# My Tailstock is worn out!!!



## Brian Rupnow (Aug 5, 2013)

Well, not my tailstock, but that on my Chinese 10" x 18" B2227L lathe from BusyBee tools. The lathe is probably about 5 years old now, and has been used only as a hobby lathe (but used a lot). I notice now that when I go to drill a hole in something held in the chuck, that if the drill doesn't get started exactly on center, that the whole tailstock drill-chuck will visibly "orbit" as the part in the main chuck revolves. The quill that slides in and out doesn't appear to have any visible wear. I have measured both ends of it and there is no appreciable taper.--However, I can hold the chuck in my hand and by putting pressure on it towards myself and then away from myself, I can feel the quill move side to side---and its the quill that is moving, not the MT2 taper on the back end of the drill chuck. This is not a good thing. It appears that the hole in the casting that the quill slides in must be worn. I'm not sure that there is any "fix" for that. I know it didn't do that when it was new. I guess I'll have to phone BusyBee tools tomorrow and ask about the price and availability of a new tailstock.---Brian


----------



## Sshire (Aug 5, 2013)

Brian
How about boring the tailstock and inserting a sleeve?


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Aug 5, 2013)

Sshire--I don't really think I have machinery capable of doing that. I have posted a picture to show the state of affairs. With the quill extended 1.25" and not locked, there is .002" slop to each side, giving a total of .004". Of course, when you get out to the end of a drill held in the chuck, that number becomes considerably greater. I don't know if this is significant wear or not, as I have never had a lathe before this one.---Brian


----------



## Art K (Aug 5, 2013)

Brian,
Does it help any if you snug down the quill lock? Could help temporarily.
Art


----------



## Wizard69 (Aug 6, 2013)

Brian Rupnow said:


> Sshire--I don't really think I have machinery capable of doing that. I have posted a picture to show the state of affairs. With the quill extended 1.25" and not locked, there is .002" slop to each side, giving a total of .004".


I'm not sure I like how you are stating that, but it doesn't matter that could be a lot of slop.  I say could be because ideally you would mount the indicator base to the tailstock itself to eliminate potential errors from slop else where.  


> Of course, when you get out to the end of a drill held in the chuck, that number becomes considerably greater.


Obviously you will see more deflection further out from the casting.    The thing is you also have other pieces contributing to that deflection.  


> I don't know if this is significant wear or not, as I have never had a lathe before this one.---Brian



As an alternative to boring and sleeping you might want to consider hard chroming the quill.  That would build up the quill enough to get a like new fit.    You would likely need a slightly oversized reamer and then some hours of hand fitting.    In fact I see this as a better approach than sleeving.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Aug 6, 2013)

I have checked the quill lock, and all it is is an M6 threaded shank that screws down until it bottoms out in a slot in the top of the quill. It does take out the "slop" when tightened, but even at only partially tightened it makes it impossible to advance or retract the quill. I have called BusyBee this morning, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for buying "fix it" parts.


----------



## MCRIPPPer (Aug 6, 2013)

the drill bit wandering is not really caused by a loose tailstock. the flexibility in drill bits cause them to wander all over the place until there is a hole starting. the slop just makes it a little worse. do you center drill before drilling?


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Aug 6, 2013)

Yes, I always center drill before drilling, otherwise, as you say, the drill will wander all over the place before it "bites".---And if it "bites" off center, the resulting hole will be "off center".


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Aug 6, 2013)

Today I pulled the quill out and it mikes at 1.180" which is 29.97mm. I did my best to get a reading on the tailstock housing with my telescoping bore gauges, and it appears to measure 1.181" or 29.997mm. I called Busy Bee, and the new quill is $45.14 including tax. A new tailstock housing is $179.70 including tax. If I can work on the assumption that the bore when new was 30mm, then all of the wear is on the quill. The quill is soft mild steel--I was able to machine it a few years ago when I installed a scale on the visible portion that extends past the tailstock housing. The housing appears to be cast iron. I guess my best bet at this point is to buy a new quill and hope that 99% of the wear was in the old quill, not the old housing.  What is the most likely to have worn?--The mild steel quill or the cast iron housing?  My gut tells me that the mild steel quill is probably the most worn. because the cast iron does have some built in lubrication because of the high graphite content in cast iron, but that's only a guess. Opinions please---


----------



## canadianhorsepower (Aug 6, 2013)

Brian Rupnow said:


> Today I pulled the quill out and it mikes at 1.180" which is 29.97mm. I did my best to get a reading on the tailstock housing with my telescoping bore gauges, and it appears to measure 1.181" or 29.997mm. [/QUOTE





Brian Rupnow said:


> ]
> 
> Brian-- If that all the play you have .001 total I wouldn't bother
> when drilling hole you need more then this as a clearance  and most drill
> ...


