I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and carving up our
arboreal relatives.
However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of wood, and
went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. All I wanted was
a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet, but a
hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an electric,
cordless, drill.
Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old squared shank,
and tend to slip.
You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume is a way of
tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied size screw,
or insertable screws?
Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel, or
whatever.
"Don H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and
carving up our
> arboreal relatives.
> However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of
wood, and
> went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. All I
wanted was
> a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
> My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet,
but a
> hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an
electric,
> cordless, drill.
> Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old squared
shank,
> and tend to slip.
> You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume is
a way of
> tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
> Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied
size screw,
> or insertable screws?
> Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel,
or
> whatever.
>
>
Try Garrett-Wade:
Gimlets:
http://www.garrettwade.com/product.asp?pn=37J03.05&sid=W6600074&eid=Gimlets&gclid=CP3_m-yA3poCFQNfFQodby8fxw&bhcd2=1243478941
Brace:
http://www.garrettwade.com/product.asp?pn=47B01ddd01&bhcd2=1243479200
Len
On May 27, 3:15=A0pm, "Don H" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and carving up o=
ur
> arboreal relatives.
> =A0 However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of wood, a=
nd
> went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. =A0All I wanted=
was
> a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
> =A0 My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet, but a
> hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an electric,
> cordless, drill.
> =A0 Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old squared sha=
nk,
> and tend to slip.
> =A0 You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume is a wa=
y of
> tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
> =A0 =A0Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied size=
screw,
> or insertable screws?
> =A0 =A0Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel, or
> whatever.
The definition of =93bradawl=94 shown here suggests that they should be
used under supervision:
http://www.primarydandt.org/learn-here/glossary,1207,NA.html?cat=3Db
You probably should have medical help standing by while you are
attempting to use sharp tools or blunt instruments.
Don, One way to drill a hole, esp where there is no electricity, is
to use the correct size gun. Probably of more use outside, than for
inside projects, but I have had excellent results on camping trips in
remote areas.
Any 22 cal plinking gun will make 0.22 inch holes in 1 inch boards
or smaller, suitable to pass fence (barbless) wire thru. 30.06 or
AK-47's make clean 0.30 inch holes thru a lot of things. I find the
AK is suitable for either wood, or metal up to 1/4 inch. A 44 Mag
makes a fine drill in wood that will take a 1/4-3/8 inch rope, and can
usually be punched thru a 4x4 if a rifle is used. And finally, if you
need 3/4 inch holes in a wall, floor, or ceiling nothing beats the 12
gage shotgun. But unless you are shooting slugs, keep in mind that
the hole size is determined by distance between the barrel and the
hole. In any case, most any 12 gage ammo will poke a nice shower
drain in the floor of an abandoned cabin.
Hope this helps.....
On May 28, 4:30=A0pm, "Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In case the OP is wondering =A0runout of .001" is about a third the
> >thickness of a sheet of paper.
>
> >What is the point of bringing up precision machining and shop
> >equipment in a thread about a newbie looking for options to a brace
> >and bit?
>
> Um... =A0(scratching head) =A0It was a response to another response talki=
ng
> about the holding power of key-type and keyless chucks. =A0Didn't you see=
the
> notes from "Stuart Marlow" and "Mike"?
Yes, I saw their original posts, but I didn't see any attribution for
who you were quoting in your post. It makes it difficult to follow
who said what without referring back to a previous post. Not everyone
has your newsreader, not everyone will be seeing these posts in
order. Any reason for the omission? Any reason for omitting the
attribution from my post that you quoted above?
> Not sure how new you are to newsgroups... =A0but discussions often morph =
into
> something other than the original purpose and it's understood that this i=
s
> the nature of discussion boards, newsgroups, etc. =A0It's also the beauti=
y of
> newsgroups. =A0You often learn about stuff you didn't even know you were
> curious about due to the natural direction that some discussions take.
I just fell off the turnip truck. I am familiar how on topic can
drift into off topic, but when the digression would tend to confuse
the OP - an admitted newbie - who are you helping out? I don't think
there's a regular on the newsgroup that isn't aware of the closer
tolerances achievable with shop equipment.
> >Scratch that question and answer this one - what chuck do _you_ use on
> >your everyday, general purpose, around the house drill?
>
> At home, a 20+ year old Black and Decker with key-type.
Ouch.
> One at home and one here: =A0Cheap Grizzly hand drill with key-type chuck=
...
> Has the little star-looking rubber dohicky to hold the key near the base =
of
> the power cord.
Double ouch. Frankly I am more than a little bit surprised. You are
in the drill business, catering to higher end applications and closer
tolerances, and this is what you use? For heaven sakes, why? Why
fumble with a key if you don't need one?
I now know why you think keyless chucks are inferior - those tools you
have are low end and/or old. I work with tools daily, and I'm also
cheap, so I'm not about to piss money away, but my time is valuable
and it's not worth being frustrated with a tool every time I use it to
save $30. Keyless chucks are faster, time is money and life is
short. I'm not into the zen-bit-changing thing, either.
> Cheap drill press has a key-type chuck.
Shop equipment.
> Middle-weight drill press has a key-type chuck.
Shop equipment.
> Large 2 HP, 3 phase drill press has a key-type chuck.
...ummmm, shop equipment.
Surely you're not comparing those oranges to the apples we're
discussing? No one brought up shop equipment except you. If we were
discussing fuel econony, would you bring up your nitro dragster?
> >I'll eat my hat if it's a keyed chuck unless you use hex-shank bits in
> >a quick change holder.
>
> NEVER use hex shank bits myself... =A0Or at least not in the past 2-3 yea=
rs.
I'll bite - why not? I'm not trying to jump all over you (I'm sorry
if it seems that I am), but you're shooting yourself in the foot with
a keyed chuck, and apparently not concerned with setup time, either.
> Do you want any seasoning with that hat?
Well, you've given me a chuckle, so I won't ask you for anything more,
but I'm curious - what are you recommending to the OP and what are you
basing it on?
Like I said, you're in the drill business, so you should be up on
things when you start talking anything drill, and it seems you're a
bit behind the curve with hand held power tools. It's not just an old
tools thing, either. I could send you a 20 year old Makita keyless
that has no issues with slipping bits. Keyless chucks have come a
long way, but it's unrealistic to expect a lower end tool to have a
better quality chuck.
