Ahhh, no mill. That does indeed complicate things.

Pete

Stick in your 4 jaw, and face the 2mm off. Or fixture it to your faceplate. Easy peasy

Grotto,

You do not need a milling machine for this job. Just mount the rear tool post sideways on the cross slide bottom face to the headstock and clamp it firmly ensuring it is square to the lathe axis. Check this by putting the face plate on and bring the bottom of the rear tool post firmly against it and tighten up. Then use a simple fly cutter (easily made) either in the 3 jaw or mounted on the face plate to remove the required amount of metal. It would be wise to take a bit more off than is calculated as the parting tool can easily be shimmed to get it at the best possible position.

The fact that a Myford 7 can be used for a lot of simple milling jobs like this explains why they have remained popular with "lathe only" owners over many decades.

File one side and pack the other to maintain the clamping effect.

Martin

I think the problem is caused by the fact the insert blade cuts at a lower (or when flipped higher) point compared to a HSS blade. As a temporary measure you could get a HSS blade while you figure out how to fit the carbide one in.

Wrong tool for the toolholder, not the toolholder,s fault.

I don't think it's the wrong tool for the job Ian H – it looks exactly the same as my RTP set-up in fact.

Grotto – I'd first ask the supplier to check their stock and see if the replacement was going to be any better.

Easy enough to do – just measure from the bottom of the tool holder block to the lower edge of the tool slot and ask them to do the same on one of their stock items. If the two are the same – then there is not much point in sending for a replacement. If theirs is measurably shorter – then you have a duff item and should just replace it.

If the replacement is going to have the same problem, then (in your circumstances) I'd ask for my money back.

The base will be hard for you to machine without a mill or shaper because of the T-slot extension..

One solution would be to just machine (fly-cut) the whole base flat and then replace the extension after machining with a bolt-on replacement piece but it's a lot of extra faffing around.

"Lowering the lip" will also make the slot wider and then you may not be able to grip the insert holder securely enough. The lip also has a small dovetail machined in it that (without a mill) you may find difficult to machine, not least because it's on the lathe's centre line (or in your case – just above it).

Replace it or just send it back in my view.

Regards,

IanT

Why send anything back. Their is no manufacturing fault in either the toolpost or the parting tool. It is the bringing together of the two parts that has created the problem. Engineering is all about bringing bit together.

If you were in the South east, i would happily bung the toolpost, or parting tool holder on my mill and do the job for you. Im sure you would find someone at you local model club equally ameanable to do a quick job for you. We are a friendly bunch really.

I agree, although it's three parts as you have to include the lathe in all this. It seems daft to me to expect to buy something like this and have it be exactly on height. After all, shimming ordinary toolbits is SOP.

And is it really that difficult to do? A lick on a belt sander for the bottom of the parting tool, and a quick file of the equivalent area and base of the toolpost should get it really close and take about as much time as you'd spend reading these posts.

Is there an alternative make of inserted bit parting tool that is at the same level as the top of the tool?