VISE REPAIR 101 all vise repairs, lubricants, sources for parts and the tricks to fix

[mgmlvks]

Learned about set screws and dogs and half dogs. Craftsman/Palmgren DP vise had a set screw to retain the main screw into the dynamic jaw. Appears the original set screw went missing and a nice work around was a lead plug with normal set screw. Watching some videos on what others did I realized I needed a "set screw with dog". Ordered from Fastenal several variations - and the "correct" version is Full Dog 1/4x20 3/8" overall length. New one is hex key drive, original was slot. I could have bought a longer one and cut down for length and then cut a slot - but I am not set up for that.

Compared below. Never heard of these dogs before - so learned something!

 

[mgmlvks]

No band saw - so - saw saw saw, drill drill drill, file file file.
One down.

 

[KMScott]

Hey guys,

I'm doing some work for a local guy. He was a farrier for all of his life, and he has collected a ton of old vises and anvils over the years.

This time he gave me this Reed 206R. He wants me to weld the worst of the gouges and grinder marks. It's really just a bit of practice for welding the giant Fisher chain vise he wants restored. He is not selling these, nor is he (so far) willing to part with any of his larger vises or anvils. I'm doing welding work for him in trade for some tools he is wiling to part with, and I'm hoping that in time he will give me a deal on an anvil.

I got some 55 nickel rod, and I've done some practicing an old broken vise. I've read lots on nickel rod and cast iron, and watched tons of videos. My welding with the 55 rod is going well, and I think the welding will be fine.

My questions concern welding the jaws where the worst damage is on this vise. Would the jaws be steel cast in place? And if so what rod do I use for that? Sometimes on old vises I can see where the jaw line is, however I can't see anything like that on this old Reed.

Also the hole in the screw (for the handle) is really deformed and egg shaped. I think if I had a mill I'd bore it out round and insert a steel tube to fit (with the correct ID for the handle), then weld or braze that in place. However... I don't, so he wants me to add weld metal to bring that back close to round.

I can do that, and... again... what rod should I use. This should not be cast iron right?... forged steel? Cast steel?

One last thing... he does not want it brazed, he wants it welded, so that is what I'll be doing.

Thank you!
Steve

Hi Steve, I am not familiar with the 55 rod but it sounds like you have it figured out. I would not use that on the jaws but I am not a expert, I have been trying to figure out what material they used for years in the inserts they add to the cast process for the jaw material. My best guess is Oil or Water hard Tool Steel. Either is not a good steel to weld. I have not welded the jaw inserts but cut them out and replace them with A2 jaws that I fabricate. Even if yo weld them they would need to be machined to close right. I redid my 106 and added a few pic:s. As for the meatball, I believe it to is cast material, Reed casted the meatballs onto the spindle and it would be a mistake to weld, brazing in a sleeve is the best option. Look how much is worn, steel would not wear that much due to the sliding of the handle. I did not help you to much but thought I would give you my 2cents, Let us know which way you go and show your work since we all learn from each other. Kevin

 

[GETRIDAONE]

Here is a Parker 954 I have put off giving a face lift because of the jaws being so beat up. The front jaw was loose from being hit with a hammer so much. I started with a 60 grit flap wheel to get the bad dings out and finished with 80 grit on a belt sander. I reused the jaw pins and put them in different positions so they would be tight in the holes.
As you can see the handle was tightened and loosened by striking it with who knows what ? A shim and washer got most of the backlash out.

 

[KMScott]

Nicely done Get. When you put the pins in a different position what did that mean, did you drill new holes? Again nice restoration.

 

[GETRIDAONE]

The front pins were slightly bent from being loose. I put them back in at 180 degrees and the top side facing down. I left just enough sticking out so I could grind them flush.

