-
Scam Alert. Members are reminded to NOT send money to buy anything. Don't buy things remote and have it shipped - go get it yourself, pay in person, and take your equipment with you. Scammers have burned people on this forum. Urgency, secrecy, excuses, selling for friend, newish members, FUD, are RED FLAGS. A video conference call is not adequate assurance. Face to face interactions are required. Please report suspicions to the forum admins. Stay Safe - anyone can get scammed.
Tool Face Mill recommendations please
- Thread starter slow-poke
- Start date
Tool
little ol' e
Jus' a hobby guy
Hey Craig,
Do you think you may have had some heat expansion going on?
A few years ago, I found that cheaper holders with cheap insert screws didn't work out well. I was applying copper anti seize each time I pulled the inserts out.
If I couldn't get them out, I would have to break them out and most times having to replace the insert screws ( Which some screws are not cheap)
Probably not worth the effort for that cutter, however, you could break the existing inserts out, replace with some new ones, indicate them to see if 1 or 2 of them have pushed up due to holder material.
Just a thought..
little ol' e
Jus' a hobby guy
What are your thoughts on insert wear when using a button insert vs 45 or 90 degree when facing with them? Do you think they would generate more heat ?
Me too. Same prolly goes for 45s vs the 90. Definitely a longer edge.
All things considered, I'd rather stick with 90s because I know first hand that they work and they do a good job. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Just to be clear, this is the one I have. I paid $65 delivered at the time.....
No, I don't think it's a heat issue. The way the screws lock the insert down it's obvious the screws are being subject to a bending force.
little ol' e
Jus' a hobby guy
That has been my experience as well, with both flat top and dished button inserts.
I would like to see if @kstrauss could let us know how his experience has been with them.
little ol' e
Jus' a hobby guy
If you happy with the performance of the 90's then that's all the matters.
Myself, I prefer the 90's for milling and the 45's for facing.
I find with the 90's for facing, you need to take a heavier cut ( depending on the corner rad and insert type )
With the 45, you can take minimal if your held back with HP/TQ and still get decent tool life depending on coating.
I'm thinking, with @slow-poke only 1.5 HP, it will take some testing with the 90 vs 45 to see how things shake out.
You guys are top notch here with all the help your providing. My hats off to you all !!
slow-poke
Ultra Member
Same thought crossed my mind. How hard would that stub be?
I use carbide cutters on my lathe.
This might be a good solution to open the door for all the 22mm face cutters that seem to be everywhere.
I'm not sure, I don't know if something like that would be hardened at all, if it is I would think that it would be nothing for the right carbide cutter to chew through
If by "button inserts" you mean the round ones, there are RCGTxxx inserts intended for aluminum that require very little cutting force.
I have only used the round inserts on the lathe rather than with the mill. I believe that Bob Warfield of gwizard fame has written that using the round inserts for milling requires relatively low power. I'll try to find a link.
Found it!
From Warfield's website at https://www.cnccookbook.com/button-cutter-copy-mill-or-toroidal-cutter-round-insert-milling-cutters/ :
...They’re advantageous for lighter machines too. When operating at heavier depths of cut, they create cutting forces that are more radial. But, by taking a lighter depth of cut, they transition to behave more like high-feed machining tools. This means most of the cutting forces are directed straight up the spindle, which is the strongest rigidity on any machine. It’s one reason plunge milling is so advantageous on light machines. Button Cutters provide an alternative. ...
And lots more.
From Warfield's website at https://www.cnccookbook.com/button-cutter-copy-mill-or-toroidal-cutter-round-insert-milling-cutters/ :
...They’re advantageous for lighter machines too. When operating at heavier depths of cut, they create cutting forces that are more radial. But, by taking a lighter depth of cut, they transition to behave more like high-feed machining tools. This means most of the cutting forces are directed straight up the spindle, which is the strongest rigidity on any machine. It’s one reason plunge milling is so advantageous on light machines. Button Cutters provide an alternative. ...
And lots more.
