QCTP Identification

Hi all,

I have a WM250V lathe, and some credit to spend with Warco who I bought it off. As I look through their website, I keep finding the stuff that I'd like, such as a vertical milling slide and adapter, etc, is out of stock with no idea of when they'll have more, and other things that I would like seem to have better quality alternatives available elsewhere.

My latest thought was to buy a QCTP, and it appears to me that this item (https://www.warco.co.uk/quick-change-tool-posts/207-quick-change-tool-post-100-250mm.html) is the same as this one sold by Arc Euro (https://www.arceurotrade.co.uk/Catalogue/Machines-Accessories/Lathe-Accessories/Tool-Posts/Model-100-Quick-Change-Tool-Post). I'd buy it off Arc Euro as they have a better range of holders available, but I have to spend my credit with Warco on something, and if it was the same tool post then I could buy further holders from Arc Euro going forward. Does anyone happen to know if these are the same tool post?

Edited By John McCulla on 21/12/2022 19:39:03

Ah another frequently asked question, the honest answer is they may be, but the only way to ensure compatibility is to source from one retailer, any problems with fit etc would be down to them.

Tony

C0mparison of the measurements might give some idea. They are on their websites.

Where are the measurements on the Warco site? I couldn't see any apart from the tool holder capacity.

Regrettably specification measurements aren't accurate enough to ensure proper functioning.

The fit needs to be very good and tolerances well controlled if the toolholder is to be stable when cutting. Those piston type posts work by pushing the holder outwards so that the two dovetails mate tightly. There is no inherently positve retention against angular tilt. They rely on the friction between the dovetails generated by the piston pushing outwards to stop the holder tilting and the tool tip moving up and down when in cut. The wider the tolerances the more likely you are to get a weak fit. Maker to maker variations are likely to be greater than tolerance banding from one maker.

That style of post is fundamentally weak when compared to something like a Dickson or Multifix which do pull into positive restraint in all planes. The Dickson design is inherently over-constrained with several different ways of getting a solid fit yet mixing and matching inexpensive versions is frequently unsuccessful. The piston types are under-constrained so even more likely to suffer from mix and match problems.

Clive

Hi John,

I made my own tool post quite easily and a lot cheaper than forking out for tool holders. There used to be full details in my albums, but it seems that they have been deleted. I've not logged in for quite some time, since I have had to re-register.

Do a search for "Norman Patent" toolpost.

Just another point, I prefer the ‘wedge’ variation of this toolpost type

Tony

I have had this type of QCTP for several years, and have been very pleased with it. I don’t use the parting tool that comes with the kit, but I have bought matching holders from several vendors without any problems. Admittedly my lathe is a much smaller Chester DB7VS.

Here in the brochure pdf

Brian G

Edit:  Unfortunately both firms have measured different parts of the toolpost, but if you compare either of them with the (imperial) measurements of a genuine 400 USD Aloris AXA toolpost they appear to be pretty close copies of the same toolpost, so may well be interchangeable.

Edit again:  If your compound slide has an integral boss for the 4-way you will either have to machine this down to fit one of these toolposts (or possibly bore out the central cam of the piston type).  In that case you may prefer to use your credit on the Warco rear toolpost first if the 250 will swing the compound clear of the bed.  

BG

Edited By Brian G on 21/12/2022 22:04:27

Edited By Brian G on 21/12/2022 22:14:17

From the Warco link you supplied: Enough there to at least compare the post and holder dimensions.

Problem is ARC give their dimensions to different parts of the post so you can't compare them.

Baron J, all your posts and photos are still there as is your account, you must be logging in with the wrong e-mail or password. Try John Baron as a username.

One of the strong points of the 'wedge-type' variant is that the design of the mechanism is accepting of a wide latitude of fit - a dovetail with tapered gib pushes the holder onto the bearing surfaces of the block with great firmness.

I don't know whether the piston type has the same latitude, it operates on a completely different principle.

I've never bought or made a '100' - style holder that didn't fit; (the holders are easily made, they are a plain block with an open slot for the tool shank and an open dovetail for the post).

Bought mine from ARC (does anyone else evensupply the 'wedge' - type?), some time ago and still regard it as money really well spent.

Edited By DiogenesII on 22/12/2022 07:09:55

+1 for the wedge-type. I have had both the piston and wedge for my lathe. I bought the piston type first when I didn't know any better - probably because it was cheaper - and soon regretted it. I had to make a new cam to get the original holders to grip and later purchases of tool holders from a different source all had to be fettled to fit. An Arc-supplied wedge toolpost has performed faultlessly from day one and, as Diogenes says, supplementary holders purchased later, all fit without mucking about.

My ½ pennyworth.

John

My original wedge type came from Arc, very good quality and all extra holders have fitted nicely, some cheaper tool holders I bought have been a bit hit and miss, I will stick with the genuine Arc ones in future.

Tony

Good Morning Jason,

I've not been around for a while so haven't logged in for quite a while. In the meantime Google has removed my old Email Address so I'm now on a different provider. I did try various combinations of name and Email addresses without any success. So I re-registered.

Can I recover my albums ?

John,

Like you I also have a WM250V lathe, I went for the QCTP specifically machined for the WM250 (part no 9009.250). Have you considered it as an option? It is slightly more expensive!

I have had mine for over 3 years and have had no issues with it in that time.