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Aug 6, 2013)

Yes Luc, I agree. I have a fairly good relationship with the local BusyBee store. I may borrow a quill out of a new machine and try it in my 5 year old lathe and see if I can detect any difference. I may be seeing a problem where there isn't one.---Brian


----------



## Philjoe5 (Aug 6, 2013)

Brian,
I'd make a dowel 1.182" and see if it fits in the tailstock (without removing it from the chuck).  If not, reduce it in diameter to 1.181" (or a bit higher).  Repeat until you get a good close fit.  Then, push it into the tailstock, lock it and check it for wobble.  If none then you know what diameter the quill should be.  Maybe Busy Bee or someone on this board can mike theirs and tell you what it should be when no wobble is present.  I have a Grizzly 10x22 but my quill is 1.259".

Phil


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Aug 6, 2013)

I took my old tailstock quill over to BusyBee this afternoon. They let me remove a brand new quill from the display machine on their floor to measure, and there was only 0.001" difference between it and my old quill. I then tried to get a measurement inside the new tailstock housing, but it was packed so full of that cosmoline/shipping grease crap that I couldn't get an accurate measurement. I'm back to square #1 now, so perhaps I'll just leave things alone for now. If it causes a problem in the future, I will deal with it then.---Brian


----------



## Lakc (Aug 6, 2013)

I would be tempted to grab some copper sulphate drain cleaner and copper plate the quill.


----------



## goldstar31 (Aug 7, 2013)

The test would have been to swop tailstocks! 
Somehow, I think that this 'wear'- real or imagined is not what is causing the off centre drilling. 

There is a classic way of checking and that is to put a test bar between centres- and then clock it. Has this been done?

I sometimes muse about the errors which occur from simple things like centres ( which are not true) and drill chucks( which are hopelessley out) and drills which are in these drill chucks and are  worn or have unequal lips. 

I might be wrong but I'm following the classic way of determining 'Truth'


----------



## pete (Aug 13, 2013)

Brian.
At the risk of being judged a total A-hole? Items like this do need to be discussed at the 1955 "Machine Tool Reconditioning" book by E.F. Connelly level. The Schlesinger book for the limits of accuracy would be another good one I can think of. And I could really care less about hobby or professional levels of accuracy, the above still needs to be read and more importantly understood, and it really isn't optional reading. But without reading either it's extremely doubtful you'll ever understand or maybe even agree with very much of what I'm trying to explain. 

I highly doubt your tail stock was ever correctly machined to begin with Brian. If it was? I'd expect it was pure fluke and far past blind luck. And I'd bet some pretty large coin you won't ever get a replacement tail stock that does anything close to what your expecting. 1,000 - 1 odds in fact.

Your tail stock needs to be very closely aligned in all three dimensions to both the headstock and the lathe's ways. Extremely accurate and dependable .0001 reading DTI's need to be also used, and the very real and expected gravity effects that ruin even a good DTI's readings need to be very well understood and compensated for. You also might research the industry standard 10 x rule for accurate and dependable measurements. 

Why would you buy a new tail stock casting? Your original was a hell long ways from being correct in it's brand new condition if you consider you most likely didn't measure it accurately anyways, or if you even measured it. Your first requirement is to get the tail stocks sliding & bearing ways flat, correct, and then aligned to the headstock/lathe ways. A between centers boring bar with a temporary tail stock, and  your tail stock set up on the cross slide, then those corrected tail stocks bearing ways properly aligned will give you a precision bored tail stock that can use precision bored and honed pressed in bronze wear bushings. You then end up with a far more precise and longer wearing system you've built in your very own shop.

