Craftsman / Atlas Mk 2 - 6"

I think he is referring to the headstock housing. Does that make sense? I have an older Atlas 618 and never even checked what the housing is made of.

David
 
David S said:
I think he is referring to the headstock housing. Does that make sense? I have an older Atlas 618 and never even checked what the housing is made of.

David
Click to expand...
Oh, well I would not be surprised if the MK II lathes had headstock housings made of Zamak. I think all of the older Atlas 6" lathes would have had headstock castings of better material than Zamak.
 
My post clearly said that it was the headstock to which I was referring. The only Atlas lathes to ever have a Zamak headstock were the last few hundred 10100's and 10200's made. The first roughly 20,000 or so 3950's, 101.21200's, 10100's and 10200's made all had cast iron headstocks. The few Zamak headstocks and legs made were an example of what can happen when the bean counters gain complete control. And for that matter, the problem really wasn't that the headstocks were Zamak. They were just 'way too thin. Had they been made of cast iron in the same molds they would have been just as prone to breakage. But if Atlas hadn't made most of their gears and a few other parts out of Zamak (most of the ones in the QCGB's are steel) , we would not be having this conversation now, because the Atlas machines would have been too expensive and few individuals of the 30's to 70's could have afforded them. So there wouldn't be many of them around. Just as there aren't many Logans, SB's, Rockwells or Clausings around. Plus except for a few batches made early in WW-II (all of which failed many years ago), the Zamak change gears and half nuts have held up quite well except for those that got no oil or a daily dose of grinding paste. All of the ones in my 3996 are still original and probably will still be when I'm pushing up daisies.

Also, as I tried to explain earlier, if anyone is considering buying a 6" lathe, it's usually because they want or need a 6" lathe. Today, by the time that you acquire the necessary tooling and accessories to make the thing usable, the total cost isn't going to be that different.
 
Just shows what auction fever can do. Well if he joins H-M I'll try to be gracious and not mention it. If he's happy that's fine.
M
 
Mark,

The first Mk2 in late 1972 were the Atlas 3950 and Sears 101.21200. They had a cast iron headstock and ball bearings and were painted gray. The first 800 to 1000 of each had the 618 compound. Judging from known serial numbers, I would guess that about 5000 3950's and 4000 101.21200's were made between late 1972 and some time in 1977. The 3950 was replaced by the 10100, which Sears apparently never sold. It originally had a cast iron headstock and Timken bearings The first few hundred were also painted gray. Then the color was changed to blue sometime before # 000738. The highest known serial number was 010480 with a Zamak headstock and a casting date reported as 04/01/1981. The first known Zamak headstock was 009901 (still with Timken bearings) but the casting date could not be read.

There was also a 10200 metric model but only two have been reported. Serial numbers were 004847 and 005223. Neither casting date was reported but with only those serial numbers, they must have shared the S/N block with the 10100.

Yes, the ones with Zamak headstocks also have Zamak legs.
 
wa5cab,
I just filled out the Mark II questionaire and emailed it to you.
My zamak headstocked 10100 is ser. # 008174 has the casting number but, I could not find a casting date.

It has been a great little lathe with no issues with the headstock.
Bobby
 
westsailpat said:
@Uncle Buck check the winning bid . Please sit down first . This one was a 10100 3262 , was that before 3969 ? Was this one cast a iron head ? Robert , Atlas made Zamak legs ?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/atlas-618-...328800?hash=item1ed57673e0:g:jbYAAOSwv-ZaLbGj
Click to expand...


This makes no sense whatsoever. I understand a guy being limited to a 6" lathe. What I cannot understand is why on earth a guy would choose a less desirable late model MKII Atlas over one of the earlier and far superior design Atlas 6" lathes. Especially since he could have bought the superior version for half the price or less paid for the one shown!

I suppose there is something to be said for the fact that the machine is in fact NOS, but still, really? There is a point where the price outruns the worth of the machine even if it is NOS, and for me this is an example of one of those times.

My dad always said everyone has to climb "fools hill" I will add for some that climb is much longer than others ! LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top