Picked up a Sherline 2000 mill (for some reason)

EricB

EricB

Registered
Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
399
Well the reason was it was inexpensive and local. I don't really need it because I have a 5400 that works fine, but I have come up wanting more Y travel a couple of times. From what I've read here and on other sites people don't seem to like the 2000 mill as much as the 5400. I guess I can find out first hand now.

One of the things Sherline added to the 2000 is a Z axis travel extension, that allows you to bring the spindle down almost to the table. The cost is reduced Z clearance from 9" to 5.5". The amount of Z travel remains the same but they have to shorten the lead screw to make it work. It also reduces the clearance below the rotating column enough to eliminated the extra Y axis travel without adding a spacer under the column (which the seller had lost). I had to take all that stuff off and replaced the Z lead screw with the one left over from the column upgrade on my 5400 to get some clearance back.

The recurring themes I find are that it's difficult to align and the column moves under a load. I guess I can find that out first hand too.

2000.jpg2000b.jpg

Eric
 
Folks don't seem to like the 2000 because it lacks rigidity. Too much potential for movement with things hanging out there. I like the concept but users report movement issues and that's not good. Perhaps you can give us the reality.
 
For non-ferrous metals and plastics it should have some use- I would expect you won't be cutting a lot of steel on it
-Mark
 
Ok here are the results of my initial tests. After reconfiguring the Z travel I cleaned the oil and chips off all the surfaces I could get to without tearing it all the way down. Then I did a quick alignment and flycut a chunk of 6061. I had to fine tune the column rotation but nothing major. Seems to work good.

During the alignment it was clear that the machine is less rigid than the 5400 mill so I setup to see how much. Here is what I did.
rigidity test.jpg

Since the Z axis is basically the same on both machines (my 5400 has the extended column) I thought I should eliminate that variable. Since the tables are the same on both machines as well I wanted to eliminate their influence as well, but I had to mount the indicator somewhere. I moved the tables as far forward as possible and mounted the test indicator in a vise on the tables. The test indicator is touching the bottom of the Z column and the top of the column is manipulated to try and simulate a cutting load without me touching the tables in any way. Fun!

After a bit of upper body exercise I could not see any change in the indicator reading on the 5400. The 2000 was another story. I was able to get 0.0005" deflection on the indicator without much effort. With a bit more effort I could tilt the column back and forth. To be fair I did not use the largest wrench in my tool box to torque the nut so that could be part of the problem. The other part is probably oil. Here is the lubrication chart for the column:
no lube.jpg

Everything needs to be very clean and oil free. Mine had oil and chips on all the friction surfaces. I'll test it again once it's all cleaned up. Any suggestions?

As for now the results are: 1) it does flex more than the smaller, less complex mills. 2) it can be forced out of alignment by handling.

Eric
 
Last edited:
Your findings are similar to what I've seen other users report. I think the design is cool. It was supposed to duplicate the movements of a Bridgeport and I think it does. However, it lacks the rigidity it needs because the structural contact areas are so small that resisting forces will be difficult. I have no doubt that it will work fine with light cuts and it will allow you to do things you cannot do with a standard Sherline mill but it will take more time to get the job done.

If I owned that mill, I think I would figure out where the problem areas are and fix them. It is entirely possible that you could turn it into a better machine than it currently is. If you go for it, keep us posted.

Thanks for the follow up, by the way.
 
One more follow up for now.

I took the column completely apart and cleaned off the rust preventive coatings (Sherline tells you to do that but aparently nobody actually does). After reassembly and adjustment I tightened the fore-aft tilt nut and the column rotation/ram nut using the biggest 11/16 wrench in my tool box. I put the test indicator on the column as before and did my best to knock it out of alignment by hand. It's good and solid now.

The flexing in the machine is where the column mounts to the X-Y base and is a design flaw. Sherline uses the same base extrusion for all their mills. For the 5000, 5400, and 5800 series mills they use it as it is. For the 2000s they remove about 9/32" of material to make a spot for the round column. Then they put the two screws that attach the column on each side rather than front to back as on the 5000 series mills. When I tested with an indicator all the movement was in the area where the material was removed. I could actually cause the base to flex by pressing back on the top of the column.

base flaw.jpg

Sherline has allready fixed the problem by the way, It's called the 5800 mill. It has no column rotation, a heavier column base, no removal of material from the mill base, and the mounting screws placed front to back. Only problem is it costs way too much for a hobby mill.

5800 base.jpg
I'll report back again after I've used the 2000 a bit more.

Eric
 
Last edited:
I started machining on a Spectralight mill (rebranded Sherline) with the solid column without the ram. The ram gives you a lot of much needed clearance between the spindle and column as well as additional Y travel, however I could see it seriously hurting rigidity.

The Sherline did OK for me, but found the rigidity to be very poor and eventually upgraded to a G0704.

When properly adjusted, the screws can have very little backlash which was good for CNC.
 
I think I would buy that if it was local and cheap. I would also do exactly what Mikey advised. Figure its weakness and beef it up. Seems doable to me.
 
EricB said:
Ok here are the results of my initial tests. After reconfiguring the Z travel I cleaned the oil and chips off all the surfaces I could get to without tearing it all the way down. Then I did a quick alignment and flycut a chunk of 6061. I had to fine tune the column rotation but nothing major. Seems to work good.

During the alignment it was clear that the machine is less rigid than the 5400 mill so I setup to see how much. Here is what I did.
View attachment 361970

Since the Z axis is basically the same on both machines (my 5400 has the extended column) I thought I should eliminate that variable. Since the tables are the same on both machines as well I wanted to eliminate their influence as well, but I had to mount the indicator somewhere. I moved the tables as far forward as possible and mounted the test indicator in a vise on the tables. The test indicator is touching the bottom of the Z column and the top of the column is manipulated to try and simulate a cutting load without me touching the tables in any way. Fun!

After a bit of upper body exercise I could not see any change in the indicator reading on the 5400. The 2000 was another story. I was able to get 0.0005" deflection on the indicator without much effort. With a bit more effort I could tilt the column back and forth. To be fair I did not use the largest wrench in my tool box to torque the nut so that could be part of the problem. The other part is probably oil. Here is the lubrication chart for the column:
View attachment 361974

Everything needs to be very clean and oil free. Mine had oil and chips on all the friction surfaces. I'll test it again once it's all cleaned up. Any suggestions?

As for now the results are: 1) it does flex more than the smaller, less complex mills. 2) it can be forced out of alignment by handling.

Eric
Click to expand...
Perfect article for me to start reading & testing as I just purchased a 2010 Mill✅
Thanks for telling us all your test findings
Lee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top