 

[454ragtop]

Shipping a vise made easy
Fellas, we all seen nice vises however the ones we want most, are in other states and often the seller has no knowledge about shipping costs. If they can pack it properly and give you the weight and rough size of the box, sending him a prepaid shipping label will make it easy for him and cost effective for you. Get a friend that sells on EBay (even yourself) go to a sold item, click on the drop down box, and select print another shipping label click onFed Ex. edit and go change the shipping address to yourself and enter his name as the seller, enter the size and weight and make sure you change the shipping date to about 3 days later. Print the shipping label and send it to him in the mail. I've done it a few times and found it easy.

Just a heads up, after successfully doing this a few times myself, it appears Ebay has shut this down. Went to try to print a shipping label yesterday, Ebay wouldn't let me print it if I changed the address. Bummer!

 

[Productbob]

Getr nice work on the Parker, looks sharp!

 

[GETRIDAONE]

Getr nice work on the Parker, looks sharp!

Thanks, Bob & Kevin for the I think the next one in line will be another Parker.

 

[OregonRaised]

First off , Hello , and thanks for adding me.

I never knew vises where such a big deal until about two days ago.

I do a lot of fabricating in my home own , mainly building and welding stuff for 4x4's.

So in the last couple of months I have broke two vises. What I thought was good ones.

So I started looking on Facebook market page for one. I found one and set a time the next morning to go look at it. I then goggled what to look for in a vise and I ended up here.

After reading a couple of pages I kind of knew what to look for.

So the next morning , went and looked at it the guy was asking 100.
I turned the handle and it sounded like **** scraping noise in it. The guy turned it over and said " oh looks like it needs a new cotter pin" he says I can have it for 80.00. SOLD!!

So here is what I have and I sort of cleaned it up some before thinking about pictures.

I do have some questions on how to fix and I believe there are a couple of missing washers. I'll ask questions in next post with a only one picture so its easier to understand.

But here it is .

Athol 625

wow, kind of a pain to load pictures , ok we will work with it lol

 

[OregonRaised]

Athol 625

Trying to keep in some sort of order

So First off , sorry I dont' know all the names of the vise. But IM sure you will know what Im talking about.

So I have the DJ off and on the under side I noticed that mine had a spring and cotter pin. I have already taken the cotter pin out before taking pictures.

I have seen others and how they look but I'm not sure on mine. I thought they had a washer then spring then washer then cotter pin?

Mine was spring and cotter pin. My cotter pin was under the spring with a ton of slop. I dont believe this is how it should go.

Next question is how do you compress that spring to come out of the slot ?

 

[OregonRaised]

Onto the next problem ,

This one I believe is more simple, I did read someones post showing how to shim up the lock nut for the leadscrew. Very good by the way.

Has you can see in the picture of mine it is smushed some so its not tight and the lock pin that holds it into place is smashed some.

I'll make a new one to hold it tight.

But question should I hard face the lock nut and build it up or should I just make a lock pin with a set screw through it to lock the lock nut down tight?

 

[OregonRaised]

So onto jaws

Mine look to be weld on? Should I grind even ?

I can take a picture of them together, but there is ever so ever a slight uneven on the left side. I believe it to not really be a problem at this time.
This would be more of making it just look better.

 

[drivesitfar]

OR: the spring cotter pin design to hold the main screw onto the dynamic jaw does take a bit of work if you try to do it with just fingers and tools. some of the guys posted this method to compress the spring to remove and replace the cotter pin and some use an old copper, aluminum or maybe PVC pipe would work to get the job done.

you've got a great old vise and if you want a bit more grip on the project you are working on make yourself some copper or aluminum jaws and don't grind on the original ones. some guys have taken the time to use a hand file to put in new grooves, but I like the copper jaw method.

good luck!!!

 

[OregonRaised]

OR: the spring cotter pin design to hold the main screw onto the dynamic jaw does take a bit of work if you try to do it with just fingers and tools. some of the guys posted this method to compress the spring to remove and replace the cotter pin and some use an old copper, aluminum or maybe PVC pipe would work to get the job done.

you've got a great old vise and if you want a bit more grip on the project you are working on make yourself some copper or aluminum jaws and don't grind on the original ones. some guys have taken the time to use a hand file to put in new grooves, but I like the copper jaw method.

good luck!!!

