McMaster-Carr/Grainger Alternative 6

[dalegoldston]

Looking for an alternative to McMaster-Carr and Grainger. Anyone have some they would like to share. My company no longer allows me to use these guys.

Thanks
Dale

Thanks
Dale

 

[Pete_K]

I've had luck asking McMaster for the cut sheet...usually there's enough info there to be able to google and find where it comes from.

This brings up a broader topic which is whose responsibility is it to find sources for components? At one of my previous companies, when we would enter a new purchased component into the business system, we would put "McMaster XXXXX or equal" and then the purchasing department would go and find a cheaper alternative (usually direct from manufacturer) if they wanted. Does it make any sense to pay an engineer to do a bunch of busy work? No. Purchasing departments are there for a reason.

 

[AidanMc]

I'd counter with my experience that the purchasing department doesn't always know what an "equivalent" is. Our purchasing generally does a good job trying to find a cheaper alternative but sometimes they don't get it right. As an engineer, I'm picking a part that I know works because I designed around it. I know what the critical characteristics are and sometimes the replacement part isn't exactly the same in those characteristics. If I put down a supplier for something when it's being purchased, I expect to get the part that I put in not something similar.

Aidan McAllister
Metallurgical Engineer

 

[thebard3]

If I put down a supplier for something when it's being purchased, I expect to get the part that I put in not something similar.

Exactly. If purchasing can find a cheaper source, then more power to them, but I specify the part I need and the supplier I know about.

Brad Waybright

It's all okay as long as it's okay.

 

[Pete_K]

in that case "or equal" meant that they could find that part from a different supplier, that it didn't have to be McMaster.

 

[CWB1]

I'd counter with my experience that the purchasing department doesn't always know what an "equivalent" is.

Then your employer needs to hire competent people. If a purchasing agent cant read a print and compare spec sheets to check similarities/differences between parts then they shouldn't be sourcing them. Technical competence is usually why purchasing depts are broken into commodities, to allow the agent to specialize so they know the people, companies, processes, and pricing history.

 

[drawoh]

CWB1,

If engineering writes a manufacturer and part number on a BOM, I doubt purchasing is qualified to select alternate parts. If engineering prepares specification controls that describe the part's requirements and/or alternate manufacturers and part numbers, then purchasing has something to work with.

--
JHG

 

[ctopher]

We are DFARS and no issue using McMaster-Carr.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[CWB1]

If engineering writes a manufacturer and part number on a BOM, I doubt purchasing is qualified to select alternate parts. If engineering prepares specification controls that describe the part's requirements and/or alternate manufacturers and part numbers, then purchasing has something to work with.

I've never known an engineer to create a spec document for purchasing. Usually purchasing proposed cost reductions on both prototype and production parts are a "hey, we found this similar part/cheaper material/etc...." Engineering always retains the approval as purchasing doesn't know details of the part's application, but decent purchasing folks are usually more than capable of pulling/comparing supplier spec sheets and asking the supplier intelligent questions. They might need help with the last 10% of details but should be able to get close most of the time. Granted, some companies do hire dummies whose main purpose is to fill out RFQs and push process, but many others' have purchasing depts that are capable quasi-engineers, quasi finance geeks. I give those later ones a ton of credit, at one previous employer the purchasing dept provided some really good input which eventually made it into our design guides based upon a study they did of cost vs casting complexity vs material grade.

 

[drawoh]

CWB1,

My experience was different. I was setting up SolidWorks. My assumption was that any CAD model that populated a BOM and that represented a part to be ordered, needed an attached document. In the case of catalogue items, this meant a specification control. The people actually in control of all this were unimaginative, rigidly process driven, and did not comprehend that a specification control is a means of communication. They executed their "generate spec. control" procedure, and all we got was a number we could use for a stock code. The purchasing department were clerks, unable to understand anything more complicated than alternate part numbers.

At my last place, the purchasing people had technical backgrounds, and a lot of expertise. We were not methodically doing specification controls.

--
JHG

 

[thebard3]

This is sort of off topic, but I think it's humorous and entertaining. When I worked for an OEM, we supplied our customers with a spare parts list. Following a customer inquiry I would obtain pricing, apply (exhorbitant) markup, receive P.O., purchase items, receive at our facility, and then ship. Accounting asked why we did not seek competitive pricing. I tried my best to explain that the more we paid, the more we made. Also as we all know, certain specific parts are not available from multiple sources. That part I think they understood, but they could never understand why we shouldn't buy from the cheapest source on the other stuff. I think they just gave up.

