If you put "warco wm250" in the search box at the top right of the page and send it this will bring a result inviting you to view all Forum entries. This will give you 20 previous threads to look at. That's a start!

As mentioned by Robbo above…

Have a look at for another avenue…

**LINK**

​George.

And this will allow you to search for magazine back issues which you wanted rather then forum posts.

In your searches don't be too tight on the specific model, certainly not the final V. Look also at Warco lathes in general, then find the equivalent model for Chester and look for that too. Plus in looking for titles they might have used a vague title like 'what I did today' so it isn't as all encompassing as google.

There is also the fact that a modification or accessory could be fitted to more than one machine so may not have actually mentioned the WM250 in the title.

I started with a mini-lathe. They're more basic than a WM250V, and early models at least benefited from after work like polishing or fitting brass gibs and removing burrs etc. They don't have a saddle lock, or stop; some had dubious electronics, not everyone is comfy with plastic gears, and headstock bearings can be upgraded to tapers etc. In consequence of their simplicity there's much interest in tweaking and accessorising them.

Could be that less is written about modding WM250 & family because this group of machines is markedly more capable. There's no particular need to improve them. A.N.Other suggests fitting a 3-phase motor – good advice except recent WM250Vs already have one, so you don't need to bother!

I'd use it and see if any shortcomings jump out. Most of the published advice on using lathes would apply to the WM250; as far as I know it doesn't have any peculiar limitations or special features.

Enjoy!

Dave

I worked through most of the 70s on Wyverns, (big) Binns & Berrys, Elliotts, Colchesters and Harrisons.

I never thought much of Myfords when I was doing it for pay – primarily because they were so small and simple, and had no feed- or screwcutting gearbox – but developed a bit more respect for their simplicity and robustness when I got my own Speed 10.

When I changed it for my WM250V that was much nearer to the industrial centre lathes I'd worked on. True, for each change gear setup only 3 feed or thread pitches were available – but it did powered crossfeed, usable for milling in the vertical slide as well as facing, and you could reverse feed direction. Changing speed didn't involve shifting belts. And the 3-jaw chuck, gripping true within about a thou or less on the standard jaws over most of its range, is I think the best I've used anywhere.

Chief niggle to me is the grim business of chuck changing – three nuts with very little fiddle-room and needing a steel flat to be interposed against the headstock casing to force off whichever 's in place. 3-jaw is quite legitimately a tighter fit than the 4-jaw. This makes me a little unwilling to do it – as much as anything else from fear of getting a bit of swarf trapped where it'll spoil the 3-jaw's concentricity.

Overall I think it'll do whatever I need. Haven't yet decided whether I can get by without a milling machine; I do a lot of milling in the (Myford swivel) vertical slide, and I've got occasional access to a Bridgeport clone, and – again from the 70s – it's a type I'm very familiar with.

+1…'A few mm more clearance between the flange and the headstock would have been a good idea'… The amount of choice adjectives I've come out with when changing chucks is unbelievable … ' Oh dear another 10 mm clearance would be beneficial'… or words to that effect.

George.

Think some confusion has crept in here:- Mick B1 notes that he changed to a WM250V, and goes on to talk about the difficulty of changing chucks – that access to the three retaining nuts is difficult. There seems to be some confusion there – as far as I am aware, the chuck retained by nuts is the smaller 7×10 chinese lathe, not the larger WM250 or 9×20.

I have both a WM250 variant, and a version of the smaller 7×10 'chinese' lathes. On my WM250 (commonly known as a 9×20), the chuck is retained by a thread – it simply screws on, and a setscrew is used to prevent it 'unwinding'. There were even two tommy bars in the toolkit to remove chucks. I have never seen a 9×20 with a chuck retained by nuts – perhaps Mick B1 has a 'one-off'!

The smaller 7×10 uses three nuts to retain the chuck. The chuck fits against a flange, and three studs pass through that, and nuts have to be fitted to retain the chuck. The difficulty is that the flange is very close to the headstock casting, and there is not much room to get the nuts in or out. Mick also notes that he has to use some force to get the chuck off. Mine is a close fit, but I don't have to force it. I guess this is probably due to the quality/cost of the machine.

SoDs remarks about the 7×10 are relevant. I would add that there is tons of stuff on the Internet about modding both the 7×10 and the 9×20. I also would say that, having started with the 7×10 and moved onto the bigger 9×20, I wish I had started with the 9×20! – it is so much better that it is hardly worth the trouble of looking at the 7×10, unless cost is a factor.

I think it is worth pointing out that the Warco 250/280 etc, are based on a German Wabeco design, and these are not the same machine as the "9×20" – e.g. Warco 918 and Chester 920, which are based on an Austrian Emco design. The general layout is similar, but they are certainly not identical or interchangeable.