Most uses would be fairly simple turning of shafts to make pins for assembling the typical experimental fixtures I build, and no doubt various (for my mill) spindle mounted spuds for rough alignment, and/or visually confirming alignment. Just what I need, MORE tools :) On the latter, say what you will, I'd rather use what a DRO would cost to buy other things.
The $900 Enco lathe would no doubt do all of that. In fact, it would probably do pretty much everything I could think of right now. The bigger machines would hopefully be able to do the things I can't yet envision, and would enable me to practice with power feeds that are not present on the cheaper machine.
With that said, I am going to seriously reconsider the cheaper machine, if only to be fair to my wallet.
Machining is certainly a hobby for me, but it is also career development. So far the benefits are subtle, and there is not too much that I can say "that was possible because...", but things are headed in that direction.
I would bump the motor over so that the spindle turned the chuck in the unscrew direction. A hardwood block cut to catch the jaw at about 9 o'clock rested on the ways. I never broke a tooth and sometimes the idiots at work had 'power installed' the chuck. Btw, it was a 1970's era Enco lathe.
Well you know what your needs and budget are at this moment and if it turns out that you want a more capable machine you could deal it off to help finance another one.
25 or so years ago I used an old enco to learn on out in the maintenance crib. It had a screw chuck, not much power and had rigidity issues but if I worked at it, it would get the job done albet slowly.
I've seen some damned impressive work turned out on mini-lathes, mill drills, and mini-mills. If you find that this is not enough machine for you as you progress, you can upgrade, after all you are not married to it.
No one can decide for you. Btw, what kind of mill do you have?
Well, as I mentioned, the worst case I've ever faced responded to a strap wrench on the chuck body. Just watch out what you "jam" to keep the spindle from turning. You don't want to load up a single tooth on a gear.
Yes, it's centered in a taper. It's much more accurate. There are two types of closing arrangements you'll find on hobby-type lathes: face-closing collets, which push the collet into the taper from the front with a threaded ring; and drawbar type, which are pulled into the taper from the back side of the spindle. There are a couple of other drawbar arrangements used in production type lathes. I can't think of any safety problems with them. My machine (South Bend) has a hollow threaded drawbar that sticks through the spindle hole from behind the head and pulls the collet in.
They do use hollow drawbars, as the case with mine. Any stock I'm using with a collet is smaller than the hole in my drawbar. But they don't use drawbars to hold the chuck on the spindle.
The camlock has both taper mount and what amounts to a drawbar -- the cam locks that firmly and positively draw the chuck up against the tapered seat with considerable mechanical advantage. The taper is a fairly steep taper, but I still sometimes have to bonk the chuck body with a wooden mallet to pop it loose after the cams are released. As you note, that keeps the spindle hole clear.
Note: it's important to carefully clean the tapers in both chuck and on the spindle before mountup. Only takes a second.
I have both, and I gotta say I like the camlock a whole bunch better. Repeatability/accuracy after dismount and remount is much better with the camlock in my experience.
I've never gotten a threaded chuck so stuck I couldn't get it off by locking the bull gear and reefing on a 2 x 4 in the jaws of the chuck
-- but I hated doing that when it was necessary!
Fortunately, most lathes with threaded spindles are belt drive, so there's a limit to how much torque the spindle can supply before the belt slips. A lathe with a threaded spindle is worlds better than no lathe at all! Lots of very good stuff has been made on Logans and South Bends. But if I were lookin' for a lathe today, camlock spindle would be high on the list of must-have features.
The 12x36 strikes me as a good pick, but the geared head gets to $3k in a hurry. I do not mind spending money on things I will use; I hate wasting it. Between some "unexpected" expenses[*], not to mention taxes, more taxes, and even more damn taxes, cheaper is sounding better.
[*] vehicles need maintenance, and trees sometimes need to be removed, just more so this year than most.
Unlike an R8 mill, lathe tooling (other than the wonderfully cheap bits) appears to be fairly machine-specific. I could always sell something that I outgrow, but it looks as though one starts over on the chucks.
Enco tells me that the geared 12x36 has a cross-slide dial calibrated
0.2/rev (measuring diameter); they tell me that is more typical than a straight distance calibration. Do you give any points for that? From limited RT and boring head work, I have experienced radius/diameter conversion and do not find it particularly annoying. It has a D1-4 spindle which is nice. Did I mention that it is expensive?
Either the 9x20 or the 8x36/belt will have a threaded spindle. The 8x36 adds a gap and power feed along with the obvious capacity increases. There is no denying that I get better finishes using the power feed than cranking dials on my mill. With a little observing, I got the sense that using the power feed is part of the skill to be developed; it would be nice to practice with that available.
I think it will be easier to convince myself to double the price to get to the 8x36 (though even that price tag stings) than to go very much higher. Anyway, that's my problem. Thanks to all for the insights.
I have a round column mill-drill with a power feed and ER-32 collets. Most days, I find it difficult to justify considering anything else. My main gripe is that the vertical feed "lock" is not completely effective, forcing me to steady it during flycutting and other squaring operations. Cross-travel becomes limiting at times, but not terribly so.
I probably will get a knee mill at some point, but I am glad I did not buy a benchtop knee - the cross-travel on the ones I have seen is not adequate. There is a price/size/weight tradeoff to consider, but at least I am sweating that with a working mill in my garage. Grizzly has an interesting 1700 lb mill; a baby PB is probably a better pick, but the spindle/table distance is pretty poor. Maybe a riser block??? I have looked a little, but do not see one for it. It seems that having it able to put the spindle in contact with the table is not terribly useful; I do a fair number of table setups, but with a collet chuck and some tooling, there should be room for a riser with little to no apparent harm???? The next step up (9x42 or so) adds enough weight to give me pause. I might end up buying just that, but I want to think carefully and have a plan for handling it in pinch (storm damage or similar scenario). The HF gantry crane is a bit too big and falls short on capacity for a 9x42.
