Hammond 1550 series

[Mark Hammer]

I popped into an electronics outlet way across town today, that I don't normally stop into.  They didn't have a big selection of Hammond boxes, but they had a handful of 1590Bs and beside them was a 1550B.  I grew curious and compared them.  The 1550B seemed juuuust a bit bigger, and even though the store owner didn't really know anything about it or volunteer to check the catalog, since it was only 30 cents more, I figured I'd spring for it.

The 1550 series are watertight boxes.  What that means is that they come with a form-fitting gasket that snuggles up against the inner lip of the back panel that most folks use as the "bottom".

The walls of the 1550 series are about 50-60% the thickness of the 1590 series, and the outer dimensions of the 1550B are 115mm x 64mm x 26mm, where the 1590B is 112 x 60 x 27.  So, a bit longer and wider, and negligibly higher, going by the outside.  The thinner walls, however, add space where you didn't expect it.  Ignoring the round corners where the screws go, the inner wall-to-wall dimensions of the 1550B are 111.5 x 61mm, versus 108 x 56.5mm, or 6801.5 vs 6102 mm-squared (about 11.5% more area).

What does this imply?  Well, a board I etched for Rick Holt's Causality4MkII phaser will just fit inside a 1590B, if you make sure the long sides are nicely trimmed close to the traces running alongside them, and orient the board so that the two 14-pin chips run fro the front to back skirt of the box.  The same board can be rotated 90 degrees, and still has room to spare inside the 1550B.  Moreover, there is wads of room for the jacks and I don't have to be concerned about what brand of battery is used.  That small increment in space provides a surprising amount of flexibility.

I can't vouch for the price differential being 30 cents everywhere, but if you see these listed for a reasonable price, you may find it worth your while to pick up a few.  The thinner walls have no discernible impact on their ruggedness, and the gasket is not required for the box to close and feel solid.

All in all, a nice surprise!

[bean]

I've been using these for a while now, and I really like them. They have a non-gasket version at Mouser, which is the one I've been getting. You can actually get the 1550BBK which is industrial strength black power coated for $9.41. It's a very rugged finish...far more so than I can pull off, so the extra $$ are worth it.

Anyway, I dig the few extra millimeters you are afforded. I've longed for a slightly larger 1590B at the same price point.

http://www.mouser.com/catalog/catalogUSD/642/1965.pdf

http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Hammond/1550BBK/?qs=aOcK2sAy400B6RA59sTYaQ%3d%3d

[edvard]

I posted about these a little while ago: http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=84012.0
Good to hear practical experience, just what I was hoping for.

The thinner walls are still good then?
How about the tops?
Do you think they could withstand years of stompage, or do you think they might go concave over time?

[MartyMart]

That's a nice size, I just picked up a couple of "Eddystone" box's that are 145x95x45
which is quite big ( Toadworks Rattlesnake size ) but perfect for more complex builds
with several knobs.
They were £7.99 a piece from Maplin - UK
This is also "shallow lid / thin wall" but very strong

MM.

[amptramp]

The major difference between the 1550 and the 1590 series is stainless M3 x 1.0 screws in the 1550 series and nickel-plated 6-32 screws in the 1590 series.  See:

http://www.hammondmfg.com/1550.htm

for the 1550 and

http://www.hammondmfg.com/dwg.htm

for the 1590

[Mark Hammer]

I posted about these a little while ago: http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=84012.0
Good to hear practical experience, just what I was hoping for.

The thinner walls are still good then?
How about the tops?
Do you think they could withstand years of stompage, or do you think they might go concave over time?

And I was the first response you got, too!!

Completely forgot about that.
As for strength, more than thick enough to hold up for a lifetime of stomping.  If the box were substantially larger (say 9" x 6") I might have some concerns about it yielding to heavy boots, but at the sizes this group normally uses (B and BB), more than acceptably stiff.

[Govmnt_Lacky]

...more than acceptably stiff.

Sorry Mark....had to!

[edvard]

I posted about these a little while ago: http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=84012.0
Good to hear practical experience, just what I was hoping for.

The thinner walls are still good then?
How about the tops?
Do you think they could withstand years of stompage, or do you think they might go concave over time?

And I was the first response you got, too!!

Completely forgot about that.
As for strength, more than thick enough to hold up for a lifetime of stomping.  If the box were substantially larger (say 9" x 6") I might have some concerns about it yielding to heavy boots, but at the sizes this group normally uses (B and BB), more than acceptably stiff.

Hehe, 'saright.
I'm just glad for the real world report.
I'm probably a little too paranoid sometimes and will often wait for someone else to test waters I'm not sure of.
Now, if Hammond would offer these pre-painted like the BB's, that would be quite awesome.