston version, and the Mini, which is the wedge version. Both are available from Little Machine Shop. The Mini can be also be found at MSC and Victor. David ------- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:48:15 -0000 From: "sauer38h" Subject: Re: Can't get toolbit in correct position...Craftsman 101.21200 It sounds like you have a rocker type toolpost. For no obvious reason, that type is sometimes called a lantern toolpost. I've been using lathes for thirty years - Monarchs, Hendeys, Leblonds, Cadillacs, Rockwells, and of course South Bends - and I actually prefer the rocker toolpost to the quick-change type. The rocker type works fine and should not be hard to use. The QC type can be a timesaver (read - $-saver) in industrial settings, but it is not necessary to have a QC system to do good work. This is a rocker type: http://askmisterscience.com/toolpost1.jpg The photo shows everything in proper working configuration. The rocker itself (it doesn't show well in the photo - it's immediately under the toolholder) allows you to adjust the holder to any angle needed to get the tool at the right height. If everything's set up right, the toolholder will be fairly close to level when the tool bit is at the right height. Sometimes old lathes end up with toolposts which aren't really the right size. The one in the photo is a toolpost from a 12" Craftsman, which I've put on a 10" Logan lathe. It's not a direct swap, and I had to do a little machining to get it to fit - but that's why the Allmighty created the Bridgeport. The toolholder is a common Williams or Armstrong item, for 1/4" tool bits. Possibly someone has crammed on a toolpost and toolholder which aren't the right size for your lathe. That can put the tool bit much too high or too low, to the point that it's difficult to rock it up or down to the correct cutting height. Sometimes the rocker is missing from these toolposts and new users are puzzled as to how to get the thing to work. The parts for the Sears version (on a 12" lathe) are at upper left in this view: http://bridgeport.askmisterscience.com/atlas4.gif ------- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:01:29 -0600 From: "jerdal" Subject: Re: Can't get toolbit in correct position...Craftsman 101.21200 > People say they are not sturdy or vibration proof, They aren't..... that's for sure > to keep out of trouble. If the toolpost, tool holder and tool start > talking to you, you should listen, you are trying to something you > really should not be doing! A lot of the time, half or more of the problem is purely in the toolpost and so forth...that was my experience. The boring bar holders were the very worst...very talkative. > This can be VERY IMPORTANT on an Atlas 618 and even more > important on a Craftsman 109 series lathe. With my 109, I quickly made it a block toolpost. Solved far more problems than it caused (didn't cause any). That and putting on a follow rest, and working between centers for nearly everything. Took one more unsteady thing out of the picture. I will say that if you are going to use an old-fashioned toolpost (the lantern) then you better use an old-fashioned tool grind also. Lots of side rake, not too much concern for chipbreaking. A 30 degree side rake isn't silly. There's a reason you see pics of old lathes using lantern posts with a long coil of swarf hanging down... The post will NOT stand much cutting force, so its up to you not to try to force a flat-topped cutter into the work with it. Threading is another issue, but there you normally are not taking huge bites anyhow. Keep lots of side rake on your bits, and you'll get by with the lantern. Of course with a block or QC post, you can up the depth of cut, or the feed. Only the lantern will reach into some places though. JT ------- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:13:45 -0800 From: "Bob May" Subject: Re: Can't get toolbit in correct position...Craftsman 101.21200 With the light weight lathes that most hobbyists use, the lantern toolpost is just another part of the flexible lathe and it doesn't hurt to use them. When it comes to more solid lathes, the QC and 4 way toolposts do come into their own. I watch a good lathe like a Hardinge or other nice solid lathe go to work on a piece of steel and make chips the size of dimes and I want to be able to do that at home with my little flexiflyer lathe and it just doesn't work! You need to take lighter cuts and work a lot slower on these lightweight lathes in order to get anything done. You're just not going to be getting chips so hot that they blue as they are coming off of the piece that you're turning but rather you have to look to the fine curls from the finer cuts that you need to do. Bob May ------- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:19:51 EST From: n8as1x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: Can't get toolbit in correct position...Craftsman 1... lantern toolposts w/ rockers served industry well for over 1/2 a century ..they are still valuable for tight setups ...get some basic texts & learn to run a lathe before spending more money ...ebay /used book stores.....burghardt .machine tool operation ..vol 1& 2 ...how to run a lathe ...south bend ...copies available from lindsey as well as used ..atlas /crftsmn manual .....old 1920 texts are ideal for starting out a home shop ...i have 4 lathes operational ,6 in thru 14 in , & still use the lantern on my 6 in...it is more necessary on small lathes to keep from getting boxed in ..... best wishes docn8as ------- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:21:54 EST From: jmartin957x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: 618 Tool Post [atlas618lathe] > Hi, new member, with recently purchased Atlas 618 lathe. Missing was > the wedge for the tool post. Also lacking is tool bit holders. > No luck finding replacement wedge. It's not a wedge, it's a rocker. Not a precision item, and you can make one in a few minutes with a hacksaw and file. File it to fit the hollow face of the ring. Get a few Armstrong-type tool holders. They are not the best setup, but they're cheap used and there will be a few times when you will need one. Spend your money on a QC tool post if you wish, but I've been happy with a homemade 4-way tool block, which holds 3/8" bits at center height without shimming. Actually, two of them, and it only takes a few seconds to change. Plus a homemade round block/collars to take boring bars. John Martin ------- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 08:12:12 -0600 From: "Leo Reed" Subject: Re: 618 Tool Post John: What do you do when you grind the top of the tool? I've thought of making a block, but this problem of not being able to maintain center line point alignment has got me stumped. Leo (pearland, tx) ------- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:30:57 EST From: jmartin957x~xxaol.com Subject: Re: 618 Tool Post > What do you do when you grind the top of the tool? Answer in several parts. One, I tend to grind the end and side of the bit more than the top. Especially if I've ground a chipbreaker groove into it, or a top groove in a parting tool. But I won't hesitate to take a cleanup pass on the top, which leads in to... Two, and I know this will sound like sacrilege, but I've always been a bit less than diligent about keeping bits right on center. If I'm threading, or cutting a taper, or cutting a small diameter, I'm careful. For a lot of work, though, if I'm a couple of hundredths low I don't worry. Accuracy doesn't suffer unless you're way off or on a small diameter, and finish doesn't seem to suffer, either. If I'm facing to center I might set the bit carefully, or just knock the tit off with a file. I guess I've always regarded setting the cutter to center height as being more of a guideline than a rule. Three, if I'm way low I'll add shims under the bit. The blocks are simply 2 x 2 CRS, 1.5" high, and were made entirely on the lathe and drill press. Faced to length, bored for a central stud, relieved slightly at the bottom to clear the compound hump. Each has its own T-nut/stud/clamping handle, so changing is simply a matter of loosening the clamping handle a turn or two, sliding the whole assembly out of the T slot, and sliding a new one in. Each of the four faces is grooved for 3/8" bits. The grooves are 3/8" deep but 1/2" high, to give some clearance at the top. The grooves were milled with the blocks in place on the compound, with the blocks shimmed up 1/8" to put the cut at the right height. Three socket screws on each side, from the top, to