whateg01
Well-known member
I don't even see the photo, so unless I quote it, I don't even get a chance to see the link. I'm on my phone, so I don't know if that matters.
Dave
Craftsman Drill Press
- Thread starter FrankLee
- Start date
I don't even see the photo, so unless I quote it, I don't even get a chance to see the link. I'm on my phone, so I don't know if that matters.
Dave
whateg01
Well-known member
No, I'm glad you do. I hate when somebody posts 20 pictures of something and somebody else quotes them and leaves all the pictures and then the OP quotes them, ad nauseum.
I can see the pic in the original reply on my computer, but on my phone, there was not even a hint that there was something else in that post until I clicked on the Quote button. So, you're fine. It's something to do with my phone. In fact, I just reloaded the last page and now the pic shows up on my phone, so it must have been something weird going on there.
Dave
So, I'm nearly finished with the refurb of dp#84. This morning, I started cleaning up the motor. It is a Craftsman 1/2 hp, 1725 rpm motor with sleeve bearings, model 113.12140, manufactured in late '64.
It's nothing unusual until I noticed that ends of the cradle mount are different heights. The difference between the height at the ends of the shaft is ~5/8". I've never seen this before. With the pivoting motor mount, it will be easy to compensate for the angled shaft. Is this a mistake? Or does anyone know the purpose of a cradle like this?
It's nothing unusual until I noticed that ends of the cradle mount are different heights. The difference between the height at the ends of the shaft is ~5/8". I've never seen this before. With the pivoting motor mount, it will be easy to compensate for the angled shaft. Is this a mistake? Or does anyone know the purpose of a cradle like this?
Last edited:
lafester
Well-known member
Re: The Classic Craftsman 100/150 Drill Press
My guess is that it is a defect and not intended to be like that. Surprised nobody had chimed in with another, more logical reason why.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
My guess is that it is a defect and not intended to be like that. Surprised nobody had chimed in with another, more logical reason why.
Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
I’m getting close to putting my drill press back together and figured I’d better take a look at the belt. Although it’s very faint, the belt is stamped with the Craftsman underlining letter “C” logo followed by, “Cat. No. 9-1644 1/2 x 44.” I’m guessing it’s the original 72 year old belt. Probably time to replace it.
Jim C.
Jim C.
Attachments
whateg01
Well-known member
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
That belt was made into the 60’s using that long c design. I had one on a crown top power bronze floor model that was late crown top era.
Sent from my iPhone using The Garage Journal mobile app
I've got handful of long C belts. Whether Jim's belt is original, I dunno, but the 9-1644 at the top of the picture came off of dp#84, circa ~1965. It's still in good usable condition and it's going back on. The other two are also still good. I use these for testing purposes.
Here's an interesting belt with the original sleeve. It backs-up Smoke's comment. The 99 cent price tag and the "Sears" logo in the round red dot dates it to 1969. This one is a wall-hanger. It's very stiff and retains the exact same shape when removed from the sleeve.
Last edited:
You know, I really don’t know the answer. I only guessed it was the original based on the originality of the rest of the machine. I mean, the DP was still bolted to its original wooden shipping pallet. I know that has nothing to do with the belt. I do know that the DP has gone unused since 1985. Fortunately it was stored in a dry, climate controlled basement since then. So, it was fairly well preserved. Looking at some of the pictures posted by FrankLee, the stamp on my belt is missing a final series of numbers/letters. I attached a picture with a red circle and question mark. Does the lack of those extra numbers/letters indicate a time period? Again, I don’t know. What I do know is that the outer layer is starting to separate from the lower layer, indicating that it’s time for a new one.
Jim C.
Jim C.
Attachments
Last edited:
jbltwin1
Well-known member
OK- that's just plain weird. Also don't know if the high side is right or the low side. Mike.
Yeah, it really is weird.
This morning, I removed the motor from the cradle and measured again. The cradle difference is about 3/8" from end-to-end, so some of the difference is the rubber mounting rings.
IIRC, the stud for the lower motor mount clip was threaded into the head frame only about 1/4". I thought that was odd too. Regardless, I reversed the cradle. We'll see what happens when the machine gets reassembled.
Smokeshow69
Well-known member
I've got handful of long C belts. Whether Jim's belt is original, I dunno, but the 9-1644 at the top of the picture came off of dp#84, circa ~1965. It's still in good usable condition and it's going back on. The other two are also still good. I use these for testing purposes.
Here's an interesting belt with the original sleeve. It backs-up Smoke's comment. The 99 cent price tag and the "Sears" logo in the round red dot dates it to 1969. This one is a wall-hanger. It's very stiff and retains the exact same shape when removed from the sleeve.
