Hi Colin,

I use one in work. I'd say it's a bit light for Industrial use but a good machine for hobby use. It has had light use in the 5 years that we've had it from new. The one shot lube pump broke pretty early on.

If you need more info just shout.

Steve.

Hi

please disregard my first post as thinking of wrong machine….brain completely frazzled after days of searching and checking specs of machines – this machine is equivalent to Warco WM20 not 4VS and size wise seems to fit between the bench mills and Bridgeport size machines.

I have been to see the Warco WM20 and basically liked the bottom half with a pretty decent table etc. but not happy with the spread of speeds – 100 to 1000 rpm and 1000 to 3000 rpm. The high and low range was achieved with a belt change, which meant removing a cover, slackening the motor mounts and I guess lots of other jiggery pockery! I was told I would keep it in the low range all the time anyway! Doesn't seem a very good idea if constantly changing between a large end mill one minute and drilling very small holes the next. This would be far more useful if more like the Bridge port type machines where you have a more useful range from say 400 to 3000 rpm high range and just dropping into low range when required – which is a flick of a lever.

I am assuming the Chester offering is the same in this respect so could really do with your input on this Steve.

This was a deal killer for me… a compromise too far! If anyone has a different perspective on this I would like to hear it and is there a way round this with motor change or something? because otherwise this is a nice useful size machine.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Belt changing is one of the compromises made to keep costs down and quite typical. Not everyone needs to change speed quickly, and those who do have to be prepared to cough up for the extra convenience. Likewise, many lathes come with a set of manual change gears for screw-cutting rather than a nice gearbox, but the extra convenience costs, especially if a wide-range of threads are needed!

In practice, I try to plan work to suit the limitations of my workshop. Reorganising the order of operations to minimise tool and belt changes is often possible, as is redesigning the object to simplify production.

Most hobbyists work within a budget, and our time is free. A few extra belt-changes don't matter. Commercial production is a different game; they aim to make a profit and because manpower is so expensive, it's often cheaper to buy tools for streamlined production, borrowing the money if necessary.

Many modern mills come with electronic speed control, or can be retrofitted with it. Might well be 'good enough'.

Dave

Graham

Can't comment directly on these machine but I do have some "used similar" experience.

Far as I can see these are pretty close to an old type Round Ram Bridgeport fitted with J-Type head.

A friend of mine had one so equipped which I fitted with VFD drive. It worked well with all reasonable size jobs. largest things he did were re-boring Hitman Imp cylinder blocks to take over-bore liners and machining up a twin overheard cam alloy head conversion for the Imp engine supplied (found) as a rough casting. So if the build quality is decent the machining size and capability is there. He pretty much just used one of the two middle pulley settings on the Bridgeport head deciding whether it was a faster or slower speed job before he began. But of course he had the back gear system too.

I had a square column Chester Lux style bench mill with two speed belt drive, VFD controlled motor and R8 taper spindle. Metal shifting capacity was up in the Bridgeport region but obviously the machine was smaller overall with less workspace. Shifting the belt was a right faff and something to be avoided. The two VFD controlled ranges were 125 to 1400 rpm and 250 to 2800 rpm. I used the lower range most of the time. If I had to switch to the higher one it stayed there until I had to downshift. Lots of overlap between the ranges made this a practical proposition although I'd have liked a lower bottom speed for fly-cutters and slitting saws. But the corresponding drop in low range top speed would have enforced much more belt changing.

If the top speed in low range is only 1000 rpm you will not "keep it in low range all the time". Maybe do-able if you have 1,200 rpm available but my experience suggests that 1400, or even 1500 if bottom low doesn't become too high, is more the ticket. Smaller tooling will be running under-speed but but generally things will be tolerable.

As Dave says its matter of getting the compromises in the right place for what you do.

Clive

Edited By Clive Foster on 26/07/2019 21:26:53

Dave is right, slipping belts on a machine aimed at hobbyists is not a problem. At least it’s not for me as it’s not something that’s done that often. Changing speeds on my VMC is no bother at all.

My Chester 830VS is the model with the round ram which makes it very versatile. I agree price is a bit high but managed to negotiate a 10% discount and free delivery (maybe becuase I am very close to their warehouse) whhich helped. Speed range is continously variable 200-2250. I am planning to add a few more pulleys to give a very low speed option and a higher speed option but for 95% of my work the standard speed range is excellent. The machine is built in Taiwan, not mainland China and build quality is very good compared to other machines from Chester and Warco. Hence the higher price….

Vic,

just re-read my reply to you. it looks a bit curt…. my apologies for that. I asked for different perspectives and I got it! I do understand where both yourself and Dave are coming from and I totaly agree with you both and I certainly understand compromises have to be made…just trying to find the right combination I can live with.

I will try and explain my circumstances and my frustrations….

I am 62 now and have been retired early for medical reasons. I haven't got good private pensions and have a sum of money to eek out till I get my state pension. Because of my age and medical history I do not rate my chances of securing employment. So I do what a lot of people in this situation do – I try to turn a hobby into a small business to try and maintain a bit of income. The more money I spend on machines the more income I need…

I've always been fascinated by airguns and for years have harboured a dream of becoming a custom airgun maker….just never been able to get in the situation to do it! I've also always yearned for having my own workshop to enjoy doing model engineering projects – particularly a steam engine, but with kids and mortgages etc. never been able to do it. If I was making a model I would be happy to use basic machines etc. I've always loved overcoming problems and improvising which is the way of the model engineer…

I have one successful air rifle prototype made some years ago – the parts were made my brother who was in a position to do so at the time (He has now left engineering to do bespoke handmade furniture). This means I have to get parts made by expensive sub-contractors. Because of this I am over critical of all my designs, spending time trying to second guess everything and dotting the I's and crossing the T's. This has lead me to this point where I am going to build a workshop in the garden and equip with machines.

Once I arrive at a successful prototype I then have all the decisions of what to do with it. My preferred option – in mind of age and health (and because stress has been very damaging to me) is to tickle along making a few a year, as a bespoke item.

I realise that I have a foot in two camps.

I am trying to find machines suitable for a single phase supply and smaller size to fit in a garden workshop setting, but possibly forcing them into a small light production environment – and of course I want them to last me out! The biggest workshop I can get in I think is about 4m x 3m or 16' x 12'.

I keep alternating between Bridgeport size machines and Super Major size machines. I found a Bridgeport type Mill I really liked from Excel but they only do the longer 49" table. Whilst I might just get away with 42" table I think by the time I allow for access and table travels that's just too big! (and also a really big stretch on my budget! – a stretch too far I think.) I recall seeing a post on this forum where a chap had a Super Lux (I think) size machine then bought a Bridgeport and found it so much better to use with the larger table etc. Having used it he felt he couldn't go back to being without it, even though the smaller machine was perfectly capable of making the parts. I have been similarly spoilt. I suppose in an ideal world we would all have Bridgeports or similar…and of course it would be CNC….

So I then switch my thinking back to which machines (hobbyist) is nearest to what I need. I think I've narrowed it down to the 2 in my earlier post: lffogy's recommended Chester 830VS and Warco Super Major Vario, with a leaning towards the Warco offering for the reasons stated in that post.

I've only ever used Bridgeports, XYZ's etc. so know what I would be getting if I went that way. I really don't have any experience with these smaller machines, so really hoping that with the range of experience and knowledge on this forum you can help me, now you hopefully understand what I am trying to do.

My frustration was having thought I'd found that ideal compromise with a machine that appeared to bridge that gap – the Warco WM20 (Chester 836). It was totally spoilt – for me – by the choice of drive.

Whilst writing this I've just noticed a main difference between the Warco and Chester. Warco 100 – 3000 rpm (Inverter drive) which I know is split 100 to 1000rpm and 1000 to 3000rpm – which I had an issue with. Chester is 0-2000. Is there a Low range or is it completely variable between 0 and 2000rpm – I could certainly live with that!!!! I presume the fact that its starting speed is nought that implies NO back gear and infinitely variable…is this right??? – will ring Chester Monday.

Its also worth noting the 830VS is in the same price bracket (over £5000) as the 836, but the 836 (looks) a much sturdier machine – with sturdier table and Bridgeport like column – and again the 836 comes with 3 axis DRO and X power feed!! Suspect it comes down to better quality Korean made machine VS Chinese made with more features.

COULD REALLY DO WITH SOME HELP ON THIS GUYS….

Graham

Edited By Graham Williams 12 on 28/07/2019 13:47:29

Edited By Graham Williams 12 on 28/07/2019 13:49:46

Edited By Graham Williams 12 on 28/07/2019 13:55:12

Edited By Graham Williams 12 on 28/07/2019 14:02:58

Does it have a separate motor cooling fan?

Thanks for info Iffogy. Just thinking of a reply to you and realised there's something just not making sense here…apart from me that is. I'm going to ring Warco tomorrow to check the figures I have for the speed ranges…1000 rpm for the lowest speed in high just ain't sounding right.

Vic, good to hear from you and to talk with a fellow air gunner. When you mentioned Feinwekbau I thought you meant the earlier recoil-less spring guns where the whole action slid back to absorb recoil – like a artillery gun. Obviously a latter PCP. I presume you increased the pressure in the plenum chamber and/or increased the volume in said chamber and re-valved to get better flow?

Did you get up to 11.5 FPE?

My main area of interest has always been SSP (single stroke pneumatics) in particular one that will have an output of 11.5 FPE with a light weight gun and easy compact single cocking stroke. I have always believed this is possible…most believe its not, so a very interesting challenge!

My first attempt achieved about 9.5 FPE with one pump. Only about 20 lbs effort on a 300mm lever. This was an air conserving type, so only used a portion of the air in the reservoir, so had to be charged with about 10 pumps at the start of a session, thereafter just one pump to replenish after a shot. I then changed this to a 'dumper system' which as the name suggests dumps all the for a shot. I was not getting enough swept volume on this gun and on this particular prototype I had too many constraints to change it. So I made it a 2 stroke. Now takes 2 very easy pumps to achieve 11.5 FPE at muzzle.

A few years ago, Daystate – one of our premier airgun makers – undertook a similar project. Theirs could be pumped more times to give higher power for the American market. For the UK market obviously it was restricted to our legal limit of 12 FPE. The Americans didn't like it as the effort required on the large lever was very high….my information is that even for the UK version the effort required on the lever for the second pump was 60 lbf. This – as with all the other attempts – has been the downfall.

So, measured against this, I feel my MK1 is already a success….just desperate now to get the next one built – test rigs first though…

Unfortunately Vic, you've started me off on my favourite subject

Graham

Edited By Graham Williams 12 on 28/07/2019 22:56:34

Hi Vic…very interesting. On this gun, is all the air in the reg/valve used for each shot or is some air retained as in 'normal' PCP? I suppose unless there is a gauge – on the low pressure side – you increased the volume and then adjusted the hammer to get the power you want, so knowing that pressure drop after the shot was not relevant to you?

Also curious about the before and after accuracy – did the rifling spin rate of the 10m barrel still hold good at the higher velocity's?

Whereas I normally think our UK legal limit is OK, I do envy the Americans with their higher powered airguns. 900-950fps – just below the sound barrier – seems to be favourite for accuracy. The groups being achieved at say 100 yards are amazing.

So I presume you have took a rest from Field Target?

This – Field Target – is something I have often thought about, but never got involved in….so you might be able to give a view. Would it be possible to use a SSP instead of PCP? or would certain shooting positions (prone) make this difficult. Or even pumping between lanes….would 2 shots before re-pumping be OK? I suppose at the end of the day it would come down to why would you, when a PCP is so easy – just fill it and shoot. (I am talking an arrangement and compactness very similar to a side lever spring gun).

I must confess, I have always thought if you can overcome the problems with an SSP, it is the ideal power source – combining the self containment of a springer with the recoilless accuracy of SSP. I find PCP's boring after a short while and always preferred the self contained combination of muscle and air power….just gives me more satisfaction somehow. I used to do competitive archery (way too many hobbies) for a similar reason.

Graham

This all goes back several years Graham so I may not recall correctly. As far as I’m aware the FWB P700 ran with the reg pressure at about 60 bar which I think was the same as the Anschütz I had at the time. It dumps the whole reg volume on firing (as far as I know) As standard the reg volume is very small so I aimed (pun intended) to increase this as a starting point to 1cc. When I refitted the original reg body and valve I found another one in my box of bits so I obviously had two attempts at it! It’s interesting that the Anschütz I had (not modified by me) had a couple of holes drilled into the action adjacent to the reg to perform a similar function. Rather than pay double the price for a modified weapon folks at my old club started to import them direct from Germany and (carefully) drill their own holes! I’m not sure if any of this is that critical as there seems to be plenty of adjustment of the trigger/hammer. The main thing of course is to be able to get it to around or rather just under 12 FPE and get at least a couple of hundred shots out of the cylinder. I haven’t shot FT since I moved house about six years ago. People use all kinds of air rifles in FT so as long as it’s within the rules, no problem. I think someone in America managed to make a single shot pneumatic but it is/was difficult to cock? There are or were several designs out there which required a double compression of the air space. Hammerli used to make one years ago but it was only 6FPE. One of my favourite rifles which I sadly never got round to actually buying was the FWB 600 series. I’m not sure any of the 10M guns have barrels that really suit FT but some of the top shots get remarkable scores with them so maybe I’m wrong! The biggest problem with my FWB was that the barrel was a bit tight and heavily imprinted the pellets which I felt had an adverse effect in windy conditions. I tried smaller pellets but it effected the grouping.