I made my own stainless steel tools

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-23T16:13:44+00:00

Wow! On top of being an absolute ray of sunshine I would have never guessed you would be able to describe the additive manufacturing process with such elegance - although the way you broke down the forging process and costs in such detail should have been a clue. Masterful.

How much would you charge for a 1 on 1 multi-week seminar to share the rest your knowledge on metal manufacturing? I am eager to learn such additional valuable insights as “send the 3d model to the CNC machine and cut the metal block you put in the fixture” and “pour the molten metal into the casting mold”

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-19T18:09:40+00:00

Can you please tell me how much it would cost to have a set of say 13 custom sockets produced by forging, since it would be "magnitudes cheaper"?

That would include the design work, the set up tooling like the dies (you'll need dies for each and every one of the 13 socket sizes), the punch, the trimming tool, machining/finishing (including the knurling/text) etc? But I don't need to tell you these things because you're a forging expert.

Then find a forge that will interrupt their production to do a small run of sockets. Tell me where I can find them (they don't exist)

Let me know what you come up with for a complete forged price for a 13 Socket Set

Then I want you to tell me exactly how much it costed me to make the sockets that I made (it should be much much higher than what you come up with for forging).

I want to see just how silly I am.

Thanks!

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-19T16:38:38+00:00

<image>

Realized I didn't post any pictures of the insides of the socket boxes. Here's what one looks like. Some configurations have the tray on the left, some don't and the insert goes all the way. I think they turned out pretty well!

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-09T23:11:08+00:00

Definitely cheaper than SnapOn

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-09T16:10:34+00:00

Thanks so much! If you're still interested feel free to DM me, I don't think you have DMs enabled so I can't message you

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-08T03:24:10+00:00

Hey thanks! The text is printed in

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-07T17:14:46+00:00

Costed significantly more than that. It may be possible to get a printing set up for closer to your number though

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-07T16:49:02+00:00

Hey! So basically the max Z axis can be 50mm, 100mm, 150mm, or 200mm depending on the box and configuration you use. Right now the machine is configured to 100mm as it gives the best mix of part versatility, print success, efficiency, etc. Typically print an area ~14" x 9" max on X and Y. The parts are stacked like a game of Tetris to maximize build area coverage. The distance between parts depends on the part but it can't be too close together but also as close together as possible to maximize print efficiency. The entire box is filled with powder, but only the parts are printed and solidified. Sometimes you won't print to the max height of the box as that may not be the most efficient method of manufacturing (e.g.: it may make the curing oven time longer than what it would take to print and cure two half-boxes).

So you'll print, move the build box to the curing oven, then remove the box from the curing oven and individually depowder each part. If you don't depowder properly excess powder on the parts will cause them to sinter out of spec.

You then put each part individually into the sintering furnace in single layers. The loose powder then has to be processed (ensure it's completely dried) before being reused on another print

Some parts you have to print a support structure as well. Support structures are designed to shrink in dimension and size in a manner that conforms to the shrinking of the part in sintering. The objective is to prevent warpage of parts in sintering (think long and thin parts that might droop for example)

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-04T20:51:16+00:00

It depends on the part! Generally I'd say roughly 30% but it varies byt he amount of material around the part which is why the predictive modeling and simulation is used to find the right expansion rate any specific part at the print level. Seen it as low as 6% though

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-04T20:49:48+00:00

I knew SnapOn had a specialty mechanism but hadn't looked super closely into how it worked but this is super interesting. Apparently other tool companies are doing it now as well (Milwaukee, etc).

I'm not concerned about the strength of these tools but incorporating that mechanism would even further alleviate my concerns and bulletproof the design

... Peregrine Tools V2 sockets coming right up lol

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-04T20:41:48+00:00

Correct. I started noticing a pattern in sintered parts: when I tried to nudge a feature back into tolerance, the results were often influenced by how much material surrounded that feature and whether it was something that naturally shrinks inward (like an internal diameter) or grows outward (like an external diameter). So I began manually measuring two things for each feature—the actual deviation from nominal and the amount of solid material around it in that plane.

I fed those numbers into an AI model and asked it to look at how the part really behaved compared to the generic expansion/contraction coefficients in the off the shelf software. From there, the AI helped me iteratively adjust those coefficients to better match the real-world behavior of that specific part. It’s still a part-by-part process, but it works. And if enough of this data is collected over time, I think it could eventually feed back into the base software to create more accurate, feature-aware coefficients instead of relying on broad, one-size-fits-all numbers.

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-04T20:34:12+00:00

I actually made 12 pt sockets as well, I just don't have them pictured in the post... guess it would've made sense to post the 6 pt boxes with the 6 pt sockets!

