# Homemade lathe tool holders



## NormBourne

Ivevgot an el cheapo Chinese lathe, it's ok for what it is but I'm under a bit of stress regarding the existing tool holder arrangement.

Every time I do something I have to mess around inserting shims etc for different tools.

I am a complete amateur in turning and would appreciate some advice in building a tool holder with the facility to simply adjust tool height with no drama.

Ive no doubt that there would be a proprietary readily available item but cost for me st least, is a factor.

Thanks guys,

Norm.


----------



## Don B

NormBourne said:


> I am a complete amateur in turning and would appreciate some advice in building a tool holder with the facility to simply adjust tool height with no drama.
> 
> Ive no doubt that there would be a proprietary readily available item but cost for me st least, is a factor.
> 
> Thanks guys,
> 
> Norm.



Do a search for "quick change tool post" plans,drawings I know I've seen free plans in various spots around the net.)
I personaly like the "turret tool post" I've made 2 for my myford and machined them so there the perfect center height with no shimming, one for 3/16 and the other for 1/4 tools.)


----------



## 12bolts

Norm,
Depending on the size of the lathe you got you want to be looking at something like this http://www.ctctools.biz/servlet/the-833/QUICK-CHANGE-TOOLPOST-(1PC)/Detail
There *are* a couple of forum members on here that live in TVL, or close by. Perhaps if you tried interacting with them they could assist you with your issues.

Cheers Phil


----------



## kevin

I made my own toolholders for my QCTP and it was definitely worth the effort - it cost me about $1.50 per toolholder for the materials. Of course, this is not including the cost of labor ("free" since I was doing it for myself); however, I would add that the amount of time it took to make these is not great, especially if you set up a kind of production line. I would also say that if you decide to make these, it's worthwhile to make a bunch at the same time as this reduces the effort per unit, and you can't really have too many.  If you make these for a dovetail type QCTP you will need some kind of milling capability.

Getting a QCTP for my lathe was one of the best purchases I ever made, and having additional toolholders for the QCTP is even better.

You can see a build log and links to plans here:

https://sites.google.com/site/lagad...lathes-mills-etc/tools---tool-holder-for-qctp


For more information on making QCTPs and toolholders, look here (click on the link and scroll down to "Quick Change Tool Posts"):

https://sites.google.com/site/lagadoacademy/useful-links#lathetools


----------



## Mac1

NormBourne said:


> Ivevgot an el cheapo Chinese lathe, it's ok for what it is but I'm under a bit of stress regarding the existing tool holder arrangement.
> 
> Every time I do something I have to mess around inserting shims etc for different tools.
> 
> I am a complete amateur in turning and would appreciate some advice in building a tool holder with the facility to simply adjust tool height with no drama.
> 
> Ive no doubt that there would be a proprietary readily available item but cost for me st least, is a factor.
> 
> Thanks guys,
> 
> Norm.



I have used a version of this for years.  Simple, can be made on the lathe, cheap

http://www.homemetalshopclub.org/projects/toolpost/toolpost.html

Also, there is a ton of info at that site.


----------



## Ozwelder

NormBourne said:


> Ivevgot an el cheapo Chinese lathe, it's ok for what it is but I'm under a bit of stress regarding the existing tool holder arrangement.
> 
> Every time I do something I have to mess around inserting shims etc for different tools.
> 
> I am a complete amateur in turning and would appreciate some advice in building a tool holder with the facility to simply adjust tool height with no drama.
> 
> Ive no doubt that there would be a proprietary readily available item but cost for me st least, is a factor.
> 
> Thanks guys,
> 
> Norm.


G day Norm,

First up,to get you going try using sticky tape to keep the cutting tool matched to the shim pack, this makes set up a bit easier until you get your QCTP.
I am just 300 Kms or so down the highway a bit from you  at Mackay and own a 12 x 36 generic Chinese lathe .The start point for you will be the size of your  lathe as that will determine what the dimension of the proposed tool post  will be.

Do you intend to use High Speed Steel tooling or will you opt for carbide?
I mainly use high speed steel as it is much cheaper and versatile in that ,I can shape (grind) it it to any profile I desire.

As I said the size of your lathe determines the size of the tool post needed.I was fortunate to receive a quick change toolpost with my new lathe.

To help you understand the topic better,I have  cut and pasted the following from UK lathes.

 <Size:   When you see a lathe branded as, for example, 4" x  24" what does this mean?
The "English" method of sizing a lathe is to quote the centre height - or "throw" - the distance from the centre of the chuck to the nearest point on the bed. In this case the centre height is  4" and the distance between centres (the maximum length of material the lathe can accommodate) 24". 

With a “bigger-and-better” attitude the Americans of course quote the largest diameter of a workpiece that can be turned clear over the bed - termed the "swing" - and so, in the example above, the American sizing would be 8" x 24". Some American makers, South Bend for example, also quoted the bed length as part of the specification; however, this is an irrelevant figure - it neither tells you the longest piece of material that can be turned, nor the length of the lathe. How big to go? Well, bigger is not necessarily better - and moving larger machines can be an expensive proposition. For most home machinists and small repair workshops something between a 3” x 15”  and 6” x 30” machine will be ideal. >

Also the power of the lathe determines the size of slot cut in the tool post block to take the tool holder ,my 12 x 36 lathe takes a 5/8" or 16mm tool  holder which holds a 1/4",3/16" or 1/8" HSS tool.

I normally use 5/8" square cold rolled steel bar bored down the axis to hold my HSS steel cutting tools.I do have some Carbide tooling but the special tool holders shaped to fit individual carbide cutting tools are very expensive.

Norm, if you can tell us what the size of your lathe is we should be able to go forth from there.

If you are going to make your own Quick change tool post you need to consider what machinery and tool are available to you.Quite often many of us who reply to inquiries forget the beginner may not have the equipment that we do. For instance to make the dovetail it is better to have them done on the mill ,but what to do if you don't have a mill.

Cheers
Ozwelder


----------



## Hawkeye

Mac1 said:


> I have used a version of this for years.  Simple, can be made on the lathe, cheap
> 
> http://www.homemetalshopclub.org/projects/toolpost/toolpost.html
> 
> Also, there is a ton of info at that site.




The QCTP in this link is very similar to the set I made for my Hercus 9". Easy to set up and quite solid. And, as Mac says, can be made from assorted bits of scrap.


----------



## iron man

I made this one the write up is on this 
forum somewhere.. Ray


----------



## 110octane

Hawkeye said:


> The QCTP in this link is very similar to the set I made for my Hercus 9". Easy to set up and quite solid. And, as Mac says, can be made from assorted bits of scrap.
> 
> View attachment 77137



This very similar to the "KRF" brand of tool holders sold in the US.  KRF used to sell plans for their "Omni Post" too; holders, not sure of that anymore.  But the idea is straight forward and one does not need a milling machine to make them.  You can clamp the block to the post rig an end mill in the chuck or collet and mill the slot for the tool using the cross slide.  Everything else is four jaw chuck work or drill press.  http://www.krfcompany.com/  I use these on my 14" X 40" Taiwan lathe and I like them just as much as the Aloris, etc. systems.  I understand that KFR uses 2 1/4 chrome 1/2 moly steel and case hardens them to a depth of about 0.007" but this is not necessary.  Heavy section makes up for lower tensile materials-witness the days of cast iron.

I always thought that the old time railroad engineering was humorous.  If it broke they made it thicker and bigger, if that broke, the made it thicker and bigger yet, until it quit breaking.

Therefore, just a good block of any reasonable steel may be used until you get your feet good and wet. You can make one for a boring bar and even a cut off tool.  Cutting off or parting off is something that must be approached with care.  That is still one operation that I dread, at least in steel.  But I digress.

Cheers, Geoff


----------



## Mac1

110octane said:


> This very similar to the "KRF" brand of tool holders sold in the US.  KRF used to sell plans for their "Omni Post" too; holders, not sure of that anymore.  But the idea is straight forward and one does not need a milling machine to make them.  You can clamp the block to the post rig an end mill in the chuck or collet and mill the slot for the tool using the cross slide.  Everything else is four jaw chuck work or drill press.  http://www.krfcompany.com/  I use these on my 14" X 40" Taiwan lathe and I like them just as much as the Aloris, etc. systems.  I understand that KFR uses 2 1/4 chrome 1/2 moly steel and case hardens them to a depth of about 0.007" but this is not necessary.  Heavy section makes up for lower tensile materials-witness the days of cast iron.
> 
> I always thought that the old time railroad engineering was humorous.  If it broke they made it thicker and bigger, if that broke, the made it thicker and bigger yet, until it quit breaking.
> 
> Therefore, just a good block of any reasonable steel may be used until you get your feet good and wet. You can make one for a boring bar and even a cut off tool.  Cutting off or parting off is something that must be approached with care.  That is still one operation that I dread, at least in steel.  But I digress.
> 
> Cheers, Geoff



If your lathe permits, construct a rear tool post for cutoff work.  It works a lot better.


----------



## ScrapMetal

Mac1 said:


> If your lathe permits, construct a rear tool post for cutoff work.  It works a lot better.



Would you mind explaining why that would be?

Thanks,

-Ron


----------



## Rapscallion

ScrapMetal said:


> Would you mind explaining why that would be?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Ron



:thinking:. For me too please.

John


----------



## f350ca

Made this QCTP three lathes ago. Just made some more holders a couple of weeks back.




Greg


----------



## Mac1

ScrapMetal said:


> Would you mind explaining why that would be?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Ron


I'm not sure I can give an explanation,but I have read a lot of claims that it is a better method for light duty lathes. I have used it on two different lathes, a 10 inch Atlas and light weight Grizzly and it works for me. One benefit is because the tool is upside down, the chips fall away.
I did a little searching and this explanation sounds reasonable too. Its from Practical Machinist forum.

"why a rear parting tool works better than a front tool  you haven't included the real reason. Probably all of the reasons you  give have some relevance, but the most significant is that the cutting  forces on a front toolpost, whether or not a topslide is used, rock the  toolpost down and towards the job, pushing the tool *into* the work - if the tool grabs, it dives *into* the job. The tool held in the rear toolpost is being lifted *out* of the job by the cutting forces.
 The front toolpost gives positive feedback, the rear toolpost gives negative feedback."


----------



## Cadillac STS

Mac1 said:


> I'm not sure I can give an explanation,but I have read a lot of claims that it is a better method for light duty lathes. I have used it on two different lathes, a 10 inch Atlas and light weight Grizzly and it works for me. One benefit is because the tool is upside down, the chips fall away.




And depending how large your cross slide is you can leave it on for the whole job, or just always there, and just move forward to cut off the part leaving your front setup same.  Especially handy running several of the same part.


----------



## Marco Bernardini

An Italian lathe made in the '70, the Ceriotti, had a cut off vertical slide as extra optional.
You can see it here: http://www.lathes.co.uk/ceriotti/


----------



## Rapscallion

Mac1 said:


> I'm not sure I can give an explanation,but I have read a lot of claims that it is a better method for light duty lathes. I have used it on two different lathes, a 10 inch Atlas and light weight Grizzly and it works for me. One benefit is because the tool is upside down, the chips fall away.
> I did a little searching and this explanation sounds reasonable too. Its from Practical Machinist forum.
> 
> "why a rear parting tool works better than a front tool  you haven't included the real reason. Probably all of the reasons you  give have some relevance, but the most significant is that the cutting  forces on a front toolpost, whether or not a topslide is used, rock the  toolpost down and towards the job, pushing the tool *into* the work - if the tool grabs, it dives *into* the job. The tool held in the rear toolpost is being lifted *out* of the job by the cutting forces.
> The front toolpost gives positive feedback, the rear toolpost gives negative feedback."





Thanks for your explaination Mac1.
:thinking:
I could have an upside-down tool at the front if I wanted and have the cutting forces push instead of pull the toolpost. Just run the spindle in reverse.
A tool at the rear can be right-side up too thereby tending to dive into the work. That renders the reason from Practical Machinist invalid too.
The best reason I can think of for a parting (cut-off) tool at the back is to have it in addition to other tools if you need it often.

- - - Updated - - -



Marco Bernardini said:


> An Italian lathe made in the '70, the Ceriotti, had a cut off vertical slide as extra optional.
> You can see it here: http://www.lathes.co.uk/ceriotti/



That really is something Marco. No dials! all levers. Must have been quite a producer in its day. The English even bought some! Colchester Shmolchester. :lmao:


----------



## Mac1

I think back in the day when this started, it wasn't desirable to run the spindle in reverse, since a lot of chucks were screw on.  All of the rear mounted cutoff setups I have read about had the tool inverted.


----------



## CNCMAN

the old Brown and Sharpe screw machines often had their parting blades in this arrangement. It worked well.
Kevin


----------



## Doug Perfetti

It's not that hard and cost about $2.


----------



## bill stupak

Norm, look up Norman style tool post and holders. Very simple to make and use. Try this  
mikesworkshop.weebly.com/novel-quick-change-tool-post.html

Bill


----------



## wawoodman

Doug Perfetti said:


> It's not that hard and cost about $2.
> 
> View attachment 116699



Doug,
That is beautifully done!


----------



## Doug Perfetti

wawoodman said:


> Doug,
> That is beautifully done!



Thanks, I made a bunch of them in aluminum for smaller tooling and use the larger steel ones for the heavy work.


----------

