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

[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.

jtk

Yes! Brilliant! Thanks, Jim.

[Kurtis Johnson]

Yes! Yes! Yes! YEEEESSS!

IMG_5740.jpg

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.

IMG_3146.jpg

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.