The VISES of Garage Journal

[Sullers]

Sullars and JB, those little vises are cool! What is the jaw size on the Paramo No. 0?

The Jaws are 60mm matey

 

[Outlawmws]

Setting aside the condition of the metalic surface (polish, pitting, corrosion, wear and specific alloy composition), the coefficient of friction must be largely dependent on the area of the mating surfaces. The largest factor in that is the length of thread from one end of the main nut to the other end, plus the bearing surface of the spindle head or meatball. Both of those are going to increase directly with main screw diameter (holding TPI and nut depth constant).
In practice, the TPI we see is most certainly going to decrease as screw diameter increases, because manufactuers figured this out a long time ago.
I suppose the contact suface of the bar, rod or screw enclosure (whatever means is used to keep the jaws aligned) is also a significant source of friction. Hmmm. That is probably reducable to a mostly linear measurement, as well, but independent of main screw diameter.

Believe it or not, the force of friction is not dependent on surface area, only force and the coefficient of friction. Coefficient of friction is constant, and doesn’t change with surface area.

Technically the Coefficient of friction is NOT constant (or the equations would include them as a static number...)

For a given situation and place it may be, but the effective friction can change greatly, which was what LE's point was.

Lubrication, or lack thereof of the threads, then condition of the head and its mating surface, as well as the size, type and angle of the threads and head. Acme or buttress threads, will respond diferently than 60 deg SAE threads. Surface finish and materials of the mating threads and heads can have an effect. Are the threads rusted? Are you using helicoils, which upset a bit as torque is applied? Its not a perfect world out there. Ask any mechanic that works in the rust belt.

 

[Outlawmws]

The Jaws are 60mm matey

so about 2-1/2"; cool size!

 

[va.grouseman]

Royce, see what you've done.

 

[gman007]

Royce, see what you've done.

Touché (love the photo as well)

 

[LesserSon]

Thanks, Outlaw. In the examples I’ve seen, coefficient of friction is safely assumed to be constant where the contact surfaces are planer and gravity is the opposing force. That’s not the case here, but I would like to redact all uses of “coefficient of” in my earlier speculation. I think I committed a semantics fowl.
My purpose is to advocate the recording of screw diameter. Threads per inch on a screw without knowing diameter can no more determine mechanical advantage than the number of cogs or sprockets on a gear or wheel.

 

[Bobioz1]

My Wilton Bullet 9300 dated 1976, and a 3D printed Baby Bullet i printed off a while ago.

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]
Brooks 1970s Leg vice 50lbs 4.5" jaws

[/url][/IMG]
Record 25 & Paramo 0 vices before and 12hrs later

[/url][/IMG]

The base on that Record is freakin huge!

 

[Outlawmws]

The base on that Record is freakin huge!

You should see the base on the swivel base English vises!

 

[kwoswalt99]

Thanks, Outlaw. In the examples I’ve seen, coefficient of friction is safely assumed to be constant where the contact surfaces are planer and gravity is the opposing force. That’s not the case here, but I would like to redact all uses of “coefficient of” in my earlier speculation. I think I committed a semantics fowl.
My purpose is to advocate the recording of screw diameter. Threads per inch on a screw without knowing diameter can no more determine mechanical advantage than the number of cogs or sprockets on a gear or wheel.

The ratio of teeth on gears is what determines mechanical advantage, just like thread pitch on a screw, so I’m not sure what your point is.

 

[royce]

Royce, see what you've done.

VA,
Yes, if I just had a little higher coefficient of good sense, this could have been stopped before it started!!!

I'm also thinking JZiggy should tote half this load, after all, it is his gadget!!!

Royce

 

[gman007]

VA,
Yes, if I just had a little higher coefficient of good sense, this could have been stopped before it started!!!

I'm also thinking JZiggy should tote half this load, after all, it is his gadget!!!

