# Stanley hand drill restoration and improvement



## ED65 (13 Jan 2016)

Here it is as I bought it in all its rusty, flaking glory:







A bit rough on the outside but it ran smoothly enough as the gearing was nearly free from rust which I thought was the main thing. Cosmetically this was in worse shape than I'd have preferred to have started with, and it wasn't just the one or two quid it might have been in the UK either, but it was the best I'd seen to that point so I took the chance. I didn't know it at the time but in the two years since I haven't seen one in better condition at the car boots I visit 

The chuck looks worse than it was, it was oily inside where it matters and as heavy as that rust looks it was still superficial. If you look at the bottom-right image the inside of the wheel looks rough as rats, but I was pleasantly surprised when I took it apart for cleaning to discover that wasn't rust, it was greasy sawdust. This had protected the paint underneath from moisture and it was nearly pristine as a result.


----------



## ED65 (13 Jan 2016)

Since this was bought I'd been using it with just a bare-bones cleanup: the old finish stripped from the wood and just the loose surface rust removed from any parts that get handled in use. I finally got sick of the piebald handles and the lumpy rust on the main casting a couple of weeks ago so it was time for something more comprehensive.

Here are some shots towards the end of the restoration, just before new paint and revarnishing:






I used a wire brush in a power drill to get the rust off the casting, which got rid of any paint that wasn't still adhering properly. Then I fettled the surface with files to remove the rough sanding marks from the factory along with the rest of the moulding lines they hadn't addressed at the time. I smoothed off with a little sanding but I knew I didn't have to be too careful about the surface I left behind because the new paint would go on so thickly.


----------



## ED65 (13 Jan 2016)

And here it is with the restoration complete:






I wish the ferrules had come up better, I think they let the side down, but overall I'm happy with how it turned out and I think with the light use I'll put it to it'll keep its looks long enough to see it into the hands of its next owner after I'm gone.

Now a few questions for anyone familiar with these. 

Firstly, is this an 803? The customary stampings on the metal arm aren't present on this one so I wasn't sure.
And can anyone give me a possible date range on this?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jan 2016)

I found seven of these in one of my boxes of contents (the most I've ever paid for one is £2  ). I'm certain Stanley must have had an in house competition to find the worst possible finish for the handles.


----------



## ED65 (13 Jan 2016)

Lastly, the hack that I mentioned in another thread. Don't know if it's due to wear or if all of this style of Stanley drill are like this straight from the factory but there's play in the wheel (up and down the spindle) and if pressure was applied inwards the gear's teeth would clash with those of the pinions and it would run rough and sometimes even stall. This fixes that completely. 

I wish I could say it was the result of careful thought but it just popped into my head right at the end when I was waiting for varnish to dry. As you can see it only requires two washers:






I was lucky to have a washer just about the perfect size in my random collection and I tried it and there was immediately improvement. It worked fine like that but I wanted to provide a better lower-friction bearing surface for the long term so I added the plastic washer. It's nothing more than a piece of milk carton. The thing I love most about it is that the only bit in my meagre collection that was approximately the right diameter was an old Imperial auger bit so this fix required the use of my other vintage Stanley drill  

As obvious as this hack seems to me in retrospect as far as my Google-fu can determine nobody else has done this on theirs, but it's a difficult thing to search for as there are Stanley pressure washers which clog up the search returns. 

Anyway, as it completely prevents the gears mashing together and makes the drill run smoother than ever if yours has a similar issue it's worth trying something similar.


----------



## ED65 (13 Jan 2016)

phil.p":36xofexn said:


> (the most I've ever paid for one is £2  ).


The least I've heard asked for one over here is €10, and that's for ones in rag order!



phil.p":36xofexn said:


> I'm certain Stanley must have had an in house competition to find the worst possible finish for the handles.


It's hideous isn't it? I don't mind the heavy gloss so much, but that colour... I don't get where it even came from, it's like nothing else I've seen.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2016)

Interesting - I've used milk container (HDPE) to make a lubricating washer
in a wood-on-wood bearing, but it's an infrequently used item,
and it's rotation for adjustment (c.f. quadrant), not continuous rotation.

