Low Runout CAT40 Toolholders
Close
Login to Your Account
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default Low Runout CAT40 Toolholders

    Hi - I am running a VF Haas with TR160 Rotary, doing indexing and simultaneous work, obviously the work is pretty small, and usually dont need too much reach. Standard Issue Techniks ER16 X 4.00 covers most jobs. We run some schunk hydraulic TENDO EC's wherever we can fit the larger diameter of that holder. We like these a lot, but for the times we need more clearance / more reach, I go for the ER16X4.00, but sometimes I have bad runout, usually coming from the collet / collet twisting or deformation I believe. I can reclamp / reorient the tool and can go from .0008" TIR to .0002"- SOMETIMES.

    I have looked at the SK holders, also heat shrink, as well as just higher quality ER collets / nuts with the bearings built in for less twist (we currently run standard issue Techniks ER holders). I started buying the haimer collets and saw some difference there.

    What do most of you go with for low runout >4" Gage length holders?

    I'm going to try a few shrink fit and see how that goes.

    I was also wondering what the consensus was on Maritool SK16 vs Lyndex Nikken SK16? Comparable quality wise? I saw on the nikken brochure they brag about wire edm'ing their collet slits where I did not see Maritool brag about that, may not matter much if at all.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,168
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6601
    Likes (Received)
    3494

    Default

    I have mostly used setscrew holders. Just recently got a bunch of collet stuff and collets are pain in the fucking ass for most things.

    Heat shrink is fine, but way more complex than a setscrew holder.

    A good setscrew holder will far outclass any Haas.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garwood View Post
    I have mostly used setscrew holders. Just recently got a bunch of collet stuff and collets are pain in the fucking ass for most things.

    Heat shrink is fine, but way more complex than a setscrew holder.

    A good setscrew holder will far outclass any Haas.
    I definitely notice a difference with the schunk hydraulics vs ER / endmill holder, although it may be the damping. Definitely get more consistent low runout, where I may have to screw around with an ER collet to get <.0005 at tip of tool. Sometimes can get under .0003

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,894
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2538
    Likes (Received)
    1296

    Default

    For the past six years I've been running a Haas VF-3SS with a TR-160Y trunnion, doing medical device prototypes and short runs including titanium bone plates. I use a lot of Maritool ER-11 x 4" and ER-16 x 4" for general purpose; get them clean and set them up right and they're pretty tight. Shrink fit for heavy cuts.

    I did get some ER-11 single angle collets and nuts that are compatible, that claim tighter runout. I think they help a little.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1318
    Likes (Received)
    290

    Default

    I agree with the others regarding a good sidelock holder (I use the Mariitool variant). If you want to try one of the best ER holders on the market, go get a Big Daishowa Mega collet chuck. Expensive but very nice. Misumi carries the line now so you can get them pretty quick.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    6,301
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2500
    Likes (Received)
    3113

    Default

    https://www.techniksusa.com/wp-conte...lletchucks.pdf

    these are pretty good, butonly 1/4" capacity

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    Look into the Rego-Fix PowrGrip. I have been using this for years and love it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Maryland
    Posts
    266
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    182
    Likes (Received)
    58

    Default

    We use pioneer and they seem to have minimal runout

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    66
    Likes (Received)
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garwood View Post
    I have mostly used setscrew holders. Just recently got a bunch of collet stuff and collets are pain in the fucking ass for most things.

    Heat shrink is fine, but way more complex than a setscrew holder.

    A good setscrew holder will far outclass any Haas.
    Don't listen to this guy saying "shrink fit is way more complex than a set screw holder"...if anything a shrink fit toolholder is LESS complex than a side lock toolholder lol. First off there are no moving parts. Second you get exceptional runout, I would say hydraulic maybe is the only one better. Clamping force on shrink is highest.

    Basically shrink fit is awesome. I use them on about 50% of my toolholders. A shrink machine isn't that expensive and you technically don't need a machine to run shrink fit.

    Another benefit, shrink fit is going to be cheaper on a per holder basis than nearly every other system out there - collet, side lock (ok maybe not this one), hydraulic, power chuck.