I'll have to look into how they attach and make the new heads, thanks.

Compressing the spring is very easy on this one. Makes me think that the spring is very weak. The problem is there is no washers in mine., I believe there should be. Before I took the cotter pin out I noticed about 1 1/2 -2" of space between the base of the ball handle to the front area of the DJ. Should'nt the base of the ball on the handle be against the face of the DJ? I see people that have made thrust bearing so the handle base rides against it.

The cotter pin was under the spring about in the middle of the spring. Where do I find washers for these, and what thickness or strength of washer material ?

Below picture is of someone else who did this.

 

[va.grouseman]

Here's a link Oregon.


https://www.vxb.com/NTB1226-Thrust-...MIuMGlsJ7-4wIVwkOGCh1esAFWEAQYBiABEgLahvD_BwE

 

[va.grouseman]

Drive, have you been golfing for 5 months, or on hiatus?---Missed you.

 

[snapon12]

I pick up a little giant vice and the person who had it removed all the paint. I have a customer who dose professional powder coating who offerd to coat the vice for me. Is it a mistake to coat it?
Thanks

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Outlawmws]

Don't coat the parts that weren't painted from the factory, but powder coating is not really any different than paint, other than its generally tougher.

 

[snapon12]

Thank you. Ive been reading up it appears that little giant was not to popular.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[gman007]

Hi All
One of my buddies has a number of quality vises that for most part he has inherited from his family through several generations and which he values a lot.

One of these vises is a Reed 31 but at some time in the past the dynamic jaw support self was busted (way before my friend's time). Luckily when we contacted oldtoolnut on eBay he did have a Reed 31 static housing avaiable.

While based on the patent dates that existed on this replacement part and which did not exist on the original busted one, we knew these two parts are not 100% of the same vintage, since he really wanted to fix the vise, he took a chance.

Now we have a historic question as well as need advise on an issue that has come up.

Here is the question, both of these Reed 31s have old fashioned under the workbench wing nut swivel mechanism. The patent dates on one replacement part are 1912, 1914. Yet I have a Reed 204 and seen plenty other Reeds of the same vintage that have the regular swivel arm.

And even more interestingly the original busted 31 has no patent dates! Which presumably could mean it is newer than replacement and if patent dates are good for say 20 years, does this mean Reed was manufacturing vises in 1930s with wing nuts?

Now the good news is that the existing dynamic jaw draw bar fits in the newly acquired static jaw housing like a glove (with very tight tolerance) . However the face of the jaws do not line up at the bottom!

At first glance one might attribute this to possible ware of the jaw face and as the 5th photo shows the replacement static jaw is not square with respect to its base. But if one looks at actual jaw face, there is little sign of uneven ware. But there is a clear straight line (which makes no sense to exist due to random ware) at the bottom separating the top portion of serration from the bottom portion which seem to be a bit recessed with respect to the top!

Interestingly despite the excessive ware of the original busted dynamic jaw face (which is the one that we want to replace), the same straight line separation can be still be observed. So one wonders if this was all along part of the design which make no sense. So we are wondering what is going on here!

I suppose one possible way to address this issue would be milling the faces flat and then recreating the serration. I have also seen Dr. Scott do his magic of milling the faces flat but leave a support selves at the bottom of the jaw faces to accommodate two of his superb replaceable jaw inserts.

Unfortunately my friend does not have access to a milling machine. So what would be another good option here?

 

[drivesitfar]

007: frankenvises are a good way to make an almost 100 year old work again and most likely there will always be something that isn't quite right. sounds like the working parts are ok so i'd say clean it up so you don't have two different colors and maybe put on a pair of copper jaw covers and it will look and work great. also my Reed 31 doesn't have the pipe jaws so unless your friend really needs them the *********** is a good option for it's use.

here's a few pics of mine and more importantly maybe a catalog pic for you and your friend.

good save.

