This is just one of some 80 files about machining and metalworking and useful workshop subjects that can be read at: http://www.janellestudio.com/metal/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ Here 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 many additional files on my home page Machining and Metalworking at Home http://www.janellestudio.com/metal/index.html SAFETY WARNING BEWARE: DO NOT ASSUME that any subject matter or procedure or process is safe or correct or appropriate just because it was mentioned in a news/user group or was included in these files or on this site or on any other web site or was published in a magazine or book or video. Working with metals and machinery and chemicals and electrical equipment is inherently dangerous. Wear safety devices and clothing as appropriate. Remove watches, rings, and jewellery -- and secure or remove loose clothing -- before operating any machine. Read, understand and follow the latest operating procedures and safety instructions provided by the manufacturer of your machine or tool or product. If you do not have those most recent official instructions, acquire a copy through the manufacturer before operating or using their product. Where the company no longer exists, use the appropriate news or user group to locate an official copy. Be careful -- original instructions may not meet current safety standards. Updated safety information and operating instructions may also be available through a local club, a local professional in the trade, a local business, or an appropriate government agency. In every case, use your common sense before beginning or taking the next step; and do not proceed if you have any questions or doubts about any procedure, or the safety of any procedure. Follow all laws and codes, and employ certified or licenced professionals as required by those laws or codes. Hazardous tasks beyond your competence or expertise should also be contracted to professionals. Let's be really careful out there. (c) Copyright 2003 - 2015 Machining and Metalworking at Home The form of the collected work in this text file (including editing, additions, and notes) is copyrighted and this file is not to be reproduced by any means, including electronic, without written permission except for strictly personal use. ========================================================================== 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 at 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 parallel 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 http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=42806 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 isn't 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 horsepower 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 too 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 fo 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 ------- Re: Tool post suggestions ? [MyMyford] Posted by: "grampys2002" d.wainx~xxsympatico.ca Date: Wed May 23, 2007 3:29 pm ((PDT)) "David Morrow" wrote: > I searched the archives as I assumed that this had been discussed many > times already but couldn't quite find the answers that I need. > I'm just setting up my new to me Myford Super 7. It has the original > tool holder which I can't get very excited about. It looks like the > only way to adjust the height of the cutter is with a shim. I'd like > some sort of adjustable tool holder. I'm not too keen on making my own > just yet. In high school, we learned on a South Bend 9 and it had what > I think is called a "lantern post" which I really like. I have the > tool holders that would fit one of those. > I think I fall into the category of just enough knowledge to be > dangerous so I'd like to sort this issue out first before the machine > or I get hurt :) > Any suggestions ? Hi, seems the quick change tool post is the most recommended, can any one suggest a supplier that sells a quality tool. Here in Canada we have a supplier called Busy Bee who sell off shore manufactured tools. This month they have a QCTP on sale for $29.99 including one tool holder whch are on sale for $10.00 each. Seems cheap but are they any good? Has any one bought from BB. Dave ------- Re: Tool post suggestions ? Posted by: "Jim Pike" jimpikex~xxshaw.ca Date: Wed May 23, 2007 5:37 pm ((PDT)) I've bought (Workshop Practices series books and odds and sods) from Busy Bee in Vancouver and they are fine to deal with. Don't know about the QCTP tool post though. I'm thinking along the lines of the clones of the Myford -Dixon (sp?) QCTP sold by RDG and others on e-Bay. I'm guessing a $29.99 tool post can't be the same or similar design to that one, but without looking at it, who knows? I'm inclined to think it's guilty until proven innocent. Jim ------- Re: Tool post suggestions ? Posted by: "IAN BARKER" ian.barkerx~xxbtinternet.com Date: Fri May 25, 2007 10:28 pm ((PDT)) The tool post that you are looking at is a clone but it's not in the same family!( it may be related to Bill Gates but it's from the poor end of the family).The tool holder are much smaller and to release them you have use an Allan key to release the clamp bolt on the side. Once set up they work well but do not hold the tool with the same vigour as Dixson. I have one of the cheaper ones on my S7B which have given good service for the light work it is used for and the bigger one on my Colchester but with this one I found it had to be space lifted to get the height right. But the old adage must still apply YOU GETS WHAT YOU PAYS FOR the Dixson ain't cheap and with second hand you may find the snails have been over pulled. Ian barker ------- Re: Tool post suggestions ? Posted by: "simondaykin2005" simonx~xxbyte-sized.com Date: Sat May 26, 2007 7:07 am ((PDT)) I am using the RDG Quick-Change Toolpost and am impressed with the quality of the body and holders. I did change out the cap-head screws that came with it for some decent ones. The ones that came with it were *very* poor quality. ------- Aloris toolpost [MyMyford] Posted by: "hierophylus" hierophylusx~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:46 pm ((PDT)) I have chance to acquire a Aloris quick change tool post. I am a relative novice. I know there are plenty of other options. Anyone have any experience putting one on a S7.? The actual post mounts with a T bolt to the cross slide. Presumably would have to ditch the Top slide? The attraction are the many things that can be attached to it.(possibly). Thanks Nick ------- Re: Aloris toolpost Posted by: "Thomas Staubo" thstaubox~xxonline.no Date: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:43 pm ((PDT)) I have also wanted to get a QCTP for my ML7, and an Aloris (clone) would be ideal. Partly because it's relatively easy to make custom tool holder from scratch, because of the dovetail construction (in contrast to the Dixon type among others). The only problem regarding the Aloris (AXA) type, is getting the tool holders low enough. I have been wondering if an easy way out is to cut off about 6-7mm from the bottom of all the tool holders. Is a mill the only real option for doing this task? This would leave about 5mm "lip" left, see image here: http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=qctpcutoffwg7.jpg One should be able to use 10mm (3/8") tools in the holder, by this method. The dimension from top of the top slide, to center height is a tad over 16mm (about 16.2mm I think). Then there is the possibility of making a QCTP from scratch. Omnipost type (Mason), Groz type or the one designed by John Stevenson. But the problem here for me, is that I don't have a milling machine yet. Thomas Norway ------- Re: Aloris toolpost Posted by: "Norman Atkinson" normanx~xxn-atkinson.wanadoo.co.uk Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:38 am ((PDT)) This top slide question? I cannot see what all the questions are about. If one looks at the history of the ML7 and indeed the S7, it should be noted that both lathes had rear tool posts fitted to the saddles as an optional extra. Again, Martin Cleeve writing back in the 50's put two swing tool holders directly on the saddle of his ML7 whilst Tubal Cain (Tom Walshaw) has his Gibraltar tool holder. The swing tool holder has been re-introduced by Hemingwaykits and I believe the Tubal Cain casting is still about. The foregoing is not exhaustive as I have a Cleeve fabricated rear tool post, a Thomas one and drawings for a fabricated from four way Cleeve one. What is the problem? Chaddock of quorn fame and Cleeve had milling blocks direct onto the saddle of a Drummond and a ML7 respectively. We seem incapable of using the knowldge already established Norm ------- 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 ------- [Actually a request for a suggested adjustable tool post for a Myford.] New member [MyMyford] Posted by: "ianjones2003" jonesx~xxbeckermet3.freeserve.co.uk Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:46 pm ((PDT)) Hello everyone. My name is Ian Jones and I've been a member for a month or so to get a feel for the group and while waiting to collect my ML7. I got it today so I thought it was about time I introduced myself. My main interest is vintage/classic motorcycles and the ML7 will be mainly used to produce small parts for these - mostly items like bushes, spacers and imperial fasteners. I do all my own maintenance but up to now have relied on others for machining. The ML7 I've bought is number 11193 which from what I understand is a fairly early one (1950 ish?). It looks to be in pretty good condition as regards wear etc but we'll see how it goes. No doubt I'll be back for advice! I'm going to bench mount it in my workshop so am going to make a drip tray, which will also spread the load. The bench is a very strong wooden one. Any thoughts? It has what looks like the original toolpost fitted. I was thinking of treating myself to an adjustable height quick change tool post as a first investment. RDG tools do one for £60. http://www.rdgtools.co.uk/acatalog/MYFORD_LATHE_USERS_NEW1.html Any experience of it or of RDG as a company? Regards Ian ------- Re: New member Posted by: "Ken Strauss" ken.straussx~xxsympatico.ca Date: Sun Aug 12, 2007 4:16 pm ((PDT)) I've had good results with RDG. Their rear tool post and holders for the Dickson QCTP seem of decent quality considering the price. ------- Re: New member Posted by: "gerry waclawiak" gerrywacx~xxhotmail.co.uk Date: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:56 am ((PDT)) Hi Ian, I run a Warco 7/12 mini-lathe (couldn't run to a Myford unfortunately) and have sourced quite a few bits and pieces from RDG over the past few years, mostly from their stands at various shows and calling into their retail shop which is not too far from me. I have always found them to provide decent quality and value tools and have not had any problems with service. On the odd occasion I have had a problem they have sorted or replaced without quibble. I was seriously considering their QCTP at the recent Harrogate ME Exhibition it looked very good quality and value Gerry Leeds ------- Re: New member Posted by: "Norman Atkinson" normanx~xxn-atkinson.wanadoo.co.uk Date: Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:52 am ((PDT)) Ok, I have a QCTP but quite frankly, as soon as I have time, I am going to change my set up to a 100% George Thomas 4 way tool post. OK, I will have to make it as I doubt that the Hemmingway kit doesn't exist any more. I have the GHT rear tool post which is inverted and have had every success.It does fit the ML7 as well as the S7B. Probably this is a sort of more refined approach as it really moves into fancy tool grinding. The Hemingway kit for the rear one continues but both can be made from solid. Way back, GHT discussed all this and I would commend his Model Engineers Workshop Manual which contains notes and plans. Having said that, Jack Radford went for the QCTP but made them all himself. Both guys are eminently readable -- and were great friends Norm ------- Re: Myford ML2 maybe ML4 [MyMyford] Posted by: "gordon_frnch" gordon-frenchx~xxnetzero.net Date: Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:47 am ((PST)) "Fred Roberts" wrote: > I'm using a Diamond tool holder. I am very pleased with it. While it doesn't do everything, it is a very useful item for day to day use on common jobs. Mine uses 1/4" HSS. You buy the size to suit your machine. Cheers Fred < I too, have Diamond tool holders (two sizes) and like them very much. But others swear at them rather than by them. Where possible I would buy the tools if the owner is truly upset by them. But so far no one has sold them out. The are easy to sharpen, set, and will, when sharpened and set remove lots of material without complaint. It is also easy to see if the tool needs sharpening. The smaller size can be equipped with a round piece of 1/8 inch HSS and sharpened and set like square stock provides almost perfect "finishing" cuts or nice rounded shoulders. Gordon, Roseburg, USA ------- Re: Quick change tool post [MyMyford] Posted by: "David Forsyth" notLeftBehindx~xxiwr.ru.ac.za Date: Tue Jan 1, 2008 8:31 am ((PST)) nodroggwl wrote: > Happy New Year to everyone. > Ive been looking at QTP for my ML7 and Ragalan Little John and have > come to the conculsion that it would be easier and cheaper to > manufacture my own, as I wish to have the tool blocks aready set up > and being able to use on either lathe without any adjustment to centre > height. So basically is there any designs or drawing avaiable to > manufacture a QTP. I have seen J Stevensons designs on the net. Did > Harold Hall publish a design of his tool post, if so wish issue or > book is it in. Depends what you want. if you just want a quick 'change', then you can use the simple design I made from a foto. http://iwr.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/lathe/toolpost.html or the original design at http://steammachine.com/hercus/page6.html If you want quick 'set' which implies that the position of the tool (not just height) is retained, you need to make one of the dovetail style posts. I've not needed this but your life may vary, quick height adjustment is the critical part of changing tools, to me. David http://iwr.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/ ------- Re: Quick change tool post Posted by: "furkaoberalp" a.websterx~xxsympatico.ca Date: Tue Jan 1, 2008 1:14 pm ((PST)) Gordon, I have got the Myford Dickson system on my new lathe and have used it on others. While very well built and the repeatability is exemplary, it is not terribly quick in changing and can be rather fiddly. It is also a honking big mass of metal in the way of small work being turned but it certainly has its uses. RDG is flogging a Dickson rip-off for UKP51. I am told it is hardened and ground and really good for the money. The price is such that making a system might be more a labour of love than economy. Despite the Dickson unit I am leaning towards a simple 4-tool tool box, maybe with an indexing pin and plunger on a plate, all clamped in the regular tool post. Really quick and simple, with four tools instantly available. I was planning on making the one in the Sparey book, but maybe I'll get and modify several tool boxes from a so-called 7 by 10 'Mini- Lathe'. I had such a machine until getting the S7. I recall these boxes being sold as spares by Harbour Freight (or some other) very cheap, as in US$10 or thereabouts. The box, just a slotted chunk of steel with grub screws, seems very easily adapted and could be switched between my Myford and Pools. The thought of Chinese parts atop my S7 normally chills my blood, except as in this case when it's just a chunk of steel that someone saved me trouble sawing, facing, milling, and tapping. The screws need replacing with decent ones because they will be too soft, and the give-away blackening needs to be removed. Hope this is useful. Andrew ------- Re: Quick change tool post Posted by: "gordon lamb" nodroggwlx~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Mon Jan 7, 2008 4:24 am ((PST)) Hi Andrew, thanks for the reply and sorry about the late response from this end, but week of 12hr night shifts and jobs to gain brownie points. Have worked machines with Dickson type holders and it's that type I'm thinking of. The reasoning behind manufacturing one is that I have an ML7 and also a 5" Raglan Little John, so my way of thinking is that any tool set up in a holder could be used on either lathe without any adjustment, at the moment I have 4 way tool post on each lathe and the tool I'm wanting to use is normally set up on the other, the other choose is double up on tooling. Have looked at the RDG QTP but these would require some modification and the price is X2 so that was another reason. The other possibility just come to mind reading your mail is to make or purchase four way holder and set up to allow being moved from machine to machine without altering the centre height, this would probably be the easier and cheaper option. So thanks for the mail and food for thought. Regards Gordon ------- 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"\ 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: Tool post [MyMyford] Posted by: "tr0up" a.troupx~xxemail.com Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 6:07 pm ((PDT)) "the_iliad26" wrote: > Can some one tell me what the thread is on the the tool post main > stud. Thanks If anyone's thinking of making up a toolpost stud and/or nut, it's worth bearing in mind these get a really hard time, and it's worth using something fairly decent by way of material. When I did so I used 4140 for the nut and 4340 for the stud, and hardened and tempered them both. The fit of the thread remained virtually unaffected. The only thing I ground was the flats on the nut, mainly to make a nice looking job - I'm sure if I'd milled them to final size before hardening the functional result would have been just as good. If you're hardening medium-high alloy steel like this, make sure you take it right up to a temperature (fairly bright red) where shimmering pools can be seen on the surface as though it's about to melt (don't panic, it's not). Hold it for a few minutes at this temperature. Some say hold it longer so the transformation is complete, others say that the surface will absorb too much carbon if you don't quench immediately, so I try to steer a middle ground. To make a spanner which could be left permanently in place, I bought a fairly tall, rather nice looking black heavy-walled socket (Powerbuilt 18mm, hex rather than 12 point), and cross drilled it with a carbide drill, a very close fit for a sliding crossbar out of chromed rod, which was then flattened at the ends. Looks good, but more importantly works a treat: I normally leave the crossbar 'middled' unless in use. If it's in the way (hardly ever - it's only 125mm long total), it can be slid to one end; if it's still in the way I lift the socket and turn it 60 deg either way and drop it back on. ------- Dickson tool post for Myford [MyMyford] Posted by: "the_two_yorkies" mrantosx~xxhotmail.com Date: Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:09 pm ((PST)) I have a variety of tool holders for a Dickson tool post, but no tool post! Anyone have an idea where I could buy just the post in the U.S. and also how to determine the size to specify? Seems most of the industrial supply places in the U.S. carry Aloris, Dorian, etc. which I don't think are compatible. Any hints out there? Thanks in advance. Tom ------- Re: Dickson tool post for Myford Posted by: "Ken Strauss" ken.straussx~xxsympatico.ca Date: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:16 pm ((PST)) The Aloris and Dorian types are definitely not compatible with the Dickson holders. I don't think that you will find a US source but compatible holders are readily available in the UK. You can get a post and four holders for less than $100. One can never have too many holders! Look at RDG http://www.rdgtools.co.uk item 7253498T ------- Re: Dickson tool post for Myford Posted by: "chris parr" chrsparrx~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:06 pm ((PST)) Hello Tom, The Dickson tool post is made by 'Pratt Burnerd International' 600 group and is still production; here are some details Name/E-mail which may help you. 1) 600 Group Equipment Ltd 5220 General Road Mississauga, Ontario L4W lG8 Canada E-mail Vheydenx~xx600mtc.com 2) USA & Mexico Leon Weill s.a. AV. Coyoacan No.1153,Col.Del Valle 0321 Mexico E-mail mreynaudx~xxleonweill.com.mx All the best from the UK Chris ------- Re: Dickson tool post for Myford Posted by: "Nishant Jain" nishufix~xxyahoo.com Date: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:54 pm ((PST)) Hi Tom, You may try http://www.brassandtool.com in U.S. for your Myford lathe tools. ------- Re: Dickson tool post for Myford Posted by: "Ken Strauss" ken.straussx~xxsympatico.ca Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:30 am ((PST)) If you mean their "GTP-T37 $ 165" that is made by Garvin (the supplier for RDG) and almost twice the RDG price.. ------- Re: Dickson tool post for Myford Posted by: "tomservo_9504" tomservo_9504x~xxyahoo.com Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:47 pm ((PST)) The Aloris/PhaseII/etc type toolposts are not compatible with the Dickson, but if cost is an issue, the Phase II AXA/100 toolposts are often sold for $89 at enco with 5 holders. You have but to remove the myford toolpost stud/nut and tap the hole M14-1.25 (I think it is? I have the tap at home). The stud that comes with the Phase II toolposts is a shade tall and you'll just have to sandwich in a thick washer or two to clamp down. The only other modification required is to grind or mill the dovetails down a bit so the toolholders will slide down far enough to work. I milled down one toolholder's bottom entirely so I can angle the toolpost if required. The holders are hardened, so grinding may be your better option if you don't have heavy duty carbide endmills. The common carbide endmills for aluminum WILL NOT WORK (to my chagrin!). ------- Re: Dickson tool post for Myford Posted by: "Ed Jordan" edjordanx~xxeastlink.ca Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 10:53 am ((PST)) I have found an excellent quick change tool post for the Myford from a US supplier who makes a system for several of the small lathes, but has specific parts for the Myford. The trade name is OmniPost and the website is www.krfcompany.com Hope this is of interest. Ed Jordan Lunenburg NS ------- Re: Dickson tool post for Myford Posted by: "Rich Dean" toolman8x~xxcopper.net Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:19 pm ((PST)) Ed, that is very similar to home made designs from long ago. I built one for a Maximat7 I once had. Omni has an added feature of a sort of indexing method. I'm not so sure that will be a plus because you have no way of adjusting between index positions except to shift the tool in the holder. Not so with the Dickson or any dovetail type. The Dickson fits the Myford right out of the box for immediate use. No special bolts or changing the built in post. The holders can be copied without too much trouble. :-)) Also, you will see the note at Omni about limited space on the Myford. That is a real problem with such a high top slide. The serrated clamp plate limits the lower tool holder shelf thickness that is thin as it is. Using just the post tube and nut, no index plate, would seem to be workable. RichD ------- QCTP for myford ML7 [MyMyford] Posted by: "robert177129" bobmeadx~xxbtinternet.com Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:39 pm ((PST)) I have just finished making a QCTP as outlined on the mini lathe workshop site http://homepage3.nifty.com/amigos/qctp/qctp-e.htm A slight modification here and there and only cost me £7 in materials from local metal dealers and enough to make 11 tool holders. I can use it on my ml7 and by inserting a spacer shim I can use it on my BV20 lathe as well with no other adjustments to the tool holders. The site has drawings and a series of photographic projects. I am well pleased with it, has anyone else made similar ? Regards Bob ------- Re: QCTP for myford ML7 Posted by: "Rich Dean" toolman8x~xxcopper.net Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:26 pm ((PST)) Bob and all, see this web site for what I built and a link to more info. http://iwr.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/lathe/toolpost.html RichD ------- Re: QCTP for myford ML7 Posted by: "robert177129" bobmeadx~xxbtinternet.com Date: Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:47 pm ((PST)) I have seen your project during my general trawling of the net and thought it very interesting and inventive. They take a while to make but you get a good feeling making your own. Plus you save a fortune on the manufactured items which leaves more money for beer which is nice!! Regards Bob ------- Re: QCTP for myford ML7 Posted by: "pinocsnail" brian.fletcherx~xxstofanet.dk Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:29 am ((PST)) Bob, I was about to write something about Makoto Ishimura's website when I re-read your notice about the QCTP on the MyMyford page. I haven't actually made one but I have made a tailstock die holder and a boring head, though many years ago. For those who haven't seen the website, I can strongly recommend it for the excellent photographs and the even more excellent lathe and mill accessories pictured in great detail with drawings. There are also references to technical books such as the Special Interest Model Books and others from which he derived the original plans. The links are also worth looking at. Brian ------- Re: QCTP for myford ML7 Posted by: "robert177129" bobmeadx~xxbtinternet.com Date: Mon Dec 29, 2008 2:10 pm ((PST)) Hello Brian I am going to make the knurler attachment next. I have made a number of various holders so far and was thinking of a knurler I have plans for one that fits on the rear of the cross slide, but I think it will be easier to make the one on Ishimura's website as I already have the QCTP. I would recommend anyone to have a go, after all you can only lose is a few quids' worth of metal and some time. If I can do it anyone can. It was my first turning project on my Myford and I really like using it. It's like driving a classic car. Regards Bob ------- Diamond tool holder [MyMyford] Posted by: "David Wain" d.wainx~xxxplornet.com Date: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:42 pm ((PST)) Hi. I am considering buying a diamond tool holder for a ML7 and was wondering if anyone on the forum was using one and what their experience might be? It seems to me that it would cut down on tool grinding etc. and since the front and side clearance angles are preset it would save a lot of fiddling around. It is expensive so any input would be appreciated. Thanks David ------- Re: Diamond tool holder Posted by: "Ian Newman" ian_newx~xxyahoo.com Date: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:43 pm ((PST)) Hi David, The "Diamond" tool holder is a design concept that has been around for years (it is usually called a tangential tool holder - you will get loads of hits if you search this term). They are very simple to make - don't waste your money on buying one. Because the tool is in compression rather than bending the whole setup is much more rigid than a conventional tool holder and so you get better cutting as a result. It is worth using for this reason alone - the easier tool sharpening and height adjusting are a bonus. Ian ------- Re: Diamond tool holder Posted by: "youra_windsor" yourax~xxgloubiboulga.org Date: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:46 am ((PST)) Hi David. I bought one (used on an ML10, and my Lorch AVI, it has to be said, but the principle holds....), and I think it's fab, particularly as I find the whole grinding the right clearance angles thing very difficult. Of course, as Ian has pointed out, these things are not TOO hard to make, but my usual approach is to decide if I'd rather spend the time making 'stuff' rather than making tools for making stuff, and in this case, I saved the time and spent the money. HTH, Youra ------- Re: Diamond tool holder Posted by: "c.j.s." callinicus1953x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:57 am ((PST)) Hi David. The Tangential tool is well worth having, the good comments are no hype. They certainly are not a new idea, the oldst reference I have found is 1885, but I cannot understand why they are not more widely known. I don't know why you would want to spend a small fortune on buying one, they are so easy to make. Do a bit of googling and you will find plans that you can follow or modify to your needs. Having said that, even if you really can't make one, and you still have some christmas money left over, you will not regret buying one. I use mine for perhaps 80% of my turning, whether I am turning stainless, brass, steel, plastic, ally or even titanium. Of course you can't remove metal at "industrial" rates, like you can with carbide, but then we are using Myfords. At the ME show at Ascut we were happily taking 4mm depth of cuts on a big bore Super7, is that industrial rate? One viewer wanted the coil of swarf as a souvenir as "he had never seen one like it before" takes all sorts! About your shafting, it is likely to be unleaded EN1 or EN3, ie nothing special. cjs ------- Re: Diamond tool holder Posted by: "Tony Jeffree" tonyx~xxjeffree.co.uk Date: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:55 am ((PST)) David - There's a simple design on this page that shows how to mod a QC tool holder; also links to other designs. Easy to make one with a few minutes of simple milling. http://www.gadgetbuilder.com/ToolHolders.html Regards, Tony ------- Re: Diamond tool holder Posted by: "duncanwebster" duncan.webster2x~xxntlworld.com Date: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:44 am ((PST)) I bought one, and it's very useful for doing little fiddly jobs, but it has a lot of overhang, so is possibly best suited to light cuts, or don't use it in a QC toolpost. Another disadvantage with a QC toolpost is that it has to be angled round to do a facing cut, so you then need to reset it for normal tooling. Be warned that the price quoted on the web, which is expensive enough, is not the end of the story. The good old GPO will try to charge you import duty, which is fair enough, but on top of that there is a humungous handling charge, something like £20. I told them to stick it, and that seemed to throw the system into confusion to the extent that they left the parcel with me and I still haven't paid. You might not get away with this! If I'd known what I know now I probably wouldn't have bought it. I've just had a look at the gadget builder site, and might actually be tempted to make one to that design once I work out how to download the drawings. ------- Re: Diamond tool holder Posted by: "Norman Atkinson" ravensworth2674x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:12 am ((PST)) I keep 'humming and harring' about them. I, too, had it as 'Favourite'. There was, however, a lot of correspondence earlier about the change of tool angle (perhaps MEW) for different diameters. So I left Euclid, Pythagoras and Archimedes to decompose! I went into my little wooden shed, fished the Kennet out of hibernation and didn't even true the wheel. A few licks and I could see my grubby fingers reflected in the embryo ganged gear blanks which I am making for the knackered S7 Box. There is a point to ponder here. If one cannot sharpen a conventional lathe tool, it follows that a tangential one will be just as rough. Am I right? HSM has some other grumpy old sod telling the newcomer to improve his sharpening abilities. Norman ------- Re: Diamond tool holder Posted by: "Ian Newman" ian_newx~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:04 am ((PST)) Hi Norman, I think the sharpening issue is not the main point. Anyone arguing about this aspect as the deciding factor is missing the major benefit of the system - increased tool rigidity. I would regard the second big benefit to be the ease of tool height adjustment, but this may not be the case if you compare the device to a QCTP. My other tool holding is done in a four way tool post with the tool bits shimmed up to centre height so I find the simplicity of the tangential tool holder very attractive. Regarding sharpening, I have a simple jig - a piece of thick plate clamped to the rest on my bench grinder. The plate has a groove filed in it angled in two dimensions so the tool is presented at a consistent angle for dressing. Ian ------- Re: Diamond tool holder Posted by: "Ian Newman" ian_newx~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:32 am ((PST)) Hi, It is worth taking a look at the "industrial" grade tangential tool holders. Rather than being in the form of an adapter that fits between the tool and a QCTP, these devices mount directly onto the cross slide in the place of the QCTP making them very rigid structures. The first one of these tool holders that I saw was of this form, and mounted the tool bit in a carrier that could be adjusted vertically by a screw (similar to the height adjuster on a QCTP carrier) and this gave very quick, simple and precise control over the tool tip height. The down side of this was that the whole assembly was quite large and would be much too big to fit on a small "hobby" size lathe. Ian ------- Re: Quick change toolpost [MyMyford] Posted by: "Keith New" keithx~xxbritfix70054.waitrose.com Date: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:07 pm ((PST)) "jim.cozens" wrote: > Hi, I've just aquired an ML7 and would like to replace the standard > toolpost with a quick change one. Anyone got an opinion on what's > best value for money? Regards, Jim Jim, Try RDG : http://www.rdgtools.co.uk/acatalog/QUICKCHANGE_TOOLPOST.html I got one for my Super 7 with parting tool holder, a couple of standard holders and a boring bar holder. I bought a few extra standard holders at the same time. You will find then that you can have a range of tools already set up pretty much at centre height. Makes life easier. 