Author Topic: Tool Research (Read 3419 times)

James Wilson Everett · « **on:** June 07, 2020, 01:38:15 AM »

Guys,

Here is some information on the often found tools normally referred to as "die Stocks" or "screw plates". The first photo is one that I use.

The second is a page from a tool catalog dated 1864.

The third is from a patent granted in 1865.

So, here is the question: What is the earliest date that such tools were available for use in gunsmith shops. They were certainly in very common use in 1864, but how long before this time?

What are your thoughts?

Jim

rich pierce · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2020, 01:47:49 AM »

I guess that most of tge ones we find are post 1880. I can’t seem to figure outgrow to successfully use the one I’ve got.

Carl Young · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2020, 02:11:28 AM »

Screw plates are mentioned in Animadversions on the First Part of the Machina Coelestis of the Astronomer Johannes Hevelius, published in 1674 by John Martyn for the Royal Society in London.

Also in Elisha Cole's A Dictionary, English-Latin, and Latin-English published in 1679 in London; Cole was a professor at Magdalen College, University of Oxford.

Thanks for the illustrations Jim.
Carl

rich pierce · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2020, 03:15:59 AM »

This type is very different from standard screw plates.

Clint · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2020, 05:24:51 AM »

I suspect that when thread sizes became 'standardized' the older hand made screw plates were slowly discarded. Most armed conflicts show advances in technology so I'm inclined to think that the more complex threading tools came about in the 1860's. I have an adjustable bolt threader that is probably indentical to the one you have pictured. Not a simple hand forging.

Daryl · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2020, 06:25:47 AM »

I bought one of those multi-size and adjustable threading tools on Vancouver Island several
years ago, at an 'all-good second hand store', for $10.00.
I gave it to my bro., just because.

James Wilson Everett · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2020, 01:54:32 PM »

Guys,

Some additional research here. An earlier patent (US 5,803) was patented in 1830 showing the split die type screwplate with only one set of replaceable dies. It seems that the screwplate with the stacked dies was of a somewhat later date.

Jim

heinz · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2020, 04:44:08 PM »

My understanding of the 18th Century process is the smith hand filed a tap. The layout was done with a paper or thin copper sheet with the pitch determined by a gauge pattern in the shop. The tap was hardened and use to thread a "screw plate. The screw plate was then hardened. The tap was annealed and adjusted for clearance in the screw plate, then rehardened. The guys who told me that started working in the late 19th century so there may be some "drift" there in the tradition.

These photos are of the gauge set for the French 1777 musket. Lousy photos through the museum case glass but gives you an idea of how they were doing things

James Wilson Everett · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2020, 02:04:49 PM »

Guys,

Here is a photo of a screwplate or diestock that is similar to the one shown above in the 1830 patent, patent number 5,803.

However: The patent 5,803 in 1830 and the patent 51,048 in 1865 were only for "improvements" to the tool. The 1830 patent only included a rather minor feature of the replaceable cutters to allow for collection of swarf or metal chips, not for the basic tool or process at all. The 1865 patent only includes the addition of several rectangular holes in the tool body to act as tap wrench sockets - I think a silly idea.

So, I am certain that such screwplates or diestocks did date earlier than 1830, in the flintlock time period. Still doing research here - any help will be appreciated.

A note to Heinz: Yes, I have seen a great collection of similar gauges for US muskets at the National Park Service museum at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. These gauges are truly beautiful works of art, well worth a visit.

Jim

horologist · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2020, 02:20:36 AM »

Jim
I have a number of these tools and an interest as well. For clock restoration rather than gun work.
There is a reference in L'Art de Tourner by Charles Plumier this is the first book written about the use of the lathe. Published 1701 so the tools existed as of 1700

The earliest reference I can find for one closer to your tool is in Manuel du Tourneur revised 1816 edition

There are a wide range of examples in catalogs mid 19 the century and on.
Ref. Horological Shop Tools 1700 to 1900, Ted Crom

My references are a mess and my computer down for repair so am not ablento do much at present.
Hope this helps.

Troy

1816

1701

online photo hosting
Edited to correct the @#$__#@ autocorrect

James Wilson Everett · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2020, 02:32:15 PM »

Troy,

Thanks for the reference, this is great information. Clearly, the stacked die screwplate dates to 1816, and certainly earlier to be illustrated in the Manuel du Tourneur. The illustration shows nearly the same tool that is readily available on Ebay for a very modest price. Think of this: such threading tools were in use for far longer than our modern circular thread cutting dies.

Thanks again,
Jim

James Wilson Everett · « **Reply #11 on:** June 10, 2020, 02:03:44 PM »

Guys,

Now that Troy has helped to document the date for the multiple die screwplate back to before 1816, here is some information on earlier screwplates with replaceable dies in the mid-1700's. Here is a scan from the John Wyke tool catalog showing tool Number 349 with replaceable dies.

Here is the actual tool. It has replaceable dies that are what I will call a single dovetail design. The dies have about 45 degree angled sides that fit into the same angled recess in the die stock. A face plate is screwed on to retain the dies. On the later designed tools above the dies have a double dovetail design or V-shape sides that side into the same V-shaped section of the die stock.

What has surprised me is the unexpected early date for the multiple die screwplate as shown in the Manuel du Tourneur posted by Troy.

Troy: Can you research and find any earlier date of the tools than the 1816 edition?

Jim

Carl Young · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2020, 03:22:01 PM »

There is a 1792 edition, plate 17, figure 20 (near the back of the book) might be applicable?

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ksk9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA198&dq=Manuel+du+tourneur&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj054HcnPfpAhULlKwKHXYuBuY4WhDoATAAegQIBRAC#v=onepage&q=Manuel%20du%20tourneur&f=false

James Wilson Everett · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2020, 04:38:35 PM »

Carl,

You are absolutely right. Thanks for the good input. Now the date has been pushed back to before 1792 - great! This is the figure Carl refers to:

This is great research. Like an auction! Any other bids? lets try for 1776!

Jim

horologist · « **Reply #14 on:** June 13, 2020, 10:45:16 PM »

I found 1771 in the Diderot Encyclopedia and have a image from my reprint of the 1777 edition

Some of the Diderot plates were taken from Antoine Thiout Traite de lhorlogerie 1741 but I am unable to verify.

I was on the track of others but took a closer look at Plumier and realized it is there.

Lower left shows the tool. It has only one handle but uses the replaceable die stocks shown.

I have sort of inherited the remnants of a serious collectors references but it will probably be a year before I get everything sorted. Although I don't think there is anything earlier than 1700.

Troy

jerrywh · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2020, 06:09:33 AM »

I have an interest in those tools but even more I am interested in the people who made those tools.
The men who made watches and chronographs probably made there own screws and dies plus the tools to make them. Because they were unique. Making a watch is a hundred time more difficult than a flintlock gun. Watches required steel screws not wrought iron. So, The watch makers probably made there own steel in small amounts like crucible steel. I challenge anybody here to make a 4-48 screw without a tap or die. Or any screw of .100" diameter with a fine thread. When I think of a watchmaker in 1750 I feel very inferior.

James Wilson Everett · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2020, 04:25:05 PM »

Guys,

Jerry is right! If I ever become proud of my work - I just look at an 18th Century watch mechanism. A truly humbling experience to see that such watches were powered by a bicycle type chain that is so very tiny as to be difficult to see without magnification. The craftsmanship in the 18th Century was astounding.

Pocket watch fusee mechanism of 1794.

Craig Wilcox · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2020, 11:04:41 PM »

Watchmakers like "Mr. Jn. Crousley" must have had wee tiny fingers! Actually, the work done on those old watches and clocks were fantastic. Not just self-refining the iron into steel in minute amounts, but also hand-cutting the gears and doing all that open work and engraving just boggles my mind. Hope he had a good Opti-visor!

Bob Roller · « **Reply #18 on:** June 14, 2020, 11:54:36 PM »

Quote from: jerrywh on June 14, 2020, 06:09:33 AM

I have an interest in those tools but even more I am interested in the people who made those tools.
The men who made watches and chronographs probably made there own screws and dies plus the tools to make them. Because they were unique. Making a watch is a hundred time more difficult than a flintlock gun. Watches required steel screws not wrought iron. So, The watch makers probably made there own steel in small amounts like crucible steel. I challenge anybody here to make a 4-48 screw without a tap or die. Or any screw of .100" diameter with a fine thread. When I think of a watchmaker in 1750 I feel very inferior.