hold the bits. The blocks don't index, so I just loosen the clamp and spin a new bit in by eye. Even for parting, unless I'm going really deep. John Martin ------- BXA Tool Post [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "royhilo1" royhilo1x~xxyahoo.com Date: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:10 pm (PDT) Just wanted to share my experience in case others have been considering changing their Atlas tool post on the Craftman 12" lathe. Got a Phase II BXA tool post to replace the original Atlas last week. Was surprised to see it was larger and heavier than expected. The mounting base was, as stated in the instruction, oversized and instead of having it milled to size, I just went to a hardware store and got the appropriate size hex nut and faced it so that it fit into the cross-slide T slot. The BXA (even though it's "only" the piston type) is so much more rigid than the Atlas that it's like a night and day comparison. Additionally, the quick change feature makes using different bits, well, quick. Frankly, the BXA seems to be a bit overkill for the cross-slide but it's no longer the weakest link and makes using the machine faster, less tedious, and more enjoyable. I can't compare the Phase II BXA to any other tool post except the Atlas since I haven't used anything else and there may be something that's technically better or a better value. Nevertheless, it's definitely a great improvement over the original and well worth the money in my mind. ------- Re: BXA Tool Post Posted by: "Joe R" jromasx~xxcolumbus.rr.com Date: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:20 pm (PDT) QC tool posts are indeed a very nice improvement over the old lantern style. Also they are less likely to break a lip off the compound. As you've noted, an AXA (Phase II model 100) is a little more proportioned for our 12's. The size ratings they state for lathes from a to b and so forth does not help a bit because they overlap. The Phase II tool posts seem to be well made and reasonably priced. Using a cutoff tool is now fun!! Enco occasionally has some sales on them. Happy chips Joe ------- Re: BXA Tool Post Posted by: "Steve" skadsmx~xxpeoplepc.com Date: Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:06 pm (PDT) > 1. Re: BXA Tool Post > Posted by: "12voltguy.com" 12voltguyx~xxhughes.net sea44bass > I did the exact same thing BXA bwcause I had bought some 5/8 tools > when I had 1 of the crapo 9x20 HarbourFrieght lathe > I used a nut also, turned down to slid in, #1 biggest improvement > you can make is a good tool holder & SHARP tools:) As there is not a lot of "meat" under the toolpost on an Atlas, I don't think this is a good idea. You are taking the force of cutting that is trying to rock the toolpost forward and concentrating it in a relatively small area. A good crash and you might snap the top of the compound. Might be better to get a t-nut that fits the slot and has the hole threaded for the same as your post's mounting bolt. At least that will spread the load out more. I saw someone who made a large diameter disk on the lathe with raised center that fit in the top of the slot, then they took the sides and cut them down until it would fit in the bottom of the slot. This way he could make the part on the lathe. Think of this as the side view of something round: ------ | | |-----------------------------------| | | |-----------------------------------| Then chop the sides off until it fits. Personally, I would take the t-nut that came with it and make friends with someone who has a mill and get it milled to fit (bring the compound with you, insead of guessing). My $0.02. Steve ------- Re: Finish Hints needed! [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "n5kzw" n5kzwx~xxarrl.net Date: Sat May 19, 2007 10:06 am ((PDT)) "John Sawicky" wrote: > Snip>>> > I have the lantern tool post on my 12x36 and switching between cutoff, > turning and facing is getting really annoying. So... I'm considering > making a quick change tool post, the kind with the dovetail and a screw > height adjustment to make my life a whole lot easier. > Question: > Reading the Craftsman and Southbend lathe operator manuals I have, they > talk about proper tool grinding and how the angles work with the angle > built into the tool holders for the lantern mount and tool holders. In > particular, how this "saves" the tool bit's life because you do not have > to do the aggressive top relief grinding because the tool holder sets it > back to about the correct angle. > So, instead of making the tool holder hold the tool parallel to the bed, > is there merit in making the slot on the new quick change tool holder > set at the same angle? I forget how much it was, something like 16.5 > degrees. Thanks, John in Granite Bay, Ca (near Sacramento) John, that sounds like a good idea. I have a couple of blanks laying around from my homebrew QC tool post and I may well try making a tool holder with a built-in angle. The limiting factor would be that the tool bit would have to be short so that the back end of the bit did not bottom out on the top surface of the compound. I made a cutoff blade holder, but was unable to put an angle in it. Even though I ground a top relief in the cutoff blade, I got better results putting the Armstrong cutoff tool holder in the QC tool holder even with the extra overhang. Regards, Ed ------- Tool post angle (Was:Re: Finish Hints needed!) Posted by: "catboat15x~xxaol.com" Date: Sat May 19, 2007 10:51 am ((PDT)) I would have to agree in part that the QC tool holder is fast and of course more "stout" than the old lantern post. But, for my work I generally reserve that big block of a tool holder for parting off. Most of my work is model making and for small stuff the old lantern is my preference as it allows me to see the work and tool when making a lot of little tube bushings or similar. (for 1/8 inch tube) Isn't it a bitch when the little part with the detail you worked on for an hour and you part off the finished little piece of brass and it falls into the pile of swarf under the ways? John Meacham from the high deserts of Calif 12 inch Atlas lathe, mini mill, HF band saw and a rusty file. ------- Catch that part (Was:Re: Finish Hints needed!) Posted by: "Carvel Webb" carvelwx~xxabsamail.co.za Date: Sat May 19, 2007 11:28 am ((PDT)) Hi John: Not my original idea but worth repeating maybe - "little piece of brass ...falls into the pile of swarf under the ways" Use a sheet of kitchen cooking foil under the bed on the chuck end, either on a separate baking tray or directly on the drip tray if there is one, to catch 90% of the swarf while you're working, and replace it before the final parting off . The little one hour project will land up in pristinely clean conditions and is easily retrieved, and the working area is easy to keep clean! Regards, Carvel ------- Phase II Tool Post [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "ebrucehunter" Brucekareenx~xxaol.com Date: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:40 am ((PDT)) I recently ordered a Series 100 tool post set from ENCO for use on my 10 inch Atlas lathe (These sets are currently on sale for $89.95). When the tool post arrived, it seemed larger than I anticipated; however, ENCO lists it for use with 9-12" swing lathes. Are other users comfortable with this size tool post on a 10 or 12" Atlas/ Craftsman lathe? More questions... Do Aloris/Phase II users normally have a sizeable number of Style 1 tool posts on hand to accomodate their various tool bits, or are the tool bits interchanged as needed? The ENCO price for the initial set is a bargain; however, if a number of style 1 tool holders must be purchased at the ENCO price of $34.43, this could become expensive. I see Victor Machinery Exchange is offering Series 100, Style 1 tool holders for $27.00 as compared with ENCO's price of $34.43. Has anyone tried these? What type of cut-off tools do you use in the Style 7 holder? Bruce ------- Re: Phase II Tool Post Posted by: "Michael Fagan" woodworker88x~xxgmail.com Date: Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:00 am ((PDT)) A series 100 is the right size for a 10-12" lathe (I've got one on my 12" A-C). While the toolbits are interchangeable, the point of the QC is to avoid this, so it makes sense to buy as many holders as makes sense. I haven't used the victor machinery ones, but it makes sense, since they are interchangeable. If you have access to a milling machine, you can make the toolholders yourself, they're not that complicated. Also, the style 1 and style 2 holders are