QCTP for Myford lathe

[Nicolas]

I have been wondering for a while if it was was worth the money to buy a QCTP for my ML7.
I had a look around and RDG tools have one and so do Myford, the only difference being that the Myford one has a "Myford" sticker on it and costs twice as much. At least, that is what I can see from the images.
Is there a difference between the two (apart from the sticker)?, I don't want to pay more money just to have a Myford sticker on it. I have heard that the tapping on the RDG QCTP is not straight and that the material is very weak, is this true?
Any help would be very much appreciated
Thanks.

 

[goldstar31]

Frankly, I'd not bother with a QCTP but I would go for one of the following

Geo Thomas's 4 way tool post and his rear parting tool as in his Model Engineers Workshop Manual. Both can be made from mild steel lumps.

Martin Cleeves fabricated 4 way tool post and rear tool post.

Jack Radford's ( the old KIWI) and his own QCTP- from steel sections

David Lammas's 3 way stuff - from the Chris Heapy website

By now you should be getting some information about your lathe.

More to come. My best wishes

N

 

[Tin Falcon]

I have been wondering for a while if it was was worth the money to buy a QCTP for my ML7.

IMHO a QCTP is a great addition to almost any lathe.

I had a look around and RDG tools have one and so do Myford, the only difference being that the Myford one has a "Myford" sticker on it and costs twice as much. At least, that is what I can see from the images.

This part is often a difficult decision. It is unlikely the two are identical other than the label. Typically the quality ones are made of quality known metal. the fit and finish is superior and the tools are heat treated to the the most from the material and extend the tool life. And there is quality checks prior to packaging.
That said knowing the difference I purchased an import wedge style for my 9 x 19 lathe. as the price difference between import and Aloris (the local name brand Made in New Jersey USA) is 4- 6 times.

so is the Myford better undoubtedly is it worth twice the money likely .
can you justify the added expense that is for you to decide.

Hope this helps
Tin

 

[deverett]

I had been using a GHT 4 way toolpost and rear parting tool as Goldstar 31 suggested for many years. I was very happy with that system. When A&R Precision offered their Myford pattern QCTPs, I succumbed to the temptation. I wish I hadn't wasted my money. When A&R offered the QCrearTP, I dug deep and got one. Load of C..p. The quality of the product is not in question, but the application compared to what I had been used to is.

The QCTP is nowhere near as rigid as the GHT turret, which in my opinion is the main disadvantage. Once the turret is loaded with the 3 most used tools, indexing is faster than changing tools on the QCTP. For other tools that were not commonly used, I had a stack of shims already made up for each tool, so very little time was lost in changing over. I say 3 tools because I use a facing tool and that prevents the 4th tool slot being loaded.

I made 2 turrets. The idea being one for brass/bronze tools and the other for steel/ferrous materials but because I could change the tools so quickly, I very rarely changed turrets.

There have been some claims that unused tools poking out of the turret are dangerous, but I didn't find any dangers. For those that might be worried, Dave Lammas designed a 3 tool turret - triangular shaped obviously.

Sadly, I sold the 2 QCTPs otherwise I would go back to them.

Dave
The Emerald Isle

 

[goldstar31]

I made 2 turrets. The idea being one for brass/bronze tools and the other for steel/ferrous materials but because I could change the tools so quickly, I very rarely changed turrets.

There have been some claims that unused tools poking out of the turret are dangerous, but I didn't find any dangers. For those that might be worried, Dave Lammas designed a 3 tool turret - triangular shaped obviously.

Sadly, I sold the 2 QCTPs otherwise I would go back to them.

Dave
The Emerald Isle

Thanks Dave!

