MT2 shank x 3/4" end mill looking for good home

[BCRider]

I think Doozer has made a very good point, in spite of what the catalogs show, without a drawbar to retain it how could it be expected to deal with side loads within an MT2 taper.

Possibly with a nice firm "TUMP!" from a lead mallet?

My old round column mill drill had an MT3 taper. Early on before I knew better than to overtighten the draw bar I set it pretty firmly. I was hitting it to free it harder than I liked the bearings to be put through. So I left the drawbar slightly loose and tried milling into some scrap steel. It finally did come loose. But it took a good amount of a rather grunty heavy cut to do so.

[DR]

My 3/4" capacity Tapmatic tapping head came to me with a number 3 MT shank. I used it in my old 17" Delta drill press. Sometimes on tap withdrawal the taper would drop out of the quill.

I made a whistle grind on the side of the tapper's shank. Drilled a cross hole in the DP's quill, then bored a set screw collar to fit over the quill with a long set screw pressing on the whistle grind on the MT shank. No more problems, it locked the MT into the quill.

[old mart]

I have cut the tangs off some tailstock drills to get longer quill movement and also drilled one for my 7 x 12 which gives a very useful increase of over an inch for a tiny lathe. The drilling was done with an ordinary hss drill and I recon the hole could be tapped for a drawbar. But for an old milling cutter, I wouldn't bother.

[J Tiers]

I think Doozer has made a very good point, in spite of what the catalogs show, without a drawbar to retain it how could it be expected to deal with side loads within an MT2 taper.

So.... why is an MT (a "self holding" taper) in your opinion instead a "no-brainer, it falls out immediately if you touch it" taper?

Given how much pounding it often takes to break them loose, I'd have to say that for making them drop right out, while "YOU can DO it", it is not a no-brainer by any means. And, I do not think that "end mills" were ever originally intended to do deep slotting buried in the work wher the helix might do some pulling. There were better suited machines for that back then, before all of those got tossed.

And, if you take a good look, those "end mills" have hardly any helix compared to average end mills these days. I can see why someone would identify them as a "reamer" because the helix is much more in "reamer territory" compared to common end mills now. Not nearly as likely to pull themselves out of the taper.

As mentioned, in a beat-up drill press, trying to mill is probably not going to work, especially if you take the deep cuts that new folks often attempt. And, that is the example that is most often trotted out when this subject comes up. I expect that the folks who suggested doing it, back in the old magazines, were using a different drill press from what many folks may have now. Definitely not the typical "Western Auto" cheap single bearing drill press.

In a solid mill, with the taper in decent condition, and not burying the cutter in the work, why not? Why would it drop out at a touch?

[Richard P Wilson]

I'm hoping that if you get the cutter you'll be able to tell us!

[Willy]

So.... why is an MT (a "self holding" taper) in your opinion instead a "no-brainer, it falls out immediately if you touch it" taper?

First of all those are your words, not mine.
I did not say that it was not an end mill, nor did I say that these types were not available, I even left a link to one in post number 52 of this thread.
I merely stated that Doozer's comment about the insecurity of Morse tapers in a milling application was a valid one.

I fully realize that an MT2 taper is a self holding taper and that they can be very reluctant to let go at times, although I certainly don't consider it a best practice application in regards to the loads imparted by a milling machine, at least not without some form of auxiliary retention like a drawbar.
It's not a case of if but when it will let go, likely why so few are sold these days without provisions of a drawbar.
Lets face it most rigid machines that can hold it without chatter and run by someone that doesn't allow this to happen simply do not come with an MT2 taper in the first place, and for good reason.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should, is all I intended to add to this discussion.

To further substantiate my opinion, a link and quote from Wiki, sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_taper

Morse tapers are of the self-holding variety, and can have three types of ends:

• tang (illustrated) to facilitate Positive drive, preventing slippage
• threaded to be held in place with a drawbar
• flat (no tang or threaded section)

Self-holding tapers rely on a heavy preponderance of axial load over radial load to transmit high torques. Problems may arise using large drills in relation to the shank, if the pilot hole is too large. The threaded style is essential for any sideloading, particularly milling. The only exception is that such unfavourable situations can be simulated to remove a jammed shank. Permitting chatter will help release the grip. The acute (narrow) taper angle can result in such jamming with heavy axial loads, or over long periods.

End-milling cutters with a Morse taper shank with a tang are occasionally seen: for security these must be used with a C-collar or similar, fitting into the neck between cutter and shank, and pulling back against the large end of the taper

The taper itself is roughly 5/8" per foot, but exact ratios and dimensions for the various sizes of tang type tapers are given below.

[JRouche]

In the P&W manual for the machine, it talks about
single point boring and using jig borer reamers quite clearly,
and the different levels of locational accuracy you can expect
from using both methods. The primary purpose of a jig borer
reamer is to establish locational position. It is a rigid reamer.
The geometry of the tool is specific to its function. My first
post talked about the different shanks and how that was a
clue to their intended use. It seems not to have registered.
Catalogues are written by salesmen.

-Doozer

And then you went on to ask or question us if we even knew what a jig boring machine was. That was fuking rude.

