Mill to complement SB Lathe Capabilities?

Greetings

The SB 9 and bigger series lathes are capable of light milling. However setup takes time..and I have some trouble peering sideways at the milling contacts. And any slack in the cross-slides makes the chatter exhilarating.

So--some of us gravitate to adding a small vertical mill as I am about to do. I've noticed that the SX series vertical mills are are popular compliments to shops which sport SB lathes. But few buy the TAIGs or Sherline mico mills. It seems that the mico mills may be a better suited tool to compliment SB milling capabilities on an occassional basis.

Any opinions out there? Thanks Smedley.

My personal choice was always a small horizontal milling machine. First an older
sloan and chace, then a hardinge UM. Those might be still too large for your
installation.

Another good choice would be a rusnok, I think. I almost bought one of those
for work. It's a small bench-top vertical.

Another larger, but still manageable vertical would be a clausing or a rockwell
vertical milling machine. NOt benchtop thought.

Companies like benchmaster, nichols, and burke make machines that are nearly
hobby-sized.

Often you will see a bridgeport M head grafted onto an older horizontal machine.
I prefer to run the horizontal as a horizontal so rarely go that route.

Jim

+1 for the Nichols

I got a Nichols fairly easy, and it has been great. Granted I started from zero, so not much to compare. They can be had cheap, and for the hsm, I can't imagine you would ever need more machine.... it really moves material. Seems like it will be limited only by me. They can also be moved by one person and some rigging.


bb

I would not get a horizontal only as the first mill. Think through the typical operations you are likely to want to perform in executing a typical project. In my case most of them involve vertical mills and a quill for drilling, boring, tapping, etc. The reason the BP style mill took over the world from the old horizontals; flexibility: they combine jig bore operations with the capability to do reasonably heavy milling as well. Even in a small package, lack of a quill is pretty limiting and much milling involves pockets where a vertical end mill is more facile.

If you can accomodate the size, SB made (or re-badged & sold) quite a number of different horizontal & vertical milling machines over the years. Here's a vertical:


But they are BP sized.

smt

Do a search on horizontal mill on this forum. Again, a beginners take on it.... almost anything can be done a horizontal machine that can be done on a vert... and some things better. You need to get educated/creative, but h mills can do plenty.. certainly drilling and boring, esp if you already have a lathe for tapping. You also won't move a bridgeport style mill by yourself, nor will you buy one for $500 or less. Don't get me wrong, I would like to get a nice vert mill too, but don't believe the hype about h mills not being very able machines.



bb

"Think through the typical operations you are likely to want to perform in executing a typical project."



In my case this was replicating QC toolholders for a
hardinge toolpost. The horizontal was exactly the ticket
for doing the job!

Except for the drilling as mentioned. This is why I've
got a drill press of course.



Aside from gaining a great appreciation for carefull
machining (dang it I scrapped three parts, the last one
I should have known better!) the horizontal was just
the right machine for the job. I've got an M head for
the hardinge horizontal but I hardly ever put it on.

Mostly just a matter of thinking the jobs through sort of
sideways. Milling pockets with end mills actually seems
to work pretty well - the chips do want to fall out the
sides.

Jim

Each person has to make his own choices about what machine best suits the needs of his "typical" project. Mine, from day one, entailed making a lot of parts with a myriad of features best done on a machine with a quill. I use a rotab & dividing head a lot, too. One can lay out and drill many parts on a DP. But it is faster and more likely "perpendicular" to do them on a mill without bothering to layout. It is easy to make matching hole parts with very little effort. Just use the machine feeds and dials for positioning. I have 2 DP's and *never* use them for metal work. One is set up with a water inducer and various core bits for my wife to drill rocks (vases, candle holders). The other is in the woodshop.

OP quote: "..and I have some trouble peering sideways at the milling contacts."

Jim's recomendation: "Mostly just a matter of thinking the jobs through sort of
sideways. Milling pockets with end mills actually seems
to work pretty well.."

I've run a horizontal (have access to a K-T Milwaukee 4CH size) and think it is one of the more fun things you can do with clothes on. If all the person wants to do is inline milling & especially cutting slots, they are great. Size for size, fixturing and tooling will cost more for the horizontal. But a turret type vertical mill is more flexible for most peoples projects. If that is not true for the OP, he can decide that.

I agree, a BP M-head mated to a Hardinge horizontal does involve 2 of the less auspicious products in the machine tool world, so combination is probably not an improvement

smt

Gads. You've been infected with the 'milacron disease'
already!

Of course my choice of a hardinge horizontal was driven
strongly by space constraints - my basement shop simply
will not fit a b'port due to the low overhead - but it's
worked out very well over the years.

I took some of the toolholder blanks into work to use the
FP2 I have there, even going so far as to retract the
vertical head to use the horizontal spindle.

I found the job a bit-nerve wracking as the power feeds
are a bit unfamiliar and the knowledge that I had 5 hp
that could rip the part out of the vise if I made a
mistake kinda slowed me down.

The difference in rigidity between the two machines
is astounding.

Jim

I've always thought it woulda been cool if SB had come out with a small, vertical mill -- sort of in the same league with the 9-10" lathes. I think it would have been an excellent seller.

I was planning to hold out until I had a larger shop before purchasing a mill, but my resolve crumbled when Grizzly started selling their version of the SX3. It seems an ideal companion to the SB9, and I'm quite pleased with it so far. I've spent the past several months souping it up with improvements such as: 3-axis DRO, improved drawbar, custom-designed spindle lock, quill lubricator, depth stop, work light, etc.:



I also added a power feed, which normally mounts to the left end of the table, but not shown above because I'm currently designing a clutch to disengage the power feed from the X-axis feedscrew. I'd also eventually like to build a heavier stand for it, incorporating a provision for a head counterbalance.