The adjustment screws in my double set triggers are .100 to accommodate a 3x56 die
and I use a #45 drill for the tap.I also have the tap and die for 0x80 and I have seen
000x120 but have no need for them.I make my screws from 12L14 and have for years.
I wouldn't think of trying to lathe cut these dinky threads.
Bob Roller

jerrywh · « **Reply #19 on:** June 15, 2020, 06:11:52 AM »

Bob I also have some of those tiny taps and dies for making folding sight screws and for frizzen spring roller screws. Also some of the stirrup screws were very small. But making a screw like that without a die or tap is something else. I know for a fact that those clock makers then had magnifying glasses that were huge. They didn't call them magnifiers. In John Twigg's inventory I think they were called looking glasses.

Bob Roller · « **Reply #20 on:** June 15, 2020, 05:18:21 PM »

Quote from: jerrywh on June 15, 2020, 06:11:52 AM

Bob I also have some of those tiny taps and dies for making folding sight screws and for frizzen spring roller screws. Also some of the stirrup screws were very small. But making a screw like that without a die or tap is something else. I know for a fact that those clock makers then had magnifying glasses that were huge. They didn't call them magnifiers. In John Twigg's inventory I think they were called looking glasses.

Jerrywh,
My maternal grandmother called her reading glass a looking glass and we still have it here.
I used a 1x72 and later an M2 metric screw for the link to the mainspring.I have an assortment
of taps and dies and the last ones I bought were 1/2x20 Left Hand when I made the modifications
to a bench grinder a few years back.I hate the 6x32 and always thought and still do that it is too
coarse for that tiny diameter and I am not sure I have a tap or die for that thread.
About 1980 I was having visual problems and that slowed down the screw making and I got my
first pair of reading glasses at age 44.The doctor told me my prescription then was where correction
began and plate glass ended.I was 82 when I had cataracts removed from both eyes and so far so good.
The eye doctor that did my cataracts,if you saw her out of the office you would think she was a college kid
and not a degreed and skilled eye surgeon. I will NOT allow anyone to do anything with my eyes that is
not qualified to perform surgery on them.

Bob Roller

jerrywh · « **Reply #21 on:** June 15, 2020, 11:06:30 PM »

Bob. Your eye problems sound exactly like mine. I had mine out 2 years ago. That's 82. I first needed glasses when I was 44 or 45.

horologist · « **Reply #22 on:** June 17, 2020, 01:56:32 AM »

Jerry
Feel inferior no more. I suspect those 18 the century guys would be envious of your engraving skills.
Very few of those watches were made from scratch by a single person and none of them made their own steel.
Not to say they weren't skilled. Those old fusee watches are a personal favorite.

To keep things on topic I have a page where I make the manufacture of a screw seem more complicated than it is.
It took 5 times longer to sort out what the thread was than to make the screw.
The screwplate could be 18th century, the rest are 19th but not all that different than the earlier tools.

http://www.livingstonstandardtime.com/screwplate/screwplate.htm

Troy

James Wilson Everett · « **Reply #23 on:** June 17, 2020, 02:13:15 PM »

Guys,

Here is a link to a HDTDT (How Did They Do That) on making an odd sized screw while using an original screwplate. Some time I have been asked to determine if a gun is original or if gun is a very well "aged" newly made one. I always check both the wood screws (is it hand filed, or swaged, or machined) and the machine screws (is it odd sized, or match a modern UNC/UNF - or metric size). An "antique" with 8-32 UNF screws is questionable.

https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=33579.msg322062#msg322062

Jim

James Wilson Everett · « **Reply #24 on:** June 29, 2020, 01:22:37 AM »

Guys,

In the John Wyke tool catalog illustration seen above, tool 350 is used to thread larger size screws - I use mine to make the breech plug threads and taps to thread the breech end of the barrel. Using the two screws to form the larger threads makes the job a bit easier.

Jim

News:

Author Topic: Tool Research (Read 3419 times)