Stanley hand drill restoration and improvement

[ED65]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

...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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

And does anyone know the proper name for them?

No, I don't (sorry).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[AndyT]

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]

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]

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: )