Myford Lathe (what model?)

[glenParticipant @glen]

Hello All,

I acquired an old Myford lathe, most components appear to be ML7, but I am unsure about the exact model I have, i.e. The headstock on my lathe is not stock ML7.

I have looked for a serial No, but it appears it does not have one in the normal places, but it looks like the bed has been changed at some time.

The front spindle bearing cap has 4 fixing screws, not 2 like on ML7, the bearings are the white metal type.

I have attached some images for reference, thought it might interest some of the members

.

 

[Martin of WickParticipant @martinofwick]

Strange, an ML7 but not as we know it, might be a very early head. My 1948 version is two bolt.

Have you looked for a SNo. or remains of,  on the back of rear shear, right up at the tailstock end? If the bed has been reground more than once, SNo. might have been ground out! v. faint on mine after 1 regrind.

[Brian WoodParticipant @brianwood45127]

ML7’s were widely copied, this may be one of those. Having said that it may be quite satisfactory, the front bearing looks to be in good shape and is perhaps a little more generous in bearing area than the genuine thing.

Take a look at http://www.lathes.co.uk    Tony Griffiths lists and shows some of the clones that were produced, there could be clues there.

Regards   Brian

[Nigel BennettParticipant @nigelbennett69913]

Fascinating! It looks from the tailstock to be an early model ML7, but the front headstock bearing is very different! Out of interest, does it have 65 teeth on the bullwheel?

I can’t imagine it not being a pukka Myford; it’s got too many genuine-looking bits on it, and it looks far too old for it to be a clone.

Whatever it is – enjoy it!

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Interesting.
It has helicoil inserts in the main part which is not standard. It also looks like a hole in the center may hve been filled. I wonder if it is a repair for badly stripped Threads? The top cap being machined to provide space for two bolts each side. The cast boss for the oiler looks standard. Any sign of filled holes in the cap?
It’s a very neat job if it is.

Robert.

[glenParticipant @glen]

I looked for a serial No in the places show in the ML7 manual, but there is no signs of one, but the bed is in good condition so it may have been changed or ground.

[glenParticipant @glen]

The Bullwheel has 65 teeth, I needed to change it, teeth missing, managed to pick up the gears (ML7) from the Stafford Classic Motorbike show in April, that’s what made me curious about the model. The bearings are in good condition but the 4 front bearing cap screw holes have helicoils fitted. I cannot see any signs of a replaced hole in the center of the two screws front and back of cap.

 

Best Regards,

Glen

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

Wonder if its an early capstan, the big headstock bearing there for taking the constant use of a cut off slide?

[ChrisLHParticipant @chrislh]

The bolts nearest the chuck are more widely spaced than those to the rear. Option for ML Super 7 tapered bearing ?

[Martin of WickParticipant @martinofwick]

Definitely a different headstock casting to standard ML7, the measurement of the front bearing carrier is shown as just under 40mm. On my ’48 vintage, the measurement at the same location is 35mm.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

My curiosity got the better of me while I was fiddling in the shed this afternoon. Measured up my 1957 ML7 by comparison.

It measures 41.3mm (bang on 1-5/8″) across the raised bosses that stick out from the bearing cap, which puts it pretty close to what your whole cap measures.

My bearing shell itself measures 50.7mm (2.00″) from end to end. Maybe you could measure yours and see if it is the same. My bet is that it is the same bearing, but your headstock casting and bearing cap extend out to the full width of the bearing, rather than being a narrower cap like mine with raised edges to meet the bearing width.

 

I wonder if you have a very early machine, or even a prototype, that was originally designed with the superior wide 4-bolt caps, which were then cut back to two-bolt caps as a cost-saving measure?

It’s a shame they did not all come with the four-bolt wider bearing cap. It is a much more solid arrangement. Using only two piddly little 5/16 BSW cap screws with a core diameter of just 1/4″ is begging for flex under load. I believe that is why Myfords part off much better with an inverted tool that pushes the cutting forces downwards onto the solid headstock casting. Non-inverted parting tool puts the cutting forces upwards onto those two piddly little 5/16 screws and the narrow bearing cap. They will stretch and distort under heavy load, moving enough to allow an extra few thou of bearing clearance, which leads to chatter etc.

You may have the best of the ML7s right there.

[glenParticipant @glen]

Yes my bearing measures 2in, cannot see any signs of filling in the base casting, suggesting it never had 2 fixing so I guess it left the factory with a 4 screw cap, but other than that it’s all standard ML7. Thanks for all the comment. Glen.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Interesting. Same bearing but bigger cap with 4 screws. You might have an early prototype — priceless relic!

It looks like your headstock casting is wider to match the wider four-screw cap, so as you say must have left the factory like that.

Very odd that they would go to the bother of thinning down the casting for the two-screw cap later on. You would not think it would save that much material and machining time. But I guess it was post-war austerity times.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

This mystery puts Glen’s Myford in the same class as the Antikythera mechanism.  We might never know the whys and wherefores!  Three possibilities spring to mind:

• It’s early production, and Myford spotted an opportunity to cut costs.   (If so, they were right to do so because gazillions of happy Myford owners never noticed they’d been trimmed! )
• A customer needed extra rigidity and ordered a special.
• The machine is a mixture, perhaps fixed using real parts from one of Myford’s not for hobbyist machines, like a Capstan lathe.  Bernard tuned me to into this possibility: ‘Wonder if its an early capstan, the big headstock bearing there for taking the constant use of a cut off slide?’  The ever wonderful lathes.co.uk has a section on Myford Special and Capstan Lathes.

Didn’t look for an match for Glen’s headstock in the many photos on Tony’s site, but this special caught  my eye’:

Only one example known, it’s a 5′ long bed Myford Super 7B.   Why?  We shall never know!

Dave

 

 

 

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Non of the pictures of special and capstan Myfords show a four-screw bearing cap like that. Looks like they were simply a standard ML7 with the production attachments.

You have to wonder about the five foot bed model though! Why not just get a bigger lathe? Look how solid that long bed is. Can’t have been cheap.

[Author]

Posts