I arrived here at this wonderful board in 2017, having just purchased a 1943 Logan 820 10x24, with all the confidence of near complete ignorance. In the years since, it has been a wonderful machine; had its hiccups for which I got much help here, but I've been able to fix most of its problems as they arose and for my vintage fountain pen restoration practice, it has been perfect. I've had help from friends and this board when its issues and their solutions are beyond my knowledge, but it has worked incredibly well for me and my needs. I'm not a machinist; I'm a vintage pen restorer who has learned everything I know OTJ.
Now, however, I'm 72, am recovering from some pretty extensive shoulder surgery necessitated by the damage from a fall off my bicycle and a bicep tear that probably had its roots some years back but was exacerbated by the poor body mechanics of using the lathe. So, rather than consider all of the modifications I might make to use the Logan healthily in future, I'm considering selling the Logan and purchasing a 7x16 or 8x16 lathe. I don't want to get into pricing or related details now.
This post is to focus on the downsides of using a mini-lathe after some years and a lot of hours with the Logan. I am researching two potential machines: the Grizzly 8x16 and the Micromark 7x16, and have had several very detailed discussions with owners of the Micromark. I haven't decided on either of these, or any machine, yet. These are the two I've started with. I've heard enough about the HF, Vevor, and other lathes to not be interestd.
So, these are what I see as the potential issues to watch for and expect to deal with, and I would appreciate any and all productive comments.
1) loss of "real estate" between chuck and toolpost, chuck and tailstock. For chucks, I currently use a Shars 6" 4J, a Polish 4"3J, and a Beall collet chuck. Granted, at least the first two chucks would go with the Logan, and I'd adapt or replace the Beall. But the working space would be far smaller, even with the tailstock pushed out of the way. Most of my work is at the <1" OD scale, so I'm guessing this might not be an issue once I get used to it. As for length, I almost never need anything longer than 6" OAL in the chuck or between centers. In fact, the longest piece I use regularly is the hardened 12" test barl used for aligning the tailstock.
2) loss of QCGB in favor of change gears. Having the QCGB both for feeds/speeds and threading has been wonderful, for sure, and I do a decent amount of threading, but it seems to me that making the changes is just a factor I'd need to get used to.
3) spindle speed. At least on the Micromark, the spindle speed is variable, 100-2500 rpm. On the Logan's back gears I often run just <100 while threading short pieces. I don't think I've ever used its 1450rpm highest gear. So it seems that this would be OK.
4) cross-slide and compound range. Cross-slide is significantly lower on the mini-lathes, in the 2-3" range rathe than the Logan's 6" cross-slide range. I don't think I've used more than 4" on the Logan, but that is a loss of 2". Compound travel is almost identical.
5) true inch: the Logan is, of course, a true inch machine. The Micromark is as well. The Grizzly is adapted. I do good precision in cutting, so would need to learn the extent to which this could be problematic.
6) toolpost and tool sizes. Both the minis come with 4-corner toolposts; I'm completely accustomed to my QCTP and AXA holders with 3/8 tools. I could probably make the switch to OXA and use the same tool holders, which would be quite nice since I have ground most of my tools. I'm pretty sure LMS sells a T-nut that would work.
7) workholding. Assuming there will be a positive solution for chucks, all of my MT2 and MT3 centers and drill chucks will work; should not be an issue.
8) Finally, the big question: RIGIDITY. Trading off a 500+lb machine for a 100 lb machine would be a huge change. From what I've heard, every one of the mini-lathes has initial rigidity issues that can be ameliorated. There is a major upside to this switch, however, in the weight ... while I don't expect to leave this apartment other than in a box (thanks to NYC rental laws...), I am a bit leery of leaving my wife or children with disposing of the Logan at some point, and my thinking is that this is something I want to take care of while I can, i.e. now. That said, the Logan has been wonderfully rigid; needs all the usual tuning of gibs, it holds still and stays that way, and my neighborhood is never without ambient vibration at both low and high levels.