interchangeable, and you can put a toolbit in the back side of the knurling holder. This gives you 3 holders to start for regular turning tools. For the parting tool, you should buy 1/2" tall straight parting blades. The best are the parallel T-style, which are known as P-type blades. Enco sells them such as 397-7404. These are nice because they don't rub in the cut. Michael ------- Re: Phase II Tool Post Posted by: "Brett Jones" brettx~xx5foot2.com Date: Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:22 am ((PDT)) The series 100 (or axa) size is what I used. When I want extra tool holders I get them from littlemachineshop.com. A std. tool holder is around $15.00 and well made. Brett Jones ------- Re: Phase II Tool Post Posted by: "Steve" skadsmx~xxpeoplepc.com Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:15 pm ((PDT)) Get at least a few that are called turning/boring. They cost $1 more than the plain tunrning ones, and they have a groove that will take round bits, although they will also take square ones. Steve ------- Tool Holder [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "angelo4967" angelo4967x~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 4:34 am ((PST)) Hi: Would this work with a Craftsman 12" 101? How does it mount? http://www.cdcotools.com/index.php Click on MACHINE TOOL TOOLINGS//LATHE TOOLING It's the first one at top of page. #29461 is for lathes with swing diameter up to 12" #29492 is for lathes with swing diameter 10 - 15" Set includes one each of: Tool Post Turning & Facing Holder Boring, Turning & Facing Holder Heavy Duty Boring Bar Holder Parting Blade Holder Knurling, Turning & Facing Holder Thanks, Angelo ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "cuttysark71" cuttysark71x~xxyahoo.com cuttysark71 Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 5:45 am ((PST)) Angelo, I have the 29492 (Aloris BXA copy) size from Shars on my 101. When I ordered it, my logic was that if it was suitable for 10-15" swings, I'd be in the middle of that range. Well, it works fine, but is a monster on the compound. It does give a rigid setup. The 29491 (AXA copy) would be a better fit on the 101. Oh yes, I had to make up a new T-nut plate for the slot in the compound, and turn the bottem end of the tool post stud down and thread it 3/8-16 to end up with enough meat on the narrow part of the "T" to take the internal thread. Like I said, it works great, and I wouldn't change now, but the AXA size is the better fit. I posted a photo of the BXA tool post on my 101 so you can get a feel for the size of it on the machine. It's in the Cutty's Shop folder in the photo section. Jeff ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "Steve" skadsmx~xxpeoplepc.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 6:26 am ((PST)) They change what's on that page, so your item is no longer there, but I found it by part number. You want the smaller one, as the height on the other one is too high for where it mounts. I have the Phase II piston QC toolpost, similar to the one you are looking at, but available from Enco: http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PMAKA=505-2253&PMPXNO=953080&PAR TPG=INLMK32 I like mine, but wish I had spent the extra on the wedge toolpost, as it is more rigid. They give you a "nut" which is a block of metal with a threaded hole that you mill to fit the slot on your compound. If you don't have a mill, you can mount it in your 4-jaw chuck and turn the face so that instead of it looking like a t-nut, it looks like a large washer with a raised center. You will need more turning toolholders. I have 5 and that's not enough. Get several of the ones that are called "turning/boring" as they can be used for both and only cost $1 more. Steve ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "Joe R" jromasx~xxcolumbus.rr.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 7:21 am ((PST)) I have "AXA" or "100" QC toolpost holders on both my 9A and 10L southbend lathes and think they are fantastic. If you should decide to get one just get a couple of extra holders, the $9 ones. You will need to fit the "T" nut to your compound slot as they are generic and too big for most. Joe R ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "angelo4967" angelo4967x~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 7:27 am ((PST)) Thanks Steve: I just clicked on the link, takes you to cdcotools. There's a row of blue boxes across the page near the top, click on "machine tool toolings" then "lathe tooling" ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "angelo4967" angelo4967x~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 7:54 am ((PST)) >Thanks Joe: One more thing, does it take 3/8 tool bits? Sorry for the last question, just saw the specs on the site. 1/2 x 7/16 Angelo ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "budscarp" budscarpx~xxaol.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 9:51 am ((PST)) We just had a similar discussion in the South Bend group. Evidently the threads in the t-nut from the offshore factory are not drilled and tapped perpendicular to the t-nut and if you do not true it up when you machine it to fit your compound opening, it will bind the compound. Screw the t-nut onto the stud that came with it, chuck the stud up in the lathe, face off the bottom just until all of the corners have some metal removed and then do the necessary milling of the t-nut from that bottom surface which is now perpendicular to the mounting stud. When I first installed my offshore AXA I noticed that the compound would bind when I tightened the QCTP. Even just snugging up the nut would cause it to bind some. I never figured it out until last week when this subject was brought up in the other group and I followed their instructions and after facing off my t-nut, I found a difference of .0175 measuring the thickness from corner to corner from my previous machining. ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "PeterH5322" peterh5322x~xxrattlebrain.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 11:07 am ((PST)) The nuts on the two Asian QCTP systems I have purchased were both dead on. The first was a Phase II AX (that is, a piston type). The second was a Dayton (Grainger's house brand) AXA (that is, a wedge type). The stud which passes through the QCTP body is turned between centers. A center drill is left on the nut end, and there are usually one or two too few threads to completely engage the nut blank, which is extra large in every dimension. Chucking the stud and supporting the nut end with the tailstock, with the nut tightened as tightly as possible, one can use turning and facing operations on the lathe to correct any out-of-square condition in the nut, if it is truly out-of-square. I used this method with the Phase II QCTP as I then did not have access to a mill. With the second, I already had a nut which was factory made for the Hardinge TL to which the Dayton AXA was to be fitted, although the QCTP system the lathe came with was a KDK which was too small for my taste. I mounted the KDK's factory-made nut upside down in my drill press, so as to maintain square with the underside of the compound, and drilled it for an M14-1.50 using the closest fractional drill and then I tapped that nut in the drill press by hand. I had to face-off about 1/2 a thread from the stud. ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "angelo4967" angelo4967x~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 11:16 am ((PST)) Thanks for passing that info on. Be my luck, I probably would have cracked something. Angelo ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "n8as1x~xxaol.com" n8as1x~xxaol.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 7:08 pm ((PST)) my china AXA nut was also "dead nuts"...... .i am still trying to visualize how a T plate only bearing on front /rear /side wud bind up the compound ...possibly wreck the T slot if minimal bearing support & heavy intermittand cuts, but dont see how it cud twist & bind up dovetails or screw/nut ...no lever arm bearing ... best wishes docn8as ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 7:36 pm ((PST)) The Atlas compound slide is pretty flimsy. Especially if the nut was cut so the center bolt hits the bottom of the slot, it will warp the compound slide. Otherwise, you have to apply a LOT of force to the T slot, but if you tighten it enough, it surely will warp the slide and cause binding. If you get it that tight, you have to be treacherously close to cracking the casting. Jon ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "n8as1x~xxaol.com" n8as1x~xxaol.com Date: Fri Feb 1, 2008 8:08 pm ((PST)) yes that surely will ., & the compound IS light .....have to give some credit to atlas engineering ..they cud not have built that lathe any cheaper & still had a good functioning light lathe ...wards/logan sold for 1/2 again as much , & the SB was abt 3 x as much ....i did some less than scientific testing & my crftsmn 12 was as ridgid as wards logan 10 that i had.,(which some have said was more ridgid than the SB 10K , i never used one) & much handier...