Several things can be added to what I regard as invaluable comment.
David Lammas designed the 3 way tool post to avoid claims of being injured. Actually, the drawings are still on the Clive Heapy site which gives the GHT arrangement as well.
Of course, I have one of those confounded QCTP's which I bought in a fit of( supply your own rude remarks, please)
Again, if the somewhat whopping lump for the GHT thing is not your thing, it is possible to make one up with three bits of flat stock and bolted up. Somewhere in 1953, Marin Cleeve wrote up 'Towards a better lathe' and showed a collection of ready tooled up tool holders on his shelf. For those who are into such things, Cleeve also had two motors to drive a ML7 one of which was a whopping 1HP. I digress- I'm old, I'm like that.
So back to Cleeve and I have Cleeve swing tool holder built to a modified one on his book Screwcutting in the Lathe and the original design which appears in fabricated form both in ME and Engineering in Miniature and- believe it or not Popular Mechanics. or Practical Mechanics. Anyway, I made it up out of cast iron- so there!

So let's take a gander at QCTP and ones for the impecunious ones. So back to the Kiwis- Nicholas- and GHT's old ( ?) made them and Jack Radford has how to make them or his version, in his book. JAR made a very clever Super 7 with-- elevating heads like the Murad Bormilathe. I digress yet again but I always wanted a Murad Antarctica because I was involved with the RAF Antarctic Flight way back in 1949.

But I digress- apologies.

The old Goldstar with the Flight at Hendon

 

[Nicolas]

Thanks all for the helpful advice, some very good points have been made
The only reason I thought of a QCTP was for the parting blade (and the easy height adjustment too). I wasn't too keen on a rear parting tool holder as I have heard they get in the way on Super 7 lathes which have one T-slot more that the ML7 cross slide.
I had thought about making a QCTP but it is slightly too advanced for me at the moment unless I get a really good set of plans for one.
For now, a simple 4 way tool post might be the best option for me, it won't take very long to make and is still 100x better than the silly clamp that comes on the ML7 lathes (in my opinion).
Thanks again for all the good advice, if there is any more info I should know before making a decision please tell me (there is no rush)

 

[Nicolas]

I found this design, has anybody else made one of these or would recommend it?
http://www.swarfer.co.za/lathe/toolpost.php

 

[goldstar31]

Whoops, hang on! The GHT rear parting tool is nothing to do with being adjustable in height. They are capable of having the top section turned through 360 degrees to use one or other of the blades or being turned at 90 degrees - so that the blades are parallel to the lathe shears. With a bit of fiddling on the top bit, you can have one parting blade and one inverted tool. Perhaps you should have the Thomas book.

Hint- you can get to the standard- but expensive Myford parting system with two tools. Not me but it exists

Cheers

N

 

[ian99]

Nicolas, by now you should be aware that RDG Tools acquired the Myford name and remaining assets about a year ago. In essence they are the same company. It is true that they are still sorting out the various websites but as far as I can tell the products are the same.
The RDG site shows "special offers" on Myford design QCTP and that may not be reflected in the old Myford site.
I purchased an RDG QCTP (Myford fit) over a year ago and it works fine.

 

[Nicolas]

Nicolas, by now you should be aware that RDG Tools acquired the Myford name and remaining assets about a year ago. In essence they are the same company. It is true that they are still sorting out the various websites but as far as I can tell the products are the same.
The RDG site shows "special offers" on Myford design QCTP and that may not be reflected in the old Myford site.
I purchased an RDG QCTP (Myford fit) over a year ago and it works fine.

Thanks,
Do you know if RDG is a chinese brand/company or English?

 

[Tin Falcon]

Nicholas;

It is apparent that the few folks that have have replied do not like and have had bad experiences with QCTP systems.

QCTP systems are used in the USA every day in industry for there repeatability and ease to change from one tool to another. I ran a 5 HP cnc lathe for a year with good american made dorian brand tooling . It is reliable it works.
And I have and use Aloris tooling as well. Again it works as advertised.
I also have the A2Z cnc mini aluminum piston style. It works as well .
if you have a choice the wedge style is better.

Is all QCTP tooling excellent quality of coarse not. Does the import stuff work well for the money? IMHO in most cases yes.
My brother purchased supposed qctp for a mini lathe from a name brand importer. The same place his red mini lathe came from. In an attempt to use the holder I was so tempted to throw it across the room. it was anything but quick to change.


QCTP systems are much used and much liked here in the USA. there have been many threads bout them and making them.


I have not used RDG or myford products so can not make comments on them.

