We use cookies to personalize content, interact with our analytics companies, advertising networks and cooperatives, and demographic companies, provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. Our social media, advertising and analytics partners may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services. Learn more.
A project needs a large amount of clearance in a pocket. My biggest end mill is 0.25". I’m considering using a standard 3/4" carbide straight bit intended for normal router work. Got a couple of questions.
Why shouldn’t I? Is there a compelling reason not to?
Assuming no to the above:
In the Aspire tool database, the 0.25 has a feed rate of 100 IPM and plunge rate of 30 IPM with a depth per pass of 0.125 (1/8). When I tell Easel I want to use a 0.25 (which has to be entered as “Other”) it chooses a feed rate of 30 and plunge rate of 9 with a depth per pass of 0.028. Easel tells me it chooses these figures based on regularly updated industry information. So, which one is closer to right for a 0.25, and how would you extrapolate that to a 0.75? Obviously, plunge rate is a major consideration.
I tried this recently , I suggest doing the detail pass first then clean out , I did clean out first on my last project with a 3/4" bit and it tore out some of the detail and small areas whole pieces of the project went flying , I re ran the project but did the detail pass first and it came out great.
Phil, I have to disagree on this one. I am not X-carve experienced but come in with 50 years of woodworking background. I also probably own every woodworking power tool known to man! I say that in jest - I just love power tools.
In my experience, many router bits will plunge if forced. Some won’t plunge no matter what you do but will make a lot of smoke. Some if correctly designed will plunge well but they need to have a cutting edge running all the way across the bottom - not leaving an uncut portion in the center.
I have seen some without full cutters claim they are plunge bits but what they do is cut the sides but chew the center down some and then depend on lateral movement to clean up the mess. Stick one of those in a plunge router and just plunge a hole 3/8" and lift out. Look at the cut and tell me it truly plunged. Take one with a cutter all the way across and do the same thing. Clean cut - that is a plunge bit.
I know - with our X-Carves we don’t do deep plunges with these and can often get away using them but in my book that doesn’t make them plunge bits. Most quality bit manufactures will state if their bits will plunge. Usually if they don’t say they will - they wont do or at least not well.
For this one with blades only on the sides, I set the ramp plunge to 3" on a 1/8" depth of cut, as shown above. I think with it easing down 1/8 of an inch over 3 inches, no harm was done to bit or wood. Obviously, a plunge bit is preferable and I’ll add one to my collection soon.
Question: this bit calls itself a plunge bit, and yet doesn’t have a cutter across the bottom. What’s up with that? Comments?
Some if correctly designed will plunge well but they need to have a cutting edge running all the way across the bottom - not leaving an uncut portion in the center.