I'd be intrigued to know how well your washer holds up.

BugBear


----------



## Racers (13 Jan 2016)

I used to make washers that the turntable on a German Wurlitzer jukebox rotates on from aerosol can lids, they lasted for years compared to the original thin nylon ones.


Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jan 2016)

I suppose the washer will last reasonably well as there's little speed or friction involved. There seems to be a fair amount of difference drill to drill in how sweetly they run. I've a couple that are sweet as a nut with no catches, and others that don't appear any more worn have awful catches. I have a couple of milk HDPE washers on the register of my lathe - the chuck used to lock up badly - they are now beginning to crack after about a year. Of course, there's no friction there.


----------



## AndyT (13 Jan 2016)

That's a nice tidy job, not too much bling!

You asked if it is an 803 - yes it is. The 803 is the one with a pair of pinions and a side handle. This is mine, in rather better condition than yours. It came in a mixed box, so I can't say how much it was, but it was not dear. All I've done is oil it.






It does have the name and model number on the handle:






I'm pleased to report that it runs sweetly just as it is, with no central washer, just a rather wide gap between the big gear wheel and the frame.

You might like to know that the cheaper variant, the 805 (no side handle, only one pinion) does have a washer, at least mine does, and it's just visible here:
















You asked about a date: Stanley established themselves in the UK by taking over AJ Chapman in 1936 IIRC. 
They kept the Chapman name for a while - I have a 1940 catalogue listing a very similar drill under the Chapman name - in a 1957 catalogue the 803 and 805 model numbers are in use (at 29/6 and 23/-). They are still there in a 1960 catalogue at the same prices. I'd guess they stayed in production till the 70s when plastic handles would have taken over.


----------



## Rhyolith (14 Jan 2016)

I see a lot of old hand drills at car boots with washers used in this manner, usually they are too far gone for it to make a difference though. I assume there is something that wears down for this to happen... be nice to know what and why so I can protect my "good" drills. My best guess would be insufficient lubrication causing ware on something.

Out of interest what do people fine is the best oil for drills? I have used 3 in 1 for a while on every part of them (even the gear teeth), but after concern that my big old union A1 pillar drill was suffering from internal ware I used thicker engine oil on that, which seems to protect it better. Now I am paranoid that all my drills need different oils to protect and lubricate them :?


----------



## AndyT (14 Jan 2016)

Just to pick up on a few points...

I'm sure that the 805 drill I showed above with a washer would have had it fitted originally - it's had too little use for anyone to have modified it.

I do have a dual-pinion 803 model with a washer as well - it's a rather unusual one, so a bit of a gloat really. It was made for the medical market, with better plating and all metal handles, so it could be sterilised in an autoclave. It also got a superior keyed Jacobs chuck - but it's still a standard design 803:
















As for oil, I use 3-in-1 as well, but for bigger things like my treadle lathe and pillar drill I have a pump can with some car engine oil in - probably old 20W-50 multigrade. I think that is as sophisticated as you need to go!


----------



## ED65 (14 Jan 2016)

Rhyolith":lo3gkayz said:


> I assume there is something that wears down for this to happen... be nice to know what and why so I can protect my "good" drills.


From my reading online the bearing races are supposed to be the thing that wears the most and you have to be on the lookout for when buying, but I don't know if that's actually the case. If it is though I doubt packing out with washers would offer any improvement.

As far as oil goes 3-in-One should be fine, but you could use liquid paraffin as it's much the same stuff. Since I have a small squeeze bottle of paraffin to hand for honing I just reach for that when I need to lubricate any moving parts. I'm probably being overly cautious but I do use grease where I want a heavier lubrication or where I want to make sure it doesn't leak out due to gravity. Traditional machine grease and Vaseline are again much the same stuff so I use Vaseline since I have that in the house already.


----------



## ED65 (14 Jan 2016)

AndyT":1wyu76c5 said:


> I do have a dual-pinion 803 model with a washer as well - it's a rather unusual one, so a bit of a gloat really.


