Need help detrmining bearing sizes to reload grandpa's bit brace

[Kurtis Johnson]

Hello fellow knuckle draggers. I need help identifying the right loose bearings size for this bit brace.

406815

But a little background first, because that's half the fun... This brace was handed down to me by my dad. He inherited it from his father-in-law, my grandpa Harold. Judging by it's suspected age I suspect the original owner could have been my great grandpa, Olaf. Not only is it prized by myself as a family heirloom, but over the years of collecting and using some super cool vintage braces and coming to appreciate some of the finer things about them, I've come to objectively appreciate this brace's upper tier quality.

Strangely, it's unbranded. However, I'm all but convinced it's of Stanley heritage, and an early iteration of the No. 813. However, it does share similarities with the MF 771 Lion and a couple Pextco's.

406816 406817
There are a lot of Stanley peculiarities about it, like upside down stampings, typeface, etc. See "OIL" and "10 IN MADE IN U.S.A." in the two photos above.

The detail, fit and finish is unmatched. It's been heavily used but still solid and tight. I've not done much with it yet but degrease it.

406818 406810 406819
I've had to rederive how the chuck functioned as it came to me dissasembled without bearings.

Inside the outer shell is a slot that forms the outer race as seen in middle photo. The jaws collar (for lack of the actual term), pictured at lower right of right photo and loosely assembled in the left photo, has a slot that forms the inner race.

Bearings are dropped through he hole (see left photo) of the shell into the race. A set screw (missing) is applied at this hole which retains the bearings. The bearings lock the shell and jaws collar assembly together. Quite ellegant. (Later Stanley No. 813's have a retention ring on the outside of shell instead of the set screw.)

Now, my dilemma. How do I determine bearing diameter?

406820 406811
As a starting point and visual aid, I made some measurements with the caliper representing a couple common bearing sizes within the inner race. Left photo I have calipers set at 3/32". Right photo I have them set at 1/8". Hopefully this enough for someone more experienced with bearings to make a recommendation.

Thanks for any help. I'm excited to get grandpa's bit brace back in action. If you know anything about this brace or have any observations about it, please let me know those thoughts as well.

[Bill Houghton]

Can't help directly, but if you find a good counterperson at your local bearing house, I bet s/he can help you. Cool that you've got your grandfather's quality brace.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Here's a few more photos:

406829 406831
406830 406832 406833

[Kurtis Johnson]

Thanks Bill. I'll continue to try to find someone with a walk-in help desk. My fear is it's getting harder to get that kind of help, around here anyway. Looks like is everything is geared for big industry. Hope I'm wrong. I was kind of hoping to order online.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Kurtis, I have several Lion braces and have overhauled them all. The bearings in the chuck on mine are 3/32. There are bearings on the opposite end as well, and they are larger if my memory is correct.

I got a bag of replacements from a vendor called “bctrade” on ebay a couple of years ago for a few dollars.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Kurtis, I have several Lion braces and have overhauled them all. The bearings in the chuck on mine are 3/32. There are bearings on the opposite end as well, and they are larger if my memory is correct.

I got a bag of replacements from a vendor called “bctrade” on ebay a couple of years ago for a few dollars.
Okay, that's actually good info. My chuck is probably not an MF Lion, but probably Stanley's answer to it. Maybe the same bearing size. My instincts were the race on mine would swallow up 3/32" bearings, but now less sure. I'm leaning towards trying the 3/32".

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Well, you can get a bag of 100 for about $5. If it does not work you aren’t out very much.

I have not seen a Stanley brace with that style chuck. The only ones I know of are the Lion and the Samson (by Peck Stowe and Wilcox). I think Pexto made some for a hardware store in Chicago (VBM?) but I could be wrong about that. I am definitely not an expert.

[Joe Bailey]

you may find this of interest:

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

[Geoff Emms]

Hi Kurtis,
I'll be very interested if you can make a positive ID of that brace. I went up to the shed for a look at mine and have not got one EXACTLY like yours, and as you said it shares similarities with MF, Stanley and PEXTO. It seems strange that if it is by one of these three that it is not branded with their name.
I've overhauled and re-bearinged a few and might suggest that you measure the diameter of the screw hole as your maximum size ball to fit through it.
I visit an agricultural machinery dealer here in Western Aus' for my loose ball purchases.
Cheers,
Geoff.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Hi Kurtis,
I'll be very interested if you can make a positive ID of that brace. I went up to the shed for a look at mine and have not got one EXACTLY like yours, and as you said it shares similarities with MF, Stanley and PEXTO. It seems strange that if it is by one of these three that it is not branded with their name.
I've overhauled and re-bearinged a few and might suggest that you measure the diameter of the screw hole as your maximum size ball to fit through it.
I visit an agricultural machinery dealer here in Western Aus' for my loose ball purchases.
Cheers,
Geoff.
Thanks Geoff! I’ve actually been trying to type it for years. I have a page or two of notes! Ha ha ha.

Thanks for the tip to measure the screw hole. It measures 9/64”, just over 1/8”. Exactly same as mouth of the race. Probably 1/8” bearings. That would be closer to filling both races, with a little needed slop left over. I might try 1/8” first.

Visiting an at dealer is also a superb idea!

[Kurtis Johnson]

Joe, that’s awesome! Thank you my friend. 1/8” it is. It’s fun to see how close I ended up. More luck than skill, but still fun. It’s wonderful to have such confirmation. Now I can spend the bucks with confidence.

[Jim Koepke]

You might check a bicycle shop for the bearings. Those are about the size that would go into a headset on a bike.

jtk

[Kurtis Johnson]

You might check a bicycle shop for the bearings. Those are about the size that would go into a headset on a bike.

jtk
Ah, great idea, Jim. And I have a good bike shop too.

[Bill Houghton]

I'm sorry to hear your bearing houses there aren't oriented to individual folks. We live in an area with agriculture history and many active agricultural operations; so the local bearing house is used to individuals walking with with an individual problem. They'll put $25 of work into figuring out what $2 item to sell you; and they have a sweet shop dog to boot!

When installing loose bearings, by the way, never fill the entire race. You need to leave a little space. Customary space is one bearing's worth of gap. Otherwise, the bearings can't roll easily, and they'll seize up.

Bill, learned a lot from my elders when I was starting out...and, somehow, I became an elder!

[Bill Jobe]

I did not look close enough to see you were not looking for bearings to fit a specific bore.
HOWEVER, somewhere around here I have an old brace. I'll try to find it to see if it's relevent.

[Kurtis Johnson]

I'm sorry to hear your bearing houses there aren't oriented to individual folks. We live in an area with agriculture history and many active agricultural operations; so the local bearing house is used to individuals walking with with an individual problem. They'll put $25 of work into figuring out what $2 item to sell you; and they have a sweet shop dog to boot!Unfortunately, around these parts, our ag tends to be big ag these days. Things are a lot different than when I was a kid. But to be fair, I haven't tried anyone local yet.


When installing loose bearings, by the way, never fill the entire race. You need to leave a little space. Customary space is one bearing's worth of gap. Otherwise, the bearings can't roll easily, and they'll seize up.
Thanks. It's good to be reminded of that.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Do you have access to an inner mic?
I never feel like I a get an exact size in bores with calipers.
I fortunate to have a local bearing distribution center. They can find you just about anything.
Oh goodie, another tool to pursue! :)

[Kurtis Johnson]

Some refurb progress has been made....
407151
Just working on the chuck and ratchet for now....

407152
First, degreaser

407153
Next, Evaporust. My first foray with it. I’ve always used naval jelly in the past.

407154
Not too shabby. Took 31 1/8” ball bearings. [EDIT: I found a replacement screw for the bearing hole.] I’ll file down for a better fit and use some lok-tite.

Having a problem and and could use advice. The ratchet is frozen. Specifically, the selector. Pawls are fine. I’ve hit it with a number of creeping oil’s and used a Chanel lock pliers with leather with no luck. I got it smokin hot with a heat gun with no luck. Any suggestions?

[Jim Koepke]

One of my braces have a stuck/broken ratchet mechanism. It may be easier to just leave it and use a different brace if you are in a situation that would need a ratchet.

jtk

[Kurtis Johnson]

One of my braces have a stuck/broken ratchet mechanism. It may be easier to just leave it and use a different brace if you are in a situation that would need a ratchet.

jtk

I have six or seven super nice bit braces, and a few of those I can and do use, it's just that this one has a great deal of sentimental value and I don't want to give up on it too soon. Then there's the fact it's so unique and robust that it would be a shame for it to not be fully functional again. Hopefully it's not a lost cause and someone will have suggestions.

BTW, I was able to find the bearings from a bike shop like you suggested. Thanks again for the idea! :)

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I would take it apart. Speaking again from my work on Lions (I do not have a Stanley of that style) they often have junk in there jamming up the mechanism. Be warned, getting it back together is a pretty finicky job. Take pictures so you remember what goes where.



Having a problem and and could use advice. The ratchet is frozen. Specifically, the selector. Pawls are fine. I’ve hit it with a number of creeping oil’s and used a Chanel lock pliers with leather with no luck. I got it smokin hot with a heat gun with no luck. Any suggestions?

[Kurtis Johnson]

I would take it apart. Speaking again from my work on Lions (I do not have a Stanley of that style) they often have junk in there jamming up the mechanism. Be warned, getting it back together is a pretty finicky job. Take pictures so you remember what goes where. Yeah, I've had it apart, all but the selector, of course, because frozen, and the pawls. It's all very simple design, very few parts really.

407165
Simple, this is just about all there is

Removing the pawls would Require driving out the two pins. I haven't done so yet because 1) they weren't coming out with light hammer blows, 2) I don't have an arbor press to reinstall them if one would be needed, and 3) I wasn't sure it would help unstick the selector. Do you think removing the pawls might help?

[Nicholas Lawrence]

They are pretty simple, but one of mine that would not work had an ancient wood chip inside. How it got there I don’t have any idea, but it worked its way in somehow. There is also a spring, which can wear and slip out of where it is supposed to be and that can make them jam. Old grease can harden over the years and jam things up. If it is old grease or rust, soaking may help, but if it is a broken spring or some kind of debris, the only way to correct any of that is to take them apart.

On mine, the I think the pin could only be driven out from one side. It has been several years since my brace buying/fixing spree though, so my memory could be off.

Have you tried searching to see if you can find a parts diagram or an exploded diagram of that model? The way you put the bearings in, it is clearly not any version of the Lions that I own (but I am not a collector or an expert, just a guy who owns half a dozen).

Somebody mentioned a Stanley model number. If you do a search for that you may find a diagram or a youtube video. When I did mine there were a couple of good articles on the fine tools website that helped a lot, but I think all of that is gone now.

I could take one of mine apart and take photos for you, but with it not being the same model I am not sure how much that would help you.


Yeah, I've had it apart, all but the selector, of course, because frozen, and the pawls. It's all very simple design, very few parts really.
...

Removing the pawls would Require driving out the two pins. I haven't done so yet because 1) they weren't coming out with light hammer blows, 2) I don't have an arbor press to reinstall them if one would be needed, and 3) I wasn't sure it would help unstick the selector. Do you think removing the pawls might help?

[Kurtis Johnson]

Hi Kurtis,
I'll be very interested if you can make a positive ID of that brace. I went up to the shed for a look at mine and have not got one EXACTLY like yours, and as you said it shares similarities with MF, Stanley and PEXTO. It seems strange that if it is by one of these three that it is not branded with their name. It's looking more and more like a PS&W. As fate would have it, I just picked up a bit brace with the same boxed ratchet locally off Craig's List. It's an extremely rare pre-Sampson Peck, Stow & Wilcox with with the same exact boxed ratchet. It's re-branded PAGOMA, derived from Paxton & Gallagher Co. of Omaha: (PA)xton & (G)allagher Co. of (OMA)ha. It's a No. 8014 (https://www.georgesbasement.com/galootsales/sale06182011/PextoNo8014brace-PEXTO-17.htm), but just not marked as such.

407166
The PS&W

407168
The boxed ratchet of the PS&W. Versus...

407170
The boxed ratchet of grandpa's. The only difference being a mod, a machined recess for a spindle nut.

For posterity, I'll probably start another thread for the Pagoma. But I wanted to mention it here because I finally identified the ratchet on grandpa's as PS&W.