2 things you will encounter when you come to put it into action. a. You will find the centre hole is at best a tight fit over the standard mounting bolt and may not fit at all. You either reduce the bolt or find some way of easing the hole to make it fit. See previous posts. b. the standard holder will be just a fraction too high at its lowest point to allow you to centre unground 10mm HSS tool steel or 10mm throwaway tool holders, so use 8mm ones instead. See previous posts for this as well. Best of luck Keith ------- Re: Quick change toolpost Posted by: "tomservo_9504" tomservo_9504x~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:52 pm ((PST)) Jim, I used a Phase II AXA quick change toolpost on my ML7 - the only drawback is you need to trim the dovetails a bit on the holders so they can drop far enough to hit centerline. There are ways you could avoid that, but I didn't want to make any new holes on my topslide. Other than the extra work, they are wonderful acessories. www.cdcotools.com has the holders for ludicrously low prices and sells the kit (post and 5 holders) for $82! I'll warn you though, the steel they're made out of is tough stuff (4340 maybe?) and if you want to mill the dovetails down, you will need a carbide endmill - Co-HSS cries in agony on this stuff. They grind just fine, though, and I did that for a few of mine on the big grinder at work. A bit more work, perhaps (you'll also have to remove the toolpost stud from your topslide, and tap that hole in some metric size - 14x1.25 or summat) but the tapping won't interfere with reverting to the original toolpost if you so choose. There are other options to tapping the topslide, but it's the one I chose. I also used a flycutter to flatten the slide but mine's a '50 so it was a wee bit worn. The nice thing about the "AXA" style toolposts is the holders are common, cheap and easy to get, and if you've got more than one lathe you can swap em around. Lever activated, etc. Also pretty easy to make yourself if you want a special sort. ------- Re: Quick change toolpost Posted by: "robert177129" bobmeadx~xxbtinternet.com Date: Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:58 pm ((PST)) Hello Jim Why not make one. I made a set recently from the plans on this website. Good drawing and lots of pictures. My set cost around £7.00 ?? Have a look see. Regards Bob http://homepage3.nifty.com/amigos/qctp/qctp-e.htm ------- 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 ------- Diamond tool holder! [myfordlathes] Posted by: "Lee" seaco33x~xxgmail.com lseacombe Date: Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:11 pm ((PDT)) Hi all. Does anyone know where I can get a plan on exactly how to make a Diamond Tool Holder / Tangential Toolholder for my Super 7. I have seen a few pics but so far no real explanations? Lee ------- Re: Diamond tool holder! Posted by: "earl eschete" dkftr1971x~xxyahoo.com dkftr1971 Date: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:18 am ((PDT)) Lee, check Model Engineers' Workshop, number156, Autumn 2009 for a construction article. I have been using a purchased one for sometime now and have found few problems. Earl ------- Re: Diamond tool holder! Posted by: "earl eschete" dkftr1971x~xxyahoo.com dkftr1971 Date: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:32 pm ((PDT)) >Hi Earl. Unfortunately I don't have that issue. Lee, you might try the publisher,My Hobby Store, LTD, their address is www.model-engineer.co.uk I have purchased single issues in the past (previous publisher). I live in the US and had no problems with the transactions. It just took a little extra time. The phone nmber for back issues is 0844 848 8822 Best of luck, Earl ------- Re: Diamond tool holder! Posted by: "dnaman43" mevagissyx~xxgmail.com dnaman43 Date: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:51 pm ((PDT)) Or you could go to the Model Engineer website at: http://www.model-engineer.co.uk/ and subscribe to the digital issues and/or digital archive and have access to all copies of MEW back to issue 1 (a veritable gold-mine). ------- Re: Diamond tool holder! Posted by: "c j.s" callinicus1953x~xxyahoo.co.uk callinicus1953 Date: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:38 pm ((PDT)) Hi Lee, Have a look at http://www.gadgetbuilder.com/ToolHolders.html#Tangent Not specific to Myford but might give you a clue. cj(UK) ------- Re: Atlas 10 Compound Rest [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Glenn N" sleykinx~xxcharter.net Date: Sun May 16, 2010 4:56 pm ((PDT)) "VBrannick" wrote: > Recently purchased a QCTP from L.M.S. Mounting it on the Compound Rest, it seats without interference from the domed casting only one way. Is the conventional wisdom to file/mill the QCTP or the Compound casting? Thanks. Vince B. < The QCTP fits the flat top compound fine but on the humpy one you need a bar with a hole in it to raise it above the hump. If you cut the toolpost then there is a good chance the hump will interfere with the tool holders in some positions. I would not use a washer as it would be too small for the full footprint of the toolpost. ------- [How to make your own turret tool post.] Re: New to group [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Dean" deanwx~xxbmi.net Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:51 pm ((PDT)) > So far I still need some 3/16" tool holders and a cut off. > I have some 1/4" tool holders but they won't fit. Warren, you can make a regular turret tool post in an afternoon, and you won't have to worry about finding tool holders for the 3/16" tool bits. It consists of a simple square piece of steel with two or four slots cut in it to take the size of tool bits you like. A few tapped holes, and a clamping block to hold it to the compound, and that's about it. Here's one I made for my 618: http://www.deansphotographica.com/machining/atlas/ER25/15.jpg You can make it with only a lathe and drill press. If you have a mill, it will be even easier. Very solid. Just cut your slots for the tool bits in the correct place. You can do that on the lathe. Dean ------- [atlas_craftsman] Re: Compound or Milling attachment pins and home made toolposts. Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:45 am ((PDT)) On 7/31/2010, Scott Henion wrote: > I am making a 2-way toolpost and writing it up on my web site. > Will show the steps to do it without a milling attachment. The description of how the two tool posts were made can be seen here: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman-12x36/toolpost.shtml Scott Scott G. Henion Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 ------- Re: re home made toolposts. Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:14 pm ((PDT)) On 7/31/2010, wheezer wrote: > Scott, Great Instructive pixs...thanks. Thanks, enjoyed doing it. Used to be a real pain as my camera eats batteries (Minolta's were famous for short battery life.) Now got new ones that seem to handle it so I don't miss a lot waiting for batts to charge. ;) Hmm, seems I spend more time making tooling than doing real work on the lathe. I now have a roll-around tool chest under the lathe to keep all the tools/accessories ;) > Do you notice any chatter using the 6061 rather than a steel block for > the holder? If no, That will be my next project. lance Chatter is a problem using the milling attachment. I need to remove a shim from the back carriage. Also, the cross slide is used way back where 1/3 is hanging off the back . Doing the tool post, it did not chatter any more than steel. It will grab if doing a climbing direction pass. However, doing regular milling produces a lousy finish when using a mill on a sideways cut. The shavings stick to the bit and embed themselves in the back side. I just do a real light climbing pass as the last pass. You can hear it getting sloppy. Easy to slow down and stay smooth. The cast iron was tricky; as you advanced it suddenly would chatter, no warning if you went too fast. 12L14 was nice ;) I do set the gibbs annoyingly tight when milling. 6061 can cut like butter or chatter like crazy. A lot depends on direction. I try to use the end of the mills for cutting. The first cut where you go deeper on each pass works great. The last passes that you use the side of the mill to widen the slot need to be done slowly. Too fast and the cutter clogs up. You see this when drilling aluminum, the bit gets full of chips and suddenly gets real tight. Tapping aluminum is also a pain. 1 turn forward, 3/4 turn back. Go too far and it will get tighter no matter which way you turn it. Use a drill a few thou over and it is much easier. I like 6061 as it is cheap. Most steel is cold-rolled and turns horribly. 12L14 turns nice but is soft and seems to rust. Good steel is expensive. I see a lot of aluminum cutoffs on ebay. Nice thing about aluminum is shipping is cheaper. My collet chuck is made of 6061, works great. For toolposts, the 6061 will be fine (low grades would be too soft.) It turns real nice and stays nice with only a slight oxidation. I made a tool holder for my AXA out of the same bar. Was a bear with a single-flute dovetail cutter. Milling attachment kept coming loose (was part of the worn pin issue.) Yes, a purist would use tool steel. I like stainless as it is a decent compromise of strength and and does not rust much. I had a 109 lathe (yes, I still regret that choice.) I picked up an A2Z QCTP. It was an order of magnitude better than the tiny lantern post. It is made of 6061-T6 aluminum. I could forget to tighten the lock and it still would not chatter. Holders were real tight fit. It was much stronger than the 109. Only problem was don't over tighten the lock, it would mar the aluminum and the holder would be a bear to get off. For things like a toolpost, 6xxx aluminum is nice and fine for these light lathes. Scott G. Henion Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 ------- Re: tool holder [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "David Beierl" dbeierlx~xxattglobal.net Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:37 pm ((PDT)) At 09:40 PM 7/30/2010 Friday, Dean wrote: >A tool holder 2" square won't fit on the compound >slide. Sorry. The distance from the center of the clamping slot to >the edge of the "bump" on the casting is less than 1". At least, it >won't fit on the 618 lathe I have. With a big fat spacer under it to clear the bump it will. Only useful if the tool height is adjustable, of course. Otherwise, you could relieve the corners. I keep meaning to see if that bump does anything useful or is just cosmetic...I could live with a little less beauty. Yours, David Beierl -- Providence RI USA Atlas 618 6"/3/index.html" lathe ca. 1941, shiny-new Taig mill. ------- adjusting tool height [atlas_craftsman Posted by: "Greg" gmx~xxdrgregmoore.com Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:16 pm ((PST)) I am new to machining, have a small Craftsman lathe. Old type tool holder (not QCTP). My question is: how do I adjust the height of the tip of the cutting tool? Do I need shims of some type to put under the tool holder before I clamp it down? Thanks for helping this (ignorant) newbie. ------- Re: adjusting tool height Posted by: "jmartin957x~xxaol.com" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 4:38 pm ((PST)) If by "old type tool holder" you mean a lantern toolpost, it is usually used with a semi-circular rocker and spherical washer which allow you to angle the cutter up to put it on center. You can hold large bits directly in the toolpost, or smaller bits in Armstrong-type tool holders. Of course, angling the bit using the rocker and a tool holder may result in a rake angle you're not happy with, so you may have to grind the top of the bit accordingly. Don't obsess with getting the bit exactly at center height. For small diameters, threading, or parting off without leaving a nub, it is important. For most work, if you're close you are probably fine. Try it and see. John Martin ------- Re: adjusting tool height Posted by: "c_h_a_r_t_n_y" mgibsonx~xxstny.rr.com Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 5:04 pm ((PST)) Re to Greg: Someone else noted you need a rocker to fit the cup. I have that but do not use the rocker any more. I have a selection of flat washers that I put under the tool holder, thus it is level and I use the extension of the bit for fine tuning. I got a bunch of brass ones at a surplus place for not much. I then used a 3 jaw with outside jaws and faced to different thicknesses. I sawed an opening in one side to make them a horseshoe shape so I can slip them in and out without much effort. Works just fine. Happy turning. chart ------- Re: adjusting tool height Posted by: "Greg" gmx~xxdrgregmoore.com Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 5:50 am ((PST)) thanks for the advice. Yes I have the lantern tool post w/ armstrong holders, but I don't think it has the rocker base. Also, I was worried about what that does to the rake angle. I will try the washers. greg ------- Re: adjusting tool height Posted by: "Steve" skadsmx~xxgmail.com Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 5:27 am ((PST)) In order to determine the height, I keep a 6" ruler handy. Put the ruler between the bit and the work and move the tool into the ruler with the cross slide. If the top of the ruler tilts away from you, the tool is too high. If it tips towards you, it's too low. Surprisingly effective and cheap. If I'm using a boring bar, I put the bar behind the work and run it into the outside of the work from behind. Note that the direction of tilt will be reversed. Steve ------- Re: adjusting tool height Posted by: "c_h_a_r_t_n_y" mgibsonx~xxstny.rr.com Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 11:11 am ((PST)) Re to Steve. As to measuring height, I turned a spool of aluminum about an inch in dia to 3.00" long. Drilled and tapped one end, drilled the other to stay on a peg on my wall. I put a flag on the end that is threaded that sticks out about 1.5" with a screw in the spool. That allows it to reach out to the bit when it is not handy to measure from the ways, like in between ways. Works fine, easy to make, easy to misplace. chart ------- Re: adjusting tool height Posted by: "c_h_a_r_t_n_y" mgibsonx~xxstny.rr.com Date: Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:47 am ((PST)) "Greg" wrote: > Thanks for the hints on how to tell if you are at the proper height, but I am wondering how to lift the bit to the proper height- so far I hear either using a rocker (which changes the rake angle) or some kind of shim or washer under the tool holder. Is this correct? < I put a Photo in albums up just now. Look at the most recent. Shows my shim washers, or part of them and one in use with my tool bit height gage. Fine tuning can be done with bit extension, but I like to keep the bit very close. The washers arrangement is much more rugged than a rocker and it lets me use my 6 existing holders. I faced the washers to different thicknesses in a 3 jaw with outside jaws and a spacer washer to get them just inside the jaws so I could face them. Flea market special on the holders, do not need them all but they were a box of stuff, some junk, some good holders. Brass washers were sold by the pound at the surplus store. chart -------- Re: adjusting tool height Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:51 pm ((PST)) traditionally, a concave base plate which supports a convex rocker provides the adjustment to achieve centering ...thick washers & no rocker set up, or reversing the base plate, & no rocker is way more stable (ridgid).....even better are solid blocks bolted to compound w/ a retaining plate under the T & a bolt w/ a slot on the side. shim if necessary & a couple grub screws on top to lock up the tool bit (opensided tool block )....slot can be milled, shaped, slotted, or hacksawed (multiple cuts & finished w/ cold chisel & file...)..also EDM cut ... these blocks can be single sided, up to 4 sided turrets & can be changed near as quickly as as a commercial quick change system FWIW ..a single side at 60deg will get in areas that a quick change or turret cannot ..as well as will a lantern tool post ...so don't scrap yours if you opt for another system ..you WILL need it if you progress much ....i use openside tool blocks on 6 & 12 inch crftsmn, and a lantern tool post w/ THICK washers on monarch 14 in. (I had not thought about slotting them till the recent post, thanks) the quick change i HAD to have sits in the box on the end of bed most times... I may be just "onry" & reactionary best wishes docn8as ------- Quick change tool posts [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "rohls1950x~xxbellsouth.net" rohls1950x~xxbellsouth.net Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:18 pm ((PST)) I would like to hear, from any member, what size quick change tool post they have on their 12 inch lathe. I am considering purchasing an AXA size QC toolpost. Has any one installed a BXA, and what are the advantages of the larger toolpost? ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "Glenn N" sleykinx~xxcharter.net Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:20 pm ((PST)) I have the AXA on my 12" and it is just right. ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "William Abernathy" williamx~xxinch.com Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:39 pm ((PST)) The group consensus is that BXA is too big for these lathes. Stick with AXA ("Series 100"). Works fine; cheaper, too. William Abernathy Berkeley, CA http://yourwritereditor.com ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "Art Eckstein" art.ecksteinx~xxwirelesshometown.com Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:13 pm ((PST)) I put an AXA and it fit very well! ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "Rick Sparber" rgsparberx~xxaol.com Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:18 pm ((PST)) Glenn, I put a BXA on my 12" A/C because it cost less than an AXA. It works fine. Here are a few details: http://rick.sparber.org/QCTP.pdf Rick ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "PeterH" peterh5322x~xxrattlebrain.com Date: Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:09 pm ((PST)) A BXA's dovetail is only slightly wider than an AXA's. Of course, the BXA's post is significantly taller than an AXA's, but that difference is not significant as long as the holders themselves are not too tall. And, a too tall holder can often be adapted to a smaller machine by milling the underside of the holders. Usually, only the turn/ face holder needs to be so milled. The remaining holders in a set usually do not require such milling. And, anyway, such milling is only required on a maximum-sized tool, such as 1/2" on an AXA. For 3/8", 5/16" and 1/4" are fine on an AXA. On my Logan 820 a nominally 10 x 24 machine, my turn/face holders have had the underside milled by 3/32", thereby allowing for about 3/64" clearance, when used with 1/2" tools. I have done this to my #16 indexable holder as well. ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "Fred1900" fred1900x~xxyahoo.com Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:47 am ((PST)) Try LittleMachineShop.com, they sometimes have good deal on the tool holders that go on the AXA toolposts. Fred19 ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "Lawrence Sciortino" las1940x~xxcomcast.net Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:43 pm ((PST)) I believe you will find either size satisfactory, because 12" swing is within the adjustable toolholder height range of both AXA and BXA sizes. I prefer the BXA size on my 12" Craftsman Atlas. I have an AXA Aloris as well, and keep it on a 10" lathe, but have used it on the 12" a few times. The difference and advantage with the BXA is that it does everything that the AXA does for your lathe, plus the following two advantages: the holders will hold tool shanks of greater dimension, and more importantly, imo, the greater mass of the BXA toolpost adds to the solidity of toolholding (i.e. less vibration, smoother cuts) which we are always striving to improve especially on our light weight machines. Larry ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:33 pm ((PST)) I have a Phase II AXA and have no problems with it. It can hold 1/2" shank cutters and see no need to hold anything bigger. I would think bigger would be more of a pain using small cutters. I use a small one when I need to use a custom tool for things like cutting a u-shaped o-ring groove. It also takes up more space making it harder to work around. I don't see it adding rigidity; both the AXA and BXA are stronger than the carriage, slides and bed. Scott G. Henion Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:59 pm ((PST)) AMEN !!!.....grind a number of 1/2 & larger bits as i did for my 16 & 20 in shapers & you will soon appreciate the atlas crftsmn 1/4 in bits ..they cost significantly less, sometimes 1/2 , as well ..even the 3/8 bits for my monarch are a pain by comparison & after 50 + years , i am fairly proficient at manually grinding bits.. as for form tools , when large ones are needed, it is a simple matter to T bolt clamp them w/ packing as the Brits do .you will be taking lite cuts at very lo speeds.....having a treasure store of large tool bits may be the only reason i see to opt for the BXA size ...when i used an AXA, QC, there were still not a few instances when i reverted to lantern tool post becaus of QC interference,,,i surely did not want a larger presence. best wishes docn8as ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "Lawrence Sciortino" las1940x~xxcomcast.net Date: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:23 pm ((PST)) Hi Scott, I use larger shanked cutting tools because I have a lot of them, and sometimes one of them may be shaped as needed for a particular cut. I also occasionally use tools with shanks as small a 1/4", as the case may call for. My point was that with the larger capacity holder of the BXA compared to AXA, one can still use tiny tools, as well as some that won't fit in an AXA holder. As to your comment that a tool holder is "stronger" than the carriage and lathe bed, I'm not sure what you mean. In any case, strength was not my point when referring to mass. When a component is more massive, it is physically more difficult to move. When that component is part of a tool holding system, such as the tool post of a QC, it will resist chatter better, the greater its mass. If you have ever wondered why industrial machine tools have such heavy castings compared to hobby tools, that is the primary reason. If you can afford it, massiveness is good in mills, lathes, etc., from the tool holder all the way to the shop floor. I do not think that an AXA on a 12" Craftsman/Atlas is a mistake, it is a very fine way to hold tools when compared to a 4 way turret or a lantern post, but the question was whether members had opinions as to which of the 2 sizes was preferred. You may prefer the AXA, I prefer the BXA - so long as the lathe size will accommodate it, and the 12" Craftsman/Atlas will. Happy turning, Larry ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "xlch58x~xxswbell.net" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:59 am ((PST)) On 12/15/2010, Lawrence Sciortino wrote: > Hi Tim, If the T-nut is too large, that's great, because > you won't even have to acquire a piece of metal, simply trim down the > one you have to fit your slot. If you have a mill, it's a snap. If > not, a milling attachment on your lathe will handle that size job. > If neither, you can ask a friend or commercial machinist to do it for > you. If you are in a remote area with no reasonable facilities, I'll > do it for you, just email me off-group and we'll set it up - no charge. Doesn't anybody know how to operate a file anymore? The bottom and the sides of the T-Nut do not require any great degree of accuracy -- only the top faces require a modicum of accuracy to insure the forces generated by the nut are evenly spread, but before you go crazy there, inspect the bottom face of the slot to get an idea of the accuracy required. It is entertaining reading this list for many years now how many folks freeze up when faced with the t-nut issue. In the past I have recommended everything from a beltsander or file to doublestick tape on the sole of your boot and a long walk. It's just not that big an issue. Just because we have machines that can be accurate to a thou or less does not mean every job has to be. Charles ------- Bah! Humbug! (was Quick change tool posts) [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "James Walther" indianfourriderx~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:53 pm ((PST)) RIGHT ON! before I got my AC 12x36 just a couple of years ago most of the metal-working activity in my shop (garage) involved a hacksaw, files and a Dremel tool. (Yeah, and I walked 5 miles to school - uphill both ways...) I really like the two-sided tape and a long walk! I've made workable t-nuts with a Horror Fright angle grinder and a cutoff wheel. Rant aside, it was very kind of the member to offer his services. Having a friend with equipment and know-how is almost as good as having the stuff oneself - sometimes better! So Ho! Ho! Ho! and belated Mazel Tov, Good Kwanza and anything else I missed! ------- Re: Bah! Humbug! (was Quick change tool posts) Posted by: "Joe R" jromasx~xxcolumbus.rr.com Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:28 pm ((PST)) James and Charles: A proper fitting T nut is very important. If its "legs" of the T that fit under the lips of the compound slot are not flat, the uneven forces can break the edges of the compound. My South Bend 9A compound has a very professional repair by a former owner/operator. That said I once saw a post about turning the a T nut on a lathe, then using a hacksaw to trim the two sides so they fit the slot. Joe ------- Re: Bah! Humbug! (was Quick change tool posts) Posted by: "xlch58x~xxswbell.net" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:13 pm ((PST)) Joe: I re-read my post. I stated that the only faces that are critical are the top faces, and even then the forces are supposed to be entirely compressive so an error there would be hard pressed to cause a failure of the compound - any error there should result in bending stress on the hold down bolt and a failure at the top thread. I believe that you would really have to have a significant difference in the two sides of the nut to create enough of a lever to break the t-slot. Dollars to donuts your compound was busted not by an ill fitting t-nut but by a too long hold down bolt that someone in ignorance, stupidity or some combination of those two tightened to the point that it pried the t-slot lip off. No matter how perfectly milled your nut is, it can't protect you from that. A proper hold down bolt thread will not be capable of extending below the t-nut, so it is best to thread the bolt in the t-nut tight and grind/file it flush when your t-nut fits. By the way, on my earlier post, I didn't mean to chastise Larry -- his offer to another list member was generous. I was just reacting to this common issue. People attracted to machining as a hobby tend to be predisposed to overthinking things in my experience. As a flaw it beats underthinking them. Charles ------- Re: Bah! Humbug! (was Quick change tool posts) Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:06 pm ((PST)) >Doesn't anybody know how to operate a file anymore? ....Just because >we have machines that can be accurate to a thou or less does not mean >every job has to be FWIW ....a number of years ago i mentored an airforce reserve major, a fighter pilot, on riflesmithing ...he had originally enllisted in air force as a mechanic.......he was afraid of the grinder, used a file like sandpaper & broke every blade using a hacksaw....i KNOW he must have had physical abilities to have ended up a fighter pilot ..i asked WHAT did you do in the air force as a mechanic...he replied " i exchanged parts". best wishes docn8as ------- Re: Bah! Humbug! (was Quick change tool posts) Posted by: "jerdalx~xxsbcglobal.net" Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:04 pm ((PST)) Eh.......... I have made a number of t-nuts with a file and hacksaw ... AKA the "Armstrong" milling machine. Back when I didn't even have a milling attachment. I did use a drillpress to drill the hole ... but I own 4 kinds of hand powered drill, and am looking for a 5th (Cole drill) ... even a hand powered drill press. I made a block lathe toolholder with the Armstrong milling machine ... that was quite a bit of work. Any more I'd not do that, one of the mills will do the job quite well, thank