Wells lists them as such:

mandreno - mandrel (of a lathe)
ĉuko - chuck (of a drill or lathe)

According to the definitions in NPIV2002, the 'ĉuko' can hold either the material being worked on, or the drill bit itself.

In the case of 'mandreno', it holds the material being worked on, not the drill bit.

I'm not even very familiar with the English terms here, so I hope this makes sense!

A nice picture from NPIV2002, which shows the names to the parts on different types of drill:

NJ Esperantist:So I have a new question: Is the word 'klingo' (=blade) broad enought to be a generic name for recipricating saw blades, router bits, drill bits, jig saw blades, etc.?

Saw blades and jigsaw blades are pretty much the same kind of thing, so I think they could both be referred to as 'klingoj'.

But, a drill bit is, as mentioned by Miland, a 'borpinto'. I suppose a router bit would be called a 'frezpinto'.

NJ Esperantist:And if this is so, (or even if not,) can a chuck, or other part of a tool that holds a changeable blade then generically be referred to as a 'klingingo'?

"Ĉuko" is definitely the right word for the chuck in a drill. In the case of a jigsaw, well would you still call that a 'chuck' in English? I have no idea...

If you're talking about a sword (glavo), then you have the blade (klingo) and the hilt (tenilo). In between you have the handguard (manŝirmilo).

Chainy:The NPIV2002 definition of ĉuko:

Thanks! By that definition, it sounds like ĉuko would be appropriate for the part of any machine that holds the operative part, like a router, jigsaw or drill.

erinja:

NJ Esperantist:I mostly agree with you, but then we have that word 'kandelingo' which holds the kandelo at the end, but does not entirely enclose it.

That's correct, but in my opinion context also matters. If it were customary to put candles in sheathes, then a kandelingo would surely be a candle sheath.

I'm just not sure about the "klingingo". It seems so broad that there would be doubt about the meaning. I can think of many things in life that hold a blade, but only one major thing that holds a candle.

Maybe it doesn't matter. I'll leave it to the woodworkers to decide!

A lot of things depend on context, and I agree that a 'klingingo' sounds more like something to hold a bit, like a case. Since 'cxuko' seems to be appropriate, I'll use that.

Now, if I could FIND a few woodworking Esperantists, I could maybe get the answer to one more very sticky question...

What would you call a 2x4 in Esperanto to be sure you are not given just anything that could be called a beam? I suppose that most will say 'trabo' but some 'traboj' in America are 2x4s and some are 2x6s ans some are 2x8s. Some are even 4x8s depending on how much weight it must support.

Chainy:A nice picture from NPIV2002, which shows the names to the parts on different types of drill:

Thanks! Wish I had one of these for all tools.

NJ Esperantist:What would you call a 2x4 in Esperanto to be sure you are not given just anything that could be called a beam?

"Trabo kun dimensioj 2 x 4 coloj/futoj". How big is this beam?!

I'm not too sure how to express the 'x', though. "Oble" doesn't seem to fit, but I might be wrong...

Chainy:

NJ Esperantist:What would you call a 2x4 in Esperanto to be sure you are not given just anything that could be called a beam?

"Trabo kun dimensioj 2 x 4 coloj/futoj". How big is this beam?!

I'm not too sure how to express the 'x', though. "Oble" doesn't seem to fit, but I might be wrong...

According to what I've found in PAG, you should use 'per' for the 'x'. So it would be:

"Trabo kun dimensioj de du per kvar coloj"

Here's the PAG quote (page 115):

2x4's don't even have a true dimension of 2x4" anymore.

But since that's what they're called, you could certainly continue to call them that in Esperanto. "2-je-4-cola trabo"

erinja:But since that's what they're called, you could certainly continue to call them that in Esperanto. "2-je-4-cola trabo"

I like the way you made it into an adjective.

However, "je" rather than "per"? I suppose it's not wrong, as 'je' can be thrown in anywhere, but maybe it's better to stick with 'per' as suggested by PAG?