Brad Waybright

It's all okay as long as it's okay.

 

[IRstuff]

seems to me that you could have made even more money by selling at the same price, but finding cheaper parts to buy.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Sparweb]

Sounds like IRstuff belongs in Brad's accounting department, too.


No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

 

[thebard3]

seems to me that you could have made even more money by selling at the same price, but finding cheaper parts to buy.

After some thought, over the years I have found that if you think your customers are clueless, they usually are not. Sometimes they are pretty savvy about your product too, and they often have an idea about what something should cost. Take it from me, they do not appreciate being gouged by a longtime vendor. I would rather defend myself from accounting for under-charging OUR customer for an item, than to defend myself against the sales department for over-charging THEIR customer.

Brad Waybright

It's all okay as long as it's okay.

 

[itsmoked]

thebard3; Don't get me started.. Oh, wait you already did!

My Lincoln TIG welder just cr@pped out. Had a good 50 hours on the $3,500 welder.

Tore it apart.

Has about 13 circuit boards in it.

Found the errant board. One of the simplest ones.

I design and manufacturer boards of this complexity and can tell this board would cost about $80 to manufacture.

They want $990 for it. Great customer support. Scuzballs!

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com

 

[Sparweb]

My Lincoln...

First mistake.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

 

[dalegoldston]

We are DFARS and no issue using McMaster-Carr.

It really is a bummer. We were able to use them for so long and now its just brutal to go track down manufacturers. But it is what it is. My company did purchase some software that will cross reference McMaster-Carr part numbers to manufacturers. Just not all are listed.

Thanks
Dale

 

[ProEpro]

The Mcmaster-carr items without a cross reference maybe exclusive items like Yor-lok fittings. Mcmaster will take orders for manufacturers part numbers instead of their own. Even if they do not stock they can custom order.

MSC is a good alternative they don't hide the supplier and cater to government purchasing. They also do a very large amount of custom ordering.

 

[WKTaylor]

My aircraft company does a lot of business with McMaster-Carr [McMC]... for a wide variety of tooling/tool-components.

It appears that this relationship involves the long-term B-2-B trust element that is so necessary for quick and reliable response.

In certain cases, McMC is able to certify their tooling/tool-components to meet higher standards [NAS, corporate, etc]; and ensure configuration control of their PN.

CAUTION.
Any OEM vendor's part-number is an ass-u-med configuration; and can often be altered in one-way-or-another by the OEM vendor WITHOUT notice... these changes can be anywhere from 'trivial' to 'show-stoppers'. As I understand it [implied by our tooling designers], one of the benefits to McMC business case is that their [McMC] PN ensures a stable/consistent configuration regardless of the source. NO significant changes are allowed for established McMC PNs.

Also, one element that is very important: IF the PN is listed then they will supply it... future spares/replacements [etc] depend on this consistency [well, maybe].


Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]

 

[3DDave]

One data point on "no significant changes."

We had a customer, unsatisfied with the lifting attachment arrangement on our component, that went to McM to get an eyebolt blank that they threaded to match our bracket**. We suggested that instead we redesign the related bracket to fit their lifting arrangement, but the customer is always right. Back and forth over this with multiple false starts and begging for what they wanted. After nearly a year of tooth pulling it's all settled.

Cue up a decade and they come back for new buy, long term spares. There are minor problems as any production restart might have, but the one that bites the worst - that eyebolt blank. McM's supplier changed the loop and added material so now the customer hook doesn't fit, but no one knows this until the units are on the runway ready for installation. And there went another few grand in creating a drawing to bore out the blank to a diameter the hook will fit in.

At least the blanks were cheap. Sigh.

**It's too long to get into, but there were a bunch of missing requirements and a serious desire on the part of the customer to isolate their various subcontractors that led to one, retrospectively, poor decision that snowballed into over $20k program cost for a place to use a lifting hook with under 200 lbf capacity.

 

[ctopher]

3DDave,
For that reason is why we do not use McM-Carr parts for production units, only tooling/fixtures. Production units use MIL/ANSI/ASME/etc cert spec parts.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion