PDA

View Full Version : Toolholder to high, How to correct?



kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 08:45 AM
I just bought this Aloris AXA-22 toolholder, My hope was that it would help doing chamfers and such without moving the compound. I spent a lot of money on this and the inserts, and thought I researched it well but it sits to high...

I use plenty of other AXA toolholders without a problem., the lathe is a Clausing 4900 series with a 10" swing.

Very much a newbie here so take it easy on me!

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_nNA3irmemc4/TXOMLVpF9aI/AAAAAAAADxo/NaoxMqlYstc/s720/IMG_0826.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_nNA3irmemc4/TXOMMxesOMI/AAAAAAAADxs/IOGTp0QriEg/s720/IMG_0827.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_nNA3irmemc4/TXOMOPBmMtI/AAAAAAAADxw/1_yma4Na1Pg/s720/IMG_0828.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_nNA3irmemc4/TXOMPYJowOI/AAAAAAAADx0/Hu6rsQoPqh4/s720/IMG_0829.jpg

Sportandmiah
03-06-2011, 08:56 AM
I'm assuming the toolholder is all the way down, so couldn't you just mill a little off the bottom of it? That would give you the extra room to move the toolholder down farther. Or maybe machine a spacer for the toolpost? Otherwise return for a different model.

hornluv
03-06-2011, 09:07 AM
That's an interesting looking tool. I would also suggest just milling a bit off the bottom, but only off the portion with the dovetails, since it doesn't look like you have much meat under the part with the insert (I assume that indexes to different positions) Anyway, mill away anything that sits on the compound and leave everything else. The tool holder may be hard or it may be soft, so you might want to start off with an end mill you aren't emotionally invested in :D

Sparky_NY
03-06-2011, 09:10 AM
Sometimes it is hard to judge measurements from a picture but what if you use the same size insert but in a thinner height? They are available in several different thicknesses, the one in the pic seems very thick.

Alternately, you could remove some material from the bottom of the holder to allow it to go lower, it looks like you would need to put a longer adjustment screw in also.

Willy
03-06-2011, 09:14 AM
Unfortunately your research didn't include looking at the key dimensions shown on the Aloris site.

http://www.aloris.com/catalog/aloris_p10-11.pdf

However all is not lost as all that should be required is to take the necessary amount off of the bottom of the tool holder.
I would assume it will be hardened so take the appropriate steps to deal with it.
Nice tool holder though, just a tad too tall, no biggie.

jkilroy
03-06-2011, 09:35 AM
You can cut that holder base with a solid carbide end mill no problem, just take light cuts and *ease* into the cut.

tmc_31
03-06-2011, 09:36 AM
Kennyd,

Also a newbie here, but how about turning the compound 90deg so that the hand wheel is toward you. Then set the tool post right on the edge of the top slide so that the bottom of the tool holder will slide down beside the top slide?

good luck,

Tim

Boucher
03-06-2011, 10:11 AM
You will need to mill or grind some material off the bottom of the tool and install a longer adjustment screw to get it adjusted to center height. There is a lot of variability in the hardness of tool holders. It may require a carbide mill but it is doable as shown here.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n50/boucherbyron/IMG_0210Small.jpg



I have a similar Dorian holder. http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n50/boucherbyron/IMG_0209Small.jpg
It has become one of my favorite tools. I wish mine had the double mounting like yours. Where did you purchase it and what did it cost?

philbur
03-06-2011, 10:19 AM
Skim the anvil? - the part the insert sits on.

Phil:)

PS: or make a new one or buy one with a lower height.

steverice
03-06-2011, 01:05 PM
Raise the chuck?

danlb
03-06-2011, 01:13 PM
I see that they have multiple "cartriges" that the insert fits into. Is that a CRT30 in the picture? If so, Maybe the CRT-20 will work ffor you.

Dan

PixMan
03-06-2011, 02:40 PM
I don't know if anyone has posted, but the insert in that holder is too thick. It appear to be a TNMG332, what you should be looking for is a TNMG (or better, TNMP) 322. That middle digit is the thickness, in 1/16" increments. All the links and photos I've seen show the insert just about flush with the top of it's cartridge.

That 1/16" inch lower isn't going to be quite enough though. I still think you're going to have to mill off about another 1/8" from the bottom of the holder. I've had no problem doing this using my carbide insert face mills, a HSS end mill may not get the job done.

Black_Moons
03-06-2011, 03:22 PM
Looks like its the holders fault, the cutting tip of the tool is wayyy over the centerline of the holder. Agreed, cut the bottom off the holder.
Hit with a file first to see just how hard it is. (File bites in like on mild steel = soft, File skates off, hardly scratching it = Hard)

kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 03:23 PM
I see that they have multiple "cartriges" that the insert fits into. Is that a CRT30 in the picture? If so, Maybe the CRT-20 will work ffor you.

Dan

It is the CRT-20 mounted, good catch though.

kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 03:24 PM
Raise the chuck?
That was helpful:confused:

kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 03:30 PM
I don't know if anyone has posted, but the insert in that holder is too thick. It appear to be a TNMG332, what you should be looking for is a TNMG (or better, TNMP) 322. That middle digit is the thickness, in 1/16" increments. All the links and photos I've seen show the insert just about flush with the top of it's cartridge.

That 1/16" inch lower isn't going to be quite enough though. I still think you're going to have to mill off about another 1/8" from the bottom of the holder. I've had no problem doing this using my carbide insert face mills, a HSS end mill may not get the job done.
Great info! the inserts are indeed TNMG332's...I was flying blind here because the catalog just says: Standard triangular
carbide insert has 6 cutting edges. But now is see where it does reference thickness in the chart. I will get some of the ones you recommended (difference between G and P? Why?)

I do have a 2.5" insterted face mill...but only a POS Grizzly Mill/Drill for now. Getting a used Bridgeport soon though-I have already paid for it, just need to get it home and in the basement.


So, FOR SALE: 10 TNMG332-B25 inserts New In Box:D

Alistair Hosie
03-06-2011, 03:30 PM
I have bought quite a few tools whereby the indexing tool holder/shank comes up too high,despite all efforts to lower it. I am afraid everyone here is absolutely correct you need to mill or grind the bottom of the tool. to bring it down and not raise the chuck as was well meant but useless reply never mind it made me smile:D Alistair ps it's not a big job if you have amill or access to one.

Rich Carlstedt
03-06-2011, 03:34 PM
I use some BXA holders in my AXA tool post.
The height of the holder is also above C/L for a normal AXA setup
As a previous poster said, just slide your tool post over to the edge of the compound, and rotate your compound 90 degrees and you need not do anything
Rich
Note, to use BXA, all you do is drop a .03" shim behind the sliding dovetail
Shim looks like a broach shim

kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 03:34 PM
You will need to mill or grind some material off the bottom of the tool and install a longer adjustment screw to get it adjusted to center height. There is a lot of variability in the hardness of tool holders. It may require a carbide mill but it is doable as shown here.
It has become one of my favorite tools. I wish mine had the double mounting like yours. Where did you purchase it and what did it cost?

Awesome! I think the screw will be long enough though...

I bought in on eBay from chuckjawtools (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260746230616) for $208 delivered (drop shipped from Aloris)

Can you tell me what you find it good at? Like, how do you use it?

kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 03:35 PM
I'm assuming the toolholder is all the way down, so couldn't you just mill a little off the bottom of it? That would give you the extra room to move the toolholder down farther. Or maybe machine a spacer for the toolpost? Otherwise return for a different model.
Thanks, it is all the way down-can't return...Milling seems to be the general consensus here so far. I do not have any carbide end mills-but I do have a 2.5" insterted face mill but I am afrid my POS Grizzly Mill/Drill may not be up to the task. New to me Bridgeport will be home in another month or so though.

PixMan
03-06-2011, 03:54 PM
The difference between the TNMG and TNMP is that of the chipbreaker geometry. The G usually has a molded-in chipbreaker ridge that is even all the way around, and on both sides. A TNMP would have a very upsharp, positive edge that my vary in angle.

Those are TNMP's shown in the product photos of the link posted. (Again, for your edification.)

http://www.aloris.com/catalog/aloris_p10-11.pdf

Tell me what materials you cut most often, and I can help you find good inserts cheap.

Your import 2-1/2" insert mill and Grizzly mill can probably mill the 1/8" off the bottom of that holder OK. Run it at about 150 to 250sfm, about a .020" to .030 depth of cut and light feed rate, you should be fine.

kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 04:51 PM
The difference between the TNMG and TNMP is that of the chipbreaker geometry. The G usually has a molded-in chipbreaker ridge that is even all the way around, and on both sides. A TNMP would have a very upsharp, positive edge that my vary in angle.

Those are TNMP's shown in the product photos of the link posted. (Again, for your edification.)

http://www.aloris.com/catalog/aloris_p10-11.pdf

Tell me what materials you cut most often, and I can help you find good inserts cheap.

Your import 2-1/2" insert mill and Grizzly mill can probably mill the 1/8" off the bottom of that holder OK. Run it at about 150 to 250sfm, about a .020" to .030 depth of cut and light feed rate, you should be fine.

I usually work with regular mild steel, and aluminum. Thank you so much for your help:D

PixMan
03-06-2011, 05:51 PM
Here's some INterstate brand (owned by Kennametal) in a C5/P30 grade for steels. Being uncoated, they'll work fine for aluminum and non-ferrous metals too. The "P30" class means they're high in cobalt binder content, so shoudlbe tough enough (chipping resistant) to handle the lower speeds you'll generally run on an older manual lathe.

http://cgi.ebay.com/14-PCS-INTERSTATE-ICC-16710-E-TNMP321-C5-P30-INSERT-/160459899885?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item255c27c3ed

2ManyHobbies
03-06-2011, 06:44 PM
The bottom doesn't need to be that precise. Drop it on a belt sander, hit it with a bench grinder, clamp it in a vise and buzz it down with a right angle grinder. Just make sure the dovetail and toolpost facing surfaces are cleaned up good when you are done.

kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 06:58 PM
Here's some INterstate brand (owned by Kennametal) in a C5/P30 grade for steels. Being uncoated, they'll work fine for aluminum and non-ferrous metals too. The "P30" class means they're high in cobalt binder content, so shoudlbe tough enough (chipping resistant) to handle the lower speeds you'll generally run on an older manual lathe.

http://cgi.ebay.com/14-PCS-INTERSTATE-ICC-16710-E-TNMP321-C5-P30-INSERT-/160459899885?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item255c27c3ed

Thanks! Seems a little pricey though? Maybe not...

Earlier you mentioned 322, and now 321?

Here are 10 322's for $30? http://cgi.ebay.com/INTERSTATE-TNMP-322-CARBIDE-INSERTS-MSRP-65-00-/350188679340?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5188df30ac

kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 06:59 PM
The bottom doesn't need to be that precise. Drop it on a belt sander, hit it with a bench grinder, clamp it in a vise and buzz it down with a right angle grinder. Just make sure the dovetail and toolpost facing surfaces are cleaned up good when you are done.

Thank you...I may do that then clean it up with the face mill.

lane
03-06-2011, 08:05 PM
Put a riser plate under the tool post so the tool holder can drop down farther.

Toolguy
03-06-2011, 08:23 PM
The holder will still bottom out on the compound slide so raising the toolpost won't help any.

kennyd4110
03-06-2011, 08:33 PM
The holder will still bottom out on the compound slide so raising the toolpost won't help any.

Yes, that is correct.

Carld
03-06-2011, 09:09 PM
That holder is probably real hard but flycutting may do it. When you drop it lower you will have to make a longer adjusting screw also.

mechanicalmagic
03-06-2011, 09:48 PM
Remove the compound, make a SOLID (but shorter) block in it's place. It will also add rigidity to your setup, which you will need, to properly use that much carbide at a negative rake.

DJ

Boucher
03-06-2011, 10:56 PM
Remove the compound, make a SOLID (but shorter) block in it's place. It will also add rigidity to your setup, which you will need, to properly use that much carbide at a negative rake.

DJ

This is a good solution to the problem that was recently discussed in another thread. Replacing the compound with a solid block does significantly improve rigidity. I made mine from Aluminum.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n50/boucherbyron/IMG_0191Small.jpg
It was made the same height as the compound so that the tool holders would not need adjustment when interchanging the block and the compound. This gets us back to the earlier suggestion of shortening the tool holder. Interchanging the block and the compound is just a matter of two bolts and takes less than a minuet.

dian
03-07-2011, 03:56 AM
usually you can also get a thinner shim to put under the insert.

wbleeker
03-07-2011, 04:13 AM
Tools for cheap has import toolholders like the Aloris one, starting at 42.00 for the AXA up to 60.00 for the CA including 2 inserts. Mine is on a plane now!
Will

kennyd4110
03-07-2011, 06:07 AM
Tools for cheap has import toolholders like the Aloris one, starting at 42.00 for the AXA up to 60.00 for the CA including 2 inserts. Mine is on a plane now!
Will

Got a link? I saw nothing close on thier site...

kennyd4110
03-07-2011, 06:07 AM
usually you can also get a thinner shim to put under the insert.

No shim's are used on this holder.

Boucher
03-07-2011, 08:12 AM
Awesome! I think the screw will be long enough though...

I bought in on eBay from chuckjawtools (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260746230616) for $208 delivered (drop shipped from Aloris)

Can you tell me what you find it good at? Like, how do you use it?

This is a very versatile tool for both turning and facing. The double dovetail facilitates this without having to adjust the direction the cartridge is pointing. This tool just seems to be able to get into more corners and nitches easier than most other tools. It does in one tool what normally requires four other holders to do. It cuts chamfers and doubles as a profiler. Not having a profiler probably is part of the reason that I find this tool so usefull. I do seem to reach for this tool more than any other.

JCHannum
03-07-2011, 08:42 AM
The Tools for Cheap toolholder is a double ended holder that uses carbide inserts, but it is not the same as the Aloris 20 & 22 toolholders. The TfC holder is one piece and the inserts are fixed in place.

The Aloris holders use a cartridge for the insert which is replaceable if damaged or worn as well as being capable of setting to several different positions permitting many options in turning. The entire holder is also adjustable for rake. Overall, the Aloris holders are quite flexible and use the common and inexpensive triangular inserts. I have a #20, and it is the only insert tool holder I use.

The #20 has one dovetail, the #22 has two permitting a bit more flexibility, but I have not found the #20 lacking for $40-$50 less. The #20 is also a bit more compact with less overhang. I have added a link the the Aloris site. I see thay also have a #30 holder which uses the cartridge but is not adjustable for rake.

http://www.aloris.com/index.php/pages/Universal%20Tool%20Holders.html

dian
03-07-2011, 11:11 AM
@Kenny: your right. i was looking at bouchers holder.

wbleeker
03-08-2011, 01:00 AM
Dian here is the link http://www.tools4cheap.net/products.php?cat=9
Will

kennyd4110
03-08-2011, 06:01 AM
Thanks! Seems a little pricey though? Maybe not...

Earlier you mentioned 322, and now 321?

Here are 10 322's for $30? http://cgi.ebay.com/INTERSTATE-TNMP-322-CARBIDE-INSERTS-MSRP-65-00-/350188679340?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5188df30ac

OK, what inserts are best for AL and mild steel? Need to get something ordered soon!:D Will these same inserts work well in a boring bar? That's my next big purchase and stocking one style of insert would be great.

kennyd4110
03-08-2011, 06:03 AM
Dian here is the link http://www.tools4cheap.net/products.php?cat=9
Will

That hardly compares with the #22 holder being discussed.

PixMan
03-08-2011, 07:21 AM
OK, what inserts are best for AL and mild steel? Need to get something ordered soon!:D Will these same inserts work well in a boring bar? That's my next big purchase and stocking one style of insert would be great.

The difference between a TNMP 321 and TNMP 322 is simply tool nose radius. The last digit is radius in 1/64" increments. I find the 1's more useful, but of all you do is chamfering, it won't matter.

I gave you those particular inserts because the uncoated steel grade will also work fine in aluminum.

And yes, if you were to find a boring bar that uses TNMG 32x size inserts, those would work well. You should just be aware that a boring bar using those inserts will have a minimum bore size of (probably) over 3/4". Ultradex probably has the widest selection of boring bars there is, at pretty fair prices and excellent quality.

kennyd4110
03-08-2011, 08:31 AM
The difference between a TNMP 321 and TNMP 322 is simply tool nose radius. The last digit is radius in 1/64" increments. I find the 1's more useful, but of all you do is chamfering, it won't matter.

I gave you those particular inserts because the uncoated steel grade will also work fine in aluminum.

And yes, if you were to find a boring bar that uses TNMG 32x size inserts, those would work well. You should just be aware that a boring bar using those inserts will have a minimum bore size of (probably) over 3/4". Ultradex probably has the widest selection of boring bars there is, at pretty fair prices and excellent quality.

Thank you. So the ones I linked would not be best I assume?

PixMan
03-08-2011, 08:37 AM
Thank you. So the ones I linked would not be best I assume?

I don't know. They're cheap, but I can't figure out what grade they are. I'm sure they'll work for you though, just don't expect high productivity at elevated speeds in any given material. ;)

EVguru
03-08-2011, 11:34 AM
Something no one else seems to have mentioned (I have only skimmed the thread) is that your tool post in the wrong position!

The cutting loads should be taken by the front dovetail, with the wedge pulling the holder into the front dovetail. If you rotate your toolpost 90 degrees clockwise it will be in the conventional orientation.

As it is, you couldn't mount a boring tool holder on the front.

Some posts (like my old Dickson T2) do have a third tool position on the front for turning the outside of oversize work.

kennyd4110
03-08-2011, 04:57 PM
I don't know. They're cheap, but I can't figure out what grade they are. I'm sure they'll work for you though, just don't expect high productivity at elevated speeds in any given material. ;)
Thank you...

kennyd4110
03-08-2011, 05:00 PM
Something no one else seems to have mentioned (I have only skimmed the thread) is that your tool post in the wrong position!

The cutting loads should be taken by the front dovetail, with the wedge pulling the holder into the front dovetail. If you rotate your toolpost 90 degrees clockwise it will be in the conventional orientation.

As it is, you couldn't mount a boring tool holder on the front.

Some posts (like my old Dickson T2) do have a third tool position on the front for turning the outside of oversize work.

Yes, thank you. It was just left that way from another job...I have no intention of using this holder in that position-pr a boring bar for that matter.

noah katz
03-08-2011, 07:43 PM
Something no one else seems to have mentioned (I have only skimmed the thread) is that your tool post in the wrong position!

The cutting loads should be taken by the front dovetail, with the wedge pulling the holder into the front dovetail. If you rotate your toolpost 90 degrees clockwise it will be in the conventional orientation.

That's news to me.

The position shown in the first post is what I use a lot, as it allows getting close to the chuck and doesn't interfere with a tailstock center.

And if oriented as you say, the tool is more or less parallel to the work, which only seems appropriate for facing.

Or maybe I'm not understanding you...

Boucher
03-08-2011, 09:24 PM
Paul is right the post needs to rotate 90 clockwise. That puts a dovetail in the correct position for a facing cut. The beauty of this double dovetail tool is that you remove it from the turning position and use the other side to mount in the facing position. You don't have to adjust or mess with anything. It is one of those little obscure points that become obvious when you start using the tool.

EVguru
03-09-2011, 04:11 AM
Or maybe I'm not understanding you...
Fraid so.

Turn tool post 90 degrees clockwise.

Put tool holder on in same orientation as before, but....

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_nNA3irmemc4/TXOMLVpF9aI/AAAAAAAADxo/NaoxMqlYstc/s720/IMG_0826.jpg

On the other dovetail!

noah katz
03-09-2011, 03:51 PM
oh ok, you are talking about a facing cut

fciron
03-09-2011, 04:35 PM
No, he's talking about facing and turning. As the tool is positioned in the picture, the force of the cut bears against the wedge, not the solid part of the tool-post. The moving part is, by definition, less rigid.

As pictured the wedge is pushing the tool-holder in towards the work, while the work pushes out and down when cut. If the solid part of the dove tail was toward the work then the wedge would be pulling the tool-holder in the same direction as the work, so it would already be locked up solidly when the cut began. The tool-holder is then less likely to shift while cutting and less likely to chatter.

If the tool-post were rotated 90 degrees clock-wise then both turning and facing cuts would bear on the solid side of the dove-tail.

Boucher
03-09-2011, 04:59 PM
This shows the tool holder mounted in the correct position. The gibs on this Dorian Tool post are smaller but visible. In this position the tool holder under the cutting force bears on the steel edge of the tool post not on the gib.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n50/boucherbyron/IMG_0211Small.jpg


This shows the tool post in the correct position for a facing or boring cut.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n50/boucherbyron/IMG_0213Small.jpg

This shows the post in the correct position for a turning cut.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n50/boucherbyron/IMG_0212Small.jpg

With the tool post in the original position and a cutter mounted on the outboard position it can be used to bore, face or turn larger diameters. The tool is in the correct relationship to the gib. A tool mounted for a turning cut would be in the wrong relation to the gib.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n50/boucherbyron/IMG_0214Small.jpg

Hope this helps.

doorknob
03-10-2011, 05:18 AM
Do I understand correctly that the "wedge" in this style of QCTP forms part of the dovetail that fixes the tool holder in place?

Boucher
03-10-2011, 06:21 AM
Yes. Look at the first picture in the original post. The substance of the latter discussion is that the toolpost orientation is not correct and the gib aka wedge should be on the side away from the work. Aloris and Dorian QCTP's come in two versions. Piston and Wedge. That is what holds them on the tool post and takes up the oversize that permits assembly.

fciron
03-10-2011, 07:51 AM
Byron, thanks for posting the pictures to help explain this.

noah katz
03-10-2011, 04:17 PM
No, he's talking about facing and turning. As the tool is positioned in the picture, the force of the cut bears against the wedge, not the solid part of the tool-post. The moving part is, by definition, less rigid...

Ah, now I get it, thanks.

I thought wedge was just referring to the basic toolpost geometry; I hadn't looked closely enough at the pic to see that it was the tightening part being referred to.