Gloat away! That's an absolute beauty. I am now of course going to be lusting after one of those probably forever, and I bet I'm not the only one.



AndyT":1wyu76c5 said:


> car engine oil in - probably old 20W-50 multigrade. I think that is as sophisticated as you need to go!


Agreed. If it'll deal with the speed of moving parts in an internal combustion engine I'm sure there's nothing we can throw at it that'll stretch it beyond its limits.


----------



## Vann (14 Jan 2016)

AndyT":2tpxddxs said:


> ...You asked about a date: Stanley established themselves in the UK by taking over AJ Chapman in 1936 IIRC.
> They kept the Chapman name for a while - I have a 1940 catalogue listing a very similar drill under the Chapman name - in a 1957 catalogue the 803 and 805 model numbers are in use (at 29/6 and 23/-). They are still there in a 1960 catalogue at the same prices. I'd guess they stayed in production till the 70s when plastic handles would have taken over.


Just to add my tuppence worth:

The No.803 dates back to JA Chapman times when it was their No.105. I'd assumed the one shown below was pre-1937, but if it shows in your 1940 catalogue then that's not necessarily the case.








It came with a ¼” chuck. The first change (as far as I can tell) is the change in the crank-wheel casting from "J.A. CHAPMAN Ltd SHEFFIELD" to "STANLEY ENGLAND". 

At some point the chuck was upgraded to the 5/16" chuck seen on the Stanley in the above photos, and a change to the main casting between the idler pinion and the main pivot.








The last change that I've noted is the change from cast-iron/steel main frame to die-cast frame (see 805 photos below). I've not got an example of a plastic handled 803/805.



AndyT":2tpxddxs said:


> You might like to know that the cheaper variant, the 805 (no side handle, only one pinion) does have a washer, at least mine does, and it's just visible here:


I don't know if the single pinion No.805 also goes back to JA Chapman days, but it too started with the ¼” chuck and was upgraded to 5/16" chuck, and (down graded to) die-cast frame. One of mine also has a side handle - but I think this is the only No.805 I have which even has provision for one (and I don't recall whether the handle was fitted when I got it, or was added by me, but it was certainly tapped to take a side handle).







As for the washer under the main crank wheel - so few of the Stanley eggbeaters I've seen have them that I think it's a user mod.

Other comments: 
The ¼” chuck will take up to a 6.5mm bit (going in 0.5mm increments), while the 5/16" chuck will take up to 8.5mm bits.
The No.803 is nearly always a smooth runner (after a de-gunk). The No.805 is nearly always a POC.
Record's equivilent - their No.123 - is equally as good as good as the Stanley No.803.
I have a Parry & Bott (sounds like something out of _Harry Potter_) No.600 and a Marples No.423 (keyed chuck) which are almost up to the Stanley No.803 standard.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Rhyolith (14 Jan 2016)

Peoples opinions of the Stanley's seems pretty high... I have what I assume is an oldish 803 with no washers and although it is up there with the "SIF" as the best British made hand drill I know of (not including bench drills like the Union A1s) I personally still think it lags miles behind the Americans, mainly Millers Falls and North Bros. I would put this number near the bottom of my preference list when I reach for my rather large drill rack. 


Stanley No.803 by Rhyolith, on Flickr


Stanley No.803 by Rhyolith, on Flickr
Are those longer chucks without the coiled springs an older or newer feature on these by the way? And does anyone know the proper name for them?


----------



## Vann (15 Jan 2016)

Rhyolith":r3buftnu said:


> Peoples opinions of the Stanley's seems pretty high... I have what I assume is an oldish 803 with no washers and although it is up there with the "SIF" as the best British made hand drill I know of...


I think it's the best of the common British drills. A better British drill would be the Record No.124. As for US drills - well over here we pretty much stopped importing them once you guys started making tools in large numbers, and we switched to importing from Empire/Commonwealth countries - so most US drills here are old and worn.



