Machine Feet for my lathe

[Neale]

This levelling business set me wondering as well. I can think of a few reasons for doing it. One is that it puts the machine in exactly the same orientation as when it was originally ground, so you should be replicating the original accuracy. But I can't believe that you need a precision level to achieve that - I'm sure that you could get close enough with any decent level. But a precision level might be able to check for twist by checking in various places along the bed and save time spent in machining a test bar until you were very close. If you also set the machine very accurately, you could also use the level for setting work later? I've never done that, but I can see it might be useful on a milling machine.
By the way, don't use the tailstock for setting up. The initial setting up is all about getting the headstock aligned to the bed (or vice versa). That's why you don't use the tailstock when doing the initial checks. The tailstock is usually adjustable, and has to be aligned with the headstock and bed later. I wouldn't trust tailstock alignment on a fresh-from-the-factory machine.

[cropwell]

You are right about the tailstock as a primary reference it is inadequate. The first job would be to get the laser to point at a target at the tailstock end. When the dot doesn't move with the lathe turning (by hand) then the beam is directly on the axis. Then you can set up the tailstock centre, before checking the carriage. if you only want a relatively accurate level how about this one http://www.chronos.ltd.uk/cgi-bin/sh...html#a30316004
You can always put it on the bed, zero it and turn it 180deg to check for any slope.

[Lee Roberts]

Yea, Jim hit the nail on the head it's about the lathe staying true over time, any foundation is only as good as it is level? Its counter productive to fight with inperfections if they can be mostly removed first, don't forget Tom uses those levels because he's got them and also uses them for other things.

.Me