Where theworld gathers for metal finishing
Q&As since 1989
-----
Replacement spec for Mil-C-26074 (electroless nickel)?
Q. I have been informed by a customer that MIL-C-26074
[on DLA] (electroless nickel) is obsolete. If this is so, can someone tell me what the replacement documentation is. The same customer says AMS2404 or AMS2405, but he is not sure. Who publishes these?
Why haven't the people phasing out MIL specs gone to ASTM? My opinion is that ASTM reads similarly for many requirements but is more up to date.
Thanks.
Bill Vins
microwave & cable assemblies - Mesa (what a place-a), Arizona
A. Hi, Bill.
MIL-C-26074 is indeed obsolete, but they refer you to ASTM B607 for boron EN and ASTM B733 for phosphorous EN.
Ted Mooney, P.E.
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey
1996
Ed. note: Mil-C-26074 was later reinstated.
2006
A. MIL-C-26074
[on DLA] is a current and still usable MS.
- Riverside, California, USA
1996
Ed. note July 2016: According to quicksearch.dla.mil, the most recent version of this spec was cancelled in 2003.
"MIL-DTL-26074F is hereby cancelled. Previous users for Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program applications only should refer to MIL-DTL-32119 [link is to free spec at Defense Logistics Agency, dla.mil]. Previous users of MIL-C-26074E should refer to SAE AMSC26074."
Q. Does MIL-D-26074E exist? if so; what are all the differences w.r.t. MIL-C-26074E ?
ANIL SOGIELECTRONICS - Bangalore, India
November 14, 2012
A. Hi Anil. I don't think there is or ever was a MIL-D-26074 -- my bet is it was just either a transposition typo or an error in abbreviating "DTL". As far as I can see, rev. E (from 1990) is still the current revision level. But there were cancelation and re-activation notices subsequent to that.
Regards,
Ted Mooney, P.E.
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey
November 14, 2012
A. Mil-C-26074 is cancelled and AMSC26074 also is cancelled AMS2404 is correct.
Gilbert Loy- Anaheim, California, USA
May 7, 2013
Hi. This is all terribly confusing, with cancellations, re-instatements, re-cancellations, reference to ever-changing replacement specs, etc.
However, while I think Gilbert may have been correct in May of 2013, that he too became incorrect in October 2013 when revision D of SAE AMSC26074 was stabilized -- because neither the MIL cancellation notice, nor SAE AMSC26074 seems to make mention of a replacement for AMSC26074. However, AMS2404 does seem to remain a viable spec as well.
I guess this is what you call "the fog of peace" :-)
Regards,
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey
July 2016
Reading MIL-C-26074, I've noticed the thickness callouts are not specified if per side. At face value, Class C should grow a shaft by .003" (.0015" per side). However I seem to remember Class C growing a shaft by .0015" (.0007" per side) Can I get some clarification on this?
Sean David- Denver, Colorado, United States
July 18, 2016
Q, A, or Comment on THIS thread -or- Start a NEW Thread