Royce

Royce
I do not believe it is fair of VA to hold your coefficient of good sense or JZiggy responsibile as it is not you but rather it is this darn coefficient of friction that is causing all the friction

 

[LesserSon]

The ratio of teeth on gears is what determines mechanical advantage, just like thread pitch on a screw, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Thanks for sticking this out.
I had convinced myself that the helical travel distance (which would be greater on a larger-diameter screw with the same thread pitch as a smaller-diameter one) was another factor to consider besides the revolutions-to-linear travel distance ratio (which is entirely expressed by TPI). I see that I was wrong.
I guess all I’m left with is the hope that you will agree that larger-diameter screws exhibit proportionally less deflection and sink more heat under like loads than smaller-diameter screws of like material. Those seem important enough to warrant record.
If I understand the purpose of the proposed measurements, it is to quantify what otherwise are subjective comparisons of performance. The screw seems to me to be a critical element to that performance, and the Spreadsheet does not include it.

 

[zkling]

The ratio of teeth on gears is what determines mechanical advantage, just like thread pitch on a screw, so I’m not sure what your point is.

I, and classical mechanics would disagree in that the pitch diameter is what gives the mechanical advantage. Now pitch diameter and tooth count can be interchanged for the ratio as mating gears must have the same pitch for them to function. How does a flat belt provide mechanical advantage?

Now the number of teeth fine vs coarse has an influence due to contact pressure and friction as the gear teeth roll over one another.

 

[zoomieport]

Interesting conversation!

ZOOM

 

[Outlawmws]

Interesting conversation!

ZOOM

Zoomie, in the next week or so, I'll have a compiled list of Royce's and my measured applied force numbers. IMO for those vises that get measured, besides the force generated we should add:

• Handle length from the center of the screw head)
• Main screw thread diameter
• Thread pitch
• Thread type (Optional, but entertaining)

 

[KMScott]

Zoomie, in the next week or so, I'll have a compiled list of Royce's and my measured applied force numbers. IMO for those vises that get measured, besides the force generated we should add:

• Handle length from the center of the screw head)
• Main screw thread diameter
• Thread pitch
• Thread type (Optional, but entertaining)

I would be curious to what a Starrett and or Athol compared to the same jaw width Reed. These vises are in my opinion the better built vises in the States.

How about a few vise pic:s. Just wrapped up a full set of York vises. 60,80,100,125 and a 150mm models.

 

[CrotalusAtrox]

Couple I completed today first duckbill /coachmakers vise I have ever had. Need to still clean up the jaws on the CO

 

[zkling]

I've never had my hands on a york. Since you have thoroughly been through both. What is your take on overall build quality and design of the york vs the wilton bullet?

 

[Outlawmws]

AS always those look great Dr. Scott! How about a "Family Photo" of them? Then we can see the differences better!

 

[KMScott]

I've never had my hands on a york. Since you have thoroughly been through both. What is your take on overall build quality and design of the york vs the wilton bullet?

Yorks use two hard pins instead of a key way to align the Dynamic in a machined groove a plus. The nut is stamped and threaded then drilled in place and uses a single pin to hold in place another +.

The spindle has the threads formed instead of cut. The backlash is better in the York's since they use a pin drilled through the Dynamic and it fits in a radial groove precision located. A better design then the washer Wilton uses.

Where the York failed is the swivel bases. They machined a step under the Static but gave way to much clearance in the step to the ID of the swivel base. The base is sloppy as hell and I do not like it's action. They do not use a center pin like Wilton does. York then uses a carriage bolt that is very sloppy in the cast grooves in the swivel base, some of mine were really wore on the square portion of the carriage bolt. Mine were so bad I had to re-machine the grooves and make custom lock downs. York also used nuts on the five I owned. I seen a picture of what their swivel lock downs looked like and copied their design.

The jaws have straight serrations which I copied on the new jaws I built and think the 30 degree serrations are a better design for a good grip.

The vise weights are light compared to a Wilton. Over all if a York Static and Dynamic could sit on a Hollands or a Parker base then this vise would be a great quality vise.

 

[va.grouseman]

KM, how long did it take you to acquire all the units in the family?

 

[BeardedOne]

Fantastic work Mr. Scott!

 

[KMScott]

KM, how long did it take you to acquire all the units in the family?

I got the 150mm from a GJ member in 2014 and the others came to me locally. It's funny how it goes. When you work on vises they seem to migrate up to my place. I get calls all the time with good deals and people needing cash.

 

[Outlawmws]

Very Nice!

