I prefer the Clarkson method. The only time I left a small gap between the sleeve nut and chuck body I shattered the endmill, at the screwed end. I assume this was because, as the sleeve nut wasn’t fully home, the collet was not at the top of the endmill. As the cutter rotated slightly under the cutting loads the centre in the chuck split the top of the endmill as there was no support from the collet to resist the forces.
If the cutter is properly home the depth of cut shouldn’t change as the cutter tightens slightly. The sequence as I see it is as follows. If the cutter turns (tightens) slightly under cutting loads it cannot move upwards because of the centre in the chuck. Instead the thread causes the collet to move down slightly into the taper on the sleeve body. Hence the collet grips the cutter more tightly.
As a proviso, and I might be talking nonsense, I’ve never used the old Clarkson ‘C’ style chucks, only the newer ‘S’ types. However I did recently make a new hardened and ground centre for a Clarkson ‘C’ style chuck for a friend, so I’ve had a good look at them.
Regards,
Andrew