Cutting threads on Handle bolts

[ZippityNZ]

I am in the process of restoring several Stanley hand planes.

I also have a Turner #4 which has a red cellular acetate knob and handle.

The handle bolt appears to have been damaged, and needs re-threading.

Can anyone tell me what thread specification Turner used?

Is it possible to buy dies for both the Stanley and Turner bolts, and if so, where do I get them from?

TIA.

 

[AndyT]

For the Stanley, you can get Chinese made taps dies on eBay cheaply, eg these

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre ... 2588308253

No idea on the Turner, sorry.

 

[ZippityNZ]

10-28 UNS?

Is that the size I want?

I read somewhere, 12-20 was the size

 

[ED65]

I'll be interested to see if anyone knows the thread that Turner used as it's not a brand that comes up here often! I only know the Turners from pictures but they're attractive and look well made so best of luck with it, could be a really solid and good-looking addition to the collection. What condition are the handles in?

First simple check to do is to see if the Turner nuts fit older Stanley rods, or the Turner rods will screw fully into an older Stanley nut or body casting. If so you'll know that Turner, like many others, just copied the Stanley threads, odd and out of date though they were. You can find the threads Stanley used easily online.

For the Stanley planes you're working with do be aware that the vintage and origin of them is important. Very late Stanleys from the UK have metric threads.

 

[ED65]

You may not need a die at all BTW. I'm sure I'm not the only member who has restored many planes without needing one.

If the damage is not severe you might be able to touch up carefully with a triangular needle file. Cosmetics aren't important here and these aren't tight tolerances you're dealing with, the thread can look a little mangled but still work.

Often the top of the thread is all that is damaged and removing the folded-over steel just at the tip of the triangle can be sufficient to allow the bolt or screw to be driven home. Handle nuts don't have to be tightened and loosened regularly so if what you end up with is still a little stiff it's no big deal.

 

[ZippityNZ]

ED65,

The handles had only light scratches on them. Below, is a photograph of the re-polished knob.

I have a set of metric taps and dies, but assumed that I need Imperial ones for my old planes.

I have tried placing the Turner nuts on a Stanley rod but they don't fit and vice versa

 

[Bod]

Where, and approx when, was the Turner made?
The thread might be Whitworth.

Bod

 

[ZippityNZ]

Bod,

The Turner plane was made in Australia from 1948 - 1960 http://thevillagewoodworker.blogspot.co ... eview.html

 

[samhay]

That knob takes me back.
Turner was an Aussie company. Does the plane have an aluminium frog?
Either way, it was probably made as Australia was moving towards the metric system, so thread could be Imperial or metric.

Edit, Bod best me to it.
I'm pretty sure you could buy Turner planes into the 70s, but these may have been old stock.
Edit 2, yes, Turner made it to 1970.
https://www.htpaa.org.au/hand-tools/aus ... rner-tools

 

[ZippityNZ]

Yes, it has an aluminium frog

 

[ED65]

ED65,

The handles had only light scratches on them. Below, is a photograph of the re-polished knob.

Ah excellent, I was going to say if they're just lightly scratched they can be brought back to like-new condition!

I'm very fond of the few chisels I have with handles of this material, I imagine I'd get on well with it on plane handles and they're certainly winners in the looks department IMO, although I imagine they're like Marmite (love or hate).

I have tried placing the Turner nuts on a Stanley rod but they don't fit and vice versa

Have any metric nuts and bolts around? Try 'em and see.

 

[AndyT]

10-28 UNS?

Is that the size I want?

I read somewhere, 12-20 was the size

Ignore me!

I've been and checked and the small size I linked to was for some Stanley thumbscrews, not what you need.

Go with the other advice, sorry.

 

[Scarlet Lancer]

I am in the process of restoring several Stanley hand planes.

I also have a Turner #4 which has a red cellular acetate knob and handle.

The handle bolt appears to have been damaged, and needs re-threading.

Can anyone tell me what thread specification Turner used?

Is it possible to buy dies for both the Stanley and Turner bolts, and if so, where do I get them from?

TIA.

Good afternoon from Cornwall UK,
a lot has happened since your post first appeared, we have the pandemic Covid and a lot of clear and muddy water has passed under the bridge.
I would love to know how your thread issue went. I am going to bet that the front nob and rear tote were both 7/32-20tpi. Was the Turner the same? I have started restoring planes for myself and a few to sell to recoup what I spend.