R
"Don H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and carving up
> our
> arboreal relatives.
> However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of wood, and
> went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. All I wanted
> was
> a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
> My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet, but a
> hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an electric,
> cordless, drill.
> Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old squared shank,
> and tend to slip.
No they don't.
> You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume is a way of
> tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
> Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied size
> screw,
> or insertable screws?
> Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel, or
> whatever.
>
Ummmm... why not just use the tools that everyone else uses? As you stated,
you're no handyman, so why presume that commonly used tools aren't good
enough?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On May 28, 3:17=A0pm, "Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I have yet to come across a keyless chuck that you can get as tight as=
a
> >> proper keyed chuck and avoid the drill slipping round in the chuck and
> >> causing damage.
>
> > I have to wonder what keyless chucks you've encountered then. =A0I woul=
d not
> > suggest they are as robust as a keyed chuck, but I've used them for a l=
ot
> > of years and the good ones have no trouble at all holding drill bits
> > firmly with no slip. =A0You do have to make certain that the chuck will
> > close down to the smallest size bits you're going to use, but that appl=
ies
> > to keyed chucks as well. =A0I use a keyless chuck nearly every day. =A0=
Well,
> > maybe nearly every week. =A0I don't have the problems you're suggesting=
, nor
> > do plenty of others that use them regularly.
>
> I have to agree with Stuart... =A0 A properly tightened keyless chuck is =
no
> match for a properly tightened key-type chuck IMHO.
>
> To properly tighten a key-type chuck, you tighten in one location, spin a=
nd
> repeat in the 3/4 other locations on the chuck as well. =A0Repeat until t=
here
> is no play left in the jaws and runout is best as well as holding power.
> Most people simply tighten in one location and leave well enough alone...
> And it usually is just fine for what they need to do.
>
> However, when you are looking for 0.001" runout at the tip of a drill "bi=
t"
> like many of my customers are or maximum holding power, the proper way wo=
rks
> best.
>
> In fact, we have found that a high quality key-type chuck has better runo=
ut
> than a double angle collet chuck and some ER-style chucks.
>
> Many high end keyless chucks come with... =A0Get this... =A0A spanner wre=
nch
> that acts like a key of sorts. =A0LOL... =A0Go figure.
>
> I think that either are just fine for woodworking in most cases as the
> runout can't be measured in most wood projects and the holding power is n=
ot
> needed unless you are going deep into the wood or using a reduced shank
> drill "bit" or something similar.
In case the OP is wondering runout of .001" is about a third the
thickness of a sheet of paper.
What is the point of bringing up precision machining and shop
equipment in a thread about a newbie looking for options to a brace
and bit?
Scratch that question and answer this one - what chuck do _you_ use on
your everyday, general purpose, around the house drill?
I'll eat my hat if it's a keyed chuck unless you use hex-shank bits in
a quick change holder.
R
In article
<[email protected]>,
RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, a cordless drill is incredibly useful, and the keyless chucks
> have no problem holding a regular drill bit. Do not get a cordless
> drill with a keyed chuck.
I wish I could!
> Keyless is vastly superior in use.
Rowing things the oars fit in spelt with a 'B'
I have yet to come across a keyless chuck that you can get as tight as a
proper keyed chuck and avoid the drill slipping round in the chuck and
causing damage.
In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ummmm... why not just use the tools that everyone else uses? As you
> stated, you're no handyman, so why presume that commonly used tools
> aren't good enough?
Well, once upon a time you made a hole in a piece of wood with a length of
iron, the right size, which you heated up so that it burnt its way through
:-)
An aborigine can probably give him some lessons.
>"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:ae911c33-4291-45f5-9fbb-04a8fa7a2aa2@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>Dear Noah,
>
>I hope the ark building is going well. I prefer to use a sharpened
>stone for this operation. However, any hand tightened chuck on a
>modern electric drill will easily hold the round shaft of the drill
>bit no problem.
Maybe he's Amish and snuck on the PC of a neighbor for advice?
Seriously though, thanks for the mini-lesson on gimlets, bradawls,
brace-and-bits and other stuff I'll probably never use personally. Still
good CUBI for me.
Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/autodrill
V8013-R
On May 28, 1:57=A0pm, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> =A0 =A0RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, a cordless drill is incredibly useful, and the keyless chucks
> > have no problem holding a regular drill bit. =A0Do not get a cordless
> > drill with a keyed chuck.
>
> I wish I could!
>
> > =A0Keyless is vastly superior in use.
>
> Rowing things the oars fit in spelt with a 'B'
Oarlock begins with an O, and rowlock begins with an R, unless you're
talking about the f=F2rcola - the post that the oar is levered against
in a gondola - that begins with an F.
> I have yet to come across a keyless chuck that you can get as tight as a
> proper keyed chuck and avoid the drill slipping round in the chuck and
> causing damage.
Not sure what sort of drills you have, or if there is any issue with
hand strength, but my bits don't slip in any of the four different
brands of cordless drills I own.
BTW, it's really easy to swap out a chuck. Open it wide up and look
inside and you'll see a screw head. Back that out, and install the
keyless one.
R
"Don H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My problem may derive partly from trying to drill holes using a 2.5mm
> bit
> for insertion of 3mm screws. Which is where hammer and nail might
> suffice;
> then lubricate the screw, and use muscle. (Trouble is, hammers tend to
> smash things, where a drill is less violent.)
> I assume that electric drills might be in danger of burn-out if a bit
> didn't have some give in it, and struck a knot, or just jammed?
Not at all. I think you're fearing what you need not fear. We all drill
through knots in softwoods and hardwoods all of the time. Like any other
drilling exercise, speed can affect your results. By that I mean the speed
at which you try to ram the bit through the piece. Take it easy and let the
tool do the work, and you'll find yourself well rewarded. Oh yeah - sharp
bits. Regardless of electric or hand style tools, a sharp bit a critical.
Unfortunately, you cannot always assume new bits are sharp, or are sharpened
at the right angle.
> But a hand-drill needn't have such problem, and a squared shank seems
> desirable.
No, but it can suffer more of a stall.
> However, I've a friend who IS a handyman, and he might correct my
> technique, or otherwise put me right. Everything tends to be electric
> nowadays, and as complicated as possible.
Well, the upside it that there isn't much complication to an electric drill.
> While the carpentry professional might like electric, as it makes work
> quicker and easier, the amateur may prefer a kit of simple tools, for
> occasional use.
No! No! Absolutely no! Don - you've got to embrace the concept of tool
envy. In the words of that famous philosopher Mick Jagger, "too much is
never enough".
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On May 29, 11:54=A0am, "Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
I added the attributions above as a public service. No need to thank
me. :)
> *My Last Post On This Subject*
Well, you lead off, so I guess that means I bat clean up.
> >> Who I was quoting is often irrelevant. What content I am replying to i=
s
> >> and
> >> thus the reason I usually leave the context intact as I have done abov=
e.
>
> >Who you are quoting cannot be irrelevant, why else would you be
> >quoting them?
>
> Context. They know who they are and nobody else genrally cares who said w=
hat
> as they are looking for info, not positive IDs.
You're quoting context...uh huh. So you strip out the identifying
information, edit as you see fit, and then that puts things in
context. That word, context, I do not think it means what you think
it means.
Separating who said what from what was said is an excellent way to
strip out the meaning. If one person offers up an opinion or some
advice, and I know that they have tons of knowledge in that area, I am
more likely to give that opinion or advice credence. The converse
situation is also true.
> >An unattributed opinion means exactly nothing. =A0Only when you know who
> >the opinion or comment comes from can it carry weight.
>
> Opinion? =A0I thought we were discussing facts... =A0Or at least opinions=
backed
> up by facts enough so that the source was unnecessary. =A0This isn't poli=
tics,
> this is machinery and tools...
Right. Facts. What's the best tablesaw? What's the best way to cut
a dovetail? Show me the "facts" in those. It's _all_ opinion unless
you are talking simple math. Structural engineering is opinion based
on education and experience. Stripping out the name is stripping out
the education and experience and trying to present the now-random
opinion as fact.
> >Not everyone arrives at Usenet posts though a news reader. =A0Someone
> >searching five years from now for "Who I was quoting is often
> >irrelevant" will find your post directly.
>
> ...And that same person can then search the text quoted to see who
> originally wrote it. =A0I'm not going to pre-plan my posts for reading 5+
> years from now.
Pre-plan? It has nothing to do with pre-planning. It has to do with
planning. You know, like planning to follow an ubiquitous convention
for courtesy and simplicity's sake. It also has to do with paying
attention - like paying attention and noticing that no one else strips
out quote attributions.
> >It is common courtesy to provide quote attribution. =A0Please note how
> >other people on this newsgroup, or any other, don't find that common
> >courtesy taxing. =A0It's a bit of a rarity to see no attribution at all,
> >and is usually indicative of either newbiness or an ego issue.
>
> Neither here. =A0Just efficiency for me I guess. =A0Never really thought =
it
> bothered anyone.
Please don't blame it on "efficiency" - whatever that means. Your
newsreader will do it for you automatically.
> > I don't know how long you've been on Usenet and you don't seem to have
> >an overblown ego, so there probably is a third category.
>
> Usenet since ... =A0Maybe 1990 or so. =A0Not sure. =A0Was on the BBS syst=
ems
> before that and I *think* they turned into some usenet groups but my hist=
ory
> is flawed.
Well, if you were online back then, when bandwidth was a big issue,
I'm sure that you abided by the conventions and "played nice". That's
all this is about.
> >I notice
> >that you have never omitted your sig, so maybe you don't want to cloud
> >up the advertising with an attribution?
>
> Low blow. =A0Sig files are automatic on my newsreader. =A0Takes more effo=
rt to
> omit them.
Automatic? What Bill Gates had a minion work up a special edition of
Outlook Express 6 for you? You made your sig. You chose your
preferences. You don't have to do that more than once.
> >> My take on it is (no offense to you or the OP) that if the OP hasn't
> >> received an answer in the first few replies, then it is more complicat=
ed
> >> than a simple question and requires follow up questions and answers
> >> anyhow.
>
> >I don't follow your point. =A0You seem to be saying that if a more
> >complicated answer is required you believe that wandering off into
> >esoteric territory helps clarify things.
>
> Keeping threads organized and simple (and manageable by your standards
> anyhow) is a pipe dream IMHO once there are a number of responses. =A0Thi=
s
> little diversion for example is probably the largest waste of electrons i=
n
> the thread so far.
Perhaps. We'll only know that if you decide to open your eyes, see
what _everybody_ else does WRT quoting, and ask yourself why you feel
you know better than they do or don't need no steenkin' attributions
in your posts.
{snip}
> My think skin gave way a bit when your sigline comments surfaced... =A0Bu=
t I'm
> okay. =A0I'm just dropping out of this branch of the thread now because i=
t's
> more like a useless discussion than a productive session at this point fo=
r
> me. =A0No offense meant again...
Well, what made me wonder a bit was how you started off giving the
proper attributions in threads from last year (top-posted but I'm not
going to quibble) - you had your same sig:
http://tinyurl.com/mh5pjs
Then you decided to drop the attributions, but kept the sig. So
either your newsreader is a developing form of life, or you decided to
change something.
I've gone to the trouble - for the benefit of everyone who reads your
posts - to find a couple of links that clearly summarizes what I've
been trying to say and you've been trying to avoid acknowledging.
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#attrib
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html#Q10
Hopefully they will help you understand what it is you are actually
doing when you strip out the attributions.
Peace, out.
R
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:76cd565c-a081-4a8b-bdbb-88d23c0ff502@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
On May 28, 1:57 pm, Stuart <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, a cordless drill is incredibly useful, and the keyless chucks
> > have no problem holding a regular drill bit. Do not get a cordless
> > drill with a keyed chuck.
>
> I wish I could!
>
> > Keyless is vastly superior in use.
>
> Rowing things the oars fit in spelt with a 'B'
Oarlock begins with an O, and rowlock begins with an R, unless you're
talking about the fòrcola - the post that the oar is levered against
in a gondola - that begins with an F.
********************************************************************************************
I was thinking the thing he was referring to must be called an ullshit.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
>In case the OP is wondering runout of .001" is about a third the
>thickness of a sheet of paper.
>
>What is the point of bringing up precision machining and shop
>equipment in a thread about a newbie looking for options to a brace
>and bit?
Um... (scratching head) It was a response to another response talking
about the holding power of key-type and keyless chucks. Didn't you see the
notes from "Stuart Marlow" and "Mike"?
Not sure how new you are to newsgroups... but discussions often morph into
something other than the original purpose and it's understood that this is
the nature of discussion boards, newsgroups, etc. It's also the beautiy of
newsgroups. You often learn about stuff you didn't even know you were
curious about due to the natural direction that some discussions take.
>Scratch that question and answer this one - what chuck do _you_ use on
>your everyday, general purpose, around the house drill?
At home, a 20+ year old Black and Decker with key-type.
One at home and one here: Cheap Grizzly hand drill with key-type chuck...
Has the little star-looking rubber dohicky to hold the key near the base of
the power cord.
Cheap drill press has a key-type chuck.
Middle-weight drill press has a key-type chuck.
Large 2 HP, 3 phase drill press has a key-type chuck.
>I'll eat my hat if it's a keyed chuck unless you use hex-shank bits in
>a quick change holder.
NEVER use hex shank bits myself... Or at least not in the past 2-3 years.
Do you want any seasoning with that hat?
Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/autodrill
V8013-R
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Don H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > My problem may derive partly from trying to drill holes using a 2.5mm
> > bit
> > for insertion of 3mm screws. Which is where hammer and nail might
> > suffice;
> > then lubricate the screw, and use muscle. (Trouble is, hammers tend to
> > smash things, where a drill is less violent.)
> > I assume that electric drills might be in danger of burn-out if a bit
> > didn't have some give in it, and struck a knot, or just jammed?
>
> Not at all. I think you're fearing what you need not fear. We all drill
> through knots in softwoods and hardwoods all of the time. Like any other
> drilling exercise, speed can affect your results. By that I mean the
speed
> at which you try to ram the bit through the piece. Take it easy and let
the
> tool do the work, and you'll find yourself well rewarded. Oh yeah - sharp
> bits. Regardless of electric or hand style tools, a sharp bit a critical.
> Unfortunately, you cannot always assume new bits are sharp, or are
sharpened
> at the right angle.
>
>
> > But a hand-drill needn't have such problem, and a squared shank seems
> > desirable.
>
> No, but it can suffer more of a stall.
>
> > However, I've a friend who IS a handyman, and he might correct my
> > technique, or otherwise put me right. Everything tends to be electric
> > nowadays, and as complicated as possible.
>
> Well, the upside it that there isn't much complication to an electric
drill.
>
> > While the carpentry professional might like electric, as it makes work
> > quicker and easier, the amateur may prefer a kit of simple tools, for
> > occasional use.
>
> No! No! Absolutely no! Don - you've got to embrace the concept of tool
> envy. In the words of that famous philosopher Mick Jagger, "too much is
> never enough".
>
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
# I went to a distant Bunnings Warehouse (hardware) store yesterday, and
explained my problem to a middle-aged staff member.
He showed me a drill bit which looked promising - "P&N Quickbit 2.50mm;
made from high speed steel, for drilling metal, wood & plastic".
It has a hexagonal shank, black in colour, and of larger diameter than
the drill flute aspect - not merely a cylindrical extension of it.
On getting home, I fitted it into the claws of chuck on my hand drill
(cogwheel and handle type) - no problems.
So, even someone who "does everything by algebra" and without much
"nous" can get there in the end.
Sounds like you may be looking for what is called an auger bit in the USA,
made for use with a hand brace:
http://www.irwin.com/irwin/consumer/jhtml/browse.jhtml?catId=IrwinCat100148
not so widely available these days.
You might find an inexpensive set of spade bits for use in your electric
drill more suited to your needs if that need is for larger, not too precise
holes:
http://www.irwin.com/irwin/consumer/jhtml/browse.jhtml?catId=IrwinCat100157
available in most hardware stores.
or, if you're drilling more precise holes or larger holes in some of those
harder Australian hardwoods, then brad-point wood bits:
http://www.irwin.com/irwin/consumer/jhtml/detail.jhtml?prodId=IrwinProd100154
or self-feeding power auger bits for electric drills:
http://www.irwin.com/irwin/consumer/jhtml/detail.jhtml?prodId=IrwinProd100174
might be a good (but more expensive) choice.
or, if you have smaller holes in mind, a set of inexpensive twist drills:
http://www.irwin.com/irwin/consumer/jhtml/detail.jhtml?prodId=IrwinProd100103
available in many stores with a hardware department. Cheap imports are
probable OK for casual, non-precision use in wood. Better quality HSS (high
speed steel) drills are a better choice if to be used in metal as well.
Not necessarily endorsing Irwin bit, just happened to be the first site with
illustrations of a variety of drill bits that my Google search turned up.
David Merrill
PS I must say I'm embarrassed by the 'ugly American' insensitivity of some
of my country's respondents to your query (unless of course you're just
'trolling').
"Don H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and carving up
our
> arboreal relatives.
> However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of wood, and
> went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. All I wanted
was
> a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
> My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet, but a
> hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an electric,
> cordless, drill.
> Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old squared shank,
> and tend to slip.
> You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume is a way
of
> tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
> Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied size
screw,
> or insertable screws?
> Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel, or
> whatever.
>
>
You might be quite happy with a Stanley Push drill. The bits have
a shaped end that do not require tightening. Simple operation.
http://www.asktooltalk.com/questions/faq/tools/push_drill.php
--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)
[email protected]
"Don H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and
> carving up our
> arboreal relatives.
> However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of
> wood, and
> went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. All I
> wanted was
> a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
> My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet,
> but a
> hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an
> electric,
> cordless, drill.
> Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old
> squared shank,
> and tend to slip.
> You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume
> is a way of
> tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
> Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied
> size screw,
> or insertable screws?
> Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel,
> or
> whatever.
>
>
Dear Noah,
I hope the ark building is going well. I prefer to use a sharpened
stone for this operation. However, any hand tightened chuck on a
modern electric drill will easily hold the round shaft of the drill
bit no problem.
On May 27, 1:15=A0pm, "Don H" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and carving up o=
ur
> arboreal relatives.
> =A0 However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of wood, a=
nd
> went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. =A0All I wanted=
was
> a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
> =A0 My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet, but a
> hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an electric,
> cordless, drill.
> =A0 Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old squared sha=
nk,
> and tend to slip.
> =A0 You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume is a wa=
y of
> tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
> =A0 =A0Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied size=
screw,
> or insertable screws?
> =A0 =A0Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel, or
> whatever.
On May 27, 4:15=A0pm, "Don H" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and carving up o=
ur
> arboreal relatives.
> =A0 However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of wood, a=
nd
> went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. =A0All I wanted=
was
> a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
> =A0 My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet, but a
> hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an electric,
> cordless, drill.
> =A0 Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old squared sha=
nk,
> and tend to slip.
> =A0 You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume is a wa=
y of
> tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
> =A0 =A0Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied size=
screw,
> or insertable screws?
> =A0 =A0Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel, or
> whatever.
Well, a cordless drill is incredibly useful, and the keyless chucks
have no problem holding a regular drill bit. Do not get a cordless
drill with a keyed chuck. Keyless is vastly superior in use. You can
tighten them by hand and won't have to worry about diddling around
with the key or losing it. The cordless drill with some driver bits
will let you drive the screws as well as drill the pilot holes.
If you want to stick with a hand tool, a Stanley 41 push drill is very
useful as well. Here's an auction in Australia where a guy is selling
a couple of push drills and a Yankee screwdriver - one of the best
ways to drive screws if you're not going the cordless route. The
Stanley 41 is at the top of the picture.
http://tinyurl.com/rbh6k3
R
On Wed, 27 May 2009 20:15:08 GMT, "Don H" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and carving up our
>arboreal relatives.
> However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of wood, and
>went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. All I wanted was
>a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
> My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet, but a
>hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an electric,
>cordless, drill.
> Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old squared shank,
>and tend to slip.
> You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume is a way of
>tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
> Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied size screw,
>or insertable screws?
> Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel, or
>whatever.
>
http://www.leevalley.com/hardware/page.aspx?c=1&p=32206&cat=3,41306,41329
Mail/Web/Phone order only, since you live down under.
On May 28, 9:57=A0am, "David Merrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sounds like you may be looking for what is called an auger bit in the USA=
,
> made for use with a hand brace:http://www.irwin.com/irwin/consumer/jhtml/=
browse.jhtml?catId=3DIrwinCat...
> not so widely available these days.
>
> You might find an inexpensive set of spade bits for use in your electric
> drill more suited to your needs if that need is for larger, not too preci=
se
> holes:http://www.irwin.com/irwin/consumer/jhtml/browse.jhtml?catId=3DIrwi=
nCat...
> available in most hardware stores.
>
> or, if you're drilling more precise holes or larger holes in some of thos=
e
> harder Australian hardwoods, then brad-point wood bits:http://www.irwin.c=
om/irwin/consumer/jhtml/detail.jhtml?prodId=3DIrwinPr...
> or self-feeding power auger bits for electric drills:http://www.irwin.com=
/irwin/consumer/jhtml/detail.jhtml?prodId=3DIrwinPr...
> might be a good (but more expensive) choice.
>
> or, if you have smaller holes in mind, a set of inexpensive twist drills:=
http://www.irwin.com/irwin/consumer/jhtml/detail.jhtml?prodId=3DIrwinPr...
> available in many stores with a hardware department. =A0Cheap imports are
> probable OK for casual, non-precision use in wood. =A0Better quality HSS =
(high
> speed steel) drills are a better choice if to be used in metal as well.
>
> Not necessarily endorsing Irwin bit, just happened to be the first site w=
ith
> illustrations of a variety of drill bits that my Google search turned up.
You're recommending bits and the guy doesn't own a drill.
> PS =A0I must say I'm embarrassed by the 'ugly American' insensitivity of =
some
> of my country's respondents to your query (unless of course you're just
> 'trolling').
Maybe you're reading another thread somewhere - there's been nothing
abusive in this thread at all. Actually that's not true, your comment
is the most abusive. The "harshest" comment other than yours was
Mike's and it wasn't harsh _at all_!
R
*My Last Post On This Subject*
>> Who I was quoting is often irrelevant. What content I am replying to is
>> and
>> thus the reason I usually leave the context intact as I have done above.
>
>Who you are quoting cannot be irrelevant, why else would you be
>quoting them?
Context. They know who they are and nobody else genrally cares who said what
as they are looking for info, not positive IDs.
>An unattributed opinion means exactly nothing. Only when you know who
>the opinion or comment comes from can it carry weight.
Opinion? I thought we were discussing facts... Or at least opinions backed
up by facts enough so that the source was unnecessary. This isn't politics,
this is machinery and tools...
>Not everyone arrives at Usenet posts though a news reader. Someone
>searching five years from now for "Who I was quoting is often
>irrelevant" will find your post directly.
...And that same person can then search the text quoted to see who
originally wrote it. I'm not going to pre-plan my posts for reading 5+
years from now.
>It is common courtesy to provide quote attribution. Please note how
>other people on this newsgroup, or any other, don't find that common
>courtesy taxing. It's a bit of a rarity to see no attribution at all,
>and is usually indicative of either newbiness or an ego issue.
Neither here. Just efficiency for me I guess. Never really thought it
bothered anyone.
>I
>don't know how long you've been on Usenet and you don't seem to have
>an overblown ego, so there probably is a third category.
Usenet since ... Maybe 1990 or so. Not sure. Was on the BBS systems
before that and I *think* they turned into some usenet groups but my history
is flawed.
>I notice
>that you have never omitted your sig, so maybe you don't want to cloud
>up the advertising with an attribution?
Low blow. Sig files are automatic on my newsreader. Takes more effort to
omit them.
>> My take on it is (no offense to you or the OP) that if the OP hasn't
>> received an answer in the first few replies, then it is more complicated
>> than a simple question and requires follow up questions and answers
>> anyhow.
>
>I don't follow your point. You seem to be saying that if a more
>complicated answer is required you believe that wandering off into
>esoteric territory helps clarify things.
Keeping threads organized and simple (and manageable by your standards
anyhow) is a pipe dream IMHO once there are a number of responses. This
little diversion for example is probably the largest waste of electrons in
the thread so far.
>> Anyone capable of comprehending the thread after the first 10 replies is
>> also probably capable of having a space age (1960's+) newsreader that can
>> show the order in which posts were made and who replied to what post.
>
>See above.
Can't. Deleted it. <grin>
CLIP
CLIP AGAIN
CLIP YET AGAIN
>> As long
>> as I have the drill handy and bits that work with it when I need it a few
>> times a year, I'll focus on the other end of the business that actually
>> makes me successful.
>
>Like the part where you get to append a sig line to your posts.
See above.
>I really don't care about the sig line, but you have to understand
>that it will influence people. The OP is not about to ring you up and
>place an order, but because of your sig you would appear to be an
>expert in "all things drill", so that puts a higher burden on you for
>proffering your opinion. That opinion must come with pertinent
>experience and relatively recent knowledge - and it probably shouldn't
>confuse the issue.
I'm loosing focus here to be honest. Maybe it was your accusations above...
Or maybe I just don't have time to proerply exogesis this thinking any
longer...
I've had people call me for basic questions on stuff I don't sell. I always
try to help them, but I'm also the first to say, "I'm not the guy with the
best answer for that" when it's true in my opinion.
The cool thing about being human is I am wrong sometimes and it's
understood. A little less when I charge money for a product and am wrong,
but that's really rare so the advice I give here is worth about as much as
people pay for it I guess...
>I know an old-timer retired dentist that hasn't learned anything new
>in that field in 20 or 30 years. He used to teach. He still gives
>opinions but the field has left him far behind. Because of his
>impeccable, and old, credentials his opinions still carry weight even
>though his knowledge of where the field is currently is sorely
>lacking.
>
>Don't be that guy.
An old out of touch dentist? No problem. :)
>> Sorry if anything I've said seemed adversarial. Not meant that way at
>> all... Except for maybe the hat seasoning comment. :)
>
>Likewise, I have thick skin - at least on Usenet!
My think skin gave way a bit when your sigline comments surfaced... But I'm
okay. I'm just dropping out of this branch of the thread now because it's
more like a useless discussion than a productive session at this point for
me. No offense meant again...
Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/autodrill
V8013-R
On May 29, 9:05=A0am, "Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Who I was quoting is often irrelevant. =A0What content I am replying to i=
s and
> thus the reason I usually leave the context intact as I have done above.
Who you are quoting cannot be irrelevant, why else would you be
quoting them?
An unattributed opinion means exactly nothing. Only when you know who
the opinion or comment comes from can it carry weight.
Not everyone arrives at Usenet posts though a news reader. Someone
searching five years from now for "Who I was quoting is often
irrelevant" will find your post directly.
It is common courtesy to provide quote attribution. Please note how
other people on this newsgroup, or any other, don't find that common
courtesy taxing. It's a bit of a rarity to see no attribution at all,
and is usually indicative of either newbiness or an ego issue. I
don't know how long you've been on Usenet and you don't seem to have
an overblown ego, so there probably is a third category. I notice
that you have never omitted your sig, so maybe you don't want to cloud
up the advertising with an attribution?
> My take on it is (no offense to you or the OP) that if the OP hasn't
> received an answer in the first few replies, then it is more complicated
> than a simple question and requires follow up questions and answers anyho=
w.
I don't follow your point. You seem to be saying that if a more
complicated answer is required you believe that wandering off into
esoteric territory helps clarify things.
> Anyone capable of comprehending the thread after the first 10 replies is
> also probably capable of having a space age (1960's+) newsreader that can
> show the order in which posts were made and who replied to what post.
See above.
> I've used a few keyless chucks. =A0Never really "got into" them I guess. =
=A0It's
> probably just a product of my human nature to resist change. =A0:)
>
> LOL. =A0True... =A0But the way I see it, I use a hand drill maybe 10 time=
s a
> year. =A0The cost of a new hand drill with a fancy keyless chuck probably
> isn't justified.
Fancy? You mean standard. Using a hand drill ten times a year
probably puts you into the same frequency of use category as the OP
will be in. Probably he'll use it more often.
> I don't use hex shank bits because generally, I work with metal. =A0Typic=
ally,
> metalworking bits do not come with anything other than a round shank or
> sometimes a Morse Taper shank... =A0But now we're getting way off topic.
Not really. As you said earlier, thread morph. We are now on the
basis-of-opinion part of this thread.
> Ahh... Not so much behind the curve IMHO. =A0I think my needs for hand he=
ld
> tools are so infrequent and low tolerance that I could almost use a hand
> cranked tool as efficiently except for the blisters - and thus I don't
> bother to equip myself or my shop with unneeded equipment. =A0Everything =
I
> specialize in is higher end to highest end stuff. =A0If I told everyone t=
hat
> they were behind the curve because they used a drill press with power
> downfeed instead of my (or a competitor's) auto feed unit, I would be
> incorrect in my opinion. =A0I think that's an apples to apples comparison=
of
> how you just categorized me. =A0I don't need a hand drill often enough to=
care
> if it has a key type, keyless, collet or threaded tool holder.
Here's my opinion on higher to highest end multi-headed drilling
operations - I don't have one as I don't have enough experience with
them to make my opinion have any value.
I come here to learn as well. In another group sometime ago, someone
asked about an angle grinder and I mentioned the AEG which, at the
time, was one of the only small angle grinders with tool-less blade
change. An ironworker responded that all angle grinders were tool-
less and that he just spun the blades on and off by hand. This
surprised me, but this guy did it all day long every day - his opinion
carried more weight as he had the experience to back it up. I still
have my AEG and I've never had to try his technique, but I don't doubt
his experience or opinion.
> As long
> as I have the drill handy and bits that work with it when I need it a few
> times a year, I'll focus on the other end of the business that actually
> makes me successful.
Like the part where you get to append a sig line to your posts.
I really don't care about the sig line, but you have to understand
that it will influence people. The OP is not about to ring you up and
place an order, but because of your sig you would appear to be an
expert in "all things drill", so that puts a higher burden on you for
proffering your opinion. That opinion must come with pertinent
experience and relatively recent knowledge - and it probably shouldn't
confuse the issue.
I know an old-timer retired dentist that hasn't learned anything new
in that field in 20 or 30 years. He used to teach. He still gives
opinions but the field has left him far behind. Because of his
impeccable, and old, credentials his opinions still carry weight even
though his knowledge of where the field is currently is sorely
lacking.
Don't be that guy.
> Sorry if anything I've said seemed adversarial. =A0Not meant that way at
> all... =A0Except for maybe the hat seasoning comment. =A0:)
Likewise, I have thick skin - at least on Usenet!
R
"Stuart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Well, a cordless drill is incredibly useful, and the keyless chucks
>> have no problem holding a regular drill bit. Do not get a cordless
>> drill with a keyed chuck.
>
> I wish I could!
>
>> Keyless is vastly superior in use.
>
> Rowing things the oars fit in spelt with a 'B'
>
> I have yet to come across a keyless chuck that you can get as tight as a
> proper keyed chuck and avoid the drill slipping round in the chuck and
> causing damage.
>
I have to wonder what keyless chucks you've encountered then. I would not
suggest they are as robust as a keyed chuck, but I've used them for a lot of
years and the good ones have no trouble at all holding drill bits firmly
with no slip. You do have to make certain that the chuck will close down to
the smallest size bits you're going to use, but that applies to keyed chucks
as well. I use a keyless chuck nearly every day. Well, maybe nearly every
week. I don't have the problems you're suggesting, nor do plenty of others
that use them regularly.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On May 28, 7:03=A0am, "DanG" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You might be quite happy with a Stanley Push drill. =A0The bits have
> a shaped end that do not require tightening. =A0Simple operation.http://w=
ww.asktooltalk.com/questions/faq/tools/push_drill.php
Hey Dan. I have both the Stanley 41 and 45. I like the 45 much
better as it's much more comfortable to use and it's easier to open
up. I recommended the 41 to the OP because that's a lot easier to
find.
R
"Don H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not a handyman, and have no interest in dismembering and carving up
our
> arboreal relatives.
> However, I do now have occasion to drill a hole in a piece of wood, and
> went to buy an appropriate gadget at local hardware shop. All I wanted
was
> a gimlet, but settled for a bradawl instead.
> My father's old brace-and-bit seems defunct, as is the gimlet, but a
> hand-drill is available, at cheap price (made in China), or an electric,
> cordless, drill.
> Trouble is, the bits have a rounded shank, unlike the old squared shank,
> and tend to slip.
> You can buy a power drill with a keyed chuck, which, I assume is a way
of
> tightening the device so a bit is less inclined to slip.
> Is a gimlet still available, and can you get them with varied size
screw,
> or insertable screws?
> Meanwhile, I'll make do with hammer and nail. bradawl, chisel, or
> whatever.
>
>
# Thanks for comments, facetious, and helpful.
My problem may derive partly from trying to drill holes using a 2.5mm bit
for insertion of 3mm screws. Which is where hammer and nail might suffice;
then lubricate the screw, and use muscle. (Trouble is, hammers tend to
smash things, where a drill is less violent.)
I assume that electric drills might be in danger of burn-out if a bit
didn't have some give in it, and struck a knot, or just jammed?
But a hand-drill needn't have such problem, and a squared shank seems
desirable.
However, I've a friend who IS a handyman, and he might correct my
technique, or otherwise put me right. Everything tends to be electric
nowadays, and as complicated as possible.
While the carpentry professional might like electric, as it makes work
quicker and easier, the amateur may prefer a kit of simple tools, for
occasional use.
I'll follow up on advice given.
Joe AutoDrill wrote:
> LOL. True... But the way I see it, I use a hand drill maybe 10 times a
> year. The cost of a new hand drill with a fancy keyless chuck probably
> isn't justified.
I don't use a key in a hand drill to drill in wood ever, and it matters
not a whit if its a keyed chuck or not. Even when I drill in metal I
generally hand tighten first, if it slips, I curse a bit (pun) and look
for the key. I don't even know if my cordless drills have a key chuck.
I think my 20 volt does, but not sure.
The only problem I ever had hand tightening a bit was if wearing rubber
gloves for painting... they get ripped apart when spinning the chuck and
don't slip like a bare hand. I generally re-learn that every time I
chuck up a paint mixer in a drill....
>> Keyless chucks have come a
>> long way, but it's unrealistic to expect a lower end tool to have a
>> better quality chuck.
I've NOT used keys LONG before keyless chucks were invented. I always
thought that was what hands were for, and keys were a last resort.
--
Jack
GO PENNS!
http://jbstein.com
In article <[email protected]>
"Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> writes:
>*My Last Post On This Subject*
>
>>> Who I was quoting is often irrelevant. What content I am replying to is
>>> and
>>> thus the reason I usually leave the context intact as I have done above.
>>
>>Who you are quoting cannot be irrelevant, why else would you be
>>quoting them?
>
>Context. They know who they are and nobody else genrally cares who said what
>as they are looking for info, not positive IDs.
They are probably looking for reliable info, not just words.
You see, in all corners of Usenet, there are people who post and
give useful detail. There are also people who post and are full
of wind. Then mix in that there are people with dry senses of humor
whose jokes are sometimes mistaken and responded to. (Look at the
political threads for at least two of the three groups.)
So it is often quite useful to know what conversation a post is in
to determine how reliable the information is.
For example, in one of my other groups, I kill entire threads as
soon as I see that a certain troll is involved. Any useful information
will probably be in a post quoting misinformation or be quoted in
a post giving misinformation. Either way, not a productive read.
My limited experience in this group has me leaning toward giving
extra credence to what some people say, even if it initially seems
whacked. Some are in the bin at the other end of the scale even
if they were telling me water is wet. A post in a debate between
one person from each of those buckets means much less (except for
entertainment value) than a debate between two in the first bucket.
I don't expect this to change anyone's behavior. Just another
perspective to ponder while waiting for the glue to dry.
--
Drew Lawson | What you own is your own kingdom
| What you do is your own glory
| What you love is your own power
| What you live is your own story
>> I have yet to come across a keyless chuck that you can get as tight as a
>> proper keyed chuck and avoid the drill slipping round in the chuck and
>> causing damage.
>>
>
> I have to wonder what keyless chucks you've encountered then. I would not
> suggest they are as robust as a keyed chuck, but I've used them for a lot
> of years and the good ones have no trouble at all holding drill bits
> firmly with no slip. You do have to make certain that the chuck will
> close down to the smallest size bits you're going to use, but that applies
> to keyed chucks as well. I use a keyless chuck nearly every day. Well,
> maybe nearly every week. I don't have the problems you're suggesting, nor
> do plenty of others that use them regularly.
I have to agree with Stuart... A properly tightened keyless chuck is no
match for a properly tightened key-type chuck IMHO.
To properly tighten a key-type chuck, you tighten in one location, spin and
repeat in the 3/4 other locations on the chuck as well. Repeat until there
is no play left in the jaws and runout is best as well as holding power.
Most people simply tighten in one location and leave well enough alone...
And it usually is just fine for what they need to do.
However, when you are looking for 0.001" runout at the tip of a drill "bit"
like many of my customers are or maximum holding power, the proper way works
best.
In fact, we have found that a high quality key-type chuck has better runout
than a double angle collet chuck and some ER-style chucks.
Many high end keyless chucks come with... Get this... A spanner wrench
that acts like a key of sorts. LOL... Go figure.
I think that either are just fine for woodworking in most cases as the
runout can't be measured in most wood projects and the holding power is not
needed unless you are going deep into the wood or using a reduced shank
drill "bit" or something similar.
Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/autodrill
V8013-R
>> >In case the OP is wondering runout of .001" is about a third the
>> >thickness of a sheet of paper.
>>
>> >What is the point of bringing up precision machining and shop
>> >equipment in a thread about a newbie looking for options to a brace
>> >and bit?
>>
>> Um... (scratching head) It was a response to another response talking
>> about the holding power of key-type and keyless chucks. Didn't you see
>> the
>> notes from "Stuart Marlow" and "Mike"?
>
>Yes, I saw their original posts, but I didn't see any attribution for
>who you were quoting in your post. It makes it difficult to follow
>who said what without referring back to a previous post. Not everyone
>has your newsreader, not everyone will be seeing these posts in
>order. Any reason for the omission? Any reason for omitting the
>attribution from my post that you quoted above?
Who I was quoting is often irrelevant. What content I am replying to is and
thus the reason I usually leave the context intact as I have done above.
>> Not sure how new you are to newsgroups... but discussions often morph
>> into
>> something other than the original purpose and it's understood that this
>> is
>> the nature of discussion boards, newsgroups, etc. It's also the beautiy
>> of
>> newsgroups. You often learn about stuff you didn't even know you were
>> curious about due to the natural direction that some discussions take.
>
>I just fell off the turnip truck. I am familiar how on topic can
>drift into off topic, but when the digression would tend to confuse
>the OP - an admitted newbie - who are you helping out? I don't think
>there's a regular on the newsgroup that isn't aware of the closer
>tolerances achievable with shop equipment.
My take on it is (no offense to you or the OP) that if the OP hasn't
received an answer in the first few replies, then it is more complicated
than a simple question and requires follow up questions and answers anyhow.
Anyone capable of comprehending the thread after the first 10 replies is
also probably capable of having a space age (1960's+) newsreader that can
show the order in which posts were made and who replied to what post.
CLIP
>Frankly I am more than a little bit surprised. You are
>in the drill business, catering to higher end applications and closer
>tolerances, and this is what you use? For heaven sakes, why? Why
>fumble with a key if you don't need one?
I've used a few keyless chucks. Never really "got into" them I guess. It's
probably just a product of my human nature to resist change. :)
>I now know why you think keyless chucks are inferior - those tools you
>have are low end and/or old. I work with tools daily, and I'm also
>cheap, so I'm not about to piss money away, but my time is valuable
>and it's not worth being frustrated with a tool every time I use it to
>save $30. Keyless chucks are faster, time is money and life is
>short. I'm not into the zen-bit-changing thing, either.
LOL. True... But the way I see it, I use a hand drill maybe 10 times a
year. The cost of a new hand drill with a fancy keyless chuck probably
isn't justified.
CLIP
>...ummmm, shop equipment.
>
>Surely you're not comparing those oranges to the apples we're
>discussing? No one brought up shop equipment except you. If we were
>discussing fuel econony, would you bring up your nitro dragster?
No. I was actually providing it as context only. Sorry if it was
distracting to you.
>> >I'll eat my hat if it's a keyed chuck unless you use hex-shank bits in
>> >a quick change holder.
>>
>> NEVER use hex shank bits myself... Or at least not in the past 2-3 years.
>
>I'll bite - why not? I'm not trying to jump all over you (I'm sorry
>if it seems that I am), but you're shooting yourself in the foot with
>a keyed chuck, and apparently not concerned with setup time, either.
LOL. I've got thick skin. No worries. :)
I don't use hex shank bits because generally, I work with metal. Typically,
metalworking bits do not come with anything other than a round shank or
sometimes a Morse Taper shank... But now we're getting way off topic.
When I drill wood or other "easy" stuff, I generally use the bits available
to me from my sets which are round shank.
>> Do you want any seasoning with that hat?
>
>Well, you've given me a chuckle, so I won't ask you for anything more,
>but I'm curious - what are you recommending to the OP and what are you
>basing it on?
(sheepish grin) No recommendation for the OP from me. I jumped in when
people started discussing chucks only and figured my insight would be useful
there for the curious onlookers.
>Like I said, you're in the drill business, so you should be up on
>things when you start talking anything drill, and it seems you're a
>bit behind the curve with hand held power tools. It's not just an old
>tools thing, either. I could send you a 20 year old Makita keyless
>that has no issues with slipping bits. Keyless chucks have come a
>long way, but it's unrealistic to expect a lower end tool to have a
>better quality chuck.
Ahh... Not so much behind the curve IMHO. I think my needs for hand held
tools are so infrequent and low tolerance that I could almost use a hand
cranked tool as efficiently except for the blisters - and thus I don't
bother to equip myself or my shop with unneeded equipment. Everything I
specialize in is higher end to highest end stuff. If I told everyone that
they were behind the curve because they used a drill press with power
downfeed instead of my (or a competitor's) auto feed unit, I would be
incorrect in my opinion. I think that's an apples to apples comparison of
how you just categorized me. I don't need a hand drill often enough to care
if it has a key type, keyless, collet or threaded tool holder. ...As long
as I have the drill handy and bits that work with it when I need it a few
times a year, I'll focus on the other end of the business that actually
makes me successful.
Sorry if anything I've said seemed adversarial. Not meant that way at
all... Except for maybe the hat seasoning comment. :)
Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/autodrill
V8013-R