you very much. JT ------- Re: Quick change tool posts Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com Date: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:26 pm ((PST)) > Doesn't anybody know how to operate a file anymore? The bottom and the > sides of the T-Nut do not require any great degree of accuracy Well, if you are a total brute, that might not be much work. I'm a pretty wiry guy, and so THAT much filing would seriously wear me out! Now, four cuts with a bandsaw and then some clean-up with a file might be a VERY quick way of dealing with it. As I recall the last time I did this, this stuff was not dead soft mild steel, but some pretty tough stuff. Jon ------- NOTE TO FILE: There are frequent discussions in all these groups about the different styles of toolholders, and their strengths/weaknesses. If you follow the links in this next message, you will find detailed instructions to make a very effective tool holder. [The links also lead to an interesting lathe restoration project, with ideas and warnings that may save you a lot of money some day.] ------- Re: Tool post change/advantages of QC for Atlas 12"?? [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "mf205i" mf205ix~xxyahoo.com Date: Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:14 pm ((PST)) I like a tool post style resembling a simplified version of this one http://steammachine.com/hercus/page6.html http://members.optusnet.com.au/clear1/hercus/article1.jpg and http://members.optusnet.com.au/clear1/hercus/article2.jpg If you keep it simple, these are very practical and as only two critical dimensions need to be met, post OD and block ID, they are very easy to make. If you use HSS be sure to throw in 8-10 degrees or so of back rake into the tool blocks. I have been using this style of tool post for a couple of years now and they have performed perfectly. So, super easy to make and no mill is needed, rock solid performance, great part visibility, quick tool changes and I really like the ability to swing the tool to any angle I want. I made a set for a 10-inch Atlas that I got for the kids, but after testing it on my old 14 inch Monarch, it also got a post. I now share the blocks between the lathes. I would suggest that you make your first block so that it will accept your Armstrong type holders and then add to your collection. I have been told that if you use a 1.125" post, the system should be compatible with the commercial products available, Goggle Omni Post. Mike ------- Re: OK!! New AXA QC tool post ordered!! [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Joe R" jromasx~xxcolumbus.rr.com Date: Wed Feb 9, 2011 10:42 am ((PST)) > Thanks for all the input. I found all the replies to be very helpful in making my decision on a QC tool post setup. I just ordered an AXA QC tool post set from CDCO and also got a few other doodads that I either just couldn't pass up or figured I would need. One of the things I ordered was a 58 piece clamping kit that will come in really handy for milling and on the drill press. I noticed after ordering that the nuts in that set are the same size as the slot on my crossfeed, so I also am kind of hoping that one of the "T" nuts out of that set will work to secure the tool post holder onto my 12" Atlas with minimum fuss..... < I have that 58 piece set in 1/2" size and the "T" nuts are not near big enough for your lathe. I also had to dress down the T nuts to fit my Atlas/Clausing 8525 mill. I've read where you can turn the nut down on your lathe. After you've got the vertical steps just hand cut two opposite sides to fit the width. I've done four for myself and others and it's a easy job on my 8525 mill. But it will be easier next time with my MFC mill :+} While were talking about QCTP's and T nuts some have found the threaded hole is not drilled straight and that causes uneven pressure on the lips of the lathe's compounds. Joe ------- Re: OK!! New AXA QC tool post ordered!! Posted by: "peterh5322x~xxrattlebrain.com" Date: Wed Feb 9, 2011 9:12 pm ((PST)) > While were talking about QCTP's and T nuts some have found the threaded > hole is not drilled straight and that causes uneven pressure on the lips > of the lathe's compounds. Some of the lower-cost examples play fast (figuratively) and loose (literally) with thread tolerances. In the case of the mounting stud for the post, it should be dead-on vertical. The fix: assemble the stud to the nut loosely, but with more-or-less permanent Loc-Tite. Mount the post to the stud and tighten, thereby ensuring that the stud is vertical. Leave tight until the Loc-Tite has set. Reminder: you want a slip fit of the nut within the compound at all points, and NO projection of the stud beyond the underside of the nut. Face-off the underside of the stud if a projection is found. Most studs have extra thread at the top to allow for a variety of mounting situations. ------- NOTE TO FILE: When receiving a generic toolholder, the nut holding it to the lathe usually is oversized and needs trimming to fit. That operation is easy with a mill, and folks often reduce its dimensions first with a metal bandsaw or even a manual hacksaw. Another alternative is discussed in the file here "Cut or Saw Metal" in a conversation called "QCTP from CDCO attack" starting Fri Feb 11, 2011. Some safety issues are also discussed in the next message there called "Angle grinders". ------- Re: OK!! New AXA QC tool post ordered!! Posted by: "doninrenox~xxsbcglobal.net" dondlhmnx~xxaol.com Date: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:19 am ((PST)) Well, my AXA 100 QC tool post set arrived. It was missing the wedge and the screw that tightens the wedge for the cut off tool but was otherwise as advertised. I called CDCO about the missing parts and they are sending me those items. Anyway, the main concern was the size of the threads on the through bolt and the plate they send you to be made into a T nut. It turns out that my through bolt and the T nut threads were 14mm X 1.5mm pitch. The plate was surface hardened only. I first thought that I would just make another piece of steel into a T nut, but upon getting some advice from our Machining Professor, decided to just mill the plate CDCO sent me into a T nut. We cut the plate to the size of the slot on a mill (had to use a carbide tool as the first HSS tool just got dulled by the plate's hardened surface). As I had wanted a kind of close/tight sliding fit, that is what I machined the plate for (1.030" wide X .326 thick) to use it in just the bottom part of the slot and it fit as I had imagined it. Before starting, we discussed cutting the plate so that it would fit a small distance up into the top part of the slot and, therefore, be a true T nut (though flatter than most), but decided to just make it for the bottom part of the slot as we thought not too much useable strength would be lost that way. Works great! And I have decided to use 3/8 X 3/8 inch bits whenever possible in order to get max rigidity compared to the little 1/4 X 1/4 bits that the "lantern" tool post used. ------- NOTE TO FILE: There was an interesting discussion about fitting a quick change toolholder to an Atlas or Craftsman lathe, where some modification to the lathe was an alternative solution. Consequently that conversation was placed here in the "Atlas Repair or Fitting" file. See the subject QCTP ? starting Sun Jun 26, 2011 in that file. ------- Lantern vs. Quick Change [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Michael" toabetterworldx~xxgmail.com Date: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:45 pm ((PST)) Hi All, I am interested in doing some boring and cutting of internal threads with my 618. In the process of looking for a setup I called "The Little Machine Shop," they sell lots of tooling for newer bench top lathes. After asking what tooling he had that would work for my machine, he told me that he didn't have anything compatible with the older lantern style tool post and that I should buy his quick-change tool post kit and some new tooling for it. I am interested in old power tools (the newest machine in my shop is from 1946), I like working on them and appreciate the quality. This makes me hesitant to go slapping the new anodized aluminum quick-change dohicky onto my nice vintage piece, but I am not experienced enough with lathes to know if it really is a vast improvement over the older style. I am willing to go with modern enhancements if the technology has really improved. For instance- I love old Stanley block planes, I use them every day just about, but the OEM blades are crap. I save them for originality, but I have a new Hock cryogenically cooled blade in all my users because the steel is so much better. I am not looking to do production work on the lathe, I am a woodworker mostly, I just want to be able to turn a few metal pieces here and there when the need comes up. What do you guys think I should do? Do you use the lantern tool post, or have you replaced it with a quick-change? If I decide to go the vintage route, what should I look for in the way of tooling for boring and cutting internal threads? Thanks, Michael ------- Re: Lantern vs. Quick Change Posted by: "Jacjie" irene4popsx~xxyahoo.com Date: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:30 pm ((PST)) I, too, am primarily a woodworker with a little machine shop experience and a lot of machine shop observation. I inherited my father-in-law's c. 1950 vintage 618 and overhauled it. It came with a lantern tool post. During the restoration project I joined this group and the larger Atlas/ Craftsman group & through reading group discussions became convinced that a QC tool post was desirable. I ordered one from The Little Machine Shop. I was disappointed at first to find out I had to make my own T-nut to fit my lathe, but it wasn't hard to do. Other than that, I have been well pleased with the QC & haven't regretted it at all. I ordered a set of boring bars that fit the QC from TLMS at the same time. I haven't cut any internal threads with them yet, but I could, as long as they weren't too small. ------- Re: Lantern vs. Quick Change Posted by: "Dean" deanwx~xxbmi.net Date: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:56 pm ((PST)) Hi Michael. About the best you can do for your 618 in the tool post department is to use a good turret tool post. It's basically a solid steel square block that has slots cut in the sides for tool bits. They are more rigid than either the lantern or quick change "dohicky". ; ) Besides that, they were common in the time your lathe was made, although I think the 618 only came with the lantern. You may have to make one, or you could get lucky and find one on ebay. They look like this: http://s19.photobucket.com/albums/b159/deansofidaho/Machine/?ac tion=view¤t=toolpost.jpg Dean ------- Re: Lantern vs. Quick Change Posted by: "David R. Birch" dbirchx~xxwi.rr.com Date: Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:23 pm ((PST)) I have both an Atlas 618 and an Atlas/Craftsman 12X36 and I have put QC tool holders on both. On the 618, I put this: http://www.harborfreight.com/quick-change-tool-post-set-for-mini-la the-42806.html because at the time, it was the only affordable one I could find. HF later offered a better one, more like the Little Machine Shop set up, but I don't see it listed anymore. It was part #39083. I haven't used a lantern tool post since shop class. They are not at all rigid compared to a QC or a simple turret. Any turret or QC will be more than rigid enough for a 618, which is a light duty tool. I'd go with the LMS rather than the HF #42806, because I don't think HF offers additional tool holders, LMS does. BTW, this is what I put on my 12X36: http://www.shars.com/products/view/1540/Quick_Change_Tool_Post_Set_Pis ton_Type_100 Check this out, too: http://www.mini-lathe.com/Mini_lathe/Reviews/A2Z_QCTP/a2z_qctp.htm David ------- Re: Lantern vs. Quick Change Posted by: "Bob Schaefer" bobschaefx~xxgmail.com Date: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:00 am ((PST)) Do not be concerned about using a QCTP on your 618. I have switched on my Atlas 618 Mk2 which is about the same age. I understand your fondness of older equipment. In many cases they are made much sturdier than today's equipment. However, I think you will find the QCTP an improvement and it allows many different tools to be used with it. You can stick with good old HSS tools or go with carbide inserts depending on the material you are working on. It gives you more alternatives which make your old lathe just as versatile as any new lathe. ------- Re: Lantern vs. Quick Change Posted by: "xlpilot" hcapperx~xxverizon.net Date: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:00 am ((PST)) I just purchased a Quick Change Tool Post set from LMS for my 6 inch Atlas Mark II. I have used a couple of the holders already, and am very satisfied with it. It is steel all around, including the center block. It is their part #3048. For details go to: http://www.littlemachineshop.com/products/product_view.php?Pro ductID=3048&category=-419988835 LMS also has a compatibility page for various QCTP sets and lathes at: http://www.littlemachineshop.com/info/qctp.php The 3048 will fit lathes with a compound rest to spindle measurement of 3/4 inch or more. Comes with a T-slot nut that requires machining, but I found it easier to just make a new one from 3/16 Cold Rolled Steel. Center Post thread is 10 mm with a 1.5mm pitch. I picked up a tap at my local Home Depot. Harry in Harrisburg ------- Re: Lantern vs QCTP... Posted by: "none" garybauer46x~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:35 pm ((PST)) Michael: The Little Machineshop minilathe (7x10 inch etc) 4-way tool block fits the 618 Atlas lathe well. You would need to make a t-nut and 3/8UNC stud w/nut to adapt this tool block to the 618 compound but it is simple and rigid. LMS # 1204 x~xx $11.95 and tool holder screws #1589 (metric) x~xx $1.95. These prices likely have changed since my old catalog #14 so check their web site. The lantern-type tool posts are miserable. I dog-robbed the steel 4-way tool block from my 7x10 lathe and discovered the nice interchange so... Gary ------- Re: Lantern vs. Quick Change Posted by: "lfcoebay" crvtfanx~xxcomcast.net Date: Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:35 am ((PST)) The quick change tool post is the best investment you will ever make. Except for the lathe of course. If you ever attempt to part with one of the old lantern posts you will know the pain. Go for the new post and save the old one for originality. Just like the steel in the plane, they are a better idea. Best of luck Rick ------- Tool post washer [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Deloid" deloidx~xxcableone.net Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 3:00 pm ((PST)) My tool post washer M6-40 is cracked. I can't afford a replacement but the old one is still usable enough for me to make a new washer. The bottom of the old washer seems slightly convex rather than flat...is that just from wear? The top is obviously sloped but it appears to have a slight concavity rather than a straight slope. A straight slope would be easier for me to cut so I'm hoping that is just wear as well. Thanks for your help- ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 3:36 pm ((PST)) The bottom should be flat, the top is supposed to be a hemispherical concave shape that fits the part that goes under the tool holder. Jon ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Guenther Paul" paulguenterx~xxatt.net Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 3:07 pm ((PST)) Make same washers from drill rod. If you heat them to a dark red and drop them in oil they will be a little hard so they don't cup on you. You can make them a little thicker. GP ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 2:14 pm ((PST)) Dallas Richardson wrote: > Gunther; I don't think your solution would work very well, cause, isn't that washer like 1/2 of a tennis ball?? One side of that washer is curved like a ball?? I don't have that type of holder but if memory "serves"??? < The compound swivel can be used to make a poor man's radius turning attachment. The way the compound is made, you really can't do ball turning with it, but you really CAN do concave radius turning. You can try to gauge the radius of the shim/slider that goes under the toolpost, perhaps using a compass. Then, set the tool so it is at that radius from the compound swivel. Put a disc of steel in the chuck, and you will be able to turn a concave hemispherical surface. I don't know how smooth it will come out. Jon ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "wa5cabx~xxcs.com" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 4:02 pm ((PST)) I don't know how you would machine the spherical section of the top of the washer on a manual lathe. In 2005, a new one was priced at $20.72. I shouldn't imagine, if they still have some, that the prices have changed much. I happen to know that on a couple of items, the price has even dropped slightly. If you can't buy a new one, I would at least have a go at welding up the crack. But only weld on the flat side and be sure that the weld does not burn through to the spherical side. You will need to grind a V-groove that follows the crack. After welding and annealing/stress relieving, you could face that side back to flat. Then re-harden as GP said. ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Jay Greer" redwitch1x~xxearthlink.net Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 10:38 am ((PST)) If you are not a welder, you might be paying close to the price of a new washer to get the job done correctly. I should think that the denial of a few lattes at Starbucks would pay for a new washer. Selling oranges on a street corner would also bring in some extra cash. Really now! Jay Greer ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Dean Lapinel" deloidx~xxcableone.net Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:43 pm ((PST)) Hi Jay, I know what you mean but I have to be careful and selective about what I buy and what I repair on my own since this machine has so many problems that need attention. These were never "great" machines to start with...kind of obvious to a clock & watch guy like me that these original gears and tooling were functional but not well made. If I had the time and money I would likely though make a new set of quality gears and parts to make this hum rather than rattle. I'd prefer that over getting a pricey lathe. I did try selling oranges after your note and I was arrested as I didn't have a permit. Now my expenses dedicated to this machine are really climbing :) Dean ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 4:43 pm ((PST)) If you are using armstrong type tool holders, i wud consider eliminating the wedge /washer & turning up 2, maybe 3 thick washers ...your parting off will greatly improve as well as general turning rigidity ...w/ the armstrong holder bits at an angle, there is added adjustment when needed ...probably 2 washers wud be all needed. i have been using this on my 2000# monarch 14 in & the rigidity is adequate for taking a 1/2 in depth of cut on 1018 steel as a test. 0ther option is two washers. one that threads into the other giving an adjustable tool post height. i made one last year for my 1885 Barnes #4 12. it is a copy of the original. (at least near from a picture)....there is an article a few years back in one of the village press mags, giving adjustable washer specs for the 6 & 12 inch atlas crftsmn lathes. the lantern tool post becomes impressively adequate when the tool sits on a flatbottom AND when the operator learns how to use it ...the cattle stampede to a quick change that the new operator participates in is largely the result of not learning how to use the lantern & its idiosyncrasies....does make one wonder how anything ever got machined before WW2 ...& YES the QC is an improvement ........rant over best wishes docn8as ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Deloid" deloidx~xxcableone.net Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 5:38 pm ((PST)) Doc, I understand how this wedge set up with its slight spring action can help keep the holder tight in the post. It appears you are suggesting that this isn't necessary? Also, wouldn't the lack of support from the wedge create a potentially undesirable pressure on the middle of the (unsupported) cutter? A more simple solution would be great but I don't understand your suggestion. ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 6:04 pm ((PST)) absolutely ..its function is to adjust the height of the bit & it does this at the COST OF RIGIDITY ..that spring action is what causes all the trouble w/ tool shifting & dig ins when parting, limiting the depth of cut & causing newbies to run to a quick change .....everything is way more solid when bolted down on a flat ...the purpose of the wedge/dished washer is to adjust the height of the tool bit ...if you get rid of the wedge AND the dished washer, & replace it w/ a solid thick washer of correct height, you get a solidity that MAY be more rigid than a Q C ...(at least there is no cantilever effect like a tool holder hanging off the side...the angled bit in armstrong holder gives some ht adjustment ....with several holders & 2 or three fat solid washers, adjusting the bit lengths, i am able to just set the holder on the thick washer & need no more adjustment. the 2 thick washers that thread into each other are another way to adjust the height & maintain a flat surface for rigidity there are other answers to eliminating the tool post ...cut an angled slot to hold the bit in a 2in block of steel ... bolt it to the compound w/ a T nut or a plate /bolt / nut .....make up several to hold different bits, shim under the bits if necessary ... these opensided tool holders are DEAD rigid. you can even make two sided ones or 4 sided turrets w/ horizontal slots & shim the bits ...then just 2 turns of the nut & pull them off & put the next one on ...as fast as a QC...there are also some designs for easily made designs for split clamp tool holders clamped on a one inch or so post bolted to the compound. best wishes docn8as ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Deloid" deloidx~xxcableone.net Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 6:51 pm ((PST)) Doc, Would you have the time to post a picture of your set up? Dean ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 10:09 pm ((PST)) Deloid ....i am not computer savvy enuf to post pics, too old (80) & not sufficiently motivated to learn & more important to be able to remember if i did learn ....if you just pitch your cracked female washer & wedge & replace it w/ a "doughnut" sufficiently high to allow your tool holder/bit to be on center, you have arrived...the doughnut shud be fla on top & bottom ..& you can adjust the bit length to help center it ... you wud need another of slightly different height for other holders, probably a parting tool ..... and you can also adjust ht. w/ large bolt washers big enuf to slip over the tool post, added to the doughnut ... i guess you cud even drop a 1/2 in +/-worth of washers over the tool post after you remove the wedge & cracked female id nothing else ......you can make xtra holders out of 5/16 x circa 7/8 steel, bend the first 1 in or so to a 45 & cut a slot for bits any way you can ...hacksaw cuts, chisel, file ....two set screws on top ...make up 4-5. best wishes doc ------- Re: Tool post washer Posted by: "RG Sparber" rgsparberx~xxaol.com Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 5:25 am ((PST)) Before I went to a quick change tool post, I did exactly what doc suggests. It makes for a very solid tool support. Rick ------- Organizing QCTP tool holders [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Jim B." btdtrfx~xxverizon.net eeengineer1 Date: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:54 pm ((PST)) This post is pretty much independent of the make of the lathe. I think it should be of use to the members of this group. I have about 20 tool holders for my QCTP's (Two lathes, two QCTP's) Now I made a shim for the one on my SB heavy 10 so I can use the tools either on the SB9" or the SB 10L without resetting the holders. This cuts down on the number of tools I NEED. But I wanted a place to put them so I could organize them and see what I had and most important, put it back so I could find it again. I am big on peg-board, especially the Melamine coated white peg board so I decided to make some custom peg-board holders. I made a little bending fixture from a piece of 1/2" hrs. I cut some Sears Roebuck 3/16 round into 2-3/8 and 2-5/8 and (later) 1" lengths. Using the fixture I bend the 2-3/8 lengths at 3/8 long in the fixture, I bend the 2-5/8 lengths at 1-1/8 http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f334/eeengineer1/Parts-for-10.jpg Using the same fixture To hold the parts I gas welded them. http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f334/eeengineer1/Jig-set-for-weld ing-3.jpg and http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f334/eeengineer1/The-parts.jpg This works for normal, simple, cutting holders. I have been using them this way for at least 6 months now although I need to make more. But for the heavier boring holders they tend to tip to one side. So I went back, today and added a 1" lateral brace. No Jig just free hand alignment. I need to figure a jig of some sort. http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f334/eeengineer1/Lateral-sup port-close.jpg Again gas welded. This is my set at this point. http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f334/eeengineer1/with-lateral-sup port.jpg Jim B. ------- Re: QCTP [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com Date: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:17 pm ((PDT)) Justin DeSantis wrote: > This may be a dumb question, but I can't find or figure out and > answer. When shopping for a quick change tool post, there are AXA, > BXA, CXA and so on. What's the difference? And more importantly, which > one do I want for my 12x24 Atlas? Any piston vs. wedge? They are the size designation from Aloris. AXA is their smallest, and is usually fine for the 10" Atlas, also works well on the 12". Some people think the BXA should be used on the 12", but I used an AXA equivalent and it was fine to me. A good piston post is fine. The wedge is more complex to machine, and so more expensive. On really big lathes it may make a difference, with the sort of tools typically used on Atlas machines, I really don't think it makes much difference. Jon ------- From: "Rexarino" To: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:37 AM Subject: Re: [atlas_craftsman] Re: QCTP Incidentally, the BXA tool post is a ROCK on the Atlas 12", and it allows me to use large beefy boring bars (3/4" dia) that hardly flex. No AXA for me, thank you! Rex ------- Re: Sparey's toolpost for the ML7 [myfordlathes] Posted by: "David Littlewood" davidx~xxdlittlewood.co.uk Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 8:16 am ((PDT)) Rodney Gentry writes >I'm a relative newcomer to model engineering, and as an early project >I'm building the four way toolpost as per Sparey's design on page 58 of >the paperback edition of his Amateur's lathe book. ("just a simple >matter of bolting three pieces of mild steel plate together")! >Can anyone advise me as to whether the recess on the underside of the >base plate and the recessed washer are really necessary for a good fit >onto the topslide? or can I get away without them? Rodney I know this may be considered a bit of a cheek - but I would recommend that you think carefully whether you actually *want* a 4-way tool post. Now this is a subject which causes endless debates among the fraternity, but my personal take is that I wouldn't give house room to a 4-way, in fact I sold the one I had for a modest sum. There would be a lot of effort involved in making one, and it may (would, IMO) be better spent on something else. Their disadvantages are: (1) There are always tools sticking out towards you, and you *will* injure yourself on one of the sharp bits sooner or later. (2) If you want one of the 4 tools to be a boring tool, you will rapidly discover that your 4-way post is now a 3-way post. (3) Having 4 (or 3) tools ready for use sounds fine, but in real life you will find that every job requires a *different* set of 4 (or 3) tools. You will spend almost as much time fiddling with bits of shim as you do with an old-fashioned single tool post. Interchangeable toolholder systems are *so* much better that there really is no valid comparison. The only disadvantage is that they end up costing a lot more, as you will find you end up with more holders than you could initially imagine (I think I had 28 at last count, plus a dozen or more larger ones for the bigger lathe). If, after seriously considering the matter, you still feel a 4/3 way post is what you want, I would suggest you look closely at the George Thomas design. A lot of the Sparey designs are sound enough, but GHT was in a league of his own when it came to designing tooling - the only criticism I could think of is that he sometimes over-engineers them. David Littlewood ------- Re: Sparey's toolpost for the ML7 Posted by: "John" johnx~xxstevenson-engineers.co.uk Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 3:21 pm ((PDT)) Alan Moore wrote: > Oh dear. I feel like the poor relation - I've only got eight. > I agree with the Davids, though - they are definitely the way to go. > Life is so much easier with them. Regards, Alan A few years ago I made my own quick change toolpost, it was in ME around 1989 way before the cheap imports. It was a mirror image as regards the dovetails of the Aloris. The tool holder had external dove tails which are easy to do. My take on it was you make more holders than posts and with the external dovetails they can be cut in one pass, per side, on a horizontal mill in 18" lengths and cut off as needed. I'm up to 48 between two lathes which both have the same design of toolpost fitted, Could really do with another 20 or so... John S. ------- Re: Sparey's toolpost for the ML7 Posted by: "slotscot" dave.nicholsonx~xxblueyonder.co.uk Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 10:03 am ((PDT)) I must agree with David, I still have the Myford 4 way toolpost but never use it now. I have the Interchangeable toolholder system as well and if you get a decently made one you will not regret it. Mine is the original Myford Dixon one which is sill available direct from the makers A&R Precision. They are usually available vie eBay or contact direct 02476 510 020. If you are not UK they can still supply. Usual disclaimer just a very satisfied customer. Dave ------- Re: Sparey's toolpost for the ML7 Posted by: "Robert Mitchell" rmm200x~xxyahoo.com Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 10:18 am ((PDT)) Hate to jump in with just a "Me too" post, but I love the interchangeable tool post. Myford Dixon on the Myford and an Aloris on the big lathe. I have an effectively unused set of 1/2" carbide tipped bits from Myford - they are just not worth the setup time in the rocking toolpost. I really need more Myford Dixon tool holders... I keep meaning to get an order in before they vanish. Robert Mitchell ------- Re: Sparey's toolpost for the ML7 Posted by: "David Everett" deverett2003x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 11:49 am ((PDT)) With respect to you, David, I made and have used a GHT 4 way toolpost (2 in fact) and have used them for the last 20 years. I have heard all the arguments against them, but I have never injured myself on a tool sticking out. True, with a facing tool loaded, I am limited to 3 tools, but I find that of little disadvantage. The reason I have 2 is that one is loaded with general tools and the other is used for non ferrous metals. It is only a matter of a half minute to change over from one to the other. Using GHTs centre height finder, it is a matter of a few seconds to initially get the correct shims in place. I keep other toolbits ready with their shims to swap if necessary. I keep all my shims in packs depending on their thickness so they are easy to find. As with any of GHT's designs, they look quite intimidating but when you follow his instructions, they are not that difficult to make. I have also made his boring head, which I foolishly sold last year. Dave The Emerald Isle ------- Re: Sparey's toolpost for the ML7 Posted by: "Rod Gentry" rgent14x~xxhotmail.com Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 1:43 pm ((PDT)) Thanks to all those who relied to my query. I appreciate that the interchangeable systems are superior, but as I'm 2/3 through building the toolpost I'll plough on. I'm finding it a useful way to learn turning and milling techniques. In addition I'm doing most of the work at an engineering college and it's cost me nothing in terms of materials and electricity. If and when funds permit I'll look at the Myford Dickson. ------- Re: Sparey's toolpost for the ML7 Posted by: "Don Edwards" wandleside3x~xxbtinternet.com Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 3:41 pm ((PDT)) Hi Rod, Congrats on actually making the toolpost. If you're attending the establishment as an evening 'spare-time' student, I envy your opportunity to do this. I used to enjoy such a facility hereabouts, three good well-equiped machine shops with every possible accessory. All now scrapped and replaced with more 'Modern image' courses. (I wonder how many TV Studio staff we need?) Should you subsequently consider making a 'Quick-change' set, a very effective, easily made and inexpensive option is the style of kit offered by 'Drummond's, known I think, as the 'Norman' Tool-post. It consisted of a stout round pillar (about 30mm + dia.) mounted permanently upon the normal 'English-type' tool-post stud. Upon this is mounted as required a tool-holder block, simply locked on to the pillar by a slight turn of its own locking bolt. Its height above the top-slide being set by the usual adjustment-setting screw, bearing upon the top-slide. It does not provide accurate registration of the tool-point in the horizontal-plane, being free to rotate upon the pillar, so in that respect is not quite as good as the Dickson type. For 90% of most general turning, that facility is of no matter and can be an advantage. The total cost of the post and a dozen toolblocks is probably less than the cost of one genuine Myford-Dickson individual tool-block, so it has some advantage if funds are of any interest. Plus of course the satisfaction of having made it oneself. Cheers, Don Edwards ------- NOTE TO FILE: The basic question in this next thread is one that is frequently asked by a new owner. But one answer includes a very unusual solution to the question: how to make your own lathe tool holder when you don't have any toolholder to start with. Simple but functional solution. ------- 618 model types; quick change post [atlas618lathe] Posted by: "ltpatrickx~xxsbcglobal.net" Date: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:42 pm ((PDT)) Hi, Is the 101.21400 mod. pretty much the same as the 101.07301? Is there a quick change post that will work on the 101.07301 which I have? Any and all the tips I can get will be helpful. Thanks, Larry ------- Re: 618 model types; quick change post Posted by: "n5fee" n5feex~xxnetzero.net Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:31 am ((PDT)) Larry, I have had two of these lathes for 30+ years and have tried several tool holders. When I got my first machine it had no tool holder of any kind. So, my first project was to make a tool holder on my lathe with no tool holder to make the tool holder. As I recall, I brazed a short piece of all thread to a large flat washer then ground the washer by hand to fit the T slot on the compound slide. I then put several large washers on the all thread after installing it in the slot. I added washers and finally shims to get my piece of tool steel up to center height. I put a couple more flat washers on top of my tool and added a second piece of tool steel opposite the cutter for an even surface. I put a nut on and tightened it to hold my tool. I then fabricated a better tool holder by first making a similar bolt and slightly thicker piece of steel for my T bolt. I turned a flat disk the same thickness as my tool steel (1/4 inch) plus a few thousandths. To the top and bottom of this disk I fitted a square piece of steel I cut from bar stock. I carefully centered the squares on the circular spacer and drilled tapped, counter sunk and bolted these three pieces together in 4 or 6 places. I then drilled and tapped 8 holes along the edges of the top square piece. Into these holes I installed small cap screws. I think they were 10-32 screws. Now I had an assembly that could be loaded with 4 1/4 inch cutters. I then turned a thick large diameter spacer to raise my tool holder assembly up to the correct tool height. I ground tools that were flat on top with no back rake at all. I also had some carbide tipped tools that fit this holder. I stacked it all up and tightened with a nut on top of the stack. I figured this tool holder would just be makeshift until I found a better one. It worked very well and I wound up using it for 10 years. In fact I still use it sometimes. I later bought a premade square holder from Enco that was made for a larger lathe and ground the bottom off to get the tool height correct. This one was much more rigid and worked a little better. It was a cast square block made for 1/2 tools. It worked well but after grinding, the base piece was pretty thin and bent a little bit with use. I later bought an Enco quick change tool post set: http://www.use-enco.com/1/1/60370-quick-change-tool-post-sets.html But was disappointed in its rigidity. Being able to change tools was nice, but I still preferred the plain rigid square block holder. I then bought one of the A2Z quick change holders. It is pretty good and much easier to set tool height but still lacks some rigidity. I also bought a lantern type original tool holder along the way. It too is ok. There will be a lot of personal preference involved. But the more rigid the better in my view. So watch out for thin tools and other parts hanging out in the air. These all bend Dallas ------- Re: 618 model types; quick change post Posted by: "azbruno" azbrunox~xxyahoo.com Date: Sun Sep 2, 2012 7:20 am ((PDT)) Larry, The 101.21400 has the Timken bearing headstock, while the 101.07301 has the brass bearings I believe. As for the QCTP, I use the KRF Omni-Post (www.krfcompany.com) and highly recommend it. It is more expensive than the lighter weight ones others have recommended, but it's a good solid unit and not made of aluminum. Bruno ------- Re: quick change tool block for 6" Atlas lathe [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Jay Greer" redwitch1x~xxearthlink.net Date: Sun Sep 2, 2012 11:46 am ((PDT)) On Sep 1, 2012, oldsrocket_88 wrote: > Just wondering if anybody came up with plans to make a four position tool block for the small 6" atlas lathe, and if so, where might we find the prints to make it ourselves. Thank you. I have a Craftsman 6" lathe bought brand new in 1967, and also a nice 9" South Bend Lathe with the quick change gearbox. Thanks for all the input. Jim < While I applaud any one who has enough spare time to become involved in such a project, I must confess that I broke down and purchased one from The Little Machine Shop last year. http://littlemachineshop.com/ The block is extremely well thought out and constructed. The tool holders can be height pre-set for each kind of tool that they will hold. No more time is wasted setting up boring bars and angled cutters! This set up, combined with carbide insert tools took my own 6" Atlas out of the dark ages making, what was once a discourse in tedium a joy of efficiency! I do not regret having spent the money for a ready made holder as it, instantly, freed me to do all manner of projects that I had on the waiting list for lack of a good, accurate quick change tool post set up. It was worth every penny I spent! Jay Greer ------- Re: quick change tool block for 6" Atlas lathe Posted by: "Gary Bauer" garybauer46x~xxyahoo.com Date: Sun Sep 2, 2012 11:19 am ((PDT)) Hi, For my little 618 Atlas lathe I adapted a 4-way tool block from a 7x10 asian lathe which can be had from www.LittleMachinesShop.com in Pasadena, CA. I made a T-nut to fill the 618 compound slot and threaded a 3/8x16 unc stud into it to serve as the axis. Some Loctite adhesive and slight stud pressure will keep the T-block and stud in place. Also I made the top lever "nut" for that stud. It was a fun project and just the right size. That tool block measures 2x2x1.5 inches by the way. The metric set screws are a little extra. Gary in AZ ------- Quick Change Tool Post? [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "MP" mpteleskix~xxyahoo.com Date: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:11 pm ((PST)) Hi All, I'm new here, but have been a shade-tree machinists for many many years. I recently acquired a 11x30 c. 1930 Atlas Lathe. I'm impressed how well its built. I also run a BIG Nardini lathe, etc. Anyways, I'd like to remove the archaic tool post and put in quick change. Before I rip it apart and put it out of commission for some time, what quick change posts are folks using? Thanks Matt Northern Idaho ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "mertnedp" pdentremont1x~xxcogeco.ca Date: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:22 pm ((PST)) I purchased a Phase II clone in AXA size. You may need to machine the top cross slide to mount the post. I made a new one as mine had been broken through the T-slot in the past. I posted pictures in Replacement Compound Slide album. Pierre ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "Eggleston Lance" wheezer606x~xxverizon.net Date: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:40 pm ((PST)) Go to "tools4cheap" or Shars and look for an AXA 100 series size tool post. lance ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com Date: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:00 pm ((PST)) I had the Phase-II AXA post. It worked quite well. As for being out of service, the tool post is a bolt on part, so it can be swapped out in much less than a minute. Jon ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "wa5cabx~xxcs.com" Date: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:42 pm ((PST)) MP. How certain are you about that 1930 date and the swing? According to what I've read, the original Atlas lathe was a 9" introduced in 1932, and sold both direct and through Sears. In late 1935, Atlas came out with a 10" sold under the Atlas badge and a 12" sold by Sears under the Craftsman badge. The 9" was discontinued in 1938. So if yours is an Atlas, it would appear that it would have to be either a 9" or a 10". If Craftsman, then 9" or 12". If your machine has a compound slide on the cross slide (some of the 9" did not). it should only take a few minutes to replace it with a quick change. As mentioned earlier, the AXA or 100 series made or sold by a number of companys would be the proper size. Does your machine have a nameplate? It would or should be on the back side of the bed toward the tailstock end. And should have a model number of some sort stamped on it, as well as a serial number. Robert D. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "L. Garlinghouse" lhghousex~xxsuddenlink.net Date: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:51 pm ((PST)) I agree that a QCTP is a worthwhile upgrade and the sources and sizes are all good counsel. One thing not mentioned is that the T-nut blank that came with mine, nicely threaded and oversized enough that it could be made to fit most anything, also was hardened so it dulled my last two dull-and-good 1/2" endmills and turned them into good-and-dull 1/2" endmills. So don't just assume the T-nut blank is readily machineable. I am not the only instance of this being the case [both the hardened blank and the dull endmills]. I made a T-nut out of scrap MS flat bar. Do make sure that when the rod is threaded and the T-nut is inserted in the compound that none of the rod extends below the T-nut [otherwise you can have a screw jack that will likely break the compound; also there should be some clearance below the T-nut along with a little vertical slop -- say 1/32" -- is just fine. [The original poster this time around probably knows this, but one never knows who just joined the group and is absorbing all this.] Also lots and lots of discussion on this very subject in the archives, some of which has just been repeated. L8r, L.H. in the chilly Ozarks ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "jerdalx~xxsbcglobal.net" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:14 pm ((PST)) Chuck that hard t-nut into the woodstove for a day and it won't be too hard to cut anymore... until you finish trimming and harden it again. JT ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:47 pm ((PST)) i made a base for my AXA ..for a larger lathe...through bolt was 14 mm X 1.5 IIIRC ......made a metric tap for the base cause i remembered them as expensive ...later saw i cud have bought one for less than $10 ...maybe smartest wud be to use a 1/2 inch through bolt maybe a 9/16 wud work, only abt 11 thou larger than 14 mm??????... maybe not. ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "Eggleston Lance" wheezer606x~xxverizon.net Date: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:58 pm ((PST)) I read some place that one could make a QCTP by stacking up 1/4" plate to get the required size and shape. Most bits are sized by 1/4". Then drill a through hole for the hold down post. Make the T-nut. Bugger the last two threads of the post bolt so they can't pass through the T-nut hole. Drill some set screw holes in the top plate to hold the bit. Make up a bunch. To change the bit, unscrew the nut off the post bolt and drop on a new holder with bit. Is it an idea? lance ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "wa5cabx~xxcs.com" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:30 pm ((PST)) Lance, I suppose that you could but there would be several practical problems with doing that. (1) no automatic repeatability of where the tip of the tool is horizontally when you change tools. (2) no height adjustment. (3) it would take a long time to make up 8 or 10 holders that way. I think you'd be better off getting one or two of those 4-position toolpost turrets and shimming them to height. As long as 4 tools would fit and were all that you needed for a job, you'd only have to get it adjusted once per job. I used one for a little while between using the lantern type and getting the first batch of Yuasa parts. FWIW, I thought that the AXA holders were for 3/8" cutters. At least I know that my Yuasa 100 Series ones are and I thought that I had decided it was the equivalent size of the AXA. Isn't there a 0XA size that takes 1/4" cutters? Or is it 5/16"? Not that this has anything to do with how to make a QCTP. Robert & Susan Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org Date: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:27 pm ((PST)) My AXA Phase II takes 1/2" cutters, and 3/4" boring bars. I had a A2Z, 0XA QCTP on my 109. It took 5/16" cutters and 3/8" boring bars. Scott G. Henion Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "Matt" mpteleskix~xxyahoo.com Date: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:15 pm ((PST)) Probably should have looked it up before posting (and fully believing the original owner who is around 100...), but here is the model and serial # H54 053301 So what do I have?? ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? Posted by: "wa5cabx~xxcs.com" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:05 pm ((PST)) OK. I went out and took a close look at my dozen or so 100 series quick change holders. And finally recalled a decision taken 30+ years ago. The quick change holders (at least those with slots in the sides - some are for different things) will in fact hold 1/2" square tools. The boring bar holder that I have is a combination which will hold a square tools or a 1/2" (not 3/4") boring bar. I think that there was another one I never bought with a deeper groove. You couldn't put anything but a boring bar in it. However, although the slot in the side of the standard holders is about 1/32" over 1/2" tall, it is only about 7/16" deep. With a 1/2" tool, part of it hangs outside the vertical face of the holder. I didn't like the looks of that so I standardized on 3/8" square tools and carbide insert holders and have bought that size ever since, without remembering why. I do have some specialty radius cutters that were only available in 1/4" square. They also work OK in the AXA holders, which have plenty of vertical travel range to get them on center. But they do look a little odd. Robert & Susan Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? [Laminated type] [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "L. Garlinghouse" lhghousex~xxsuddenlink.net Date: Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:07 pm ((PST)) I think the idea of a laminated shadetree QCTP has merit, especially if one is just sort of wondering how useful the device is, or one has a particular job. Even with its drawbacks, it should find a place on your bench. NOTE: the tool bits are put directly into this QCTP without any intermediate holders. It is quick change in the sense that one can move between 4 tools quickly; NOT quick change in the sense that one can change tooling modules quickly. [Arrrgggghhhh!!!! So many possiblilities. If one had tool bits that had consistant or consistant enough tool heights, then it could fit the definition of QCTP. Let's not get into a discussion of when is a QCTP a QCTP or merely a square turret attachment. Pretty much anything is likely to be quicker than the lantern system.] I think I would use a 3/8" middle plate to allow a variety of tool bit sizes to be directly inserted in the gap. The less claptrap between the tool point and the carriage, the better. Biggest problem I see is keeping all the lams in proper alignement. Reamed holes with hardened pins or several drilled and tapped holes in the bottom lam in alignment with light-press/close-fitting clearance holes for the thru bolts. Probably c'sink the top lam and use flat head allen screws. With the 3/8" middle lam you have some control over tool point height by using shims as required. In MY shop, depending how may times I've resharpened a bit, the tool point has no consistant relationship to the bottom of the bit when comparing bits. Hacksaw blades make good shims, steel strapping off of banded loads and so on. I think it is a cool idea and worth playing with. Wish I had thought of it or you had posted this several years earlier. L.H. Garlinghouse Arkansas USA ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Post? [Laminated type] Posted by: "jerdalx~xxsbcglobal.net" jtiers Date: Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:06 pm ((PST)) I made a "laminated" toolpost years ago. It was almost good enough for the machine it was made for, which was a "109". I'd bag the idea and get something real, but you do what you gotta do. A far better idea than most square toolposts is a square toolpost with the 4 sides each made for a different size cutter. One for 1/4", one for 5/16", one for 3/8 and one for 1/2". That way, if you grind so as to have the edge almost at the top of the cutter, you can make the post to take any cutter, and avoid the stacks of tippy, compressible, clumsy shims and "packing". You just cut the slots a different width. Top of all slots the same height, but the bottom of each at the proper height for the target size of cutter. Works very well. I almost never need any sort of shim or packing. I don't remember the last time I used any. JT ------- poor boy quick change tool posts [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:40 pm ((PST)) on my 12x36 crftsmn, i am using 2x2, 4 tool bit turrets & triangular 2 tool bit blocks for tight places ...they tie down solidly or more so than AXA types, w/ 7/16 bolt & a plate in the tool slot ...nut head fits the lathe wrench so it is always available ...tool bit slots are on the sides at 18-20 degree angles ...this allows centering, as bits are ground, by placing bits further out, eliminating changing shims.....i can switch between turrets /blocks nearly as fast as changing tool holders .... (minimum number of threads to unscrew) .....the AXA for my crftsmn, that i HAD TO HAVE, cause it was so cheap now sits on my monarch A w/ a riser block. suggestion: if making these, cut the slot while the blocks are still too high for the bits to be centered, THEN face off the bottom to where you want the bits to be !.....you may think abt how i know this to be the surest way. & if you "miss' you still only have to shim once per slot. if you have no shaper nor mill, tack some hacksaw blades & saw down to depth finish w/ file or w/ cape chisel if needed..... you can face off the blocks in the 4 jaw or on a faceplate. best wishes doc ------- Re: Myford ML10 Help Please [myfordlathes] Posted by: "graemedurant" graeme.durantx~xxgmail.com Date: Tue Jan 1, 2013 3:52 am ((PST)) Hi, I was looking at the Dickson-style toolposts on new Myford's stand at the Midlands show, and asked them what the difference was between these and the standard version. Apparently the toolholders Myfords always offered were the same for ML7 and Ml10, but the lower centre height of the ML10 means that it limits the max tool size that could be used to 3/8". The latest ML10 specific offerings have the same toolpost, but there is a step machined out of the tool holders, which allow them to drop slightly lower on the post. This allows use of 1/2" tooling. I have an ML10 and am on the market for a QC Toolpost, however Myford's pricing has caused me to hold off for now. The A&R Precision ones discussed on the group would be great, but would presumably have the 3/8" size limitation, which I'm not so happy with. I was also looking at the QC toolpost kit at Hemmingway, which was designed for use on the ML10, and allows the tool holder to drop much lower. I don't know if any group members have any experience of this, and would care to comment? Hope that helps! Graeme ------- Re: Myford ML10 Help Please Posted by: "David Littlewood" davidx~xxdlittlewood.co.uk Date: Tue Jan 1, 2013 7:09 am ((PST)) I have used plenty of 3/8" and 10 mm tooling in the S00 Dickson toolpost on my S7, and always found it perfectly satisfactory. I doubt if a Myford is robust enough to take cuts which would trouble a 3/8" tool, unless you use a ridiculous overhang. David Littlewood ------- Re: Myford ML10 Help Please Posted by: "David Ingram" davidi1107x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Tue Jan 1, 2013 10:04 am ((PST)) Hi. I have a ML10 and use the Myford Dickson toolpost without problem. I use both 3/8" and 1/4" square tooling on my lathe without a problem and do not find the small size of 1/4" HSS tooling limiting what I want to do. In fact I think that needing to use anything larger in the way of tooling is pushing the capacity of this lathe. I have 6 standard holders, one for boring bars and one long reach style holder all get used. Cheers Dave I ------- Re: Myford ML10 Help Please Posted by: "graemedurant" graeme.durantx~xxgmail.com Date: Wed Jan 2, 2013 2:17 pm ((PST)) I agree that 1/2" tooling is not necessary in an ML10 - far from it - however it's more a case of if you have such tooling already, maybe acquired over the years, or maybe you have a second larger lathe. Then supporting larger size tooling could be useful. If you're not worried about that, then I understand that the standard ML7 (and A&R made) toolposts will be fine. Nice to have confirmation from an actual user though! Cheers Graeme ------- Re: Myford ML10 Help Please Posted by: "alighazizadeh" alighazizadehx~xxaol.com Date: Wed Jan 2, 2013 2:28 pm ((PST)) Hi Graeme, Just to throw in my two pennies worth of input, I bought a QCTP from Chronos a couple of months ago, the price was very reasonable indeed, £69.00 for a tool post and 4 tool holders. The quality is very good considering the price I paid and it works reasonably well. I only found out today that it can only cope with tools up to 10 mm as I cannot lower the tool holder low enough to take advantage of 0.5" tooling; the holder bottoms out against the compound slide seat. To make this work I would have to put a shim -block under the tool holder of about 5/64" thickness. Regards, A.G ------- Re: Myford ML10 Help Please Posted by: "graemedurant" graeme.durantx~xxgmail.com Date: Thu Jan 3, 2013 5:24 am ((PST)) I think in fact you need to do the opposite of shimming, by removing some of the base of the tool holder, so it can be set lower down for bigger tooling. Remember you are stuck with a fixed centre height for your lathe and you need to work around that. This is what new Myfords are doing, with their little machined step. I presume you could mill such a step in your holder, though if they are hardened it may make life a bit trickier. Graeme ------- Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 [myfordlathes] Posted by: "graemedurant" graeme.durantx~xxgmail.com Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 6:47 am ((PST)) I wanted to ask the group for their experiences with fitting and using a Quick Change Tool Post on a Myford ML10. My ML10 came with the original "elephant's foot" style tool post, hence I'm looking to upgrade at some stage. Having looked at the options, I'm slightly bewildered by the choice, and hence thought some "real hands-on" experience would be great to feed into my plans. The options I am considering are (in no particular order); 1). A "real" Myford QCTP (or one made by A&R Precision) to the Dickson design. I believe there may be tool size limitations with this, due to the reduced centre height of the lathe when compared to an ML7. Comments on this would be of particular interest. I know that it's not necessary to use 1/2" tooling on a lathe like the ML10, but sometimes it's nice to be able to use what you have on hand, can borrow, or have that is shared with another lathe. 2). Buying and building a Hemingway kit QCTP. From what I can gather, this appears to have been designed with the ML10 in mind, and so the tool holders can drop below the level of the topslide, enabling larger sized tools to be used if required. Has anyone got experience of this in real life? Is it a good design? 3). Making my own from scratch. There are several designs in circulation on the Internet, so there are choices to be made here too. I'm not currently considering using an imported Dickson type QCTP, as there often seem to be issues with fit and finish from what I've read. I'm not keen to invest in something that will cause other niggles over time, even if it is a bit cheaper to begin with. However if there are options I haven't covered above that seem to work well, I'm keen to hear. Any comments and feedback is most welcome! Cheers Graeme ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "Nick Brady" nickbrady935x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 8:06 am ((PST)) Hi Graeme, I have a ML10 lathe, and use either the Original 4way toolpost or the HBM Quick change toolpost. (I like both.) Check my pictures in Nik's album. ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "graemedurant" graeme.durantx~xxgmail.com Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 8:44 am ((PST)) Thanks for that, Nik. So what tool sizes can these two holders accommodate in the ML10? And do you find them both to work effectively? All the best Graeme ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "nickbrady935" nickbrady935x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 8:52 am ((PST)) Graeme, Both toolpost can take 1/2" tools, I use both holders a lot and so far both work effectively for me! rgds, Nik ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "David Littlewood" davidx~xxdlittlewood.co.uk Date: Thu Feb 7, 2013 2:18 pm ((PST)) Graeme, I can't help you with tool sizes - I have a Super 7, not familiar with the ML10 - but I have a few comments. First, when I bought my S7, it had a 4-way toolpost. I rapidly came to hate it; it would only hold 4 tools if you didn't want one of them to be a boring tool, with that it only held 3. The tools not in use stick out at the back and are a source of frequent minor injury. Worst of all, I found I needed more than 4 (or rather 3) tools quite frequently, so was forever swapping them around. After a couple of years I bought a Dickson system from Myford, and it has proved vastly superior in every respect. Provided you have a reasonable number of holders (I think I had 27 at last count, but that's probably massive overkill) then the system is far faster to use. I have not experienced any problems with rigidity. On the S7 it takes 10mm tools quite happily, and these are perfectly rigid enough for any cuts the S7 is comfortable with. The only minor exception to this is a caliper knurling tool, with which I have to be extra careful in holding down the holder or it can twist; I sometimes use a Tubal Cain-designed Gibraltar toolpost for this: http://www.hemingwaykits.com/acatalog/Gibraltar_Tool_Post.html To be fair, some people swear by their four (three)-way toolpost, others, like me, swear at them. Second, I have bought my toolholders from several sources, and some are clearly of non-UK origin, but I have had no problem with compatibility. I may have been just lucky, but I put it down more to being careful in my choice of seller. A seller careful of his reputation will ensure the goods are fit for purpose; one less careful will simply wait for the buyer to send back a proportion of those sold and shrug. David ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "Steve T" steve.talbotx~xxtiscali.co.uk Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 3:29 am ((PST)) Have you tried the 'Lamas' style 3 way toolpost. I've found it is much better than the 4 way toolpost, and you would only need 9 toolposts with a considerable saving over the cost of QCTP and holders. Steve T ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "Nick Brady" nickbrady935x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 3:46 am ((PST)) Have tried the 'Lamas' toolpost and did'nt like it so sold it on. Please have a look at my picture album 'Nik No1 album' and have a look at my homebrew quick change toolpost. Nik (london) ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "graemedurant" graeme.durantx~xxgmail.com Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 5:02 am ((PST)) Many thanks for your insight, David. It sounds to me like the Dickson type posts on the "larger" Myfords are probably the way to go. I'm a relative beginner to all this, but I understand that you really don't need large tooling for any of the work we typically do on our lathes, and 10mm is more than adequate. My concern is that the ML10 has a reduced centre height compared to its larger brothers, and I have been told that the Myford Dickson style QC tool posts like yours only support 6mm tooling on my lathe, unless you use tool holders that have been machined down such that they can drop a little lower, and then accommodate 10mm tools. I know I could just use 6mm tools, and these would probably be fine for a lathe of this size - but since I have a collection of 10mm tooling already, this is not ideal for me! Only (New) Myford offer these cut down holders, and needless to say they are expensive. Machining down an existing hardened holder doesn't sound like fun, hence my thoughts broadening out to things like the Hemingway kit, which supports up to 1/2" tools by overhanging the topslide. My question for anyone with this kit is therefore - is it rigid enough? Interesting comment on the knurling tool. Do you mean you have to fit it with care into the tool holder (otherwise it twists in the tool holder), or did you mean the whole assembly (tool holder and knurling tool) twists on the post? I'm particularly interested in this, as I have acquired a J&S clamp-type knurling tool and my plans require lots of knurling! All the best Graeme ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "Andrew Curl" methuselahx~xxntlworld.com Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 6:25 am ((PST)) Graeme, I would recommend going "Dickson"... A two way version is all that is needed for 99.5% of the turning work most people do, and you can buy more toolholders as you go- in my experience, the only holders I have ever bought that didn't interchange with everything else were the three that I bought (new) from RDG a while ago. I will have to remachine those. Otherwise, I swap between my front and rear toolposts, and I have lent tools in holders to my Father without issue. There's every chance that this involves three different toolpost manufacturers. Eight holders make a good set, although you can never seem to have too many. Another "plus" of the system is that by interchanging holders in the block, any wear causes a process of generation. After 50-odd years, the setup will have become even more accurate than when new. My own lathe is a Drummond "M" derivative (a model which was later built by Myford) and I had the same toolheight concerns. Working next door to a foundry at the time, the solution seemed obvious, and I had a new topslide "top" cast, and I machined it to suit. I have no intention of selling my lathe, but even if I do, the toolpost will remain with me, and it hasn't been modified or with anything else cut about. Trimming the holders was not really an option, as they would be significantly weakened. In the case of the ML10 I am at a loss to find more than one or two photographs of one -without- a Dickson post, and even if there is a toolheight discrepency there is ample meat on the topslide to allow the above approach without causing problems. I would actually be very surprised if Myford designed the "Ten" without allowing 3/8" tooling to be used in a Dickson. Although the initial outlay may seem steep, this is more than repaid in speed, convenience, repeatability and longevity -- these first three things being especially valuable if ever you fit DROs. Lastly, regarding your query about knurling... A "bludgeon" knurling tool is a barbaric, agricultural implement which causes too much strain and is quite unsuited to our little lathes. Using them industrially, the best chance of success was to cant them slightly in the toolholder so the leading corners of the wheels did the work. Even then, it was wise to do the knurling first or last, and certainly not between machining operations if concentricity was to be maintained. A self-contained straddle (or box) knurl does not introduce the same problems, as all the undesired stress is kept within the tool itself, instead of being inflicted on the slideways, chuck, and headstock bearings. The "ne plus ultra" is of course a device that actually cuts the pattern instead of impressing it -- the "Quick" knurling tool, in other words. Andrew UK ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "David Littlewood" davidx~xxdlittlewood.co.uk Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 7:53 am ((PST)) graeme.durantx~xxgmail.com writes >Interesting comment on the knurling tool. Do you mean you have to fit >it with care into the tool holder (otherwise it twists in the tool >holder), or did you mean the whole assembly (tool holder and knurling >tool) twists on the post? I'm particularly interested in this, as I >have acquired a J&S clamp-type knurling tool and my plans require lots >of knurling! Graeme, The latter; the sideways force applied to a caliper knurling tool is vastly greater than that on any other type of tool, and unless the toolpost is fixed very firmly to the topslide it will twist. I suspect the same would be true of any toolholder fixed to the topslide with a single central bolt. The Gibraltar post replaces the topslide entirely and is hugely firmer. Check it is suitable for the ML10 though. I have to say I find getting good quality knurling is one of the more difficult operations in a lathe. David Littlewood ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "Nick Brady" nickbrady935x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Fri Feb 8, 2013 12:28 pm ((PST)) > I have to ask what a 'Lamas' toolpost is, especially as Google won't > help me out. [Also try Lammas] Martin, Google found this: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrish/cancelled%20account/tl-tools.htm please go down the page till the line drawing, and there you go. Nik (london) ------- Re: Quick Change Tool Posts for Myford ML10 Posted by: "Joe Gibson" joegib1946x~xxyahoo.com Date: Sat Feb 9, 2013 3:26 am ((PST)) "graemedurant" wrote: > Of course, there is always the option to thin the topslide, as Andrew described for his Drummond. I'd have to lose a smidge over 0.1" by your calculations to use the standard Dickson sets. Has anyone tried this on an ML10? Is there enough topslide to machine away? I'll have to investigate further next time I venture out into the cold.... < Graeme, He, he, having blithely said said the maths are simple in my earlier post I then proceeded to muck up the maths! You took the point but for the record the calculation should have read: 0.500 - 0.225 = 0.275 (Maximum tool thickness) You ask whether anyone has tried thinning the topslide upper surface to increase the centreline to topslide distance. Yes, it has been done and was apparently successful. Over on the Madmodders site a member, 'HS93' (Peter), got another member, 'Bogstandard' (aka John Moore) to modify his ML10 in this way ? see the thread here: Madmodders Thread http://madmodder.net/index.php/topic,4918.msg57180.html#msg57180 Peter included photos of the modification as an attachment but unfortunately they've been corrupted somehow but you can just about see what's been done. Bogstandard milled off just under 1/8" from the forepart of the topslide (the area within which the toolpost block revolves) after pressing out the toolpost stud, and then restored the latter. Sad to say, HS93/Peter has since died so there's no prospect of getting uncorrupted copies of the photos. However, Bogstandard is still active via the 'Model Engine Maker' site that he founded ? see here: Model Engine Maker http://www.modelenginemaker.com/index.php ? so you could maybe contact him there via PM for a description of what was done. Joe ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "EdwinB" n5kzwx~xxarrl.net Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 9:06 am ((PST)) "geoffrey_in_siam_atlas_12in_3991" wrote: > We stripped the threads on the T-nut that goes in the T-slot and holds the tool post to the compound rest. So, it is time to make a new one. The old one has 9/16-UNF threads. We think we'd like to make the new one with 1/2-13UNC threads. Does anyone have any tips on making a T-nut? Any suggestions for the thread size? < Whichever thread you use, make sure that you do NOT tap completely through the nut. If you do, then take a cold chisel to the threads at the bottom of the nut to make sure the bolt cannot go through. If the mounting bolt bears on the bottom of the T-slot, it will break off the top of the T-slot quite easily. Regards, Ed ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 9:36 am ((PST)) The way to avoid that problem is, without the T-nut present, to set the tool post on the compound, slide something like an .060" feeler gauge onto the bottom of the slot, and drop the bolt through the toolpost. It should not touch the gauge. If it does, grind the tip. Robert D. ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication Posted by: "EdwinB" n5kzwx~xxarrl.net Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 1:28 pm ((PST)) That certainly works, Robert, if you only use one tool post. I mount a variety of things on the compound, and am quite likely to forget to check the length of the mounting bolt. Regards, Ed ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication Posted by: "Raymond" jwreyx~xxusa.net Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 9:56 am ((PST)) Are you taking about a QCTP or a rocker type TP? I made a T-nut for an AXA QCTP from a length of 5/16 x 1 ground flat stock about 2 3/4" long; you could use HR Flat in a pinch. Just bore the hole in the center and tap it as desired. I made the bolt by turning a 3/4" bar down to 9/19 leaving a 1/4" long x 5/8" shoulder near the bottom end such that when it is screwed into the plate the end of the stud falls just about 1/32 shy of penetrating the bottom to avoid clearance issues. I threaded both ends to 9/16 UNF. You could thread it to 1/2 UNC but the number of threads holding the bolt to the 5/16 plate may not be adequate. and you risk stripping it out again. Of course you could also use a much thicker plate and mill it to an upside down "T" shape, this will provide additional thickness for the bolt threads. raymond ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication Posted by: "dws" dwshelfx~xxyahoo.com Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 9:59 am ((PST)) I've sold hundreds of T-nuts. If you have a milling machine, it's not hard. Most things don't really matter. Some do. Technique: cut stock to length, mill off one side, flip the piece around, back the mill up, and mill off the other side. Don't try to mill one side going one way, one the other way. The slot on an Atlas compound is not much larger than the size of a 9/16" screw. The nut must be nicely centered, or it won't work. Stock is ideally tool steel. If you'd like to make a beautiful project, get some O-1. Create your nut, then harden it properly, and get it black oxided. Awesome. It might take a dozen tries before perfect, but you could show it off to the grand kids. For an Atlas, the size is common: 1/2" x 1". Or, 3/8" x 1". They will work equally well, but aesthetically people prefer the fuller effect of 1/2, so when I make them for sale, I usually use 1/2". Hot roll would work fine, but again for aesthetic reasons, I use cold roll. There are tradeoffs. 1. Hot roll is relatively ugly. 2. Cold roll is stronger, gaining strength during the press. 3. Cold roll is harder to drill and tap. What NOT to do: start with some oversized piece of steel, and aim for the completion. Sure, it would be an educational exercise. No, you're not likely to get there without some screwup or another, and starting over is a long path. Cold roll also has "unrelieved internal stress", which makes it unsuited to very small t-nuts, but for this size, I've never observed any problem. The small ones can warp after milling as the stress overcomes the remaining stock. Stuff you cannot do: 1. make it too big. Duh. But .03 or even .05 undersized will be fine. 2. make it wobble corner to corner. You'd be surprised how many ingenious ways can be found to create this effect. One common one, have the end mill be gradually being pulled out of a collet during the milling process. Drilling and tapping: The biggest threat is that your drill will wander, resulting in an angled hole. This threat goes down as the size of the drill size goes up, but the threat must be taken seriously. A nicely angled tapped hole just won't do. I've come to cut a pilot hole using a short 3/16" solid carbide drill as the first step. Then I drill the final hole. Use a "screw machine" or "stub" length drill, but be wary of home shortened/re-sharpened drills, good threads require a good starting hole. End mills can work nicely for this hole if you have one the right size, and can get it precisely where it should be for the enlarging pass. 9/16-18 vs M14x1.5. Two AXA sized studs are sold. You cannot tell them apart by looking at them, or even measuring them with a caliper or micrometer. The diameter tolerances overlap. 1/2-13 threads. I've occasionally made one of these on request, but I presumed that buyer had some odd tool block with a 1/2" hole. Most tool holding apparatus have a hole which defines the right size of stud/bolt. Length. Not to start any kind of religious war, but by my analysis, the pressures fade rapidly as one gets away from the centered stud. I mostly sell 1.5" long nuts. If someone asks for longer, I've quoted them about twice the regular price, and then I do as they specified. dw ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication Posted by: "geoffrey_in_siam_atlas_12in_3991" lovex~xxcvbt-web.org Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 2:22 pm ((PST)) I think that we can make a bushing(s) to accommodate the 1/2" bolt in the 9/16" hole fairly easily. The coarse threads should make the locking/ unlocking a little easier. The smaller diameter will give the threads more steel to support. The T-Nut bent because the 9/16" threaded hole had less than a 1/16th of material at 2 points (thin wall). Thanks for your tip though, I hadn't thought of that. ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 2:27 pm ((PST)) Easy fix. Mounting bolts are cheap. Everything that I put on the compound has its own which lives in it when not in use. If I have any of different diameter or thread, the T-nut stores on the last bolt out. ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 2:42 pm ((PST)) How I made one: 1. Start with about 1.5"-2" steel bar. 2. Center drill and bore the hole to size. 3. Tap the threads. 4. Turn the front down to the width of the T-slot opening and just short of the height. 5. Part the piece off so the larger part thickness matches the height of the lower T-slot. 6. Remove part and hacksaw off the sides to match the width of the lower T-slot. Scott G. Henion Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 3:09 pm ((PST)) bravo !!!....neat easy answer, probably quicker than using a mill. the only thing i don't like abt it is that I didn't think of it abt 25 yrs ago. best wishes doc ------- Re: Tool-Post T-nut fabrication Posted by: "geoffrey_in_siam_atlas_12in_3991" lovex~xxcvbt-web.org Date: Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:45 am ((PDT)) Thanks for all your neat tips and tricks. I left on a trip; when I came back it was done: milled from some hot-rolled stock. I'd like to carburize it. For carburizing I'll put it in a can with pulverized charcoal. It will then go in a village brick kiln for a few days. The carburizing isn't essential but I can do it easily so why not. ------- Rocker style tool post for 12 inch Atlas? [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "lustsoul_2000" godlessdavis0x~xxgmail.com Date: Wed Apr 3, 2013 12:00 pm ((PDT)) I've been using a quick change tool post set, but need to thread something. I have a real nice threading tool (and no extra HS bits to shape into a threading tool) so I started measuring for a rocker style tool post. Is it just me, or is the t slot in this lathe really small? I have a southbend tool post that won't fit, and the tool post on my 6 inch Atlas has a larger t slot base than the 12. What can I look for that will fit this lathe? Does it have to be an Atlas part, or are there options. I ordered some tool stock to cut into threading tools, but now I'm just curious about it. ------- Re: Rocker style tool post for 12 inch Atlas? Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Wed Apr 3, 2013 3:41 pm ((PDT)) if the south bend is an xtra, just fit the base to your lathe (OR if needed, make an xtra base)..if no mill nor shaper, you can face it thinner & also narrower in your 4 jaw chuck (do both edges), OR you can hack saw/ band saw & file. the 6 in may be thicker cause it is narrower ??/ if you have a quick change, just grind your thrd bit to fit one of the turning tool holders? ...for me, there are times that i want the lantern tool post, but others have said they find no need??? best wishes doc ------- NOTE TO FILE: The following started as a simple response to a query about making QCTP tool holders from mild steel. It soon evolved into a larger discussion about heat treating the final product and so has been moved to the Heat Treating file here. See Re: QCTP tool holders from mild steel? [myfordlathes] Posted by: "handy_wal" m_agnwx~xxbtinternet.com Date: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:49 am ((PDT)) ------- New guy with a question on QCTP mounting [atlas618lathe] Posted by: "gotham_hunter" mmiller57x~xxwoh.rr.com Date: Wed May 22, 2013 11:49 am ((PDT)) I have an A2ZCNC tool post on my 618, and, just as I've seen on a few rather old posts, it does tend to twist a bit on the compound. I found a post which listed a modification by a Walter Anderson, but the link is dead. Is anyone familiar with that mod, or with any way to eliminate the tendency to twist? ------- Re: New guy with a question on QCTP mounting Posted by: "Scott Bleakney" scott.bleakneyx~xxyahoo.com Date: Wed May 22, 2013 8:30 pm ((PDT)) You can use a small piece of paper and place between the compound and the tool post. The paper gives just enough bite that the tool post will not slip. I do this when clamping things in the milling vise too. Scott ------- tools4cheap tool post holder 250-102 [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Ray Ingersoll" ray48861x~xxyahoo.com ray48861 Date: Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:33 pm ((PDT)) I purchased a 250-102 quick change tool post holder for my craftsman 101.07400 metal lathe. All the tool holders worked and the knurler until I got to the boring bar holder. The first four tool changes went well until the fifth one -- the boring bar locked in so tight I had to take a large punch and a 2 pound sledge to get it out. The Indian manufacturer installed a soft tension pin instead of a tempered one. I replaced it with a tempered pin and everything works fine now. Anyone purchasing this might want to consider replacing the tension pin before using it. ray48861 ------- Newbie questions Myford tool posts and cutters [myfordlathes] Posted by: oldetymesx~xxnycap.rr.com Date: Fri Nov 1, 2013 6:53 am ((PDT)) Hi fellow listers. Short story: What are the range of sizes (minimum – maximum size cutter tools) that can be used in the elephants foot tool post? Is it correct to understand that the elephants foot tool post is similar to other tool posts in that one can shim any size cutter square to center height? Longer story: I am a new owner of a Myford 7 (excellent condition 1993 vintage:) and in need of guidance on tool posts and cutter tools. What came with the Myford was the “elephants foot” tool post and a few dozen 5/8” cutter squares with brazed carbide tips (all chipped up... appears the original owner did not learn how to grind/sharpen tools). Neither Myford’s quick setting lathe tools nor the Dickson QCTP were included in the inventory. Thus, I am seeking to understand the versatility and minimum, maximum capacity of the elephants foot tool post. Original owner was a model engineer. I am a clockmaker who understands how to grind HSS form tools and would like to do the same with this Myford. It is clear from listserv threads and Myford literature that if I had a QCTP that 3/8” tool blanks are the recommended choice. It is not clear the minimum size square for the elephant’s foot. I understand that larger squares provide more rigidity but more time consuming to grind. I would like to stay within 3/8” if the tool post is designed for that. Additionally, there was no inventory of parting tools or parting tool holder. Could the owner really have just relied on a hack saw and facing tool? Seems out of place for a model engineer That said, I can envision grinding a parting tool form on a square and inserting in the elephants tool post. Is it designed for that? I am used to a rear tool post on my Sherline lathe and wish for the same advantage on my Myford. I see rear tool posts are sold for Myford. Any recommendations regards to what manufacturer or style? Thx much for any feedback Dave Morrow, CC21 AWCI Certified Clockmaker ------- Re: Newbie questions Myford tool posts and cutters Posted by: "David Everett" deverett2003x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Fri Nov 1, 2013 7:29 am ((PDT)) First of all, congratulations on your recent purchase. With regards to using your elephant's foot tool post, theoretically there is no minimum size that can be used. Rigidity will need to be a consideration - but perhaps not such an issue with your clockmaking. Going to the extremes, it would be possible to use 1/8" HSS tools, but you would need to make dedicated tool boats for them. A suitable holder could be made from rectangular mild steel with a channel milled out of the top, just less than 1/8" deep. The tool would sit in the groove and be held tight by the foot. Height of the boat would be so that your tool would end up on centre. The same principle could be used for larger sizes of HSS tools up to a size that would put the cutting tip on centre. Going larger, there is no maximum up to the limit of the tool post height. The blank would have to be ground away so that the tip is on centre - very wasteful. Between the extremes, for your usage, I would suggest 1/4" or 5/16" with the tool boat suggested above. Personally I have used both a 4 tool turret and a QCTP. Personal opinion, but I much preferred the 4 tool turret -- a G H Thomas design. The 3 most common tools were mounted and others that were used had a dedicated stack of shims kept with them. It was much more rigid than the usually seen Dickson type QCTP. With my way of working it is arguable that there was no overall tool change speed advantage with the QCTP. To be efficiently used, the QCTP needs a toolholder for each tool. If you are not into tool making, the cost can soon add up. With both, I would suggest that 3/8" is the maximum size. I use 3/8" and 5/16" HSS, depending on what I managed to scrounge and grind at the time. Dave The Emerald Isle ------- Re: Newbie questions Myford tool posts and cutters Posted by: "David Littlewood" davidx~xxdlittlewood.co.uk Date: Fri Nov 1, 2013 10:23 am ((PDT)) Hi Dave, welcome to the world of Myford users. >What are the range of sizes (minimum – maximum size cutter tools) that >can be used in the elephants foot tool post? Is it correct to understand >that the elephants foot tool post is similar to other tool posts in that >one can shim any size cutter square to center height? Sorry, don't know, never used the one that came with mine. Never worn a hair shirt either, and I'm pretty sure (in both cases) I wouldn't enjoy it. >I would like to stay within 3/8” if the tool post is designed for that. 3/8" tools are fine in both. >Additionally, there was no inventory of parting tools or parting tool >holder. >Could the owner really have just relied on a hack saw and facing tool? He wouldn't be the first person to do this! >Seems out of place for a model engineer That said, I can envision >grinding a parting tool form on a square and inserting in the elephants >tool post. Is it designed for that? Again sheer masochism. I did this when I began; the work involved was substantial (much more than grinding a normal tool) and the results indifferent. Unless you are *really* strapped for cash, buy one of these: http://www.greenwood-tools.co.uk/ishop/728/shopscr23.html When I used home-made or even conventional bought parting tools, I used to approach parting off with back gear, great trepidation, brown trousers and cycle clips. Since buying the above, I don't give it any special thought (other than checking the tool is dead square to the work) and just turn the speed (VFD) down a tad to a few hundred RPM. Rear tool post -- got one, never use it. If you buy the above, you'll save the cost of the rear tool post. It does help if you adjust the cross-slide gibs to give smooth traverse with no slop at all. Best way to do this is to screw out the slide until the leadscrew disengages, remove feedscrew, adjust gibs by feel, then put screw back. It's *much* harder to get the right feel by twiddling the screw. I note David Everett's recommendation of the 4-way tool post. This issue of course is like the war between the big-endians and little-endians in Gulliver's Travels; there are two flatly opposed camps and neither side seems believe a word the other says. I am *definitely* on the QCTP side. I used to have a 4-way (came with my S7 30 years ago), got fed up with the fact that it only holds 4 tools, 3 if you want one of them to be a boring tool, and one of them is always pointing right at your hand (or sticking into it). Bought a Dickson set, retired the 4-way, and when I got fed up of it taking space on the shelf I sold it. Yes, the QC system works best if you have a decent number of holders, but you will build up gradually (I now have about 30). The convenience is staggering. First thing I bought when I acquired a bigger lathe was a big brother set for that one too. >Thx much for any feedback You're welcome - that's what these groups are for! David Littlewood ------- Re: Newbie questions Myford tool posts and cutters Posted by: "Ken Strauss" ken.straussx~xxgmail.com Date: Sun Nov 3, 2013 9:45 am ((PST)) The standard Myford toolpost screw will not fit the Little Machine Shop 0XA (made by Tormach) wedge style QCTP. The Myford bolt is too large and too short. I made a simple adapter from brass hex stock and a new insert (tapped 5/16-18) in the topslide for mine and used a 5/16-18 x 3 1/4 SHCS to secure things. The brass piece is a loose sliding fit in the bore of the QCTP. I have a second QCTP on a plinth at the back of the cross slide. The plinth is the same height as the topslide so tools can be moved between front and back QCTP without adjustment of height. ------- Dickson quick change [myfordlathes] Posted by: jerhalcox~xxwirelessdatanet.net Date: Fri Jan 3, 2014 3:12 pm ((PST)) This will seem silly but I have a question on the Dickson tool post. I acquired a Myford Super 7 here in the U.S. with a quite a bit of tooling. Along with it came a Dickson tool post and also the original Myford tool post that was on it when I received the lathe. The post or bolt in the top slide is a lot smaller than the hole or bore of the Dickson tool post. Is there a sleeve available or should I make a sleeve to fit the Dickson. Can someone explain how the Dickson should be installed? Sorry for the long winded question. Jerry Halcomb Deland, IL ------- Re: Dickson quick change Posted by: "David Everett" deverett2003x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Fri Jan 3, 2014 3:31 pm ((PST)) Jerry. You need to make a top hat bushing, the bore to fit the toolpost stud and the outer diameter to fit the bore of the toolblock. I also made a bottom bushing to prevent swarf getting under the bottom of the toolblock. Diameter of the base on mine is 2" and the thickness of the flange part is 30 thou. Use the largest diameter you can that does not foul a toolholder when on its lowest setting. It does not affect the rigidity of the tool holding system and does help prevent the top slide getting graunched with swarf. Dave The Emerald Isle ------- Re: Dickson quick change Posted by: "David Alexander" dave_ale2008x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Sat Jan 4, 2014 1:18 am ((PST)) Hi Jerry, I made a sleeve to fit inside the toolpost, just as Dave from The Emerald Isle describes, except I didn't make a top hat bushing, it was a simple cylinder. I've never taken the QCTP off since I fitted it and it hasn't been a problem. regards David Alexander Towcester, England ------- Re: Dickson quick change Posted by: iankirkup984x~xxgmail.com Date: Sat Jan 4, 2014 1:46 am ((PST)) Hi Jerry, I have a copy of the Dickson QCTP which has a countersunk edge to the bolt hole. But also has the same issue that the diameter of the hole is larger than the diameter of the tool post bolt, but not by a significant amount. Maybe 20 thou all around. I just made a simple conical steel washer that is a very close fit to the bolt and the countersink. Holds the QCTP in place no problem. It's another option in case it's applicable. Ian Sheffield UK ------- Re: Dickson quick change Posted by: otebgnx~xxjisp.net piedrj Date: Sat Jan 4, 2014 2:16 pm ((PST)) Jerry. Hello from a fellow Illinoisan just south of the WI boader. I also have a Myford Super 7B, got it in 1982. I posted pictures of the method mine is attached. There is a bushing, a washer, and the nut. I used the washer for two reasons. One of the threads still showed when the bushing was put on. And two, the washer took any marring or gouging rather than the bushing. The bushing came with the Dixon tool post. The dimensions of the bushing are: large OD .935, height of large OD .125., small OD .615, height of small OD .143. The small OD is actually rounded over so there is little chance of binding. Hole in center needs to match your post, hole in mine is .465. I am sure these are all supposed to be metric, but those dimensions should work for you. Photos are under Bobs Myford, just sort on last modified. You will also see a spindle attachment I made to use Myford chucks on my Clausing 5900, a spindle stud to mount on rotary tables, and a microscope (from my Sherline Lathe) mounted on the Myford I use for fine threads, ie greater than 100. Good Luck, and have lots of fun -- what type of tooling did you get? Bob ------- I'm confused about tool holders [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: garilla308x~xxyahoo.com Date: Thu Jan 30, 2014 10:52 am ((PST)) I want to get a stiffer more rigid tool holder. I have the Armstrong tool holders that hold the 1/4 tool steel lathe bits and the lantern currently, and that lantern is a bit weak. So when I look online I see that most of the tool holders hold the tool bits without an angle (horizontal). They don't have the built in 16 1/2 degree angle as in my Armstrong tool holders. Why is this? Why don't they need that 16 1/2 degree which I read about in the Atlas Op Manual? Also I have Armstrong cutoff, knurler, threader and tool holders so what would be a good choice to reuse the tool holders but something better than the lantern? ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: ctb11365x~xxyahoo.com Date: Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:00 am ((PST)) If you're moving away from HSS tools (like the probable 1/4" sq or 5/16" sq Rex AA or similar) then you're moving toward carbide, and most production shops now use carbide inserts rather than carbide tips brazed to a steel shank. Based on that, the ALORIS Style holder (or Quick Change Tool Post) is more skewed towards holding a insert style tool shank. The top, side and end relief is built into the insert. So why do you feel your current tool post & holders are not rigid? Within the limits of an Atlas lathe, they should be; where is the non-rigidity coming from? Is your compound tightly gibbed to the cross slide? Is your cross slide tightly gibbed to the carriage? Are you holding the Armstrong and the HSS bit in as close to the tool post as the work allows? Simply changing to a QCTP won't eliminate any problems that exist now. Charlie ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "James Irwin" jirwin1x~xxaustin.rr.com Date: Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:24 am ((PST)) Having lived with ³lantern² style tool posts since the 1950¹s, and having switched to first the turret style, then QC styles, I can say they all have their places. IF you¹re finding the lantern style too weak, then, either you¹re overloading it or not setting it up right. The Atlas is not a super strong lathe, so overloading any kind of tool holder is not a good idea. That said, heavier duty ones may give improved surface finish. If you¹re having troubles there, check the pre-load on your spindle bearings. Ask me how I found out about this! Jim Irwin ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org Date: Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:28 am ((PST)) > So when I look online I see that most of the tool holders hold the > tool bits without an angle (horizontal). They don't have the built in > 16 1/2 degree angle as in my Armstrong tool holders. Why is this? > Why don't they need that 16 1/2 degree which I read about in the Atlas > Op Manual? You can grind a back rake angle in the tool. The reason most holders don't include the angle is that most machines do not need it. The rake reduces the cutting forces and helps these lightweight lathes. I use a QCTP with carbide indexed inserts (and HSS too.) People say these lathes were not designed to run carbide tooling. That is false. They were not designed to run tooling with no back rake or front relief angle. I use inserts that provide both these angles. They are harder to find as near all carbide inserts you will find will have no front relief and no back rake (or even a negative back rake.) Many I have are "boring bar" inserts; they often have the angles. Note: inserts with a chip breaker emulate the rake angle nicely. > Also I have Armstrong cutoff, knurler, threader and tool holders so > what would be a good choice to reuse the tool holders but something > better than the lantern? You can stiffen up the lantern by making a collar to replace the rocker in the tool post. A stacked set of washers will work too. You can eliminate the extra length of the Armstrong holder and mount the tool in the lantern holder with the collar or shims to raise it up to the right height. Then grind the needed angles. I sold all my Armstrong-type holders and my lantern post. I just never needed them and hated having to adjust the height and how far they added to the tool stickout. With a straight holder, you might say grinding the extra angle adds more work, but you have to grind more off the front of the tool for the relief so it is really a wash on difficulty. Besides, most of my HSS bit have no back rake and work fine. I like my QCTP but if I did not have one I'd probably make a 2 or 4-way posts like the ones I made here: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman-12x36/toolpost.shtml The QCTP advantage is speed. I can drop in a holder to turn to a diameter, drop in a holder with a facing cutter and face the end. Then drop in a boring bar holder and bore to size. Finally use the knurling and parting holders. No fiddling adjusting the tool height. If you like using the Armstrong holders, try using the stacked washers or turn a wide collar. You could also make a post like I did in the above link cut to hold the Armstrong holders. There is no right answer. What is right is what you are most comfortable with and gets the results you want. Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 Welding pages and homemade welder: http://shdesigns.org/Welding ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com Date: Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:44 pm ((PST)) Gary, The rake angle in the Armstrong style cutter holders is 7-1/2 deg. 16-1/2 deg. is the recommended back rake for cutters used on low carbon steels up through 1040. As explained in the text, the built-in 7-1.2 deg, reduces the amount of grinding required on top of the cutter to achieve the total of 16-1/2 deg, back rake to 9 deg. It does, however, increase the grinding required on the front. But the amount of metal required to be removed is less on the front than on the top. And the cross section of the cutter is not reduced as much which improves heat flow. If you switch to a turret or Quick Change Tool Post but continue to use HSS (High Speed Steel) cutters, you will need to regrind any existing cutters. As stated by one or two other responders to your post, I long ago switched to carbide insert cutters. I have the complete set of original tool holders but haven't used them in 30 years. I kept them for nostalgia or because they are part of the "collection". Except for the ID threading tools, there isn't really anything you can do with them if you switch to QCTP. You can use the ID threading tools in a 102 QC holder. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Eggleston Lance" wheezer606x~xxverizon.net Date: Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:03 pm ((PST)) I have ordered QCTP and holders from allindustrialtoolsupply piston: http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-AXA-PISTON-TOOL-POST-UP-12-CNC-SWING-LA THE-QUICK-CHANGE-HOLDER-250-100-/131090223613?pt=BI_Tool_Work_Hold ing&hash=item1e859611fd wedge: http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-AXA-WEDGE-TOOL-POST-UP-12-CNC-SWING-LA THE-QUICK-CHANGE-HOLDER-250-111-/121189222566?pt=BI_Tool_Work_Hold ing&hash=item1c3770c8a6 The fit and finish of the holders is better than CDCO, by far. I have not gotten the post yet. Ordered two. Service and email response from the company is very good. The lantern post is useful for getting into tight corners near the headstock where the bulk of the QCTP hits the chuck jaws. For everyday use, the qctp will be your best friend. You don't need carbide, just regrind your HSS bits. Get several holders and mount your fave bits; switch holder w/ tool mounted rather than unscrewing and remounting bits into just one holder. Or if you can mill, make your own holders. lance ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com Date: Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:53 pm ((PST)) Although you can use 1/4" sq. (and 1/2" sq.) tooling the the AXA (100 series) QCTP, 3/8" sq. will work best. That's what the size was made for. Also, although most ads will indicate that you can use either AXA or BXA series on a 12", the BXA is almost too tall and usually more expensive. From what I've read on reflectors and BB's, people who bought the BXA for an Atlas seem to fall into two groups - those who say that they wished they had bought an AXA and those who won't admit it. :-) The top of the compound may be a little higher on an Atlas than on the Chinese machines. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Richard Hughson" richughsonx~xxgmail.com Date: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:13 pm ((PST)) It might also be worth your while to look into the Omni-Post tool holder from KRF http://www.krfcompany.com/ I ordered the 900 series for my 12" and it works great for me. I find it as versatile as the lantern and as solid as the wedge types. It also allows you to remount a tool at the exact same angle time after time. Rick H ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:42 pm ((PST)) fwiw ......you will find GREATLY increased stiffness & ridgitity if you get rid of your 2 piece rocker assemply & slip a flat "doughnut over the post ..the angle on your tool holders allows some vertical positioning of the bits do that you have automatically centered up tool bits when you have multiple holders .....i have two different thickness aluminum ones i use on my Monarch A 14 inch lathe (aluminum only cause i had a supply of drilled discs) & can take a 2 inch bar down to one inch in a single pass ..rock solid ....the rocker & its ring are the problem, not the tool post ....the quick change i just "HAD TO HAVE sits unused .....on the crftsmn 12x36 i still use the openside turret & single tool holders i made 30 yrs ago that hold 1/4 inch bits. another option instead of the rocker assembly is an adjustable base made of a round bar internally threaded, & a top piece, externally threaded that screws into the lower one, thus providing quick vertical adjustment ...i recently made one of these for my 9 inch Barnes lathe, imitating the original one from 1890. if you just drill a hole in a piece of round bar & slip it over the post, it provides a bearing IMO as solid as needed. in all cases it is good practice to position the holder angled just a tad toward the tailstock w/ extremely heavy cuts. i do admit to being reactionary & "muley " .... & i blame my being cheap on being reared during the depression before WW 2 ..it most assuredly was a "make do" time. best wishes doc ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Richard Marchi" rfmarchix~xxaol.com Date: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:01 am ((PST)) As previously said, the lantern tool holder should be rigid enough for most reasonable cuts on an Atlas, assuming you set it up with minimum overhang on both the Armstrong holder and the bit. I've never felt the need to add a doughnut in place of the rocker assembly, but several well respected commenters have endorsed it. You might give it a try before going to an adjustable holder. The comment about being able to get closer to the chuck with the lantern/Armstrong is also worth noting. I have an AXA holder for my 10" and like it quite a lot for jobs where I'll be making several pieces or switching back and forth between operations. However, it sits in a tool draw with its various holders, while the lantern/Armstrong is laying on the tailstock end of the lathe chip bed, along with a few ground bits. I find that for one off jobs that have light cuts, I can get a lantern set up pretty fast. Just a matter of personal choice, I guess. Richard Marchi Washington, DC ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: white5415x~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:30 am ((PST)) Yeah I'll probably go with carbide inserts myself, I never had much luck trying to grind a HSS 1/4" blank that would cut anything. ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: ksierensx~xxmsn.com Date: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:38 pm ((PST)) One problem is that for carbide to work well you need to take a heavier cut than that with HSS, and on my little 6" lathe, you can stall it pretty easily. I have found that HSS will give you a much better cut and better finish as long as you sharpen and hone them. One other problem with going with a QCTP, is that the tool is presented 90 degrees to the part, so you should grind the back rake angle into the bit. ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org Date: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:45 pm ((PST)) I have found the opposite. I routinely take 0.0005 cuts with my carbide cutters. They cut easier with a better finish as you don't get the bit of metal the fuses to the end of the HSS bit. My few uncoated carbide bits do show the steel fuse the same as HSS. The point about honing HSS bits is important. I can make a big difference especially on parting tools. Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 Welding pages and homemade welder: http://shdesigns.org/Welding ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: ncsailrmanx~xxhotmail.com machmick Date: Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:25 pm ((PST)) I just went through all this a few months ago, asked the questions, did the research, and came to a method that works very well for me. All without buying a QCTP. Many very experienced guys still use HSS and specifically recommend it for hobby use over carbide, which can chip and have other problems. Nothing cuts for me like a freshly ground and honed HSS bit. On my little Atlas 618 I now use 3/8" 5% cobalt HSS bits ($4 from Shars, #404-1433) in the original lantern post, on a stack of washers, and it is very rigid. The thick, heavy washers I bored to fit the lantern OD, and then also used one of the fitted washers as a pattern to make some thinner shims from some roof flashing, a few from beverage cans. This allows precise adjustment of the height of the tool point since that is critical. As for back rake, I searched out the truth much as you are here and found that back rake is apparently much less important to hobbyists than it was to production guys back when, before carbide was commonly used. Most just hold the bit horizontal in various tool holders now. Many, if not most users of HSS tool bits grind the shape they want (viewed from top - RH, LH, Facing, etc) with 7 to10* front clearance/relief, about the same in side rake (on the top of the tool) but being careful to NOT add back rake. Not adding back rake means the point of the bit remains at the same height as the bit is ground back repeatedly for sharpening and the bit just gets shorter without the point dropping as it would if back rake were added, so the washer/shim stack remains the correct height. A very "clean" system that works great for me. There are said to be some better angles to grind for other materials, but I have not needed to vary from the above for mild steel, some harder steel, aluminum and brass. I'm a relative novice and some may differ... ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com jmelson2 Date: Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:40 am ((PST)) On 01/31/2014 11:25 PM, ncsailrmanx~xxhotmail.com wrote: > On my little Atlas 618 I now use 3/8" 5% cobalt HSS bits Although I mostly use Carbide cutters on the lathe, I do agree that the Cobalt-HSS cutters are VASTLY more durable than plain HSS, at least when it applies to end mills. I guesstimate they have 3 X longer life. Sharpening end mills is really complicated, so it matters a lot to keep them sharp longer. Jon ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org Date: Sat Feb 1, 2014 11:52 am ((PST)) I had a cobalt 3/32 HSS parting tool that i loved. I rarely ever had to sharpen it. It is a bit brittle though and when my compound came loose and rotated on a deep cut it shattered into several pieces. Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Charles" xlch58x~xxswbell.net Date: Sat Feb 15, 2014 3:57 pm ((PST)) Doc, Just to show that the idea of the spring tool is still kicking. This guy made one for his Aloris style quick change. After watching this, I think it may be my next tool project. He also explains quite cogently why you would use one. http://youtu.be/KETVR9qtEmY Charles ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:25 pm ((PST)) glad to see the video ....now maybe more will try it out & gain some value from it .....if you make two of them, one w/ the nose longer to hold a regular lathe bit, you cud use it for parting off...just grind the bit w/ all the clearances & V....also useful for plunge cutting to true up the point of a soft center held in the 3 jaw (avoiding a tear down & new set up for working on centers). tnx doc ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org Date: Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:18 pm ((PST)) Doubleboost also just uploaded a video of a spring holder in use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7l3VCJN1tY Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 Welding pages and homemade welder: http://shdesigns.org/Welding ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:11 pm ((PST)) neat ...he made it to fit in his Q-change tool holder .....the first time you see a 1/8 inch flex, it is enlightening. took a while to ge used to that "brogue" .... best wishes doc ------- Re: I'm confused about tool holders Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:38 pm ((PST)) Scott said: "At first i thought it was german or dutch " that figures since the indigenous tribes WERE germanic from the european mainland. many of our english words show their germanic origins .......stille = still....nacht = nite ...kalt = cold ...wasser = water .....sohn = son ...vater = father ....mutter = mother ..sitzen = sit ...mit = with.... hande = hand...blut = blood.....beste= best ....hause = house .. hund = hound ( dog )....etc. FWIW 1. i have never had a "dig in" jam up using a gooseneck parting tool .....and they are pretty rare w/ a solid tool since i have been using a V ground into the face of the cut off tool & clearance back of the face, since the resulting chip is ground dmaller & does not clog up ...have not tried one w/ the V ground on the top of the parting tool yet. FWIW 2. i know it is supposed to be a NO NO, but i am still experimenting w/ parting off 1018 w/ no fluid on my cfrtsmn commercial 12x36 using a solid tool holder ...the chips from the V look like filings & seem to clear OK on work no larger than one inch .....sure is less messy the last 1/2 dozen times ....i run 45 # max air pressure in the shop & so far have not even needed that to clear the partings ...not recommending this ... & some material may still be stringy & disaster may ensue. best wishes doc ------- Craftsman 101.07301 Lathe - Basic Questions [atlas618lathe] Posted by: bink9erx~xxyahoo.com Date: Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:25 pm ((PST)) What is the best value in tool holders for a Craftsman 101.07301? Thanks in advance for your help. I am new to this, but really want to learn. I am sure I will have setup questions soon. ------- Re: Craftsman 101.07301 Lathe - Basic Questions Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com Date: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:14 am ((PST)) Bink, Although many still use the original style lantern tool holder, a slight majority would recommend one of the Quick Change Tool Posts (QCTP). The correct size for the 101.07301 would be the 0XA. Many have bought the aluminum post (all of the actual tool holders are steel) which is cheaper but as no one should need to do this more than once, I would recommend paying a little more and getting the steel one. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: Craftsman 101.07301 Lathe - Basic Questions Posted by: ksierensx~xxmsn.com Date: Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:37 am ((PST)) The value of tool holders? Are you wanting to sell some you have, or wondering what they cost to purchase them. I added an A2Z quick change on my lathe, with 5 holders it was about $100, and sometime The Little Machine Shop has specials where they include two additional ones at that price. ------- Re: Craftsman 101.07301 Lathe - Basic Questions Posted by: fdabekx~xxgmail.com Date: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:47 am ((PST)) Regarding tool posts: I really like the OmniPost: http://www.krfcompany.com/ The 600 series is a nice fit on a 618. I find myself doing most work with the carbide holder. Frank ------- Re: Craftsman 101.07301 Lathe - Basic Questions Posted by: azbrunox~xxyahoo.com Date: Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:18 pm ((PST)) I concur with Frank. The OmniPost is a very solid and well made tool post. I made a bunch of extra tool holders to really put it to good use. ------- Re: Craftsman 101.07301 Lathe - Basic Questions Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com Date: Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:17 pm ((PST)) Although it may be of less consequence with a 6" than with the larger 10" and 12", there is at least one obvious drawback to the Omnipost if you are a new lathe owner trying to decide what to buy. As with the one two or three brands of larger QCTP that aren't interchangable with the other 40, there is only one source of tool holders (unless you have the equipment, materials and spare time to make your own). ------- Re: Craftsman 101.07301 Lathe - Basic Questions Posted by: thomashansen871x~xxgmail.com brickyard_871 Date: Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:59 pm ((PST)) I got my qctp from a2z corp. Contacted them through their site, and they gave me the info for the correct post. I also got 6 tool holders and 1 boring bar holder with the setup. Not a bad piece. ------- Re: Craftsman 101.07301 Lathe - Basic Questions Posted by: toddx~xxlittlelocos.com Date: Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:40 pm ((PST)) Not to sound like a broken record, but I've enjoyed using my KRF Omniposts for 20+ years and really make good use of the 48-point indexing available with this configuration. BTW, I even went as far as to make a miniature one for my nephew's Sherline and plan to use that size on my 618. The miniature one can be seen in the photos section of our Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/littlelocos Enjoy, Todd ------- Re: A "New" 1958 Myford ML7 for me!!! [myfordlathes] Posted by: "rmm200x~xxyahoo.com" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:27 pm ((PDT)) There is a specific type of QC tool post that is often recommended - Myford Dickson. Get it from the original Myford supplier, not the new Chinese one. They advertise on eBay every time they make a batch. "Precision" I think. Someone correct me... Robert Mitchell ------- Re: A "New" 1958 Myford ML7 for me!!! Posted by: "Phil" pipx~xxhvtesla.com philiptuck Date: Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:47 am ((PDT)) No correction needed Robert, you're right. The user ID is: "aandrprecisionltd" (Member since 28-Jan-10 in United Kingdom Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom) Les, that company (AA precision) made the QC tool holders that the original Myford company sold under their Myford name. The 'new' Myford company sources QC tool holders elsewhere. AA precision now make batches for Myford lathes every few months or so. I emailed them last year and they offered to let me know when they were next doing a batch. Several months later (December 2013) I got an email from them (Sally) with an EBay link, and I ordered one tool post and eight holders. Well built and very useful. Are they a necessity? No - but they make life so easy - a bit like PAS or air-con in a car, sample it, and then you don't like to go without it. Regards Phil Tuck www.hvtesla.com ------- Re: Tool post holders [myfordlathes] Posted by: "David Littlewood" davidx~xxdlittlewood.co.uk Date: Thu Jul 3, 2014 10:30 am ((PDT)) otebgnx~xxjisp.net writes >HI Just an FYI, I have an original Dickson on my Super 7B. I recently >neededsome new holders. The Bison ones from New England Brass fit >perfectly out of the box. Agreed (see my original post). >I got a new cutoff holder also I split the original - too much muscle! To the OP, I would strongly recommend that you don't bother with the parting off toolholder. Get one of these: http://www.greenwood-tools.co.uk/ishop/728/shopscr23.html which fits the standard toolholder. I have used one for over a decade, they are - and this is not an exaggeration - a league above the normal blade PO tool. I used to find parting off a rather nerve-racking job, but since buying it I now find it straightforward. I'm sure you will find a local supplier for them, they are made by Sandvik. David Littlewood ------- Re: Tool post holders Posted by: "David Everett" deverett2003x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Thu Jul 3, 2014 11:43 am ((PDT)) David. The bit that goes in the toolholder can with advantage be reduced in width to a a ball hair over 3/8" to reduce overhang. Otherwise, agree with DL. Dave The Emerald Isle ------- Re: Tool post holders Posted by: "David Littlewood" davidx~xxdlittlewood.co.uk Date: Thu Jul 3, 2014 5:14 pm ((PDT)) Dave, That sounds a good idea, never thought of it myself. I wonder, indeed, whether it might be advantageous to make it a little less than 3/8", so the blade could be pressed firmly against the side of the toolholder and reduce the (very slight) risk of vibration. Or is there some reason that would be bad? David Littlewood ------- Re: Tool post holders Posted by: peterroachx~xxbtinternet.com x3cnc Date: Fri Jul 4, 2014 1:02 am ((PDT)) Having used the Greenwood/Sandvik tool on the Myford, with great results, I brought a second to fit a CNC turret. Changed the block on the side so that projection from turret minimal. Also changed the position of the centreline of the block, which may help on some toolholders to get the tool tip on the job centerline. Vibration not an issue in my experience. Peter ------- Re: Tool post holders Posted by: "David Everett" deverett2003x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Fri Jul 4, 2014 2:25 am ((PDT)) David. Mine is about 5 thou greater than the depth of the toolholder slot. I just press the parting tool in tight in the holder. Never noticed any vibration. My thinking is that it is better to have the maximum amount of bar in the toolholder for support -- bottom, back and top (by the screws). If the bar is less than the depth of the toolholder slot there would be more chance of vibration. Whichever, I believe sideways overhang is more of a problem than vibration. Dave The Emerald Isle ------- Re: Tool post holders Posted by: otebgnx~xxjisp.net piedrj Date: Mon Jul 7, 2014 3:07 pm ((PDT)) Hi. I started this thread and I see it picked up on cutoff comment I made. For what it's worth about 4 years ago a fellow model builder stopped by my shop for the first time as he was traveling with their motor home. Even after 35+ years I was having "fun" parting off and mentioned it to him. He told me he almost always used power feed to part off. I was a bit skeptical but I gave it a try, and well it worked nicely. Ever since then I part off under power 95% of the time. The only lathe I do not use power is the Sherline. I use a rear parting tool and that works very well. The rear parting tool on the Myford makes the power cutoff real smooth. I also have a 12" and 15" lathe which part off nicely under power. Try it sometime, just clear the chips and drop some cutting fluid on it. I just experimented with feeds, .001 works well for most everything. Try more or less feed and soon you will have each material figured out. Bob ------- Re: Tool post holders Posted by: "David Littlewood" davidx~xxdlittlewood.co.uk Date: Tue Jul 8, 2014 11:02 am ((PDT)) Bob, You are quite right; parting off under power is more consistently reliable. This is because with hand feeding it's hard to get an even feed, and a slight over-enthusiastic twitch can cause a dig-in, usually with disastrous consequences. I always use pxf if I have it (on my M300, but my S7 doesn't have it). With the Q-cut, there is also no advantage in using a rear position, which makes life a lot simpler. David ------- [atlas_craftsman] New article available: A Low Cost Quick Change Tool Post Angular Stop Posted by: "Rick - yahoo" rgsparber.yax~xxgmail.com rgsparber Date: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:56 pm ((PDT)) I own a Phase II Quick Change Tool Post. It is a great attachment for my lathe. When I change tool holders, the preset cutter height is just as I left it. Unfortunately, the angle of the cutter with respect to the lathe's center of rotation must often be set. It is easy to loosen the center bolt for this adjustment but it does take a little fiddling. The angular stop presented here reduces this fiddling. If you are interested, please see http://rick.sparber.org/tpas.pdf Your comments are welcome. All of us are smarter than any one of us. If you wish to receive future article announcements automatically, please send me an email with "Article Alias" in the subject line. Thanks, Rick ------- Re: new article available: A Low Cost Quick Change Tool Post Angular Stop Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:09 pm ((PDT)) hi Rick fwiw .....i cud see no point in a horizontal index, for one off HSM machining (turret or QC) ...everyone has his own methods ...i constantly adjust the angle depending on cut, material depth finsih etc ....my knife edge too will be set w/ lead for roughing, near flat for ist finish cut, angled for facing out, angled near flat for finish facing out ... my dutch nose tool is used near flat for ist finish, square for sholdering & at a varied sharp angle for in facing (really hogs away)......to me this is overkill for HSM ...but i do understand ....