    They last forever if you use them correctly.

    I could go on and on.

    But OP wanted runout and shrink fit has crazy good runout. I run 6" and longer gauge length holders on TINY tools and the runout hasn't caused any issues even at that length. It is solid.
    Also for clearance issues, shrink fit simply cannot be beat.

    I could go on all day....

  10. Likes mhajicek, Cycle1000 liked this post
  11. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,168
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6601
    Likes (Received)
    3494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmadness View Post
    Don't listen to this guy saying "shrink fit is way more complex than a set screw holder"...if anything a shrink fit toolholder is LESS complex than a side lock toolholder lol. First off there are no moving parts. Second you get exceptional runout, I would say hydraulic maybe is the only one better. Clamping force on shrink is highest.

    Basically shrink fit is awesome. I use them on about 50% of my toolholders. A shrink machine isn't that expensive and you technically don't need a machine to run shrink fit.

    Another benefit, shrink fit is going to be cheaper on a per holder basis than nearly every other system out there - collet, side lock (ok maybe not this one), hydraulic, power chuck.

    They last forever if you use them correctly.

    I could go on and on.

    But OP wanted runout and shrink fit has crazy good runout. I run 6" and longer gauge length holders on TINY tools and the runout hasn't caused any issues even at that length. It is solid.
    Also for clearance issues, shrink fit simply cannot be beat.

    I could go on all day....
    How is tightening a set screw with an allen wrench more complex than using a heat shrink holder?

    The OP's question read to me like he thought normal collets were better accuracy than setscrew holders and that simply isn't true.

    There is nothing wrong with shrink holders, they are great for the right process, but they ARE more complex than a setscrew. How would you argue they aren't?

  12. Likes Bobw liked this post
  13. #11
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,894
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2538
    Likes (Received)
    1296

    Default

    I can see the point; heat shrinks are mechanically as simple as it gets. The use of them is more complex however. They're great for low runout and high rigidity.

  14. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalmadness View Post
    Don't listen to this guy saying "shrink fit is way more complex than a set screw holder"...if anything a shrink fit toolholder is LESS complex than a side lock toolholder lol. First off there are no moving parts. Second you get exceptional runout, I would say hydraulic maybe is the only one better. Clamping force on shrink is highest.

    Basically shrink fit is awesome. I use them on about 50% of my toolholders. A shrink machine isn't that expensive and you technically don't need a machine to run shrink fit.

    Another benefit, shrink fit is going to be cheaper on a per holder basis than nearly every other system out there - collet, side lock (ok maybe not this one), hydraulic, power chuck.

    They last forever if you use them correctly.

    I could go on and on.

    But OP wanted runout and shrink fit has crazy good runout. I run 6" and longer gauge length holders on TINY tools and the runout hasn't caused any issues even at that length. It is solid.
    Also for clearance issues, shrink fit simply cannot be beat.

    I could go on all day....
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm thinking of buying a few and going the torch route temporarily to prove them out, then maybe rig up an induction coil or go
    for the machine if it looks like it makes sense. The per holder cost looks very goood.

  15. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garwood View Post
    How is tightening a set screw with an allen wrench more complex than using a heat shrink holder?

    The OP's question read to me like he thought normal collets were better accuracy than setscrew holders and that simply isn't true.

    There is nothing wrong with shrink holders, they are great for the right process, but they ARE more complex than a setscrew. How would you argue they aren't?
    Interesting, I always see both trains of thought regarding the sidelocks - I have heard both sides argued well. Do you see less or equivalent runout in a sidelock than a shrink in your experience?

    Appreciate the feedback.

  16. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    247
    Likes (Received)
    2207

    Default

    A standard side-lock will give you different runout depending on the size of the shank. If the shank is right on size you will get better runout than for example is the shank is .0002" small. The nice thing about shrink and hydraulics is that they uniformly surround the shank and give the same low runout weither the shank is on size or .0002 undersized. Shrink will grip a little more than hydraulic, but for finishing to medium roughing hydraulic will give a better finish due to its better dampening abilities.

  17. Likes Garwood, Cycle1000, mhajicek, motox2121 liked this post
  18. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    SK holders all the way. I have used SK (Nikken - made in Japan) SA ( Sowa - made in Taiwan) and SX (Pioneer - not sure where). They are all interchangeable. Pioneer take the SK up a notch, by offering:
    - Steel seal SX collets
    - 2-micron SX collets (they basically grab a bunch of standards, hand inspect to find the 2-micron before shipping it out)
    - Coolant caps and nuts (interchangeable with their own ER system)
    - Slim version of SK25 (same nut diameter as ER32, with up to 1" capacity)

    I once have a job that needed 0.5mm drill with .125" shank on heat treated ductile iron. 2" gage length ER16 could not hold the drill straight enough, broke drills like crazy. A 2-micron SX16 had that drill straight with about .0001-.0002 runout. Solved my problem.

  19. Likes GM liked this post
  20. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Minnesota
    Posts
    42
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    +1 for the HPI Pioneer ER holders. We use them from ER 11 to ER 32. As long as everything is clean they are usually always .0002-.0003. When you are talking about ER holders it is all about all 3 parts (collet, nut and holder) being clean, clean, clean.

  21. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Colorado
    Posts
    394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    66
    Likes (Received)
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garwood View Post
    How is tightening a set screw with an allen wrench more complex than using a heat shrink holder?

    The OP's question read to me like he thought normal collets were better accuracy than setscrew holders and that simply isn't true.

    There is nothing wrong with shrink holders, they are great for the right process, but they ARE more complex than a setscrew. How would you argue they aren't?
    Saying shrink fit is complex is just disingenuous. I mean yes, the actual operating of a shrink fit machine is more "complex" that simply tightening a screw. I will give you that. Mechanically it is less complex than a side lock. It is simply an application of even heat causing expansion...which is not complex.

    I hear this argument all the time and it just isn't true "we don't use shrink fit because it is too complex/expensive/time consuming/difficult to implement/etc etc etc" when in fact none of those arguments hold any water. Operating a shrink fit machine takes less than 30 seconds.

    Case in point - I was consulting a shop on their operations and I asked the lead programmer if they use shrink fit toolholders. The answer was "no, those are simply too expensive and hard to use"....now mind you this shop had 3 DMU 50 and 2 DMU 65 Monoblock 5 axis machines. And their argument was that it is too expensive! LMAO in that situation it's too expensive NOT to use them.

    I outfitted our shop with shrink fit for less than $5000...and I would say you could go a lot cheaper than that if you wanted. Or you could spend $20K. There is quite a range for all budget needs

  22. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,987
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5642
    Likes (Received)
    3813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garwood View Post
    How is tightening a set screw with an allen wrench more complex than using a heat shrink holder?

    The OP's question read to me like he thought normal collets were better accuracy than setscrew holders and that simply isn't true.

    There is nothing wrong with shrink holders, they are great for the right process, but they ARE more complex than a setscrew. How would you argue they aren't?
    It's probably because of the way you worded it, you said they are "way more complex". When in reality they are both equally simple.
    Tighten a screw vs heating something up and dropping it into the holder, a monkey could do both.

  23. Likes mhajicek liked this post
  24. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    10,581
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    619
    Likes (Received)
    8551

    Default

    People like to talk a few tenths runout on a mounted endmill.
    I wonder how close endmills are ground to true as they also have to go into a collet or holder at making time and one only has 10 or 15 seconds to do it.
    Bob

  25. Likes Bobw, Garwood liked this post
  26. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    People like to talk a few tenths runout on a mounted endmill.
    I wonder how close endmills are ground to true as they also have to go into a collet or holder at making time and one only has 10 or 15 seconds to do it.
    Bob
    Anything ground on a Rollmatic with a v-anvil and I can't even measure the runout using either a shrink fit or powrgrip holder...I'm sure it's there but it takes a lot of zeros to get to that number...

  27. Likes mhajicek liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •