Craftsman 101 and a mystery machine

[Janderso]

I disassembled the head stock today. It looks like the front bushing failed and the spindle is badly worn down - about 20 mills. I was surprised that the brazed bearing support help up to a few blows from a mallet. Some of the gears on the 101 are chewed up. So all I really have from that machine is a bed, a tail stock, a pulley or two, and a few gears.

Isn't there a larger replacement spindle kit available?

 

[Spajo]

NOTE: "101", "109", and many other two- and 3-digit numbers are in this context only Sears's contractor codes. In a broader context, "109" was also the hull number of a fairly well known WW-II MTB but that is another story. However, when you write that so and so has or you have a "101" you haven't really told anyone anything except that Atlas made it for Sears sometime over the half century between about 1930 and 1981. That I know of, Atlas built well over 100 different pieces of wood working and metal working tools all of which have model numbers beginning with "101". AA or Double A Company did not make nearly as many but just saying that a "101" is better than a "109" is probably not a true statement either as I think that a 109.21280 is probably a better lathe than a 101.07300 and maybe about as good as a 101.07301.

But in any case, please don't come on here asking for help with your "101" or even with your "101 lathe". The latter descriptor only reduces the list of possibilities from several hundred to around 50 possibilities.. Many of us are only or mostly on here to help but none of us have enough spare time to go through the whole rigamarole again for the hundredth time.

Duly noted. I appreciate everything that I learn. For sure, my next post will have a clearer title. Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.

Are your thoughts available in an introductory post that I have yet to read? I would appreciate a reference/link. I certainly had no idea that Sears the model number coding system started with a manufacture designation. It makes sense now.

In my situation, there isn't a model number nor a manufacture label on one of the lathes. I don't know for sure that the headstock shown in image Mx.jpg actually goes with the bed in the same picture. Hence the term "mystery machine". I would say that the information I have received has narrowed down the possibilities and I am thankful for that.

Good point about one machine being better than another. "Better" is highly subjective and dependent on need. Since this post, my reading has informed me how much Sears offerings varied year-to-year.

Merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Spajo

 

[vtcnc]

Duly noted. I appreciate everything that I learn. For sure, my next post will have a clearer title. Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.

Are your thoughts available in an introductory post that I have yet to read? I would appreciate a reference/link. I certainly had no idea that Sears the model number coding system started with a manufacture designation. It makes sense now.

In my situation, there isn't a model number nor a manufacture label on one of the lathes. I don't know for sure that the headstock shown in image Mx.jpg actually goes with the bed in the same picture. Hence the term "mystery machine". I would say that the information I have received has narrowed down the possibilities and I am thankful for that.

Good point about one machine being better than another. "Better" is highly subjective and dependent on need. Since this post, my reading has informed me how much Sears offerings varied year-to-year.

Merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Spajo

RE: Mx photo…

I don’t think that is a Dunlap bed, the Model 80 had sort of like an apron that went to the bench top. No real space to pass through underneath the bed. With that said you may have at the very least a good bed to make up a nice center for checking runout and concentricity of your parts.

RE: Mx-head photo…

Definitely looks like a Dunlap headstock to me. I had one for years and everything at least looks the same to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cross thread]

Hi Spajo , head stock "junk" ? Unusable ? Maybe , maybe not . Obviously the two bores must be inline , depending on how big the crack was and how it was held in place when brazed maybe it's ok . If I was going to save the little 6 inch I would disassemble the spindle , check it over for any galling , how badly is it worn ? Then check the broken bore , if it's round (not brazed back crooked) then I would get new bushings and reassemble . A note on the bushings , they are not supposed to be split and they don't need a oil hole . I think your spindle is overly worn as is mine . I split (one side) my bushing and drilled a oil hole . This allows me to adjust the tightness so that the spindle runs good .
Good luck keep us posted , Mark .

 

[Spajo]

Hi Spajo , head stock "junk" ? Unusable ? Maybe , maybe not . Obviously the two bores must be inline , depending on how big the crack was and how it was held in place when brazed maybe it's ok . If I was going to save the little 6 inch I would disassemble the spindle , check it over for any galling , how badly is it worn ? Then check the broken bore , if it's round (not brazed back crooked) then I would get new bushings and reassemble . A note on the bushings , they are not supposed to be split and they don't need a oil hole . I think your spindle is overly worn as is mine . I split (one side) my bushing and drilled a oil hole . This allows me to adjust the tightness so that the spindle runs good .
Good luck keep us posted , Mark .

