On average, how accurate has your Tormach been?

Hello,

I've been looking into Tormach for prototyping parts in brass and aluminum. I was curious what kind of tolerances are you holding with the Tormach or how close are coming to your desired measurements?

Thank you for feedback.

Haven't really tried too hard to maintain accuracy with mine yet, mostly because the parts I've been making are more experimenting with tools and materials than actual parts I need. That said, ±0.005" has been the norm without trying at all. Adding a spring pass to my finishing ops has gotten me within a thou or two. I believe my biggest issue with accuracy is my tooling and my own lack of experience with machining.

Thanks, can I ask what model you have?

+/- .005" with ease, +/- .0025" with some wear comp settings and watching parts, +/- .001" - can be done but with a ton of dialing in the machine and tooling.

(2) 1100M mills and (1) Slant Pro lathe - Been running Tormach for about 6 years.

I'm running an 1100M. I have some experience on a PCNC440 as well which was giving me +/- .01" consistently but take that with a grain of salt because I had NEVER run a mill or a cnc prior to operating that machine so I'm confident my own mistakes were leading to bad parts. Hell, it took me 2 months of saturdays before I was able to make a single part start to finish without crashing something along the way and smacking the e-stop.

I would say +/- .005" is conservative, when I'm "just doing it" I'm usually within 0.003" unless my file is dumb (pushes thin things too hard and getting deflection and such.)
When I have something that really matters, I will walk it in, and get to about 0.001". It is rare that I need this -- it's mostly bores for pins or bearing seats.
This is on Series 3 1100 and more modern PCNC 440.

I agree with your general accuracy comments but I don't think that a Tormach is capable of *milling* a bore for a bearing seat. The problem is both dimensions and roundness. For bearing seats I use an Erickson TenthSet boring head and can dial it in to be round plus within a few tenths of the desired size. For small bearings it may be better to use a reamer.

I have a 1100M that I have had for 3 months. I'm still learning it's capabilities but so far I'm impressed with Path Pilot and the machine's accuracy. I ran an aluminum contour job today that didn't require extreme accuracy. I grabbed a used 1/4" 2 flute HSS end mill, installed it in a ER-16 collet and holder and started cutting. RPM was 5000, DOC was .500", WOC was .025", and the feed rate was 25 IPM. The final dimensions were within .001" in X and spot on in Y. I've got two more parts to run tomorrow. I'll report back if the dimensions vary more than .0005".

Hope this is useful info.

I can do +/-.001 work all day long on my series II 1100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pastaman

I have a 1100M that I have had for 3 months. I'm still learning it's capabilities but so far I'm impressed with Path Pilot and the machine's accuracy. I ran an aluminum contour job today that didn't require extreme accuracy. I grabbed a used 1/4" 2 flute HSS end mill, installed it in a ER-16 collet and holder and started cutting. RPM was 5000, DOC was .500", WOC was .025", and the feed rate was 25 IPM. The final dimensions were within .001" in X and spot on in Y. I've got two more parts to run tomorrow. I'll report back if the dimensions vary more than .0005".

Hope this is useful info.

---

I’m still using Mach III. I’ve seen too many things Path Pilot won’t do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Seebold

I can do +/-.001 work all day long on my series II 1100.

---

Is that accuracy working from the print or after tweaking things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Seebold

I’m still using Mach III. I’ve seen too many things Path Pilot won’t do.

---

Details please of missing capabilities in PP? I used Mach3 for several years but find PP much more capable and I am not missing anything that I had in Mach3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kstrauss

Details please of missing capabilities in PP? I used Mach3 for several years but find PP much more capable and I am not missing anything that I had in Mach3.

---

+1

I ran the remaining two parts today (Parts B and C). Again I didn't take any precautions like creeping up on the final size or change speeds and feeds. I used the same parameters as the first part (Part A, see my post above). Here are the measured dimensions in X and Y:

Part A
X dimension - 5.2510
Y dimension - 4.9990

Part B
X dimension - 5.2505
Y dimension - 4.9994

Part C
X dimension - 5.2500
Y dimension - 4.9992

These dimensions are representative of my machine. My model is setup for 5.250 in X and 5.000 in Y. Pictures attached. As Steve said +/- .001" is achievable.

I'm new to this , I have a 770m And a 440 due in next week .
In anealed 4140 once I got the finish passes dialed in plus or minus .001 has been relatively easy to maintain .

Before I got the finish strategy figured out for my parts plus or minus .003 was no harder to achieve then tying my shoes .

I can hold +/- .003 easily on my 770.
+/- .001 requires a little finesse.