What's new
What's new

1943 Reed Prentice Lathe

CooperSmithingCo

Aluminum
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Location
Auburn, WA
8163159280_aa4c7a1f35_c.jpg8163127697_5393bd9e71_c.jpg8163127615_4e4629fbdf_c.jpg8163127535_10f22619c2_c.jpg

Hi, I just purchased this lathe, but have yet to pick it up or even see it in person. Money has been exchanged with the stipulation that I reserve the right to refuse upon inspection with a full refund. Having said that, I really hope I don't get a refund!

I'm upgrading to this lathe from an 11" Logan and I'm really excited about new possibilities. What can any of you tell me about it? How many HP, how long between centers, what is the swing? Any areas of concern I should inspect before shaking hands on the deal?

Also, I would like to know the proper way to maintain this lathe, including special instructions, maintenance and/or lubrication intervals - any owners manuals out there?

I'm not sure exactly what to expect with this lathe, or what it can do the Logan couldn't other than put a permanent smile on my face. Honestly, that might be enough in itself.

Thanks a lot for the replies,


Joe
 
Check the gear teeth in the headstock. Wartime and older R-P's are notorious for spitting teeth off gears.

Looks like a 14X30. I have a couple 16" machines, same machine, just an inch thicker at the headstock base. Probably 5HP.

Go into it expecting wear, but be prepared to draw a line at shotty repairs or major damage. Odds are very high a 70 year old soft bed lathe built as fast as humanly possible during the largest war the world ever saw is going to be less than perfect.

I would divided the 4500 pound weight of the R-P by the 800 or so of the logan and that should give you an idea of increased productivity potential.

Be careful.
 
Thanks for the reply.

I thought just looking at the machine it appeared to be in very good condition; an insight echoed by the previous owner. My concerns with a machine are that of accuracy and reliability, but your depiction of this type of lathe is of a standard below that of what I would expect the Logan to easily produce.

If "less than perfect" means the castings are rough and not filled smooth, I consider that to be completely subjective to an individuals perspective of the word "perfect". However if it means the machine won't build parts to .0005 tolerance because components are ill fitting, the nostalgia this machine provides doesn't outweigh the uselessness of an inaccurate tool.

You've Debbie-Downer'd me a little bit, man.
 
I can't help you with your specific questions - but regarding being 'Debbie-Downer'd':
I Think that is a beautiful green beast of a lathe - and indeed from the pics looks to be in great condition for it's age.
Of course a 70 year old lathe is not going to be perfect - but you'll love it anyhow and it'll do so much more than you may have expected - you'll wonder how you ever lived without it all these years before you got it...(I hope...)
I have no room for more machines - but still have a WW-2 era gear head lathe on my list of something to have before I die...
There is nothing like them made anymore - so what if their specific purpose has been far obsoleted...cool lathe mate
 
The objective in that time period was to
make stuff now...lots of stuff right now. Longevity, I don't think, was of as much concern as getting a machine on the floor that could make lots of parts right now. A machine made 5 years earlier or 5 years later might be a better piece of equipment. That being said, I had a non-production grade Atlas/Clausing machine from the mid '40s that was fairly well made...although the design of the machine was crap.
 
Here in New England, where they were made, R&P was very well thought of, far more so than Logan ... at least by everyone I knew 20 years ago that was old enough to have run manual machines every day. There was such a thing as "wartime finish" which simply meant that less time was spent on cosmetics. I seriously doubt that machines were being accepted that had functional flaws... we did out produce the rest of the world in quality as well as quantity with machines like that one. In fact, my late uncle spent the entire war on the road for Brown & Sharpe servicing grinders and I can't remember him ever commenting on low wartime quality as far as precision was concerned... it doesn't really make much sense considering what these machines were being called on to make.

An awful lot of wartime machines have been discussed here and I can't remember anyone saying they suffered in accuracy because they were built during the war... and R&P's were commonly included in shipboard machine shops. Aside from checking for possible problems inherent in the design (like the teeth mentioned above) I'd be all over it...
 
Here in New England, where they were made, R&P was very well thought of, far more so than Logan ... at least by everyone I knew 20 years ago that was old enough to have run manual machines every day. There was such a thing as "wartime finish" which simply meant that less time was spent on cosmetics. I seriously doubt that machines were being accepted that had functional flaws... we did out produce the rest of the world in quality as well as quantity with machines like that one. In fact, my late uncle spent the entire war on the road for Brown & Sharpe servicing grinders and I can't remember him ever commenting on low wartime quality as far as precision was concerned... it doesn't really make much sense considering what these machines were being called on to make.

An awful lot of wartime machines have been discussed here and I can't remember anyone saying they suffered in accuracy because they were built during the war... and R&P's were commonly included in shipboard machine shops. Aside from checking for possible problems inherent in the design (like the teeth mentioned above) I'd be all over it...

I was only referring to my personal experience and the experience of friends who've owned R-P's since the mid 60's. I have two 16" machines combined into one 16X80 R-P. One was a 1939 the other a 1943. The 1939 fit and finish is magnitudes better than the 1943. Everything in the 1943 headstock was machined at twice or more the feedrate. The finish of the bore that the rear spindle bearings float in is complete crap in the 1943 headstock, the 1939 is beautiful. Things of that nature are what I'm referring to, these things go right a long with being built during the war. Both machines did the same job, both were well worn and combined to make one decent old beater.

I wouldn't trade it for a Logan anything, but I would put R-P a class lower than L&S, Monarch, Axelson, ATW. They are good old American built machine.
 
We had some Reed & Prentice geared head lathes at Brooklyn Technical High School in the 1960's. They were pretty much a "standard" pattern of engine lathe, as Lodge & Shipley, Monarch, Hendey and Sidney were all building lathes of a similar general design. There were differences, once you got past the outward appearance. I ran R & P engine lathes in various machine shops I worked in, and I never saw anything objectionable. As I learned more about engine lathe design, I did find out that Monarch used helical gears throughout the drivetrain in the headstock, and shifted with dog clutches. The result was a Monarch was a much smoohter running, quieter lathe and was said to produce a surface finish with no "tooth marks" as would be seen from coarse-pitch straight spur gearing.

Years later, I had the opportunity to buy a Reed & Prentice "heavy toolroom engine lathe". It was built in 1952 for the US Navy and then was at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. It went through a few sets of hands before I bought it. To say it was well used would be a correct statement. I bought the R & P for use on steam locomotive restoration work. We put the lathe in a boxcar, never levelled it nor bolted it down, and put it to work.
The previous owner did clean the lathe thoroughly, and did muck out the headstock. He said something about a felt filter for the oil in the headstock, and said he'd replaced the felt. I never had a manual for the lathe, so left well enough alone. Other than that, the previous owner told me one gear in the headstock had a chipped tooth. I got a 3 jaw scroll chuck, 4 jaw chuck, faceplate, dog plate, and steady rest with the lathe. It has a taper attachment. I believe it has either a 7.5 or 10 HP motor on it. I bought the lathe back in the 1990's and paid 800 bucks for it. About all we did was buy a live tailstock center and a Phase II "knockoff" of an "Aloris" type toolpost. We put the lathe right to work.

I can say the Reed & Prentice has some beef to her. Despite many moves and sitting where she landed in the boxcar, she turns within a thousandth or two in about 10" for taper. I've had chunks of freight car axle in the R & P to make tooling or parts from, and taken some heavy cuts with no problem. The lathe has plenty of rigidity and beef for fairly heavy work. I believe the lathe has a leadscrew reversing gear for thread cutting.

I've cut threads, bored, turned and done a variety of basic lathe work on our R & P. I can say the lathe is rugged, user friendly (as all the US built engine lathes of that era seemed to be), and holds reasonable accuracy despite not being particularly well treated. When we first got the R & P lathe, we had the "lantern" style toolpost. I had a toolholder and HSS toolbit in it. I was machining some 6" diameter 4140 or 4340 steel, and decided to see how heavy a cut I could take. I got to taking off about 0.500" with a fairly heavy feed before the lantern toolpost started slipping. With the block-type quick change toolpost, I've taken heavier cuts.

The other complaint some machinists have had with R & P lathes is they claim the bedways were a bit soft, with more wear resulting than they'd seen on other similar lathes. I've run a number of Hendey toolroom engine lathes, and can say the R & P has a little rougher feel to it. I've run "War Production Board" Monarchs, and can say the R & P is a bit of a "rock crusher" when it comes to the headstock. But, I still think the R & P is a good basic engine lathe of the old classic US pattern. I've never been able to compare a "War Finish" R & P to my 1952 R & P. I do know the "War Finish" machine tools I've run were always well built and running well and getting the work out many years later.

I've often wondered what became of Reed & Prentice. They were around as machine tool builders for a good long time, and I think they disappeared in the 1950's. I do not think they were ever a machine tool builder on the scale of Monarch, Hendey or L & S. Or, it may just be the passing of the years, and the fact that the old US iron is wearing out and becoming extinct. Either way, R & P lathes were never so plentiful as the other old-line manufacturers. As noted, they are a good old American built engine lathe from a different era. My old 16" R & P has a relatively short bed, being about 16" x 40", but weighs 3 tons. It is the old story of massive iron castings = ruggedness and rigidity. The US built engine lathes of the R & P type were some of the most rugged, user friendly, and long-lived machine tools. In my opinion, that class of machine tool were the best all around machine tools this world has seen. The new machine tools coming in as imports are light duty "5 year throwaways". All the talk of computer design, "tuning" of castings with ribs to dampen vibration and give rigidity vs sheer mass of the old castings is just so much BS. Remember that the WWII era "War Finish" machine tools were built on the premise they would be run hard for the war effort, put to work in a variety of applications ranging from defense plants to aboard ship or exported to our allies. the war finish machine tools were built with the premise they needed to last for the duration of WWII, after which the machine tools would have served their purpose and were essentially "done with". Here we are some 70 years later and a LOT of those "war finish" machine tools and "Cold War" or "Missile Buildup (from the 50's and 60's) machine tools are still at work. Says a lot fo the "throway" designs of years ago. If the R & P you are looking at is all there and no issues exist in the headstock or gearing, it's a good old horse. Like an old horse, she will likely be a little swaybacked (bedways worn). Despite this, you may be surprised at the accuracy and rigidity of the old lathe. To put an R & P next to a lathe like a Logan or South Bend is like putting a heavy cruiser next to a PT boat. Hardly a comparison except to say they are all US made lathes.
 
Thank you very much for the replies, especially your in depth experiences Joe!

While I appreciate criticism that may lead to making an informed decision, I can't understand why someone would suggest I "be careful" with this particular model while also acknowledging its superiority to my current machine. Understanding that it's the machinists responsibility to be familiar with their machine and make the appropriate adjustments for accurate work, my concern is with how many adjustments are necessary to combat the inefficiencies of a particular tool. Circumstances being relative to the individual, if the new lathe possesses no more disadvantage than the machine it is replacing at no additional expense, it isn't a bad decision. If it holds any advantage at all, it would certainly be looked at as a good decision. This is the nature of my inquiry.

Having said that, I'll be sure to bring with me the appropriate tools for removing the headstock cover and get a look at those gears, and I genuinely appreciate the warning very much. Barring anything large or obvious, this machine will have a new home.

My accomplishments are with welding and fabrication and I wouldn't yet consider myself a "real" machinist. Knowing I have a quality machine to back my efforts, this lathe will provide the inspiration to pay closer attention to proper procedure as I increase the ambition of my projects to include the tight tolerance work in various tool-making projects around the shop. When I can accurately measure and cut my own taper adapters, or finally finish a custom collet closer for my 1908 LeBlond mill, I will feel more amongst the ranks.
 
Thank you very much for the replies, especially your in depth experiences Joe!

While I appreciate criticism that may lead to making an informed decision, I can't understand why someone would suggest I "be careful" with this particular model while also acknowledging its superiority to my current machine. Understanding that it's the machinists responsibility to be familiar with their machine and make the appropriate adjustments for accurate work, my concern is with how many adjustments are necessary to combat the inefficiencies of a particular tool. Circumstances being relative to the individual, if the new lathe possesses no more disadvantage than the machine it is replacing at no additional expense, it isn't a bad decision. If it holds any advantage at all, it would certainly be looked at as a good decision. This is the nature of my inquiry.

Having said that, I'll be sure to bring with me the appropriate tools for removing the headstock cover and get a look at those gears, and I genuinely appreciate the warning very much. Barring anything large or obvious, this machine will have a new home.

My accomplishments are with welding and fabrication and I wouldn't yet consider myself a "real" machinist. Knowing I have a quality machine to back my efforts, this lathe will provide the inspiration to pay closer attention to proper procedure as I increase the ambition of my projects to include the tight tolerance work in various tool-making projects around the shop. When I can accurately measure and cut my own taper adapters, or finally finish a custom collet closer for my 1908 LeBlond mill, I will feel more amongst the ranks.

I wrote "Be careful" to you for the reason that your lathe experience appeared to be limited to a Logan lathe and statements like "will it hold .0005" elude to a lack of machining experience. The R-P lathe you have purchased is a 5000 pound appendage removal device in the wrong hands. You can take heavy cuts with it, you can make mirror finishes to whatever size you need when you know how to run the machine.

Joe Michaels put it very well. The R-P's are a good old machine, but they were likely built to a lower pricepoint than the fine machines OF THE DAY and as such they got a heavy hold on military sales. Compare your $1500 R-P to the same size $15000 Asian lathe of today and the R-P, in almost any condition likely wins.
 
CooperSmithing:

I am glad you appreciated my post. I tend to take a looser view than most about lathes like a Reed & Prentice. They are the classic older US engine lathes, and short of a broken gear, you can't go too wrong. Looking at the photos, it is clear the lathe was not abused. Used for many years is one thing, abuse is another. Nothing busted, nothing brazed, nothing looking like they used the bed for an anvil or welding bench (which I have seen on old machine tools). I do not think you will regret getting this Reed & Prentice lathe.

The beef that a Reed & Prentice lathe has (or any engine lathe of it's era and general design) is not to be believed if you have had experience with lighter lathes like a Logan. An old lathe like this Reed & Prentice that has seen use is never going to be a "toolroom" machine, but it will do some amazing work once you get familiar with it. It is what I am used to, and these lathes have a certain "feel" to them. Once you get used to it, you will think any of the new imported generation of lathes of equivalent capacity are "Mickey Mouse" or "Tinkertoys".

I had the opportunity to buy a fully tooled Clausing Colchester lathe for about 600 bucks. It was within 15 miles of my house. It worked, had the higher speed ranges, and had a taper attachment. It did have some issues in the apron (no interlock between the power feed and halfnut levers, to prevent engaging both simultaneously). Half nuts were a little loose. Hardened bed in nice shape. It WAS a serviceable lathe and the price was certainly right. However, that Colchester lathe did not sit well in my mind. It was not what I came up with, not what I knew. I found out what parts for the apron would run (used from a man in Texas). I passed on buying that Colchester lathe.

Along came a round-head Leblond 13" lathe. 1943 machine, threaded spindle nose, but fully tooled. 700 bucks, located about 25 miles from my house. I grabbed it. It is a machine that is what I know and came up with. I learned from this 'board that the headstocks in those round head Regal lathes have light high speed gears which are often damaged or worse. The Regal was sitting in a building with no power. I rolled the headstock spindle over by hand in each gear, feeling for anything like a busted tooth. It felt fine, I took a chance. I opened the headstock at home and the gearing is fine. A lot of what people will say about a particular manufacturer or model of lathe is based on the one example they happened to run accross after the damage was done. There may be truth to a lathe having a weakness in its design, but if the people who owned/used the lathe ahead of you took care and did not abuse the machine, you have nothing to worry about.

If you can open the headstock at the time you are buying the lathe, great. Safety first. If the lathe is still wired up to electric power, ask the seller to either open the nearest disconnect switch or breaker to prevent accidental starting of the motor. from the photo, the lathe has a drum type reversing switch. This is easily nudged to turn the motor on, especially since it is mounted at the headstock top cover. Make sure there is no way that switch can be accidently moved to start the motor while you are in the headstock.

Disengage the drive clutch (there is a lever on the extreme RH lower corner of the apron for this). I believe my old R & P has a multi-plate clutch on the input shaft to the headstock. With the clutch disengaged, you can then roll the spindle over by hand and try meshing different gearing. Bring a flashlight like a "Mag light" and take a look around inside the headstock. Look at the shifter forks, collars, faces of the dog clutches. A chipped gear tooth is not the end of the world, as long as a significant portion of the tooth remains.

After you've made your inspection of the headstock, replace the cover. Try the lathe under power, if possible. You will want to run the lathe at every spindle speed, try the power long & cross feeds, feed reverse at the headstock, and lead screw reverse at the carriage. Check the power clutch, make sure it engages and disengages properly with no "drag" (some of these multi plate clutches, if out of adjustment, can take the headstock along for the ride, even when disengaged).

In short, put the lathe thru its paces. Do not be put off by what seems excessive backlash in the cross feed and top slide feed screws. As long as everything works as it should you have a good lathe.

The apron on those lathes should have have its own lubricator pump. Any time the carriage is moving, it will pump oil to the various points as well as to the carriage wings and half nuts. There was a lot of thought that went into the design of those old lathes. To my way of thinking, there is nothing so good as the older US made "classic" engine lathes for the combination of ruggedness, longevity, rigidity and accuracy. It will never be a Shaublin or a Hardinge HLV or other toolroom lathe, but it will do a LOT of good work for you. You will not feel bad about putting a job made out of scaly steel , or a weldment, or rough casting into that lathe, and the lathe will not feel bad about hogging off the metal from those jobs and then finishing up with good accuracy and surface finish. You've got a great "all around workhorse" of a lathe in that R & P.
 
I wrote "Be careful" to you for the reason that your lathe experience appeared to be limited to a Logan lathe and statements like "will it hold .0005" elude to a lack of machining experience. The R-P lathe you have purchased is a 5000 pound appendage removal device in the wrong hands. You can take heavy cuts with it, you can make mirror finishes to whatever size you need when you know how to run the machine.

Joe Michaels put it very well. The R-P's are a good old machine, but they were likely built to a lower pricepoint than the fine machines OF THE DAY and as such they got a heavy hold on military sales. Compare your $1500 R-P to the same size $15000 Asian lathe of today and the R-P, in almost any condition likely wins.

I am admittedly a little intimidated by that fact. I've run a lathe in my shop for 5-6 years, but being self taught leaves a shadow of doubt in my mind as to the proper function of the machine. I've had that Logan in some unusual configurations, and while the result was a success it was nice to know that I could likely stop the spindle by hand if ever the worst should happen.

In fact, for that same reason I run an old Royersford drill press with a flat belt drive. More than a few pieces have been saved when the belts simply slipped rather than the bit explode.

Just the same, your warning is well heeded. I have an intimate relationship with all my appendages and would very much like to keep them intact.
 
As a matter of safe working practice, I like to put a local disconnect switch between my machine tools and the connection to electric power. This switch is in ADDITION to the actual control switch on the machine tool. The local disconnect ( a powerplant term) is what is also known as an "enclosed safety switch". If I am going to leave the machine tool when done working on it, I open the disconnect. If I am going to be changing tooling or a chuck, I open the disconnect. On my Bridgeport mill, the drum switch is right up close to the top of the head, and when I reach for the brake lever to hold the spindle while putting a wrench on the drawbar, I can see where it might be possible to hit the drum switch by mistake. On my LeBlond lathe, I am installing a local disconnect switch between the line and the drum/reversing switch. Some of my machine tools have the later style pushbutton switches, where you have to stick your finger into a recess to push the "on" button, so I do not run disconnect switches on them.

As I get older, I get more conscious of safety. I've got some scars and a maimed finger to show for over 40 years around machinery, I'm a bit hard of hearing, but otherwise intact. I work alone in my shop, live out in the woods, so taking a little extra step to make things safer is something I've been doing more of as I get older.

The old lathes were built during an era when people more commonly worked around machinery. It was an era when people were expected to have common sense and to look out for themselves, to know where their bodies began and ended and where all their body parts were at. No safety stickers stating the obvious, very few, if any guards, and none of the safety interlocks or emergency shutdown/panic brakes we see on today's machine tools. In short, it is up to you to work safely and never to become complacent out of familiarity with the machine tools.

In the 1960's, we went through Brooklyn Technical HS running machine tools from the 1920's-40's. No special additional guards or safety features were on those machine tools. We ran flat-belt driven lathes and mills and shapers, and we ran engine lathes just like your R & P. We were kids of 14 or so, and we were tickled and happy to be learning machine shop work. There were literally tens of thousands of boys who went thru Brooklyn Technical HS (max enrollement was 6,000 boys). I do not recall any serious injury, nothing beyond maybe a bad cut or some bruises. We learned simple things to do to work safe. Stuff that would seem so obvious, yet people overlook it. Example: you are going to be setting up a job on a faceplate or in a 4 jaw chuck. Take the time to remove the toolbit or toolholder and tailstock center before you find either of them "the hard way".
Or, the chip is curling off your tool as you take a heavy cut. Looks kind of mesmerizing, you get to thinking "how long a chip can I get going here ?". You absentmindedly heft the chip with your hand.... and the place looks like the killing floor in the local slaughterhouse just that quick, only it's your blood all over the place. As recently as 4 or 5 years ago, I did just this self same thing while turning down a hunk of O-1. I saw the gash, got a clean shop wipe on it and finished the cut. Shut down the lathe and asked my wife had to run me to the local ER. It took 4 stitches to close the cut that chip of steel put into my finger.