 

[JZiggy]

VA,
Yes, if I just had a little higher coefficient of good sense, this could have been stopped before it started!!!

I'm also thinking JZiggy should tote half this load, after all, it is his gadget!!!

Royce

If the bees get bad enough I’ll go dig out the ol’ machine design textbook.

One of y’all should try putting a thrust bearing under the screw and checking the clamp force at the same input handle torque. I set my vises up with bearings and it makes a big difference from what I can tell.

 

[Fretters]

The swivel base design really is naff on the York's. KM', those handled nuts were only supplied on the lux models, so were an optional extra, so to speak. Normal nuts were the standard.

 

[AngryBeaver]

quick little refurb on this 05196. dated 10 51. sadly I couldn't save the original paint under the black spray bomb. Oh well... this is the third one of these I've had... I don't see the appeal to them as to why people like them... yes they are heavy... the castings are very weak and porous. this is the first one that wasn't broken on the jaw support, but the casting imperfections on the lower jaw support tell me they are prone to breaking. jaws look minty.

 

[RADcustom]

Zoomie, in the next week or so, I'll have a compiled list of Royce's and my measured applied force numbers. IMO for those vises that get measured, besides the force generated we should add:

• Handle length from the center of the screw head)
• Main screw thread diameter
• Thread pitch
• Thread type (Optional, but entertaining)

What about applied force to the handle? It would seem to be a pertinent number that could vary quite a bit depending on the weight of the user.

 

[gman007]

quick little refurb on this 05196. dated 10 51. sadly I couldn't save the original paint under the black spray bomb. Oh well... this is the third one of these I've had... I don't see the appeal to them as to why people like them... yes they are heavy... the castings are very weak and porous. this is the first one that wasn't broken on the jaw support, but the casting imperfections on the lower jaw support tell me they are prone to breaking. jaws look minty.

AB very nice restoration job! I is that original craftsman tag that came with the vise (looks in very good shape)? And the jaws indeed minty!

I have never seen any 519x in person and based on all the previous posts was under impression that these vises are of highest quality and hence all the speculation as to who made them for craftsman as the usual suspect (Columbian) was not in general one of the higher quality vise manufacturers! To be honest hearing that this might not the case is a bit of shock!

 

[Outlawmws]

What about applied force to the handle? It would seem to be a pertinent number that could vary quite a bit depending on the weight of the user.

I agree, but can't see an easy way to standardize that. Royce went by "feel" and I'l be doing the same, but I'd bet we would see differences between what He does and what I do. Maybe add the testers name to the data. and I'm expecting some crossover where two people test the sane vise. Hmmm... "Tester #1 results #1 handle length #1" and "Tester #2 results #2 handle length #2" (handle, as some will have non-stock handles...)

 

[Outlawmws]

quick little refurb on this 05196. dated 10 51. sadly I couldn't save the original paint under the black spray bomb. Oh well... this is the third one of these I've had... I don't see the appeal to them as to why people like them... yes they are heavy... the castings are very weak and porous. this is the first one that wasn't broken on the jaw support, but the casting imperfections on the lower jaw support tell me they are prone to breaking. jaws look minty.

Sorry, I'm not following; what lower jaw support? These have the "U" type jaws, so only a single support? Are you thinking Wilton? I see that all the time...

I have two of these and the only iffy part of the design IMO is the main nut backlash adjuster. One is OK, the other is broken...

 

[AngryBeaver]

Sorry, I'm not following; what lower jaw support? These have the "U" type jaws, so only a single support? Are you thinking Wilton? I see that all the time...

I have two of these and the only iffy part of the design IMO is the main nut backlash adjuster. One is OK, the other is broken...

ok, Jaw shelf. whatever the thing you want to call it that supports the dynamic jaw. look at how ****** the casting on the blue on is in that area. here is my 5191 that was cracked clean through on both sides. this is the second one of these cracked like this. I also think you need to take the Columbian made off of the craftsman post for these 519X series. nothing about them resembles a columbian. literally nothing. Columbians are light weight ductile iron. the jaws are shaped like Rock islands. the stamp on the slide resembles rock island. the tapered swivel lock resembles rock island. the way the teeth engagement on the swivel base resembles a rock island. they are heavy as heck like a rock island. the only thing that might resemble a columbian is the grooves on the spindle and the grooves on the lock down handles that were on the later made columbians.

