Tool holder types: Capto C6 vs HSK vs new KM on a milling lathe

Hello all,

I'm looking at a new Integrex/Multus machine and would appreciate your knowledgeable opinions on tool holder choice.

I will be buying new tools so no worry about whats laying around can save some $$$. The new KM stuff may have limited availability so thats a concern. I'm really hoping for opinions using these holders with both milling and turning tools, availability, rigidity, use with high pressure cooling systems, easier to setup, any +/-, all opinions welcome.

Thanks!

I am a fan of HSK63(T) if you are primarily milling with the upper head (like with a dual channel machine), just because of the fantastic tooling availability.

C6 is a great interface though, and really the best all around performer hands-down.

I can't see any reason to even consider a KM interface. Maybe if you are worried the boss man might try to sell the machine in a few years, so you want to keep the resale value low.

My machine has km63xmz. They are expensive and not great availability.

I’d say hsk as to me is seems the most available.

I’ve seen capto but seems similar to km one brands child that nobody else makes.

Another reason to avoid km is that Atleast in my experience the holders from kennametal are low quality.

Capto hands down for millturn. It's just as good as HSK for milling, and much better for turning. HSK-T is a bit of a kludge that was developed to try and match Capto for torsional rigidity and repeatability, but it falls short on both.

The options for turning tools are much greater on Capto than on HSK-T.

The options for milling holders are probably greater on HSK, but I've never struggled to get what I need on Capto.

Capto holders are generally a bit more expensive than HSK holders, all else being equal, so you need to consider that.

Capto is pretty much the de-facto standard on all new millturns these days anyway, and is now an ISO standard (ISO 26623, generally called PSC) rather than being a proprietary Sandvik product, which means that there are many manufacturers of Capto/PSC tools now.

Avoid KM at all costs, it is an orphaned system that never saw wide scale adoption by anybody except Mazak on early integrexes, and while Kenna still make it, you have to wonder whether they will continue to do so for very long.

+1 for Capto. So many choices and configurations. Its a no brainer. I wouldn't get anything else.

We have Macturns(basically a Multus) with both. Id go CAPTO hands down.

We also have a machine that uses a KM40 which is in the Capto C3/C4 range size wise and getting tooling is a nightmare. Plus there's a toolchange-able version of KM40 and one that's not. We have a ton of holders that we can't even use.

gregormarwick said:

Capto hands down for millturn. It's just as good as HSK for milling, and much better for turning. HSK-T is a bit of a kludge that was developed to try and match Capto for torsional rigidity and repeatability, but it falls short on both.

The options for turning tools are much greater on Capto than on HSK-T.

The options for milling holders are probably greater on HSK, but I've never struggled to get what I need on Capto.

Click to expand...

You're not wrong about HSK-T vs Capto. But I am always surprised you don't see more multichannel machines with an HSK in the B axis. The typical part on our NT's always used to be 5 minutes of turning for 90 minutes of milling. Plus, we did most of the turning with the turret anyways.

Sure, you sacrifice a bit, but in addition to fantastic milling holder availability, you also have an interface that can be common to your mills.

Again, no argument that all things being equal the Capto is far superior to HSK in a millturn. Just a thought.

boosted said:

You're not wrong about HSK-T vs Capto. But I am always surprised you don't see more multichannel machines with an HSK in the B axis. The typical part on our NT's always used to be 5 minutes of turning for 90 minutes of milling. Plus, we did most of the turning with the turret anyways.

Sure, you sacrifice a bit, but in addition to fantastic milling holder availability, you also have an interface that can be common to your mills.

Again, no argument that all things being equal the Capto is far superior to HSK in a millturn. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Those are solid arguments and all totally correct.

I think what it boils down to is that HSK doesn't have any direct benefits over Capto beyond cost. HSK rules in milling spindles because it provides all the benefits of Capto that matter in that scenario, while being a much cheaper spindle to make, and cheaper tools to buy. HSK may be easier to balance for very high speeds compared to Capto, but I think that is even marginal tbh.

HSK also can't be used for building modular tool assemblies, whereas Capto excels at that too.

We specified our NTX without a lower turret because the most important criteria to us was quick changeovers for one-two off parts. Doing everything on the b axis head keeps everything simple and flexible at the cost of production efficiency. I think it's becoming more common to specify machines in this configuration generally, as the technology improves. Years gone by it was almost mandatory to have a lower turret on a b axis machine to be able to hold tolerances on turned features (so I'm told). Not really the case any more.

HSK does not have the rotational repeatability like CAPTO during tool changes.
Means nothing when milling.
Means a little when turning or boring a decent sized diameter with a decent sized tool.
Means a lot when turning or boring small diameters or using small boring bars.
Means a lot when using mini turrets which are available for CAPTO but not sure about HSK.

Thank you guys!!
I learn a lot on this forum. I have an early Integrex w the old KM tools, performance in both mill and turn(positioning) is excellent but they are expensive and limited in style and availability. Purchased it used, not my choice and didn't want to make that mistake. Sounds like Capto is the way to go on millturn.

fmari --MariTool- said:

HSK does not have the rotational repeatability like CAPTO during tool changes.
Means nothing when milling.
Means a little when turning or boring a decent sized diameter with a decent sized tool.
Means a lot when turning or boring small diameters or using small boring bars.
Means a lot when using mini turrets which are available for CAPTO but not sure about HSK.

Click to expand...

So when can we expect your capto line?

I have used both KM and Capto in B-axis mill turns, and would echo that capto is the best choice.

fmari --MariTool- said:

HSK does not have the rotational repeatability like CAPTO during tool changes.
Means nothing when milling.
Means a little when turning or boring a decent sized diameter with a decent sized tool.
Means a lot when turning or boring small diameters or using small boring bars.
Means a lot when using mini turrets which are available for CAPTO but not sure about HSK.

Click to expand...

^^^ That's an excellent point - relationship between rotational repeatability of the connection versus using small boring bars / small diameter bored holes.


I think OP's title mentioned "... vs new KM on a milling lathe "


^^^ This seems interesting.

For new / newer MAZAK integrex(es) [integracies ??? ] for some reason they offer HSK as standard and Capto (in the case of a C-6 machine ) is about a $4000 upgrade factory ordered for a new build. KM is also an option offered even for new machines as an option.

Maybe what @BOB-OO is getting at is the NEW KM4X interface ~ which apparently (HSK) machines can be retrofitted for ?

Basic draw bar force for comparison of the different connections can make a real difference. (smaller machines and smaller in cut loads seems HSK would suffice. - other than the rotational repeatability that @fmari --MariTool- mentioned. ).

I'm not sure exactly what the draw bar forces are exactly for different integrexes i.e. J-200 or i-100 vs. i-200 or i-300 or Mazak's much larger machines (like a INTEGREX e-670H) or for that matter the draw bar forces on the Okuma Multus machines or DMG Mori Mill turn machines of different sizes.

For Integrex (mill turn) there are instances when there is no lower turret and therefore the bending moment of turning tools is more critical - thinking longer flash tooling type - 3 turning tools on one tool holder (indexable) at the B axis milling spindle (axis). Seems Capto would be the most secure also ? BUT not sure how that would theoretically or practically compare to the NEW -Newer- Newish KM X4 ...

The KM 4X being a roughly 4X multiplier of the initial draw bar force.

I.e. 20KN (Killo Newton) draw bar force being multiplied to a 80 KN clamping force at the connection.

That would be 4500 lbs draw bar force multiplied by 4 (ish) 18,000 lb draw bar force, approaching the maximum clamping force (for example for a C-6 interface - by comparison ).

Wonder if or how the KM4X jams or not ?

It's new to me so maybe I dig about ...

cameraman said:

Wonder if or how the KM4X jams or not ?

Click to expand...

I did watch the video. I honestly don't understand why they developed this.

It really seems like Kenna are flogging a dead horse here.

CAMasochism said:

So when can we expect your capto line?

Click to expand...

Probably a few years at least. To grind the 3-lobed taper connection I need to get a CNC cylindrical grinder with a full c-axis or dedicate a mutitasking lathe for grinding (which I have done before). Right now I just don't see the demand like the standard steep tapers and HSK. But I am sure that will change.

gregormarwick said:

I did watch the video. I honestly don't understand why they developed this.

It really seems like Kenna are flogging a dead horse here.

Click to expand...

Probably because they have a handful of big customers that will buy it. When I worked at a mega aerospace corp we would setup certain workcells so that they were equipped by a single source tooling provider. No competition for them, and locked-in projects with massive tool consumption... $$$

No surprise the cells were typically handled by Sandvik, but occasionally Kennametal would get a foot in the door.

gregormarwick said:

I did watch the video. I honestly don't understand why they developed this.

It really seems like Kenna are flogging a dead horse here.

Click to expand...

What?
You expect them to CAPiTulate-O

boosted said:

Probably because they have a handful of big customers that will buy it.

Click to expand...

Frankly, that seems to have been Kennametal's business model for the last two decades. Develop nothing interesting, research no new innovations, rest on their laurels and continue to milk the big grandfathered contracts.

Ianagos

If you think Capto is something that no one else makes, you are sorely uninformed. Just about everyone makes it including Kennametal, it is an ISO standard. However, it is called by several different names. Capto, Camfix, polygon, PSC, and its standard is ISO 26623. It's a much more versatile system than HSK.

Ianagos said:

My machine has km63xmz. They are expensive and not great availability.

I’d say hsk as to me is seems the most available.

I’ve seen capto but seems similar to km one brands child that nobody else makes.

Another reason to avoid km is that Atleast in my experience the holders from kennametal are low quality.

Click to expand...

Your inbox is full and I cannot respond to your PM.