Chadsghost8
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1
I intend to make my own rail swaging punch and would like some input regarding dimensions for the working end.
A: I would appreciate dimensions from commercial punches.
Diameter:
Surface A (from B to C):
Surface B (from A to D):
Surface C (from A to E):
Surface D (from B to G):
Surface E (from C to F):
Surface F (from E to bar diameter):
Surface G (from D to bar diameter):
B: Are the dimensions at the working end of commercial punches optimal? Is there room for improvement?
I am working from the following assumptions:
1) Surface A should be as wide as the frame rail projection, .075-.080”. Is this correct?
2) Surface B keeps surface A parallel to the frame rail and cannot extend below the frame rail, any measurement <.098”.
3) Surfaces C and E provide clearance to prevent Surface E from contacting the top of the frame, so I figure .020-.050” would be adequate for C.
C: The instructions for the Brownell’s punch state that the ejector MUST be removed. If C and E provided clearance for the ejector is there any other reason to remove it? Would providing that clearance weaken surface A of the punch? Would reducing C/lowering E provide any real benefit by reinforcing A?
D: What is the reason for angled cuts F and G? Can they be reduced or eliminated without any drawbacks?
E: Would angling surface C toward E/F provide any benefit or cause any problems? What about a small bevel or radius on the corner between A and C?
F: Would creating a bevel/radius/relief at the ends of A (at the outer diameter of the tool) be of any benefit?
I will be using a grinder, belt sander, files and sandpaper so I would like to avoid any unnecessary material removal. I am very willing to go to more effort if it will result in a better tool.
Here is the partially completed tool, sorry for the blurry pic, I will post better pics when it is complete.
A: I would appreciate dimensions from commercial punches.
Diameter:
Surface A (from B to C):
Surface B (from A to D):
Surface C (from A to E):
Surface D (from B to G):
Surface E (from C to F):
Surface F (from E to bar diameter):
Surface G (from D to bar diameter):
B: Are the dimensions at the working end of commercial punches optimal? Is there room for improvement?
I am working from the following assumptions:
1) Surface A should be as wide as the frame rail projection, .075-.080”. Is this correct?
2) Surface B keeps surface A parallel to the frame rail and cannot extend below the frame rail, any measurement <.098”.
3) Surfaces C and E provide clearance to prevent Surface E from contacting the top of the frame, so I figure .020-.050” would be adequate for C.
C: The instructions for the Brownell’s punch state that the ejector MUST be removed. If C and E provided clearance for the ejector is there any other reason to remove it? Would providing that clearance weaken surface A of the punch? Would reducing C/lowering E provide any real benefit by reinforcing A?
D: What is the reason for angled cuts F and G? Can they be reduced or eliminated without any drawbacks?
E: Would angling surface C toward E/F provide any benefit or cause any problems? What about a small bevel or radius on the corner between A and C?
F: Would creating a bevel/radius/relief at the ends of A (at the outer diameter of the tool) be of any benefit?
I will be using a grinder, belt sander, files and sandpaper so I would like to avoid any unnecessary material removal. I am very willing to go to more effort if it will result in a better tool.
Here is the partially completed tool, sorry for the blurry pic, I will post better pics when it is complete.