Tin

 

[Wizard69]

Thanks all for the helpful advice, some very good points have been made The only reason I thought of a QCTP was for the parting blade (and the easy height adjustment too). I wasn't too keen on a rear parting tool holder as I have heard they get in the way on Super 7 lathes which have one T-slot more that the ML7 cross slide. I had thought about making a QCTP but it is slightly too advanced for me at the moment unless I get a really good set of plans for one. For now, a simple 4 way tool post might be the best option for me, it won't take very long to make and is still 100x better than the silly clamp that comes on the ML7 lathes (in my opinion). Thanks again for all the good advice, if there is any more info I should know before making a decision please tell me (there is no rush)

There seems to be a lot of negativity in this thread in relation to QCTP. I really don't know why, I find a decent QCTP to be an excellent addition to any lathe. Of course you have to buy a half decent one, but in this world you always get what you pay for.

I look at it this way, with a turret you will only have 3-4 tools on hand. With a quick change tool post, you will have as many as you realistically need. More so each tool holder will be preset for height so a tool change takes little time at all. Carefully curate a selection of holders and you can cover your turning, cutoff, boring and whatever issues. Nothing tricky is needed to use a cutoff blade or a boring bar either.

Don't let anyone scare you off the idea of a QCTP, they can be very valuable when used as intended. That doesn't mean they are suitable for every possible machining operation but like any lathe attachment it has to be suitable for the task at hand.

 

[Tin Falcon]

Don't let anyone scare you off the idea of a QCTP, they can be very valuable when used as intended. That doesn't mean they are suitable for every possible machining operation but like any lathe attachment it has to be suitable for the task at hand.

Thanks for the positive post Wizard

Well put.
Tin

 

[Wizard69]

I found this design, has anybody else made one of these or would recommend it? http://www.swarfer.co.za/lathe/toolpost.php

That is an interesting approach to quick change. With a bit of searching you should be able to find several examples of DIY tool posts. These guys have kits for an interesting approach to a QCTP: http://www.statecollegecentral.com/metallathe/. I would have to think that other companies targeting hobbiest would have their own tool post solutions.

As to that tool post that you linked too, I would have two concerns. One Is the need to bore to fairly tight tolerances. The other is the probability that you will want or need to harden the tool holding blocks. You could buy prehardened stock for the blocks. My fear is that soft steel would take a set making use difficult.

 

[Tin Falcon]

I had thought about making a QCTP but it is slightly too advanced for me at the moment unless I get a really good set of plans for one.

the piston style are doable.
http://homepage3.nifty.com/amigos/qctp/qctp-e.htm

And here is a guy (A member here ) making one for a Myford 7

http://peake-engines.com/quick-change-tool-post.php
The info is out there
Tin

 

[goldstar31]

At the risk of causing offence, let us take a long cold and objective look at Nicolas's purchase. There is nothing wrong with it but it is frankly and obsolete piece of kit dating back to World War 2 and perhaps earlier!
It was in Brit money a £25 effort- no more. I couldn't afford one but no matter.

His mill bit is one that was the successor to the vertical slide- and Rodney went out of business for reasons that we can guess. It was joined by Myford. End of story- like it or not and that is what he has got.

Fine, I have the slightly upmarket version in a Super 7 B- that has a box tied to it. Bluntly, it is now in its second lease of life because I hauled it out of near scrap -and reconditioned it. Nicholas is sitting with a ML7. Different ball park entirely. If he knackers the bearings on the spindle, he will be faced with the non availability of suitable Glacier bearings. Replacement will cost- if it can be done- an arm and a leg.
If he knackers the saddle casting or the boring table it will end up as a constructive total loss.

It is a machine to be cared for and not roughly handled by trying to make it into a born again CNC machine.

Years and years ago, these lathes were used, evaluated, modified and conclusions written down in tablets of stone. Many of these words were written by people for whom you are actually accepting because they could make engines which you are now trying to copy and saying- 'aren't they bloody marvellous' You, the experts of today, are unwilling to accept that the same men hadn't a clue about carbide and tool posts and whatever. They made the engines using tooling which I fondly am suggesting today.

