# How Does This One Look?



## pgmrdan (Oct 28, 2015)

A bit pricey but it's a lot cleaner than the little Craftsman I'm working on now.

http://desmoines.craigslist.org/tls/5276428729.html


----------



## wa5cab (Oct 28, 2015)

Dan,

That is the best lathe that Atlas built.  I bought mine new in 1982, I think.  I know that it was after production actually stopped.  From the serial number on the CL one, I'd guess that it was made in 1974.  If it isn't badly worn, that's a fair price to perhaps a bit on the cheap side.  The Aloris QCTP is an easy $200 if you can ever find one used.  Plus whatever holders he has with it.  Looks like AXA size I think.  But could be BXA, which is marginally too large for the machine.  I bought a Yuasa AXA set for mine.  

The 4-jaw chuck looks like the weight that Atlas sold for the machines.  But the 3-jaw looks like it might be a little heavier.  I can't tell from the one photo showing it whether it has two-piece jaws or not.  If it does, good.  If it doesn't, be sure to look for the outside jaw set if you buy the lathe.


----------



## T Bredehoft (Oct 28, 2015)

The three jaw chuck, on the spindle has two piece jaws, top jaw is screwed on (two cap screws) can be reversed or replaced with soft jaws. Wish I had one.


----------



## Charles Spencer (Oct 28, 2015)

I agree that is a fair price.  If I were in the market for a lathe around that size and I could afford it, I'd buy it.

Of course, I'd offer $1,000 to start.  Don't forget to ask about any additional tooling he might have.


----------



## Heavycrimp (Oct 28, 2015)

I know some people like to rag on Atlas lathes but I had the same machine with the Timken Bearing spindle and ran it hard every day for 11 years.  It is a handy size for most work and are pretty bug-free.  I does have die cast gears but They are zamak alloy having a 58,000 PSI tensile strength, which is actually stronger than cast iron.  The gears are noisier and slightly less accurate than hobbed gears but I never had to replace one.  On the other had, since both longitudinal feeds and threading require engaging the half-nuts, they are in need of more frequent replacement as well as the lead screw.  A hobby shop where the owner takes care to scrupulously clean and oil the lead screw and half nuts may quite well never require replacement.  If I had a nickle for every pound of shavings that came off that Atlas, I could take the wife on a nice long cruise in a deluxe stateroom.


----------



## stupoty (Oct 28, 2015)

It's always hard to tell with prices dollar vs pounds but it does look tidy from the photos, always nice to get a couple of chucks so your not trying to match up bits latter.

Definetly worth a look at in person 

Stuart


----------



## wa5cab (Oct 30, 2015)

Here's my take on the issue of machines with separate drive for turning operations with only threading operations using the lead screw and half nuts versus machines that use the half nuts for both operations.  Brand new, and all other things being equal, neither machine is inherently capable of doing any better work than the other.  The first one just costs a lot more than the second.  If both machines are primarily used only for turning or if both machines are used only for threading, the simpler machine is the more efficient because it cost less.  Neither machine can do better work than the other.  An incompetent machinist can turn good raw materials into scrap just as well with one as the other.  And the odds of him breaking the more expensive machine are about the same.

If both machines are used equally for turning and threading, the lead screw only machine will certainly wear out its lead screw and half nuts more quickly.  However, the difference in cost between the two machines is probably greater than the cost of two or three lead screws and half-nut sets because of all of the additional parts required.  

Some manufacturers had a compromise solution that cost more but not as much more.  Threading was driven by the half nuts and turning was driven by the bevel gear that also drives the cross feed.  This variant might be close to break-even overall.  The initial cost differential is less, and the parts that wear out might not cost any more than a leadscrew and half-nut set.  However, the part that wears out (primarily the key in the bevel gear) will probably wear out more quickly than the half nuts because the surface area of the key is much less than the surface area of the half-nuts.  So surface pressure is much higher.  And there are more other parts to wear out.

And then there is the issue of belt type and spindle bearing type.  But that's another subject about which owners of those machines won't want to talk about.


----------



## Andy Rafferty (Oct 30, 2015)

I built a lot of parts on that same lathe. No complaints anyone can find the limits of a machine. Some of my family can wreck a blacksmith's shop with a Q-Tip. Grab all of the tooling and get the lantern tool post and holders if they are around. that's a 900.00 to 1200.00 lathe in my area.


----------



## Dranreb (Oct 30, 2015)

Looks like a nice lathe, is the forward / reverse switch a factory fitting on that type?


----------



## wa5cab (Oct 30, 2015)

Atlas did offer FWD-REV switches through most of the years that the lathes were made, but like the motors and all of the accessories except for a couple or three, they were extra.  Whether the switch on the lathe was actually bought through Atlas or not there is no way of telling as AFAIK, unlike the motors, the switches weren't house-branded.


----------



## Dranreb (Oct 30, 2015)

wa5cab said:


> Atlas did offer FWD-REV switches through most of the years that the lathes were made, but like the motors and all of the accessories except for a couple or three, they were extra.  Whether the switch on the lathe was actually bought through Atlas or not there is no way of telling as AFAIK, unlike the motors, the switches weren't house-branded.



Thanks, sorry not wanting to hijack this thread but I was just wondering as I see a lot with them fitted which made me wonder about the manufactureres take on the screwed on chuck, and whether any warnings where given, I know I should have it all committed to it to memory by now but I can't remember reading anything about it in my MOLO .....



Bernard


----------



## wa5cab (Oct 30, 2015)

The only operations that come to mind that actually need reverse would be left hand threads, which if I recall are written as being cut toward the tailstock so that you don't need reverse.  And grinding and cutting odd-ball threads (where you can't disengage the half nuts and have to power the carriage back to the beginning).  The latter two are both very low-torque operations.  It takes an appreciable amount of torque to break a chuck loose if it is properly seated.  And I have never had that happen just by starting my 12" in reverse.  I have a reversing switch on my machine but about the only time I have ever used it to actually do something was for sanding or polishing.


----------



## VSAncona (Nov 2, 2015)

Did you get the lathe? I saw that listing a few days ago and was half-way tempted to buy it for the tool post alone. It looks like a fair deal, IMO.


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 3, 2015)

No, and I won't buy it.  I saw it and thought it looked like a nice one so I thought I'd just ask here.  Let us know if you look at it or buy it.


----------



## VSAncona (Nov 3, 2015)

The ad has been taken down, so someone else must have purchased it. I sold my Atlas last summer, and I'm not really in the market for another one.


----------

