Member postings for Pete

Maybe viewing some of those REGO-FIX videos first would have turned up the information that less than nominal sized tool shanks, or in our case when there being used as a work holding collet, they show no increased run out, and they will in fact guarantee those same guaranteed run out numbers over the holding range of the collet. At least REGO-FIX does. If an ER collet and it's chuck are correctly and accurately made, the collets segments will close down evenly against the tool shank, in fact there designed to do exactly that and provide the high grip strength ER collets are known for. So why would smaller than optimal diameters be any different than on size diameters since the collet has to close at least a bit even with on size tool shanks? My Bison ER 40's show no increase in run out over the various sizes I've checked. When I want holes with a high degree of location accuracy, or I'm using large diameter reduced shank drills, I'll use them instead of a drill chuck, so I can also use mine as a tool holder with a variety of sizes within each collets closing range. That ability is simply due to the radial and axial precision the collets and chucks are being made to, and what I think can be assumed adds a high percentage to the actual cost for those better collets and chucks. There's also more than a few YouTube videos that show cheap off shore ER collets having visually noticeable differences in segment widths, differences in slot widths, burrs etc. Since the collet isn't and can't close evenly around it's full circumference, then of course it will produce higher run out numbers even "if" it was bored and ground true to it's tapers. And if there being made that poorly, then it's highly doubtful anything else is correct other than by pure luck. There's also videos showing collet chuck thread deviations and nuts with internal tapers that are out of square enough to force the collet sideways or physically tilt the collet axially as the nut is tightened. So it's not only the concentricity of the collets themselves, it also has a lot to do with just how accurate the collet blocks or chucks are as well.

5C is completely different because of how there designed to work. That design of collet isn't meant to accept anything over sized, and even a bit too far under size will or can crack or break collet segments if the collet is closed on any smaller than optimal diameters. Since a 5C collet is a single taper and closed by drawing the collet inwards against the collet holders taper, that forces the collet segments to exert the most holding power towards the front of the collet. For that reason, special soft 5C over sized collets can be machined and used even for very short parts. If 5C was being used for driving tools, then yes nominal sized collets to fit the tool shanks diameter would be logical to obtain the highest grip. Possibly there still being made somewhere, or at least were at one time. But other than those now fairly rare machine tools that were designed to use 5C, I can't recall seeing any actual 5C milling chucks. About the only option left would be to build your own if that's what you really wanted to use. As a tool holder, I think 5C is a rather poor second choice.

ER collets are a dual taper, and the segments at each end are forced in and closed by both the chuck and closing nut tapers as it's tightened to the correct torque. For that reason it's highly recommended that at least 80% (or more) of tool shank, or work piece fills the collet length. If that's not done, then the collet's grip is seriously decreased and a collet can be permanently damaged because the tool or part is then only being gripped by the front of the collet. Run out numbers will then increase, but that's the fault of the user because there being used improperly and outside there intended design application.

It's also not about being a perfectionist, and as I already said, those REGO-FIX videos clearly explain just how detrimental any excess run out is to maximum tool life no matter what collet type or tool holding method is used. And since the ER collet design has a decent amount of closing range when holding work pieces, you can be quite sloppy about those exact sizes as long as the part length is inserted deep enough into the collet. 5C collets would require much more attention to those nominal diameters than ER's ever would. Like anything else, there's no perfect one size fits all when it comes to tool and work holding collets. 5C is logically the clear winner as a work holder just due to it's versatility. ER is a much better and far more secure tool holding method because of it's grip ability over the length of a tool shank.

Your asking about a fairly complex subject. And your not providing enough information to give the best answers to your question. Are you buying collets for tool or work holding, or a combination of both? Are these for use on manual machines or CNC?

While 5C CAN be used for driving tools, and Hardinge even produced some smaller vertical and horizontal mills that used 5C for tool holding. Today there pretty much a world wide industrial standard as work holding collets. The main deficit with 5C is they only have a few thou tolerance for the size there capable of gripping without permanent damage to the collet itself. So a multitude of collets are required. A major benefit of the 5C design is the shear amount of different work holding devices, indexers, dead length internal stops, hand, lever and even air operated collet closers, round, square and hex collets that are available. In my opinion it's a well thought out and highly versatile collet system. But all of that will add up to a multi thousand dollar price if your buying guaranteed accurate collets and accessories.

ER collets at least in the larger collet series, will generally have about 1 mm or roughly .040" of range they can reliably hold tool shanks or work when used in that capacity. And because of that size range they can hold, far fewer collets are required. ER collets are in industrial situations, really designed as a tool holding collet. And because of how slow they are to operate when changing tools, then with CNC they use multiple collet chucks to hold a variety of tools, the tool changers are then used until the tool requires replacing. On manual machines, then the extra time involved can usually be tolerated to switch out tools or parts. ER collets despite there simplicity, have a whole lot more complexity and subtle non intuitive logic behind how there designed and meant to be used to obtain the very best out of them. There's a YouTube channel titled REGO-FIX Group that has an extremely informative series of videos about ER collets that should be mandatory viewing for anyone using that design of collet. If you want an education about them, there's no other substitute than putting your own time into watching those videos until you grasp what there trying to teach.

No there's literally no way to properly judge what accuracy/quality you'll get with those cheaper collets. And I've also watched more than a few of those YouTube videos that demonstrate serious issues with those cheap collet sets and chucks. I use simple logic when shopping for tool or work holding items. Unless a tool manufacturer or supplier has written guarantees of the maximum allowable deviations in the product, I simply won't by it at any price. I already have decent lathe and drill chucks fully capable of repeatable run outs to .0015" or a bit less. Collets were invented as a method for gaining repeatable accuracy's well below that as well as having much better tool shank / part grip and support over those more standard lathe and drill chucks. If any collet can't be guaranteed to have a minimum of .0005" or less, I wouldn't buy it. As those REGO-FIX videos show, low run out numbers will directly affect tool life and part accuracy. For my own shop, I really can't afford those dirt cheap and poorly built examples. For my Bridgeport clone, I paid what it cost for a guaranteed accuracy set of ER-40 collets and a R8 collet chuck. I purposely chose that ER collet size even though it's a bit too large for what my mill is capable of even driving for tools since I wanted multi usage out of them on my lathe, rotary table and dividing head. So for either tool or part holding, my ER 40's allow holding any diameter between .188" - 1.024". Below that size I have a full set of Emco ESX 25. Above that size then a 4 jaw lathe chuck will get me whatever run out I want with enough time. Buying any collet type is in reality just about pointless if it can't produce the accuracy levels and performance collets are designed and meant to do.

But if I was independently wealthy? I'd chose 5C for work holding, and for what I currently own, R8, Morse Taper and ER collets for tool holding. Since I'm not, then I consider ER collets over the 5C to be a workable alternative with some trade offs for what they can't easily do when compared to the 5C.

A green silicone carbide wheel can not produce the correct finished tool surface just like your photos show. Yes they will still cut, but the surface finish won't be the best. Honing does make a difference in HSS for tool edge durability and possibly even more important to the parts surface finish. As G.H. Thomas mentions in his Model Engineer's Workshop Manual, a roughly finished tool straight from a grinder can not produce a finely turned surface finish. He also pointed out that a honed HSS tool would stand up for much longer before it required resharpening.There were and are multiple slow speed diamond wheel lapping tools produced and specifically designed to power lap both HSS and Carbide. If it wasn't a viable and useful method, then those expensive slow speed lapping tools wouldn't even be available. While most replaceable carbide tips aren't honed, have a look at there cutting edges. There formed in molds that are highly polished so they create very smooth cutting edges.

Those un-honed tips obviously aren't razor sharp, but most carbide tips are designed to be used on high horsepower and rigid machines. At there average cutting speeds, the high heat generated at the tool tip helps to plasticize the material. So there's more plowing or flowing of the material than actual cutting in the traditional sense. There are some softer material specific carbide tips that are honed, and they can be made to work with steels at the expense of some cutting edge life. But most of the custom shaped carbide I hand hone are Micro 100 brand and the braised carbide type. It's properly formulated since the manufacturer knows it will be rough ground and then lapped just like they already finish hone there tools. Cheap and poorly formulated carbide might well break down very quickly compared to industrial quality, but that's the fault of trying to save where you shouldn't.

That looks to be a very good quality dividing head with some similarities at least to the Brown & Sharpe universals.

Fwiw, I'd be checking that dividing heads worm and wheel ratio first. It "should" be 40-1 since most dividing head manufacturer's seemed to chose that ratio. But with an unknown head such as that one, there's really no way to be certain without verifying it yourself. To do so, all that's required is to count how many turns of the crank are needed to rotate the spindle by one complete revolution. If it really is 40-1? Any tables for any other 40-1 ratio universal dividing head can be used with yours. You'd also have to know the exact pitch on your mills X axis feed screw to do the gearing calculations for any helical milling. Secondly I would measure your heads exact center line distance from it's base. With that information then it should be easy enough to just buy a used or new dividing head foot stock instead of trying to build something that could easily cost far more in time and materials as Nigel has mentioned. The Vertex foot stocks are fairly decent or good enough, not hugely expensive, and one of there various sized foot stocks might well work with yours. On average, a great deal of work that's being machined with a plain, semi universal or true universal dividing head will use some type of mandrel to mount and rotate the work. Machining with the work or mandrel held between centers is also common. So to get the full use out of a head like that, then having a decent, rigid and adjustable foot stock really isn't optional.

While my Vertex universal was supplied with a 3 jaw chuck, in my opinion a chuck of that type on any dividing head is just about worthless due to the inherent run out all of them will have unless there of the set true type. Proper and highly accurate gear cutting really does require much better accuracy than most 3 jaws will have. So I think I'd be wanting a good brand name independent 4 jaw or re-machine that 3 jaw to a set true design instead if it has a back plate. I'd also positively identify what that heads internal spindle taper is. Hopefully it's something common such as a Morse Taper. But many were produced in at least Jarno and B & S tapers as well. Common off the shelf machinable Morse Tapers with stub ends and threaded for a draw bar are also quite handy for mounting short parts if your again lucky enough to have that taper with yours. So checking the condition and for any damage in your heads spindle taper is also important. There's too many and even professional level machinist's who are a bit too nonchalant about using damaged, dirty or rusty taper tooling inserted into what should be very high precision spindle tapers who really ought to know better.