(speeds at which chatter occurred taking a cut w/ a wide tool bit edge)...my late model 12x36, new in 1974 has been a splendid home shop machine ....& FWIW , i have two 14 in lathes ., 1700# Reed & 2000+ # Monarch, well tooled,...but use the atlas 80% of the little time any of them now get.... still having trouble visualizing the force vectors that will twist even a light casting w/out the stud bearing on the bottom......not disputing the fact, just trying to see HOW !!!....maybe not following in my daddys footsteps (MIT) was a wise move....will sketch a bit, that usually helps!! best wishes doc ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com Date: Sat Feb 2, 2008 11:25 am ((PST)) > ......not disputing the fact ,just trying to see HOW !!! Yes, it is a little harder to see how it can warp the slide without hitting bottom, but the typical well-used top slide is quite marred and dinged, and the toolpost may not sit prfectly flat. I think a combination of rough surface and uneven contact plus a very strong clamping force could deliver enough forces to warp the whole thing. Jon ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "Jerry Freeman" jerryx~xxtcenet.net Date: Sat Feb 2, 2008 12:57 pm ((PST)) I checked the clamping nut on my quickchange toolpost and found the same thing. The threaded hole was considerably off perpendicular. I could see a huge amount daylight under one end when it was screwed tight to the bottom of the toolpost body (off the lathe). I faced it perpendicular as recommended and the daylight disappeared, showing a nice, tight fit. Since I couldn't use the quickchange toolpost to machine part of itself, this little project had the added benefit of getting me to sort through the tooling that came with the lathe and discover some nice lantern toolpost stuff I hadn't learned to use yet. (On the recommendation of this group, I bought a quickchange toolpost before I started using the lathe.) It has seemed that this quickchange toolpost wasn't very rigid, and I'm thinking perhaps the non-fit of the clamping nut with the top of the t-slot may have been the problem. Best wishes, Jerry ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "n8as1x~xxaol.com" n8as1x~xxaol.com Date: Sat Feb 2, 2008 3:27 pm ((PST)) jerryx~xxtcenet.net writes: > (On the recommendation of this group, I bought a quickchange toolpost > before I started using the lathe.) in many ways, it is unfortunate that the move to a quick change & running to the 3 jaw chuck & carbide bits is done too early in the learning curve .....whatever problem u r having, it seems like the immediate response is " get a quick change " rather than increase ur knowledge & skills...the lantern tool post served industry , never mind home shops, quite well for 150 years...that said : there are some ways to better utilize a lantern & some other options ........training ur eye to center a bit on the work is not all bad ,but if u turn over the rocker base so it is flat & then grind ur bits & set them at centerline u have a very ridgid setup, and u have some ability to center up by moving the bit in /out since it is angled in the holder for rake...now if u center up the bits in a 1/2 dozen holders w/ a overturned rocker base, u have a quick change of sorts... u must pay attention to setting the bit AWAY from the cut just a tad, so if there is any movement or tendency to dig in, the tool will swing away, rather then dig in & destroy the part ...there is space in the tool post tween holder & post so pushing holder against the side of the opening to furthest extent, as a habit, is advisable......there WILL be times when the lantern TP is the only thing that wont interfere, & the QC is unusable., although an angled openside holder will work ... i have some odd holders that i keep a riser with to just thro on the tool post ..& it goes quick ...if u grind ur buts from the front, u just pull it out a tad more each grind .... now ..open sided tool holders are maybe even more ridgid than QC ....just a block w/ a slot on side & hole in the center, bolted down w/ a tnut /plate ......u can make the slot angled or horizontal ...angled allows centering up w/ out shims, but it is tricky to get ht correct w/out bit sticking out too much ...u can make triangular ones for close to chuck, square ones for turret, double ones, whatever, ones to hold thrd tools, cut off tools, knurlers.......les than ten seconds & the nut is off, the block off & on w/ the new .....i use a 7/16 bolt so my lathe toolpost wrench fits, since it is always handy ... a "gooseneck" parting tool holder(flexes) makes things more pleasant ..abt eliminates digins ...armstrong series has an S in front of #'s.....i have a shop made one (very flexible) that i can put a 3/8 wide full width flat cutting face against a one inch bar & put a 60 deg point on by PLUNGE cutting at 145 rpm ..i can see it flexing 1/16 "no digging in"....if u end up w/ a large one, u can simply clamp it to the compound w/ the T bolt & a stndrd mill clamp ... re parting tool blade...a slight amt of back rake ground in a large radius & a V NOTCH in the face of the tool (can be done) really helps ...the v notch works by cutting away the sides of the cut before taking out the center thus keeping from jamming up w/ chips (the killer)..the center cut is then narrower than the blade... now after all that, a quick change is nice ...i put one on my monarch 14 in, & use it & the lantern, but still keep & prefer my openside holders on the cfrtsmn12x36 ... best wishes docn8as ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "Jerry Freeman" jerryx~xxtcenet.net Date: Sat Feb 2, 2008 7:59 pm ((PST)) Thanks for all that. Very helpful. When I got the lantern toolpost going, I was impressed. Simple, rigid, compact and versatile. I'm sure there will be times a lantern setup of some kind will be just what's needed to handle something that's awkward with the quickchange, so I'm delighted to have had occasion to discover them. Day before yesterday, I visited my friend down the road who has a welding shop. He showed me a drawer full of lathe bits and told me I could have all the steel ones, 'cause he only uses carbide. I've been a professional woodworker for about 30 years, so sharpening stuff is second nature. So far, I much prefer steel cutters, as they don't chip easily, it's not hard to keep them razor sharp, and I can play with various geometries until I figure out exactly what I want. I think I understand what you mean about moving to carbide, etc. too soon in the learning curve. Best wishes, Jerry ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "jerdalx~xxsbcglobal.net" jtiers Date: Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:37 pm ((PST)) > in many ways , it is unfortunate that the move to a quick change & > running to the 3 jaw chuck & carbide bits is done too early in the > learning curve.....whatever problem u r having , it seems like > the immediate response is " get a quick change " rather than increase > ur knowledge & skills...the lantern tool post served industry , never > mind home shops, quite well for 150 years... Yeah........ #1... Carbide is almost never necessary, particularly with Atlas. The lathes simply won't take a heavy cut at higher speeds, so carbide is not used to its best effect. Considering that the edge on carbide is DULL compared to properly sharpened HSS, it is doubly punishing to use carbide. Once in a while it pays..... Making some arbors out of 4140 pre-hardened, I was sharpening HSS every pass with fairly high speeds, deepish cuts and bright blue chips. Carbide lasted a lot longer. #2... I happen not to like lantern holders, although I have them for both of my lathes. (You ought to see the cute little 1" tall lantern post for the Boley. It has a similarly-sized 4-way block too.) But rather than going for a QC holder, I use a 4 way open-side holder. It seems to be quite solid, very adjustable, and handy. Since it has the sides cut at different depths so that each size of cutter presents its top surface on-center, it does NOT need the amount of wobbly "packing" that standard open-side holders normally do. Every so often I wonder if I might need a QC holder, but then I just keep using the 4 way block and it all seems fine. I have better uses for $400 than a QC and enough holders. Before you correct me and mention the low cost Phase II piston holders, I should mention that: 1) I prefer to buy better tools (they cost less), so I'd get a wedge type or nothing. 