[Jim Koepke]

BTW, I was able to find the bearings from a bike shop like you suggested. Thanks again for the idea!

You are welcome, my years of being a bicycle mechanic are still useful.

jtk

[Kurtis Johnson]

Thanks Nicholas. Good stuff. If the selector has a spring I suppose it could have slipped and jammed. I doubt it has one, but I could be wrong. I imagine it's the most rudimentary of cam action instead. Both pawls work fine, therefore the springs for those are free. When I pull on the pawls to disengage them, the spindle turns and clicks both directions. Debris could certainly have jammed the selector.

I don't feel any more soaking with help. I've had it sitting with top creeping oils for years now to no effect. I had it soaking in degreaser and then Evaporust for a day. No joy.

As for a diagram, we have no positive ID on the bit brace itself. But I've made progress as I've identified the boxed ratchet as the same as on a PS&W No. 8014 (https://www.georgesbasement.com/galootsales/sale06182011/PextoNo8014brace-PEXTO-17.htm), also mentioned above.

I have no ID, name, or diagram for that ratchet as of yet. Still searching.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Spent some time looking last night, and either my search skills are weak, or there is not a lot out there. If you have a spare, you can experiment with that one, and wait to take grandpa’s apart until you have identified the potential potholes.

Syndas Sloot has some good information about the Sampson braces on his website, but I did not see anything that would be helpful. You might find it of interest though.

[Jim Koepke]

Another source (rabbit hole) for information on braces is > https://www.georgesbasement.com

Many hours of my time have been spent there trying to absorb what was presented.

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I took one of mine apart today. The ratchet has two pins, and looks very similar to the one you have. The pins drove out from back to front. It took quite a bit to get them to move, even though this one has been all the way apart, derusted, and liberally oiled.

The mechanism is simple. The pawls pivot on the pins. There is a spring between them, and the collar turns to lock one pawl or the other (or both) to ratchet left, right, or not ratchet at all. The collars on mine are all fairly loose. I have a hard time imagining rust alone could seize it up.

Getting it back together is not easy. You have to get one pawl in place, and drive its pin in. Then somehow get the spring in place and hold it there while you get the other pawl in place. Then you need to rotate the chuck until the second pawl is properly aligned, and then you can get the second pin in. It is possible. Just needs lots of patience.


Thanks Nicholas. Good stuff. If the selector has a spring I suppose it could have slipped and jammed. I doubt it has one, but I could be wrong. I imagine it's the most rudimentary of cam action instead. Both pawls work fine, therefore the springs for those are free. When I pull on the pawls to disengage them, the spindle turns and clicks both directions. Debris could certainly have jammed the selector.

I don't feel any more soaking with help. I've had it sitting with top creeping oils for years now to no effect. I had it soaking in degreaser and then Evaporust for a day. No joy.

As for a diagram, we have no positive ID on the bit brace itself. But I've made progress as I've identified the boxed ratchet as the same as on a PS&W No. 8014 (https://www.georgesbasement.com/galootsales/sale06182011/PextoNo8014brace-PEXTO-17.htm), also mentioned above.

I have no ID, name, or diagram for that ratchet as of yet. Still searching.

[Geoff Emms]

Hi Kurtis,
As previously mentioned I don't have one like yours but I do have this branded: Stanley No 813-12IN.-Y which has some similarities to yours and which you referred to in your first post. The jaws in my photo, similar to yours, are Austin Stowell's Oct' 1932 Pat' No. 1,880,521 which in turn are an improvement on that of Harry Parker 1,270,754 of June 25 1918. My 813 chuck has the retention strip to retain the balls.
I wonder if the chuck locating nut on the back of your brace could be a replacement? My photo shows the attachment patented by Harris Cook on June 20 1933, No. 1,951,245. It has two slots machined across the end of the threaded shank to carry the locating pin which yours doesn't, which leaves me scratching my head. On the other hand the machined area on the housing where the nut seats is very similar.

The efforts you have made to loosen the ratchet selector are on the right track and the same as I would do . If you can grip it tight enough with leather padding without crushing or distorting it you would expect to be able to gradually get some movement into it. I've used a vise and a pipe vise for this same problem. Clamp it in the vise with the leather and try to move it, if it slips tighten the vise slightly and try again. If you get a slight amount of movement then try going back the other direction, each time it slips tighten the vise fractionally.

