Fellow TechNetters, There was a question a few weeks ago about component lead deformation in excess of 10% diameter. What was the outcome? I could only find two posts to the original question. I also have a problem with rejecting a .030" diameter component lead which has only a slightly more than >.003" deformation. How do you deal with this? Commonly there will be relatively insignificant tool marks when forming round leads (SMT or Thru-hole). When measured, these minor marks are likely to be called defects. Following the J-Std-001 para. 6.1.2 or 7.1.1, our Quality department is of the opinion to scrap parts with >10%. Seems far too stringent and wasteful too!. Mil Std 2000 used to allow up to 20% reduction in cross section area (current-carrying area) and that was reasonable. Now I can not have tool marks or depressions (which do not reduce cross-section area) in excess of 10% diameter. I do not understand the reasoning for the dramatic reduction from the old requirements. Did someone translate 10% diameter to 10% area? Rainer G. Blomberg Honeywell -Space Systems Clearwater Staff Production Engineer (727) 539-5534 --------------------------------------------------- Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8e To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL) To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815 -----------------------------------------------------