& when desired, this is an EASY answer .....keep up your creativity !!!! best wishes doc ------- Re: new article available: A Low Cost Quick Change Tool Post Angular Stop Posted by: "Rick - yahoo" rgsparber.yax~xxgmail.com rgsparber Date: Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:34 pm ((PDT)) Doc, Good to hear from you! I do lurk on A/C but am too distracted with other adventures to contribute much. You may very well be right about this angular stop. I won’t know until I live with it for a few months. The cutters I use most often are the Diamond Tool variety and they do have a fairly narrow range of usable angles. So, like all of my inventions, time will tell. Rick ------- Re: new article available: A Low Cost Quick Change Tool Post Angular Stop Posted by: phowell_7x~xxyahoo.com phowell_7 Date: Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:12 am ((PDT)) Rick and All I too use a QCTP on my lathe (Sieg SC4) and much if the time I don't use my compound because of rigidity on this light machine. I have made a solid "block" to mount the QCTP on that is the exact height of the compound. I am making some parts where I need to cut a specific angle in the face so I made a guide to rotate the tool post between 90 degrees and 15 degrees counter clockwise. The guide can also be turned over so I can rotate in the clockwise direction. Photos are attached. Also of interest might be my Popsicle stick chip breaker, also shown. Paul H. 3 of 3 Photo(s) https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/atlas_craftsman/attachments/2091430028 QCTP_15L_A.jpg QCTP_15L_B.jpg QCTP_90.jpg ------- Re: new article available: A Low Cost Quick Change Tool Post Angular Stop Posted by: "Rick - yahoo" rgsparber.yax~xxgmail.com Date: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:53 am ((PDT)) Paul, That is a very interesting mod. It must be a major improvement in rigidity too. I have played a little with external chip breakers but found that the force of the chips was rather large. Does that popsicle stick bounce around a lot? Rick ------- Re: new article available: A Low Cost Quick Change Tool Post Angular Stop Posted by: phowell_7x~xxyahoo.com phowell_7 Date: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:37 am ((PDT)) Rick, The elimination of the compound with the "block" of steel does seem to help in some instances to reduce chatter, especially when I'm working on longer pieces. It also gives me more clearance for some setups. I generally am working on material smaller that 1" so I mostly turn with one end mounted in a collet and a center in the tail-stock. As for the chip breaker, as you can see I've used "O" rings to hold the stick on top of the tool holder. I sand the end straight and push it into the work piece. (I used to hold the handle of my chip brush against the work.) It doesn't work in every instance but currently I'm turning a lot of 303 stainless (dry with carbide inserts) taking at most .015 passes. It definitely helps break up the long spiral/strings that are produced. The stick doesn't bounce around but tends to get pushed away from the piece being turned, so I just push it back in. The wood tends to "burn" and wear so I need to turn the stick over and/or re-sand the end from time to time. Or I can just replace the stick with a newly sanded one. Paul H. ------- Armstrong cutoff a d boring tool holder [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "zertwizx~xxgmail.com" Date: Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:26 am ((PDT)) Does anybody know Armstrong or Williams part numbers for cut off holder and a boring tool holder for the size post. Or have them for sale. ------- Re: Armstrong cutoff a d boring tool holder Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:48 am ((PDT)) FWIW ....armstrong #9 boring holder & armstrong #51 parting tool holder are circa 1/2 by 1 .....for crftsmn lathe, one size under wud fit...... #8 & #30 ....you may see holders numbered #0 & they fit .....over the years I have milled/ground down larger ones to use my 12x36 crftsmn.... better yet is S 50 which is a gooseneck parting tool holder & therefore is easier to use w/out "dig ins " wrecking bits & work .... you wud want armstrong 30, or S 30 for gooseneck. best wishes doc ------- Re: Armstrong cutoff a d boring tool holder Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:21 pm ((PDT)) I keep forgetting to turn off Auto-Notify. But I just put a few pages from a late 1940's (probably 1948) catalog into the Catalogs folder in Files (includes several cutoff tool holders and several boring tool holders). I don't have anything on Armstrong. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Adapted 4-way 618 Toolblock [atlas618lathe] Posted by: "Gary Bauer" garybauer46x~xxyahoo.com Date: Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:12 pm ((PDT)) Here are the promised pics of my adapted 4-way toolblock on the 618 Atlas lathe. In one picture you can see a portion of my home-built steadyrest on the same little lathe. One pic shows the 4-way block removed. This photo shoot took me over 6 hours due to a steep learnig curve and moving stuff around in my living room for better lighting. The movie camera tripod helped keep the camera still so the minimal 160k pics are visable. My dial-up modem also slowed the process big time. The adapting pieces were all made in-house (or rather in-apartment). The lathe compound slide needed some milling to allow the tool block to fully rotate. The tool block is for the 7x10 asian lathe from littlemachineshop.com They sell the block and set screws but not the rest. The stud is a 3/8" nc bolt in a wide T-nut. The lever nut on top is also home-built. The result is a more rigid tool mounting vs the antique lantern-type. Gary in AZ https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/atlas618lathe/attachments/564187266 4-way 618 C.JPG 4-way 618 A.JPG 4-way 618 D.JPG 4-way 618 B.JPG ------- Re: Adapted 4-way 618 Toolblock Posted by: "Gary Bauer" garybauer46x~xxyahoo.com Date: Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:06 am ((PDT)) Hello Eric, See my 19 Jun '14 post #6669, "Homebuilt 618 Steady Rest". The attachment pics seem to be missing so here is one again. The frame could be a weldment rather than the very large angle iron chunk that I used. Gary in AZ https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/atlas618lathe/attachments/663854568 Atlas 618 Steadyrest X.jpg ------- [Homebuilt Atlas 618 steadyrest] Re: Adapted 4-way 618 Toolblock [atlas618lathe] Posted by: "Gary Bauer" garybauer46x~xxyahoo.com Date: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:31 pm ((PDT)) Hello Eric, Here are a few more pictures of my homebuilt Atlas 618 steadyrest. I installed the 3 finger tip bearings (1/4" steel rivets) for the last photo. They will be replaced with brass ones when I can locate or machine some. The rivet bearings are retained by a dab of grease in the finger tips. There is no drawing of this project as I just made it to fit from scratch. The frame is 3/8" thick steel. The guide and mounting blocks are from 1/2" thick steel. Beefy is better !!! Gary in AZ https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/atlas618lathe/attachments/780732539 Atlas 618 Steadyrest added 003.jpg Atlas 618 Steadyrest added 001.jpg Atlas 618 Steadyrest added 002.jpg ------- Homebuilt Atlas 618 steadyrest Posted by: n1ltvx~xxyahoo.com n1ltv Date: Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:35 pm ((PDT)) Gary, Thanks for doing the additional photography lately by popular demand. :) Your mentioned your nephew Dan did the welding for this project. Do you happen to know, or could you please ask what kind of rig he used? Hank ------- [Problem rotating toolpost -- bottom corners hit hump on Atlas compound] Re: Threading question.. [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org shdesigns2003 Date: Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:41 pm ((PDT)) On 10/11/2014, Dave Pinella dpinellax~xxcinci.rr.com wrote: > I can't rotate the QCTP! The essentially metal cube, on the TSlot is > not able to rotate because of the shape of the tool post slide. The > slide is recessed a bit. I can't explain it any better. Does this make > sense? > What does everybody else do???? I suppose I could use the old tool > post that it came with... It hits the hump in the compound? Either add a washer under the QCTP or grind/mill down the hump for clearance. Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 Welding pages and homemade welder: http://shdesigns.org/Welding ------- Re: Threading question.. Posted by: "Dave Pinella" dpinellax~xxcinci.rr.com aerologic_psw Date: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:08 pm ((PDT)) Thanks for the reply Scott. Yes, it hits the bump. I did think of both of those solutions as I was cleaning up. I didn't know if grinding the bump was a bad thing to do or not. I think I will go with the washer/ spacer approach. I hate to add any flexibility to the system but I'm not doing anything crazy. Just experimenting with aluminum. It was a good excuse to mess with the gears and give that area a good cleaning. It was messy but fun! A Quick Change Gear Box would be sweet! It's my 124 year old grandfathers lathe so I'll be using this one for a while. He got it used in 1942. Thanks again. Dave P ------- Re: Threading question.. Posted by: "Jon Elson" elsonx~xxpico-systems.com jmelson2 Date: Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:31 pm ((PDT)) I agree. The compound doesn't have enough meat as it is, you don't want to take any more off. Either use a spacer or grind off the corner of the QC post, if it only is a little bit that is hitting. Jon ------- Re: Threading question.. Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:21 pm ((PDT)) Dave, As Scott wrote, you have to lower the offending portion to or slightly below the plane of the T-slot flats. This is apparently fairly common on the 9", 10" and early 12". I'll add that if you have the milling attachment and milling cutter holder, you can do it on the lathe and probably more neatly than grinding. But in any case, loosen the QC mounting bolt enough to rotate it around to approximately where it needs to be and mark the outline of the QC on the compound before you start. To do the lowering on the lathe, first, adjust the compound slide so that the front is in line with the front of the compound swivel. Then tighten down the gib screws and remove the compound complete from the cross slide pintal. Don't lose the two bevel pins. If you tip the front of the compound down, the pins may fall out. Install the milling attachment in place of the compound on the cross slide and indicate it in. Then remove the vise from the milling attachment and install the compound in its place. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: Threading question.. Posted by: "Dave Pinella" dpinellax~xxcinci.rr.com aerologic_psw Date: Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:52 pm ((PDT)) A year ago I broke this casting (compound) while stupidly trying to part off a 2 inch diameter piece of aluminum rod so I'm probably going to go with a spacer. (I bought a band saw then.) A new casting was $100 or so. I was just glad I found one. Actually I think a Clausing stocked it. I have the broken casting. I do now have an oxyacetylene torch. Maybe I should braze it. Hmmm... It looks so easy to braze on the videos... Yeah. Right. :) I need to find someone around here to walk me through that. Dave P, Cincinnati ------- Re: Threading question.. Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:46 pm ((PDT)) Make the spacer out of steel, rectangular, the width and length of the machined surface on top of the T-slot, and with a shallow key on the bottom. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Threading Question Posted by: lhghousex~xxsuddenlink.net garlinghouseles Date: Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:29 am ((PDT)) Robert says: >Make the spacer out of steel, rectangular, the width and length of the >machined surface on top of the T-slot, and with a shallow key on the >bottom. To which I will add that I have dealt w/ the same problem and rather than go w/ a "shallow key at the bottom" I made a full-fledged T-nut for the top. I have had trouble w/ the QCTP rotating during knurling and some parting off tasks, so the upside-down T-nut was part of my fix. Another thing is to put a "washer" of thick paper or maybe thin aluminum between the QCTP and your spacer to act as a sort of friction plate to cut down on the sliding tendencies. Also on my QCTP there is a 10mm blind hole near one of the corners and I have matched that w/ a hole in my T-nut spacer for a pin to fully lock in place everything. On another spacer [w/o the key] I even drilled a series of countersunk holes in circular pattern w/ the same radius as the hole in the QCTP and put a spring loaded ball in there as a sort crude guide to orienting the QCTP if I choose to change the tool angle by rotating the tool post. I had hoped to space the C'sunk holes every 15 degrees but there is not enough real estate on the spacer to do that. BIG THING: When making T-nuts for the compound make sure that there is clearance between the lower surface of the bottom T-nut and the compound and that NOTHING goes below this surface -- especially the main screw that holds whatever tooling you have in place [otherwise when you tighten down what ever tooling you have above the T-nut you may actually have a screw jack that will break the lips on the compound before it tightens things down]. Also you need clearance between the opposing surfaces of the upper T-nut and the lower one or they will not capture/tighten against the flanges on the compound. That is [I think] why Rob't said "shallow key." L8r, L.H. in the Ozarks ------- Re: Threading question.. Posted by: "Glenn N" glennsneffx~xxgmail.com sleykin Date: Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:43 pm ((PDT)) I would mount the toolpost in the 4 jaw and turn a relief on the bottom of the toolpost using the old post to hold the cutter one last time... ------- 4 way tool post alignment issue [myfordlathes] Posted by: d.mulhairx~xxbtinternet.com Date: Sun Oct 19, 2014 12:11 pm ((PDT)) Hello All. Over the last 2.5 years I have been slowly rebuilding a wreck of an ML7. I am now at the stage where it is starting to come together, and this is where I have come up against my first snag. During the rebuild I have been collecting parts as they have come up on auction sites and at exhibitions. At one of these I purchased a 4 way tool post, I may of got it from Myford but it was too long ago to remember. The problem is it does not line up with the edges of the top slide no matter how I fit the ratchet assembly. please see the pictures in my album (ML7 Rebuild) for more details. I appreciate any advice on how to correct this. Many Thanks Dennis Mulhair ------- Re: 4 way tool post alignment issue Posted by: "JOHN QUIRKE" jjquirkex~xxeircom.net hinkela2 Date: Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:06 pm ((PDT)) Hi Dennis Swing the top slide to make it align with he centre line of the lathe or whatever angle to the centre line you wish your tools to be at and forget about lining it up with the cross slide. Yours in the workshop John ------- Re: 4 way tool post alignment issue Posted by: "Cliff Coggin" clifford.cogginx~xxvirgin.net Date: Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:08 pm ((PDT)) Dennis. I don't see that there is anything to correct. The tool post is designed to be rotated to any angle, so alignment with the cross slide edge is unimportant. Cliff Coggin Kent England ------- Re: 4 way tool post alignment issue Posted by: "David Everett" deverett2003x~xxyahoo.co.uk Date: Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:47 am ((PDT)) Isn't the Myford 4 way toolpost indexing, much like the GHT version? I agree with John Quirke -- it doesn't matter where the toolpost indexes to, just adjust the topslide angle. If there is any issue, then one way out would be to adjust the appropriate grinding angles of the tools so that the cutting edge is angled where the operator wants it to lie with relation to the job. Criticism has been levelled at the 4 way toolpost in that it is easy to cut yourself with the tools not currently being used. Being an advocate of the 4 way toolpost, (although I have now regrettably changed to a QCTP) I strongly disagree with that criticism. Dave The Emerald Isle ------- Re: 4 way tool post alignment issue Posted by: "Christopher Angiolini" chris.angiolinix~xxgooglemail.com Date: Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:41 pm ((PDT)) My ml7 came with a myford four way tool post and was off by around 10°. After messing about with retaining screw for the spring (I think I tightened it to put the indexing pin under more pressure) and lubricating the indexing pin so that it slides in and out more smoothly the tool post now aligns. I have no idea whether or not what I did was responsible for the results but it seemed to work. Give it a shot and see if it works for you. BTW I have cut myself on the tools that weren't being used, however I'm of the opinion that a 4 way tool post is better to have than the original. A qctp is the best option and is on my list of want to get but it's not that high up there. Regards Chris ------- Re: 4 way tool post alignment issue Posted by: d.mulhairx~xxbtinternet.com Date: Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:12 pm ((PDT)) Thanks gents for your prompt replies. I understand the setup now, seems like I was worrying about nothing. I shall continue with the final part of the build. The headstock. Dennis -------- Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Dave Matthews" n36078x~xxgmail.com velo1_4mb Date: Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:53 am ((PST)) I have a Craftsman 101.07301 that I want to put a quick change tool post on. It currently has the original lantern tool post and I want to put in something that I can set accurately and get a bit more rigidity out of. I don't use the lathe much but it is very handy to have for small parts. Any suggestions on a model or vendor for the upgrade? I don't want to spend a fortune on it but I also don't want a piece of trash. Dave ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org shdesigns2003 Date: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:04 am ((PST)) I had an A2Z QCTP toolpost on my 109. It worked well and was far better than that lathe it was on ;) http://www.littlemachineshop.com carries it: http://www.littlemachineshop.com/products/product_view.php?ProductID=2486 I got mine off ebay. People say they are junk because they are aluminum. Mine was very strong and had tight tolerances. It was better than the junk Chinese AXA holders I have on my 12x36 (although they work fine.) It is plenty good enough for a small lathe. Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 Welding pages and homemade welder: http://shdesigns.org/Welding ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: "James Rice" james.ricex~xxgmail.com jlrice54 Date: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:17 am ((PST)) I have a A2Z CNC post on my 101-07301 and it is more rigid than the lathe compound/cross slide assembly. I've been using it for 8 years now and it's been flawless. I've seen some sub-AXA sized Aloris style steel posts but at a much greater cost than the A2Z model. I've also seen a AXA mounted on a Atlas 6" and it was way too big in my opinion. I use the A2Z on my 6", a Bostar AXA wedge style clone on my South Bend 9A, a Phase II piston style AXA on my Craftsman 12x36 and a Bostar wedge CXA on my South Bend 16". I know the Bostars have had some bad reviews in some forums but my two have been flawless with a finish and fit better than Phase II delivered on my first one. But I rarely seem to have problems with stuff but I tend to work slow and not push the tools or tooling limits. After 10 years playing in my shop, I still consider myself a novice and in my learning curve. James -------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:36 pm ((PST)) Dave, The correct size for a 6" is the 0XA. I would get a steel-bodied wedge type. The aluminum body tool post might be OK for a few years but the steel body will outlast it. And although I have a piston type tool post (an AXA on my 12"), it is a Yuasa from 1981 and has nearly twice the piston head cross section of the Chinese made ones. And the price difference today from the same vendor isn't that much. Buy some extra #1 and/or #2 tool holders. It isn't exactly true to say that you can't have too many of them but you can certainly have too few. I currently have a dozen of them (two are oversize ones) and at least 8 of them have cutters in them all of the time. If you have to change cutters in your one holder during a job, you just lost the major advantage of the QC over the lantern type. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 And buy one of the bubble type height setting guages, either the two-hand cheaper one or the better but more expensive one hand one. ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: "Doug Hall" doug1x~xxdheco.com dheco Date: Thu Jan 1, 2015 9:56 am ((PST)) The QCTP is the way to go, I put one of the super cheap aluminum 0XA size tool holders on my 6", it worked well for a while, I eventually rebuilt the cube and tool holders with steel using the same simple design and hardware, they worked great. I am now running an 8 inch with a good piston style AXA. ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: "Dan and Marlene Coleman" dan_marlenex~xxcharter.net danlincol Date: Thu Jan 1, 2015 12:51 pm ((PST)) I have been using the small Grizzly unit I bought at their scratch and dent tent sale three years ago with no complaints. It may not be worth the retail price, but I think I only paid $20. Others must be satisfied or too lazy to send them back because I have yet to find another the last two years. I put a spacer under it to use on my 12" lathe. It only has two mounting dovetails, but I would think more would just get in the way. It came with three holders and a knurling tool and parting tool. I use mostly carbide tooling. Dan ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: jerdalx~xxsbcglobal.net jtiers Date: Thu Jan 1, 2015 2:08 pm ((PST)) If you want a QCTP, then OK, but remember that you don't just have the choice of either a lantern, or a QCTP. You can also use a block type, which generally is extremely rigid, since there are no separate moving parts. There are a lot of sub-types, but generally, they break down into 2 groups. One is a single block, having a single slot for a tool. Obviously, that is simple and rigid, but clearly makes changing tools a problem. You can use any size tool with it, by making it to fit the largest tool shank you will use, and providing one-piece filler blocks to boost each of the smaller sizes up to put them on-center. There is also the "4-way" type, which allows 4 different tools to be used by just loosening the screw and turning the post. Some are free-turning, where the whole thing is movable when the screw is loosened. Others are made with a separately tightened pivot. Some have detent stops for the common angles, others have just 4 stops to put each tool in the same position when rotated. The 4 way type can be made as above, with filler blocks for smaller tools, or made as mine is, with a slot dedicated for each size. The specially sized slots mean that if you want to load a sequence of tools, they have to be of different sizes, but otherwise works the same, and may be more rigid due to having no extra parts. The block type is easily made in your own shop, is very solid and stable, needs no extra toolholders, but is slower to change tools in than the QCTP, if the tool is not in one of the 4 positions. Either the block type or the QCTP is far far ahead of the lantern in day-to-day usability. Another nearly zero cost option is to flip over the lantern washer, so the tool or toolholder rests on the flat "bottom" surface, and not use the curved "shoe" at all. That makes the tool quite a bit more rigidly mounted. If the washer is not thick enough, an appropriately sized one can be easily made. Jerry ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: jmartin957x~xxaol.com jmartin957 Date: Thu Jan 1, 2015 6:26 pm ((PST)) I'm afraid, Jerry, you may have just gored a sacred cow. Couldn't agree with you more, though. I have two four-way blocks for my 6x18. Free-turning, made from 2" square steel. Free-turning is fine for me. It takes only a couple of seconds to swing a new tool into operation, or to change the angle of your current bit. One bit can turn, face or chamfer. You lose your setting when you swing the block, but then I'm not doing production work. The times that the bit has to be set absolutely square to the lathe axis are rare -- eyeballing it is fine. I'll often have only three bits in a block, because the "stick-out" may interfere. A real advantage is that the blocks may be made almost entirely on the lathe. Faced off, bored for the clamping stud, then clamped in position with the stud for milling the slots. No rise/fall necessary -- a shim underneath will raise the block to the right height for the end mill. OK, I did use the drill press to drill the holes for the set screws. My slots are such that the top of a 3/8" bit will be right on center. If it has been ground on top, or if I use a smaller bit, it is an easy thing to shim the bit up. Each block has its own T-nut, stud and clamp lever. Swiveling a block takes less time than changing a QC holder, and replacing one block with another only a few seconds more. Add a couple of seconds more if the clamp lever points the wrong way and I have to turn the T-nut 180°. They are at least as rigid as a QCTP -- probably more so. The price was right. I also have a 13" Standard Modern lathe with a wedge-type BxA QCTP. I like it. It came with the lathe, so it cost me nothing. The tool holders, though, aren't cheap -- even the 201s from CDCO add up. Then a knurling tool holder, a parting tool holder, a boring bar holder. John ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: "Curt Wuollet" wideopen1x~xxcharter.net curt.wuollet Date: Thu Jan 1, 2015 4:38 pm ((PST)) Or if you have a mill you can make a hybrid. Mine for the Craftsman has a 1" round post drilled for a stud that stays stationary. I then took a piece of 2x2 cold rolled steel, bored it towards one corner for the post and cut 2" blocks. I slotted the blocks for tools and up and down for a clamp screw to tighten it on the post. I also drilled and tapped a hole for a screw to set the height. Cost was minimal and you have quick change tooling. And you can easily make any type of holder you want. Solid is the key, there isn't any magic in the commercial designs. With a little cleverness you could do it all on the lathe, but the mill is faster. And everything is one size of Allen so, I'm not hunting for wrenches. Regards cww ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org shdesigns2003 Date: Thu Jan 1, 2015 7:15 pm ((PST)) I have detailed the steps to make a 2-way or 4-way block on my web site: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman-12x36/toolpost.shtml Also how to make T-nuts: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman-12x36/tnut.shtml Neither require a mill or miling attachment. Mine cost me just a few bucks for the 6061 aluminum. I had it and it works well, steel is more than needed for these lightweight lathes. Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 Welding pages and homemade welder: http://shdesigns.org/Welding ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: "Kurt Bjorling" kbx~xxmuziker.org kbjorling Date: Fri Jan 2, 2015 11:29 am ((PST)) Dear Dave, So many have written to say how much they like and recommend the A2Z quick-change toolpost, I feel like the party pooper, or the too- finicky sourpuss, but I also feel that I must add this overall negative review: Maybe I was just unlucky with mine, maybe they used to be better made, or came to be better-made after I got mine, BUT: I got the A2Z for my Craftsman-badged Atlas 618 about 3-4 years ago when I was still a novice at metal lathe work. I was satisfied with it and used it a lot, but I would not be so content were I to get the same thing today. 1. The toolpost did not mount well onto the compound rest. The mating surfaces were not dead flat/ flush with each other. My compound rest was partly to blame: it was slightly convex, but I went to some trouble to get it resurfaced so that it was much closer to dead-flat. Still, the bottom of the A2Z toolpost did not secure well to the top of the compound. The bottom of the toolpost was simply not well-machined to a truly flat surface, and the aluminum was either too soft or too slippery for this purpose. No matter how hard I cinched it down, it would rotate too easily. I had to bolt it down with what seemed like a ridiculous amount of torque -- enough to gradually strip the mounting nut. Even then, I had to be very watchful that it did not gradually turn out of alignment during a long pass or over the course of repeated passes. 2. The toolholders did not fit well onto the dovetails -- much too much play, in all planes. Once they were on with the cam tightened, they stayed put, but the "quick-change" aspect was undermined by the fact that I ALWAYS had to re-adjust the height and the alignment of the toolholder, usually several times for each "quick" change. I learned to always tighten the cam while biasing the toolholder in a certain direction so that it would be seated more or less the same as the last time. Even so, I couldn't trust it to meet the work at the same level and angle as before. Each holder had an adjustment screw for height, but this was not reliable because of the degree to which the holder position could vary, fore and aft. The adjustment screw set the height of the center of the holder, but also acted as a fulcrum, allowing the holder to tilt upward or downward, the tool tip ending up significantly higher or lower. I learned to always pre-set the adjustment screw so the holder went on a little low, then tightened the cam enough to keep the holder steady but allow some slippage, turn the adjusting screw by increments to raise the tool to the desired height, and THEN fully lock the cam. (Anything involving removing the toolholder to adjust the screw, or trying to adjust the screw both up and down with the holder loosely in-place yielded inconsistent results.) It was no more work than setting a lantern toolpost, but a far cry from "quick change"!! 3. Frustrated by the problems in #1 above, I ended up machining the bottom of the toolpost so that it had a square protrusion in the center which fit down into the T-slot. (This meant the the post could only be positioned with tool shanks either parallel or perpendicular to the compound rest, limiting its use, but this was the only way to get a reliably rigid mounting. It was good for more the vast majority of the cuts I had to make, and for the rest I would use the lantern.) Gradually that square protrusion (I'm sure there's a better name for it) got less square, and did not make a snug fit into the opening of the T-slot. (Crappy aluminum...) I learned to always tighten it up while biasing it in the direction that the work force would tend to turn it -- otherwise it WOULD turn, taking up whatever the slack in the fit allowed, throwing off the positioning. Summary - I managed to make that A2Z work, learning a LOT in the process, but I would not continue using that setup now, and I would insist on better-made parts, and I'd be willing to pay significantly more for them (or make them). Maybe I was just unlucky with the particular example I received. I had nothing to compare it to, so I had no idea whether I should have expected anything better. I have a new, rather inexpensive AXA for my still-new- to-me Atlas 10". Even though I haven't actually used it yet, it is clear just from handling it while getting it fitted to my lathe that it is vastly better than the A2Z I was using on my old 6". Another participant in this group strongly recommended it, and told me that the cam-lock model is more than good enough, but I spent the $30-40 more to get the "wedge" lock model because of my experience with the A2Z. If I had to use that setup again I would make some shims to improve the fit of the toolholders on the dovetail -- maybe epoxy them onto the appropriate surfaces, and I would figure out a way to machine or grind the bottom of the toolpost so that it was slightly concave or recessed in the middle so that I could count on it making contact with the cross- slide on the outer 1/4" or so of its bottom surface. This would ensure that it would at least make contact where it counts the most -- the opposite of how it was when it arrived! Following the advice of some of the others here, (Thanks, Guys!!) I expect I'll be making myself some version(s) of the square block toolpost as well. This sounds like a good project. Kurt B ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Fri Jan 2, 2015 2:50 pm ((PST)) In a message dated 01/02/2015 16:22:32 PM Central Standard Time, atlas_craftsmanx~xxyahoogroups.com writes: > 4 tool turrets &single/double triangular blocks to get in tight where > the 4 way hits the live center Just a comment on working close up to a live center with either a 4-way turret or a QCTP. Assuming that you are turning toward the tailstock, use a turning tool mounted on the right side of the turret (like a facing tool normally is except that the turret would be rotated 90 deg CCW). With a QCTP, rotate the toolpost 90 deg CW and mount the turning tool in the holder as you normally would mount a facing tool. For turning close to the tailstock but toward the headstock, mount the cutter the same way but use a right hand cutter instead of left hand. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: "brokenwrench1 ." brokenwrenchx~xxgmail.com brokewrench Date: Sat Jan 3, 2015 12:08 am ((PST)) I had 2 618s. I broke the compound rest upper casting. The replacement was much heavier and had a larger support area for the lantern post. It was squared off rectangular and weighed almost twice as heavy as the original. ------- Fwd: [atlas_craftsman] Tool Post for 6x18 Craftsman Posted by: "Doc" n8as1x~xxaol.com docn8as Date: Fri Jan 2, 2015 2:22 pm ((PST)) fwiw...agreed w/both posts.. .. been using openside solid holders for at least 30 yrs .on 6 &12 inch crftsmn, .....4 tool turrets & single/double triangular blocks to get in tight where the 4 way hits the live center ...tool post wrench loosens top nut & easily spin off the 4-5 thrds abt as quick as a QC. & place a new block.....bought a phase 2 when they were abt $80, but went back to my openside holders. .. I angled the slots to provide rake AND to allow adjustment ....trick to get it right & some still had to have shims. bit can move up w/ wear w/out new shims. been using solid doughnuts & Armstrong type holders on 14 inch monarch A....no rockers ....allowed me to take a 2 inch bar down to one inch in one pass so much for rigid ....2 doughnuts plus the angled tool slots cover the dozen or more holders.... quick to use & each one is centered automatically when tightened. .. made a riser block for the AXA QC to use on monarch, but still rarely use it. old & probably just muley !!! best wishes doc ------- Re: aloris MXA [atlas618lathe] Posted by: k_arackellianx~xxyahoo.com nightsweemer Date: Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:48 pm ((PST)) New to this hobby (and user group). Can someone tell me if wedge is better than piston type tool post change system? Thank you in advance. Looking forward to learning more about my little lathe. ------- Re: aloris MXA Posted by: "David R. Birch" dbirchx~xxwi.rr.com mekkisman Date: Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:27 pm ((PST)) The wedge design is theoretically more rigid than the piston. On a small lathe like our 618s, there is no real difference. David ------- Re: aloris MXA Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:57 pm ((PST)) It depends upon the size and shape of the piston contact area. The current crop of Chinese built piston type tool posts have relatively small circular contact areas. The piston effective diameter is about half the height of the tool holder dovetail or less. I would judge these as inferior to any decent quality wedge type. And as the price differential from any given vendor is on the order of 20 to 30%, the dollar saving for the piston type is insignificant. However, if the piston contact end is rectangular with rounded corners contacting 80 to 90% of the holder height, I don't believe that there is any significant advantage to the wedge type. So if you are going to buy a Chinese made QCTP buy the wedge type. And don't buy the cheapest one that you can find. But if you come across a used Yuasa piston type tool post in good or better condition and it is less expensive than the Aloris, buy it. Robert Downs - Houston ------- Re: aloris MXA Posted by: ksierensx~xxmsn.com ksierens Date: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:40 am ((PST)) YouTube is your friend! There are many great video series and you would be suprised that even after having worked in a shop for 16 year, I still pick up on many good tips I never knew. Here are a few to look into: MIT has a really great getting started series: MIT TechTV – Machine Shop 1 http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/142-machine-shop-1 mrpete222 https://www.youtube.com/user/mrpete222 My channel is devoted to the wonderful world of MACHINE SHOP! I have about 300 video demonstrations on the Bridgeport mill & South Bend, Atlas, C... oxtoolco https://www.youtube.com/user/oxtoolco The Oxtoolco YouTube channel is an ongoing video journal of a life spent designing and building special tools, instruments, and mechanical devices fo... Toms Techniques https://www.youtube.com/user/Figbash3 This channel is primarily a platform to present my machining related instructional videos. I've been a prototype machinist most of my life and enjoy sharing ... Keith Rucker https://www.youtube.com/user/ksruckerowwm This is my channel where I shoot video of some of my favorite things. I enjoy working on and restoring all kinds of vintage machinery - from woodworking... Keith Fenner https://www.youtube.com/user/KEF791 I'm Keith Fenner and this is my Job Shop. Join me as I perform old school repair jobs by drilling, milling, grinding, welding, plasma cutting, broaching and ... ------- NOTE TO FILE: There are earlier conversations on mounting a QCTP on various lathes. They usually come with a chunk of metal that has to be custom shaped (by hand hacksaw and file or milling machine) to fit snugly in the compound's slot. In the case of the Atlas lathes, the compound has a hump that can interfere with rotation of the QCTP; the best solutions DO NOT involve removing enough of this hump for clearance as the hump area is fragile and easily broken if thinned. The better solution is to use a spacer atop the compound's flat area so the QCTP's corners will clear the hump when rotated; alternatively chuck the QCTP in a 4-jaw chuck and turn off enough of the lower part of its corners to clear the compound's hump. ------- How do you mount a QCTP [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: lhghousex~xxsuddenlink.net garlinghouseles Date: Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:35 am ((PST)) I'll simply repeat what's been said and then expand. --Don't butcher your compound --Make a spacer so the QCTP clears the hump. My solution on my 10" Atlas was the spacer. I made it a point to make the spacer as big as possible, that is w/ a "footprint" as big as the top of the flat part of the compound. My thinking was that would spread the clamping load over a maximum area. As it is a pounds-per-square-inch [or kg/cm^2] world, the unit stress [psi or kg/cm^2]] would be minimal on the poor abused and aged cross slide. The T-nut was likewise made as large as possible. I found that in high load operations -- knurling and some times parting off -- the QCTP was prone to rotating around its central clamping screw. My final iteration was another T-nut spacer that clamps atop the cross-slide. I made sure that when clamped, the T-nuts did not touch. Thus the clamping load is distributed across all of the mounting slot on the compound. On my QCTP there is a 10mm blind hole near one of the corners. I matched a similar hole in my top T-nut so if I wish I can actually pin the QCTP in place on my spacer. Sometimes a twisting problem can be fixed by a piece of paper or gasket material some where in the spacer/QCTP stack. Think multiple plate clutches as a way of increasing the contact area. I've also experimented w/ a spring-loaded ball in the corner hole matching a series of countersunk holes around the central clamping screw on my spacer. This allows me to reorient the QCTP at different angles w/o moving the compound and come back close to the original setting. Unfortunately there is not enough space to put the holes every 15 degrees as I had hoped. One final note on the bottom T-nut. Make sure that the clamping screw does NOT extend below the bottom of the T-nut and that when clamped there is space between the bottom of the T-nut and clamping screw and the "floor" of the mounting slot. Otherwise you have just created a screw jack which will break the tops off of the T-slot. L8r, LH in the chilly [but dry] Ozarks ------- [atlas_craftsman] Re: How do you mount a quick change tool holder for a 10 inch lathe Posted by: n5kzwx~xxarrl.net n5kzw Date: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:37 am ((PST)) I encountered the "hump" problem when I went to mount my homebrew QCTP on my 618. My solution was to make a spacer the same size as the flat area on the compound to raise the QCTP enough to clear the hump. I also cut an oversized dovetail tin the spacer so that when it is roughly aligned with the dovetail in the QCTP, the too holders can be set lower if needed. Ed ------- How do you mount a quick change tool holder on a 10 inch lathe Posted by: lhghousex~xxsuddenlink.net garlinghouseles Date: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:56 am ((PST)) RE: T-nut -- a different way [kinda, sorta . . .] OK. Let's assume you've picked up a QCTH w/ no hold-down hardware at all. 1. Find a bolt/cap screw long enough and w/ a diameter big enough to do the job. [I think mine needed a 9/16 by something or other...] See step 7 for a suggestion. Maybe turn down the bolt a bit or make a tubular spacer so it doesn't rattle around. 2. Cut a piece of flat bar that will fit or be made to fit in the slot at the bottom of the compound. If you have a way of actually giving it a "T" configuration so much the better, but if not ... not to worry. 3. Drill a hole in the center of the above flat bar. Expand the hole so the hold-down bolt will fit. [If you have a 4-jaw chuck you might start using it now.] 4. Counter sink one side of the flat bar hole. 5. Chamfer the underside of the head of your hold down bolt at the same angle as you did in step 4. 6. Face off the top of the hold down bolt until it is flush w/ or beneath the surface of the C'SK'd flat bar. 7. Final note. If you can find a flathead capscrew/bolt then match the C'SK w/ the angle of the head chamfer [last I looked there were at least 2 or 3 likely angles for this on standard flat head cap screws]. DONE!!! Of course if you have a welder you can tack and grind the head of the hold-down bolt to the flat bar, but that is not really, really needed. There!! Outta the woods. Two cuts w/ a hacksaw and the lathe has done the rest of the work. ------- QCTP for 10" Atlas? [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: "Bruce ." freemab222x~xxgmail.com bakmthiscl Date: Tue Mar 3, 2015 5:19 am ((PST)) I've been searching the archives of this group, and I find discussions of AXA QCTP and smaller ones for minilathes -- like the HF model, but what's not clear to me is whether these can be mounted on my lathe (a 10" Atlas) straight out of the box, or whether work has to be done on lathe or tool post first. I have never even SEEN one of these tool posts (aside from photos) so I'm having some trouble envisioning how they mount. My short question is whether there IS a decent quality, four-tool QCTP that will mount "out of the box" (minimal work on my part & no modification of the lathe) on this lathe. Like I've said, this has been extensively discussed, so I hesitate to start another long discussion. I would be delighted if somebody could either (1) point me to where I can buy such a QCTP, or (2) point me to threads that address my question. Thanks in advance, Bruce NJ ------- Re: QCTP for 10" Atlas? Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Tue Mar 3, 2015 8:13 am ((PST)) Bruce, The short answer is "No". Although there are several sellers of relatively decent quality AXA QCTP's, none will just bolt right up and go to work. There are two reasons: (1) Almost certainly you will have to either make a T-nut to fit the 10-303 T-slot or modify the one that comes with the kit. There may be an exception to this statement but if there is, I don't know who sells it. (2) The 10-303 Compound Slide has a hump behind the T-slot which prevents you from being able to mount the TP at any angle. In particular, you cannot mount it at 30 deg. to the compound slide if you have the compound set up for standard threading. There are three possible solutions. (1) machine away enough of the hump so that you can rotate the TP through 360 deg. with it mounted anywhere in the T-slot. (2) make a spacer just thick enough so that the TP will just clear the hump. (3) Machine away some of the bottom of the TP to clear the hump. People on this list have done it all three ways but I personally would not do #3. I don't recall the Subject but there was a lengthy thread on the general subject that ended around two weeks ago. Most people would agree that if you buy a Chinese made TP, buy the wedge type. The current crop of Chinese made AXA's have a piston that is smaller than it could/should have been, and the price difference between the two types is not great. Yuasa used to make a piston type TP with a larger rectangular piston but they are no longer made. I think that the Chinese bought or stole the design and cheapened it. Also, one or two vendors sell kits with an aluminum TP. I would avoid those. As to whom to buy it from, all of the Chinese made ones come from the same general place. I would avoid the two or three cheapest prices you see (unless the seller is having a discount sale). Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: QCTP for 10" Atlas? Posted by: "Charles" xlch58x~xxswbell.net xlch58x~xxswbell.net Date: Tue Mar 3, 2015 8:28 am ((PST)) I would also add, that if you buy a Chinese made tool post with tool holders, immediately order new quality set screws for the tool holders. The ones that come with them generally will round out in no time. The one that comes on the cutoff tool, I would remove when new and reharden or even case harden with Kasenite if necessary, since it is not a stock screw. Charles ------- Re: QCTP for 10" Atlas? Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Tue Mar 3, 2015 8:44 am ((PST)) Good point. I also forgot to mention that if you buy one of the standard kits with four or five different tool holders, you should also buy 4 or 5 extra 101 (Turning and Facing) and/or 102 (Turning, Facing & Boring) holders. Else if you need to change a cutter to a different type during a job, you lose the QC advantage. Also, keep your eyes open for a used Aloris #16 (generic 116). This holds two triangular carbide inserts and over the years has been my most used holder. Shars sells a Chinese made 116 but the inserts are rotated 30 deg. and you cannot turn or face to a shoulder with it. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: QCTP for 10" Atlas? Posted by: "Bruce ." freemab222x~xxgmail.com bakmthiscl Date: Wed Mar 4, 2015 8:07 am ((PST)) Thanks to both of you. This is a help, but it mainly points out the degree of my ignorance about QCTPs that I don't fully understand this advice. I think I need to see the thing. Failing that, I'm going to have to do a lot of studying of diagrams, etc. In the meantime, I may just go with some simple substitute for the lantern post. A friend of mine has a square post that can hold two tools (not just the bits). It allows him to switch between tools without readjusting everything, but seems not to have the convenience of a QCTP. I may go that way for now, as I should be able to machine something like that with little trouble. I'm also mulling around other alternatives to make it possible to switch tools without all the adjustments that the lantern post necessitates. Changing tools is in a lantern post a slow nuisance. It makes me wonder why that design was ever the standard. The flexibility is great, but it would be nice to be able to independently adjust tool angle (both horiz. & vert. axes) and height and not always have to do them all at once! I have ideas for making those adjustments pre-set and independent, but this would probably prove to be reinventing the wheel, so I'll hold off till I do more reading. Bruce NJ ------- Re: QCTP for 10" Atlas? Posted by: "Curt Wuollet" cwwuolletx~xxgmail.com curt.wuollet Date: Wed Mar 4, 2015 8:27 pm ((PST)) It became a standard when you made a lathe tool by firing up the forge and hammering one into shape then filing and hardening and some work on the emery wheel. The flexibility and adjustment was easier than trying to make the tools line up exactly the same. Regards cww ------- Re: QCTP for 10" Atlas? Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org shdesigns2003 Date: Wed Mar 4, 2015 8:23 am ((PST)) Making a T-nut is not difficult: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman-12x36/tnut.shtml You can add a spacer under a QCTP to clear the hump in the slide. I made a 2-way post on the lathe. It can be done without a milling adapter: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman-12x36/toolpost.shtml Get rid of the rocker and make a set of spacers/washers for the lantern post. The spacers set the tool up the same every time. Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 Welding pages and homemade welder: http://shdesigns.org/Welding ------- Re: QCTP for 10" Atlas? Posted by: jerdalx~xxsbcglobal.net jtiers Date: Wed Mar 4, 2015 8:10 pm ((PST)) As mentioned, flipping over the washer, losing the rocker, and using shim washers to raise and lower the tool to center is a good first step. I keep thinking I need a QCTP, and then I use my "4-way block" toolpost again, and realize it does most all of what I want, some of it better than a QCTP would. So I still have not bought a QCTP, and it's getting less likely that I will. For this machine, anyhow. I'd do something else, and wait until you KNOW exactly why you want a QCTP, and what KIND you want.... and why a block type won't work for you. Jerry ------- Re: QCTP for Atlas [Was Re: QCTP for 10" Atlas?] [myfordlathes] Posted by: "Richard Marchi" rfmarchix~xxaol.com marchirichard Date: Fri Mar 6, 2015 4:08 am ((PST)) My 10 F came with a both a lantern tool post holder and a block holder. I had used block type holders in the past, but have never used it on the 10 F. The need to shim each tool bit to the proper height after grinding is only worth it if you have a lot of the same parts to make. The QCTH I bought from little machine shop works just fine. I solved the problem of the "hump" on the compound by milling it back. However, I'd urge a beginner to learn to use the lantern holder properly. The fact that you have to set the height and angle each time you change the tool setup is good practice. The relative lack of rigidity trains you to pay attention to overhang and feed/speed. I still keep the lantern holder nearby and often will use it for a quick setup on a one-off project. Richard Marchi 600 Water Street, SW NBU8-2 Gangplank Marina Slip B-22 Washington, DC 20024 ------- Re: QCTP for Atlas Posted by: "Bruce ." freemab222x~xxgmail.com bakmthiscl Date: Fri Mar 6, 2015 4:52 am ((PST)) In my case, the lack of rigidity isn't the issue. I seldom have problems with that. I don't have a problem at all with a lantern tool holder if I only need one tool for a job. I doubt it would take longer to set up a single (new or reground) tool on a lantern holder than on any other holder. But it seems such a waste of time to install and adjust tool "A", only have to do the job over and over again for a job necessitating switching between tools "A" and "B". A real drag, that. So the direction I'm going is to have tools pre-adjusted, somehow, so the individual tools only need to be adjusted when installed, and to allow a change between tools without ANY adjustments. Sounds a LOT like a QCTP, doesn't it? So it's logical that that would be one thing to try. But it is by far not the only way to go. One main claim to fame of the QCTP is the "quick". I don't need "quick", so other ways would be open to me. For example, suppose you come up with a holder for a tool bit that is adjustable for extension, angle, and height at the cutter tip. Now come up with a tool post (single, not double or quad) that you can easily lock that tool into. Voila -- an alternative solution. Is it better? Well, I don't think I can go out and buy it, so probably not. But I may play with the idea anyway, when I finish up my current design project and have free time. (I found a picture on one of the lathe forums of something that meets this description. It looked like something this guy fabricated himself. A good design quality and great machining, but I doubt I could easily reproduce it with my equipment.) Bruce NJ ------- Re: QCTP for Atlas Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Fri Mar 6, 2015 7:29 am ((PST)) > But it seems such a waste of time to install and adjust tool "A", only have to do the job over and over again for a job necessitating switching between tools "A" and "B". A real drag, that. < That's why I often tell someone who has indicated that they are shopping for a QCTP to be sure and buy a few extra 101 and/or 102 style holders. Most of the kits come with one of each. Which lets you set up two turning and two facing tools (if you don't do any boring). Robert & Susan Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: QCTP for Atlas Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org shdesigns2003 Date: Fri Mar 6, 2015 7:38 am ((PST)) I suggest getting the 6-piece set. Then later get some extra 101 or 102 holders. The set usually comes with a boring bar holder, two 101 or 102 tool holders, parting tool holder and knurling tool. I picked up some more 101 holders as I have a dedicated boring bar holder. I got rid of my lantern holder. Needed the $$ at the time. Still have had no use for it. I can make a dedicated holder for anything special. Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 Welding pages and homemade welder: http://shdesigns.org/Welding ------- Re: QCTP for Atlas Posted by: jerdalx~xxsbcglobal.net jtiers Date: Fri Mar 6, 2015 5:12 am ((PST)) Shims? we don't need no stinkin shims... For what would you need them? Just make the block to hold each size of cutter with the top on-center. Mine has several different height slots, so no matter what I pick up, I can put it in and it will be right. I don't grind down the tops of the cutters, other than to put some rake on them. I sharpen by touching up the side, not the top. Even with reasonably steep rake, it takes a long time to make any significant difference in edge position. That way is easier to deal with as far as grinding anyhow, and it makes the block holder a joy to use. I may have used a shim 4 times ever, for odd-grind tools I picked up somewhere and found to be right for the job. Jerry ------- Re: QCTP for Atlas Posted by: wa5cabx~xxcs.com wa5cab Date: Fri Mar 6, 2015 7:21 am ((PST)) Also, if you already have the lantern holder, don't discard it if you do buy a QCTP. I recently bought a commercial radius turner, and it has a shank that is in the standard Williams pattern, which AFAIK there are no QC holders for the AXA/100 Series that it will fit. I have two of the oversize 101's but they still aren't tall enough. Robert Downs - Houston wa5cab dot com (Web Store) MVPA 9480 ------- Re: QCTP for Atlas Posted by: phowell_7x~xxyahoo.com phowell_7 Date: Fri Mar 6, 2015 8:16 am ((PST)) I probably got in late on this discussion so I don't know if it's been suggested, but since I've been looking for another type tool holder for my lathe (not an Atlas) I will probably make one myself based on a design for a "Norman Patent Toolholder" (design may be from around the 1920's). It should be able to be modified to work on just about any lathe. probably without modification. Following are links to some information, more is available by googling it. Paul H. https://www.pinterest.com/hovay87/small-lathe-tool-posts/ http://morgandemers.com/making-a-quick-change-tool-post/ ------- Myford Quick Change Toolpost [myfordlathes] Posted by: gwe1x~xxbigpond.com.au sparrowmudgee Date: Sat Mar 7, 2015 12:25 pm ((PST)) Is there an easy way to remove the shaft that operates the locking device on the Myford QCTP. Just purchased a Super 7B in Australia and cleaning everything at the moment and the tool post mechanism is full of swarf. It still works ok. Many thanks Garry ------- Re: Myford Quick Change Toolpost Posted by: ejandptrx~xxbtinternet.com philandjorobbo Date: Sat Mar 7, 2015 2:32 pm ((PST)) Garry, Press in the round bit that engages in the dovetail of thetoolholder, there is a spring behind it, and pull and wiggle the hex head shaft out. It is just a pin with an offset in the middle which goes through a hole in the locking part. Difficult to describe, easy to do! Phil ------- Re: Myford Quick Change Toolpost Posted by: gwe1x~xxbigpond.com.au sparrowmudgee Date: Sat Mar 7, 2015 8:50 pm ((PST)) thanks for the help will give it a go Garry ------- Where to buy quick change tool post [atlas_craftsman] Posted by: schilling.chris.hx~xxgmail.com schillingtrain Date: Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:56 pm ((PDT)) Can anyone suggest a good place to buy a quick change tool post for a 12 inch Craftsman lathe? Used would be great. The ones I see for sale on eBay are either too big, or they come as expensive sets containing 5 tool holders. Thanks Chris ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: shawneliason79x~xxyahoo.com shawneliason79 Date: Sat Jun 13, 2015 1:22 pm ((PDT)) Search Bostar axa on ebay.. the quality is outstanding for 125 bucks. or go to cdco machinery.. same seller.. mine is really frigging nice.. get the wedge.. you can index the handle... on a piston, it's a pita to index the handle ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: schilling.chris.hx~xxgmail.com schillingtrain Date: Sat Jun 13, 2015 1:25 pm ((PDT)) Thank you ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: "James Rice" james.ricex~xxgmail.com jlrice54 Date: Sat Jun 13, 2015 2:20 pm ((PDT)) I'd second the Bostar. I own two of them in AXA and CXA. I actually have a Phase II AXA on my Craftsman 12" and the finish on the Bostar that I installed on my South Bend 9A is better than the finish on the Phase II. The Phase II is a piston post and while it works and does everything it is supposed to do, I'll never buy another piston post. Both my Bostars are wedges. I wish Bostar made a 0XA toolpost to replace my A2ZCNC post on my Atlas 6". James ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: "Pete Mclaughlin" pete_mclaughlin_93555x~xxyahoo.com Date: Sat Jun 13, 2015 2:52 pm ((PDT)) check out the harbor freight QCTP that comes with one cut off tool, 2 general tool holders and a boring bar holder. cost is $99. get it with a sale coupon for 20% off and its just $80 when the coupons are available. I have one on my atlas 10f and it works very well. I put an aluminum spacer under the holder so it sits above the humped back of the compound slide and milled a t-nut to fit in the compound slide. you can get a set of 1/2 inch boring head bits with carbide tips that just fit the boring bar holder. Sincerely Pete McLaughlin ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: mail4samx~xxgmail.com a8050266 Date: Sat Jun 13, 2015 5:30 pm ((PDT)) Got mine at CDCOTools.com... poor quality but for the $ great deal. Wish I had a Aloris. but then again. Can I really afford one? 10" Atlas. ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: "Scott Henion" shenionx~xxshdesigns.org shdesigns2003 Date: Sat Jun 13, 2015 6:42 pm ((PDT)) Some have reported the set screws are junk. Mine seem fine. I have a Phase II and it is real good. It came with the lathe; I gather Phase II quality has dropped over the years. My CDCO holders are a bit sloppy on the Phase II but for under $10/ea on sale I can't complain. Scott G. Henion, Stone Mountain, GA Craftsman 12x36 lathe: http://shdesigns.org/Craftsman12x36 Welding pages and homemade welder: http://shdesigns.org/Welding ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: mail4samx~xxgmail.com a8050266 Date: Sat Jun 13, 2015 7:35 pm ((PDT)) Yes, Now that you mention it the "Set screws?" junk. Not complaining, just adding to the pool of experience. as for mine? I replaced all of them. The SS are cheap so why wait till it fails. Furthermore I had the so called set screw/Adjuster screw on the cutoff attachment fail. It's a total custom screw. Thanks for the reminder Scott. Sam ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: "brokenwrench1 ." brokenwrenchx~xxgmail.com brokewrench Date: Sat Jun 13, 2015 6:57 pm ((PDT)) www.usa-enco.com number ku505-2253 $185.95 piston type number ku890-9638 $185.95 wedage type both include 5 holders ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: "James Rice" james.ricex~xxgmail.com jlrice54 Date: Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:57 am ((PDT)) It must depend upon the lot from China. I've bought about 20-25 AXA holders, a AXA set and a CXA set from CDCO plus a few assorted CXA holders. My CDCO holders are snugger on my Phase II post than the Phase II holders. A couple were so tight I thought about opening the dovetail up a bit on the surface grinder but I learned to live with it. I've had the internal hex on three setscrews strip on the AXA holders. One was my fault because I didn't pay attention and was using a fractional key in the metric screw. I'm not sure if I was doing the same thing on the other two. I ordered a box of setscrews from Fastenal and just replace them as needed. The Fastenal screws are also Chinese origin and may eventually strip also. It's a minor issue at worst. I haven't had any issues with the screw for the cutoff holder yet but if I do, I can afford to buy an Aloris cutoff holder used on eBay with some of what I've saved on the CDCO holders. I belong to a home shop machining group in Dallas. Probably half the group buys their QCTP holders from Frank at CDCO. There have only been a couple of complaints I have heard about. I bought my Phase II set from Enco on a sale plus I had a free UPS shipping code. That was about 8-9 years ago. James ------- Re: Where to buy quick change tool post Posted by: schilling.chris.hx~xxgmail.com schillingtrain Date: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:11 am ((PDT)) Thanks for the advice everyone. I ended up on eBay getting a Bostar AXA wedge type tool post. It looks like it'll do the trick. I can't tell for sure, but I'll most likely need to machine a special T nut. Chris Schilling Florida ------- Re: tool post [atlas618lathe] Posted by: "A Nagy" ajxnagyx~xxsbcglobal.net snrg41 Date: Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:16 am ((PDT)) I have an AXA mounted on my 618. It was too large for the lathe however it was given to me along with several tool holders missing height adjustment and I decided to make modifications. The tool post as it was would not clear the hump on the cross slide. I used by radial arm saw with an abrasive blade to angle the bottom edges on two sides. In addition I added a 1/8 inch aluminum plate for elevation. I have no problems using any size cutter shank from 1/4 to 1/2 inch at any angle. If it hadn't been given to me I would have opted to purchase a smaller tool post. At the time I had little knowledge and I was anxious to get started. The tool holders did not have any studs for height adjustment. I used 3/8 - 24 cap screws and brazed washers onto jam nuts to use for height adjustment. Photos are attached. 4 of 4 Photo(s) https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/atlas618lathe/attachments/264864254 IMG_0644.JPG IMG_0646.JPG IMG_0645.JPG IMG_0647.JPG ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ This is just one of some 80 files about machining and metalworking and useful workshop subjects that can be read at: http://www.janellestudio.com/metal/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------