I should also mention that the statement I made in post #9 is incorrect: "It seems strange that if it is by one of these three that it is not branded with their name." If the brace was made by one of the big three for a hardware chain it would not necessarily carry the manufacturers name.

I have previously dissembled a ratchet selector by removing the single pin above the selector ring. This can be easy or hard, sometimes as simple as gripping it with vise grips or more often clamping it in the side of the jaws of the vise and wriggling it out. Once the pin is out the ring should be able to come up over the pawls. If the pin gets destroyed in this operation I would replace it with a short piece of the end of a drill bit of appropriate diameter.
I hope this is of some use to you.
Cheers,
Geoff.

[Jim Koepke]

Geoff's comment about removing the pin so the selector shell can be pulled back sounds like something to pursue.

It may also be possible the pins holding the pawls are peened over making them difficult to drive out.

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

The pawls engage the collar, so if you go that route, you may want to stick a shim or something in on both sides to disengage them before trying to move the collar up.

I found a brace restoration article on another site that indicates the pins on most braces are “one way” with the direction to get them out being to tap them towards the head of the brace, and then to reinsert them the opposite direction. I did not try punching mine out the “wrong way” but they did come out when I drove them towards the head.

[Geoff Emms]

It's one of those jobs where having three hands would be an advantage, Nicholas is right, but I'm thinking if the selector won't rotate it's going to be pretty hard to get it to lift up.
Concerning the "one way" pins, I've come across some with a spline (if that's the correct term?) pressed into the circumference at one end to lock them in, which are a one way pin, but I can't remember which direction to drive them.

Kurtis, I'm leaning towards your Grandpa's brace being by Stanley. I don't want to cause any trouble or disappointment so this is purely a suggestion.
On July 13 1909, J P Bartholomew was awarded patent No 927,478 for a tool chuck which describes a ball race set-up similar to yours. He says "To facilitate the introduction of the balls I provide in the outer wall of the sleeve a ball passage which connects with the ball race......When the ball race is filled, this side opening may be closed by means of a screw plug".
In his 1932 patent (1,880,521) A Stowell makes the comment, without acknowledging Bartholomews 1909 patent, "...an opening through which the balls are inserted into the race ways, the opening being closed by means of a small screw......the small screws introduce difficulties and expense in manufacture and assembly, and the screws not infrequently become loosened and displaced." He then goes on to describe his modification by the introduction of "a ring for holding in place the plug for the loading hole".
I hope I haven't sent you all off to sleep with this boring discourse but it's what keeps me awake!
Cheers,
Geoff.

[Jim Koepke]

I hope I haven't sent you all off to sleep with this boring discourse but it's what keeps me awake!

Interesting most of the time my reading of such matter is when sleep is being elusive.

jtk

[Geoff Emms]

I went up to the shed and took some photos of two examples of the Stanley 813. The two have a number of differences, I'll call them Early and Late. Early has Bartholomews 1909 screw ball retainer, Parkers 1918 jaws and doesn't have Cooks 1933 chuck retainer adjustable nut. Late has Stowells 1932 ring ball retainer and jaw attachment and Cooks chuck retainer nut.
The profile of the chuck sleeve appears to be thicker on mine than yours Kurtis, and yours equipped with the Early screw ball retainer and Late jaws. I wondering if your Grandpas brace might fall into the category of "transitional" perhaps?

Belated thanks Kurtis, to your link in post #26 to Georgesbasement which introduced me to the Altwein jaw patent which I wasn't aware of and was able to identify as used in a PS&W No 1203 I have here.
Cheers,
Geoff.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Hi Kurtis,
As previously mentioned I don't have one like yours but I do have this branded: Stanley No 813-12IN.-Y which has some similarities to yours and which you referred to in your first post. The jaws in my photo, similar to yours, are Austin Stowell's Oct' 1932 Pat' No. 1,880,521 which in turn are an improvement on that of Harry Parker 1,270,754 of June 25 1918. My 813 chuck has the retention strip to retain the balls.
Great! Thank you for finding a patent! I agree, very similar. The ball bearings assembly low on the chuck, the proportions, the shape of the lower mouth part of shell... I have no doubt this is a Stanley chuck.


I wonder if the chuck locating nut on the back of your brace could be a replacement? My photo shows the attachment patented by Harris Cook on June 20 1933, No. 1,951,245. It has two slots machined across the end of the threaded shank to carry the locating pin which yours doesn't, which leaves me scratching my head. On the other hand the machined area on the housing where the nut seats is very similar. Me too. It could be a user retrofit, or I think more likely a early factory version, maybe? Someone mentioned transitional and I think very plausible, with a later, more worked out version carrying the Stanley name.


The efforts you have made to loosen the ratchet selector are on the right track and the same as I would do . If you can grip it tight enough with leather padding without crushing or distorting it you would expect to be able to gradually get some movement into it. I've used a vise and a pipe vise for this same problem. Clamp it in the vise with the leather and try to move it, if it slips tighten the vise slightly and try again. If you get a slight amount of movement then try going back the other direction, each time it slips tighten the vise fractionally.
Thanks. I'll keep at it. I will look for or engineer something that puts equal 360° force on the selector. I'm worried about distorting it.


I should also mention that the statement I made in post #9 is incorrect: "It seems strange that if it is by one of these three that it is not branded with their name." If the brace was made by one of the big three for a hardware chain it would not necessarily carry the manufacturers name.I wondered about that. I've come across other tools where this seemed to be the case. A wide-spread practice that continues today with roots in the golden era of hand tools.


I have previously dissembled a ratchet selector by removing the single pin above the selector ring. This can be easy or hard, sometimes as simple as gripping it with vise grips or more often clamping it in the side of the jaws of the vise and wriggling it out. Once the pin is out the ring should be able to come up over the pawls. If the pin gets destroyed in this operation I would replace it with a short piece of the end of a drill bit of appropriate diameter. That was my instinct so I'm glad you mentioned it. So with your encouragement I tried pulling the pin. No luck. I've just managed to really mangle it. I think I might have to have a machinist shop drill it out. Does this pin go all the way through the selector and into the bow frame? And how is it and the ratchet fastenned onto the bow, usually? Press fit? Welded?

[Kurtis Johnson]

The pawls engage the collar, so if you go that route, you may want to stick a shim or something in on both sides to disengage them before trying to move the collar up.
Thanks for that.


I found a brace restoration article on another site that indicates the pins on most braces are “one way” with the direction to get them out being to tap them towards the head of the brace, and then to reinsert them the opposite direction. I did not try punching mine out the “wrong way” but they did come out when I drove them towards the head.I did pop them out. Looks like they'll go back the same way.

Nothing new with disassembly of pawls. Everything looks good. I have better access for creeping oil though. Soaking ... soaking ... soaking ...

[Kurtis Johnson]

Kurtis, I'm leaning towards your Grandpa's brace being by Stanley. I don't want to cause any trouble or disappointment so this is purely a suggestion.
Oh goodness, no trouble at all. I really appreciate it. Anything worth believing is worth challenging. And I think you're right. I went back and looked over the PS&W ratchet assembly. Soooooo similar. Whoever and however, someone copied someone. The two have a unique shape, especially the rounded underside of the horizontal angle of the ratchet housing. Until locating these two bit braces (The PS&W and the Stanley), I'd not found another brace with the same shape. However, there are very very subtle differences between the two, like the bevel edges are slightly different in execution. I've changed my mind and have come full circle. I'm certain this is a Stanley, which supports my earlier conclusion. The upside down "OIL"makes sense once again.


On July 13 1909, J P Bartholomew was awarded patent No 927,478 for a tool chuck which describes a ball race set-up similar to yours. He says "To facilitate the introduction of the balls I provide in the outer wall of the sleeve a ball passage which connects with the ball race......When the ball race is filled, this side opening may be closed by means of a screw plug".
GOOD! An even earlier patent!


In his 1932 patent (1,880,521) A Stowell makes the comment, without acknowledging Bartholomews 1909 patent, "...an opening through which the balls are inserted into the race ways, the opening being closed by means of a small screw......the small screws introduce difficulties and expense in manufacture and assembly, and the screws not infrequently become loosened and displaced." He then goes on to describe his modification by the introduction of "a ring for holding in place the plug for the loading hole".

BTW, another difference, while the PS&W has the same bearing hole and screw, it's located much higher on the chuck.

Great stuff! Thanks Geoff.

Kurt

[Kurtis Johnson]

I went up to the shed and took some photos of two examples of the Stanley 813. The two have a number of differences, I'll call them Early and Late. Early has Bartholomews 1909 screw ball retainer, Parkers 1918 jaws and doesn't have Cooks 1933 chuck retainer adjustable nut. Late has Stowells 1932 ring ball retainer and jaw attachment and Cooks chuck retainer nut.
The profile of the chuck sleeve appears to be thicker on mine than yours Kurtis, and yours equipped with the Early screw ball retainer and Late jaws.


I wondering if your Grandpas brace might fall into the category of "transitional" perhaps? Yes! That would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it? All the differences would be explained by this. Especially the location of the bearings and the bearing hole on Grandpa's having the screw ball retainer of the early one, but at the location of the late one. Fascinating.


Belated thanks Kurtis, to your link in post #26 to Georgesbasement which introduced me to the Altwein jaw patent which I wasn't aware of and was able to identify as used in a PS&W No 1203 I have here.
Cheers,
Geoff.That's a great site for sure.

BTW, thanks for the photos!

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks. I'll keep at it. I will look for or engineer something that puts equal 360° force on the selector. I'm worried about distorting it.

One way to do this is to bore a hole in a piece of wood the same size as the piece to be held. Then saw the piece of wood through the centerline of the circle. This can then be placed on the item to be held and placed in a vise.

jtk

[Geoff Emms]

Jim, that's a very good suggestion.

Kurtis,I'm glad to be of some assistance, if only these old tools could talk, hey?
The important part in all this is that you've got a good workable tool that belonged to your Grandpa.
Cheers,
Geoff.

[Kurtis Johnson]

One way to do this is to bore a hole in a piece of wood the same size as the piece to be held. Then saw the piece of wood through the centerline of the circle. This can then be placed on the item to be held an placed in a vise.

jtkYes! Brilliant! Thanks, Jim.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Yes! Yes! Yes! YEEEESSS!

408086

I went out to the shop to build Jim's cylindrical clamp, but prior to doing so gave it one last try. There was movement! A few back and forth micro turns and it was unfrozen! YES! I didn't even have to make the clamp, which I'm a little bummed about.

Removing the pawls allowed creeping oil to penetrate further. The rust poured out. I have it sitting in degreaser once again, and will soak the selector in Evaporust for a few hours, tape up the tote and handle and wrap the bow in Evaporust soaked towels for a few hours. After that reassembly and a good lube.

408085

Stay tuned for obligatory tool gloat photos …

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Excellent.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Excellent.
So glad you talked me into it. It now moves so freely, with so much play, that it’s amazing it could have frozen that hard.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Gentle restoration is complete, and all parts back together now. Lubed and waxed, ready to go. Works beautifully. I think my dad would have appreciated it. I'm sure going to enjoy using it. Thanks everybody for all the help!

408172

408173

408176

408174

408175

408178

408179

408177

[Geoff Emms]

Excellent result Kurtis.

[Jim Koepke]

That looks great for a brace that had rust inhibiting the selector.

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Kurtis, that looks fantastic. My restorations have been on making them functional, but you have made that one look practically new. Well done.

[Geoff Emms]

Kurtis, if you wanted to, you could grip the thread of the ball retaining screw in a soft jaw vise, saw the head off, file the face smooth, cut a slot in it with the hacksaw and put it back in place. You might need to put a spot of some type of thread lock on it prior to replacing.
Cheers,
Geoff.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Kurtis, if you wanted to, you could grip the thread of the ball retaining screw in a soft jaw vise, saw the head off, file the face smooth, cut a slot in it with the hacksaw and put it back in place. You might need to put a spot of some type of thread lock on it prior to replacing.
Cheers,
Geoff.You know, I had thought of a few solutions to that, but your idea was not one of them. That would be an elegant solution. I might just do that. Thanks for the suggestion!