Atlas vs the others

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with that too. The Atlas lathes were designed in a way that made it affordable to the average Joe who otherwise would have never been able to own a "personal" machine tool. I imagine that even the price of one in 1950 was a far stretch for the average guy and you would have to think long and hard before spending that amount of money for a hobby tool. Still if the machine has been cared for it will last it's new owner a very long time. Everything wears out eventually. I’m not real happy about having to buy a new Asian lathe but one of the reasons I decided to buy a new lathe was I have been down the road of old machinery twice. I was given my first Atlas 6" and spent a ton "fixing it up" more than I would have if I had just paid a premium for a decent one. It was nice when it was done but I wanted more so I bought a better 10" and made that mistake again when I had to buy the missing accessories. Opinion ALERT:::: There are Atlas / South Bend machines out there that are in very good ready to use condition with all the tooling and accessories but they are VERY few and far between and generally require money or luck, patience and a drive. I know some guys here have very nice older machines but I don't think that is easy to find anymore.
 
I owned a small Atlas for a day; I thought it would be a step up from my Unimat but I was wrong. The main thing I remember was the planetary gearbox made of pot metal; it had a lot of play in the gears and rattled like a Tin Lizzie.

My 11" Logan needed some work but I've been much happier with that.
 
I think that you're right, Pierre. I have an Atlas 3996 with all of the accessories except three or four. I bought it new and wouldn't trade it for anything that you could find today, new or used. I've never broken anything on it and don't ever expect to.

On the Atlas versus Clausing comment, Clausing didn't make Atlas lathes. Atlas bought Clausing circa 1950 and continued both product lines. The company name was later changed to Clausing (rights to which Atlas still owned) because of some other areas that Clausing had a name in, not small lathes. My 1980 3996 nameplate still says Atlas, with Clausing in small print.

Zamak is not pot metal. Although I do agree that Atlas made a few parts of Zamak that they shouldn't have. Not the gears though.

I never before heard the one about poor quality bearings. The early Atlas machines used line bored split babit bearings, which was common practice at the time on most low speed machinery or all sizes from small lathes to huge generators. When they began to offer tapered roller bearing spindles circa 1938, the only brand ever used was Timken.

Robert D
 
That 3996 was the best of the breed, with 1/2" ways instead of 3/8". Those go for premium prices, and I would not turn one down.

On bearings, Atlas did use Timken, but they used standard bearings, equivalent to automotive grade, where Logan and others used precision grades - class 3 IIRC - at a much higher cost.
 
My dad who has been a machinist for over 60 years has an Atlas MK6 lathe, which still looks like brand new, for the last 30 comes over to use my 10" SB for threading and tapering and fine finish work.
 
I have an old Atlas TH42 without the QC and it can be tedious to change the gears for threading. But as a hobbyist machine, it does everything I ask of it, and I think it's a great machine to learn on. Yeah yeah, flat ways, not real stiff, small dials, can't cut A2 fast, can't hold .0005 etc, etc, quitcher cryin' they are good machines. Affordable and user friendly.
And dont mistake zamak for pot metal. It's Zinc Aluminum MAgneseum and Kupfer (German for copper) They cast the parts by injecting it into dies at high pressure producing finished parts , that's how they made so many lathes at low prices.
"Pot metal" usually has just about anything with a realtively low melting point-including lead- in it and its just cast and trimmed, like lamps, old toys etc.

But really, I've learned a lot on my Atlas and now I'm ready to move to a bigger and heavier lathe with confidence. And that's why I'm using my Atlas to restore a Clausing 12" I bought. ;-)
 
"Pot metal," as I've always seen the term used, could be many alloys, but was not "anything they threw into the pot." Some of the 1920s alloys were found to have poor long-term stability, from corrosion in the grain boundaries. I've seen my share of piano action parts and radio parts that have swelled and cracked, many within a few years of being made. I have no doubt that Zamak was one of the improved alloys, but I don't think it should be used as a generic term for all casting alloys, unless it really was universally used. That I don't know.
 
Zamak is an alloy of zinc and aluminum with a teensy weensy bit of magnesium and sometimes copper. It is basically a high grade "pot metal" using ultra-pure zinc to prevent "pest", casting inclusions and voids. Problem is, while it has good wear characteristics, it isn't very strong in tension and becomes brittle with time due to a reaction with hydrogen (the exact chemistry eludes me at the moment).

Zamak is still an active product and is available in several "flavors."

John
 
We're sort of derailing this thread into the metallurgy of Zamak, but it's part of the basis for the argument against Atlas, so it is in a way pertinent. This is an enlightening read on Zamak:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamak
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top