Header banner
Revain logoHome Page
πŸ”§ task tools t81116 16" diameter" - enhanced seo-friendly product name logo

πŸ”§ Task Tools T81116 16" Diameter" - Enhanced SEO-friendly Product Name Review

3

Β·

Average

Revainrating 3.5 out of 5Β Β 
RatingΒ 
3.3
πŸͺš Industrial Drill Bits, πŸ”ͺ Cutting Tools

View on AmazonView on Π―M

Media

(1)
img 1 attached to πŸ”§ Task Tools T81116 16" Diameter" - Enhanced SEO-friendly Product Name

Description of πŸ”§ Task Tools T81116 16" Diameter" - Enhanced SEO-friendly Product Name

High Speed Steel construction for drilling in hard carbon alloy steels, cast iron. Special flute design for fast removal of debris. Size: 11/16 by 6-Inch.

Reviews

Global ratings 3
  • 5
    1
  • 4
    1
  • 3
    0
  • 2
    0
  • 1
    1

Type of review

Revainrating 1 out of 5

Instead of Milwaukee drills.

Drilled 1/2" to 9/16" holes in mild steel. The cutting edges are blunted with cooling lubricant in just two operations. On the 3rd hole it caught on the edge and the drill broke. Terrible product.

Pros
  • practical item
Cons
  • so far so good

Revainrating 5 out of 5

Did what I needed, still sharp.

I used this drill to modify the spring mounts on a lifted truck. He drilled a 9/16 hole in four heavy gauge steel brackets and four heavy gauge steel washers. The only issue I had was the drill bit was so sharp it just stuck on my parts. You could use a drill press.

Pros
  • Very impressive
Cons
  • Drill Pack

Revainrating 4 out of 5

Very good drill but 3/8 shank is too long

This product could have gotten 5 stars but I am giving it 4 stars because the shank is too long. As a previous reviewer pointed out, it bent the stock and rendered it unusable, and the same thing happened to me. I noticed that the drill bits at the local hardware store have a very short shank for a 3/8 chuck. So I took my drill bit that I was given and cut the shank 2" off and left 1" on it and it fits perfectly in my 3/8 drill chuck. You no longer have to worry about bending the shaft. This…

Pros
  • Consistent test results
Cons
  • Could have chosen a newer model