Millers Falls No. 2 Chuck Mystery

[Steve Kang]

Hoping this is an easy one for you neander-creekers to answer. I have a Millers Falls No 2. hand drill in excellent condition but I'm unsure whether it has the correct chuck. Everything checks out according to George Langford's type study, with the drill appearing to be a No 2i as the chuck has a patent date of Oct 23rd 1900. What casts doubt on this is the amount of exposed threads on the drill shaft. Any reason why this would be? Other than it being a miss-match and not having the correct chuck?
323717
323718
323719

[Dave Beauchesne]

FWIW, I have a couple drills with exposed threads - they aren't as pretty as yours though!

Some one else will have the answer - - -

Dave B

[Jim Koepke]

the chuck has a patent date of Oct 23rd 1900. What casts doubt on this is the amount of exposed threads on the drill shaft. Any reason why this would be? Other than it being a miss-match and not having the correct chuck?

I will have to look later today at my Millers Falls #2 drills.

It could be a couple of things. There may be a part inside the chuck that was installed improperly. It could be the shaft was over long when the drill was made.

Have you disassembled the chuck?

jtk

[Steve Kang]

Hi Jim, thanks for replying. I've dissembled and reassembled the chuck and all appears to be in order. I have another MF chuck which screws on the No.2 with far less exposed thread (it looks right). I guess my question is: were the threaded shafts shortened for the Oct 23rd patent date chucks or did they just sit long?...

[Jim Koepke]

Hi Jim, thanks for replying. I've dissembled and reassembled the chuck and all appears to be in order. I have another MF chuck which screws on the No.2 with far less exposed thread (it looks right). I guess my question is: were the threaded shafts shortened for the Oct 23rd patent date chucks or did they just sit long?...

It seems you have done the work to find the difference is in the Oct. 23rd chuck.

My #2s are likely of newer construction, but they may provide information that can lead to the difference.

323764

The threaded shaft on my two #2s is 1-3/8" from the shoulder of the housing.

The shaft has to enter about 5/8" before it engages the piece that supports and moves the jaws.

The jaws are about 3/4" tall.

There is about 3/8" between the edge of the chuck and the top of the jaws when they are fully open.

It may be the Oct 23rd jaw was used for a different model. It could be someone exchanged parts with another drill.

It could be a fluke. It could be due to design change.

Or there could be many other things.

The patent drawing:

http://www.georgesbasement.com/mfno2typestudy/ChuckPatents.html#660121

appears to show a cylinder between the threaded shaft and the jaw carrier. If that cylinder isn't the right size it could cause your problem.

If you live in the Portland, Oregon area, I would be glad to get together and look into this mystery. If not, there may be someone in your area who would be equally curious and happy to take a look.

If you ever do find out what is up, I am curious and would like to know.

jtk