CAMLOCK D1-4 VS FLANGE FITTING CHUCK MOUNT, ADVISE PLEASE

[steve lyonsParticipant @stevelyons28298]

Hi.

I have just sold my super7 as I am needing a bigger machine, I am sure you are aware the super 7 used screw on chucks.

On investigating other lathe options I am coming across these two options for chuck mount CAMLOCK D1-4 and FLANGE MOUNT.

Having looked on u tube and some forums I am favouring the D1-4,system, as people are talking about the flange fitting being a bit awkward, and causing scraped knuckles, can anyone please advise me, am I doing the flange mount system a disservice by favouring the D!-4 system.

I do change chucks reguarly so would like to plumb for the most suitable and accurate system..

thanks in advance. steve

[steve lyonsParticipant @stevelyons28298]

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

D1-4 will be easier than faffing about with nuts and washers behind a flange particularly difficult when mounting a faceplate

[Chris Evans 6Participant @chrisevans6]

D1-4 every time. Don't even consider any other method.

[John RuddParticipant @johnrudd16576]

Posted by Chris Evans 6 on 19/06/2017 15:13:53:

D1-4 every time. Don't even consider any other method.

Yup what he said….

My SPG lathe is fitted with such an arrangement……despite being cheaper than the competition…

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

I love my flange dearly but +1 for camlock. Fussing with nuts takes so much time.

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

My Boxford only uses a lowly D1-3, but the same principle, as others have said, it makes chuck changing easy peasy

[Gary WoodingParticipant @garywooding25363]

Don't even think about any other system – camlock wins every time.

[SteamgeekParticipant @steamgeek]

Camlock everytime, word of caution the imported back plates are generally of poor quality for the fit and finish of the locking pins. I search out secondhand backplates much better quality and generally a better price

[Thor 🇳🇴Participant @thor]

I wish my 290 lathe had a Camlock mount and not the flange mount.

Thor

[Andrew EvansParticipant @andrewevans67134]

I have d1-3 and it is excellent and very robust. I guess the one possible downside is that new chucks with that fitting would tend to be aimed at industry and priced accordingly – just a guess.

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

D1-3 backplates are available from Warco and RDG for £43-63. Not something you'd want to make yourself at that price.

Murray

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Depending on if the flange mount is just a flange mount with loose nuts or the DIN???? Series with the keyhole fitting where the chuck is fitted with studs and nuts on that just require a quick nip up. They are actually a taper fit of 7 degrees something, the same as the D1-3 and D1-4

I have used both and much prefer the keyhole flange type.
It’s a positive lock and not just relying in 3 pins in a wedging action.
I had had D1-4 and D1-6 chucks come loose under heavy interrupted cuts.
They also have less overhang that D series as they don’t need the pot bit of the spindle.

I think the Warco 290 late has the keyhole fitting

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

The Din 55027 Bayonet ring style fitting is equivalent to the camlock series and, arguably, ought to be less costly. Same short alignment taper as the camlock but uses stud and nut fixings passing through the both the flange and a rotatable ring behind it. Ring has keyhole shaped slots. Spindle flange has holes a reasonable fit on the stud bodies. Nuts and threads are undersize relative to the studs so the nut can pass through the hole in the flange and the round part of the keyhole in the bayonet ring. Narrow part of keyhole slot is reasonable fit on the threaded portion of the stud so the nut can be tightened up against the ring holding all firmly in place.

Around half a turn of the nut is sufficient to release the bayonet ring allowing it to be turned so as to bring the round part of the keyhole slots into alignment with the hole in the flange so the chuck and be withdrawn. The nuts stay on the studs.

Sir John S has posted that this system is just as fast, maybe faster, than a camlock mount. Makes you wonder why the camlock became the norm as the bayonet ring system appears to be simpler, needs fewer precise parts and has all components pulled up solid. The adjustment process requires that camlock studs always be loose on their threads.

Possibilities for retrofitting a bayonet ring onto a plain stud and nut flange fitting were discussed on another thread not long ago. Final opinion was that it ought to be practical unless the machine dimensions seriously constrained the space behind the flange.

Clive

Talk of the devil.  John posted whilst I was typing.

