Too much waste

After I finish a bowl there is a huge pile of shavings...they work great as mulch on the floor of my small hobby greenhouse, but I have more mulch than I have greenhouse. So I think I need a bowl saver. The question is, which is the best system?

Thanking you in advance for your opinions,

Lem Bledsoe

Reply to
LBledsoe
Loading thread data ...

I own a kelton bowl saver, I do like it very much, I don't get to use it as much as I would like to. I've also used the one made by wood-cut tools. Both are nice, wood-cut doesn't have the versatility. Differen't shapes, vase saves, and deep parting are keltons domain, even when compared to the oneway version. The instructions suck to the point of being wrong, Mike Mahoney's video made a difference. By all means, ask away about either of the two systems I've used.

Reply to
woodturningcreature

The answer depends on a few things. What kind of a lathe do you have? How much hp motor? What will you be coring?

I have all three systems, McNaughton, Oneway, and Woodcut. They all work and work well.

The McNaughton has a learning curve. You are the pilot, and have to aim where you want to be. Since the blade isn't on a pivoting point, then it won't always go where you want it to. Given the choice of having only one of the 3 systems, I would choose this one. It is faster (at least for me) and you can core any shape except for the inside of a hollow form with it. You don't need all of the blades that come with the system. You can't see the blade as it cuts, and sometimes you will go through the bottom. They now have a laser pointer that goes with their system. It hasn't improved my aim, but I can see when it is off, and correct. I can now aim deeper rather than usually aiming shallow so that I won't make another lamp shade. This system mounts on the banjo. If you do get this one, try to find someone who has it and knows how to make it work.

The Oneway is the most expensive of the 3. I prefer it for the largest cores that I do. You do have to stop the lathe a few times during each core to advance the support finger, but the support finger is what makes it so steady. This is also a reason why this one is the slowest of the 3 for me. The cutters are a pain to sharpen. You have to take it off the blade and hold it up to the grinder, or they have a nice little jig to put the cutter in so that you don't have to hold it in your fingers. This system mounts on a metal plate which tightens with a wrench and bolt.

The Woodcut is a nice little system. Note that I said little. The big blade is about a 5 inch radius. You can core bigger than a 10 inch diameter blank, but the bottom will be slightly concave. Not a big problem, but you can loose a little depth. The major draw back to me is that you need to have the tailstock on the lathe for this one. I never use the tailstock when turning or coring bowls. It does chatter a bit on harder woods, but that isn't a drawback.

You need at least a 1 hp motor, and that is stretching it a bit. All of the blades remove about a 3/8 inch wide kerf, so if you can remove a cut like that, you can core. The exception here is the McNaughton mini set. They are about 1/4 inch wide, and work the easiest of the systems.

If you come to the AAW Symposium in Portland next summer, I will be demoing all 3 systems. I will also be doing a DVD on using the McNaughton system. If you have any other questions, let me know. I do have a number of other posts no this and other chat groups about the McNaughton and other coring systems.

There are claims that they will reduce the amount of shav> I own a kelton bowl saver, I do like it very much, I don't get to use

Reply to
robo hippy

InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.