There's obviously an excellent reason a fully rebuilt Hardinge HLV costs $60,000 or more for that rebuild, and gawd knows how much for a fully rebuilt Moore jig borer. If you can't  rebuild to a far better accuracy level than what the standard unhardened/unground accuracy levels are for the average Chinese level of equipment? Then you sure need to upgrade your understanding and education.  

It would cost you $90.00 - $100.00 for the Connelly book, and $20.00 - $40.00  for the GHT book that gives you the between centers boring bar design. But you should gain almost an unlimited amount of knowledge about machining that I think your missing.

Pete


----------



## Lakc (Aug 13, 2013)

pete said:


> Items like this do need to be discussed at the 1955 book "Machine Tool Reconditioning" book by E.F. Connelly level.


Thats been on my read list for as long as I can remember, however, it goes for a very premium price whenever I see one.


----------



## pete (Aug 13, 2013)

Sadly Jeff you are 100% correct. But I sure do wish you wern't. For at least the English language, there isn't and hasn't been anything written since 1955 that can replace that Connelly book. There is talk of a replacement by people like Richard King, but so far there`s nothing I know of. But to be 100% honest? That $100 would be the cheapest money you'll ever spend in your shop even if your paying the brand new price. 

LOL, I can say if everyone was required to read and mostly understand the points of view in that book you`d see  a hell of a lot less misinformation posted on any of these forums.

Pete


----------



## goldstar31 (Aug 14, 2013)

As Pete says- there are books and there is 'information'
There is a  wealth of wisdom which is not being taken up by newcomers.
Would you believe that I have an old associate of mine who is not quite the guy with 'toy' engines but whole fullsize locomotives and is a world authority on them- and full size tug boats with real dirty smoke coming out of them and his enclosure with two of his books says:-
'In spite of making this definitive information( it was on Stephensons Gear and Walshaerts Gear), I still see questions in ( he said magazines being no internet really then) asking the same old things- and getting the same silly answers'

I was amongst a gang of professors and managers of power stations and all sorts of workshops last week- and they were all still referring to 'Don' not just in engineering but music!

It was a heady mob- believe me. 

So back to Connelly and a few more lessons. There is a lot of idle prattle about these people who have these clock gauges and 'vernier things' which measure- with a fair wind and tide, two thous and they need tenths of thous to establish 'truth' Again, they expect miracles from instruments that measure things but can't check the tools that should make them. 

Perhaps, I've said enough. If your feathers are being ruffled- tough luck!

Norman


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Aug 14, 2013)

My feathers weren't ruffled. I am fully aware that there are books available from "experts" available on every subjects from sex to skydiving. I am capable of seeing what appears to be a problem. I'm not always sure just what to do about the problem, but a good start is to discuss it with other people who use the same equipment and see if they consider it a problem or not. Thank you all for your helpful contributions.---Brian


----------



## retailer (Aug 16, 2013)

I had the exact same problem with an elderly (over 100 yrs) lathe and as Wizard said try hardchroming, I took the complete tailstock to a hardchrome and grinding company, result was a  perfect fit, they do that sort of thing all the time.


----------



## Wizard69 (Aug 17, 2013)

retailer said:


> I had the exact same problem with an elderly (over 100 yrs) lathe and as Wizard said try hardchroming, I took the complete tailstock to a hardchrome and grinding company, result was a  perfect fit, they do that sort of thing all the time.



The hardest thing about hard chroming machine parts is finding a shop that does that sort of work.  

Also almost 40 some odd years ago I worked a bit with a guy that knew machine tool building inside out including rebuilding of machine tools.   If I wasn't so young back then, with the mind on other things, I could have learned a lot.   In any event hard chrome was used often to recondition finely fitted parts.   This guy did wonders with hydraulic pistons hand fitted to their cylinder bores as used on big OD grinders.


----------



## purpleknif (Aug 27, 2013)

Had the same prob on my 7 x 10. Is the quill rotating at all? Mine got fixed with a new key.


----------



## Brian Rupnow (Aug 28, 2013)

purpleknif said:


> Had the same prob on my 7 x 10. Is the quill rotating at all? Mine got fixed with a new key.


