# Qctp Holder Review Part 2



## jbolt

I'm still waiting on the steel but I was able to do the aluminum test cuts.

The process was use the same insert and insert tool in each of the tool holders. The stick-out of the tool was set to the same dimension for each holder. 

The material was set to the same 2" stick-out from the jaws of the 8" 3-jaw chuck for each holder.

For each holder/tool the material was sized to the same 1.4800" dimension.

The first cut was a 0.010" depth of cut representing a finish pass.

The second cut was a 0.050" depth of cut representing a roughing pass.

 The third and final cut was another finish pass at 0.010" depth of cut.

Each cut was 0.400" long to provide full contact of the anvils on the micrometer.


----------



## Bob Korves

The results do not have enough samples of each tool and each test to be meaningful, but it is good to see that the results are that good for all the brands...


----------



## jbolt

Bob Korves said:


> The results do not have enough samples of each tool and each test to be meaningful, but it is good to see that the results are that good for all the brands...


I agree the sample size is too small but it was all I had time for right now. I may do more over the holidays if I can get a few other jobs done by then.


----------



## Bob Korves

jbolt said:


> I agree the sample size is too small but it was all I had time for right now. I may do more over the holidays if I can get a few other jobs done by then.


My comment was not meant to be negative, Jay.  You are doing a fine job on testing the various brands side by side.  Your numbers are not statistically significant, but the results show a lot, to me mostly that you really aren't giving up accuracy by buying the import clones, not enough to matter to me anyway.  It is important to know what works and what does not, and you are helping us through your testing.  I, for one, do not need bigger sample sizes on those tests after what you have shown so far.


----------



## jbolt

Bob Korves said:


> My comment was not meant to be negative, Jay.  You are doing a fine job on testing the various brands side by side.  Your numbers are not statistically significant, but the results show a lot, to me mostly that you really aren't giving up accuracy by buying the import clones, not enough to matter to me anyway.  It is important to know what works and what does not, and you are helping us through your testing.  I, for one, do not need bigger sample sizes on those tests after what you have shown so far.



Not taken as negative Bob, I want to do more to also better understand the resolution of the lathe as well as how the holders perform against each other.


----------



## 4GSR

Be interested to see data on used holders too.  I have several in my collection I bought new over thirty years ago. They are gently used, none abused.  They are still doing good in my opinion.  I've also changed out my tool post a couple of years ago with a newer one too.  Ken


----------



## jbolt

Here is an updated data sheet with three cut tests in aluminum for each holder.


----------



## jbolt

I finished up the testing today. Here is the results from the steel cuts.



After going through all this I really don't find a significant difference between any of the holders for average use. If one was trying to work within a few tenths (assuming the machine is capable of that) and need to switch between tooling, then I think the Dorian, Aloris & CDCO would be my choice in that order. 

The Accusize holder that I have is really not usable as I received it since the tool holder slot bottom is not flat. This may or may not be an anomaly. I did contact the manufacturer about the issue but never received a response.

The Phase II and the Accusize both need better set screws.

The Shars performed okay but at $18 (from ebay) I think the CDCO is a better buy (if bought in bulk)

The CDCO does not look as good aesthetically as the others but over all performs very close to the Aloris and Dorian.  Cost wise this is the best bang for the buck assuming you purchase more than one at a time as the shipping costs go down the more you buy at a time. To buy one it is $26 with shipping. To buy 10 it is $13.40 ea with shipping.

The Aloris is well made and performs well but was the most expensive of the group. I'm not sure it is worth 5x the CDCO.

The Dorian is the nicest of the test group and performs well and costs close to the Aloris. The over size tool slot makes shimming necessary (on my lathe) for 5/8" or 3/4" tooling. The only advantage is it WILL take up to 1" tooling. Aloris makes a BXA-1S that will take up to 3/4" tooling but at a greater cost so in this case I would go with the Dorian if I needed to use 3/4" to 1" tooling.


----------



## TomS

Interesting finding that the CDCO holder can hold it's own against the more expensive Aloris and Dorian holders.   I have a mixture of Phase II, CDCO, and self-made holders and have no complaints using any of them.  Thanks for taking the time, and spending the money, for this test.

Tom S.


----------



## Bob Korves

jbolt said:


> (snip)The Accusize holder that I have is really not usable as I received it since the tool holder slot bottom is not flat. This may or may not be an anomaly. I did contact the manufacturer about the issue but never received a response.(snip)


Jay, if I understand the problem with the Accusize holder correctly, feel free to bring it by sometime and we can touch it up on my surface grinder.


----------



## jbolt

Bob Korves said:


> Jay, if I understand the problem with the Accusize holder correctly, feel free to bring it by sometime and we can touch it up on my surface grinder.



Thanks for the offer Bob. I'm up your way for work every month or two. Next time I'm scheduled that way I will let you know and see if our schedules work out.


----------



## Bob Korves

jbolt said:


> Thanks for the offer Bob. I'm up your way for work every month or two. Next time I'm scheduled that way I will let you know and see if our schedules work out.


OK, Jay.  I also have a Phase II BXA tool post on my lathe to test it and compare it.


----------



## Reddinr

To add a CXA data-point to the mix, I can say that the CXA sized Mdl. 250-301 holders I recently got from Shars (I think they are same marking/appearance as Phase II 250-301), all fit my tool holder very well.  I bought 5.   It was a pleasant surprise.  One of the 5 was a tiny bit snug and bound a little when fully installed.  At some point, I'll tune that one up a little.  It could just be a burr or something.  I was just on Shars and they don't seem to have that one anymore but like I said could very well be same Mfgr. as Phase II.


----------



## Groundhog

TomS said:


> Thanks for taking the time, and spending the money, for this test.
> 
> Tom S.


Interesting comparison as well as unexpected results. As Tom said, thanks!


----------



## Billy Dixon

jbolt, outstanding write up.  Thanks for saving me a pocket full of cash.  I'm in the process of getting tooled up for my new PM 1440 GT and was going to order tool holders this morning. 

Any thoughts on doing tool post comparisons?  Thanks again for your time and effort.


----------



## pdentrem

I just received a 5 pack of Accusize holders in AXA size. They fit my Phase II post wedge style just fine.
Pierre


----------



## Bob Korves

I have purchased BXA holders from several vendors, all inexpensive Chinese stuff.  Phase II (from Enco), CDCO, All Industrial, and perhaps another seller.  All of them work fine, no issues.  The best looking, best fitting, and with the best tool screws are the ones I got the cheapest ($9 each) from CDCO several years ago.  That may not be true today, the last thing I can say about Chinese stuff is that they are consistent.  The best overall deal I made was from All Industrial on some 201-XL holders.  I found them at a good price from All Industrial on eBay, but did not like the shipping charges.  I called All Industrial, gave the person on the phone their part number that I gleaned from eBay, and asked him for the best price they could give me ordering direct, including shipping, and excluding eBay's cut.  In about 15 seconds he gave me an incredible price on three of them including shipping.  They arrived in a couple days.  All Industrial's catalogue sucks, but they are great to do business with.

I think it might be worth trying the same ordering scheme with Shars, where I have only bought one item.  Their total price seems to be higher that the others, and the products about the same.  Give them their part number and ask for a great total price, including delivery.


----------



## jbolt

I recently purchased 10 CXA standard holders from the All Industrial web site. I don't know if it still the case but on orders over $49 shipping was free so it made the overall cost per unit less than CDCO. The fit and finish on the All Industrial tool holders is much nicer that the CDCO. The upside and downside to the standard All Industrial holders is they are longer than the standard CDCO  holders which puts the set screw spacing farther apart. Great for longer tools but on some of my 5/8" shank tools they would only be captured by 2 set screws.


----------



## jbolt

Billy Dixon said:


> jbolt, outstanding write up.  Thanks for saving me a pocket full of cash.  I'm in the process of getting tooled up for my new PM 1440 GT and was going to order tool holders this morning.
> 
> Any thoughts on doing tool post comparisons?  Thanks again for your time and effort.



I started with an Aloris BXA tool post on my PM-1440GT. I have since changed to a Bostart CXA mounted on a solid base. I did this because some of my customer work has a lot of material removal and I needed the most rigid setup I could do. The CXA is not necessary for %99 of most work and not necessary for hobby work. However it does fit fine on the PM-1440GT on the compound.

The Aloris has a much better fit and finish than the Bostar. I remade the center shaft'nut that holds the unit together to get rid of the slop. The wedges are much looser than the Aloris and there is nothing I can do about that. As far as performance goes I don't believe there is any difference. If I come across a used CXA Aloris or Dorian tool post in good condition at the right price I will probaly swap it out just because I like they way they feel.

I do have my Aloris BXA tool post and various BXA holders for sale in the classifieds here. PM me if any of that is of any interest to you.


----------



## DAT510

Based on this tread, I decided to purchase some CDCO QCTP Holders, to use with my Phase II QCTP.  I purchased 4 ea of the 250-102 and 1 ea 250-101.

Here are some of my observations:

1) CDCO Holders though covered in oil, arrived with surface rust on the Set Screws, requiring cleaning to have them screw in and out smoothly.
2) The finish of the Phase II holders is cleaner/nicer.  The CDCO holders have dings and marks on all the surfaces, while the Phase II holders are ding and mark free.
3) The Dimensions, Holder to Holder, are more consistent with the Phase II holders.  All the dimensions are with in 0.001" of each other, Holder to Holder.  On the CDCO holders the same measurements holder to holder varied by as much as 0.010".
    Though, the difference shouldn't effect the performance of the holders, I think is speaks to Manufacturing Controls.
4) Of more importance.... I found on 2 of the 5 holders the bottom surface, where the tool rests (Opposite the set screws) was not square with the bottom of the Holder.  I don't have access to a surface plate, so I can measure squareness that way, but I put a square along the back and bottom of the holder, and found it to be square.  Measure from the bottom of the holder to the bottom tool surface, I found about 0.0015" difference front to back.  Again this shouldn't effect things, but if it were greater, it could start to alter the angles of one's cutters.
5) The Dove Tail and back surface of the Phase II holder were ground after the black oxide coating was applied.  On the CDCO the dove tail was ground before the Black Oxide was applied.