VA: i've missed you to so stop in my DIY thread cause i've been catching up on Honey and To Do lists since I moved out of my shop a few months ago.

 

[gman007]

007: frankenvises are a good way to make an almost 100 year old work again and most likely there will always be something that isn't quite right. sounds like the working parts are ok so i'd say clean it up so you don't have two different colors and maybe put on a pair of copper jaw covers and it will look and work great. also my Reed 31 doesn't have the pipe jaws so unless your friend really needs them the *********** is a good option for it's use.

here's a few pics of mine and more importantly maybe a catalog pic for you and your friend.

good save.

VA: i've missed you to so stop in my DIY thread cause i've been catching up on Honey and To Do lists since I moved out of my shop a few months ago.

Drives
Thanks much for the great info. Your vise looks great

 

[Shiftless]

Gman:
I happen to have a Reed 31 in my collection. Here are a couple of pics.
That unusual jaw pattern seems to be original. Both jaws of mine have that line where the pattern is different.

Note the 196 date code.

Drives:
Thanks for putting the note about 1/2 Cup in your signature line... I remember reading a lot of his posts. I agree with you that he will be missed. R.I.P.

 

[gman007]

Gman:
I happen to have a Reed 31 in my collection. Here are a couple of pics.
That unusual jaw pattern seems to be original. Both jaws of mine have that line where the pattern is different.

Note the 196 date code.
.
.

Shift
Thanks for the photos. Are there any patent dates on yours? If so what are they? I am asking because Date code of Jan 1896 for a Reed with wing nuts makes more sense than 1914 or even much later possible date.

In any case even with the strange jaw pattern, it seems that the jaws on your 31 just like Drives' will meet evenly and leave no gap.

 

[Shiftless]

Shift
Thanks for the photos. Are there any patent dates on yours? If so what are they? I am asking because Date code of Jan 1896 for a Reed with wing nuts makes more sense than 1914 or even much later possible date.

In any case even with the strange jaw pattern, it seems that the jaws on your 31 just like Drives' will meet evenly and leave no gap.

Here is a pic of the other side. It bears the usual Reed patent dates... 1912 and 1914.
So my vise couldn’t have been cast in 1896 right?
.
.

 

[gman007]

Here is a pic of the other side. It bears the usual Reed patent dates... 1912 and 1914.
So my vise couldn’t have been cast in 1896 right?
.
.

May be 1896 is the year the model 31 was first manufactured (and not necessarily the cast date) and later refined with additional features and hence the patent dates on the LATER models. It is then possible that my friend's 31 with no patent dates is in fact cast before the ones with 1912 and 1914 patent dates (and not the other way around). I will ask him to see if he can see the date code on his (it has been heavily painted at some time, so I am not sure if he can find the date)

 

[PghJKB]

Hi All
One of my buddies has a number of quality vises that for most part he has inherited from his family through several generations and which he values a lot.

One of these vises is a Reed 31 but at some time in the past the dynamic jaw support self was busted (way before my friend's time). Luckily when we contacted oldtoolnut on eBay he did have a Reed 31 static housing avaiable.

While based on the patent dates that existed on this replacement part and which did not exist on the original busted one, we knew these two parts are not 100% of the same vintage, since he really wanted to fix the vise, he took a chance.

Now we have a historic question as well as need advise on an issue that has come up.

Here is the question, both of these Reed 31s have old fashioned under the workbench wing nut swivel mechanism. The patent dates on one replacement part are 1912, 1914. Yet I have a Reed 204 and seen plenty other Reeds of the same vintage that have the regular swivel arm.

And even more interestingly the original busted 31 has no patent dates! Which presumably could mean it is newer than replacement and if patent dates are good for say 20 years, does this mean Reed was manufacturing vises in 1930s with wing nuts?

Now the good news is that the existing dynamic jaw draw bar fits in the newly acquired static jaw housing like a glove (with very tight tolerance) . However the face of the jaws do not line up at the bottom!