I would like to know how the world of planes carried the same variety of thread sizes or were any dramatically different . I have posted several posts since I joined recently. But for some reason the valued replies don’t quite hit the spot I was hopping for and that was to compare the common widely known and the lesser known plane manufacturers. What threads did you find on your Turner plane?

 

[IWW]

...... I have posted several posts since I joined recently. But for some reason the valued replies don’t quite hit the spot I was hopping for and that was to compare the common widely known and the lesser known plane manufacturers......

May I politely suggest that that may be because you did not frame the question quite so clearly?

The threads used for various screws by various plane manufacturers could fill a small book! Stanley USA has probably been the most consistent, the only 'problem' being their choice of what are now less common sizes. Record imitated Stanley so closely when they got into Bailey style bench planes that hey used the same threads, (though the screws they used on the line inherited from Preston is a whole 'nother ball-game), and so did the 3 Australian manufacturers, Turner, Falcon, & Falcon-Pope (by & large, but not completely, I think). These companies flourished briefly after WW2 but have long since quietly left the stage.

Late in the last century Record started switching to metric, so the age of a Record can make a big difference to what fits. Recent arrivals on the scene like Veritas seem to have chosen more common sizes for screws & studs (I only know this because I have replaced those horrible bits of wood they call 'totes' on my several Veritas planes & discovered they use 1/4" UNC, which makes life easier). What L-N chose to use I have no idea, not having any close & personal experience of their planes, & since they haven't been around long enough to need 'restoration' the question doesn't seem to have come up yet. Also, I don't recall what Clifton use (though I did own a Clifton #4 for a while) but again, they are also unlikely to be up for restoration unless they've met with foul play.

Then there are the 'outliers' like ETC & other Asian brands, some of which followed Stanley closely, some didn't. There were also a bunch of Bailey style imitations from the old Soviet bloc, more likely to turn up your side of the planet than down here, & I have no idea what thread sizes they adopted.

To compound the problem, an old plane may well have been "got at" by less-skilled "restorers" who have a habit of forcing screws & studs into places they shouldn't, so you can't always rely on what a thread size should be. If you are going to get into plane restoration seriously, I suggest you invest in a good set or two of thread gauges, if you don't already have them. With those, some informed guess work, plus growing experience you should be able to get close enough for purpose on any old plane you encounter....

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Scarlet Lancer]

May I politely suggest that that may be because you did not frame the question quite so clearly?

The threads used for various screws by various plane manufacturers could fill a small book! Stanley USA has probably been the most consistent, the only 'problem' being their choice of what are now less common sizes. Record imitated Stanley so closely when they got into Bailey style bench planes that hey used the same threads, (though the screws they used on the line inherited from Preston is a whole 'nother ball-game), and so did the 3 Australian manufacturers, Turner, Falcon, & Falcon-Pope (by & large, but not completely, I think). These companies flourished briefly after WW2 but have long since quietly left the stage.

Late in the last century Record started switching to metric, so the age of a Record can make a big difference to what fits. Recent arrivals on the scene like Veritas seem to have chosen more common sizes for screws & studs (I only know this because I have replaced those horrible bits of wood they call 'totes' on my several Veritas planes & discovered they use 1/4" UNC, which makes life easier). What L-N chose to use I have no idea, not having any close & personal experience of their planes, & since they haven't been around long enough to need 'restoration' the question doesn't seem to have come up yet. Also, I don't recall what Clifton use (though I did own a Clifton #4 for a while) but again, they are also unlikely to be up for restoration unless they've met with foul play.

Then there are the 'outliers' like ETC & other Asian brands, some of which followed Stanley closely, some didn't. There were also a bunch of Bailey style imitations from the old Soviet bloc, more likely to turn up your side of the planet than down here, & I have no idea what thread sizes they adopted.

To compound the problem, an old plane may well have been "got at" by less-skilled "restorers" who have a habit of forcing screws & studs into places they shouldn't, so you can't always rely on what a thread size should be. If you are going to get into plane restoration seriously, I suggest you invest in a good set or two of thread gauges, if you don't already have them. With those, some informed guess work, plus growing experience you should be able to get close enough for purpose on any old plane you encounter....

