As for hole wizard reamers - you can show custom sizing, adjust the sizing to match the reamer, then save it as one of your favorites in the temp folder.
This is interesting. Quick search shows metric reamers available in .5 mm increments, just as you said. But there is no way that this is sufficient to control fits. I'd like to hear from somebody who works mostly in metric.
Machine shops around the globe can use any size.
On the drawing call out only the finished hole size, let the machinist figure out what size reamer to use...if one is needed.
This is almost the answer I'm looking for.
Though, I'd like to hear from an OUS machine shop that can confirm that they have access to inch tools, or do they have more metric sizes available to them.
Also, when machining OUS, are they working in metric or inch on their machines. (In Other Words, are they converting my inch prints to metric or vice versa?)
What I believe is going on here, (in my situation) is that our OUS service techs are having a hard time finding inch wrenches and allen tools. So they requested that we use all metric hardware... Then, by way of the telephone game, we arrived at upper management pushing all metric prints for all machined components.
It's not that they can't get inch tooling--of course they can. It's 2015, anybody can get anything. It's more that it's very surprising that in order to ream a 5.1 mm hole the answer is to look up the nearest inch size reamer, in a country that does not use the inch system at all.
The rest of the world uses metric. Shops outside the U.S. work in metric. Working in metric will make it much easier for your suppliers outside the U.S. to machine your parts.
Any good shop in the U.S. should be able to handle metric as well with no problems.
To elaborate on what Chris said, put the metric sizes and tolerances you need on your drawings and let the shops decide on the appropriate tools and techniques to meet print.
Thank you. Everything you have said makes sense. "And I hear that the rest of the world is doing it", all the time. I want to understand how. I have to say, just because everyone else does it.... If everyone jumped off..... You get what i'm saying. 8-) That said, I'm more willing to adopt it, if I understand it.
Would it not be prudent, and cost conscious, to apply available tool sizing into your design?
If a milled part can hold a tolerance on a .125 inch hole to ±.0022" (per Machinist Handbook 26, Page 630). And Reaming can get you ±.0004". I feel I want to make sure the machine shop doesn't have to buy a special tool; or worse, have a custom tool made. I would think either would drive my cost up.
So if the shop doesn't have a inch reamers, or availability to purchase inch reamers, how would they get the tolerance I need for a Class LC7 or RC8 Fit. (.0008-.0038" and .0030"-.0066"). A metric reamers is not going to cut it. (no pun intended)
Oh yea, considering the rest of the world, What standard are they using for Limits and Fits?
- ANSI Standard Fits
- American National Standard Preferred Metric Limits and Fits
- British Standard for Metric ISO Limits and Fits
- Or another I'm not yet aware of.
I've been using the ANSI Standard Fits for a while, and find the later two confusing. I'm willing to spend more time understanding them, but would like to know what the rest of the world is using.
I disagree. While you do not specify tooling on a drawing, it is important for designers to understand the tooling that is required in order to design feasible, economical parts.
- You should pick standard sheet-metal bend radii
- You should employ forming tools your shop already has
- You should use standard punches
- You should select hole sizes related to drill bits that exist
- You should not ask for a back-chamfer that requires a mill that nobody can make or buy
- You should probably not send a tightly toleranced hole to a machine shop in Europe that will require them to buy a special reamer when they have a hundred standard reamers that they were expecting you to use.
Right now, the OP (and I am with him) are having trouble understanding what EU machine shops are expecting. Surely somebody on this forum has intimate knowledge of metric tooling.
I agree with you for the most part.... We strive for that in our shop.
You will want to become familiar with the ISO Standards for Limits, Fits and Tolerances.
Also on a sort of similar topic:
Counterbores for metric socket head cap screws…
Our shop has the tooling for these sizes, as shown here in the McMaster catalog:
The sizes shown here, from the MSC catalog , are what Solidworks call out in the holewizard:
We prefer the McMaster sizes and we are constantly changing the callout when placing holes with the holewizard,
I know I could change the MDB file to reflect the preferred sizes BUT Why can not Sloidworks have an alternate
choice built in? Why does SW use the sizes they have in the holewizard?
What is the rest of the world (Non USA) really using?