I just purchased what appears to be an early Atlas Metalmaster (aka Craftsman Metalcraft) version of the 9” lathe (this one: http://www.lathes.co.uk/atlas/page7.html ). Among other accessories, it came with a large 3-jaw chuck (about 7” in diameter and probably 4” or so in “depth”). I’m trying to decide whether I should use it or look for a lighter/more suitable 5” chuck, similar to the one shown in the manual (http://vintagemachinery.org/pubs/222/18022.pdf ). If I do look for a lighter chuck, are any of the “budget” new ones for +/- 50$ sold on Amazon and eBay even worth considering? If not, what would be the better used options? The manual specifies a 1-1/2” spindle diameter and 8 U.S.F. thread, the latter being an obsolete standard. Looking at used chucks on eBay, I’m rather concerned that it may be easy to pick one that won’t even fit. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
-
Welcome back Guest! Did you know you can mentor other members here at H-M? If not, please check out our Relaunch of Hobby Machinist Mentoring Program!
Atlas 9” lathe & 3-jaw chucks
- Thread starter xyz07
- Start date
Thank you for letting me know. A correction to the chuck size (I didn't have it in front of me when I was posting): it is 7-1/2" in diameter by 3-1/2" in depth. My concern was that this is an early-model lathe that has Babbitt spindle bearings, so running a chuck that is heavier than what it's designed for might create extra stress on them and cause excessive wear. So this should still be ok? I would very much prefer not to have to buy another chuck, as this one seems to work fine. It has a uniform layer of surface rust, but otherwise appears to be in a very usable shape.
And on a completely unrelated note (though I think I should be entitled to hijacking my own thread
), I had a couple of additional questions about this lathe that are fairly important in terms of making sure I don't mess anything up and make it run as it should.
I'm in the process of repainting the lathe, as it has lots of surface rust on it (Rust-oleum Professional heavy rust primer plus paint). I am trying to do minimal disassembly to avoid creating more problems than what I'm trying to fix, so this is not by any means a full restoration. Now, to access the entire surface of the headstock, it would be really nice to remove the spindle. Which is very easy, of course - four bolts (two on each Babbitt bearing cap) and it's off. In fact, I already had to remove/reinstall the right cap, as there was a bit of vertical spindle play when you grab/shake it by hand, and I followed the instructions in the 1937 (I think) Atlas Manual of Lathe Operations to remove the shim layers on the right bearing (I was surprised to find what seemed to be the original shims there).
Now, the questions (sorry for the long preamble). (1) The bearing caps are positioned/bolted down in a somewhat "arbitrary" way. That is, they can be installed in somewhat varying positions on the headstock - the mating surfaces are smooth (not like they have any setup like pins/holes to guide the bearing caps in place), and they can be moved around a bit relative to the headstock before the bolts are tightened. So whatever position the caps are in at the moment will be the final one once you tighten the bolts. Given that the caps contain the upper portions of the Babbitts, and the whole thing involves a very high degree of precision, is it safe to just bolt down the caps in whatever position they end up in and be done with it? Don't want to do it wrong and mess up the bearings... And question (2) (as a follow-up to No. 1): is it safe to take off both caps and remove the entire spindle/pulley assembly for painting? That is, do I run any risks of reinstalling it "incorrectly" (I don't mean confusing left with right - I mean messing up what seems to be a setup with very fine tolerances)? Again, I suppose my main concern is the "soft" Babbitts.
And another completely unrelated question (I don't want to create many separate threads; should have named this one differently - my apologies). I seem to be missing the main drive pulley (the large spoked one on the left as shown here on page 2 - http://vintagemachinery.org/pubs/222/18022.pdf , or part No. 9-84 on page 17). In case anyone is familiar with this lathe/its drive system, are there any substitutes that should work on this model? Looks like the original might be hard to find.
Once again, thank you very much in advance for any inputs.