No, the quill doesn't rotate. I'm really not sure exactly whats up with it. As far as hard chroming and grinding the quill, a new quill is only $45. I doubt very much that you would get it hard chromed and ground for that price. If the bore in the tailstock is worn out, that's where the big ouch is.--A new tailstock barrel is close to $200.


----------



## MCRIPPPer (Aug 28, 2013)

thats why i made a tailstock gasket if you can call it that. look im my x2mill and mini lathe thread for images. 

it does not fully seal the tailstock because the quill has a slot milled in it, but it wipes the shop dust (usually abrasive!) off. and keeps most of the oil from seeping out.


----------



## pete (Aug 29, 2013)

Brian Rupnow said:


> My feathers weren't ruffled. I am fully aware that there are books available from "experts" available on every subjects from sex to skydiving. I am capable of seeing what appears to be a problem. I'm not always sure just what to do about the problem, but a good start is to discuss it with other people who use the same equipment and see if they consider it a problem or not. Thank you all for your helpful contributions.---Brian



Well to be 100% honest you would need to do some very accurate measurements on your tailstock using a very good and I think 100% trustworthy 10ths reading dial test indicator. But I warn anyone who hasn't ever used an indicator of this type before in a horizontal setup that you really won't believe just how much a very light weight DTI can flex even a .250" diameter shaft just under gravity conditions. I used up more than a few hours due to this effect the very first time I checked a tailstock and trying to adjust a tailstocks height to a true zero to the headtocks C/L. 

Due to the way a lathe cuts, the vertical C/L height on it's tail stock has much less effect than it's alignment for side to side. And most top quality lathes come right from the factory with the tail stocks ways purposely ground and set so the tailstocks bore is high, usually from a few thou to over .010 high. They do this so the tailstock slowly wears into alignment and not out of alignment. With a 2 piece tailstock I'm not all that sure I agree with that thinking as I'd rather have the tailstock correct to begin with and then shim to compensate for any wear over it's lifespan. As I said, the taper effect on parts turned between centers is very little. Drilling given how imprecise that normally is also has very little effect with a tailstock being out of alignment vertically. If your using your tailstock to do high precison reaming with either gunsmithing chambering reamers or the standard machine reamers, then I happen to think your lathes vertical alignment is critical if your wanting true on size and straight reamed holes. I had a Seig C-6 that had the tails stock's barrel pointing uphill .009 in just over 2". It was a really excellent lathe for instantly breaking the tips off of center drills.:wall: But if your going to go to the effort to tune the lathes tail stock so it's really aligned with the head stock? Then it also requires a very good quality drill chuck and arbour. Dead on tail stock alignment with a drill chuck that gives you .010 or worse for run out is a bit of a wasted effort.

But my whole point is you just can't blindly trust any machine tool to be 100% correct no matter who makes or made it. Mistakes and misalignment's can and does happen with the very best manufacters in the world, and on brand new totally unworn machines. Yes something like that would be more than rare, but it can and has happened. If you don't check a machine tools critical alignments then you really have no idea of exactly what you do have. Any good machine shop or parts manufacter will go to great lengths to properly align, test, re-align and re-test any new and very heavily built commercial machine tool they purchase to wring the absolute best accuracy out of it no matter how much they spent on it. Yet we hobbiest's somehow expect to just  bolt a probably quite cheap (compared to industry)  machine tool down to whatever uneven bench surface that's handy and turn out parts to at least .001 accuracy with an unchecked or even tuned machine tool? I've spent far more time learning the little I do know about this than I'd like to admit. I certainly don't think it was at all a wasted effort. But it's sure made me far more critical of the machine tools I'm buying, and I don't hesitate to run a full test and readjustment at any time. I've got an Emco Compact 5 lathe that I've adjusted to turn within .0002 taper in 12". Due to my stick built shop floor structure I'm damn lucky if the adjustments lasts 2 hours. But it proves it can be done. I've also learned a great deal about machine tools I've bought I really wish I didn't know to again be 100% honest.

And in no way do I mean this to sound arrogant or that I'm somehow a know it all, but again and unless you've read that Machine Tool Reconditioning book, if your a hobbiest? Then it's most likely impossible for anyone to fully understand just how critical it is to test any machine tool. It really is a very dry and very boreing book to read. But.........it will 100% change your ideas about what you think you know. It certainly did for me. Used ones sell on Ebay for a lot less than the $100 new price. To be honest, it should be required reading even though the majority of the book deals with grinding and scraping a machine tool back into alignment. At the bare minimum it should change your ideas even about machine tool lubrication and cleanliness. That alone has more than paid for mine.