Yes possibly that hand gun I mentioned seeing a picture off was in fact heat blued Kiwi. If it was, then whoever did what was obviously custom metal finishing had to be a real expert to get the exact same shade of color on every part.

I'm most definitely not trying to throw Iain's thread off topic, but add some hopefully additional information that could be helpful to others here that may not be aware of it. I've had a deep interest in gunsmithing, the tooling & methods used and Model Engineering for more years than I'd care to add up. From that perspective, I'd have say gunsmithing and the high level of craftsmanship involved is in fact very closely related to Model Engineering. While I don't yet have the fourth book, I do have the first 3 Brownells have produced titled Gunsmith Kinks. Mine aren't handy at the moment, but I believe Gunsmith Kinks volume I contains somewhere around 45 pages of information about metal polishing and how it's "properly" done from the perspective of full time master polishers working for Smith & Wesson and others. And trust me, without that information, it's not nearly as simple, easy or intuitive as many M.E.'s seem to think.

There's been more than enough pictures in the M.E. magazines over the years showing models in the various UK exhibitions demonstrating that information alone could be highly useful. It might have been T.D. Walshaw who mentioned in one of my books about too many models in those exhibition's being "highly polished, yet still deeply scratched" to prove my point. I'd highly doubt anyone here purposely produces any work of poor quality, the real issue seems to be the correct information just isn't as available as it should be. As one example, a lathe seems like the ideal machine to use while polishing round parts, and at one time I mistakenly thought the same. Those Brownells books instead show it's not and why there's better, faster and easier methods using a simple length of 1" - 1.5" square tubing, some shop made adjustable for length sliding mounts, and a couple of straight shank live centers to spin the work on while each part is held at roughly 45 degrees to the wheel face and being driven by the polishing wheel doing the work. That way the surface ridges are being taken down to the deepest valley's and your not slowly polishing those valley's even deeper. Then as each finer polishing grit is used, the part is polished at an opposite 45 degree angle. I honestly can't recall any forum post anywhere that even mentions these techniques.

Many thanks for the additional information Kiwi. Getting the proper hot caustic blueing chemicals at least in North America isn't too tough from Brownells Gunsmithing Supplies. Fwiw, water quality depending on whats available out of anyone's domestic water supply and it's natural chemical composition can also greatly affect these processes. Most seem to recommend using either rain water or distilled if the water in the area does create any issues. While I've never done any hot caustic blueing, everything I've ever read always points out that even the fumes coming off a hot caustic solution will instantly start rusting any ferrous metal in the same room.

I see many on Youtube using those cold blueing solutions. As you pointed out and in my opinion, there in reality a poor and low durability replacement for blackening complete parts when compared to most other methods. And yes, the metal surface need to be absolutely clean as well.

Like a lot of processes, there can be multiple terms used for the same end result. Browning / Rust Bluing appear to be at least similar if not the same thing. The way I understand the method and how it works, the rust starts out as common Ferrous Oxide, FE 2O3. Boiling the object in water converts that rust over to a Black Oxide, FE3 O4. Our use of the English language isn't all that precise or at times properly descriptive either. I suspect due to tradition and possibly historical reasons, any of the steel blackening processes really are misnamed and incorrectly called Browning or Bluing when the color they produce is a deep black. Many years ago I did see a single picture of a hand gun that was in fact a very beautiful deep blue color. Unfortunately there were no additional details about how that color was produced. So I know it can be done at least with some ferrous metals, I just don't know how.

https://www.gasparini.com/en/blog/electrochemical-chemical-finishes-stainless-steel/

Doubtful any of those processes could be easily accomplished in the average M.E.'s shop Iain. Plus you would have to be very certain of the stainless type and grade your starting with. It also won't produce the blue color you mentioned. Various thicknesses of very flat steel shim stock can be obtained through numerous industrial tool suppliers. Depending of the surface area of your dial project, heat blueing while still keeping it from warping during the critical heating & quenching phase with thinner material could be extremely difficult though.

For mild steel there's also what's called rust bluing that doesn't seem all that well known by most M.E.'s today. Search for a video on Youtube titled 1 Hour Red Rust Bluing on a channel called thecogwheel. But again, it won't give you that heat blued color, but a deep black instead if that color might be acceptable enough instead. Prior to today's much quicker hot caustic blackening process, it was the traditional method used to blacken and obtain a much more durable and mostly rust resistant surface on items such as guns. That video does leave out a few and I think important details if your expecting the best possible quality. First the finer and more even your layers of rust are, the better your final finished surface will be. You really want the whole surface to look like it's covered in a really fine dusting of rust. Leave it too long while rusting and the surface finish will degrade due to larger rust pits forming. Possibly rusting of the steel in a closed container using the fumes from Hydrochloric or Nitric acid might be better? Really high quality rust bluing / blackening is and despite the videos title, very time consuming verses the obvious time savings and I think much nicer color that heat bluing produces.

