Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Gunsmithing
??? Reamer Holder ????
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fitch" data-source="post: 398973" data-attributes="member: 19372"><p>That sure doesn't sound like a good holder design to me, and I'll explain why I think that. </p><p> </p><p>The ball tenon in a ball socket won't have radial float which is exactly what is needed to compensate for a high tailstock. You might as well use a dead center into the back of the reamer as a ball tenon in a ball socket. If the tailstock isn't perfectly aligned it will force the reamer off center causing an enlarged chamber. The chamber oversize will in theory be about double the tailstock misalignment - that is not good. Not good at all.</p><p> </p><p>I agree, if you use the RockJag holder you need the tail stock quill to be perfectly aligned to start and it must stay that way through out its travel. In other words, the tail stock quill centerline must be perfectly aligned, and extension of the lathe spindle centerline. Getting two lines aligned is much harder than aligning a point with a line. It must also come back to the exact same alignment after being moved to clean the reamer and reclamped. Deviations from perfection will be multiplied by two in the chamber diameter. The other bad thing about an oversize chamber is it may allow a thin chip to be trapped between a reamer flute and the chamber wall and gall it resulting in a very rough chamber finish. There is nothing good to be said about an oversize chamber. </p><p> </p><p>The Manson, Bald Eagle, or one like mine don't require perfect tailstock alignment, that is what makes them useful. The most tolerant are the Bald Eagle and One like Mine. </p><p> </p><p>That said, it is very important to note that none of them, repeat <strong>NONE of them</strong>, tolerate or compensate for misalignment of the barrel in the headstock - that needs to be dead nuts every time. (I am a huge fan of Gordy Gritters alignment technique.)</p><p> </p><p>Every manual lathe I've ever seen comes from the factory with a tailstock quill that is .003" to .005" high on purpose. The reason for that is so it wears into perfect alignment and can take a lot of wear before it goes beyond usefulness below the spindle centerline. They can all be aligned to be centered front to back, the problem is them being high. A pusher that has some radial alignment tolerance will easily handle the tailstock being .005" high. One that has a ball tenon in a socket won't handle any misalignment at all - it's just the same as pushing the reamer with a dead center - just not as sharp if you bump into it with your hand.</p><p> </p><p>Fitch</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fitch, post: 398973, member: 19372"] That sure doesn't sound like a good holder design to me, and I'll explain why I think that. The ball tenon in a ball socket won't have radial float which is exactly what is needed to compensate for a high tailstock. You might as well use a dead center into the back of the reamer as a ball tenon in a ball socket. If the tailstock isn't perfectly aligned it will force the reamer off center causing an enlarged chamber. The chamber oversize will in theory be about double the tailstock misalignment - that is not good. Not good at all. I agree, if you use the RockJag holder you need the tail stock quill to be perfectly aligned to start and it must stay that way through out its travel. In other words, the tail stock quill centerline must be perfectly aligned, and extension of the lathe spindle centerline. Getting two lines aligned is much harder than aligning a point with a line. It must also come back to the exact same alignment after being moved to clean the reamer and reclamped. Deviations from perfection will be multiplied by two in the chamber diameter. The other bad thing about an oversize chamber is it may allow a thin chip to be trapped between a reamer flute and the chamber wall and gall it resulting in a very rough chamber finish. There is nothing good to be said about an oversize chamber. The Manson, Bald Eagle, or one like mine don't require perfect tailstock alignment, that is what makes them useful. The most tolerant are the Bald Eagle and One like Mine. That said, it is very important to note that none of them, repeat [B]NONE of them[/B], tolerate or compensate for misalignment of the barrel in the headstock - that needs to be dead nuts every time. (I am a huge fan of Gordy Gritters alignment technique.) Every manual lathe I've ever seen comes from the factory with a tailstock quill that is .003" to .005" high on purpose. The reason for that is so it wears into perfect alignment and can take a lot of wear before it goes beyond usefulness below the spindle centerline. They can all be aligned to be centered front to back, the problem is them being high. A pusher that has some radial alignment tolerance will easily handle the tailstock being .005" high. One that has a ball tenon in a socket won't handle any misalignment at all - it's just the same as pushing the reamer with a dead center - just not as sharp if you bump into it with your hand. Fitch [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Gunsmithing
??? Reamer Holder ????
Top