if you watch ebay, you'll see this pop up and often times missing the support completely.

maybe this picture will help you see it. obviously where it was welded

 

[Josh C]

Morning folks, need a little assistance with a vise that’s for sale as I know practically nothing about Prentiss and have been scouring here and elsewhere on the net but am running out of time so asking for a little info and guidance. The vise is a Prentiss 6” swivel jaw, and that’s all the info I have other than the picture. The markings are on top at the back of the swivel which I believe makes it an older model, possibly a #22, but that’s all I know, other than I’m questioning the base and wondering if it’s missing a swivel or is it as was when left the foundry. Oh, yeah, price. Ha ha, ok so this is the most I’ve even considered spending on a vise but I’m wondering if this is a decent price for this size with swivel jaw or not. $200-250 depending on if the stand goes with it or not so $200 I guess bottom line but have to talk to seller again to confirm. Interested in hearing some input/thoughts y’all might have. Thanks in advance. -Josh

 

[AngryBeaver]

AB very nice restoration job! I is that original craftsman tag that came with the vise (looks in very good shape)? And the jaws indeed minty!

I have never seen any 519x in person and based on all the previous posts was under impression that these vises are of highest quality and hence all the speculation as to who made them for craftsman as the usual suspect (Columbian) was not in general one of the higher quality vise manufacturers! To be honest hearing that this might not the case is a bit of shock!

look at the second picture on my post. the original badge was faded/worn bad. I repainted the original badge. Filled in the letters with blue paint, sanded them down, then spray painted the red area and sanded down the fine letters and outer border.

Gman, I've had three of these 519X series now. two of them have been badly broken in the dynamic jaw support ledge. one was completely cracked around the upper jaw area on the dynamic and had been braised back together that paint covered. both 5191's and both of them had jaws that looked mint or hardly ever used. They are heavy as hell for a 4" vise. but the castings are very very porous. Columbian vises are lightweight ductile iron. the snobs here on GJ don't particularly rate columbians as well made vises. in the 120-130 vises Ive had, sold, refurbed, etc I've never seen a broken columbian. Ive had 204 1/2's that were dented on the dynamic jaw and had bent screws from people bashing them with sledge hammers to press in u joints and never had a crack or broken issue. Ive never seen a busted dynamic support on a columbian. the only broken part I've seen on a columbian has been a mounting hole on a swivel base which any vise is susceptible to if not mounted tight, or proper.

I don't know who made them. I originally thought Rock island based on the jaws, date stamp on the slide, tapered swivel lock, the teeth engagement on the swivel base, and the overall weight of them. but after having a couple rock islands, they are STOUT. they are not brittle like these craftsmans seem to be. there is a threaded collar on the spindle that is unique to this vise. the adjustable nut retainer is unique to this vise and a poor attempt at a reed split nut copy. I'm honestly not sold on them. the reed made craftsman might be my favorite oe so far short of my big rock island combo 543b.

here was a 10 48 date 05191 that had the dynamic completely busted on the right side tower. was braised together and completely undetectable under the paint. the jaw itself basically held it together.

 

[AngryBeaver]

Morning folks, need a little assistance with a vise that’s for sale as I know practically nothing about Prentiss and have been scouring here and elsewhere on the net but am running out of time so asking for a little info and guidance. The vise is a Prentiss 6” swivel jaw, and that’s all the info I have other than the picture. The markings are on top at the back of the swivel which I believe makes it an older model, possibly a #22, but that’s all I know, other than I’m questioning the base and wondering if it’s missing a swivel or is it as was when left the foundry. Oh, yeah, price. Ha ha, ok so this is the most I’ve even considered spending on a vise but I’m wondering if this is a decent price for this size with swivel jaw or not. $200-250 depending on if the stand goes with it or not so $200 I guess bottom line but have to talk to seller again to confirm. Interested in hearing some input/thoughts y’all might have. Thanks in advance. -Josh

all the prentiss swivel jaws had the name and model number on the rear behind the swivel. based on the vise spread sheet, it is a 168lb 6" that had a swivel base.

price seems decent if the slide is not cracked. a lot of prentiss's that Iv'e had the rear of the slide has been cracked....

https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1180889&postcount=1340

 

[ganymede]

I would be curious to what a Starrett and or Athol compared to the same jaw width Reed. These vises are in my opinion the better built vises in the States.
....

Thinking of the old Reed advertisements im wondering how much rigidity is a factor.
Also jaw height/distance from screw.

 

[davethorik]

I wouldn't buy it, as my OCD wouldn't let me sleep knowing it should have a swivel base. But then again the swivel bases on those older Prentiss vises left a lot to be desired IMO, having only "X" number of positions for the locking pin to drop into.

Seen more than a few broken where the whole boss w/ the spring loaded pin & knob or the lever & pin, was snapped off the main body. (guessing prying)

168 lbs complete, except swivel bases are heavy. You're probably closer to 120 lbs instead of 168. If you have to have a Prentiss, wait for a later model with the split swivel base clamp, you get a true 360° swivel none of the spring loaded pin nonsense.

 

[Josh C]

Angrybeaver and Davet- Thank you both for the quick response and for giving me the info and opinions. It’s one of those decisions that I can use an outside neutral opinion on. Yeah Dave I’ve seen you state before about not purchasing incomplete vises and that’s been on my mind as I wondered if the base was missing. I absolutely don’t have to have a Prentiss, I’m more interested in it foremost due to its size since 6” vintage vises seem to be uncommon and everyone knows size matters lol and it’s a swivel jaw with what I’d say could possibly be an original pin although it may never come out as I’ve read the stories about removal. Plus, I have a fetish for old tools but that means that don’t always make Wise decisions regarding them. Anyway guess I shall think on it while I work on another older tool that I may not have made the best decision on but at least I’m consistent. ( honestly this makes the third vintage compressor that I’ve acquired in five months that atm also seems to need a rebuild on the pump although ya can’t turn it by hand easily but that’s for another thread I know) Thanks again gentlemen. Josh

 

[gman007]

look at the second picture on my post. the original badge was faded/worn bad. I repainted the original badge. Filled in the letters with blue paint, sanded them down, then spray painted the red area and sanded down the fine letters and outer border.

Gman, I've had three of these 519X series now. two of them have been badly broken in the dynamic jaw support ledge. one was completely cracked around the upper jaw area on the dynamic and had been braised back together that paint covered. both 51 and both of them had jaws that looked mint or hardly ever used. They are heavy as hell for a 4" vise. but the castings are very very porous. Columbian vises are lightweight ductile iron. the snobs here on GJ don't particularly rate columbians as well made vises. in the 120-130 vises Ive had, sold, refurbed, etc I've never seen a broken columbian. Ive had 204 1/2's that were dented on the dynamic jaw and had bent screws from people bashing them with sledge hammers to press in u joints and never had a crack or broken issue. Ive never seen a busted dynamic support on a columbian. the only broken part I've seen on a columbian has been a mounting hole on a swivel base which any vise is susceptible to if not mounted tight, or proper.

I don't know who made them. I originally thought Rock island based on the jaws, date stamp on the slide, tapered swivel lock, the teeth engagement on the swivel base, and the overall weight of them. but after having a couple rock islands, they are STOUT. they are not brittle like these craftsmans seem to be. there is a threaded collar on the spindle that is unique to this vise. the adjustable nut retainer is unique to this vise and a poor attempt at a reed split nut copy. I'm honestly not sold on them. the reed made craftsman might be my favorite oe so far short of my big rock island combo 543b.

here was a 10 48 date 05191 that had the dynamic completely busted on the right side tower. was braised together and completely undetectable under the paint. the jaw itself basically held it together.

AB

Your work on the badge is simply fantastic

And thank you for detailed explanation and sharing your experience with the 519X, it is very educational

 

[Yost]

New topic here, I hope I'm not interrupting anybody's conversation. (as a side note, why don't we get a separate vise sub forum? it would make searching a lot easier too.)

I have never seen a vise like this one, it looks like the inner jaw moves, and is supported by ways. Does anybody know who might make it? And what do ya'll think about the condition, how hard would it be to clean up?