[4]

Vise squareness question

[3]
[10] Like what you see?
Click here to donate to this forum and upgrade your account!
Gentlemen!
I bought this precision vise from shars company, to replace cheap Chinese vise I had before. https://www.shars.com/products/workholding/vise/4-single-lock-down-precision-milling-machine-vise
The Jaws out of the box were not square to the base, despite spec being . 0004 "
Checked with several starrett tools. I sent pictures to the Shars and they responded that's the way the make em..... My Chinese vise was off about the same way.
What do I need to do to get a vise that's actually square and I can mill soft materials square.
Thanks a bunch.!
Arthur
 

Attachments

Comments

Gentlemen!
I bought this precision vise from shars company, to replace cheap Chinese vise I had before. https://www.shars.com/products/workholding/vise/4-single-lock-down-precision-milling-machine-vise
The Jaws out of the box were not square to the base, despite spec being . 0004 "
Checked with several starrett tools. I sent pictures to the Shars and they responded that's the way the make em..... My Chinese vise was off about the same way.
What do I need to do to get a vise that's actually square and I can mill soft materials square.
Thanks a bunch.!
Arthur
Have you tried removing the jaw and stoning both the back side of it and the main jaw? There may be a burr in there someplace. Also, check that the removable jaw is flat and both sides are parallel with each other. A surface plate would help here.

If you want to try and fix it yourself (since Shars seems to be no help) I would check that the flat base was parrallel with the vise bottom. If it is, make sure your table is stoned flat. Then, you could take an end mill and true up the vertical base making sure you indicate it in the X axis first if it's keyed on the bottom of the base).

Anyways, that's what I would do if I was going to try and fix it.

Ted
 
You show the movable jaw being off with the square. Is the fixed jaw that way too? That's the important one, though I think their argument is bogus. I would think that slight angle would make it more likely that a part would come loose. Perhaps not a LOT more likely, but somewhat. I might be off base, but it seems to me you have a couple options.

Mill the jaws square or make some square soft jaws. In my view, it should not be necessary, but it's an option. And they would be as square as your machine is. Ted's post covers some options for fixing it, I'm less useful there. :)

Buy a better vise. Certainly more expensive, and to get a known good brand like Kurt or Glacern you're going to be spending a lot more than that. Perhaps a used older style like the Bridgeport branded units. There was a recent thread about an inexpensive ebay vise they liked, I believe it was about $85. You might ask them for a squareness test.
 
I had to disassemble my chinese vise and clean the living snot out of all the machined surfaces for it to be anywhere close to square.
But after doing so, it is pretty square.
 
I own that exact vise and it works wonders for me. As stated above, disassemble the vise and check for burrs. Stone if necessary. There is a center setscrew in the back of the moving jaw, once assembled (make sure the half ball inside the moving jaw is correctly sitting in its cup, grease helps here), snug up on the center screw until the vise screw is slightly stiff to spin. This will remove all the play in the jaw.

Shars service has been good to me in the past. Its possible you got a bad vise and perhaps another wouldn't have the same problem.

Edit: I'm pretty sure the guy from Shars has no idea what he is talking about. There is a angle lock feature to the jaw to prevent the jaws from rocking when closed, but it has nothing to do with the squareness you are talking about.
 
I wouldn't be too harsh on Shars. It's my understanding that some mill vises are made that way on purpose. The vise will flex when tightened so they tilt the stationary jaw slightly inward to compensate for the flex when you lock in a work piece. The way you have the work piece mounted with the ball bearing would negate any tilt the movable jaw might have. If you aren't getting square corners when you face mill, it could well be that your mill isn't perfectly trammed. Not saying that is isn't, just offering a possibility.

Also, the .0004" accuracy that Shars claims has nothing to do with the jaws. That spec is the side to bottom squareness, or how close the sides are to being at a right angle to the bottom of the vise, in case you need to turn it on it's side for a milling operation.

Tom

Edit: FWIW, here's a video on vise flex.

 
Last edited:
unless you spend $250-300+ on the higher end import vises (eg. the 550V line Shars offers) then these vises are a kit. I bought the non-CNC version that you have - took it to pieces, stoned all the surfaces, drilled and tapped the fixed jaw for longer bolts (and bought better quality bolts), smoothed out the lock down mechanism (it was a rough cast surface), added shims where necessary and now it's a nice vise. The fixed jaw does flex upwards slightly, especially when holding thin work on parallels, so I have to tap down the work, but the lockdown mechanism otherwise works very well. I haven't checked out all the surfaces with an indicator, but the bed was parallel to the table and the jaws close without a gap anywhere, so I'm happy. For the money it was a steal.
 
Depends on how much time you want to spend on truing up a vise. I bought used Kurts(6" and 8"), and don't see those problems and can rely on the castings not to break. Sometimes I crank on the 8" with a 24" extension which puts a lot of strain on the vise.
 
I would question the precision of the tools that you are using to quantify the (supposed) out of squareness; none of them are made for the purpose.
 
Depends on how much time you want to spend on truing up a vise. I bought used Kurts(6" and 8"), and don't see those problems and can rely on the castings not to break. Sometimes I crank on the 8" with a 24" extension which puts a lot of strain on the vise.
I know it's a bit off topic, but why? The provided handle should provide pressure in the tons. Using a longer bar seems more than a bit extreme. But I am also a noob, so perhaps I can learn something. :)
 
I know it's a bit off topic, but why? The provided handle should provide pressure in the tons. Using a longer bar seems more than a bit extreme. But I am also a noob, so perhaps I can learn something. :)
I quite agree, it is a good way to break the needle thrust bearing.
 
I know it's a bit off topic, but why? The provided handle should provide pressure in the tons. Using a longer bar seems more than a bit extreme. But I am also a noob, so perhaps I can learn something. :)
Screen Shot 01-02-19 at 03.43 PM.PNGI need that amount of force when stamping steel(5/8" diameter tool steel stamp). So a 2 foot extension will give 11,500 of clamping pressure with 80 pounds of pressure from me.
 
That I did, but it does not relate to any specific product so far as I can see. Imagine how much distortion that much force would impose on the vise, to say nothing of the machine table.
 
I agree a cheater of any length on a Kurt vise key is asking for something to break or pop out. I'm a mechanic for 30yrs and I can count on both hands how many times I torqued something to 160 ft lbs. It takes some effort for a 180 lb guy. My question is what needs 12k lbs of clamping force that you work width? To each their own of course.
 
So how does one align five vises:surrender:? Do the end ones, put the part in center vises loose to table, tighten vises on part then go tighten three middle ones to table? Do all five?
 
So how does one align five vises:surrender:? Do the end ones, put the part in center vises loose to table, tighten vises on part then go tighten three middle ones to table? Do all five?
Dial indicator, if you can indicate 1 vice square on the mill table why not 5? This is not a fast process in any way and may take longer then making the part itself.
One of the things that you are paying for with $5000.00 worth of Kurt vices is that the heights are pretty damn close to one another, not close enough for hobby work of course but often close enough for industrial work of this kind.

Treat multiple vices as one vice, same machine table and spindle, if all are in line they work as one.
 
One of the things that you are paying for with $5000.00 worth of Kurt vices is that the heights are pretty damn close to one another, not close enough for hobby work of course but often close enough for industrial work of this kind.
no need to be snarky mate. Remember, making other people look bad doesn't make you look good.
 
Come on guys. Lets take a deep breath here. How someone decides to treat their own vice is their business. For sure if it looks like someone could get seriously hurt then I think we owe it to each other to point that out, other than that to each his own.

David
 
Dial indicator, if you can indicate 1 vice square on the mill table why not 5? This is not a fast process in any way and may take longer then making the part itself.
One of the things that you are paying for with $5000.00 worth of Kurt vices is that the heights are pretty damn close to one another, not close enough for hobby work of course but often close enough for industrial work of this kind.

Treat multiple vices as one vice, same machine table and spindle, if all are in line they work as one.
Not trying to be snarky, but I do believe P.Waller has made an accurate observation. I often read how some members are hung up on milling or turning to .0001". While it can be done and is done where necessary, a vast majority of home projects don't require that level of accuracy. In most cases an accuracy of +/- .005" is more than sufficient. There is a small percentage of the time when =/- .001" is necessary and an even smaller percentage when +/- .0001" is necessary.

I worked for a major manufacturer for over 20 years designing, machining, and building machinery. In all those years over 80% of the prints specified -+/- .005". Another 15% or so specified +/- .001", and the final 5% were +/- .0001". It's nice to be able to achieve the .0001" tolerances, but in most cases far from necessary. One of the standard jokes when designing parts was " For every place you move the tolerance decimal point to the right you move the cost decimal point one place to the left". While the accuracy could be achieved the cost of doing so more often than not was prohibitive. In almost every case there was little if any difference in the longevity of the part regardless of whether it was machined to +/- .005" or +/- .0001"
 
Last edited:
Not trying to be snarky, but I do believe P.Waller has made an accurate observation. I often read how some members are hung up on milling or turning to .0001". While it can be done and is done where necessary, a vast majority of home projects don't require that level of accuracy."
Agreed, I thought it was funny. The ability to work within 0.001" tolerance is admirable, but that precision is often pursued for its own sake by enthusiasts (i.e., any off-the-clock worker). Nothing wrong with that, but there's something amusing about a level of precision required "only by amateurs and NASA" :)
 
no need to be snarky mate. Remember, making other people look bad doesn't make you look good.
Not snarky at all just the way it is. If making a one off part for hobby purposes people often aim for the least deviation from nominal dimensions with a near perfect visual appearance.
The multiple vice method pictured above will always leave unsightly visible tooling marks where the cuts over lap, this 110" long part had to be face milled in 3 sections leaving 2 visible artifacts that would be deemed unacceptable for a hobby project.
In industry if the part surface is within the flatness tolerance specified, +- .002" for example, a visible tooling mark on this type of part is perfectly acceptable.

There are many threads on this very forum about tooling marks left on surfaces when several overlapping tool passes are required for facing or pocketing. Such visual artifacts may not be measurable by conventional methods but detract from the appearance.

A good example are pipe flanges, in the picture below there is a visible line on the OD of the new part, this happens when the OD is turned from both ends and is nearly unavoidable. This is perfectly fine when the part is installed at an oil refinery. It would be less then perfectly fine it were in the OD of a brass model steam engine flywheel (-:
 
[6]
[5] [7]
Top