Rhyolith":r3buftnu said:


> Stanley No.803 by Rhyolith, on Flickr
> Are those longer chucks without the coiled springs an older or newer feature on these by the way?


I'm assuming you mean the chuck in your photo above (can't be bothered to take one of mine apart right now to look)? These are the earlier ones mentioned in my previous post.



Rhyolith":r3buftnu said:


> And does anyone know the proper name for them?


No, I don't (sorry).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## AndyT (15 Jan 2016)

Yay! My 500th thankyou! Thanks ED65! :lol: 
-----------------
As we seem to be collectively building up a minor type study for these drills, here are a few hand-held snaps of the three catalogues I was referring to. (Maybe I'll get round to scanning the whole things one day.)

This is the earliest, local boys Gardiner Sons, in 1940 - though I bet a lot of the tools listed were not available, as tool factories were being turned over to making arms and ammunition.






Two pages of drills including Chapman, Record and Millers Falls











By 1960 the range had shrunk to just one page (but the expensive electric alternatives were coming in)






Their own item numbers, but the Stanley name is clear.






And this is the 1957 catalogue. This copy has the Tyzack name on it, but it must have been a general purpose retail catalogue - I've seen copies offered with various other store names overprinted. It also has a note on the front page, that "All illustrations are typical and should not necessarily be taken as being in every case a faithful picture of the actual tools listed."


----------



## bugbear (15 Jan 2016)

Does anyone know what the side handle on a hand drill (AKA egg beater) is for?

Being equipped with the usual _two_ hands, I've never found a use for it. :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (15 Jan 2016)

bugbear":7vv4ekbc said:


> Does anyone know what the side handle on a hand drill (AKA egg beater) is for?
> 
> Being equipped with the usual _two_ hands, I've never found a use for it. :lol:
> 
> BugBear



Well, I'm sure I've used it, and maybe even missed having it on drills without one... it's just an alternative way of holding it, which sometimes makes sense. There could even be circumstances where you would remove the big handle and just use the side one - maybe drilling a hole for a handle, from the inside of a small drawer - you do always do that from the inside don't you? Or you might, if you wanted a larger hole on the back to hide a nut? I'm clutching at straws here, but they are _really_ important!!

(_Unless_ it's just a ruse to make another price point... :wink: )


----------



## bugbear (15 Jan 2016)

AndyT":27oiwvwr said:


> bugbear":27oiwvwr said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know what the side handle on a hand drill (AKA egg beater) is for?
> ...




Is the big (inline) handle removeable? I didn't think it was.

For close work I have a Leytool drill - doesn't everybody?  







leytool-drill-t84644.html

BugBear (at work, can't check his #803)


----------



## AndyT (15 Jan 2016)

Well I'm not at work, so I popped down to the workshop to check properly. BB, you're right of course, the 803/5 main handles don't come off. (I did once have a cheap and very nasty Indian made drill where the handle could come off - it was so bad that I actually got rid of it once I had an alternative.)

The other use of the side handle, which comes naturally if you pick the thing up, is that you can use it like a miniature breast/belly drill - with the work vertical in the vice, hold the drill horizontal, using your left hand and the side handle, spin with the right and apply extra pressure with your body onto the nicely rounded top of the main handle.

PS - I must get one of those Leytool drills!


----------



## ED65 (15 Jan 2016)

Can't thank you all enough for your contributions! This has turned out to be far more informative than I could have hoped for =D>


----------



## ED65 (15 Jan 2016)

bugbear":1vf6c3p3 said:


> Is the big (inline) handle removeable? I didn't think it was.


Well I pulled as hard as I dared on mine and it wouldn't come off  But apparently they can come off due to wear and tear or something, see this Instructable: Old school hand drill overhaul.


----------



## bugbear (15 Jan 2016)

AndyT":2ll93dqc said:


> PS - I must get one of those Leytool drills!



For once the advert doesn't lie - they're very nicely made.

Recommended.

BugBear


----------



## Vann (15 Jan 2016)

BugBear":7q1l6lxl said:


> Is the big (inline) handle removeable? I didn't think it was.