Pete


----------



## goldstar31 (Aug 30, 2013)

I'm agreeing wholeheartedly with Pete!  Sadly, I have to ruffle a few more feathers and remind you that you are - or should be replicating full size practice in making engines. You have a tailstock which is out. Looking at it- from across an ocean, is no more than a round bar, a hole in something-- and a sloppy fit.
If that worn  hole was  an engine cylinder- what would you do?  You'd rebore or re-sleeve it.
If that was an old motor cycle or gas engine cylinder, you would find that an old book would contain a sketch of the cylinder being - in line bored. If you wanted to retain the piston -you would re-sleeve but if you didn't and could swop pistons, you would simply re-bore and hone.

I'm ruffling your feathers but- you are doing this. All that you are short of is a dummy tailstock and ad an inline boring bar. Maybe the dummy tailstock is just fixed steady and maybe the boring bar is a bit of round with a bit of hss tool ground up and stuck in it.


----------



## Hopper (Aug 30, 2013)

You say the quill is soft mild steel. You could probably knurl it to increase the diameter then turn it back down to the required size. Rough, yes. But effective in a pinch. 
But you would need another tail stock to turn the quill between centres on. I would buy the new quill and carry on.
Alternatively you could turn up an oversized quill out of some decent steel - bit of old truck axle etc could do it) and fit that. It's been done many a time before on older lathes.


----------



## goldstar31 (Aug 30, 2013)

Hopper said:


> (and you would need another tail stock to turn the quill between centres on.


 
Not so- you can effectively use a fixed steady and always remember that an in line boring bar between centres( or chuck and steady) will bore perfectly parallel. It may, if care is not taken, to check, bore the wrong diameter but parallel it will be.

Take your pick. Start with Archimedes, then George Thomas and Prof Chaddock-- but there are things like Buma boring bars.

I did up  a rather nice 997cc old Mini Cooper engine to plus 60 thous. 
The engine was £10 and looked as if it had run on creosote. Twelve inches to the foot Mini Cooper- not the toy one that grandson borrows from Grandpa:hDe:


----------



## Swifty (Aug 30, 2013)

I'm a bit lost with this inline boring set up, I understand inline boring completely, but cannot see how the tailstock can be set up in such a way as to have the quill hole in perfect alignment with the slide way, and of course to have the finished height of the quill hole in the correct place. I believe that this would be too difficult to set up for the average machinist. 

By necessity, the tailstock would have to be mounted on the saddle, and of course it would have to be lying over on one side, making it difficult, I'm not saying impossible, to get the correct quill hole height. 

Paul.


----------



## goldstar31 (Aug 30, 2013)

This follows a classic  set up using the centres or centre and fixed steady by inter positioning the tailstock mounted on the saddle. The boring bar goes through the tailstock.

This isn't quite out of the ability of the average machinist. You will recall that Dennis Chaddock did something very similar when the Quorn castings are bored 'precisely' 1.000" and 1.003" and exactly parallel to one another as bed bars. Then Chaddock puts the 1.250 pillar in a right angles in one casting and the pillar has a 1" thread to take another casting.

Done it twice. 

You know most designs for home made dividing heads expect that you make your own- tailstock as well.

Perhaps some of us are having a bit of a blockage.  I recall Sparey in the Amateurs Lathe showing one steady of wood.  Cleeve described his steady out of solid steel and published designs for both the older Myford ML's and the ML7 series. 

Me, I'm just a simple old soul- with NO mechanical training


----------



## Swifty (Aug 31, 2013)

Perhaps this is the setup that is needed to bore the tailstock. Although the tailstock will have to be loose enough to be pushed by the saddle.

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll168/TexasTurnado/PA100015.jpg

Paul.


----------



## goldstar31 (Aug 31, 2013)

The old fashioned way was to put a way in the boring the bar but mine are the ones which did the Quorns and have the tools set at- I think 40 degrees so that the tool bit can be advanced in controlled thous.

