Form tap or cut tap 1/2-13 in 12L14?


Awl --
Sorta like a round coupling nut, tapped 1 3/4" through, axially.
Will be drilled, rigid tapped on a fadal.
Had cut tapped these before, just wondering if form tapping would be better,
what others would do.
I know form tapping will require more clamping power, which is a minor
minus. Coolant will be a MW-150 soluble oil. About 800 pcs.
Reply to
Existential Angst
Loading thread data ...
If it's not broke, don't fix it. I'd stay with the cut tap as you've already had success with that method.
Best, Steve
Reply to
Garlicdude
I've seen people grind away most of the back threads on a tap, so that only about 1/2" worth of threads do the cutting. Actually, proly only a few threads do the cutting, right?
Good idea? Bad idea?
Reply to
Existential Angst
I've noticed that OSG has gone to a similar idea on their taps, a small amount of threads and the rest is relieved down to just under the minor dia. If they're doing it on their standard lines I see no reason not to.
I like interrupted taps for pipe taps but a quick search didn't turn up those for the larger standard taps. I'm curious as to why?
formatting link

Best, Steve
Reply to
Garlicdude
The major question is how often it will be removed and replaced in service. The form tapping will work-harden the 12L14 and orient the grain so it will be stronger and more wear resistant.
If there is no requirement to increase the strength (and if you are using 12L14, I would suspect that strength is not a primary concern) then keep using the cut tap.
Enjoy, DoN.
Reply to
DoN. Nichols
I hear this "formed threads are stronger" argument a lot. My thinking is if your design is such that the small difference between a cut and a formed thread makes a difference between success and failure maybe you should rethink your materials or design.
In 12L14 I think it's a mute point.
Best, Steve
Reply to
Garlicdude
Why are you making it hard? You are cutting the butter of steels. Nice stuff, easy to machine. I have a small pile of bar ends that never cease to make me feel like I have a clue when turning the stuff. :)
Wes -- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Reply to
Wes
[ ... ]
Perhaps because it is for soft and stringy metals (according to the web description) which describes pipe materials more than most other metals. And for those which do fit the description -- that is where thread forming taps make sense in straight threads (though I'm not sure how well they could handle tapered pipe threads).
Enjoy, DoN.
Reply to
DoN. Nichols
Granted, considering the use of 12L14, the strength issue is not quite all there is....
....That said, the difference is pullout strength in even low carbon steel between cut thread and formed is actually quite high...
....I have a part that I make for a "local Department of Defense" near you....that's the US Navy, thru contractors...that used to be made with a 7/16-14 thread that we used a cut tap on...we played around with a form tap and the pullout force went from almost 1200 pounds of direct pull to fali to nearly 2600 pounds....
....base material was 1018 cold rolled....1" diameter....2" long....drilled thru and tapped halfway from each side...pull test was with eye bolts threaded 5/16" deep.
Your results may vary....but forming DOES make for a much stronger thread, I believe.
Mike
Reply to
mdavenport
Curiosity -- how do you tap from each side and have the threads meet?
Reply to
Ed Huntress
This is really inneresting! I wonder if this "pullout difference" is proportionally greater in still softer materials, like aluminum.
Reply to
Existential Angst
Indeed it does. Nearly all DOD high strength stuff requires formed threads these days, rather than cut ones, based on conversations with clients of mine such as Fasterner Tech....
formatting link
Gunner
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid. Gunner Asch
Reply to
Gunner Asch
Yes..it is. Though not as great a difference.
Gunner
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid. Gunner Asch
Reply to
Gunner Asch
Mebbe someone used the wrong tap drill??? :) :)
Apropos of Garlic et al comments, it would seem the diff is closer to 10%.
Another machinist I know did this same type of test, got a similar result from his recollection, and provided two cites, which show a max of 10%.
formatting link
formatting link
Reply to
Existential Angst
I don't know the specifics for individual materials. When I was a tooling editor I was supplied with a variety of studies and test results, and they did show wide variability with material types and states of initial hardness.
One phone call to a major manufacturer of thread-forming taps is worth ten days of guessing and speculation. The guys at Emuge were always especially helpful to me.
Reply to
Ed Huntress
I dunno.... somehow I think if that 1200 vs 2600 lb result were typical, cut taps would be falling out of favor/use REAL fast....
Reply to
Existential Angst
I don't think it *is* typical.
The basic reason for form taps is that they're more productive. They last longer, and they don't produce chips -- the bane of production machining.
The stronger threads, initially, were an incidental benefit. Soon they became one of the prongs of their marketing story. When you deal with a company that makes high-quality examples of both cutting and forming taps, such as Emuge or any of several others, you should get an accurate picture of when to use them.
Reply to
Ed Huntress
I'm curious if anyone has encountered a drawing where the use of a form tap is mandated because of the increased thread strength?
Best, Steve
Reply to
Garlicdude
That would be because I goofed....a little transpositional error....
....SHOULD have read 2100 vs. 2600
opps....sorry about that
I'll go hit myself with a wet noodle now.
Mike
Reply to
mdavenport
There was no need for the threads to be matched up....there was some crossover at the middle, but it didn't matter...the part only had to have .875" of full form thread from each side...3/4" of the mating stud is all that threaded into the part.
And as I mentioned in another post in this thread...I messed up....I typed 1200 vs 2600....it should have read 2100 vs. 2600.
oops
Mike
Reply to
mdavenport

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.