I would appreciate any thoughts you might have that will help me here, particularly if you think I've missed something significant if you violently disagree with anything I've written, or if you know of another machine I should be considering.
Thanks!
Tim
Now, however, I'm 72, am recovering from some pretty extensive shoulder surgery necessitated by the damage from a fall off my bicycle and a bicep tear that probably had its roots some years back but was exacerbated by the poor body mechanics of using the lathe. So, rather than consider all of the modifications I might make to use the Logan healthily in future, I'm considering selling the Logan and purchasing a 7x16 or 8x16 lathe. I don't want to get into pricing or related details now.
This post is to focus on the downsides of using a mini-lathe after some years and a lot of hours with the Logan. I am researching two potential machines: the Grizzly 8x16 and the Micromark 7x16, and have had several very detailed discussions with owners of the Micromark. I haven't decided on either of these, or any machine, yet. These are the two I've started with. I've heard enough about the HF, Vevor, and other lathes to not be interestd.
So, these are what I see as the potential issues to watch for and expect to deal with, and I would appreciate any and all productive comments.
1) loss of "real estate" between chuck and toolpost, chuck and tailstock. For chucks, I currently use a Shars 6" 4J, a Polish 4"3J, and a Beall collet chuck. Granted, at least the first two chucks would go with the Logan, and I'd adapt or replace the Beall. But the working space would be far smaller, even with the tailstock pushed out of the way. Most of my work is at the <1" OD scale, so I'm guessing this might not be an issue once I get used to it. As for length, I almost never need anything longer than 6" OAL in the chuck or between centers. In fact, the longest piece I use regularly is the hardened 12" test barl used for aligning the tailstock.
2) loss of QCGB in favor of change gears. Having the QCGB both for feeds/speeds and threading has been wonderful, for sure, and I do a decent amount of threading, but it seems to me that making the changes is just a factor I'd need to get used to.
3) spindle speed. At least on the Micromark, the spindle speed is variable, 100-2500 rpm. On the Logan's back gears I often run just <100 while threading short pieces. I don't think I've ever used its 1450rpm highest gear. So it seems that this would be OK.
4) cross-slide and compound range. Cross-slide is significantly lower on the mini-lathes, in the 2-3" range rathe than the Logan's 6" cross-slide range. I don't think I've used more than 4" on the Logan, but that is a loss of 2". Compound travel is almost identical.
5) true inch: the Logan is, of course, a true inch machine. The Micromark is as well. The Grizzly is adapted. I do good precision in cutting, so would need to learn the extent to which this could be problematic.
6) toolpost and tool sizes. Both the minis come with 4-corner toolposts; I'm completely accustomed to my QCTP and AXA holders with 3/8 tools. I could probably make the switch to OXA and use the same tool holders, which would be quite nice since I have ground most of my tools. I'm pretty sure LMS sells a T-nut that would work.
7) workholding. Assuming there will be a positive solution for chucks, all of my MT2 and MT3 centers and drill chucks will work; should not be an issue.
8) Finally, the big question: RIGIDITY. Trading off a 500+lb machine for a 100 lb machine would be a huge change. From what I've heard, every one of the mini-lathes has initial rigidity issues that can be ameliorated. There is a major upside to this switch, however, in the weight ... while I don't expect to leave this apartment other than in a box (thanks to NYC rental laws...), I am a bit leery of leaving my wife or children with disposing of the Logan at some point, and my thinking is that this is something I want to take care of while I can, i.e. now. That said, the Logan has been wonderfully rigid; needs all the usual tuning of gibs, it holds still and stays that way, and my neighborhood is never without ambient vibration at both low and high levels.
I would appreciate any thoughts you might have that will help me here, particularly if you think I've missed something significant if you violently disagree with anything I've written, or if you know of another machine I should be considering.
Thanks!
Tim
