<HTML> In a message dated 10/6/03 12:54:05 AM, yardbird@vermontel.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE">I'm assuming you've g= ot some sort of milling machine, not necessarily a Bridgeport. I bet you could do a good job of making a component downbearing gauge, the one with the adjustable inclination bubble mount. Someone send this guy a .jpg of one (not necessarily identifying its maker). Bill Ballard RPT NH Chapter, P.T.G. </BLOCKQUOTE> Living near Detroit I have acquired lots of machinery from old tool and die = shops. To do credible work you need both a mill and a lathe and a lot of sup= port tooling. Can be a time waster in that one of three experiments is good = to go. Re the downbearing gauge I bought one from one of the suppliers years= ago and returned it because of the low precision bubble vial. Your best bet= would be a simple jig with a place to temp. mount a machinist's level. A go= od one is accurate to .005 per foot and a REALLY good one goes .0005 per foo= t. Question is (and this goes back to the vector discussion in recent thread= s) what do you want to measure, which two surfaces to you want to relate to = each other ? Even S&S once specified thickness of a NEW coin for down be= aring gauging, or was that just romantical hype ?</HTML>