While Jacobs may and probably did have chucks made to there specifications outside the U.S. (that made in Italy chuck) The bulk of there current chuck production is afaik now based in China and has been for well over 10 years. I pay close attention to what the professional machinists have to say about anything on that Practical Machinist forum.And I honestly can't recall anything good said from the time Jacobs stopped producing the U.S. made chucks and right up to today. And it wasn't just China bashing, there comments are all about poor quality, poor run out with some chucks, and the still very high prices Jacobs is expecting for a now vastly inferior product. They have also changed the design of the various models of chucks enough that even the chuck rebuild kits they sell today will no longer fit the U.S. made chucks. Jacobs seems to be trying to exist on there once good reputation to justify how there still pricing there products. Because of that, I very much suspect there sales are now a shadow of what they once were.

And fwiw, Rohm as good as there reputation is, appears to have at least 3 tiers to there corporate branded chucks that I've seen in reputable tool dealers. The cheapest show very low quality as well as really poorly done and indistinct roll stamping of that Rohm brand and any lettering on the chuck body. They even feel like low quality and full of grit just opening and closing them by hand. Without question, there quite obviously produced somewhere other than Germany. A second and much better done mid priced range that's at least somewhat ok for the one example of there keyed chuck I have. And a third premium level priced right up there with the likes of Albrecht. So buying any Rohm branded chuck will have a lot to do with what your willing to spend and the brand name on it doesn't necessarily mean it's always going to be of the highest quality.

There's other reasons chuck back plates are most often made from cast iron other than that metals vibration absorption quality's. Decent cast iron has good friction reducing property's as well, even on steel spindle threads and it's locating face. It's also well known in engineering design that locating parts with threads is considered very poor practice due to the required clearances to allow the parts to thread together. Even more so on threaded parts that are removed and replaced fairly often. So those non optional clearances will not provide the concentricity the spindles parallel portion and spindle register does for the chucks axial and radial alignment. So yes that spindle parallel portion and the spindle face are both highly critical location surfaces. Even though cast iron does have that built in good bearing surface, chucks get stuck both because of the male / female threads slightly stretching under tension and the friction of the back plates locating face against the spindle. Without that elastic deformation bolts and nuts couldn't hold any two parts together for long.The tighter the chuck gets the more the threads stretch and the higher the friction.

However there's a very old machinist trick used with threaded spindles that seems to be little known today. Cut yourself a doughnut shaped washer from light cardboard. An old shoe box, cereal box etc. Multi layer corrugated type cardboard will NOT work, it has to be a single layer type. That thin cardboard is remarkably consistent for thickness simply because the rolls used to press it during it's production run are set with a high degree of precision. You want that card board doughnuts ID cut just slightly larger than the parallel section on your spindle and slightly smaller than the back plates OD for it's recess. In use that cardboard very slightly compresses between the back plate and spindle as the threads tighten up preventing the metal to metal friction and those stuck chucks. If it were me I'd also soak that card board washer in some light oil for a few seconds before using it to prevent the paper from picking up any air bore humidity and causing rust.

Sigh, here we go again. I thought I gave a proper example of "supposedly" precision milling vise's that clearly werent. And just like Fizzy's example both as I said looked very nice as well.Or aren't Kurt type vises now classified and defined as something precision? A common bench vise wouldn't fit that precision term, but a milling vise should and better be if you expect any precision and dependable results while machining parts held in them. And I wasn't as you call it slagging anything at all, I was stating exactly what could be possible even when not buying at the very bottom of the price ladder. And the full story was a little more complex than I thought would even need mentioning. Apparently that wasn't correct. Buying both those vises in person over 3,000 miles from where my home is happened to be very convienient for me at the time since getting them home cost me nothing. And no where were there any accuracy guarantees. I based my purchase on what I was told and was seeing at the time. And as I also said both vises were quite precisely ground and finished. My checks did show that. So my gut feeling while buying them wasn't wrong. But they only fit that precision term until you actualy put them under there working loads. I then went on to explain WHY that was so. Investing even more money to ship them back that 3,000 + miles would have been more costs. So it wasn't a just pop down a mile or two to the local dealer to return them type of situation.I simply decided to write the mistake off as the most cost effective way forward. Fizzy the OP's exact question was a bit more than "when is a precision vise not a precision vise" since you want to point back to the OP. It was also "should we have to". I gave some first hand examples and reasons that doing a lot more than simply machining the jaws and tightening some bolts as he did might be required. Even to the point where it might become impossible to fix some core issues if there serious enough. So should we have to as he first asked? Certainly not, but I thought I made it plain that if you don't do some checks yourself then how would you know if it's a precision vise or not. It should also be obvious that he did that checking and fixed what wasn't precise on his vise. I wasn't arguing for or against what some think of as RR quality. Others who seem to know a fair bit seemed to understand my points and didn't consider it going off on a tangent. Yet it still seems some took them as condensending and OT. I implied nor meant either and have already said as much before. It's quite apparent that's still not to be believed by some who chose to take it that way. You can take my posts as exactly what they say without any added and unsaid words or implications. Michael, Larry, Hopper and Nick's last posts were what I was responding to, or does doing that not make any sense to you either? Exactly as Nick pointed out had I not bought cheaper rubbish I wouldn't have needed to replace them. Both of what I bought were sold as Kurt style vises with the same working principals as the real Kurt's use. Using that in the sales description is a deceptive at best way to entice a buyer into thinking there a lot better than they were. Given the precision mine were made to where it could be seen and measured at home they could have easily passed some fairly impressive accuracy guarantee's had they even had them. And just static testing would have agreed with any half decent numbers as well. So simple testing to the numbers wouldn't have made them unfit as you say. Using them did. So is my post now understandable to you Brian or do you want to needlessly complicate the issues and argue some more?

