Angled bore in tool steel, helical interpolated and finished without honing

Oct 27, 2026 Last reply: 1 day ago 3 Replies
Jump to replies (3)

The hardest part here has to be hitting an angled bore eleven inches deep and holding it to size in tool steel. The maker went at it with helical interpolation at a fixed angle on a Giddings & Lewis machine, running a 1"×12" indexable cutter, and the outcome speaks for itself: no honing was needed afterwards, which the maker credits to having helicaled the bore with that cutter. For a bore in HH P-20 tool steel, skipping the honing step entirely seems like the real achievement of the whole job.



The part itself is a raised feature sitting in the middle of a core, with the angled bore put in for a horn pin. The purpose was to check the fit of a gadget pin, and the check was done by inserting a cylindrical metal component attached to a threaded rod into the bore. Coming out 0.0002 inches oversized on a 1.2502 inch bore, eleven inches deep, is tight work. That said, the two tenths over is the one open item I would want to hear more about, since it is the only number that did not land exactly on target.



The finishing sequence also stands out: cleaning, chamfering, deburring, bottom-tapping, and stone smoothing all got done. It reads as a complete workflow rather than just the cutting step.



One more thing worth noting is the programming side. The maker reports being proficient across Heidenhain, Fanuc, Allen Bradley, and Tosnuc, and says being able to helical-interpolate this bore is something they are proud of. That pride seems well earned on a job like this.


Going straight to no honing after helical interpolation with an indexable cutter is the choice that catches my eye. It trades away the safety net of a finishing lap and bets everything on the interpolation being right, and in tool steel that is a bold bet. Landing two tenths over on an eleven inch deep bore says the bet paid off.

Curious how the fixed angle was actually held over that depth. On an eleven inch bore cut helically, even a small angular drift would show up along the length. Was the angle handled purely in the program geometry, or did the setup on the Giddings & Lewis machine need any special alignment to keep the bore true to the intended angle?

Since the bore came out 0.0002 inches oversized, one variation worth considering for a future job would be programming the final pass to leave a couple of tenths and then taking a light spring pass with the same 1"×12" cutter. It might close that last gap without adding much cycle time, and it would keep the no-honing result while giving a second chance to hit size dead on.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required