Not on the Stanley No.803/805. But it is on the Record No.125 (N20127) and I think also on their No.124 (N20126) - see AndyT's illustration above.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## ED65 (15 Jan 2016)

AndyT":1pt6ducs said:


> As we seem to be collectively building up a minor type study for these drills


To add a little to that, here's the section on hand tools from the Stanley catalogue of 1926:


----------



## Vann (15 Jan 2016)

Unlike handplanes, there seems to be little in common between Stanley's USA and UK made hand drills (your page being from a Stanley USA catalogue).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Jan 2016)

As a slight aside, how effective do you chaps find the keyless chucks? I don't know whether I've been unlucky, but my Stanley 803 holds twist-drills securely up to about 1/8", but larger than that they do tend to slip in the chuck; the larger the drill, the more the tendency to slip.

In frustration, I bought a Footprint 160A drill off Ebay (cost about twice what I paid for the 803), which is very nicely made, double-pinioned, with a guard for the back of the pinions cast into the frame. It's got a keyed chuck, and holds everything I throw at it without slipping. The side handle unscrews as well. I think it's of about 1970s vintage.


----------



## bugbear (15 Jan 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2tb7wqw1 said:


> As a slight aside, how effective do you chaps find the keyless chucks? I don't know whether I've been unlucky, but my Stanley 803 holds twist-drills securely up to about 1/8", but larger than that they do tend to slip in the chuck; the larger the drill, the more the tendency to slip.
> 
> In frustration, I bought a Footprint 160A drill off Ebay (cost about twice what I paid for the 803), which is very nicely made, double-pinioned, with a guard for the back of the pinions cast into the frame. It's got a keyed chuck, and holds everything I throw at it without slipping. The side handle unscrews as well. I think it's of about 1970s vintage.



I've got one of those - nice tight chuck, but the keyless ones are faster load for small bits, which is my main use for an eggbeater.

For larger hole I use a Stanley Continental, or a brace.

BugBear


----------



## Rhyolith (15 Jan 2016)

All keyless chucks I have had (including modern cordless drill ones) require a very firm tighten to grip larger bits.


----------



## Rhyolith (15 Jan 2016)

I few people were talking about Leytools Earlier, solid things and very versatile for joinery. Has anyone else come across their huge 2-gear version? I did have one, but its currently located in the black hole formed by lost tools in my workshop :? It is meant to be a breast drill I think, but mine was missing the breast plate bit. 

I found an even more compact hand drill last summer that can fit in truly tiny spaces, kind of like the Gymnast of the hand drill world :lol: Its not as well made as the Leytool, bit a pretty much unmatched design for getting its awkward places. I did look up the manufacture, but its left my head now... think it was American. The last picture shows it next to a small Leytool. 


Untitled by Rhyolith, on Flickr


Untitled by Rhyolith, on Flickr


Untitled by Rhyolith, on Flickr


Untitled by Rhyolith, on Flickr


----------



## Benchwayze (16 Jan 2016)

ED65":u0it618i said:


> phil.p":u0it618i said:
> 
> 
> > (the most I've ever paid for one is £2  ).
> ...



Agreed, but it just wouldn't look right in any other colour!
:lol:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Jan 2016)

bugbear":2oc6sp7l said:


> Cheshirechappie":2oc6sp7l said:
> 
> 
> > As a slight aside, how effective do you chaps find the keyless chucks? I don't know whether I've been unlucky, but my Stanley 803 holds twist-drills securely up to about 1/8", but larger than that they do tend to slip in the chuck; the larger the drill, the more the tendency to slip.
> ...



I too go for the brace for holes of 1/4" and up, either with a Jennings bit or an old-style centre bit. There's just that awkward 'in-between' range from about 1/8" - which the keyless-chucked hand-drill has no problem with - and 1/4". That range covers the clearance sizes for most woodscrews, so I now use the Footprint drill for those jobs. Handy, because I can set the 803 up for pilot drilling, and the Footprint for clearance. With a countersink bit in the Skinner 6" brace, it saves a lot of bit changing. The working area can get a bit cluttered with drilling equipment, though!


----------



## bugbear (16 Jan 2016)

I have a Footprint drill (double pinion, runs very sweetly) with a keyless chuck permanently fitted with a 3mm (AKA #8 pilot) bit.

I also have a small brace permanently fitted with a rose countersink.

It's good to have a wide range of drills available.  

BugBear


----------



## Vann (16 Jan 2016)

Cheshirechappie":rtsjasgo said:


> I too go for the brace for holes of 1/4" and up, either with a Jennings bit or an old-style centre bit. There's just that awkward 'in-between' range from about 1/8" - which the keyless-chucked hand-drill has no problem with - and 1/4". That range covers the clearance sizes for most woodscrews, so I now use the Footprint drill for those jobs. Handy, because I can set the 803 up for pilot drilling, and the Footprint for clearance. With a countersink bit in the Skinner 6" brace, it saves a lot of bit changing.





bugbear":rtsjasgo said:


> I have a Footprint drill (double pinion, runs very sweetly) with a keyless chuck permanently fitted with a 3mm (AKA #8 pilot) bit.
> 
> I also have a small brace permanently fitted with a rose countersink.
> 
> It's good to have a wide range of drills available.


I keep a countersink bit permanently in a nice little no-name, double pinion, eggbeater, and a 1/8" (3mm) bit permanently chucked in another no-name (possibly _Kean_) double pinion eggbeater. This leaves me with the _Chapman_ No.105 and a _Record_ No.123 for other sizes I need on a job. I have a couple of breast drills for larger work, but hardly ever use them (too big and awkward for most jobs). 

For intermediate size holes I bought a _Yankee_ No.545 - which turned out to be seized, so I bought a second one (a broken No.1545) for parts - but still haven't got around to making one good one out of the two. What I probably should have is a small brace - but they're rare over here (the only ones I've seen were 6" _Stanley_'s with ratchets - probably too heavy, and definately too expensive).



Cheshirechappie":rtsjasgo said:


> The working area can get a bit cluttered with drilling equipment, though!


  

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## bugbear (17 Jan 2016)

Posted to OLDTOOLS in 1999;

http://swingleydev.com/ot/get/63729/thread/#63729


_I don't remember telling this tale...
I put a board floor in a section of my attic (=loft).
Needed 5 4x8 chipboard (=particle board) sheets, cut in all sorts
of interesting shapes.

Each and every one was fitted to the joists by:
Drilling a 3mm pilot hole through board and brace
Drilling a 4mm clearance hole though board (depth stop used)
Counter-sinking the board
Driving the screw.
The above got repeated A LOT.

I used a J*gs*w for the cutting. I didn't
have room up there to set up a board firm enough for good hand-sawing.
In any case I had no intention of using a nice saw on chipboard,
and no intention of hand-sawing with a saw that wasn't nice.

A 3/4" bit was used to facilitate internal corners with.

To achieve all this I used:
3 and 4 mm bits. Both held in egg-beaters drill (Stanley 801, and a MF)
Countersink - electricians brace - about 6" sweep.
Screwdriver - powertool bit held in 14" sweep brace
3/4 Holes. Brace + Bit.

Didn't have to change bits once. Sometime it's good to be a tool
hoarder! I have subsequently loaned (and got back)
the full set to someone else for the same job.

BugBear
(who would have been tempted by one of those 3-stage
drill-bits you can get... the electrons would have called...)_


----------



## AndyT (17 Jan 2016)

That's a good reminder of their usefulness, BB.

I did a similar job a few years ago, putting down chipboard over solid foam insulation in our loft - lots of 4" screws to drive in. My aging cordless drill was not up to the job but an 8" brace grips a long 1/4" hex shank screwdriver bit perfectly.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jan 2016)

A sharp snail countersink in a large Yankee screwdriver is an awesome tool for flooring and decking - one whack and done.


----------



## AndyT (17 Jan 2016)

Before we all wandered off into talking about actually _using_ the things, I meant to say that your last-posted drill is a goodun Rhyolith - five stars on the gizmocity scale, and further proof of man's never ending ingenuity!


----------



## ED65 (17 Jan 2016)

Vann":3ehe812e said:


> I bought a _Yankee_ No.545 - which turned out to be seized


Don't know what you've tried but can you remove the handles so that you can soak the whole drill? I've unseized a few things where initially it seemed sure they were never going to budge and in one case all that was needed to release the hold of the rust was a long soak in a gentle rust remover. 

In another regular re-applications of penetrating lubricant spaced over a couple of days got movement started and after that it just needed to be worked and worked with plenty of oil dripped in to flush. So I'm a big believer in not giving up too early.


----------



## BearTricks (30 Jan 2016)

I bought one of these second hand for nothing on ebay. The seller had neglected to mention that the side handle, the one you use to hold it steady rather than the one you turn to do the drilling, was missing. The listing said 'good working condition' and the turnip had propped the drill up with something in the photos to make it look as if it was resting on the handle.

My fault for not looking closely enough, but is there anywhere I could get a replacement? Failing that, could I turn my own on the lathe?


----------



## ED65 (30 Jan 2016)

There are many hand drills which didn't feature a side handle so I don't think it's at all dishonest to say it is in good working condition as long as it's in good shape otherwise. I've actually read a number of posts from woodworkers who think that the side handles on eggbeaters are as useful as a chocolate teapot  



BearTricks":1dtli6vg said:


> is there anywhere I could get a replacement? Failing that, could I turn my own on the lathe?


Yes I've seen a few turned replacements posted online. It must be a pretty simple shape to form, and turning your own gives the opportunity to customise it if you want.

As to a replacement, a very cheap 803 in rough condition otherwise but with the side handle intact could be bought as a donor. Particularly if the chuck is totally a gonner you could haggle the price down to next to nothing.


----------



## Rhyolith (31 Jan 2016)

BearTricks":1573ky7d said:


> I bought one of these second hand for nothing on ebay. The seller had neglected to mention that the side handle, the one you use to hold it steady rather than the one you turn to do the drilling, was missing. The listing said 'good working condition' and the turnip had propped the drill up with something in the photos to make it look as if it was resting on the handle.
> 
> My fault for not looking closely enough, but is there anywhere I could get a replacement? Failing that, could I turn my own on the lathe?


Yes its very common. 

The only difficult with making your own side handle is matching the thread to screw it on... if you have a wood lathe the rest is easy. I don't know where to get ferrules from or how to fit them.


----------



## Benchwayze (1 Feb 2016)

I always found the side handle to be redundant on the standard hand-drill. I have no problem keeping the brace steady by using the long handle, as long as I don't 'whisk' like a lunatic! Whenever I use the side-handle, the tool never seems balanced. So maybe I am not alone in this and it could be why so many of these drills are 'incomplete'. I think I have three or four eBay specials now, all of them in really good nick, and costing me less than a tenner each. (One of them virtually brand new and in it's smart box.) I keep one permanently chucked with a countersink. They are the best tool for the finicky little drilling jobs; IMHO! 

Cheers. (hammer)


----------



## GLFaria (1 Feb 2016)

Rhyolith":3ln5s1gc said:


> All keyless chucks I have had (including modern cordless drill ones) require a very firm tighten to grip larger bits.


Bit of an understatement, is it? :wink:


----------



## Wordsmith (18 Apr 2016)

Hi all - I came across this thread whilst looking for information on my recent acquisition - a J. A. Chapman No. 104 (N20121 in the Gardiner catalogue from 1940 - first one on the page) single-pinion "eggbeater" drill. The side handle is missing, but the thread looks to be in good condition, and the crank handle is badly worn, with a missing ferrule.

Does anybody have a similar drill which is intact enough to measure the dimensions of the handles and ferrules from? I believe the handles could be turned up on a lathe fairly readily, and the ferrules might be readily canniballised off other broken/worn tools if the sizes are known.

Purchase price - £1 from a local charity shop "dump bin" - I also found 2/3 of a Bailey No. 4 plane (the blade clamp was absent) and a couple of decent condition small mitre saws (which I paid 50p each for!). Needless to say, I will be checking this dump bin frequently from now on


----------



## MusicMan (19 Apr 2016)

Re the query above about HDPE endurance. It had better be good; it's the bearing I've got in my left knee, and the surgeon claimed it was good for 25 years! (five years so far with no probs at all).

Keith


----------



## Bod (20 Apr 2016)

Wordsmith":2xdigqp6 said:


> Hi all - I came across this thread whilst looking for information on my recent acquisition - a J. A. Chapman No. 104 (N20121 in the Gardiner catalogue from 1940 - first one on the page) single-pinion "eggbeater" drill. The side handle is missing, but the thread looks to be in good condition, and the crank handle is badly worn, with a missing ferrule.
> 
> Does anybody have a similar drill which is intact enough to measure the dimensions of the handles and ferrules from? I believe the handles could be turned up on a lathe fairly readily, and the ferrules might be readily canniballised off other broken/worn tools if the sizes are known.
> 
> Purchase price - £1 from a local charity shop "dump bin" - I also found 2/3 of a Bailey No. 4 plane (the blade clamp was absent) and a couple of decent condition small mitre saws (which I paid 50p each for!). Needless to say, I will be checking this dump bin frequently from now on








To the right is a 1939 Chapman 105.
To the left is a cast iron framed stanley 803.
The side handles are interchangable, the main difference is the older one, has a flatter top. The finish on the older is a stain, rather than the thick brown laquer, that flakes off.
The crank handle is also identical.
Get an old rusty complete Stanley 803/5 use it as spares.

Bod


----------



## Wordsmith (20 Apr 2016)

Hi Bod,

Thanks for the info.

I think (judging by the info about the finish) that this must be a pretty late "Chapman" - it appears to have the crappy Stanley-type gunk lacquer on the crank handle, so a Stanley side handle would probably be perfectly reasonable for a replacement on this drill. It has the Chapman-style main handle though, with the more rounded outer end and the bigger radius at the ferrule end, so maybe the flatter side handle would be more "original"...

... however, as I'm intending to put this to use rather than turn it into a museum piece, it doesn't really matter much. I've already sanded the goop off the main handle and given it a good coat of boiled linseed oil - much nicer to hold now 

One question - is the paint likely to be Lead-based? I'd prefer to be able to work on it indoors (until the weather picks up a bit), but I have cats so Lead paint debris would be best kept outdoors.


----------



## ED65 (21 Apr 2016)

Wordsmith":1ooe5off said:


> One question - is the paint likely to be Lead-based?


No. Generally it's white and pale colours where that's a potential concern, with black they likely used nothing more sophisticated than soot for colour (lamp black, literally a form of soot). 

There may be some lead _driers _in the coating, but that's present in far smaller quantities so little risk if small amounts are accidentally ingested.


----------



## Bod (22 Apr 2016)

This is a photo of my "collection" of Stanley 803s.
There are differences that appear to have a time line.
Top is a J.A. Chapman, with an Air Minstry date of 1939. Note the flattened side handle, and position of idler gear, and size of idler support. (Idler shaft rotates)
Second down, A Stanley still with the Chapman idler position, how original the side handle is I don't know. (Idler shaft doesn't rotate.)
Third one, my user! ignore the lack of paint on handle, the best improvement you can make, scrape it off. Idler gear is now identical, to the drive gear, and has better support.
Fourth, is just a newer spare.
Then there is the later, square cast frame version.
Stanley took over J A Chapman, in 1936, Chapman versions have been dated to 1939-40, can anyone put dates to any of the changes?

Bod


----------



## TomiRosso (1 Feb 2017)

Just curious, is there any good online source to Stanley product catalogs? Or that Chapman as well. 

This time I am interested at drill for specific. I got two Stanleys. Mayby those 803, twin pinion drills. And oneday I was watching Stanley 748A and noticed that I don't know any good Stanley England catalogs, where I could fast look whole production range of drills.


----------