Cheers,
Ian

Thank you Ian, but that hasn’t really covered the issue I was making. I had asked ZippityNZ how his individual threads turned out ie the two tote screws He was having trouble with. And the second paragraph was saying I would like to know/find out how different manufacturers had threaded their bolts/machine screws. Regarding gauges and taps, dies, die nuts I do have an extensive collection including most if not all of the ones said to be very rare but are in reality are just not made in quantities to be readily available. For instance the Stanley range said to be Stanley’s own specially designed set of threads and not available is just incorrect.
But thank you for the input. Kind regards Michael

 

[Vann]

...and so did the 3 Australian manufacturers, Turner, Falcon, & Falcon-Pope (by & large, but not completely, I think). These companies flourished briefly after WW2 but have long since quietly left the stage...

Hi Ian. I can't help myself, I'm a pedant. I believe Falcon and Falcon-Pope were the same firm. Actually Pope was the firm and initially they branded their planes "Falcon" but later added the "Pope".

I believe Falcons came out around 1955 and finished up ~1965. At that point either they were sold to Turner or Turner bought the patterns and upgraded the planes to include the acetate handles. I think it was Pope who introduced the die-cast "aluminium" frog (~1960) and Turners continued with it. Turners made planes from roughly 1965 until bought out by Stanley IIRC.

The other significant Australian plane maker was Carter, though their planes are, I've heard, a bit rough.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Scarlet Lancer]

Hi Ian. I can't help myself, I'm a pedant. I believe Falcon and Falcon-Pope were the same firm. Actually Pope was the firm and initially they branded their planes "Falcon" but later added the "Pope".

I believe Falcons came out around 1955 and finished up ~1965. At that point either they were sold to Turner or Turner bought the patterns and upgraded the planes to include the acetate handles. I think it was Pope who introduced the die-cast "aluminium" frog (~1960) and Turners continued with it. Turners made planes from roughly 1965 until bought out by Stanley IIRC.

The other significant Australian plane maker was Carter, though their planes are, I've heard, a bit rough.

Cheers, Vann.

Very rarely do we hear those trade names this side of the world. I think I will keep my eyes open for them. Whilst on the subject I bought a Marples yesterday evening on eBay which I am surprised to see has date stamp I think is 1944 but the last figure is uncertain. It could be part of a War Dept mark, how ever my point being that I was under the impression that most toolmakers were re-employed in other theatre? Any thoughts. I feel a little sorry for the seller as it sold to me for £3.70. Plus post. A tenner all told.

 

[D_W]

Good afternoon from Cornwall UK,
a lot has happened since your post first appeared, we have the pandemic Covid and a lot of clear and muddy water has passed under the bridge.
I would love to know how your thread issue went. I am going to bet that the front nob and rear tote were both 7/32-20tpi. Was the Turner the same? I have started restoring planes for myself and a few to sell to recoup what I spend.

I would like to know how the world of planes carried the same variety of thread sizes or were any dramatically different . I have posted several posts since I joined recently. But for some reason the valued replies don’t quite hit the spot I was hopping for and that was to compare the common widely known and the lesser known plane manufacturers. What threads did you find on your Turner plane?

I think you'll find two things on forums:
1) if you don't tell people exactly what response you want, you're not going to get it.
2) If telling people what you want them to do in responses turns into creating an obligation for someone else vs. an opportunity to choose on their own, you're going to find that's worse than not getting a response

Needling away at threads on planes and restoring planes are both topics that come up from time to time on a forum. Neither is going to get much response from people who aren't immediately finding something new.

Looking at it the other way, though - if you are enjoying a new foray into planes, enjoying restoring them, and working through esoterics with threads in different planes, and you post it because you want to without expectations on other people, you'll be fine.

If you want to be a reference for people for some reason, you'll need to post something permanent somewhere else that's navigable and organized, and maybe refer to it.

 

[IWW]

Hi Ian. I can't help myself, I'm a pedant. I believe Falcon and Falcon-Pope were the same firm. Actually Pope was the firm and initially they branded their planes "Falcon" but later added the "Pope".

The other significant Australian plane maker was Carter, though their planes are, I've heard, a bit rough.....
Vann.

No worries, Vann. Actually, I meant Falcon-Pope to imply the continuation of Falcon, & I forgot to add Carter as the 3rd maker due to a temporary brain-fade, so your clarification is welcome.

The history of the Australian plane makers is a subject in its own right as shown by a few posts on the Ubeaut forum. "Clear out" is probably the best authority on it all having been heavily involved in the business.....

Cheers,
Ian