# Threaded bolt size on planes



## topconker (20 Feb 2012)

Couple of quesions guys,

What is the thread and size of the threaded bolt on the tote and handle of Stanley/Record planes?
Whic bevel gauge to use to re-gring a couple of irons?

Thanks for any help.

TC


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Feb 2012)

I've just measured my 1930's Stanley and 1980's Record, and they're both the same. The thread is 7/32" x 20tpi. I think it's Whitworth form, but that's a non-standard Whitworth size. Tracy Tools list 7/32" x 24tpi BSW, but not 7/32" x 20tpi.

Suspect the sneaky little beggars have done it to ensure that you have to go back to them for spares. Either that, or get someone with an engineer's lathe to screwcut them for you.

Plane irons are usually ground at 25 degrees (ish), and honed at 30 degrees (ish). A degree or two either way won't hurt much, though.


----------



## bugbear (20 Feb 2012)

Cheshirechappie":u5asmria said:


> Suspect the sneaky little beggars have done it to ensure that you have to go back to them for spares.



Nope - Mr Bailey was working in the USA before the widespread adoption of Whitworth (or UNC) threads. Thereafter it's just perpetual backwards compatibility. I think Record finally changed in the late 1980's or early 1990's !!

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (20 Feb 2012)

This site might be useful for Record planes:

http://www.recordhandplanes.com/parts-and-sizes.html


----------



## jasonB (20 Feb 2012)

I think you will find its actually a US No 12x20 thread. the 12 is 0.216" vs 7/32nd which is 0.218"

You can buy taps & dies to cut these threads aboyt 2/3rds down the page
http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com/stanley.html


----------



## Racers (20 Feb 2012)

Hi,

I have that tap and die, very usefull things to have.

Pete


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Feb 2012)

Interesting - the Record link posted by AndyT gives the thread as (non-standard) 7/32" x 20tpi Whitworth form, but as jasonB points out, it would be entirely logical if Stanley used the American thread. However, that's non-standard as well - the nearest UNC size is 12 - 24. As far as I can ascertain, the UNC sizes followed the old American National, previously US Standard. It could be that at the time Stanley were tooling up their factory, the US Standard had not been finalised, hence the use of a thread apparently outside standard.

As the studs for retaining knob and handle screw into fairly short blind holes in the plane body casting, it could be that the use of a coarse thread was decided to reduce the chances of the thread stripping in the iron - cast iron doesn't really like fine threads. 

As jasonB says, there is a very slight difference in outside diameter between the American and British threads; there's also a difference in thread angle, with Whitworth at 55 degrees, and American at 60 degrees.

In practice, given the likely fairly loose clearances incorporated at manufacture between male and female threads in both systems for this application, they will in all probability be interchangable.


----------



## Vann (20 Feb 2012)

bugbear":2hvhgg5t said:


> Nope - Mr Bailey was working in the USA before the widespread adoption of Whitworth (or UNC) threads. Thereafter it's just perpetual backwards compatibility.


Actually Mr Bailey was working in the USA before the widespread adoption of BSW (UK) and UNC (USA) threads. He was using Whitworth threads - 55° pitch - before the Americans changed to 60° pitch and the British chose British *Standard* Whitworth threads (abandoning what are now the non-standard Whitworth threads).

No conspiracy (hammer) 

I am intrigued that Record chose to so closely duplicate USA Stanley planes that they even copied the (what were by 1931) non-standard threads on their bench planes ('though not quite so consistently on block and other Stanley plane copies).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Alf (21 Feb 2012)

Vann":13uy7ulh said:


> I am intrigued that Record chose to so closely duplicate USA Stanley planes that they even copied the (what were by 1931) non-standard threads on their bench planes ('though not quite so consistently on block and other Stanley plane copies).


Better still, they did it on planes that weren't even copies of a Stanley model - the #043 leaps to mind (well it's my mind; of course it does...) Bizarre, no?


----------

