×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

#00, 000, 0000 thread specs

#00, 000, 0000 thread specs

#00, 000, 0000 thread specs

(OP)
A while back I posted thread1103-193600: Calling out #00 threads on drawing and never really got an answer (thread is closed now).

Well whilst searching for info on my lead screw post I came across:

http://catalog.asme.org/Codes/PrintBook/B1863_2003_Machine_Screws.cfm

B18.6.3 - 2003 Machine Screws and Machine Screw Nuts - part of the description says: "...thread dimensions for the No. 0000, No. 000, and No. 00 sizes..."

Anyone familiar with this spec?  If so would it be appropriate to use this a reference spec when putting 00 tapped holes etc on a drawing?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: #00, 000, 0000 thread specs

When I have thread questions I check one of three places....machinery's handbook, Mil-S-8879 & Mil-S-7742.  The machinery's handbook has some good information on miniature screw threads.

Heckler   americanflag
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
      o
  _`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

This post contains no political overtones or undertones for that matter and in no way represents the poster's political agenda.

RE: #00, 000, 0000 thread specs

(OP)
Thanks Heckler, I'd looked in Machineries.  They don't appear to have them.  I'm not familiar with the other 2 specs.

These are not UNM (Unified Miniature) threads.

They are a legacy of the American National thread form and should have generally been replaced by UNM but are still in use.

Someone gave me an extract of B18.6.3 since I posted and it does have the information with an opening paragraph saying:

Quote:

The following dimensional data for the No.0000, No. 000, and No. 00 thread sizes is provided in Table V-1 for convenient reference until such time as these thread sizes may be adequately documented in an appropriate standard relating specifically to screw threads.

So unless someone knows better for now I'll reference B18.6.3.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: #00, 000, 0000 thread specs

I have access to B18.6.2-2002

Its statement of scope begins with:

Quote:

This standard is intended to cover the complete general and dimensional data for the various types of slotted and recessed head machine screws and machine screw nuts...

I cannot find a Table V-1 in it.

There is a paragraph that states:

Quote:

The threads on machine screws, except for the No. 0000, No. 000 and No. 00 sizes, which are covered in Table 19, shall be Unified Standard, Class 2A...

Table 19 provides some basic dimensions for the threads.  Pitch, limits on major and pitch diameters and the nominal minor diameter (external) or major diameter (internal).

It does not fully define the thread form in the level of detail that B1.1 does

RE: #00, 000, 0000 thread specs

(OP)
ASME  B18.6.3-2003 is what I have an excerpt from, not 18.6.2.

The extract I'm looking at is I believe appendix V.  Table V1 gives the major, minor & pitch diamters with tolerances, sounds like similar to your table 19.  It shows that they should be called out as "NS" for the series designation which was part of my original question in my original post.

I agree it doesn't fully define the form to the extent that B1.1 does but it's the best I've found in a current standard.  

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: #00, 000, 0000 thread specs

Sorry, typo.

The above from B18.6.3-2002

RE: #00, 000, 0000 thread specs

(OP)
I wondered.

Still the best I've found so far though.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources