[AVRnj]

Hey guys, I just got in my Shars 6" reverse vise. It looks great!

Question for you guys, there are 2 keys in the bottom of the vise, and they are incredibly tight and I cannot get them out of the vise. I removed the screws, but they are jammed in there really tightly. I tried removing them by tapping them out with a block of wood and a hammer and it broke the wood.

The keys do not fit in the t slots on the table, so I am wondering am I supposed to machine these while they are on the vise? Or is there a way to remove the keys that I am missing?

Thanks.

[johnedward]

they are just tight, use a chunk of aluminum or brass instead of wood to knock them loose.

[AVRnj]

John, thanks, that is exactly what I ended up doing. Now to my next problem, this one is not solvable, the 6" reverse does not fit on the Tormach! Hits the Z axis way cover. Man, this is going to be an expensive mistake! Just the shipping alone! I could have sworn I read people were using this vise with the Tormach.

[mountaindew]

John, thanks, that is exactly what I ended up doing. Now to my next problem, this one is not solvable, the 6" reverse does not fit on the Tormach! Hits the Z axis way cover. Man, this is going to be an expensive mistake! Just the shipping alone! I could have sworn I read people were using this vise with the Tormach.

I asked around before I purchased and most people told me a kurt was the best choice.
Most were modifying the 6" to work on the tormach and I didn't want to even consider that with a new expensive tool.
My thinking was I purchased a system why not add to it with tools that are made for it. I ended up with tormach 5" and the choice has worked out well.
I might have paid more for the tool or tools but a system that works saves much more then money. Time, frustration, problems and mods to make it work add to the cost of anything.
I must admit I lack long term experience with cnc systems and for me a proven setup is appealing and fun for that matter.
md

[GLCarlson]

John, thanks, that is exactly what I ended up doing. Now to my next problem, this one is not solvable, the 6" reverse does not fit on the Tormach! Hits the Z axis way cover. Man, this is going to be an expensive mistake! Just the shipping alone! I could have sworn I read people were using this vise with the Tormach.

?? Yes, of course if the vise is mounted in line with the Y axis with the handle at the back it'll hit the Z cover. So does the Glacern, and I believe the Kurt. Or it hangs over the front. (In passing, I don't know that a lot of people are modifying these vises. Most of what I read sounds like used as delivered).

I don't understand this insistance on mounting the vise with the axis parallel to the Y. It's a six inch square gripping surface. Mount it along the X axis and it'll fit fine. Incidentally, the reverse version is a delight if you mount the solid jaw to the left; lets you set up coordinate axes very easily and (for me at least) logically.

[mike sr]

Attachment 239136

This is the Shars 6" STANDARD vise, fits the table nicely, doesnt hang over the colum side of the machine or the plexiglass shield side either, I did have to cut the cover for the screw though.
the keys were tight in this vise as well and didnt fit the table slots, I removed them and machined them on one side only to fit the table slots.

I used the two drilled and countersunk holes thru the vise ways to mount it as the mounting hardware that came with it would not fit the table slots. (hex socket head screws 1/2-13 x 3" I believe, not really sure of the length of the bolts.

Model # 660 U

[AVRnj]

MD, I know exactly what you mean and for the most part feel the same way. I really wanted a reverse vise because I like working in Y+ rather than Y-, although not enough to deal with the hassle I likely now have. I also really wanted a 6" vise, but yeah, going the proven Tormach route certainly has it's pluses. If I end up returning/selling this one, I will likely go the 5" Tormach route.

GLCarlson, I am considering doing that, but I feel like it limits the use of the mill by putting it in line with the x axis. For example, say you have a piece of stock that is 8" long, if you were to put that in the vise in line with X, you would have enough travel to do almost any cut on the piece, but you could not face it and still be able to run the entire face mill completely off the piece.

MikeSr, I should have bought that one from the start, regretting my lack of research on this. I could have sworn I read a few posts saying people were using this vise on the Tormach and I was excited for a reverse vise.


One other thought I have is to buy something like these:

8 x 3 x 1" Extended Length Steel Jaws Fits 6" Kurt Vises Set of 2 Jaw 6MJV831S | eBay

I would only use 1 as to not turn it into a 4" vise, but I think if I put this on the fixed end, I would have enough room to mill anything before hitting the way cover on the Z axis, need to measure more. This may not be a great idea however as it could introduce more error into the vise.

I am definitely not modifying it, I will eat the shipping losses before doing that.

[mike sr]

MD, I know exactly what you mean and for the most part feel the same way. I really wanted a reverse vise because I like working in Y+ rather than Y-, although not enough to deal with the hassle I likely now have. I also really wanted a 6" vise, but yeah, going the proven Tormach route certainly has it's pluses. If I end up returning/selling this one, I will likely go the 5" Tormach route.