Anyone here is of course free to form there own opinions. I'm certainly not arrogant enough to expect or think anyone will or even should to have the same opinions as mine. That however doesn't automaticaly make what I've tried to show as at least one hard learned lesson as being wrong now does it? Some of the guilty might be quite surprised in what a few of the most knowledable members here have to say in private messages about the style of personal sniping and argumentive posting that's becoming more and more common on this forum. And I can think of a few who were the very best and most knowledgable who suddenly left for those exact reasons. I can honestly say I don't blame them at all. To me this forum is much less than it once was because those people are now gone. If I really wanted to defend and explain every single one of my words then my ex wife and I would still be married. The need to constantly do so for a few total strangers seems tiresome, illogical and a waste of mine and others time imo. Some here seem to have an undiagnosed but fully developed Don Quixote complex. If my posts bother you that much then your also free to ignore them. I'm here for one reason only, to learn what I don't already know. If I can try to pass along a few bits of information at times that might help someone while doing that then that's a bonus to me that I can return just a small fraction of what others have done for me.

Possibly a proper example of the difference between cheap and something that works as intended might prevent some from misinterpreting what's meant. Deciding to jump up to a much larger mill some years ago was going to be at the far end of what I really wanted to spend. And tooling up that mill has turned out to be far more expensive than I'd thought. Shortly after buying that mill I then bought 2 Kurt "style" 4" capacity milling vises. They looked pretty good on the surface, nice smooth and mostly well finished castings. At least the painted and well ground surfaces lead me to think they should be fairly decent. In use I started seeing some inaccuracy's far outside what was wanted or that should have been there. The vise beds were checked and both were ground parrallel to the bottom surfaces, the jaws well finished and all looked fine. The rear fixed jaws on both vises were then checked with indicators as each was tightened. I was seeing .005" - about .007" deflection even under moderate tightening pressures and a workpiece would not stay tight to the parrallels no matter how much a dead blow was used. The rear jaw was lifting so I readjusted the set screw at the rear of the movable jaw that prevents that. Sometimes it then didn't lift, but it wasn't a very consistant condition.

At that point I decided on a full disassembly. As they say don't judge a book by it's cover. The internal surfaces that you can't see even when judging how well somethings made in a display case were much much different than those exterior ones are. The wedge used on Kurt type vises were in the as cast condition. That design requires the half ball to smoothly slide down that angle and help pull the movable jaw down as the vise get's tightened. But here's where the real problems started showing up. The internal as cast surfaces were extremely rough with more than a few incompleted cast sections. I then took one of the vise body's down to the local radiator shop and paid them so I could use there sand blaster. Finding a blow hole ridden and bondo filled casting under that smooth paint meant that even though I could have fixed what some of the mechanical problems were I can't begin to fix faulty castings who's quality of cast iron was now more than a little suspect. Lot's of problems on some of the cheaper tooling can be fixed by the end user. Stefan Gotteswinter on Youtube shows doing exactly that on quite a bit from the far east and ending up with a far superior bit of tooling. You still have to start with something sound enough to make the effort worth while. Those 2 vises cost me approximately $400. At best they'd be ok for less than precision work on a drill press. I'm also sure anyone here would have reached the same conclusions as I did. So finding out I'd now wasted everything they cost was at best an expensive learning lesson for me. Are some of those cheaper (not the very cheapest) vises any good? Likely some are. Mine certainly weren't. I suppose a great deal depends on which factory is making them and there own quality control for the cast irons specifications and quality as well. I also learned that the less your prepared to spend then the more double checking you should be prepared to do to obtain the minimum of what's required to match your expectations and needs. Upgrading to 2 more 6" capacity vises then cost a bit more than 1k. However that money wasn't wasted and they do exactly what decent vises should. I also tested and checked there internals to be sure I did get what I was paying for. My lessons have been learned the hard way. I now take little I buy on faith including checking as best I can anything with well regarded brand names on them.

Anyone using a cup grinding wheel, flycutter etc powered by the mills spindle while trying to correct any faults in the tables surface simply hasn't thought through how the machine functions. For one part to move within another there HAS to be some clearance. A 1" or 25 mm shaft will not fit within a 1" or 25 mm hole no matter how straight and accurately made they are or how perfect the surface finish is on both parts. Even a brand new top of the line mill will have a few thou of clearance. It has to or the table couldn't move. And once that table does move past it's balance point enough, it's own weight is going to lower the heavy end and raise the lighter end until that clearance is taken up. It's easy enough to check for anyone who doesn't believe the above facts with an indicator. A normal vertical mill can not accurately resurface it's own table. Planers, bed mills, high precision surface or slideway grinders have a fully supported table and very accurately aligned table ways for this exact reason. And because there's a multiplcation factor involved even an extremely good 2 thou clearance would get multiplied to more than that at the tables surface so you'd be cutting the tables face in a bow shape. An older mill with some or a lot of wear the problem would be even larger.

Going by the quote I got to regrind my 9" x 32" table by a very experienced grinding shop who also did this type of work from time to time I'd expect the costs would be in the 150 - 250 quid range.

What hasn't been stated is exactly why the cheap wigglers aren't worth using and why the better ones cost what they do. How repeatable and accurate they are is a function of how well the wigglers working faces have been heat treated, ground and then precision lapped. The best ones will have a dead flat mirror lapped finish on both faces so they kick off at a constant and repeatable point every time. They do need a gentle cleaning and a single drop of light machine oil applied from time to time. Russell's mention of cigarrette rolling papers is a very old machinist's trick and one I use quite often. If your careful that paper can do edge finding that no other tool can do. The Zig Zag brand I use are almost exactly .001" thick. Held with a pair of needle nose pliers to protect your fingers edges can be found with the cutting tool rotating in the exact tool holder your going to be using so even tool runout can be compensated for. X,Y and Z can also be found with that simple piece of paper. They can also be used to locate a tool tip on the part face or it's O.D. on the lathe, locating a drill point at a known location for tailstock drilling and do it all to less than 1/2 a thou if you take a bit of time and your careful. Thicker paper can't be as accurate since you have no idea how much the cutting tool is compressing the paper with a stationary tool or exactly at what position it tears the paper with a rotating tool or part. I've also got and use a Haimer 3D and there's no doubt it's far more accurate than any wiggler type I've used. They do need to be properly zeroed to the machines spindle C/L and kept in a dedicated end mill holder to get the very best from them.

Ignore it? It's your machine so any decisions are up to you of course. But visualise how the machine works and it's required alignments. With scoring that deep it was run for a very long time without oil. The previous owner should have been able to hear at least some changes and investigated a bit and long before it got that bad. The lack of oil dripping off the front of the one dovetail should have been a good clue as well. The one side of the ram is now running at a large misalignment which in turn misaligns the good dovetail side. The ram weight and cutting forces are now being shifted to a couple of very narrow areas on both the male and female dovetail on the good side. That will greatly accelerate wear and the problem can only get far worse. Shapers and the surface finish and accuracy they can produce can be fairly close to surface grinding with a good condition machine and properly sharpened tools. Any excess wear and misalignment in the machines movements will directly show up as a measureable amount on whatever part is being machined.At the barest minimum milling to get all 4 of the dovetail surfaces correct would help a great deal over what it is now. Surface grinding is much more accurate obviously and would be much better. Most machines today are only surface ground with some oil flaking such as the Bridgeports use. It's usually a very expensive industrial CNC or tool room machine before hand or power scrapeing is done on any of them today.

Since machine tool slides ride on an oil wedge having that center oil groove may not have been thought to be needed by the factory. Adding one certainly couldn't hurt. But there is NO easy, cheap, or fast way of fixing all that wear without at least milling on a very accurate and good condition industrial quality machine. Having it ground by a really good and experienced machine tool rebuilder would be the way I'd go if it were mine. That still depends on just how important the machine is to you and what your willing to invest into it. Hand scrapeing that amount of wear while still maintaining it's 3 dimensional alignments would take a very long time and take a great deal of experience and skill. The investment in the correct test and alignment tools to do so would be far more than having every one of the machines slide surfaces ground.

If your trimming that lump off your vise as shown in the other thread then bandsawing or even hacksawing off the majority of what needs to be removed first will make the job far faster and easier on the machine. With a flycutter in the lathe you will or should see the tool cutting on the backside of the cut once you get across the job far enough but it will be by a very small amount. That's quite normal and doesn't indicate a misalignment of the headstock. It's mostly caused by the cutter flexing and not taking 100% of the cut that was dialed in.

Before the influx of the much cheaper offshore benchtop mills started and with tough times for many in the UK even up into the 1960's due to the war few had the luxury of having any sort of a mill in a home shop. The very small BCA jig borers sold for almost 4 times what a then brand new Myford Super 7 was selling for. The old Model Engineer magazines show some extremely complex milling tasks all done on the only machine tool many had in the shop, there lathe. For anyone trying to do the same today I can't recommend the Workshop Practice book Milling in the Lathe highly enough.Even having a vertical mill it can still teach a lot. I have a Bridgeport clone yet still bought a large Palmgren milling attachment for the lathe. It's rare, but some jobs such as milling, drilling, boring or tapping the ends of long bars can still be done easier while using that milling attachment and the lathes headstock much like a horizontal mill. Boring between centers with the work on the lathes cross slide for work that fits is still a more accurate and better but slower method for through bores than a vertical mill is with a boring head.

If your wanting to use that test bar to check your lathes headstock alignment and I think you are, then there's a way around buying one if you've got a large faceplate for the lathe. Clean, adjust the lathes cross slide, nut and gib so everything is as it should be. Take a very fine clean up cut across the full width of that faceplate. Remove the compound slide, back the cross slide out towards you, set up a dial indicators tip just past the faceplates center at the 3 o'clock position and the magnetic indicators stand on the cross slide. Run the indicator away from you with the cross slide towards the backside of the faceplate. Your measurement changes between the center of the faceplate and it's outside edge will be DOUBLE what any misalignment is. On a good toolroom lathe in new condition the cross slide is biased inwards and machined, ground, and/or scraped so the lathe should face concave .001"-.003" over 12". IF? and it's fairly rare your headstock is out of alignment the above test should show that. With smaller lathes using a 10ths reading DTI for the measurements might be better than a .001" reading dial indicator. There's far too many on forums and Youtube avocating adjusting the headstocks alignment without properly testing that it is in fact the real problem and not something else. A very well made test bar can indicate problems, but the headstocks internal Morse Taper has to be spotless, in perfect concentricity and condition or it will show a misalignment that the headstock doesn't have.

If your wanting to check the tailstock then assumeing it's MT is concentric and in very good unmarked condition a test bar can help. But I'd start by extending it's quill fully out, locking the quill clamp, then run an indicator along the top and then along the side that's closest to you. The tailstocks bed clamp should also be used during that test. These tests will show more than using just a test bar will and especialy so if your Morse tapers aren't perfect. I do have some of those expensive test bars and I still do the above tests first. A seriously worn tailstocks base and spindle bore can show misalignments that have to be addressed first before any meaningful tests can be done.

Edited By Pete on 10/07/2017 00:51:12

You've had your question well answered Nige and have made the more than correct decision not to try and force a machine no where close to being designed for it into something it just can't do with any accuracy or surface finish. So just for future referance since the subject is sure to come up again.

Most if not all consumer grade light duty pillar / drill presses sold today don't even make a good job of drilling holes if your willing to run a few simple tests. Set up an indicators magnetic base on the rear column with the tip of the indicator at the middle or outside edge of the table then just start adding some pressure to the table with your thumb. Then visualise driving a 1/4", 3/8", or 1/2" drill through steel and how much added pressure the table sees plus the vise and work piece weight. Tramming the table to the spindle is almost a waste of time because of that variable table flexing.The usual very light wall column and head castings also flex under those pressures if your willing to set up an indicator that's not attached to the machine but can indicate the head movement while drilling with a larger diameter drill. Those mill / drills only resemble a pillar drill with an added X,Y table. Check there weights and there far heavier than adding that X,Y table would add on it's own. The column and head casting are much heavier and far more rigid. Better bearings that are designed for the side loads, a drawbar, and much more rigid and accurate fine feed on the Z axis. With all that they still don't make the greatest milling machine, but they can be made to work.I own a mill but still tried milling just once on a 180 lb. 16 speed floor model drill press that had the drill chuck secured with a center bolt into the end of the jacobs taper and a 35 lb X,Y table bolted down to see how well it might work. It was a waste of time with very poor ragged edges on aluminum even while reducing the cut to .005" depth. I'm extremely doubtful adding a proper end mill holder or collet chuck would have made any noticable improvment.

Youtube has more than a few videos by people saying it works and trying to prove it. Read the comments and the ones most in favor of it seem to know the least. The ones against it all seem to have a large amount of experience and understand the requirements and forces involved. Then watch the video and take note of the depth of cut, vibration and surface finish quality.Yes you probably could rebuild and work around the light duty components with something far better, and after all that time and money still have something that only works semi well compared to even an X2 sized mini mill. They do make industrial floor model drills with a built in X,Y table that can do light milling and even proper boring with a boring head. Check the weights and what they cost and both numbers approach what an off shore Bridgeport clone would cost and weigh. A 2200 lb Bridgeport because of it's design is actualy a very flexable machine if it's pushed harder than it should be. There used so much simply because of how versitile they are than there absolute rigidity. Trying to make a 100 - 200 lb. light duty pillar drill do milling is a great way to test your frustration and patience limits in my opinion. I no longer even own any pillar / drill press for working with metal because of there limitations and poor accuracy. My knee mill will drill holes 10 times as well at least against any pillar drill I could afford.

If the machine is bolted down to the floor the cap the ram slides in can just have the 4 bolts loosened and the whole head and ram swung off to one side. Without it fastened down I'd not take the chance since the knee, saddle and table add up to a significant amount of the weight and the machine could easily go over sideways with all that weight off to one side. So if it's not bolted down I'd remove the motor then remove the head from the knuckel by supporting the end of the spindle first with a piece of plywood between the spindle end and the table. Raise the knee until it just takes the heads weight then remove the 4 head bolts that fasten it to the knuckel. Then remove the ram. If you remove the column cap be aware that some machines have nothing to support the internal spider inside the top of the column casting once the cap bolts are removed. But the spider can be held through the columns side access panel while the bolts are removed or replaced The head, table, ram and knee aren't light so it depends on what you have other than human power for lifting them. Remove the main one shot lube container after you've removed the table and saddle. With the table and saddle off and if there's no rear mounted electrical cabinet on the rear of the main column casting the machine can be laid over on its back. Bolt a 3'-4' long wooden 2"x4" to the underside of the columns base to keep the machine from rolling over sideways while it's postioned on it's back. Wind the knee up the dovetail with the knee crank until it's clear of the nut, remove the knee gib and locks and the knee can then be slid the rest of the way up the dovetail until it clears that dovetail. Assembly is done in reverse. I'd want to have an engine hoist at least for doing the heavy lifting or a good chain fall.

It's not a big or hard job but it does take some thought and planning. And cleaning out all the old congealed oil, swarf etc makes a large difference in the machines feel and accuracy. The feed screws and nuts should be washed down with a good solvent as well. All that black oil on every surface is because of wear particals and swarf.Neither is good for a machines life span. Make sure to readjust the feed nuts during reassembly and replace any suspect way wipers and felts. The machine will feel a lot nicer to use once all this is done. But on a well worn machine there's only so far you can go with the nut and gib adjustments before the screws and slides will get tight at the extremes of travel. Use a seperate container for each set of parts and lable where there from as there removed. I make sure parts like the tables bearing hangers that the X axis screw is supported on go back on the same ends of the table. The two bevel gears on the top of the knee screw are the only place I use a light grease unless your one shot oils that area as well. The rest of the machine gets way oil. And with the head off the machine be very careful how you set it down once removed from that knuckel. It's all too easy and common to break parts off like the small spindle direction feed knob. Don't ask how I now know that. Once back togeather remove the oil zerks from the area on the side or back of the head to check that there is in fact the proper spindle oil inside. It should take spindle oil and way oil is too thick. Bridgeports are a total loss head oiling system so it's not uncommon to get the odd drip once in awhile off the spindle area.

Fwiw, my named by Emco high precision "heavy duty" Compact 5 three jaw is very specific in the instructions that came with it about returning each scroll pinion back to the same location they came out of in the chuck body after cleaning a chuck. Especially the one marked with the 0 postion on these chucks since that was the one they used to grind both sets of chuck jaws. Maybe something to keep in mind when cleaning and servicing a chuck, or when regrinding the jaws back true to the chucks body. Suburban Tool on Youtube has a very good video about how to properly regrind the jaws in a scroll chuck with some impressive results for runout. If anyone needs good dependable and accurate chucks I'd think they would. The jaws are just slightly ground with a recessed area at the very rear and a ring is used at that location to load the jaws by tightening against that ring. That preloads the jaws in the normal working direction then there ground. Preloading the jaws on the outside tips will tilt them very slightly outwards due to the minute but still important slot to jaw clearance. But the video explains the how and why far better than I can. The last set of chuck jaws I ground I wasn't seeing the improvement I thought I should. Not using the method Suburban does may be why but I can't say for sure yet.

Neils 100% correct about how important it is for a chuck to be properly cleaned. But something a thou or two in size can be fairly tough to spot at times. I've found a lot of improvement can sometimes be made if a sharp scriber is used to loosen any swarf in the corners of the scroll and jaw teeth. It's surprising just how much will still come out of a chuck you thought was spotless. Through drilling and boring tends to be what causes the most swarf to enter a chuck through the jaw slots. Whenever I can on shorter work pieces that need that through drilling or boring I'll usualy wedge a paper towel or small rag into the chucks through hole and just behind where the work will sit before tightening the workpiece in the chuck. Chucks still need cleaning every so often and the paper or rag just prolongs that job for a bit longer.

Yes it's likely correct that cutting the backplates step 1/32nd undersize so set screws can be used as a cheap alternative to a Grip Tru would cause it to be less resistant to movement when hogging great amounts of material off. I'm doubtful many M.E.'s really push there lathes that hard. But the coefficent of friction with the backplates bolts torqued up properly has to be quite high so you'd really have to be working a machine hard before I'd worry too much about it. Prof. Chaddock and GHT were two who really knew and practiced what they were talking about. Out of everything GHT wrote about the only single thing I can think of that I disagreed with was him stamping the numerials into a replacement shop made dial while it was still screwed to the lathes spindle nose. I suspect that Super 7 may have had sleeve type bearings? But it's still not a practice I'd subject a good chuck to. He did know far more than I ever will so I'd not really want to argue he was totaly and absolutely wrong either.