Is there something wrong with this vice?

So I purchased a new vice from Cowells to mount on the Milling slide of my ME90 (the slide is Cowells brand too) It arrive last week but it refuses to tighten up when mounted with the two T-nuts. I tighten the nuts as tight as sensibly possible but there is still a massive amount of movement in the whole vice itself at least 5mm...

Now I have an angle plate from cowells which mounts on my milling slide perfectly and noticed the T-nuts on that actually recess into the holes on the angle itself, like so...

But this is not the case with the vice...they stand proud and won't fit into the holes like so..

Should they recess like the T-nuts on the angle plate and could this be a reason there is so much slop? or Am I overlooking something, being stupid? Maybe something else?

I sent them an email at the weekend and am waiting for Colin at Cowells to get back to me, but thought I would try figure it out in the meantime.

I can't quite make out from the second photo what is between the square nut and the vice's underside, but it looks suspiciously like a spacer rather than just a portion of the threaded fastener whose conical tip can seen protruding from the square nut.

Assuming I've understood things correctly (and I know nothing about these vices or Myford milling slides), if this spacer is deeper than the distance between the two surfaces on the milling slide that the vice needs to clamp on to, then you will never get the vice to tighten down without shortening these spacers.

I'm sure someone will be able to give you a more authoritative answer soon.

Ditto what Phil said.

Are the conical ends of the fasteners making contact with the bottom of the T-slots?

Geoff - Sleep ivades me at present.

They look like turned T-nuts, where the upright of the T is circular in section (my Unimat has them).

Two things I would try, first put a nut with its screw into a T-slot in the milling slide and confirm that the cylindrical part doesn't stand proud of the surface when you pull on the screw. If it does you will need to shorten the cylindrical part of the nut or counterbore the holes in the vice (or better yet return it to Cowells for rectification, unlike cheap Chinese tools I would expect it to be right first time).

Second, place the vice on the milling slide and push one of the bolts into it and see if it touches the bottom of the T-slot in the slide. If it does you will need to shorten the screw (or change it for a shorter one). This is the most important as if the bolt bottoms out it can jack up the T-nut and break the lip of the slot.

Brian

Check that the trunk section of the tee nuts are below the top surface of the mill table when clamped. You have said that on the angle plate they recess into the angle. They will not clamp if they protrude and the vice base is flush with the table. 

Also as noted, check that the bolts do not touch the bottom of the Tee slot. If they do, they can break the Tee slot if over tightened.

Paul

Edited By Paul Lousick on 11/09/2018 06:28:33

Err, no! You thought you would get someone else to sort it out for you.

You clearly have not checked the size of the components in the two installations, if they should fit in an identical manner? I expect that if they should, and you do that, you may well find they are different.

It is now Tuesday? Might be time to ring, on the dog and bone, instead of emailing?

.

Very reasonable analysis ^^^

It seems logical [given the small size of Cowells parts] that the circular trunk of the tee nut is intended to slide comfortably into the hole in the vice base. ... It should be a simple matter to determine which component is wrong.

Edit: If this is not the intended arrangement then it seems that the 'trunks' on the supplied tee nuts must simply too long.

That said [and with either analysis]: Given Cowells' reputation for close tolerances ... I am surprised

MichaelG.

.

Note: I see that BrianG covered the same points

http://www.cowells.com/Gallery/RGB57.jpg

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 11/09/2018 08:01:19

I'd suspect over long screws, unless the t-slot lips are perilously thin.

If that was my vice, I'd mill a groove for a keep plate for the sliding jaw, not keen on a milling vice with a 'free' jaw.

Neil

Surely the T nut fits into a T slot and that "protuberance" on the underside of the nut in photo 2 is then in the narrow part of the T to align the T nut. It won't stick out above the edge of the slot, so the vice will clamp tight to whatever the T slot is in. Or perhaps Cowells have a unique way of doing things?

.

I don't know the dimensions, but this remark should put things in perspective:

[quote]

The Unimat T-nuts in my drawer are the same diameter/thread as Cowell, but the heads are considerably thicker. So, thinning those down and they'd probably fit the Cowell T-slots.

[/quote]

MichaelG.

.

Ref. http://www.westernthunder.co.uk/index.php?threads/lathe-thoughts-and-recommendations.7073/

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 11/09/2018 09:44:41

Tighten with care

The two parts should squash together on the upper part of the t-slot

If the screw s too long it will "jack up" into the upper part and crack the cross slide

Insert of piece of paper along the bottom to check, it must be a sliding fit or your upper t-slot is under stress

Thanks guys, You were spot on. It appears the supplied bolts are too long. thank goodness I didn't nip them up even tighter then and break my milling slide. Going to ring them shortly to chase up the email.

Neil - Funny you should mention that about the floating jaw, It was the first thing I noticed and was disappointed with when I unpacked it. I had no idea that was part of this design until I received. I actually looked round for alternative options for a couple of weeks before purchasing at it was pricey (for me) but wasn't sure what would fit. In the end I just bit the bullet and thought I would pay more and go for the 'factory fit' option.

Seems the office is shut, until Thursday so will have to wait until then.

Call me a cynic, but if someone bought a Chinese milling vice with no jaw keep-plate and out of spec mounting bolts ...

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 11/09/2018 17:58:08

.

You're a cynic, Neil

I think people will be queing in agreement behind me when I say it sounds like a kit of parts.

Martin.

Just to update.. Colin got back to me this morning and explained that the Tee slots on the vertical milling slide have varied a little and the bolts he sent were fashioned on a VM slide he had there. He has offered to send some shorter bolts to me.

There seems to be rather a lot of confusion in this thread.

"Kit of parts'? Well-made parts in this case. Cowells do not make junk, but you are free to buy plenty from the orient, if you prefer. I don't think the manufacturer can be blamed when the end-user hasn't checked for the possibility of a fixing bolt bottoming in a T-slot. This is a basic precaution to be taken before fixing anything down to a T-slotted surface, surely. A bit of thought, and a couple of washers would have done the trick in this case, had over-long screws been the problem. However, it's not clear from the thread whether the length of the cylindrical 'trunk' of the T-nuts is the problem. Easily checked and, if necessary, shortened, of course.

No keep plate? Where's the evidence for that assertion? The under-surface of the (rather short) keep plate is clearly shown in the second photo, dutifully sitting in its groove. This vice has the rather desirable feature that the keep plate is fixed to the moving jaw by a screw whose head is accessible from above. Thus, the keep plate can be tightened as the vice is tightened, to minimise jaw lift. You can't do this when the keep plate fixing screw enters from the underside. More vices should be dsigned like this. Emco did, for the vice marketed with the FB-2.

Edited By Kiwi Bloke 1 on 13/09/2018 23:23:28

The linked-to vice shown on the Cowell's site certainly appears to have a keep plate (just visible) and the above-mentioned clamping screw coming down from the top of the moveable jaw.

**LINK**

Sherlock, is this feature the same on your vice?

[Can't seem to edit my previous post to include this]

Why was the OP 'disappointed' when he saw the moving jaw - presumably moving? This vice is of the common design that does not constrain the moving jaw to remain parallel to the fixed jaw. It is designed to be able to swivel, in order to be able to clamp a greater variety of shapes (within reason). As I'm sure you know, clamping short workpieces near the jaw end requires a 'balancing' packing at the other end of the jaw. That's good practice for vices with fully-guided jaws too, of course.