Looking for 1/4-24 threaded rod

Winegrower said:
I have a geometric die head, 9/16” D size, and 1/4-24 chasers fitting that are on eBay for $30 To $50.
Click to expand...
You need a side job ? :grin: I figured they may be a specialty item but they could be had . I don't think the OP has a lathe or mill but this would be the way to go making them . I have a 9/16" and 3/4" geo heads here but no 1/4-24 chasers , and the lathe and mill are idle still , otherwise , if the OP would buy the chasers , it would be a nice little job .
 
mmcmdl said:
You need a side job ?
Click to expand...
Fortunately no, but with a lathe, a die head and chasers, you could knock these things out like gangbusters.

My survival rule is I will do anything for friends, never a charge, but they have to be there while I do it.
 
Winegrower said:
Fortunately no, but with a lathe, a die head and chasers, you could knock these things out like gangbusters.
Click to expand...
Yes sir , I agree . Maybe he'll find someone on here to take him up . :encourage:
 
As a wood hack as well as a metal hack, I'm just echoing what others have said. There's no reason for this to be made of tool steel. A machinable stainless might be a reasonable middle ground, but it's just a threaded rod. I've got plenty of wood planes. The screws are fine after chasing, and they were all rusted pieces of junk when I got them. Also...they're not hardened. In fact the only failure I've ever seen is a broken tote, or handle. Probably caused by knocking it off the bench.
All that said: If that's what you want, that's what you get. A job is a job. I'm absolutely certain you can find a shop or person to make them. Just expect it to cost more than you want it to cost. You're asking for something "special x 2".
 
I too was curious about the described nature of this wear and couldn’t understand how it could be such a problem. None of my old Stanley or Bailey planes exhibit this so I had a look at the drawings and description of mechanisms on the Union website (you know, when in doubt look at the print…). It appears they use a much different setup than the single brass nut and captured fork that a typical Stanley or similar has. The Union mechanism is actually two separate nuts, one on top and one underneath, and the fork which runs up and down the screw. To adjust you need to slacken one nut and tighten the other, like a jam nut.

Okay, I saw the problem. That iron fork is going to be rubbing directly on the crests of the threaded rod, very unlike the Stanley arrangement where the fork is captured in the brass nut. So I believe the claim that there could be appreciable wear in the sides of that screw after some years. I guess the real question though is whether having a hardened screw will sufficiently mitigate that problem or will it just transfer all the wear to the softer iron fork which I’m guessing would be a lot harder to come by.

Still an interesting design though, and the claim by Union that there would be near zero backlash in the adjusting as well as zero shift once set is probably true. But overall, maybe not quite the longevity of the Stanley or Bailey design. Nice looking tools though, I don’t own one nor have I ever seen too many around these parts.

-frank
 
I got to thinking about this. I figured if people are asking for that feature, then it's a forgone conclusion. The people who collect or use this plane have all decided that's what it ought to be. So I may as well not think about it any further. I'm not offering to even help make the darn things. So...yep...whatevs. Lol Good to know though.
 
K_Ridley said:
Just an FYI. 1/4-24 is a thread used on old Harleys. If you were to contact some of the companies that make restoration hardware they may have something usable off the shelf. A couple of the better known ones would be Colony or Gardner-Westcott.
Click to expand...
Yeah I saw that some Harley parts had 1/4-24.. In my short look see, I didn't see anything long enough. I will keep looking thanks
 
Lifter block hold down bolts are the only 1/4x24 I remember.not saying there’s not more.
 
francist said:
I too was curious about the described nature of this wear and couldn’t understand how it could be such a problem. None of my old Stanley or Bailey planes exhibit this so I had a look at the drawings and description of mechanisms on the Union website (you know, when in doubt look at the print…). It appears they use a much different setup than the single brass nut and captured fork that a typical Stanley or similar has. The Union mechanism is actually two separate nuts, one on top and one underneath, and the fork which runs up and down the screw. To adjust you need to slacken one nut and tighten the other, like a jam nut.

Okay, I saw the problem. That iron fork is going to be rubbing directly on the crests of the threaded rod, very unlike the Stanley arrangement where the fork is captured in the brass nut. So I believe the claim that there could be appreciable wear in the sides of that screw after some years. I guess the real question though is whether having a hardened screw will sufficiently mitigate that problem or will it just transfer all the wear to the softer iron fork which I’m guessing would be a lot harder to come by.

Still an interesting design though, and the claim by Union that there would be near zero backlash in the adjusting as well as zero shift once set is probably true. But overall, maybe not quite the longevity of the Stanley or Bailey design. Nice looking tools though, I don’t own one nor have I ever seen too many around these parts.

-frank
Click to expand...
I have worked with Stanleys for around 50 years now and prefer them over the Union X planes. Probably since that is what I am used to. I was introduced to the Union X planes a couple of years ago when I started receiving them to refurbish/tune. The lateral adjuster is easier to manage small adjustments due to the design. But then I always just tapped the iron for those small adjustments on the Stanley/Baileys. The depth adjustment is finer with the Union due to where the fulcrum is placed. It takes more turns of the nuts to move the iron. And yes once positioned there really isn't any lash.... it is solid. Personally, I don't mind spinning the depth nut on the Stanleys... and then bringing the nut forward to secure. The Union's integral "frog" and large ramp at rear edge of the mouth makes a very solid surface for the business end of the irons. Some Unions you can close the mouth by sliding the front of the mouth back, like some block planes, but others you are left with a large mouth (no moveable frog). While I have never had problems getting the Bailey patterned planes to do what I needed, but the Union X plane is an interesting design and very attractive visually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top