Overall for nearly 1/2 the price of the Phase II, I'd probably purchase them again, unless other's have found higher quality, for a price similar to the CDCO's, with other brands.



Rust on Set Screws of the CDCO




Phase II in the Middle





Phase II in the Middle




Phase II in the Middle.  It's hard to see in the image, the Phase II holder dovetail and back surface are a smooth Ground Surface.  On the CDCO holders, the Black Oxide finish was applied After Grinding.  Given Heat is used to create the finish, it would be better to grind the surface after creating the black oxide finish, to reduce any effects from the heating, as with the Phase II



Phase II in the Middle




Bottom tool surface not Square.  The Picture shows the gap between Jaws of my calipers on the bottom of the holder, as I couldn't get a good picture trying to show it on the bottom of the surface where the tool would sit.


----------



## Bob Korves

DAT510 said:


> Based on this tread, I decided to purchase some CDCO QCTP Holders, to use with my Phase II QCTP.  I purchased 4 ea of the 250-102 and 1 ea 250-101.
> 
> Here are some of my observations:
> 
> 1) CDCO Holders though covered in oil, arrived with surface rust on the Set Screws, requiring cleaning to have them screw in and out smoothly.
> 2) The finish of the Phase II holders is cleaner/nicer.  The CDCO holders have dings and marks on all the surfaces, while the Phase II holders are ding and mark free.
> 3) The Dimensions, Holder to Holder, are more consistent with the Phase II holders.  All the dimensions are with in 0.001" of each other, Holder to Holder.  On the CDCO holders the same measurements holder to holder varied by as much as 0.010".
> Though, the difference shouldn't effect the performance of the holders, I think is speaks to Manufacturing Controls.
> 4) Of more importance.... I found on 2 of the 5 holders the bottom surface, where the tool rests (Opposite the set screws) was not square with the bottom of the Holder.  I don't have access to a surface plate, so I can measure squareness that way, but I put a square along the back and bottom of the holder, and found it to be square.  Measure from the bottom of the holder to the bottom tool surface, I found about 0.0015" difference front to back.  Again this shouldn't effect things, but if it were greater, it could start to alter the angles of one's cutters.
> 5) The Dove Tail and back surface of the Phase II holder were ground after the black oxide coating was applied.  On the CDCO the dove tail was ground before the Black Oxide was applied. (snip)



Again, the Chinese manufacturers do not seem to care a lot about long term quality control and quality assurance.  A company might be making beautiful stuff, and as soon as you brag on them, the next ones are poor.  And vice versa.  That is why I ignore sellers touting high quality Chinese tools.  I never know what I am going to get, so I choose the cheapest, and that approach does not seem to get me worse tools than buying the so called "premium" Chinese tools.  It would be nice if the quality actually delivered on those tools long term was a whole lot more predictable, even if it cost more.


----------



## pstemari

Fwiw, black oxide doesn't require enough heat (280°F) to temper or distort the metal. It also doesn't affect the dimensions of the part, so doing it before or after grinding doesn't matter much.


----------



## Downunder Bob

Jbolt, A very well done and informative set of tests. Have you considered also comparing the different style of QCTP made by Algra, Dickson and I think Bison, and maybe others, also do one. This style are quite a different design, using a twin "V" groove for location, and are not interchangable with the group you have just done. 

When I bought my lathe in mid 2016, it came with an Algra (Italian) QCTP and 5 holders. They are very nicely made and work well. The sizing they use is rather different as mine is called AR-AP but is approximately the same as BXA.

The Algra is rather more expensive than the dovetail styles, but I suspect is much more rigid as it uses a twin "V" groove for location, and a somewhat different but very positive mechanism for height adjustment.

However because of the cost of extra toolholders in this system I'm considering changing to Aloris BXA as I can get a completely new  Aloris BXA with 5 toolholders, same as what I have, for the price of 4 spare Algra toolholders. Thereafter extra toolholders will be much cheaper.

Cheers,

Bob.


----------



## ezduzit

Photo of poor machining (distorted tool slot) on Phase II holder.


----------



## middle.road

Picked up (4) AXA holders from Shars this month. (2) #2's 250-102, and (2) 250-101XL.
I'll have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the quality, except for the Vee grooves in the 102's.
Packaging was excellent, wrapped in plastic and individually boxed properly. 
The outer machined surfaces are good all around, no jagged-ness anywhere except in the slots.
The hardware is also decent. Had to wire brush off the oxide on the large set screw and all screws operate smoothly.
I stoned the slots and didn't like the looks of the bottom of the slot so I ran them through the Mill to clean them up.
All (4) fit properly on my Dorian post.


----------