At first glance one might attribute this to possible ware of the jaw face and as the 5th photo shows the replacement static jaw is not square with respect to its base. But if one looks at actual jaw face, there is little sign of uneven ware. But there is a clear straight line (which makes no sense to exist due to random ware) at the bottom separating the top portion of serration from the bottom portion which seem to be a bit recessed with respect to the top!

Interestingly despite the excessive ware of the original busted dynamic jaw face (which is the one that we want to replace), the same straight line separation can be still be observed. So one wonders if this was all along part of the design which make no sense. So we are wondering what is going on here!

I suppose one possible way to address this issue would be milling the faces flat and then recreating the serration. I have also seen Dr. Scott do his magic of milling the faces flat but leave a support selves at the bottom of the jaw faces to accommodate two of his superb replaceable jaw inserts.

Unfortunately my friend does not have access to a milling machine. So what would be another good option here?

GMan
The Reed 1912 patent was issued to Rorig (#1048100) for the curved diamond pattern cut into the jaw faces. The 1914 patent was issued to Bayton (#1106860) for the method used to attach the ball ends to the handle.

The vise with the standard diamond pattern on the jaw faces is pre-1912.

Just because a patent is still in effect, does not mean the company must use it. In 1918 Tozer of Reed was issued a patent (#1257152) for their "modern" swivel base. My guess is that every model that could be converted, was. That said, my 31 has the center rod pivot, both patent dates. I have yet to see a Reed 3x with the modern swivel.

Make sense?

JKB

 

[gman007]

GMan
The Reed 1912 patent was issued to Rorig (#1048100) for the curved diamond pattern cut into the jaw faces. The 1914 patent was issued to Bayton (#1106860) for the method used to attach the ball ends to the handle.

The vise with the standard diamond pattern on the jaw faces is pre-1912.

Just because a patent is still in effect, does not mean the company must use it. In 1918 Tozer of Reed was issued a patent (#1257152) for their "modern" swivel base. My guess is that every model that could be converted, was. That said, my 31 has the center rod pivot, both patent dates. I have yet to see a Reed 3x with the modern swivel.

Make sense?

JKB

JKB
Thank you for the great and detailed information and explanation

 

[Maui]

I recently bought a Reed 33, and it is in very good condition except that it is missing the pipe jaws (WHY do people remove these??) and the base plate for rotating the vise. So I’ll be busy making the missing parts shortly...

 

[Perrorojo]

Anyone have a spare one of these? I have a 204 that is missing one.



Sent from my SM-G970U using The Garage Journal mobile app

 

[KMScott]

I recently bought a Reed 33, and it is in very good condition except that it is missing the pipe jaws (WHY do people remove these??) and the base plate for rotating the vise. So I’ll be busy making the missing parts shortly...

Maybe this drawing is close to the 33 pipe jaws, I don't know but it could help Maui. I tilt the pipe jaws at 14 degrees to cut the teeth. Good luck.

 

[va.grouseman]

Previously posted by Maui.

(WHY do people remove these??)
--------------------------------------



Maui, the pipe jaws are removable so when a vises owner wanted to utilize the full depth available between the Static and Dynamic towers, they just remove the pipe jaws, lay them up somewhere, and then they get lost in the shop shuffle.---And some owners actually preferred the vise without the pipe jaws all together..---At any rate, they seldom got put back in.---Vises weren't held in as high esteem as they are today, so a lost set of pipe jaws didn't warrant an all out search back in the day.

Well that was what they did, but you asked "Why do people remove these"??---Today they only remove them to clean and paint or BLO, or the like.---Then they put them back.---99.9% of the time.

 

[mdkcal]

Maybe this drawing is close to the 33 pipe jaws, I don't know but it could help Maui. I tilt the pipe jaws at 14 degrees to cut the teeth. Good luck.

Do you happen to have a drawing for Reed 32 pipe jaws you'd be willing to share?

 

[gman007]

Previously posted by Maui.