I apologise but I am too old and disabled  for bothering with photos but those with access to old Model Engineers will find that Martin Cleeve made a small lathe from  mild steel bar- and sintered bronze inserts.  After all, there is not a lot of difference in information on making spindles- which are at the other end of the thing.

Regards


----------



## martik777 (Aug 31, 2013)

MTR ebook is free here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/125118924/Edward-F-Connelly-Machine-Tool-Reconditioning-an-BookFi-org

You may have to upload something first


----------



## pete (Aug 31, 2013)

Unfortunately Norman and myself, and maybe it seems a few others might sound a bit arrogant since we've all read and have been semi machine tool educated by some of the classic I guess you could call them Model Engineer writers from the 1950's 60's and 70's.Or maybe the others from a profesional and well experienced education. I still say G.H.Thomas and Bill Benett? who edited Georges writings after his death produced the finest book avalilable for the home shop types with the Model Engineers Workshop Manual. If you've never read it? You really don't know what your missing.

Dragging or pushing the tailstock while your reboreing it to fit some type of bushing would at most make it incorrect for the lathes vertical C/L/ by what, a very few thou.? The lathes V way's would keep the tail stock dead true at least to the lathes bed while it was bored. Any rigid yet temporary method of setting up a dead center at the lathes correct vertical C/L to support that between centers boring bar will work. If you spend whatever time is required to get everything as perfect as possible, the tailstock can only be re bored a bit too low just from the slight clearances needed to allow it to slide while that reboreing is being done. You can then shim that to almost perfection. Certainly to far more precision than the lathes original brand new condition. 

The very first metal cutting and / or threading lathe was built not by ordering parts from a OEM. And no it's not exactly an easy job to properly rebuild a tail stock so it's correct in all 3 dimenions, but I've sure got to agree with Norman. It's not impossible, or very much different from boring a cylinder either. That was an excellent anology. 

Most of us just can't afford something like a fully rebuilt Hardinge HLV, we get to buy and use whatever we can barely afford most times. That does not mean you can't make large improvements in your equipment for both accuracy and ease of use. It's exactly the same idea as that 'sweat equity" everyone likes to use as the latest buzz word while restoreing or renovating a home. And while you certainly wouldn't have the built in rigidity as one of those very precise Hardinge lathes, it is within most peoples bugets if they want it bad enough to rebuild almost any lathe to far better accuracy levels than the original brand new lathe was capable of. 

But only you can judge if it's worth it Brian, to go to the effort required, then the female Morse taper in your current tail stocks barrel really does need to be in like new condition to make that effort worth it. If it isn't? I'd order a new barrel, rebore and probably sleeve the old tail stocks bore with bronze bushings or a sleeve, and maybe add a few extra oil ports to slow the inevidable wear. Even going as far as getting a good engine rebuild shop to precision hone the bronze liner after it's pressed in shouldn't cost that much. $100-$200 tops for a fully rebuilt tailstock. A semi decent repaint on the lathe would probably cost that much. 

George Thomas's book mentioned above has probably the very best between centers boring bar design I've seen so far.

Edit,
With a re read you mentioned $200 for a replacement tail stock barrel, a severe end user screwing if I'm any judge.  You still need at least two bronze bushings, a short one at the front of your tail stock, and a long one that's a bit longer than the tail stocks travel at the rear. I've worked with hydraulic cylinders that were hard cromed and that's an excellent idea. The grinding after the hard cromeing could get quite expensive though.

Pete


----------



## goldstar31 (Sep 1, 2013)

Bill Bennett is- incidentally, Doctor William Bennett, a retired dental surgeon who graduated almost exactly 51 years ago-----------------------with my wife at Newcastle upon Tyne and was last of the Durhams. Amongst their tutors was a guy with a battered old Myford ML7 who made his own dental instruments - and played the organ---------------------at our wedding. It's not all fannying about - there is a real world out there.

Somewhere whilst Bill and the lovely Christine and 'Hoodie' were doing their cutting up dead bodies and watching a trolley bus run over a former air ace's leg, I was doing my thing -with a slide rule.

Oh, the leg needed a joiner as the guy lost the proper one in the war. He's still alive!

Apologies , but we were getting a bit serious!


----------

