Vices - am I being overfussy?

[woof]

Just bought a new vice from Axminster, 10 1/2 inch one of their own brand although made by Groz. Now it is my first vice (woodworking so I don't know if this is usual, acceptable and will not affects its operation.

The front jaws are different size to the rear jaws, and not by the same amount. One side is 2mm shorter, the other 4mm and so is very obvious. The very top of the 2 are much closer (+/- 1mm when closed). See pictures below which probably explains it better. I did contact Axminster on wednesday, but still waiting a call back. What would you do?

 

[Screw Loose]

Its a casting

what do you expect

 

[woof]

Well I don't know, and hence why I ask! It certainly does not seem made by precision, but from your response I take it - it doesn't matter?

 

[shipbadger]

I assume that you are going to face the jaws so the odd dimension will be taken care of anyway. Both of my Record vices have wider rear (wooden) faces than the front anyway 'cos that's how I wanted them. I think I'm right in thinking that some vices are deliberately designed to have a slight inclination of the jaws as the clamping pressure is applied at the bottom so the jaw will tend to become parallel, the force applied being off centre. If it worries you then you could take care of that when you fit the jaw faces. Can't see from your photo but there will probably be some holes in the front jaw to fix a wooden face. Mine are lined with oak as at the time it was all I had to hand but somewhere in the past I've read of the 'ideal' wood to use and it wasn't oak! When eventually they wear out I'll change them for whatever it was supposed to be

tony Comber

 

[woof]

Thanks tony. Yes there is an slight inclination - top closer to bottom but equally so, but I was expecting this as I had managed to read around and it is a proper design feature so yes you are correct. Also indeed I will line the jaws with something - beech? Since the bench is not made yet, was planning to put the rear jaw behind the edge so the dimension difference won't be noticeable anyway, but was just wondering whether this is normal and/or a weakness.

 

[shipbadger]

A vice has two main castings and all castings exhibit a degree of shrinkage. In the 'old days' castings would be cast and then put out into the yard to weather for perhaps a year before being brought in to machine, in other words like wood they would be seasoned before use. More modern production methods have largely eliminated this but it is still not easy to produce a pair of raw castings that match exactly. Depending on how much you are willing to pay the number of dimensions deemed critical in terms of dimension will vary. If you want top notch castings look at the price of some of the bigger Record engineers vices, they're into many hundreds of pounds. Mind you mine is probably pre-war and my eldest son has 'bagged' it for when I shall no longer have need of it! Not just the obvious things either, look at the quality of castings inside an old Singer sewing machine and something like a new Toyota. One company obviously worked on the principle of what the eye can't see ..... Have you ever wondered why the paint is so thick on Chinese made vices? I have a modelling vice which is all smooth, not because the castings are smooth but I reckon the paint is 2mm thick in places.

Tony Comber

 

[TheTiddles]

The narrowing towards the top IS intentional. If you think where the loads are applied, the screw pulls the bottom of the vice together, if the jaws were parallel this would mean as you applied load they would no longer be, with the gap at the top widening. The narrowing compensates (a bit) for that and applies a more even pressure to the work-piece.

Now the miss-match, well, you got what you paid for and once you've put the auxilliary jaws on which you really need to do, you probably won't notice. Maybe a more expensive vice would be better quality but there shouldn't be any limitations on that one, if it was a Rolson on the other hand...

Axminster customer service is normally really good so it will be interesting to see what they say, I don't think there's anythign wrong with what you've got.

Aidan

 

[Steve Maskery]

Yep, all the above is right.

If the jaws were parallel, as soon as you clamped your workpiece, they would splay. The angle means that as you tighten your workpiece, it is held parallel. Good design.
As regards width, that is less important, as you will attach your own wooden jaws, won't you?

Given the price point of the item, I think you have got what you have bought. Adequate without being superb.

Perfectly useable, I would say.


S

 

[woof]

Thanks for the input.

So to summarise - am I being overfussy - Yes!

I should be able to get it right first time - every time - thanks Steve M!

 

[Eric The Viking]

There is a consensus emerging here .

My old Record 14" quick-release was just like yours from new - jaws not quite parallel over the width. It's mounted on the bench so that the inner jaw bears on the back of the front beam of the bench - I lose about 3" of opening, but it's not a problem in practice. The edge of the bench is a 3x4 piece of Nemesu/Meranti and forms the inner jaw, so the skew is invisible.

Actually I didn't get it perfect (my bench was made about 25 years ago, with hand tools), but it's not a problem in practice. Some day soon I need to router out a rebate and let in a new piece of bench edge - motorcycle repairs have done for the crisp finish it once had! The outer jaw is a scrap of mahogany (can't imagine that now!), but that's far easier to do.

I wish I'd got one with a bench dog on it, but otherwise it's brilliant. Once you get yours set up properly, you won't notice.

 

[got wood]

In case your interested - http://tinyurl.com/2alucd8
Page 146, 4th column, 2nd paragraph.
Jaws known as 'toe in'

Cheers
Jamie