2) you might not have noticed I said "enough" holders, which is probably about a dozen. At $25 to $50 per each, they add up. JT ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "cuttysark71" cuttysark71x~xxyahoo.com Date: Sun Feb 3, 2008 7:54 am ((PST)) As I read Doc's reply, my first thought was "this is what makes this group so great". The collective experience of the members has to add up to thousands of years here!! Anyway, I've had my 101 12" since the mid 1970's. Bought it from the master I was studying under as an apprentice tool maker. I just bought a QC tool post last summer. I am very happy with it. That said, I will be using the lantern tool post that came with the machine for the rest of my life for many jobs that the QC just isn't the best tool for, or can't do. Take the time and learn from the masters, like Doc, that lantern tool post will become a real friend if you do. ------- Re: Tool Holder Posted by: "catboat15x~xxaol.com" Date: Sun Feb 3, 2008 12:22 pm ((PST)) No matter if your favorite machine is an Atlas, South Bend or Logan we mainly are hobby people and we should learn to use all types of tools and tool holders available. One thing to realize is that the published information for speeds and feeds is based on production work experience. The recommendations are the most economical compromise in turning out the most work with the least downtime for changing tools, rejected work, etc. and is a different environment than we see in our home shops. It is one thing if you want to produce 500 pieces of work each with some tight tolerance that is shown on a drawing; but another if you only want to make part B fit part A on a home hobby project. I like to build live steam engines and locomotives and one day I may be turning cast iron driving wheels that are stretching the capabilities of my 12 inch Atlas and the next day be faced with making 20 or so little brass tubing adapters for silver soldering on the necessary piping on a model. One day I may have the big tool block up on the compound with a carbide cutter to rough out cast iron wheels where that hard skin will tear up a HSS tool in a hurry, but when doing the little brass do-hickys I have the lantern tool post up and a HSS tool ground with no rake to cause a "dig in". Some of the material I use is from scrap metal places and some is useless being too hard or wanting to tear rather than cut cleanly under the tool. (Some of the cold rolled rod from the hardware store is useless for turning, it is full of cold seams etc.) So on our lathes there is no one "right" tool or tool holder. Just remember even our light duty machines can cut steel and metals and have no problem cutting skin and meat, so keep your watch and rings in your pocket and loose sleeves are a No No. Catching the end of a file (rusty or nice and new) on a chuck jaw can sure hurt you too. So think of what you are doing every time you turn on the lathe (or other machine tool) John Meacham from the high deserts of Calif 12 inch Atlas lathe, mini mill, HF band saw and a rusty file. ------- Re: New file uploaded to mlathemods [mlathemods group at Yahoo] Posted by: "James Early" j.w.earlyx~xxworldnet.att.net Date: Sun Mar 9, 2008 2:34 pm ((PDT)) "Marty N" wrote: > JWE: Thank you. I know how much trouble it is to do a detailed write up like that. The time, photos and all. It IS greatly appreciated. Marty < Watch mwmills later today for the first episode of moving an RF-30 mill/drill, one man, one VW, one trip 3 hours including lunch. Editing pictures now and the first group of the 18 I took will be up with commentary this veining and all 18 by tomorrow. Next week I will clean the mill up and put it back together. After that I will finish the documentation on the 9x tumbler reverse and the adaption of the Seig/LMS milling vice to work in the HF/Phase II Aloris AA/100 tool post clones. I have almost figured out a couple of other items that have been cooking for a few years including a new compound setup for both 7x and 9x that will rival the SB for rigidity and usability. I need this for solid operating of the milling slide with the tool post. JWE Long Beach, CA ------- Re: tool holder [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "catboat15x~xxaol.com" catboat15x~xxaol.com Date: Sun Mar 9, 2008 10:26 am ((PDT)) I don't know of any special vidios that pertain to the 618, but there are several places on the web that cover different lathes and tool shapes and tool grinding. The "block style" tool post is fine if you are turning the same kind of material all the time, but the "lantern" style is more versatile if not as sturdy as the block. Then there is what I call the English type which requires you to put some kind of packing material under the bit to bring the cutting edge to center height. (This has an advantage as some have provisions for four bits on one holder which is good for repeat work where you might want to change tools several times on one piece of stock. (Roughing, finish, part off...) I would not say any one style is best for all occasions, again it depends on just what kind of work you want to do on your lathe. Personally I generally keep the lantern style up on my lathe (that is what I learned on from the Atlas book) but keep a block style near by for parting off where the extra mass and sturdy construction pays off. One thing to remember is that the finish on your work will never be better than the finish on your tool bit so keep a nice Arkansas (or now, diamond) hone close by to smooth and polish your bits. When Sears or Atlas were selling the lathes they came with the lantern type of tool posts. Sears and Atlas also sold several varieties of the "armstrong" type tool holders that fit the lantern type tool post. Some presented the tool bit straight ahead for carbide insert tools while others had the tool bit hole set at an angle to give back clearance and the factory included grind on the bits provided front clearance. Personally, I like the Armstrong type holders in the lantern tool post because on any one project I may be turning steel, brass, aluminum or bronze and have a collection of the quarter inch square bits ground for the different materials and finish on whatever project I am playing with. But I do keep a "Block style" holder under the bench for parting off work where the extra stiffness and weight makes a big difference. Purchase one of the Atlas or Craftsman books titled "How to run a lathe" and there is a chapter on tool shapes for different materials and finishes. John Meacham from the high deserts of Calif 12 inch Atlas lathe, mini mill, HF band saw and a rusty file. ------- Re: tool holder Posted by: "kendall" merc2dogsx~xxhotmail.com Date: Sun Mar 9, 2008 11:48 pm ((PDT)) I also prefer the lantern style over the 4-way, was planning to buy a quick change because everyone says how nice they are, but after some serious comparison and inspection, I decided that they embody all the characteristics of the 4-way that I don't care for. With the lantern I can easily position the tool into some odd ball cutting position without having to make up a special toolbit, or holder to fit the block or QCTP I have my toolpost set up to be as solid as possible with a real t-nut to hold the lantern, and a few different solid 'rings' so I don't need the rocker part. Tool height adjusted by changing rings, or for easier cutting material, adjusting the bit in or out. The bigger t-nut itself added a great deal to the rigidity of the toolpost; getting rid of the rocker helped even more. The t-nut was cut to the exact dimensions of the slot, then filed and scraped to fit snug, and is wide enough that there's plenty of material all around the post. I have several blocks made up to fit various cutters, or to do specific jobs; boring blocks that with full width t-nuts effectively make the block and compound act as one solid unit. Some for smaller bars fit over the lantern with a lockbar to secure them. The way I have mine set up it seems to be more rigid than a 4-way, so I don't use the one I have (can't even find it now) and have no further desire to pick up a quick change, not in a production environment; so if it takes 20 seconds more to change tools it doesn't matter. Ken ------- Re: tool holder Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com Date: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:26 am ((PDT)) But, you are missing out on the BEST advantages of the QC. One is the one-touch height adjustment with the height adjustment wheel (nut), and the fact that it stays in place from one installation of the tool to the next. The other is the repeatable positioning of the tool in both X and Z axes. So, if you know you need to thread to 34 on the dial of your handwheel it will come out right at 34 every time. In other words, you can swap tools off and back on the toolpost with complete repeatability. If you need to make several parts the same size, and it takes a couple tools to make all the cuts on it (facing, turning, threading, for instance) you can do it all without measuring after the first one. You can loosen the nut on the top of the post and turn it to any position required. Usually you can find a compromise position that will enable all tools to set up in a good position. (I have been planning on making a reverse holder for triangular carbide inserts that should hold the tool at a slight angle with one flat face forward; you could use this to face left OR right as well as turn. I had an application for that some years ago and had to use two tools, so the QC came in handy. I made up a set of turret stops for the carriage and cross slide to index all the positions for these cuts. I mounted the work on an expanding mandrel and faced the rear side, turned a diameter, then faced a step in the diameter, turned the rest, and finally faced the front. Would have been really cool to do all that without a tool change.) Jon ------- Re: tool holder Posted by: "kendall" merc2dogsx~xxhotmail.com Date: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:41 pm ((PDT)) Jon Elson wrote: > If you don't use the rocker, which allows you to adjust top rake > of the tool, then you really have NO advantage with the rocker. > Of course, you have also eliminated the weakest link of the > rocker, so maybe it is good enough. Jon That's not really such a disadvantage, I grind my own tools so it works out all right. For some materials that take a 'special' grind, I spray paint the tool bit itself so it's easily identified. I've got some unknown stainless that would always wear the tool quickly to an odd shape; after a few tries with various geometries, I duplicated that shape with sharp edges and haven't had trouble with it since -- those are painted hot pink. Like I say I haven't actually used a quick change, so there are likely a LOT of advantages I've overlooked. But they do have all the things I dislike about the 4 way posts so I'm in no hurry to buy one. Been looking at the plans I've seen thinking I may build one to play with to see if I do like it, but I have enough gadgets set up for the rocker style that I'm in no hurry there either. Ken ------- Re: tool holder Posted by: "William Abernathy" williamx~xxinch.com Date: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:09 pm ((PDT)) > Like I say I haven't actually used a quick change, so there are > likely a LOT of advantages I've overlooked. Ken: There ARE a lot of advantages to the quick-change posts. They are more rigid than lanterns and require no shimming, as the four-way posts do. Best of all, no matter what weird shape of tool you grind, you can set it to be nuts-on accurate on center, take the holder out, replace it with another one, then plonk the first one back in with zero setup time. The four-way is great if you're doing a production run, but the setup time makes it lousy for short runs. I have all three types and use them all, though I'd say more than 90% of the time, I use the quick-change. I use the 4-way for boring, because that's the one I had when I made my boring bar holder (it's perfect: hold a block in the 4-way holder and set up a drill bit in the headstock; once you've drilled out the bore for the boring bar, you have a holder that's guaranteed on-center every time, with no shimming). I use the lantern when no other tool holder will reach -- sometimes it's the only way to get the tool into the work. I certainly am not about to get rid of any of them! William A. ------- Re: tool holder Posted by: "catboat15x~xxaol.com" catboat15x~xxaol.com Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:35 am ((PDT)) Everyone has made some good points on the advantages of various tool holders. But, as an old infantryman who trained at TIS (The Infantry School) at Fort Benning, GA I learned there is always one correct answer to any question. It depends on the situation and terrain, Sir. So, use whatever works for you at the time. John Meacham from the high deserts of Calif 12 inch Atlas lathe, mini mill, HF band saw and a rusty file. ------- Re: tool holder Posted by: "LouD31M066x~xxaol.com" Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:18 am ((PDT)) Not that I have any personal experience, but, I thought the correct answers were: a) Yes Sir b) No Sir c) No Excuse Sir d) Aye Aye Sir Louis ------- Just purchased a QCTP need advise [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Bill Libecap" Mr_Billx~xxmailcity.com Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:38 am ((PDT)) Hi all: I am relatively new here, I just purchased a QCTP and want some advice on the base. I realize it has to be cut down to fit the 12" craftsman T slot, but I was also wondering how critical is the fit and what tolerances should be used? I also have the milling adapter for the lathe and would appreciate any tips as how to mill this down to fit. Like is there a certain direction to feed the material? Do you need cutting Fluid? Anything that you think might help. Thanks Bill in Cincinnati ------- Re: Just purchased a QCTP need advise Posted by: "Gene Furr" gene-furrx~xxsbcglobal.net Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:31 pm ((PDT)) Bill you DON"T cut the QCTP to fit the t-slot. If I understand what you are saying the qctp sets on top of the t-slot and not down in it. So you can rotate the qctp from time to time. It sets on top and the bolt goes down to a t-nut that holds it. Gene ------- Re: Just purchased a QCTP need advise Posted by: "Michael Fagan" woodworker88x~xxgmail.com Date: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:28 pm ((PDT)) He means (or should mean) the tee nut that fits in the tee slot. It comes oversize from the manufacturer to fit many different lathes. It is usually milled down to size, since it is usually too thick as well as too wide (thus the "tee" designation), but if it fits in height already, you can cut and file it to size with a hacksaw or bandsaw. Once you loosen the central bolt of the QCTP, you've lost all your references as to position and angle, so the teenut is not essential to be a close fit. The closer you get, the better, because it will help prevent the QC post from shifting under heavy loads, but it isn't essential. ------- Re: Just purchased a QCTP need advise Posted by: "catboat15x~xxaol.com" Date: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:53 pm ((PDT)) Yes, the Tee Nut is oversized for the Atlas top slide. But not a big problem. I cut mine down by hand although I have one of those Chinese Milling machines. I cut mine to size by chain drilling and hacksaw. Not a big project. If you are not familiar with "chain drilling" it is done like this. Lay out the line you want to cut to, then (assume 1/4 inch chain drill) lay out a second line 1/8 inch further out. Punch marks on this line that are spaced 1/4 inch apart. Drill on each punch mark with a slightly smaller drill say 3/16 size. Then go back and open up every other hole to the 1/4 inch then the ones in between. Of course you end up with a "scalloped edge" on the tee nut, but so what, or file it nice and pretty. I would not recommend trying to mill it down directly using a lathe milling adapter. To me that is asking for problems. A drill chuck is not designed to hold something like an end mill and your cutter will "walk" out of the chuck. Even if you have an end mill holder and draw bar, milling on the lathe is pretty difficult. Even on a dedicated light milling machine you want to arrange your work so the cutter tries to push the work away from the cutter. I have heard it called "top" or "bottom" milling or "climb milling" but it is like using a wood router -- you don't want the cutter to pull into the work. That can be done and often is on heavy machines as it gives a better finish, but on our hobby machines you can strip gears, break cutters, learn new cuss words and all of the above. ------- Re: AXA Quick Change Tool Post Adaptation to 618 [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "anthrhodesx~xxaol.com" Date: Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:38 pm ((PDT)) Sun Apr 12, 2009, ajxnagyx~xxsbcglobal.net writes: > Has anyone adapted an AXA size QCTP to fit the 618? > If so, what did you do? AJ If you already have an AXA one of the issues is fouling on the hump on the compound slide. The mounting options are: Alter the QCTP to not foul the hump. Remove the hump from the compound slide. Elevate the QCTP with one or two fender washers which have one side clipped to avoid the hump. Only drawback to the third option is it raises the QCTP which may aggravate ability to get top of cutters down to center height of spindle. If you have not yet acquired your QCTP, you can now get smaller Aloris- style tool posts from Little Machine Shop and probably other sources in both piston and wedge styles. Probably worth considering. Anthony Berkeley, Calif. ------- Re: QCTP [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "jerdalx~xxsbcglobal.net" jtiers Date: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:46 pm ((PST)) "doc" wrote: > After rcvng your QC, hold on to the lantern t/post. there will be > times & PLACES where the QC has interference & you will need the > lantern t/post. > Most of the complaints abt lantern t/post are from inexperienced > operators who have not learned how to use it ,.viz, when cutting > off turn the rocker ring UPSIDE down for a flat surface & shim if > necessary .. now the tool will stay PUT, or make up a "doughnut" > to slip over the post to attain center height ..openside bolt down > toolblocks can also be used to hold bits for heavy cuts. Of course the QCTP and lantern are not the only types available. I have a 4 way type, with a different slot size on each side, so I can use almost any reasonable toolbit. It's ugly, it looks clumsy and dorky with the huge wingnut on top, but I find it ALWAYS has a way to get the job done. I still have the lantern, but never use it, because I can get it done with the clunky old 4-way. A couple pics of it in use. Tools go in from either side, and the different slots allow them to always be on-center if ground right. http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/0803/jstanley/?action=view&cur rent=newgear7.jpg http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/0803/jstanley/?action=view&cur rent=arb15la1.jpg JT ------- Aloris MA toolpost [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "borne2flyx~xxyahoo.com" Date: Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:11 pm ((PST)) Having used Aloris AXA, BXA, and CXA toolposts on bigger machines, I thought I might give the little MA a try on the 6" Atlas. But the MA is nothing like its big brothers. The first thing I noticed was that the mounting bolt does not pass through the center of the cam screw, it is offset. In fact, it is offset enough that you are quite limited with the positioning of the toolpost on the compound. I don't know how much the Atlas compound castings vary, but on mine the top flats of the compound jaws are not the highest part of the compound, the unmachined body of the compound sticks up another 0.1" or so. Machining this level with the top of the jaws would cure the problem but leave the compound casting alarmingly thin in that area. Another solution would be to shim up the toolpost but now you cannot use 3/8 toolbits, and maybe not even 5/16 toolbits, since the height adjustment screws will not allow the toolholders to drop below the bottom of the post. The second thing I discovered was that the travel of the gib seemed limited and rough. I thought something was stuck inside so I took it apart for a look. This turned out to be a bit of a trick ..... there is a retaining screw in the side that has to first be removed, and behind that is what looks like a small shifting fork that traps the cam screw in place. That too, has to be removed (rap that side on the table a few times 'till it drops out). At this point you would expect that by turning the screw, the gib would just move out, but no. It jammed. The trick was to hold the gib around the middle of its travel while removing the screw out the bottom. Apparently the cam screw sits perfectly perpendicular in the housing, while the gib (and consequently the threads cut into it) move at a slight angle. As you might imagine, this can only go on for a small distance until the threads start to bind! I guess Aloris has calculated that the toolholders will be at the bottom of their height adjustment before this happens, and in fact that appears to be the case. It makes disassembly/assembly a bit tedious, but now that I understand what is going on, it actually works very well. I love that it locks very securely with very little tightening of the screw. No need to "crank on it" at all, in fact a light touch is more than enough. Third thing I noticed was that the tools rocked slightly in the tool- holders when the allens were tightened. Ok, these are strange holders ... two allens at one end, and two at the opposite end but on the "upside-down" side. It was meant to hold a tool at each end, flip the holder upside down to swap tools. But .... there were burrs on all the allen holes where they entered the tool cavity. So if you try using a regular toolbit that runs the length of the holder, it would be sitting on one of these burrs. Easy enough to grind them down. Next, I found out the cavity was not properly square! Seems to be hardened steel, not sure I want to risk running a cutter through it to square it up. It's a solid little unit and I enjoy using it now that I know its quirks. Is it worth the money? In my opinion, hell no. But my experience has been that none of the toolposts under the AXA size are anything like the quality of the AXA. I do like it much better than the A2Z and slightly better than the Tormach (which could be improved dramatically if they bothered to machine the gibs properly), so yes I'm gonna keep it :) ------- CDCO 'BXA' Quick-Change Tool Post [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "BERNARD POKORSKI" calchuckx~xxprodigy.net Date: Fri Jan 1, 2010 10:09 am ((PST)) Hi, Having procrastinated (again) and missed the deadline for ordering a quick-change tool post from Enco during their November 2009 sale, I recently ordered one from CDCO. I bought their 'BXA' QTCP for my early 1950's vintage 12 X 36 Atlas Craftsman lathe: http://www.cdcotools.com/index.php The "AXA" QCTP is for a 9-12" lathe, while the 'BXA" is for a 10-15" lathe. I figured 'bigger is always better', right? The price difference between the two is nominal. It arrived here last Tuesday, and I was a bit surprised by the weight of the box: 20 lbs. Preliminary fit up on the lathe's compound rest shows that it should work okay. Some mill work will be required to reduce the size of the QCTP's 'shoe' and a slight reduction in O.D. on the QCTP's center stud (5/8" dia.) where it passes through the slot on the compound rest should be all that's needed. A photo showing the QCTP: http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2214463870074179466othgRl With no prior experience with a metal lathe or bench top drilling/milling machine, I seized the opportunity in June of 2008 when a former co-worker of mine phoned me about his father-in-law's (FIL's) passing. Over the years that we worked together, Richard always told me that he would be calling me when his FIL passed away. In the FIL's estate was the A/C lathe and "King Midas" drilling/milling machine (1988 Taiwan import). I made an offer for the two pieces of equipment, it was accepted, and a few days later, made the 350-mile round trip to pick them up. I've been getting to know the machines slowly, while reading everything that I can find out about home shop machining. I've already done some simple fabrication using the lathe, and I'm just now learning that the mill will require a good-quality machine vise. Regarding the mill, I'm thinking that (with no prior experience) it might be wise for me to start out milling some of the hard wax that is sold for making prototypes. Happy New Year! Regards, Bernie....A Little Bit South of Grass Valley, CA ------- Re: CDCO 'BXA' Quick-Change Tool Post Posted by: "Rick Sparber" rgsparberx~xxaol.com Date: Fri Jan 1, 2010 11:43 am ((PST)) Bernard, I seem to be a half step