What's new
What's new

Starrett 436 vs. 226 Micrometers

M.B. Naegle

Diamond
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Location
Conroe, TX USA
What is the difference between the Starrett 436 and 226 Micrometer series?

As far as I can tell, they both have the same available options (ratchet, Carbide tips, lock), both are available in same resolutions. I used to think the 226 was just an old model, but both are still available for sale. I know there are still other micrometer series, but most of them seem to be out of production or have some other feature or function available to them.

226 and 436 have different types of spindle lock but seem to work the same, and the 226 has unpainted squared casting corners. We have both kinds in our shop and they both seem to do the same job. Is it just a case of having Legacy lines of tools that are sworn by by different crowds? Does the squared frame and alternate spindle lock of the 226 serve a practical purpose?
T226XRL-1e12211cUSp1.jpg
Starrett-436-0-1-inch-micrometer-lock-ratchet.jpg
 
I used to prefer the feel (slightly heftier) of the 226. Didn't know they were still making / making them again. Most of the old ones seemed to be .001 grads, though.

Don't recall, without looking, but the 226 might have allowed a bit deeper measurement? The lock was a bit easier to use as well.

Personally, there are a half dozen micrometer lines I like better than the 436 (or 226). The 436 didn't feel all that great to use; the spindle lock was prone to wear, eventual failure, or loss of the tiny cam; the wear adjustment just so-so; the graduated sleeve sometimes too loose or too tight; and a friction thimble with a speeder would beat (in repeatability) a ratchet. Also the frames aren't insulated. Quality of materials and workmanship is decent, but not all that special. Moore & Wright and others made pretty much the same thing.

My favorite manual mic is probably the Etalon (Swiss) MicroRapid. Sadly not enough takers to keep the inch models in stock -- just the metric versions. It's super fast to adjust, easy to read, beautifully made. In an affordable price range, I think the Mitutoyos (and B&S) beat Starrett. Somewhat like Snap-On, though, Starrett has its loyal fans -- and I suspect B&S isn't paying much attention to its manual mics.
 
One thing I like about our old 226's is that they have less chipped paint, since there was less paint to begin with :o, maybe that was the intent. I wonder too if the bare sides are to facilitate holding them in a vise?

Our shop has lots of old tools, dominantly Starrett, but also Lufkin, B&S, and J.T. Slocumb. The newest mics are some Mitutoyo in Inspection. Each one has it's own perks, guess It just depends on the user.

At home, I use Helios for tight work and Miller Falls for everything else, and like the function and feel of both.
 
That 226 doesn’t look like the old 226??? The difference then was the frame was larger than the (small) 436’s and the spindle was slightly smaller than the 436 (.235” vs .270”).

They made a confusing blizzard of mics at one time… The big bad boy mic for guys with big hands & thick arms was the 239 mic with the .300” spindle and the big barrel (the 436 mics over 6” have the same .300” spindle & barrel).

To get an idea of frame & spindle size options I’ve attached the ball attachments list (frame fit vs attachment size). They made more than 4 different size spindles, they just didn’t offer a ball attachment for them...

Good luck,
Matt
 

Attachments

  • StarrettBallc.jpg
    StarrettBallc.jpg
    67.4 KB · Views: 235
  • Starrett0226.jpg
    Starrett0226.jpg
    94.2 KB · Views: 415
  • Starrett0239.jpg
    Starrett0239.jpg
    97.8 KB · Views: 175
That 226 doesn’t look like the old 226??? The difference then was the frame was larger than the (small) 436’s and the spindle was slightly smaller than the 436 (.235” vs .270”).

They made a confusing blizzard of mics at one time… The big bad boy mic for guys with big hands & thick arms was the 239 mic with the .300” spindle and the big barrel (the 436 mics over 6” have the same .300” spindle & barrel).

To get an idea of frame & spindle size options I’ve attached the ball attachments list (frame fit vs attachment size). They made more than 4 different size spindles, they just didn’t offer a ball attachment for them...

Good luck,
Matt

I'm surprised. I've only ever seen 3 spindle diameters. 1/4" (6.35mm), 5/16" (8mm) and the new kid on the block 6.5mm. With the 6.5mm I've always suspected it was just to sell their own attachments. A couple of manufacturers followed so any advantage disappeared. Personally I'd avoid 6.5mm.
 
The '239' has more mass yet it balances in the hand. The larger diameter spindle and anvil are a plus for checking journals or flat to round.
Not a hobby or home machinist grade tool. I used my set in job-shop work where the part was large enough to kill if it fell on you.
My set to 6" has the vernier for tenths. It has the better spindle lock.
John
 
Thanks for the replies. Guess I was hoping for something more scientific, but it doesn't surprise me if personal preference was the only factor deciding the different lines.

It would be interesting then to know where the different lines come from, as in, did a Starrett engineer just have an idea or suggestion from a customer that was popular enough to develop a whole new design (without dropping or improving existing lines),
OR
did Starrett purchase a line or patent from a different manufacturer that had already developed a fan base so they could monopolize on the different lines together?
 
I prefer the lighter weight 436 series. I have a very heavy frame 1" B & S but only use it when turning 2 diameters in the one inch range. The heavier frame won't get in as close to a shoulder.
My 436 series mikes over 6 inches have larger spindles and heavier frames.

The plant has lighter weight B&s and the lighter weight seems better when measuring large round nylon parts compared to my heavier Starretts. But I hate the slant lines.

Dave
 








 
Back
Top