Methods to squaring

Remove the jaw faces from the inside of the vise and install on the outside of the vise.
Tram vise in new configuration.
Position part so both side edges are exposed and mill the exposed edges. This becomes reference surface #1 and #2
Position reference surface #1 on the back jaw of the vise.
Side Mill both side faces of the part. You now have 4 reference surfaces that should be very close to square.

Check that the part is approximately normal to the spindle.
Fly cut or shell mill the top of the part.
Flip part over and fly cut or shell mill the other surface.

except we clarified the parameters in post 7 - part too big for any vise (in theory)
 
guilty of overlooking what i normally take for granted. - like not wanting to spend the day building a fixture for a one off part and not wanting to fiddle around shimming and fussing over getting dialed in after moving clamps - however that was the way i figured using what most people would have for equipment.

ii have another way that is relatively quick but uses automotive machine not generally found in gen mach shops - hence why i was curious

Van Norman to the rescue :) I have done that.
 
Ahhh, moving the goalposts. :grin:

Ok, then machine a fixture that supports the part but has clearance for the protrusion on the back side. Clamp as needed, but machine the surface except where the clamps are at. Move the clamps, but indicate the surface to make sure you maintain the same height. The toe clamps shown above do a fine job of workholding also and allow full access to the work surface.

Or,

Build a ''vice'' on the table to hold the part. A fixed end stop and a movable ''jaw'' consisting of an angle piece with a couple of set screws in it would normally suffice.

if i were doing a bunch then a fixture would be in order!
 
To be fair, you need to give a better description of the problem. There are many ways to skin a cat, some better than others for a particular situation. What is meant by a "a feature somewhere towards the center"? No mention of tolerances required.

In machining, setup is usually the most difficult part of the work. Many times, the time spent making a tool, fixture, or jig greatly exceeds the time in making the part.
 
To be fair, you need to give a better description of the problem.

i can never figure what someone else is thinking. i had intended the part to be too big for whoever's avail vise but didn't make the dimensions large enough for missing jaws

No mention of tolerances required.

above - 1 thou +- (and that's just arbitrary)

In machining, setup is usually the most difficult part of the work. Many times, the time spent making a tool, fixture, or jig greatly exceeds the time in making the part.

above - not mentioned in first post but taken for granted by the lazy author
 
except we clarified the parameters in post 7 - part too big for any vise (in theory)

OK,
a) Take part and raise it off the table (after removing vise) with something (or several identical) 1/4"-ish so the cutter does not hit the table.
b) Clamp the part to the table with at least 5 clamps (so we can maneuver several clamps while we mill without losing its position) and make it as square as feasible.
c) mill all 4 edges trying to keep at least 4 clamps holding the part to the table.
d) flycut or shell mill the top while carefully moving the clamps.
e) flip over and flycut or shell mill the bottom as in (d).
 
OK,
a) Take part and raise it off the table (after removing vise) with something (or several identical) 1/4"-ish so the cutter does not hit the table.
b) Clamp the part to the table with at least 5 clamps (so we can maneuver several clamps while we mill without losing its position) and make it as square as feasible.
c) mill all 4 edges trying to keep at least 4 clamps holding the part to the table.
d) flycut or shell mill the top while carefully moving the clamps.
e) flip over and flycut or shell mill the bottom as in (d).

except, in my mind, moving the clamps that rest on uneven surfaces can change the angles to the...
would have to move it more that 1/4" of the table because my imaginary feature on the bottom could be...
 
I think that a lathe would be just as accurate as a mill, if not more so, but not as accurate as a surface grinder.
The very nature of a lathe will eliminate many possible variables that a mill would have.
 
To be fair, you need to give a better description of the problem. There are many ways to skin a cat, some better than others for a particular situation. What is meant by a "a feature somewhere towards the center"? No mention of tolerances required.

In machining, setup is usually the most difficult part of the work. Many times, the time spent making a tool, fixture, or jig greatly exceeds the time in making the part.

Been there done that. I have several shelves full of fixtures that took longer to make than the part they supported. Some of them are so old I can't remember the part they were built for. I always keep them thinking some day I'll either make more of the same parts, or repurpose them for something else. So far about 10% have been modified for other uses. The others just set there collecting dust.
 
Been there done that. I have several shelves full of fixtures that took longer to make than the part they supported. Some of them are so old I can't remember the part they were built for. I always keep them thinking some day I'll either make more of the same parts, or repurpose them for something else. So far about 10% have been modified for other uses. The others just set there collecting dust.
I once made an extractor for push broken wheel studs from a hub on my FWD vehicle. It took me the best part of a day to find it in a chunk of steel. It took me less than a minute to press out two broken studs. The alternative would have been to disassemble the front wheel drive. Driving the studs out with a drift was not an option because of the likelihood of damaging the wheel bearings. I have never used it again although my neighbor borrowed it to remove some broken studs from his vehicle.
Stud Puller.JPG
 
Back
Top