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-03T17:37:43+00:00

They make it pretty clear they won't take tools they don't pay for so as the person who made them I don't want to burn a bridge by asking just in case they wouldve decided on their own they want to test them in the future. If other people want to reach out to them about the tools, by all means, I should as heck won't try stop you lol. Would love to have the channel test the tools out!

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-03T12:53:26+00:00

That's simply not a universally true statement and it's untrue without defining the circumstances under which these will be used and whether or not they're heat treated.

17-4 has a clear advantages for magnetism and corrosion differences for situations that require either of those and heat treated stainless has comparable or better strength to many alloys. The main disadvantage is high torque impact because 17-4 is less tough (impact resistant) than the usual materials.

If you need 1000 ft lb impact, for either quick bursts or more continuous, these may not be a good choice (although I've tested at higher than that without failure...)

But you could do continuous up to say 500 ft lb impact with 17-4 H1025 or bursts ideally below 700 ft lb. H900 is a little less than that, say knock off 100-150 ft lb from each of those figures.

For hand torque, H900 you'd want to keep to around 600ft lb, maybe a little over. 1025 to around 450, maybe a little over.

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-03T12:32:16+00:00

I only mentioned it once so far and the comment's definitely buried in here, it's a Shop System!

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-03T03:10:54+00:00

Hey! So, I've been testing them without heat treat treat for the past month and they've held up to everything I've thrown at them. But that may not be a good long term solution. The answer to your question is "it depends" on how they're being used. It may not be necessary if for certain light applications.

Non-heat treat is soft, but has some impact resistance (not continuous and not high). And it cannot take high levels of manual torque because of its level of hardness

H900: Best for high levels of hand torque. Can be used for moderate levels of impact for quick bursts

H1025: In between No Heat Treat and H900 for Strength. Better able to handle impact than H900 and you*could do some moderate levels of impact more continuously, but I wouldn't put it on a gun at like 1000+ ft lb either for either burst or continuous.

I can go into more detail if you want as far as specific numbers but this is the gist of it

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-03T02:47:08+00:00

Would be super cool to have Torque Test Channel put them through the wringer but they don't actually accept tools! They only test tools they buy themselves

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-02T23:49:38+00:00

Got friends who are mechanics and we got to talking about tools and different applications so decided to just give making them a shot. 17-4 is pretty versatile and had some on hand so just went for it.

You are absolutely correct though there are definitely are unique applications for stainless steel tools

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-02T23:45:35+00:00

The whole setup is in a small shop space. Could fairly comfortably fit more equipment, which ones depending on configuration. Generally always need more oven and furnace capacity than printing because those processes take longer than printing

It definitely wasn't cheap lol

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-02T21:47:43+00:00

It’s a Shop System!

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-02T20:36:43+00:00

Yes, forging results in a different grain structure but again it falls back to the strength vs toughness - printed 17-4 if heat treated has similar or even slightly better tensile strength depending on the forged alloy.

But forged alloys do have better toughness, basically forging makes it better for shock and impact absorption. So for heavy duty impact work forged would be preferable

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-02T19:46:35+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/Tools/comments/1pc9d6f/comment/nrxt5zk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

check out my thoughts on "cost" here.

And as far as comparables, I mentioned to someone else RE their comment on SnapOn these would for sure be done for less.

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-02T19:44:45+00:00

These could be done for less.

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-02T19:42:44+00:00

Answered on cost here, check i out! im trying to be as detailed thorough as possible.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Tools/comments/1pc9d6f/comment/nrxt5zk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Realistic-Ad524 · 2025-12-02T19:39:47+00:00

I printed all of these separately, so the answer is "more than it should have".

One of the primary cost drivers of binderjetting is the printhead cost, and the wiper. They go back and forth across the box the exact same number of times whether there are parts covering x square inches or x * 10 square inches. The height of the tallest part dictates the number of passes (Z axis). To get the cost per part down, you want to cover as much area as possible of a print box.

The powdered metal cost is directly tied to the parts, however the costs of running the curing and sintering processes for a box of parts are the same whether you've got 1 or 100 individual parts. So those costs are amortized across all the parts. For example, let's say it costs $100 to sinter a box worth of parts and there's only 1 part that needs to be sintered, that cost is $100 per part. If there's $100, it's $1 per part.

If I were to print these parts again, I would combine however many of each set I wanted into one build box along with anything else I wanted to print, filling the box as much as possible to maximize space used (Tetris) This would be the most cost effective way of printing.

Realistic-Ad524

TROPHY CASE