Franklee- this belt is awesome! Not a user but a cool wall hanger
Sent from my iPhone using The Garage Journal mobile app
whateg01
Well-known member
Well, it appears I was wrong about there being a lip on the base for the column to seat against. I don't know why I was thinking there was one, other than there is still a ring of grime, dirt, etc. there that looks pretty solid at a glance. So, my bad!
Dave
Dave
Finished the DP project. FrankLee, many thanks for the great information contained in this thread, particularly as it relates to disassembly and assembly of the head. It was very helpful. Other than the cracked tilt table flange, the DP was in pretty good shape to start with. Still, the thread was instrumental in helping me avoid making mistakes, or causing unintended damage. Thanks again!
Jim C.
Jim C.
Attachments
Mr. Wonderful
Well-known member
Jim,
looks great! what color paint did you use?
looks great! what color paint did you use?
Thanks! Believe it or not, that’s factory original paint. All I did was wipe it with a microfiber rag and some mineral spirits. That took off old grime, dust, etc. Then I wiped it down again with a clean dry microfiber rag. There were a lot of multI color paint splatters all over the DP. Top to bottom including inside the head casting and chuck jaws. It took a while to remove it all without damaging the original finish underneath. I was using Q-tips, small brushes, toothpicks, etc. to keep the paint remover only on the paint splatters. It took time but not getting sloppy with it preserved the factory finish.
Jim C.
FrankLee, I’m very happy with the results! The thrust nut was a perfect fit and O rings went on like expected. The replacement table will work, but at some point I’d like to find another tilt table just to get the DP back to its original configuration. I know those parts might be hard to find. I’m watching out for one.
As for the thread, like I said, it was a super resource. I wish I could have added a little more valuable information to it, but you have everything so well covered, there’s not much more to say. All I can do is give the thread my endorsement.
Jim C.
So, I'm nearly finished with the refurb of dp#84. This morning, I started cleaning up the motor. It is a Craftsman 1/2 hp, 1725 rpm motor with sleeve bearings, model 113.12140, manufactured in late '64.
It's nothing unusual until I noticed that ends of the cradle mount are different heights. The difference between the height at the ends of the shaft is ~5/8". I've never seen this before. With the pivoting motor mount, it will be easy to compensate for the angled shaft. Is this a mistake? Or does anyone know the purpose of a cradle like this?
I reinstalled the motor on dp#84. The reversed cradle works well and the belt tracks square to the spindle and motor shaft. However, I had to use the 45" belt because the lower stud bottomed out to the column with the 44" belt before belt alignment was correct.
whateg01
Well-known member
Starting to work on the new spindle. Did some test cuts. I think I'm going to have to use a smaller radius on the endmill, or one without a radius on the corners. I also found that my collet block or the collet is not concentric. I intend to use the Super Spacer with a tailstock, so that shouldn't be an issue. The SS has an adjust-tru style chuck on it. Overall, it looks like it should be pretty easy to get the splines done. Then I can deal with the taper.
Dave
Dave
Attachments
whateg01
Well-known member
Mine was modified to use a jack-shaft, of course, but I didn't see evidence that a screw was used to tighten the belt. I thought it was just gravity that held the belt tight.
Dave
That's how the motor mount is on my keeper machine... gravity to some degree; no stud/clip. There were three designs for the pivot motor mount.
....
Early Craftsman 150 with hinged motor mount. Some have a female threaded boss spot welded onto the mounting plate.
Late Craftsman 150 with hinged motor mount with clip: The stud is threaded into the head frame.
The hinged motor mount was introduced to allow easy and rapid changing of belt position. I presume that the hinge mount was updated with a locking clip to eliminate any bouncing of the motor. I believe this would occur with a stiff v-belt that retains the memory of the tight curve of the pulleys. I haven't noticed much, if any, motor bouncing with a linked or cogged belts.
....
Last edited:
I picked up this Craftsman 397.19391, 1/3 hp, 6" bench grinder this morning... cheap! It's rough, but most everything is there. It's only missing three rubber feet and the quench tray. One shield is slightly cracked at the bracket. It'll be a lucrative part-out project.
Last edited:
T.K.B.
Member
When checking run-out, what is the method.
If you chucked a 1/2" drill rod, how would you check.
Close to the chuck, 6" from the chuck?
Quill up, quill down?
Should it be the same run-out for all of these?
Would you use a plunger or lever dial indicator?
If you chucked a 1/2" drill rod, how would you check.
Close to the chuck, 6" from the chuck?
Quill up, quill down?
Should it be the same run-out for all of these?
Would you use a plunger or lever dial indicator?