ahead of you. I own a 1964 12 x 24 Atlas Craftsman lathe. A few weeks ago I bought the BXA QCTP from Enco. I found that the 5/8" dia. bolt fits with maybe 0.01" to spare. I did have to cut the "shoe" (T nut) way down to make it fit. It is essential that this machining is accurate or you can get the tapped hole off center and it won't fit into the compound. When done, that "shoe" looks like an up-side-down T. The QCTP is massive and has greatly improved the finish I get. It will be a problem if I have to turn large diameters so will keep my old lantern tool post. Since you are a "newbie", you might find some value in my web site: http://rick.sparber.org/ma.htm Most of this stuff is related to milling but I do have a few articles on using my lathe. I also have a section on casting if you want to get really crazy: http://rick.sparber.org/fd.htm I would not bother with milling wax although you might find value in practicing on MDF. MDF is also great for supporting stock that must be side milled. The important thing is to make lots of chips and have fun. Rick ------- Re: CDCO 'BXA' Quick-Change Tool Post Posted by: "PeterH" peterh5322x~xxrattlebrain.com Date: Sat Jan 2, 2010 7:50 am ((PST)) On Jan 2, 2010, Rexarino wrote: > The AXA is a perfect size for the Craftsman 12", and the difference in > rigidity from the lantern tool holder is awesome! A BXA is really more suitable for a lathe which is closer to 15". On a 10" lathe, an AXA is even a push, as with many 10" lathes 1/2" tooling is impossible unless and until about 3/32" has been removed from the underside of the turn/facer holder. The other holders don't need to be modified, unless you want to use the knurling holder for a turn/face holder as well. For an 11" lathe, an AXA may not need this modification. ------- Re: CDCO 'BXA' Quick-Change Tool Post Posted by: "Joe R" jromasx~xxcolumbus.rr.com Date: Sat Jan 2, 2010 8:27 am ((PST)) I found the AXA size a good fit on my son's A/C 12", and both my 9A and 10L (heavy 10) South Bends. I got all my AXA tool posts on sale for under $100 but that has been a year or three. lol Joe R. ------- QCTP on an Atlas Craftsmen 12" x 24" Posted by: "Rick Sparber" rgsparberx~xxaol.com Date: Sun Jan 3, 2010 6:21 pm ((PST)) In case anyone is curious what a BXA size QCTP looks like on a 12" x 24", you can see it here: http://rick.sparber.org/QCTP.pdf Rick ------- Re: QCTP on an Atlas Craftsmen 12" x 24" Posted by: "Rick Sparber" rgsparberx~xxaol.com Date: Sun Jan 3, 2010 7:09 pm ((PST)) "PeterH" peterh5322x~xxrattlebrain.com wrote: > The AXA size uses a 14mm post. > If I were going to install a BXA on an Atlas or similar small Logan, > I would reduce the diameter of the post at the bottom to 14mm. If it hadn't fit, I would have done that too. Rick ------- Re: QCTP on an Atlas Craftsmen 12" x 24" Posted by: "Joe R" jromasx~xxcolumbus.rr.com Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 4:31 am ((PST)) While we're on QCTP's it was pointed out on another board that the hole in the "T" nut for the stud is not always perpendicular, and can cause such problems as breaking the edge of the compound or causing the lever on the QCTP to bind. Just another thing to check. Joe ------- Re: QCTP on an Atlas Craftsmen 12" x 24" Posted by: "PeterH" peterh5322x~xxrattlebrain.com Date: Mon Jan 4, 2010 9:27 am ((PST)) On Jan 4, 2010, at 4:31 AM, Joe R wrote: > While were on QCTP's it was pointed out on another board that the hole > in the "T" nut for stud is not always perpindicular and can cause such > problems as breaking the edge of the compound tocausing the lever > on QCTP to bind. The T-nut doesn't have to be made by milling or shaping operations. It can be made by turning and facing operations, exclusively. And, when done using only T/F operations, it is guaranteed to be perpendicular to the stud. Center-drill the bottom end of the stud and support the bottom end that way. For a lathe the size of the machines in question, you probably won't get into the area where interrupted cuts are required. Mark-out and saw the semi-finished stud/nut by hand or machine. Finish the sawn edges on an abrasive finishing machine or by hand using a file. This approach is particularly good for the BXA-on-a-too-small-lathe case, as the bottom part of the stud may be undercut as part of the turning process. When completed, the nut can be left slightly under-tight and retained using Loc-Tite. This can also compensate for an out-of-plumb condition. Apply the Loc-Tite and tighten the top nut, thereby forcing the assembly into plumb. If undercutting is indeed necessary, the undercut can be done after Loc-Titing. I suppose there are cases where Loc-Tite would not be a good idea. I have a Hardinge TL (a late '30s to early '50s toolroom lathe) which was originally fitted for a KDK QCTP, a model 00, which is KDK's smallest. The KDK-supplied T-nut had the hole for the stud towards the end of the T-nut because the 00 system is quite small. Actually too small, as it requires a 0.500" spacer in order to raise the tool to on-center. This allowed the very center of this same nut to be used for an AXA system, which I acquired later. Actually, it was an AXA-clone made overseas for Grainger, and was picked up on ePrey when Grainger axed this particular line from its inventory. Functionally equivalent to a Phase II wedge type, but at less than half the Phase II price. Somewhat better build quality than Phase II. When Grainger axed those sets, wedge- and piston-types were going for the same price, and they had them in all sizes up to at least the CA size. A very decent QCTP at an exceptionally competitive price. ------- Re: Tool holder T nut [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "jmartin957x~xxaol.com" Date: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:31 am ((PST)) In a message dated 2/24/10, scubanarcx~xxgmail.com writes: > Notice that the tool holder is not standard. It was made by a machinist friend. The biggest problem that I have with it is you have no z axis adjustment and the tools sit slightly below center. I don't know if it is fixable or if I should just spring for a real quickchange. Really appreciate anything you can say about this. - jason < If you are one of those machinists who feel that they haven't really "arrived" until they have a quick change toolpost, then by all means buy one. In my opinion, though, the toolpost you have is just as good if not better. Now, I'll admit that the quick change toolposts have some advantages. You can easily adjust the cutting height of a bit holder, and when you return it to the toolpost it will be the same. For a production job involving multiple identical parts, you can note the positions of the feed dials and cut to dimension after swapping holders. Or, you can adjust the bits in the holders to cut to dimension at the same feed position, but that's a lot of work and not justified unless you're making a lot of parts. Finally, if the quick change toolpost is set at 90 degrees to the lathe spindle, it will remain there unless you move it or swing the compound. You'll hear a lot of discussion about the merits of the piston-type vs. wedge-type toolposts. Why do you think that is? It's because people feel that the other type lacks rigidity. You already have in the Atlas lathe enough slop that the toolpost won't matter much, so it's not really a big deal. The toolpost that your machinist friend made is - if he did a good job on it - absolutely rock solid. You shim the bits to get them cutting at center height. It's quick, and if you need to change bits you can keep the shims with it. Or, you can do as I have done and make up additional toolposts that you can swap just about as fast as changing a holder on a quick change toolpost. Two four-sided tool blocks equal eight bits, and you won't need much more than that. In fact, you'll often find that the bit you just used for turning will face off your workpiece if you swing it a bit, or chamfer it if you swing it the other way. Or that the bit you just used for boring will put a nice chamfer on the bore if you swing it. I've long thought that being exactly at center height was overrated, anyway. On a small diameter, it matters. Facing or cutting off right to the center, it matters - although you may leave a small tit anyway. But on most larger work, if you're reasonably close you'll be fine. Ask your machinist friend - the one who made the toolpost - if he thinks you need a quick change. Others may, and I'm sure will, disagree with what I've written. Listen to everyone, and decide for yourself. John Martin -------