(WHY do people remove these??)
--------------------------------------



Maui, the pipe jaws are removable so when a vises owner wanted to utilize the full depth available between the Static and Dynamic towers, they just remove the pipe jaws, lay them up somewhere, and then they get lost in the shop shuffle.---And some owners actually preferred the vise without the pipe jaws all together..---At any rate, they seldom got put back in.---Vises weren't held in as high esteem as they are today, so a lost set of pipe jaws didn't warrant an all out search back in the day.

Well that was what they did, but you asked "Why do people remove these"??---Today they only remove them to clean and paint or BLO, or the like.---Then they put them back.---99.9% of the time.

VA
While your explanation is plausible and makes sense, one thing that is still a mystery to me is that many times only one pipe jaw is missing ! Why would the owner go through the trouble of removing one pipe jaw but not the other.

Is it also possible that sometimes one pipe jaw would get busted, and then some owners would choose to remove the remaining one which was of no use, while other owners could not be bothered and would just leave it in place

 

[va.grouseman]

Yep, that makes since Gman.---The vises with only one jaw or the 2 on one side were probably owned by the persons that really used the pipe jaws a lot, did a lot of plumbing and such.---And then one day, used a 36'' Ridgid pipe wrench, which Doc Holliday would say, ''Was more than he could bear".---I've also seen a lot jaws with the teeth sheared off too, which shows that they were really put to the test.---They probably had every intention of replacing the broken ones but just never got around to it.---They sure come in handy.

 

[KMScott]

Do you happen to have a drawing for Reed 32 pipe jaws you'd be willing to share?

I gave you what I got. Best I can do. You can design your own, especially if you have the vise in front of you.

 

[va.grouseman]

Mdkcal, Kevin's right.---If you have the vise in front of you, you can get the dementions right from the vise.---The length, the width, the depth are all right there.---All you have to know is what the original shape was and add the teeth.---I did these from scratch with a bandsaw and a file, but they are brass which I admit is a lot easier than filing on tool steel.---If you have and know how to use a lath, you save yourself a lot of hand work cutting the teeth.---But a combination vise needs those jaws IMO.---They just look naked setting there with slots for jaws, and no jaws.---If a person wants one without pipe jaws, get one without pipe jaws.---Again, JMO.

 

[AngryBeaver]

Here is a pic of the other side. It bears the usual Reed patent dates... 1912 and 1914.
So my vise couldn’t have been cast in 1896 right?
.
.

no. Those are not dates. those are worker and assembly marks so the parts met back up together, just like parker, rock island, and many other companies used. This is why the Reed date code thread is specific to the R models.. you can't have production dates early than the patent dates cast into them...

some of the older reeds will have multiple sets of stamps and the second sets could very well be dates. most of those are so faintly stamped, they are hard to make out, or have been covered up by wire wheeling.

one thing that is still a mystery to me is that many times only one pipe jaw is missing ! Why would the owner go through the trouble of removing one pipe jaw but not the other.

most of the times that one are missing are ons that protruded past the edge of the main jaws. this is very common in parkers. its always the one single one that protrudes and not the shorter pair of doubles. much more common on older ones that wouldn't use all three jaws of the same size.

 

[mdkcal]

I gave you what I got. Best I can do. You can design your own, especially if you have the vise in front of you.

I do have the vise here to measure and see that a Reed 32 uses bigger jaws than a 31. What I'm not sure about is the geometry of the the vee where the teeth are, how far the thicker jaw in the dynamic jaw protrudes into the other two and how tight it should fit into the slots. My plan was to make a mock up out of wood and fine tune it. The older vises use a different geometry for the jaws than the newer 1C/2C etc. The newer one changed to where the jaws don't interfere with the throat of the main jaws. I'll probably go with original.

So do the set screws just press against the pipe jaws and don't thread into holes in the jaws?

Catalog picture below for 1917 vintage. The 32 is sized for 1/8 dia to 3 1/2 dia pipes.