Is this QCTP any good?

[Sonic EscapeParticipant @sonicescape38234]

I’m looking for a 12-15mm tool post for my lathe and I found this. But the price is suspiciously small for so many toolholders. Anybody had any experience with these? I have the same style of tool holders on my big industrial lathe and the are great. But they were made in Italy and are way more expensive.

 

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

No experience of said QCTP, but very cheap items originating in India would make me very wary. There is some excellent kit made in India, but the quality is reflected in the asking price.

Andrew.

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

I liked these style of toolholders when I worked in industry and had little problems with them. But these far east knock offs are not made to the same degree of accuracy. I had quite a collection of these budget toolholders in my garage for hobby use but they were not the best, poorly made and the clamping was a bit iffy so sold them on and bought a wedge style tool post and holders which I’m happy with.

In short the deal sounds good but I would walk away!

Tony

[Bo’sunParticipant @bosun58570]

It could be a bit of a gamble.  While it resembles a Dickson type QCTP, it’s very unlikely to be made to the same tolerances.  The supplied tool holders may well fit the toolpost, but can you get spare tool holders, and will they also fit?  I have what may be a similar QCTP from Warco and it works well, apart from variability in the clamping of a couple of tool holders to the post.  I was able to remedy this with some thin strips of shim steel “JB welded” in the tool holder slot.  Also, While there are other similar inexpensive QCTP’s out there, they’re unlikely to be interchangeable.

[cedric 1Participant @cedric]

If you can afford to lose that money, take a gamble on it.

Some of those cheap QCTP sets are made of aluminium, not steel. Yes it says they are hardened, but hardened what? Verify with the seller before rolling the dice.

[DiogenesParticipant @diogenes]

FWIW the ‘wedge-type’ toolpost systems don’t suffer the same problem because of the way the holders are located on the leading dovetail face and locked against the flat ‘backs’ by a tapered gib – so any holder that is even ‘close’ will fit, lock, and repeat to the same position.

[Ex contributorParticipant @mgnbuk]

I have that style of QCTP on both a Myford S7 & a Warco GH600. Both work fine.

The Myford arrangment came from Myford Spares Counter when they were still the original company. Other holders have come from different Ebay sellers at different times – all fit the Myford post fine.

The next size up system on the Warco came from an Ebay seller & is probably of Indian origin. This too is fine & holders from 3 different sources fit without issues. I had to bore out the toolpost on this to fit over a boss on the compound slide & it was very hard (used a CBN insert – which gave it’s life in the process, but did the job).

Based on my experience I would go for it. The Dickson system is proven (used several genuine Dickson TPs when working – all good). If you buy from a repuatable platform you will have redress should the supplied items prove unsuitable – though that is probably unlikely.

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

Although often accused of being over-constrained the Dickson style toolpost and holders are remarkably tolerant of dimensional errors. Especially in the context of grinding where close and accurate work is the whole point.

Security of location requires only that the Vees on both components are parallel whilst sufficiently similar in angle and spacing to an achieve two line and one point or, better three line, contact over three faces. It’s clearly best if the Vees are perpendicular to the base but small angles off will not matter if parallelism is maintained.

The problem with the design is that, as Boson found out, all the tolerance margin transfers to the inner face of the clamping slot on the toolholder. Basically when the holder is pulled up against the Vees by the locking tongue the angle of the actuating “cam” system has to be within the self locking range of the mechanism. From a production point of view it’s probably not ideal to have the most critical dimension not only hardest to make but also present on every toolholder. However I seem to recall seeing many years ago claims the the self locking angle range of the actuator on a Dickson T2 series post is of the order of 20° corresponding to maybe 50 tho’ / 1 mm (ish) of locking tongue movement. I did vaguely check this with my Dickson & Rapid Original tool posts and motley collection of industrial standard holders of various makes finding a worst case spanner angle variation of maybe 5° when locked.

So I guess it’s not so unreasonably difficult after all to maintain tolerances if reasonable care in manufacture is taken. Setting up to grind the Vees is pretty trivial. Back in the days when economy range tooling was notoriously variable in quality, “Customer Paid, Passed QC” being an unfortunately real thing, it was said that you should order all the tool holders you’d ever need at the same time as the post. The assumption being that even a low end supplier would be sufficiently consistent over a single batch for everything to fit and work together. Batch to batch and supplier to supplier variations being a whole n’other thing. But as Bosun shows rectification of the common error isn’t unreasonably difficult.

An important and often overlooked issue is the fit of the height setting thimble bottom ring in the groove of the locking device “nut”. This must have both vertical and radial clearance when locked. Playing round with my industrial standard ones I noticed that some combinations lacked such clearance preventing the holder from seating properly on the post. Which explained the four or five which didn’t seem to be secure as I thought they should be. Closer inspection revealed the vital clue that two had bent adjusting studs where a previous user had tried to force them into positions. A bit of work on the relevant bottom rings and replacement of the studs restored proper operation on all combinations. I suspect this issue may have been quite prevalent when mixing and matching at the economy end of the market as its easily overlooked. I only noticed the problem due to going hard into “Stuffitt, I’m gonna fix it” mode in the expectation that industrial standard meant that all combinations should “just work”.

Possibly the nicest feature of the Dickson style is the ease of pulling it apart to get the innards really clean. Important as my experience is that they aren’t very tolerant of fine swarf inside.

Clive

[Sonic EscapeParticipant @sonicescape38234]

I know that style of QCTP is fine. I have a large industrial lathe that is using it. I was more interested if those Indian clones are any good.

[cedric 1]

On cedric 1 Said:

If you can afford to lose that money, take a gamble on it.

Some of those cheap QCTP sets are made of aluminium, not steel. Yes it says they are hardened, but hardened what? Verify with the seller before rolling the dice.

I recently made a gamble with a cheap belt and lost. I don’t know if I should stop or not 🙂

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

I believe that the ones sold by Warco, RDG and Chronos are all the same Indian origin. I have had a Chronos one fitted to my Boxford for the last 20 years with no problems. Some of my holders are from Warco, some from RDG, some from eBay. They all work together, all have been fine.

Obviously its not as nice as a Dickson or Bison, but with a bit of deburring perfectly usable.

[Chris CrewParticipant @chriscrew66644]

A few years ago I bought six additional tool-holders of the ‘Dickson’ type from Rotagrip in Birmingham. I was told at the time they were of Turkish origin. I can’t say whether this was true or not but they are of satisfactory quality with a nice ground finish, but you can tell they I are not the ‘real deal’ which has ‘niggled’ me ever since. I should have purchased the OEM items.

[Hollowpoint]

On Hollowpoint Said:

 

Obviously its not as nice as a Dickson or Bison, but with a bit of deburring perfectly usable.

Forgot to mention that, but I agree.  Only to be expected I guess for budget tooling.  The ones I have are extremely hard!

[Bo’sun]

On Bo’sun Said:

On Hollowpoint Said:

 

Obviously its not as nice as a Dickson or Bison, but with a bit of deburring perfectly usable.

Forgot to mention that, but I agree.  Only to be expected I guess for budget tooling.  The ones I have are extremely hard!

Yes, very hard and very sharp around the edges. I always deburr new ones with diamond stone. Saves my skin!

[howardbParticipant @howardb]

These OCTP toolposts and tool holders are visually identical to the set I have fitted to my S7 which I bought from RGD tools – even down to the custom wrench, and they have been absolutely first class, no problems whatsoever.

https://www.rdgtools.co.uk/product/genuine-myford-quick-change-toolpost-78175/

[peak4Participant @peak4]

When I bought my Warco 720 (Super 7B clone), it came with two of these toolposts and 8 holders; they are often supplied as a bolck + 4 holders.
All work fine for me.
I then bought a couple of spare holders from the company which briefly re-started manufacturing them after pausing supplying to Myford themselves. They didn’t fit very well, and can only be made to lock by changing the pulling piston.
I then borrowed an original genuine Dickson one from a friend, which locks fine, implying that the extra pair I bought were out of spec.
Subsequently I’ve added several more holders, including extended nose ones, all of which lock OK, but in slightly different positions of the handle, so lightly different measurements.

I see that the ones you’ve listed above have two sets left; If you can afford it, I’d be tempted to buy both, as you will then end up with lots of tool holders which should match both toolposts.
N.B. The search I did shows a 13 piece set, block +12 holders; your photo shows less holders, so check your adverts & descriptions carefully, the same ad I found, claims 13 piece, but shows photos of 13, 10 & 5 piece sets, though the description is for 13.

My own second toolpost block, either lives on my genuine Myford, or is mounted on a raising block as a rear toolpost, with inverted tools in the holders.
e.g. for a batch of something, I can turn to diameter with the front tool, and chamfer with the rear one.

Bill

[Author]

Posts