Am I wrong? Oddly there was and is one guy who wrote much of it down.
He wasn't an engineer per se, he was a lot better off and well able to pick and choose. Bluntly, he chose a Myford 254. which is in a different league to either the ML7 or my Super 7.

Summarising it all, if you want a production lathe buy one, if you want a nice lathe and accept its certain faults and sometimes limited capabilities, buy a little Myford.

Now if somebody wants to criticise or ban or whatever an old man who still knows how to use a lathe- that is their prerogative. So what?

 

[Tin Falcon]

Gee Goldstar the guy asks about an accessory for a lathe and you bash his choice for a lathe. and then you ask to be banned . then you wonder why your advise is not respected. Hmmm
Tin

 

[Nicolas]

At the risk of causing offence, let us take a long cold and objective look at Nicolas's purchase. There is nothing wrong with it but it is frankly and obsolete piece of kit dating back to World War 2 and perhaps earlier!
It was in Brit money a £25 effort- no more. I couldn't afford one but no matter.

His mill bit is one that was the successor to the vertical slide- and Rodney went out of business for reasons that we can guess. It was joined by Myford. End of story- like it or not and that is what he has got.

Fine, I have the slightly upmarket version in a Super 7 B- that has a box tied to it. Bluntly, it is now in its second lease of life because I hauled it out of near scrap -and reconditioned it. Nicholas is sitting with a ML7. Different ball park entirely. If he knackers the bearings on the spindle, he will be faced with the non availability of suitable Glacier bearings. Replacement will cost- if it can be done- an arm and a leg.
If he knackers the saddle casting or the boring table it will end up as a constructive total loss.

It is a machine to be cared for and not roughly handled by trying to make it into a born again CNC machine.

Years and years ago, these lathes were used, evaluated, modified and conclusions written down in tablets of stone. Many of these words were written by people for whom you are actually accepting because they could make engines which you are now trying to copy and saying- 'aren't they bloody marvellous' You, the experts of today, are unwilling to accept that the same men hadn't a clue about carbide and tool posts and whatever. They made the engines using tooling which I fondly am suggesting today.

Am I wrong? Oddly there was and is one guy who wrote much of it down.
He wasn't an engineer per se, he was a lot better off and well able to pick and choose. Bluntly, he chose a Myford 254. which is in a different league to either the ML7 or my Super 7.

Summarising it all, if you want a production lathe buy one, if you want a nice lathe and accept its certain faults and sometimes limited capabilities, buy a little Myford.

Now if somebody wants to criticise or ban or whatever an old man who still knows how to use a lathe- that is their prerogative. So what?

I didn't have many other options sitting here in New Zealand, I could in port a super 7 B but that would cost a fortune. I am very happy with my lathe, I think I got a very good deal. If I ever get the chance to buy a good super 7 I will take it.
If you dislike QCTP's that's okay, but don't go on about how bad my lathe is please.

 

[werowance]

i purchased an a2z quick change for my import at750 lathe/mill combo, i will have to say the a2z is a bit cheap and the handle has already broken (easy fix to build a new one). that said about the a2z brand, i will have to say having a quick change is AWESOME, it is so nice to set the center height on a few of your favorite cutting tools, lock them in place and put them in the drawer for when you need it. just a quick turn of the new handle and drop it in place and go. i really didnt realize how much better and important proper tool height adjustment was because i was to lazy to shim my tools most of the time before. now my cuts look about 1000 times better, when hogging i dont have near the bit hang up or dig in because of that and all in all i love a quick change system. i just dont think ill go with a2z brand next time. i think ill go with a phaseii brand.

but i dont think you will be disapointed if you get one slightly better quality than the a2z brand if you have never had one before.

just my opinion though.

 

[Charles Lamont]

I started with a used ML7 but have had a Super 7 for the last (exactly) 40 years. I have a Myford 4-tool turret but it has never stayed on the lathe for long. I find the thing a complete pain. Something over 10 years ago I designed and made my own QCTP, and though I say it myself, it is a vast improvement. You can see it here: http://www.charleslamont.me.uk