Understood. My hunch is that when doing something that needs good remounting accuracy, I'd use a 4-jaw chuck and an indicator. Since a "production run" for me means more than four units, I can afford to take the scenic route and view it as (much needed) practice. My goal is to build what I design to the limits of my ability to inspect it; whether a failure hits the scrap bin depends on severity of the defect, time pressure, mood, and how much work I have invested in the part when I notice the problem. A functional part with only a cosmetic flaw will frequently see action, especially if it is hidden during use. Something that I manage to under size from the beginning will usually go directly in the scrap bin.
The knocking it loose part does not sound all that bad to me. Loading gear teeth and hoping I have not isolated one tooth - that's a little more disturbing :)
Well said.
Fair enough. I might compromi$e on that part, but I appreciate those of you who find it a must saying as much.
I have a few comments about the 9x20 lathe, Bill. I'm jumping into this thread here because I don't see your original message.
There are several shortcomings in the 9x20 product. The base clamp for the top/compound slide is weak, and is a serious design flaw that results in a lot of chatter and frustration. The good news is that it can be improved to practically eliminate any chatter. There are various 9x20 websites (including my own at the link below) and a Yahoo group for all sorts of tips on improving the 9x20 model.
Many users don't like using shims under the cutting tools to get the tool cutting edge on the centerline of the workpiece, using the supplied turret-style toolpost. Some have converted to AXA/series 100 quick change toolposts, but I feel this size is too large for the 9x20. I have utilized some gizmos (a M.E. friend told me about) that haved a sloped trough in them, that allow the centerline adjustment to be done easily. There are several vendors/distributors that offer a couple of QCTPs which are sized smaller than the AXA/series 100 posts, although some of them are aluminum.
The Morse #3 taper collets are available from numerous sources, and I got a complete set from Phase II for about $115 several years ago. The Morse collets do not allow the workpiece to pass through the collet (extending into the headstock), so the grip on a workpiece has to be at the end of the stock (for about 2"). The Morse collets will use a threaded rod for a drawbar, unlike a hollow drawbar for 5C collets which allow the stock to extend into or through the headstock, to the left. The only real drawback to Morse taper collets drawn in with a drawbar is that they require a somewhat firm rap to release them, and that shock load is opposed by the spindle bearing. Lathe operators have been doing this for a couple of generations now, and no immediate damage is caused when the collets are released cautiously.
As far as stripping gears to remove a stuck chuck on the threaded spindle, the first gear from the spindle gear is nylon, considered to be a fuse/weak point by design to prevent lots of damage in the event that a crash happens. A simple retainer is included in the accessories that's used to prevent the chuck from unscrewing, although it may not actually be a fail-safe device.
Many 9x20 owners have complaints that the machine isn't ready to run upon delivery, and most of 'em are valid complaints. The buyer should be prepared to disassemble much of the machine after delivery to perform several tasks including replacing most of the shitty fasteners with better quality ones, deburring and removing sharp corners that will easily cause cuts in the hands of the user, a thorough check of all electrical connections, improving alignment of numerous parts, and cleaning and final adjustments to allow the machine to operate as one might expect a new machine to.
Another point I make, not to gloat or cause you discomfort, is that when I bought my 9x20 from Enco, it was $600 delivered. Since I was already familiar with the machine's flaws, I was prepared for the condition of the machine as it was delivered. Now the machine is $850 plus delivery (without the lathe stand), and I think that $900 would steer me away from it, although I still think the 9x20 lathe performs fairly well after the improvements.. just not $900 worth, plus the work required to make it perform properly.
Several regular participants here on RCM have the 9x20 models, and if you haven't read about the problems of the machine, I would recommend that you look up some comments in the acchived messages, and elsewhere on the interweb.
It seems that the 9x20 lathe would meet your requirements for the uses you mentioned, if you're agreeable to the price and the additional improvements the machine requires. Additionally, the 9x20 will cut more thread pitches than the limited ones they publish in their catalogs. Charts can be obtained from the Yahoo 9x20 group, or from one of us owners, or in a previous years' retired dropbox files.
As for Enco's comments about how the feed dials are marked on other models, the dials are not accurate when the screws are metric thread and the dials are marked by thousandths of an inch. Each full turn of the dial increases the inaccuracy. These machine distributors should know better than to do this sort of crap, but they don't care.
I don't know if this model (CQ9325 10 x 18" Bench Lathe) is available here in the USA, but it had several nice features that the 9x20 is lacking. See this review:
formatting link
-standard V-belts (9x20 has a rubber-band :) -cam lock tail stock -reverse tumbler -stronger tool post - MT3&4 tapers (not MT2&3)
I can't comment on the lathe but that seems to be a very well done review and does look like a capable lathe.
Regarding this thread I have L00 and D1-4 mounts, one on each of my lathes, I prefer the D1-4 as it just seems easier to use and adapters are readily available and can be cheap depending on the quality required. The D1-4 lathe is a Harrison M300 (13 x 40), used UK iron. My neighbour has a Myford which uses a threaded chuck mount and he does very good work and can reverse it but very cautiously, he works within its limitations and visits me when they will get exceeded.
Bill, there's a real good alternative that may not have been mentioned:
The 8x14 as sold by HF, Lathemaster and others. It is reportedly a better, stouter machine than either the 7X or the 9X variants. HF sells it for under $500.
But if you are good with the $900 price range I'd go ahead and get the
10x22 that grizzly sells for a little more. It's a darned nice Seig lathe, although it does not have a QC threading gearbox.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.