Paula

Paula, what collets does that machine use in the spindle?

Looks like just about the ideal size machine. I think the benchmaster machines
are about that big, the rusnoks are somewhat smaller.

Jim

I'm going in to the hospital for an Aortic valve replacement next Thursday.

I know, as I'm going to sleep I'll say...this place looks like Paula's machine shop!


That much clean in a shop is unnatural!...(just kidding Paula)

PaulF

A bit off topic---

Paul, hope your valve replacement goes well for you...I'm a 'stenter' so we reside on some common ground--

Anyway, you hang in there.

Joe

So-- I take it you are pleased with the quality of the SX grizzly... right?

Thanks!

jim rozen said:

Paula, what collets does that machine use in the spindle? Looks like just about the ideal size machine.

Click to expand...

It uses R8 Collets. Yes, I think it's an ideal size for a smaller shop, such as I'm currently confined to. Specs are as follows:

• Swing: 18"
• Table Size: 6.25 x 21.75"
• Longitudinal travel: 16.75"
• Cross travel: 5.75"
• Max. spindle to table: 14.75"
• Quill travel: 2.88"
• Speed range: 100-1800 RPM

I especially like the drive, which uses a 3500 RPM, 1HP variable speed brushless DC motor. It has a tapping feature, whereby pushing any of the green buttons on the feed handle instantly reverses the spindle.

Paul Farley said:

I'm going in to the hospital for an Aortic valve replacement next Thursday. I know, as I'm going to sleep I'll say...this place looks like Paula's machine shop!

Click to expand...

Thanks, Paul! Good luck with your surgery...

Smedley said:

So-- I take it you are pleased with the quality of the SX grizzly... right?

Click to expand...

Yes... so far, so good. In fact, it exceeded my expecations as far as rigidity and torque. The slides work very smoothly, and are accurately aligned.

Paula

This might not be particularly helpful, but I think a full sized bridgeport is really the best compliment to any lathe of 16" swing or less. Of course if you can't move or make space for one, the point is moot, but I've used a number of smaller mills, ranging from an 18" table Atlas horizontal mill, 8x36 horizontal converted to vertical (think 60% bridgeport), and a few bench mills. I got tired of working around the limitations of all of them, and now have a full 9x42 bridgeport step pulley with a VFD.

Using things like boring heads, large drill chucks, dividing heads with drill chucks, and rotary tables just sucks on anything smaller than a bridgeport. Width of table isn't the important part, although it is useful (I keep my vise and dividing head on the table next to eachother to save my back). What is important is maximum spindle to table clearance. Combine a 10" dividing head, 5/8" drill chuck, 3/8" drill, and 3" diameter part, and even a bridgeport is within 2-4" of bottoming out. Much of my work lately has been small jewelery such as rings and pendants, all less than 1" diameter. I still regularly find myself using the full travel of the brigeport knee.

The biggest problem I have with horizontals is the issue of drilling and tapping. But again, they can get the job done. A conversion to vertical is always an option.

You might consider a Millrite. Not as big as a Bridgeport, about 3/4 sz, perhaps a bit larger than a hardinge horiz mill. Just a bit larger than a Clausing 82XX mill. they came in a variety of spindle configurations...R8, BS9, morse taper...

I just acquired this cute little 1964 vintage Burke Millrite to go with my South Bend Lathe. The price seemed reasonable, about the same amount as I had to pay for my 9A. The downside seems to be the availability of tooling as the spindle is a B&S #9 taper. 8 x 32 table with powered crossfeed. Now I just have to haul it home next week.

Paula, I like what you have done with your SX3.
While these benchtop mills won't handle parts of a larger size that a Larger Bridgeport will, they are a very nice size companion to the typical work done on a 9x lathe.
Mine is cnc'd with a 4th axis. It'll crank out some real nice work.

Steve

X-3 Small Mill - (Hey Paula)

Hey Paula, - I've got a cousin of your mill in may shop now waiting to become a small cnc machining center. It belongs to Steve Stallings (PMD) and he got it from Lathe Master down in Baton Rouge, LA right before Grizzly started importing them. I was wondering how well the Z-Axis worked on the newer mills like yours? The one we have here a bear, at best, to go up and down by hand. I have heard to they have improved the bevel gears and bearings that go from the crank handle to the Z lead screw. That will be irrelevant, I hope, when we install a stepper or servo motor and ball screws. I think the X-3 will make a better cnc mill that a mill-drill because of the dove tail Z column, we'll see if I can ever get it done. Also,is that a 3 or 4 inch vise on the table? Thanks, Tex

Steve, thanks for the picture of your CNC'd X3 -- that's something I might like to try someday.

Tex, regarding the Z-axis... the X3 has .100"/rev. feed, and required a gas spring to offset some of the weight of the head. With the "Super" X3 (SX3), they switched to a 1:2 gear ratio (.050"/rev.), allowing them to eliminate the gas spring. The head is not difficult to raise, but it seems to involve a lot of cranking. Perhaps they would have been better off to keep the 1:1 ratio, and substitute a crank-type feed handle (like a knee mill), rather than the small-diameter handwheel.

Some X3 and SX3 owners have devised methods to counterbalance the weight of the head, using both conventional pullies with a heavy weight, and ganged constant-force springs, as shown below:



I would tend to favor the gravity-type counterbalance over the spring-type, as these heavier constant-force springs have a life of only around 4000 cycles. The design linked below is courtesy of Bruce Murray:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/haplesspeanut/Main/CBALANCE.jpg

Tex-VA said:

Also,is that a 3 or 4 inch vise on the table?

Click to expand...

It's a 4 inch.

Paula