Another thing we were taught as kids in HS: when you are done making your setup of a job in a lathe, put the headstock "between gears" (equivalent of "neutral" on a manual car or truck transmission). Roll the spindle over by hand to make sure everything clears. Bring the carriage up to the extreme ends of what your cut will be to be sure it does not crowd the tailstock or run into the chuck. If you look at most older used lathes, the front LH corner of the topslide (compound) will have some serious gashing or chewing up. This is from people running it into the chuck jaws. This is what is known as a "crash". A minor crash results in damage like some metal off the compound. A serious crash results in stripped gears or worse.
If you set a large or odd-shaped job up on the faceplate or four jaw chuck, make sure it clears the bed ways as well as the compound. A little extra care up front can prevent a lot of damage. Damage like a crash can happen in less than the blink of an eye when you throw in the clutch. A lathe like the R & P will not give you much "forgiveness". No flat belt to slip, no fractional HP motor to lug down. A R & P lathe has the beef to eat itself alive if you have a crash. You work slowly, think about each move,pull the spindle over by hand to check for potential crashes, and you will not go too wrong. If you are going to cut threads, make some practice runs with the carriage out in the middle of the bed and no work in the lathe. Get a sense of how fast the carriage will be travelling when you engage the half nuts. Get comfortable and "automatic" as to engaging or disengaging the half nuts.

A lot of machine tools contributed to the WWII effort. More than we might ever imagine. Many were built to "War Production Board" or "War Finish" standards as part of common lots. Many were shipped directly to our allies. Our machine tools went to Russia, France, and to England and as far afield as Australia and New Zealand during WWII. Our machine tools were installed aboard naval and merchant vessels. Any time I see the "anchor" acceptance stamp on an older machine tool, I always wonder: "Did this lathe (or mill or shaper) go to sea ? Did it wind up in some naval shipyard or on a base far from the mainland USA ?" We tooled up our allies for WWII, and even before WWII, our future enemies were buying our machine tools. After WWII, our machine tools went to re-establish industry in war torn areas. Design features used on our machine tools were often adopted by foreign manufacturers when they began manufacturing machine tools. It's interesting to think about the impact our machine tool industry had on the world.

As a side note: my own LeBlond lathe was shipped in July of 1943. LeBlond records tell that it was shipped directly to an engineering firm within 30 miles of my house. That firm was (and still is) making specialized filters. During WWII, the bulk of their filter production was for the pharmaceutical industry, for plants producing penicillin. Some of the tooling still with my LeBlond lathe was shop made, specific to machining thin-wall tubes as would be used for filter cannisters. Lathes with "anchor" could have been in so many possible places. A lot of lathes and machine tools got the government acceptance stamp during WWII and were assigned to defense contractors' plants. Tracking down where a machine tool was first used or where it went is nearly impossible when the maker is completely history (as is Reed and Prentice). I know that when our son was looking at colleges, we went to Worcester, MA to look at Clark University. It was right in the city of Worcester. That part of Worcester looked like it had seen its best days years before (to be polite). I remember looking around Worcester for some sign of where Reed & Prentice had been, or Norton's grinding machine plant, and not seeing anything obvious. It was all burnt out, boarded up, and dejected. Our son went to Hobart, in the Finger Lakes, so I never did get back to poke around Worcester, MA. New England was the cradle of the US Machine Tool Industry, but the real mature powerhouse of our machine tool industry (and machine tool capital of the world) was Cincinnati. R & P was kind of a holdover from the early days of the machine tool industry, remaining in New England.
 
I saw this lathe last week on Craigslist and if I hadn’t have just bought my Hendey, I would have been calling on it. Nice looking machine.
A shop that I worked at back in the 80s had a couple of Reed Prentice lathes, a number of other “War Production Board” machines. The company acquired most of them when they were scrapping warships here in Portland.
I remember one of them I was told had came from a destroyer and that in an effort to reduce weight; the tail stock end footing was aluminum.
If this is the case with yours use some caution when moving it so as not to break it.
 
I had a look at this lathe the other day and will be heading down to pick it up here in the next week.

The current owner said he's had it for around 11 years, and in that time has put it to work for maybe 2 months. He purchased it when another machine what out for repair and was too attached to the lathe to get rid of it afterward.

Looks the part - at one point well maintained but not touched in years. No rust or signs of abuse, I'm excited to get it in the shop.

Biggest selling point was his shop full of well maintained machinery currently in use.

Also - I'm still looking for a manual and/or other information on this lathe. I assumed it has a ball bearing spindle but then realized I hadn't asked or remember reading it anywhere. Made me realize there is a lot I don't know about this machine, and I'd sure like to learn!
 








 
Back
Top