Last edited:
I have a post regarding runout, but as I say in the post, I am no expert.
https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6507328
Depending on what is causing runout, I think readings could change if measuring from different locations.
I use a plunger DI and measure on a rod near the chuck. When I can, I also measure on the spindle taper on both the small end and the large end.
I'm hoping the see some other comments and opinions on this.
Outlawmws
Well-known member
Frank what you are doing is fine.
But consider this; if measuring 6" from the chuck, and if the rod is griped exactly parallel, then yes same or close top and bottom. if the rod is being gripped slightly non parallel, OR the quill shaft is bent, it will be larger at the end than at the chuck..
There are many pats involved here.
Measuring runnout in different places can be a valuable diagnostic tool for what to go after.
Having said that, getting all the moving parts clean and lightly oiled will get you the most useful readings; in particular the chuck and its workings. any dirt up inside will throw things off..
But consider this; if measuring 6" from the chuck, and if the rod is griped exactly parallel, then yes same or close top and bottom. if the rod is being gripped slightly non parallel, OR the quill shaft is bent, it will be larger at the end than at the chuck..
There are many pats involved here.
Measuring runnout in different places can be a valuable diagnostic tool for what to go after.
Having said that, getting all the moving parts clean and lightly oiled will get you the most useful readings; in particular the chuck and its workings. any dirt up inside will throw things off..
DaveT
Well-known member
Well I'm glad it's not just me. I got emails saying there were new posts but when I went to view them they weren't there. Thought maybe I was just having browser not-refreshing issues.
RHJO51
Well-known member
Gents. I posted a couple of weeks ago about a Atlas DP I stumbled across with a MSA. Very nice, all original, paid $100. Then last night on FBMP I see an ad for a Craftsman DP also with a MSA and it's 3 miles from me - $75. Was posted for 8 hrs so I figured it was gone bu no, and it's now mine. 101.03633. Very nice condition, original grey paint looks great, 1/3 HP (original?) Dunlap motor runs nice and quiet, no parts missing. And there was a nice Palmgren vise thrown in to boot. Thought you might enjoy the side by side pics. Not sure which one is better, they are both 1940s Atlas machines. Funny how these machines just kind find you sometimes, - Jim
Attachments
</MARQUEE>DP#85, Craftsman #2432 Milling Vise
Dp#85 found me today.
I believe it's a '49, 13-1/2" Craftsman 80, (well technically a Craftsman 100 because it's pre-1950). The model number is 103.23640.
Yeah, it's rough, and I paid more than I wanted to, but I've never had a milling vise before.
I believe the milling vise is original to the machine. Below is an excerpt from the 1950 catalog. Aren't they all missing the jaws?
This group was also included with the deal. One ratchet should be good after cleaning, one may be ok after cleaning, the other has a fubar quick release.
7/3/2020
The milling vise refurb is complete.
I also got dp#85 dismantled. With liberal use of penetrants, it was much easier than I expected. Lots of cleaning and de-rusting to do.
I found a huge mud nest in the nose cavity of the head frame casting.
7/5/2020
The table base and column are complete.
7/7/2020
Making progress.
7/10/2020
Dp#85 is complete.
Dp#85 found me today.
I believe it's a '49, 13-1/2" Craftsman 80, (well technically a Craftsman 100 because it's pre-1950). The model number is 103.23640.
Yeah, it's rough, and I paid more than I wanted to, but I've never had a milling vise before.
I believe the milling vise is original to the machine. Below is an excerpt from the 1950 catalog. Aren't they all missing the jaws?
This group was also included with the deal. One ratchet should be good after cleaning, one may be ok after cleaning, the other has a fubar quick release.
7/3/2020
The milling vise refurb is complete.
I also got dp#85 dismantled. With liberal use of penetrants, it was much easier than I expected. Lots of cleaning and de-rusting to do.
I found a huge mud nest in the nose cavity of the head frame casting.
7/5/2020
The table base and column are complete.
7/7/2020
Making progress.
7/10/2020
Dp#85 is complete.
Last edited:
whateg01
Well-known member
I always like to look at the differences in equivalent models that are labeled differently. The Power Kraft DP I bought a couple weeks ago is identical to the Delta model, but for the label and the front pulley cover. It's interesting to see what they do to differentiate them. Kinda like domestic cars up until the 90s when they started to use different sheetmetal. Up to a point, they might change the grille or the headlights/tail-lights to make them different, but beyond that, they were nearly identical. Change for the sake of change.
Dave
lafester
Well-known member
That is worth the drive from st louis...
Boy I wish I was closer to Terre Haute IN
Nice Table lifting mechanism on this one for $100
Hope someone here gets to it first
Facebook Marketplace