GLCarlson, I am considering doing that, but I feel like it limits the use of the mill by putting it in line with the x axis. For example, say you have a piece of stock that is 8" long, if you were to put that in the vise in line with X, you would have enough travel to do almost any cut on the piece, but you could not face it and still be able to run the entire face mill completely off the piece.

MikeSr, I should have bought that one from the start, regretting my lack of research on this. I could have sworn I read a few posts saying people were using this vise on the Tormach and I was excited for a reverse vise.


One other thought I have is to buy something like these:

8 x 3 x 1" Extended Length Steel Jaws Fits 6" Kurt Vises Set of 2 Jaw 6MJV831S | eBay

I would only use 1 as to not turn it into a 4" vise, but I think if I put this on the fixed end, I would have enough room to mill anything before hitting the way cover on the Z axis, need to measure more. This may not be a great idea however as it could introduce more error into the vise.

I am definitely not modifying it, I will eat the shipping losses before doing that.

I would check with Shars to see if the vise can be converted to a standard model, it appears to be the same vise. just the screw assembly appears different??

[AVRnj]

I would check with Shars to see if the vise can be converted to a standard model, it appears to be the same vise. just the screw assembly appears different??

That is a great thought. I will contact them tomorrow about that.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[GLCarlson]

I feel like it limits the use of the mill by putting it in line with the x axis. For example, say you have a piece of stock that is 8" long, if you were to put that in the vise in line with X, you would have enough travel to do almost any cut on the piece, but you could not face it and still be able to run the entire face mill completely off the piece.

Can you explain in more detail? I'm still stumped. Tormach has 18" (roughly) X motion, 9.5" in Y. When I mount my Glacern 6" vise parallel to X, I can hold up to about 13" in the X dimension(by moving jaws), and any width that fits in Y. Mounting parallel to Y -ignoring the handle hangover- I'm not able to mill across the full capacity of the vise because I'm travel limited to about 9". Put another way, mount in X, my gripping capacity is around 13 x 6, no interferances. Mount in Y, its 9 x 6, and I have interferance with either the bellows or hang over the enclosure.

With 18" of travel, even a 3" face mill can start off an 8" square piece and finish off (total travel there is 14"). I'm missing something in your example!

It just seems to me that the geometry of a single vise screams to be mounted with the X axis. And, indeed, that was what I typically saw as a student many years ago- vises on Bridgeports didn't hang over the table. Maybe it's simply that many vises these days are sold with keys that align to Y only (true of Glacern, anyway). I have at least a couple older mill vises that are X axis keyed, and one that swings both ways. I haven't yet keyed my Glacern for X, but that's on the list.

It's a minor point, but if Y axis mounting is better as a technique, I'd like to understand why. Having that handle dangling is a real pain. If it's just conventional wisdom, I have no problem ignoring it (and nobody cares!)

Maybe we ought to move this to a new thread, rather than hijacking this one. Any help understanding this apparent preference would be much appreciated.

[AVRnj]

Can you explain in more detail? I'm still stumped. Tormach has 18" (roughly) X motion, 9.5" in Y. When I mount my Glacern 6" vise parallel to X, I can hold up to about 13" in the X dimension(by moving jaws), and any width that fits in Y. Mounting parallel to Y -ignoring the handle hangover- I'm not able to mill across the full capacity of the vise because I'm travel limited to about 9". Put another way, mount in X, my gripping capacity is around 13 x 6, no interferances. Mount in Y, its 9 x 6, and I have interferance with either the bellows or hang over the enclosure.

With 18" of travel, even a 3" face mill can start off an 8" square piece and finish off (total travel there is 14"). I'm missing something in your example!

It just seems to me that the geometry of a single vise screams to be mounted with the X axis. And, indeed, that was what I typically saw as a student many years ago- vises on Bridgeports didn't hang over the table. Maybe it's simply that many vises these days are sold with keys that align to Y only (true of Glacern, anyway). I have at least a couple older mill vises that are X axis keyed, and one that swings both ways. I haven't yet keyed my Glacern for X, but that's on the list.

It's a minor point, but if Y axis mounting is better as a technique, I'd like to understand why. Having that handle dangling is a real pain. If it's just conventional wisdom, I have no problem ignoring it (and nobody cares!)

Maybe we ought to move this to a new thread, rather than hijacking this one. Any help understanding this apparent preference would be much appreciated.

I am pretty new to most of this stuff, so I could be wrong, but here is how I see it.

The real issue I see is face milling if you want to extend the travel of the face mill completely past the part.

For example, take a piece of stock that is 9" long by 6" wide by say 1" thick. You could center that on the vise in either x or y direction.

If the 9" is along the length of the table, you can very easily extend the face mill beyond both sides of the piece completely. However, if the 9" is in the direction of the Y, you cannot do that, and would have to ramp or plunge into the piece, which I thought was not good to do with a face mill, but again I am pretty new with this stuff.

Personally I am very interested in this conversation even though it is outside the original topic, as I would love to justify not having to spend $75 to ship this thing back and another $75 to get a new one shipped to me, so I am wanting to be convinced!

[GLCarlson]

I am pretty new to most of this stuff, so I could be wrong, but here is how I see it.

The real issue I see is face milling if you want to extend the travel of the face mill completely past the part.

For example, take a piece of stock that is 9" long by 6" wide by say 1" thick. You could center that on the vise in either x or y direction.

If the 9" is along the length of the table, you can very easily extend the face mill beyond both sides of the piece completely. However, if the 9" is in the direction of the Y, you cannot do that, and would have to ramp or plunge into the piece, which I thought was not good to do with a face mill, but again I am pretty new with this stuff.

Personally I am very interested in this conversation even though it is outside the original topic, as I would love to justify not having to spend $75 to ship this thing back and another $75 to get a new one shipped to me, so I am wanting to be convinced!

OK- we'll let the moderator kick us off!

I'm still stumped. Why set up the piece in a way that makes milling the surface flat harder? That is, it seems to me that the logical setup is the one that accomodates the piece in one set-up, not two- length along the X, not the Y. I'd plop that 9x6 piece in my X aligned vise and not have to ramp or plunge (in fact, that's exactly what I do, all the time). Setting up longways in Y just makes the job harder, and I don't see an advantage. Seems to me you've clearly stated the advantage to the X alignment, so why not do that?

I have a speculation. Most, maybe all, of these vises are made in China now. I'd bet a nickel that somebody looked at the longways keyway and said that it takes twice as long to cut it as cutting across. Et voila, the keyways went parallel instead of perpendicular to the fixed jaw, and everybody started aligning with the Y axis because that left the handle facing front. My solution to that would be to set up the vise upside down and vewwwwwy, vewwwy carefully spot (and tap) two 5/8 round pins- which gives me an X axis alignment. (As noted above, this is a roundtuit, haven't done it yet, but will. Pins are preferable to blocks because it's a circle tangent to a line sort of deal; blocks have to be perfectly square, where pins don't need to be perfectly circular- though that's probably easier than dead square keys, in fact).

Anyway. I'm still looking for a reason not to routinely put a single vise longways with the X, and if -as you appear to have- prefer a reverse model, with handle off the fixed jaw.

I sure wouldn't send that vise back. I'd just line 'er up with the X axis, fixed jaw on the left as you face it.

[mike sr]

I always liked my vise handle on the front of the machine so that its unimpeded, however GL Carlson what you say makes sense about mounting it along the X axis. The vise has been hanging off the front of my old Bridgeport for 20+ years, I guess I have gotten used to seeing it that way??

I do all my machining in a vise, Windows Mach 3 and this new machine cant be entirely trusted........The extra 3 inches or so above the table gives me a bit of a security blanket?? or so I think ha!

The Shars site has detailed drawings of the two vises, you may want to compare those to see whats the difference is between the two.

I also think all castings are made in China, comparing this vise made by the leading manufacturers looks identical to the one I have, except for the nameplate, there may be differences but they arent too visible me.

I do like this model vise, its very well made and has a very solid feel when tightening on the part.

[GLCarlson]

Can't speak to others, but I'm certain the Glacern is made in China. The cardboard packaging is distinctive. I spent years in Shanghai running an R&D operation, and am way too familiar with the short fiber, crappy quality board we got. It's some better now, but not much. And, in fact, no reason it should be. My 80+ lb Glacern arrived double-boxed, and while the corners on the outside box were -as usual- round, the vise was absolutely pristine. The packaging was good enough.

As best I can tell, Shars is selling dead-identical knockoffs of US designs. Probably from the same factory. Very common practice there: "one for the customer, one (or two) for me".

- - - Updated - - -

Can't speak to others, but I'm certain the Glacern is made in China. The cardboard packaging is distinctive. I spent years in Shanghai running an R&D operation, and am way too familiar with the short fiber, crappy quality board we got. It's some better now, but not much. And, in fact, no reason it should be. My 80+ lb Glacern arrived double-boxed, and while the corners on the outside box were -as usual- round, the vise was absolutely pristine. The packaging was good enough.

As best I can tell, Shars is selling dead-identical knockoffs of US designs. Probably from the same factory. Very common practice there: "one for the customer, one (or two) for me".

[mike sr]

The Shars was boxed the same way, with the Chinese cardboard, mine also had a few corners dinged on the box but the vise was in perfect shape. The mounting hardware, clamps, vise keys were too large for my machine table, I used the thru holes and standard 1/2-13 Tee nuts to mount it, and cut the back side down on keys, leaving the front side untouched so I could push the vise to the front of the keys to line up with the table slots, then indicate from there.I dont remember if it was slotted for the y axis or not. The 4" vise I had in the beginning was slotted both ways.

[mountaindew]

As best I can tell, Shars is selling dead-identical knockoffs of US designs. Probably from the same factory. Very common practice there: "one for the customer, one (or two) for me".

I can say the tormach is made in America. it also has a serial number plate "like a car for whatever reason. " Also with keys it can be removed and reset accurately, no need to indicate square or flat.
When shopping around I could not find a 5" kurt vise that would fit tormach at a decent price.... hmmmmm and 6" units were even cheaper, but weight was getting at upper limits for me so I wanted to avoid it.
After reading the above statement I can see why. "maybe" The tormach 5" is a kurt knock off "looks that way" and maybe made by kurt under the practice of make 1 for you 2 for me.
Just guessing
md

[AVRnj]

OK- we'll let the moderator kick us off!

I'm still stumped. Why set up the piece in a way that makes milling the surface flat harder? That is, it seems to me that the logical setup is the one that accomodates the piece in one set-up, not two- length along the X, not the Y. I'd plop that 9x6 piece in my X aligned vise and not have to ramp or plunge (in fact, that's exactly what I do, all the time). Setting up longways in Y just makes the job harder, and I don't see an advantage. Seems to me you've clearly stated the advantage to the X alignment, so why not do that?

I have a speculation. Most, maybe all, of these vises are made in China now. I'd bet a nickel that somebody looked at the longways keyway and said that it takes twice as long to cut it as cutting across. Et voila, the keyways went parallel instead of perpendicular to the fixed jaw, and everybody started aligning with the Y axis because that left the handle facing front. My solution to that would be to set up the vise upside down and vewwwwwy, vewwwy carefully spot (and tap) two 5/8 round pins- which gives me an X axis alignment. (As noted above, this is a roundtuit, haven't done it yet, but will. Pins are preferable to blocks because it's a circle tangent to a line sort of deal; blocks have to be perfectly square, where pins don't need to be perfectly circular- though that's probably easier than dead square keys, in fact).

Anyway. I'm still looking for a reason not to routinely put a single vise longways with the X, and if -as you appear to have- prefer a reverse model, with handle off the fixed jaw.

I sure wouldn't send that vise back. I'd just line 'er up with the X axis, fixed jaw on the left as you face it.

You make some great points. I think the last things I can throw at you are that it seems a bit unnatural from a CAD perspective to design some of those longer parts in the Y direction instead of the X (not a good one, I know) and if you mount it in-line in the Y direction, it seems as though you can mount it to one side and still be able to use a lot of your table, which you cannot do if you mount it in the X direction. But you are definitely making me think about it.

[GLCarlson]

Maybe the way to finish this discussion is to simply say try setting up your vise without the handle hanging out. If it works, use it. We're all interested in making parts, as effectively as we can. Leave the theoretical discussions to the folks who get paid for debating how many angels, etc.

I must add, though, that the X approach does require taking the vise on and off all the time, and -as Mike Sr noted- that's getting harder! I've always thought that was just part of setting up- some days one can leave the vise in place, some days you gotta haul it off. So there's a good reason I hadn't considered- if your usual jobs need both vise and table setups, and are small enough, parking the vise at one end oriented in Y could, in fact, make life easier. That's sort of a sub-case of "two vises", but it's a valid point and one I hadn't thought about. I was taught to leave my machine bright, shiny, and without any hardware on the table at the end of every job, and still do that today- whether it's a best practice or not (I can easily imagine situations where it is not).

We've probably beaten this to death. 'Nuff said.

[CadRhino]

I have the Tormach Machinist vise.
It is nice quality and made by Mini Mag here in the US.
I kid of wish I had the CNC vise so I could flip it on its side but I am really impressed with the quality of the Mini Mag. I will have to make due until I can get a pair of GMT Precision CNC vises.
-CR

I can say the tormach is made in America. it also has a serial number plate "like a car for whatever reason. " Also with keys it can be removed and reset accurately, no need to indicate square or flat.
When shopping around I could not find a 5" kurt vise that would fit tormach at a decent price.... hmmmmm and 6" units were even cheaper, but weight was getting at upper limits for me so I wanted to avoid it.
After reading the above statement I can see why. "maybe" The tormach 5" is a kurt knock off "looks that way" and maybe made by kurt under the practice of make 1 for you 2 for me.
Just guessing
md

[mountaindew]

I have the Tormach Machinist vise.
It is nice quality and made by Mini Mag here in the US.
-CR

Who is Mini Mag? I search and get flashlights
md


edit think I found it under magnum