You have to know, you are not the only big head, oops, I mean very smart person here. There are many of them that would probably lurk because they don't want to get involved in a conversation with you. You can be a wee-bit condescending.

Of course anyone here knows what a Jig Boring Machine is used for. FYI, I got that PW book you speak of, but its a book and you seemingly don't take reference from books.

I actually had a Moore for a moment. I used a Jig Grinding machine of the same make also. Messy that one. The Jig borer turned out to be a glorified drill press see. The spindle was as good as they get, not built for side loads though, I was told anyway. Didn't take it to the fail point.

I am not one of the smart folks I just spoke of. I am just a simple Trouble Shooter (electronics), not an Engineer. Oh, I still want that reamer set please JR

[BCRider]

Willy, what you and Doozer are saying is certainly what most of us have seen. But the evidence from the term "end mill" being applied by some rather big named tool companies both in the past and even currently would suggest that there's more to this than meets the eye.

Cutter is boxed up and ready to go off to someone that can try it and give it a fair shake.... Pun intended It'll be interesting regardless.

[Willy]

BCR, I like the "fair shake" comment and your generosity.
Who'da thought that a simple token of offering a free bit of tooling to someone would generate 5+ pages of banter.
Oh wait a minute, I should have said, only 5 pages of banter. LOL

[Doozer]

I believe a true differentiator could be that the jig bore reamer
is ground with about 0.003" back taper per inch of length.
This is so it acts more like a boring bar than an end mill.
If you try to use an end mill for a jig bore reamer, it has a tendancy
to taper the hole larger at the top. Jig bore reamers make
parallel holes.

--Doozer

[J Tiers]

First of all those are your words, not mine.
I did not say that it was not an end mill, nor did I say that these types were not available, I even left a link to one in post number 52 of this thread.
I merely stated that Doozer's comment about the insecurity of Morse tapers in a milling application was a valid one.

I fully realize that an MT2 taper is a self holding taper and that they can be very reluctant to let go at times, although I certainly don't consider it a best practice application in regards to the loads imparted by a milling machine, at least not without some form of auxiliary retention like a drawbar.
It's not a case of if but when it will let go, likely why so few are sold these days without provisions of a drawbar.
Lets face it most rigid machines that can hold it without chatter and run by someone that doesn't allow this to happen simply do not come with an MT2 taper in the first place, and for good reason.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should, is all I intended to add to this discussion.

To further substantiate my opinion, a link and quote from Wiki, sorry.

Yep, and definitely my words.... loaded words, and I know that, just making a point a little more heavily, not swinging for your nose (you are by far one of the most reasonable folks here).

The exact same tool was available with a B&S taper as well. It seems that every single thing said about the tool with an MT2 (or MT3, for that matter), could be said just as much for the B&S taper. A tenth (of an inch) per foot seems unlikely to make a radical change in the behavior.

I've been trying to figure out this whole deal for years. It seems that the tools with the tanged taper, be they B&S, Jarno, or Morse (the latter two being nearly identical, IIRC), were what an "end mill" was for decades.

For whatever they were used to do, they obviously must have worked. There was enough innovation going on from 1870 through 1950 that if the tools had not worked, that problem would have been addressed early-on by changing to something else to hold them in place. That new innovation would likely have taken over fast, if it worked so much better.

The tanged tools were available into the 1950s, and someone showed what appeared to be a slash sheet for a current, or very recent version of the same thing. Yeah I get it, there are different "end mills" now, but "now" is 70 years on from the 1950s.

Doozer seems to be saying that the makers had no clue what they were making (apparently) and that all those things were "reamers" that ignorant folks called "end mills". (yeah, my words) Maybe some are/were reamers, but I doubt that the whole industry was wrong, and that Doozer is setting the entire thing right. I think they meant what they said.

Did they USE an "end mill" differently than we understand it? That would mean it was essentially a "counter bore" tool.

As with most history, nobody from back then is around, so we will maybe never know what was really meant, unless we can find someone who has a direct line back to people from those times and knows what they meant.

[Paul Alciatore]

I have used a MT shank milling cutter in my SB lathe when milling there. If you seat it well (oak trick above), and avoid interrupted cuts, they do stay put. I just love it when everyone insists that something can not work and yet I have done it.

If it is not too late, I would like to have the one being offered. I can put it to use, probably with a MT2-MT3 adopting sleeve. Edit: I see it has been spoken for. C'est la vie.

End mills with taper shanks were common in tool catalogues pre WW2, but I've never known how you were supposed to keep them secure in the spindle when they had a tanged end with no provision for a drawbar. Parallel shank Endmills can be prone to pulling out of their collets if not really securely tightened, so how on earth did it work with taper shank ones when side cutting?

[MrWhoopee]

I was given a few of those, turned and shortened them.

Some left-hand cut, one reverse helix, they work nicely.

[JRouche]

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say JR.

Hahaaa! I am sorry, Welcome.

My point was you said reamers dont cut on the face and I thought they did.

The 45 lead is correct, its sharpened to be the first cut. The 45 lead in angle is the cutting face. That is how you might determine if a tool is a reamer or an end mill.. You folks are Bat Chit Crasy. And I Like it. JR

[JRouche]

It s an excellent end to this story. I think,,,