And on a completely unrelated note (though I think I should be entitled to hijacking my own thread
), I had a couple of additional questions about this lathe that are fairly important in terms of making sure I don't mess anything up and make it run as it should.I'm in the process of repainting the lathe, as it has lots of surface rust on it (Rust-oleum Professional heavy rust primer plus paint). I am trying to do minimal disassembly to avoid creating more problems than what I'm trying to fix, so this is not by any means a full restoration. Now, to access the entire surface of the headstock, it would be really nice to remove the spindle. Which is very easy, of course - four bolts (two on each Babbitt bearing cap) and it's off. In fact, I already had to remove/reinstall the right cap, as there was a bit of vertical spindle play when you grab/shake it by hand, and I followed the instructions in the 1937 (I think) Atlas Manual of Lathe Operations to remove the shim layers on the right bearing (I was surprised to find what seemed to be the original shims there).
Now, the questions (sorry for the long preamble). (1) The bearing caps are positioned/bolted down in a somewhat "arbitrary" way. That is, they can be installed in somewhat varying positions on the headstock - the mating surfaces are smooth (not like they have any setup like pins/holes to guide the bearing caps in place), and they can be moved around a bit relative to the headstock before the bolts are tightened. So whatever position the caps are in at the moment will be the final one once you tighten the bolts. Given that the caps contain the upper portions of the Babbitts, and the whole thing involves a very high degree of precision, is it safe to just bolt down the caps in whatever position they end up in and be done with it? Don't want to do it wrong and mess up the bearings... And question (2) (as a follow-up to No. 1): is it safe to take off both caps and remove the entire spindle/pulley assembly for painting? That is, do I run any risks of reinstalling it "incorrectly" (I don't mean confusing left with right
- I mean messing up what seems to be a setup with very fine tolerances)? Again, I suppose my main concern is the "soft" Babbitts.And another completely unrelated question (I don't want to create many separate threads; should have named this one differently - my apologies). I seem to be missing the main drive pulley (the large spoked one on the left as shown here on page 2 - http://vintagemachinery.org/pubs/222/18022.pdf , or part No. 9-84 on page 17). In case anyone is familiar with this lathe/its drive system, are there any substitutes that should work on this model? Looks like the original might be hard to find.
Once again, thank you very much in advance for any inputs.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 10,552
Back to the chuck, you can use the 7.5" chuck with care and it probably isn't too heavy for the bearings. But I would replace it with a 4" to 6" ASAP. The added weight won't wear out the bearings overnight although it won't do them any favors. But normally you should not use a chuck on a lathe if it is large enough to strike the bed while the jaws are still in their safe operating range. You might look around for someone with a 12" or larger lathe who is looking for a chuck around 7.5" and maybe has a smaller one to trade.
On the bearing caps, if they can be moved around as much as you seem to be describing, they may be worn out.
On removing removing the spindle for painting the headstock, sure. Just mask the lower half including the flat area around the tapped holes. But in general, if removing all of the factory shims and tightening the caps down on the spindle doesn't lock the spindle, either the bearings or the spindle may be too worn to use.
On the missing pulley, you are highly unlikely to find a commercial pulley that is close enough to use. The designer had to meet two requirements - which a commercial maker wouldn't or wouldn't worry about. First, given that one pulley diameters have been chosen, the diameters of the other pulley have to be the proper ratio to the first one to give an RPM of the other pulley to match the published list. And #2 requirement is that the diameter of both grooves on both pulleys must use the same belt. Short of buying an original pulley, your only reasonable solution is probably going to be to buy two single step pulleys of approximately the right diameter, and if necessary, use two belts..
On the bearing caps, if they can be moved around as much as you seem to be describing, they may be worn out.
On removing removing the spindle for painting the headstock, sure. Just mask the lower half including the flat area around the tapped holes. But in general, if removing all of the factory shims and tightening the caps down on the spindle doesn't lock the spindle, either the bearings or the spindle may be too worn to use.
On the missing pulley, you are highly unlikely to find a commercial pulley that is close enough to use. The designer had to meet two requirements - which a commercial maker wouldn't or wouldn't worry about. First, given that one pulley diameters have been chosen, the diameters of the other pulley have to be the proper ratio to the first one to give an RPM of the other pulley to match the published list. And #2 requirement is that the diameter of both grooves on both pulleys must use the same belt. Short of buying an original pulley, your only reasonable solution is probably going to be to buy two single step pulleys of approximately the right diameter, and if necessary, use two belts..
Thank you for the detailed advice, wa5cab. I will look for a smaller chuck plus a way to sell or trade my larger one. It's hard to tell if my bearing caps have too much play, but it does look like they can be bolted down in somewhat varying positions. At the same time, my overall impression was that the bearings / spindle behavior demonstrated surprisingly little wear (though I'm by no means an expert). I will know more when I also remove a shim layer on the left bearing, plus try to lock the spindle like you suggested - by completely removing the shims. The ways do not show any noticeable wear, and my overall impression is that the lathe mostly has some finish/surface rust issues after decades spent in a garage, but not excessive wear from heavy use. That is TBD, of course. Currently my focus is on the derusting/repaint job that is now underway.
Which leads me to a very important safety question. While I fully realized from the start that the 9" Atlas firmly belongs in the lead-based paint era, I let my guard down the day before yesterday while using wire wheels on a drill to remove rust from the countershaft assembly. Namely, even though I DO have some N95 masks purchased before COVID, I did a silly thing by working in one of those cheap face masks everyone wears now, albeit pressed down to my nose by my safety glasses (of the "fully enclosed" type). Sadly, I did work close to my face and likely did breathe in a bit of dust... Right now I'm trying to find out: did the 1930s Atlas lathes actually have lead based paint? I did purchase a paint test kit, but the results were not conclusive...
P.S. Sorry again for digressing - I wish I could rename the thread to simply "Atlas 9" lathe," but it doesn't look like it's possible.
Which leads me to a very important safety question. While I fully realized from the start that the 9" Atlas firmly belongs in the lead-based paint era, I let my guard down the day before yesterday while using wire wheels on a drill to remove rust from the countershaft assembly. Namely, even though I DO have some N95 masks purchased before COVID, I did a silly thing by working in one of those cheap face masks everyone wears now, albeit pressed down to my nose by my safety glasses (of the "fully enclosed" type). Sadly, I did work close to my face and likely did breathe in a bit of dust... Right now I'm trying to find out: did the 1930s Atlas lathes actually have lead based paint? I did purchase a paint test kit, but the results were not conclusive...
P.S. Sorry again for digressing - I wish I could rename the thread to simply "Atlas 9" lathe," but it doesn't look like it's possible.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2013
- Messages
- 4,395
About 2/3 of swing for max chuck diameter is a good rule of thumb, so a 6" chuck on a 9" lathe is about as big as you'd want to go. More than anything you'll struggle to utilise the full clamping range of the chuck as the chuck jaws will hit the lathe ways before you can chuck up the maximum size round the inside jaws can safely hold.
For a 9" lathe I think that there are a lot of pluses to having 4" and 6" chucks in 3 and 4 jaws. 4" chucks are ALOT lighter and easier to change than 6" chucks, but 6" chucks can hold much bigger things
For a 9" lathe I think that there are a lot of pluses to having 4" and 6" chucks in 3 and 4 jaws. 4" chucks are ALOT lighter and easier to change than 6" chucks, but 6" chucks can hold much bigger things
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 10,552
On the lead based paint question, I would assume that that is what Atlas would have used at the time. Because using lead made about the best grade of paint. However, my recollection is that most of the noise generated on the subject involved babies through 5 or 6 year-olds chewing on wooden toys painted with lead-based paint. However, if you are really concerned about it, go and have a chest xray made and evaluated. Be sure that the technician running the X-ray machine knows what you are looking for.
On the subject of thread title, I inserted an "&" so that posts can be about either the lathe or the chucks. However, it really should have the serial number in the Subject if you want to imply that the thread is mostly about your 9". The serial number should be stamped into the top right-hand end of the front way. Although technically not a part of the serial number, also state any letter prefixes or suffixes.
And back to the the spindle nose threads, U.S.F. eventually became UNC. So the correct (today) specification for the Atlas 9", 10" and 12" spindle nose threads is 1-1/2"-8 UNC.
On the subject of thread title, I inserted an "&" so that posts can be about either the lathe or the chucks. However, it really should have the serial number in the Subject if you want to imply that the thread is mostly about your 9". The serial number should be stamped into the top right-hand end of the front way. Although technically not a part of the serial number, also state any letter prefixes or suffixes.
And back to the the spindle nose threads, U.S.F. eventually became UNC. So the correct (today) specification for the Atlas 9", 10" and 12" spindle nose threads is 1-1/2"-8 UNC.