Re: Carbide Endmills




"Black Dragon" <black.dragon.usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dbua4a$1rf3$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
> PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
>
> > "jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1122093051.434197.304410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >> PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
>
> >>> "jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>> news:1122091739.852765.250430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >>>> What is the reason they are always undersize ?
>
> >>> They wouldn't fit into the holders otherwise.....
>
> >> HSS is often to size.
>
> > And it's also unstable on hardening.....so you start with an oversized
> > blank.
>
> What were the shank diameters of the last 9/32, 7/32, 5/32 and smaller
> than 1/8 inch dia solid carbide endmills you used? Why are those
> endmills typically a thou or two smaller than nominal?
>

Well, I'm running out of guesses here.......

But I've been told that oftentimes a series that has the tool size being a
size smaller than the shank will be made from rejects that are then reground
down to the next smaller size.

In actuality, I prefer them to be a couple of thou under--allows me to
program for that size tool (as to smallest fillet radius ), yet I still
retain the ability to program using cutter comp.

--

SVL


.