Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

All discussion about lathes including but not limited to: South Bend, Hardinge, Logan, Monarch, Clausing and other HSM lathes, including imports

Moderators: GlennW, Harold_V

User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20251
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by Harold_V »

CarguyRoy wrote: I recently purchased an Atlas 109.20630 that needs some work. Is it worth spending a lot of money getting it to a "usable" condition, or do you suggest that I get something else? For example, it has a 4 jaw and I'd like to get a 3 jaw, but just buying the 3 jaw will cost more than what I paid for the lathe. I would like to get something bigger but not too big, since it's for hobby/automotive stuff.
Please accept the following comments in the spirit they have been offered. There will be those who have a totally different opinion, but mine is based on the views of a guy who owned one of those lathes, and then became a machinist (commercially, not hobby).

Don't spend any time or money on that thing. Even in pristine condition, it leaves way too much to be desired, as they have no dials, no power feed on the cross slide, a spindle that is bent WAY too easily (don't ask :oops: ), and lack sufficient power and rigidity to be capable of doing much work. I'd also comment that the limited power feed that is offered is via the half nuts, which is NEVER a good idea, as that wears out the screw and nut, so that creating a desirable thread becomes difficult, if not impossible, assuming you'd be able to cut the thread, anyway. They are simply too small and underpowered to be useful unless all you hope to do is fiddle with things. Please note that I have not said, nor would I say, that they don't work. They just don't work well.

I purchased mine, new, with both chucks, a 1/3 horse motor (big mistake--now you have more than enough power to damage the machine) and used it for fun things, all when I was but a young lad. That was in the early 50's. Paid a grand total of $180 for everything, including two sets of drills (numbers and fractions) and inside and outside calipers. The moment I touched a serious lathe (a LeBlond, in high school) I realized it was worthless. Up to that point, it was the devil I knew, and didn't expect more.

Welcome to the board.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
User avatar
Rex
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:29 am
Location: DFW Texas

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by Rex »

109s make nice "shelf models" of metal lathes clean it, paint it, Polish the bare stuff, and set it on the bookshelf in the den. Then go find a lathe - atlas 618 or bigger.

That is what I did
SteveM
Posts: 7767
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:18 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by SteveM »

Rex wrote:109s make nice "shelf models" of metal lathes clean it, paint it, Polish the bare stuff, and set it on the bookshelf in the den. Then go find a lathe - atlas 618 or bigger.
Even better, sell it ebay. It's silly what they can go for.

Then you can use the money to buy something more substantial.

Steve
John Evans
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Phoenix ,AZ

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by John Evans »

Yep; got to agree with all the above comments !!
www.chaski.com
CarguyRoy
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 3:09 pm
Location: Queen Creek, AZ

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by CarguyRoy »

In one of the other posts on this website there was discussion on what to recommend for a lathe. It got me thinking about getting a new one, such as an Enco or a Grizzly. All of my life I've been buying things used, and always spend a lot of my time getting things up to a working condition. It may be best just to buy one of these new units (spend less than $2k) and be able to start cutting chips right away. At 50 I'd rather spend my time tinkering with my classics cars than spend that precious time fixing and finding parts to keep a lathe or mill running. Thoughts?
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20251
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by Harold_V »

CarguyRoy wrote:In one of the other posts on this website there was discussion on what to recommend for a lathe. It got me thinking about getting a new one, such as an Enco or a Grizzly. All of my life I've been buying things used, and always spend a lot of my time getting things up to a working condition. It may be best just to buy one of these new units (spend less than $2k) and be able to start cutting chips right away. At 50 I'd rather spend my time tinkering with my classics cars than spend that precious time fixing and finding parts to keep a lathe or mill running. Thoughts?
If you make a wise choice, yep, I agree. I've been on machines since I was a kid, many of those years working in an environment that demanded top quality. I can say without hesitation, there's nothing worse than trying to coax acceptable performance from an old and clapped out machine. A new one, even one that isn't top quality, should be a better choice, and for many reasons. One of them is that modern machines are built to perform with modern tooling, so spindle speeds tend to be higher, even if the machine isn't really capable of benefitting from the use of carbide. You also often benefit in other areas, such as getting away from a threaded spindle.

Yeah, I know---there's an overwhelming number of machines in home shops with threaded spindles, and they manage to get by, but it's pretty simple. If a threaded spindle was acceptable, they'd still be selling them for modern machines. They aren't, and there's very good reason, one of which is that you can't operate in reverse without issues, and that is critical for many operations on the lathe.

Make a careful selection and buy one that suits your needs. Do not buy one that is too large, or too small, as that makes them uncomfortable to use, assuming they'll still do what you ask of them.

Without knowing what your objectives are, I'd suggest you look at a 12" lathe, minimum 30" between centers. That size will handle the vast majority of things you're likely to encounter. Keep in mind, there will always be a job too large for your machines, so don't try to fit the very largest one you'd encounter, as that will make small work difficult.

Hope some of this helps.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
User avatar
Rex
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:29 am
Location: DFW Texas

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by Rex »

Harold is right on the money. I have a shop full of nice lathes. Only one is an import, but it is the one I use to fix all the other machines
crbenker
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:26 am

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by crbenker »

Just bought one of these and it seems in good shape.
One issue I'm having though is I can't get the tool carriage to MANUALLY move towards headstock. It WILL move when engaging the thread gears (forward AND reverse); but when I put gears into Neutral and try to turn handwheel on end of lead screw I get a LOT of resistance and can't even turn wheel one revolution.
Any thoughts / help will be appreciated!! Doesn't do me much good if I can't move this part!
John Evans
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Phoenix ,AZ

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by John Evans »

crbenker wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:55 pm Just bought one of these and it seems in good shape.
One issue I'm having though is I can't get the tool carriage to MANUALLY move towards headstock. It WILL move when engaging the thread gears (forward AND reverse); but when I put gears into Neutral and try to turn handwheel on end of lead screw I get a LOT of resistance and can't even turn wheel one revolution.
Any thoughts / help will be appreciated!! Doesn't do me much good if I can't move this part!
Having owned one of these years ago do yourself a favor and read this entire thread, then find it a new home and get something better.
www.chaski.com
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20251
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by Harold_V »

I realize that what John said isn't the answer you hoped to get, but the reality is even if you overcome the problem with the hand feed, you're still stuck with a machine that has almost no positive attributes.

I have no regrets from having purchased my (new) 109 lathe. It was a good stepping stone for me to gain an understanding of machining. I was every bit as happy to see it go as I was in getting the machine. As one gains experience, it becomes obvious that one outgrows a small, simple machine.

One thing to keep in mind. If one has no expectations, and is happy with the limited performance of a 109 lathe, none of the comments (in this entire thread) may apply. No one can speak for the wants and desires of others. The negative comments rendered apply to those who have greater expectations. There is no wrong or right. That's in the eyes of the beholder.

H
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
User avatar
Rex
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:29 am
Location: DFW Texas

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by Rex »

These are easily restored to make nice bookshelf displays. I think of them as antique model lathes ;)
John Evans
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Phoenix ,AZ

Re: Sears & Roebuck model 109.20630 metal lathe

Post by John Evans »

Rex wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:05 pm These are easily restored to make nice bookshelf displays. I think of them as antique model lathes ;)
Yep ,just a little bigger version of a "MANSON". I think I paid $40 for the one ,109, I had ,had to do some tinkering to make it work? and then sold it for $100 . I think a Harbor Freight 7X12 worked better.
www.chaski.com
Post Reply