I took the headstock apart last night for the atlas variant. Yes, the spindle is worn down about 20 thou and is really rough in places (galled?) I can see a bit of a gap (on one side) in the repair, but I have not made measurements. I'm not sure, but the front bearing material looked more like copper. It was split with a hole.

I'm definitely going to attempt a fix. I have nothing to loose and I will surely learn from the experience.

Merry Christmas to all.

Spajo

 

[cross thread]

Down .020 , plus really rough in places on the spindle . It's shot . The spindle that is , sorry . A great once in awhile a decent Craftsman 6 inch spindle show's up on the bay , usually goes for around $100 . I wouldn't try to save your spindle . Let's say you found a good spindle and got it in your brazed up head with new bushings , things could go south and ruin your new spindle . I'm not trying to discourage you fixing your Craftsman 6 inch . If it were me I would be looking for a donor machine , and make one nice machine . A couple of weeks ago there was a guy on the bay selling a large collection of 618 and 6 inch parts and whole machines , he's gone now maybe he will return . Are you familiar with the Atlas 618 ? Also on your 6 inch lathe does the cross slide lead screw have square threads or V threads ?
As for your bushing looking like Copper , maybe it is but the originals are Oilite , sintered bronze . They absorb oil , so there is no need for a oil hole .
Merry Christmas to all .

 

[Spajo]

RE: Mx photo…

I don’t think that is a Dunlap bed, the Model 80 had sort of like an apron that went to the bench top. No real space to pass through underneath the bed. With that said you may have at the very least a good bed to make up a nice center for checking runout and concentricity of your parts.

RE: Mx-head photo…

Definitely looks like a Dunlap headstock to me. I had one for years and everything at least looks the same to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did learn one thing tonight. The double V bed is 2.15" V to V. From the following page --

AA109, Craftsman 80, Dunlap, Simpson & Courlan Lathes

History and development of the Craftsman, Dunlap, Companion, Metalcraft, Metalmaster, AA109, 109, Simpson and Courlan and manufactured by the American

www.lathes.co.uk

"An interesting detail concerns the beds: those with shorter ones, whether badged as Dunlap or (later) Craftsman, had a gap between the top of the two V-ways of 2.50 inches while two specific variants, the longer 109.0702 and 109.073 models had beds that were narrower, with a V-to-V spacing of 2.125". Interestingly, although the "manuals" for this series mentions the 109.07** types, they fail to give separate parts numbers for either the bed or any of the other important items associated with it - the saddle, headstock casting and tailstock, etc."

My V-ways are 2.125" - exactly. The headstock just doesn't look like it ever fit that bed. See picture. When the spindle is centered, the headstock base is pushed over to the right, just barely able to rest on the back V (left in picture). Something isn't right about this.

Spajo

 

[Spajo]

NOTE: "101", "109", and many other two- and 3-digit numbers are in this context only Sears's contractor codes. In a broader context, "109" was also the hull number of a fairly well known WW-II MTB but that is another story. However, when you write that so and so has or you have a "101" you haven't really told anyone anything except that Atlas made it for Sears sometime over the half century between about 1930 and 1981. That I know of, Atlas built well over 100 different pieces of wood working and metal working tools all of which have model numbers beginning with "101". AA or Double A Company did not make nearly as many but just saying that a "101" is better than a "109" is probably not a true statement either as I think that a 109.21280 is probably a better lathe than a 101.07300 and maybe about as good as a 101.07301.

But in any case, please don't come on here asking for help with your "101" or even with your "101 lathe". The latter descriptor only reduces the list of possibilities from several hundred to around 50 possibilities.. Many of us are only or mostly on here to help but none of us have enough spare time to go through the whole rigamarole again for the hundredth time.

I found your post. Clearly, I should have read that first.

 

[vtcnc]

I found your post. Clearly, I should have read that first.

@Spajo, Not your fault. There is a lot of excess information on the site, such is the nature of forums. It can be somewhat scattered.

Robert, you should write a book! Or at the very least we should try and consolidate some of your detailed write ups and stickie them for prominent viewing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spajo]

@Spajo, Not your fault. There is a lot of excess information on the site, such is the nature of forums. It can be somewhat scattered.

Robert, you should write a book! Or at the very least we should try and consolidate some of your detailed write ups and stickie them for prominent viewing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, Robert was very helpful. I think my sloppy identification came from many hours on Ebay and watching Youtube. I don't think that is going will change for Newbies. So yes, something prominent. Another thing that I learned is that I tried to do too much in one post. That wasn't effective. Robert, thank you so much for all you do on this forum. I see your 'handle' a lot. Clearly you have the respect of this community.