I have the 4 insert version of the 25.4 fitment, for me it looked like a good size for my machine & likely work. I have used it once on a piece of steel square tube and I'm satisfied with the result all considered. Pictures will show up eventually in another thread.
Chances are your arbor might not be an exact fit for these unless you buy one from the same seller, mine wasn't. The arbor is probably the age of my mill (1987) and as such I think it's a good quality European piece like most of the tooling that came with my machine. When I got it, it had a multi-position head that used ---- 6 brazed carbide insert lathe tools with a mounting hole drilled in them as "inserts"! It's on the "won't likely use but might be useful for something some day" shelf.
In my case the head keeper/washer wasn't compatible and the arbor interface was too long for the cavity in the cutter head. Note that the depth for the arbor is not on the BAP drawing.......... My solution was to bore the cutter head a bit deeper, like .080 I think, and make a new keeper bushing. I decided that modding the cutter head was less risky than the arbor because the head is not hard, easy to come by and probably not as expensive as a good quality arbor. I would assume adjusting the drive grove would be no problem based on the bore mods I did.
The difference in the insert types you mention (K vs M) is the tolerance of dimensions of the insert, K being tighter tolerances.
Ref: Carbide Depot Table
D
Last edited:
I'm struggling a bit to understand your advice here.
@slow-poke is looking for a face mill with an MT3 Arbour with a 3/8 drawbar. This doesn't seem to exist that he can find. I have an old arbour I could give him.
When you say an exact fit are you taking about the mods you describe or are you talking about other aspects not discussed?
The screw and drive dogs shouldn't be an issue at all.
The stub length isn't either. But I'd shorten the arbour rather then deepen the cutter simply because there will probably be more cutters in the future.
I don't know if @slow-poke has the ability to do these mods.
FWIW, my existing heads are like you describe too.
little ol' e
Jus' a hobby guy
If you find a high (feed mill) at a reasonable price on Aliexpress, 3/4 and up diameters. I'm sure you would like the performance it gives you.
From my experience, the guys with small bench top mills would really have an advantage here vs the button cutter style along with the 90 deg.
On a side note.. I don't like grinding coated inserts period, but back in the day, I would clear the edge off just a "little" .03 up the side of a 90 deg leaving only what I wanted for the DOC that i was wanting to take.
This helped when, clearing down a wall or pocket for example rather than using a long length endmill.
For the guys that are using the 90's for milling that find chatter an issue when diving deeper with them, I suggest clearing the insert back to see instant results.
Needless to say, I haven't used 90 deg inserts for several years now that feed mills and vari-mill endmills have been on the scene.
slow-poke
Ultra Member
Regarding turning down the stub to 22mm, well curiosity got the better of me this morning so I put an old arbor that I don't use in the lathe just to see how it would respond to the cheap carbide cutters I'm using in my lathe. I realize this is somewhat of a meaningless endeavor because this arbor might be much softer than the Susquatch arbor.
I did make a few scratches with a fine tooth file to get a sense of how soft or hard this arbor is and I would say not soft but not heat treated hard either. My lathe has no problem with light passes.
I did make a few scratches with a fine tooth file to get a sense of how soft or hard this arbor is and I would say not soft but not heat treated hard either. My lathe has no problem with light passes.
Hi @Susquatch What I'm trying to say is that details like the length of the stub and dimensions of the drive engagement interface might be different between arbors sourced elsewhere and the BAP heads. In my case it was the engagement length of the stub in the head. When I ordered the BAP head I gambled on getting a fit. In a quick scan of cutting heads and arbors I see plenty of references to 1" fit but no dimensions for stub engagement. Maybe there are standards but I haven't seen a reference yet.
I weighed cutting down the arbor but decided that every head supplier could have a slightly different interface so since I have a good quality, non-far east arbor I'd rather mod the low cost head to suit instead possibly burning bridges (for other, non-far east head sources) by modding the arbor. The BAP head is easily replaceable if it doesn't work out.
I make no comment about the availability of MT3 & 3/8 drawbar, mine is R8.
WRT existing heads do you mean that yours have brazed carbide lathe tools for "inserts"? They look pieced together but clever compared to today's insert tools.
D