Doing everything on the b axis head keeps everything simple and flexible at the cost of production efficiency. We specified our NTX without a lower turret because the most important criteria to us was quick changeovers for one-two off parts. HSK also can't be used for building modular tool assemblies, whereas Capto excels at that too. HSK may be easier to balance for very high speeds compared to Capto, but I think that is even marginal tbh. HSK rules in milling spindles because it provides all the benefits of Capto that matter in that scenario, while being a much cheaper spindle to make, and cheaper tools to buy. I think what it boils down to is that HSK doesn't have any direct benefits over Capto beyond cost. Those are solid arguments and all totally correct.
Capto tool holders iso#
The options for milling holders are probably greater on HSK, but I've never struggled to get what I need on Capto.Ĭapto holders are generally a bit more expensive than HSK holders, all else being equal, so you need to consider that.Ĭapto is pretty much the de-facto standard on all new millturns these days anyway, and is now an ISO standard (ISO 26623, generally called PSC) rather than being a proprietary Sandvik product, which means that there are many manufacturers of Capto/PSC tools now.Īvoid KM at all costs, it is an orphaned system that never saw wide scale adoption by anybody except Mazak on early integrexes, and while Kenna still make it, you have to wonder whether they will continue to do so for very long. The options for turning tools are much greater on Capto than on HSK-T. HSK-T is a bit of a kludge that was developed to try and match Capto for torsional rigidity and repeatability, but it falls short on both.
It's just as good as HSK for milling, and much better for turning.
0 kommentar(er)