Edited By Clive Foster on 19/06/2017 18:51:46

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Yes the last Warco 290 I saw had the keyhole ring. However I don't know if they use the 7deg short taper or a parallel stub. Much like the far eastern lathes use the parallel stub on the flange mount but the likes of EMCO use a 7deg DIN stub with their flange mount.

If it is the parallel mount and as good a fit as the flange fitting then it won't be as quick to remove and replace chucks as it would with a short taper as they are very tight.

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by Muzzer on 19/06/2017 18:38:47:

D1-3 backplates are available from Warco and RDG for £43-63. Not something you'd want to make yourself at that price.

Murray

.

Been there.! Bought them.!

Cam lock backplates in that price bracket are fit for door stops and nothing else IMHO.

The cheap one I bought never goes back twice the same. So it is mounting an independent 4 jaw chuck so not a problem.

Nick

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

Haha, thanks for the warning – I've not needed any myself yet. The last new chuck I bought (HBC) came with Camlock D1-3 as std. Presumably this also reduced the overhang too.

Murray

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

Last D1-4 backplate I got was an import from Chester maybe 20 – 25 years back. OK on a SouthBend Heavy 10 but on my Smart & Brown 1024 the lock cam angles are bit precarious. Only goes on in one position if all the cams are to be within the specified quarter-past to half-past quadrant. Fortunately thats the best run-out position so she will do. Positions were a bit variable on the Heavy 10 but not that extreme so it could be used at all positions. Factory Smart & Brown backplates are easily within 10°. Kicking myself for not doing a backplate swop when the SouthBend went out and the Smart & Brown came in as I kept the good chuck that was on the Chester backplate and let the quite good chuck which came with the Smart & Brown go with the SouthBend.

Odd thing about that backplate is that small depressions have appeared on the previously pristine machined surfaces over the last decade or so. My shop is dry as a bone with no rust problem.

Clive.

[mechman48Participant @mechman48]

Go for the D1 – 4 / camlock versions, I would have preferred my WM250 to have had this type of fitting rather than the flanged fitting. I changed the nut & washer arrangement to flanged nuts, makes it a bit easier to change chucks, but still have to fumble, these versions of Chinese machines all could do with another 8 – 10 mm clearance behind the flange.

​George.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

If you are trying to decide between lathes in the 290 ranges then you may also want to look at the Boxford 280 in the classifieds, fractionally smaller spindle bore at 35mm and the slightly smaller D1-3 mount

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by JasonB on 20/06/2017 08:08:33:

If you are trying to decide between lathes in the 290 ranges then you may also want to look at the Boxford 280 in the classifieds, fractionally smaller spindle bore at 35mm and the slightly smaller D1-3 mount

.

I saw that advert also and have one of the 280's sisters in the form of a STS 10 20. The 280 listed looks to be a nice machine at a fair price. (some sellers on ebay want silly money for them)

Nick

[David Standing 1Participant @davidstanding1]

The 280 is of course mine. Not trying a shameless plug, it will sell itself.

(Jason, if you are not happy with this post, I'm fine if you want to delete it).

The modern (X10 series) Boxfords don't seem to have as good a following as the earlier UD's, for reasons I have never been able to fathom.

Designed by the same person that designed the Harrison M300 (try finding a nice one of those at sensible money!), the Boxford X10's struggle to make more than £2,000, unless they are very late models (Boxford still make them of course, an advantage where parts are concerned).

The ones on eBay nudging £3,000 won't sell in a million years.

I am upgrading (I didn't know that a week ago lol), so I just bought a fairly rare model off eBay – a Boxford 330 in the 1000mm between centres bed length. Owned by a school, it was basically never used. I paid just £2,200 for it.

Unfortunately I have a 450 mile round trip to Liverpool in a rattly hire van to go pick it up tomorrow .

An equivalent Myford 254 is similar, but only has a 25mm spindle bore, and the average one will probably command £1,000 more than an X10 Boxford, for no good reason.

As I said, it isn't a plug, following up on Jason's post the X10 Boxfords are a lot of lathe for not much money.

Edited By David Standing 1 on 20/06/2017 10:35:02

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Random observation, mini-lathes have a flange mount, if you do the roller bearing conversion it gives you about 5mm extra finger room which makes a huge difference.

Neil

[steve lyonsParticipant @stevelyons28298]

Thanks for all the replies, I now have a much better understanding of the two systems.

steve.

[Author]

Posts