1979 Myford Super 7B tool post stud

Advert

New Replies

Report Bug

Help/FAQs

1979 Myford Super 7B tool post stud

This topic has 12 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 24 January 2017 at 21:54 by John Stevenson 1.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

Author

Posts
23 January 2017 at 23:14 #279788
RichardN
Participant
@richardn
I am currently using my fathers 1979 Super7B, and endeavouring to add a few nice touches to it, such as a locking handle for the tool post stud, saddle clamp etc.

Fairly new to the whole engineering lark, but have metric and BSW/BSF Moore & Wright thread pitch gauges, and came to the conclusion the tool post stud was 7/16" BSF 24 tpi. Ground a 55deg internal threading tool and cut a neat blind nut as a handle- but when speaking to Myford Ltd at Alexandra Palace I was told he had never seen a toolpost stud that wasn't 7/16" UNF, he had no idea why but understood Myford are/were very good at mixing threads around.

Should this stud be 7/16" BSF, 7/16" UNF, something different, or could it be almost anything…? Anyone any thoughts? Does the 55deg vs 60deg thread pitch angle worry/offend others as much as me?!

I would add a picture of the handle I have made, but a ball turning tool is a way down my to do list and other people's knobs put mine to shame…
Advert

23 January 2017 at 23:14 #12871
RichardN
Participant
@richardn
Myford Super 7B tool post stud size query
23 January 2017 at 23:30 #279791
John Stevenson 1
Participant
@johnstevenson1
7/16" BSF, you are correct.

The NEW Myford still have a lot to learn.
23 January 2017 at 23:34 #279792
mechman48
Participant
@mechman48
… 'and other people's knobs put mine to shame'…

Oooh Richard, you are awful … Matron bring the bed pan!

Realistically you could make the tool post stud whatever thread you like, these days metric wouldn't go amiss although I'm sure Myford pedants would argue the toss. I made a new post stud for my WM250 when I installed a Dickson clone QC tool post I made a new stud with a 10mm thread… no difference what so ever in clamping effect, the choice is yours, Mind you Myfords were not the only ones to mix threads around, the Chinese are very good at it, metric lathe with imperial bolt threads here & there

George.
23 January 2017 at 23:40 #279793
RichardN
Participant
@richardn
So would you guess this is wrongly labelled, a later differing thread, or just a special stud of unknown origin?

**LINK**

I'm debating with myself cutting both UNF and BSF sample threads to compare fit with the original tool post nut, and possibly teaching myself the mystical three wire thread measuring system which seems like multi handed black magic to me…
23 January 2017 at 23:49 #279797
Gordon A
Participant
@gordona
I bought a new toolpost stud from the original Myford some years ago and it was definitely 7/16 BSF. Maybe the new Myford have changed the specification.

Gordon.
23 January 2017 at 23:59 #279800
Michael Gilligan
Participant
@michaelgilligan61133
Posted by RichardN on 23/01/2017 23:40:54:

So would you guess this is wrongly labelled, a later differing thread, or just a special stud of unknown origin?

**LINK**

.

Richard,

A couple of points:
1. The part you linked to is a stud & nut pair, and therefore questions of interchangeability are largely irrelevant.
2. 'NEW' Myford is now the manufacturer, and [as ever] is free to introduce 'product improvements'.
MichaelG.
24 January 2017 at 06:49 #279812
RichardN
Participant
@richardn
Thanks for the responses- sounds like the consensus is the original stud was BSF but modern versions have changed, without any impact on usefulness- I shall soldier on with the BSF handle then!
24 January 2017 at 08:35 #279822
Neil Wyatt
Moderator
@neilwyatt
I suspect that back in 1946-ish Myford just used whatever sizes were suitable and already in stock – their aim was an economy machine and it was a time of shortage. That will have led to a few odd sizes and inconsistencies. Also a lot of the dimensions were set by jigs, not measurement.

Neil
24 January 2017 at 09:37 #279831
Michael Gilligan
Participant
@michaelgilligan61133
Posted by Neil Wyatt on 24/01/2017 08:35:22:

I suspect that back in 1946-ish Myford just used whatever sizes were suitable and already in stock – their aim was an economy machine and it was a time of shortage. That will have led to a few odd sizes and inconsistencies. Also a lot of the dimensions were set by jigs, not measurement.

Neil

.

Neil,

What you say may well have an element of truth, but I'm struggling to see its relevance to the item in question.

MichaelG.
24 January 2017 at 10:20 #279841
Swarf, Mostly!
Participant
@swarfmostly
I trained and worked as an electronics engineer starting in 1954 but had contact with things mechanical. As has been quoted several times on this forum, the then applicable British Standard Specification (aka 'BSS' ) specified BSF for threads 1/4" diameter or larger (exceptions for castings – BSW) and BA for threads smaller than 1/4" diameter. My ML7 complies with that BSS.

Incidentally, the thread on the right-hand end of the ML7 lead-screw is also 7/16" BSF.

I just had a skim view of a couple of the ML7 exploded diagrams and parts lists on the Myford web-site, the only exception to BSF &/or BA I found was BSP – the washer for the drip-feed head-stock oiler! By the way, all those exploded diagrams and parts lists are down-loadable JPEGs, very useful to have on one's computer for ready reference.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Swarf, Mostly!

edited to insert a space between the ' and the ) to kill the spurious smiley!

Edited By Swarf, Mostly! on 24/01/2017 10:22:08
24 January 2017 at 21:31 #279984
RichardN
Participant
@richardn
Lots of useful comments- off topic responses appreciated too- useful to understand why things are as they are sometimes too! Will be checking out those parts diagrams…
24 January 2017 at 21:54 #279990
John Stevenson 1
Participant
@johnstevenson1
Posted by Michael Gilligan on 24/01/2017 09:37:11:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 24/01/2017 08:35:22:

I suspect that back in 1946-ish Myford just used whatever sizes were suitable and already in stock – their aim was an economy machine and it was a time of shortage. That will have led to a few odd sizes and inconsistencies. Also a lot of the dimensions were set by jigs, not measurement.

Neil

.

Neil,

.What you say may well have an element of truth, but I'm struggling to see its relevance to the item in question.

MichaelG.

.

In 1946 UNF would not have been popular, especially with a firm entrenched in the 1930's

Edited By John Stevenson on 24/01/2017 21:54:40
Author

Posts