TLDR: I'm trying to figure out when the oil port was
replaced with a plug vs when it was
eliminated completely.
Anyone familiar with vintage Craftsman ratchets from the 1950s (or earlier) and into the 1980s will have seen the "Oil Port" on the front of the ratchet.
As Jim C noted in his
Craftsman Teardrop Ratchet Type Study, the oil holes disappeared from "Type 9" to "Type 10." (There was not a model number change at that time; it's the disappearance of the oil holes that distinguishes Jim C's Type 10 from Type 9.)
Some time back, I was surprised to find that there appear to have been two methods of eliminating the oil port, one of which still has the hole for it but plugs it before the ratchet body is chromed. (An outline or indentation of the plug can sometimes be seen from the outside of such ratchets.) The other method, which I've seen evidence of in a non-Craftsman Easco ratchet and presume exists in Craftsman ratchets, does away with the hole. With the second method, the hole for the pawl spring is drilled at an angle, through the direction-switch/pawl opening, rather than straight in through the oil hole.
Background:
I've been collecting 1/4" drive ratchets for some time. Being familiar with the type studies on this forum for the RHFT and Teardrop ratchets, I'd been searching for examples of these Types as I expand my collection. I'd made mental notes of the particularly interesting Types, including the rare ones and those presumed to exist but not seen and those presumed not to exist.
So when I came across a 43175 (1/4" drive) without an oil port (something Jim C's type study indicated didn't exist), I bought it. See
post in Jim C's type study thread. Jim C suggested that my nonOH 43175 may have been a factory mistake, a failure to drill the oil hole. But see
post, which is also quoted below. (I've since found two other nonOH 43175s. See
post for pictures of all three.)
That's an interesting hypothesis, Jim C. However, my understanding is that the hole for the pawl spring and ball bearing was drilled through the oil hole, which would make failing to drill the oil hole implausible.
My understanding is based on reading that on several forums; a link to one is provided below (which seems particularly relevant here as will be discussed below).
The oil port may be only a secondary reason for that hole, the primary one being access to drill the pawl spring hole. (Reportedly, some other ratchet types (from Moore Drop Forging and other manufacturers) simply leave that hole, which was used for drilling the pawl spring hole, open rather than putting a ball/spring oil port there. I can't find a link to such reports at the moment, though, so a grain of salt would be appropriate.) The later, NonOH types must drill the hole at an angle, through the pawl/direction-switch opening (or the main drive gear/anvil opening). The link below includes a picture of an Easco NonOH ratchet demonstrating the angled hole drill for the pawl spring and an oil-hole 1/2" Craftsman one showing the coaxial oil hole and pawl spring hole (that would have been drilled through the oil hole). Presumably, the 43186 uses the angled-hole method, though I haven't taken one of mine apart and confirmed it. (Same would go for Type 10+ 3/8" and 1/2", though I have few of those, my collection focusing on 1/4" drive ratchets, which take up less space.)
Also interesting in the link below is that, for unknown reasons, some oil-hole generation ratchets had the hole plugged and chromed-over. There's an example (a 3/8" ratchet) pictured on the linked page and references to others.
I suspect that my NonOH 43175 has the same thing: a hidden plug inside, installed before chrome plating. I don't know why this was done, instead of keeping the oil hole. Maybe to save the cost of the oil port ball, spring, etc.
It's unknown how many of the 3/8 and 1/2 Type 10s actually have a plugged oil hole and how many have the pawl spring hole drilled at an angle instead. Disassembling several Type 10s and checking for the plug & straight hole or angled hole would be telling.
At some point, I'll disassemble my NonOH 43175 to see if it has the plug and straight hole or the angled hole. Either way, it's a 43175 without an oil hole whereas all the other 43175s I've seen (and all 43185s I've seen) have the oil hole. (It's up to you whether you call that a Type 10 or just an anomaly (of which we so far have only seen the one example).)
Here's the link I referenced above: https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/craftsman-ratchets-with-grease-fitting-in-the-head.55492/
The use of a plug in the oil hole is discussed in posts #9, #10, and #14 (at least).
The angled pawl spring hole Easco is pictured in post #18.
The co-axial oil hole and pawl spring hole (as would have been drilled through the oil hole) is in post #23.
The 3/8" with plugged & chromed-over hole is pictured in post #32.
If you haven't read that 2010 thread before, I think you'll find it interesting. It has some overlap with your research and has some "questions" where you later provide answers.
When I first read (on another forum) that the oil hole was sometimes plugged before chrome plating, I wondered why that would be done; it didn't seem installing a plug would save substantial cost compared to including the oil port ball & spring. Changing the way the pawl spring hole was drilled and eliminating the oil hole altogether made sense, but why plug the holes in the interim? I don't know how to answer that question. But I became interested in the two methods that may have been used to drill pawl spring hole and the transition between the methods.
My investigation:
The following documents my attempt to track down if/when the change was made from through-the-oil-hole drilling of the pawl spring hole to angled drilling (through the selector switch opening or through the drive anvil opening) and when the oil holes were still drilled but were then plugged.
Hypothesis:
1. Originally, the pawl spring hole was drilled through the oil hole (or both were drilled together). The holes would be coaxial.
2. Transition: holes were drilled as in #1, then the oil hole was plugged (with the plug ground flush) before the chrome plating.
3. Final: the pawl spring hole was drilled at an angle through the direction-switch opening or drive anvil opening. No oil hole was drilled.
I've included (poor) illustrations of these three items below.
Evidence for #1:
- Disassemble ratchets with oil holes and observe whether the pawl spring hole is coaxial with the oil hole.
(To do) (I have 43175 1/4" OH and 44975 1/2" OH ratchets I can disassemble.)
Evidence for #2:
- The outline or indentation of the plug can be observed on some ratchets. See images below of example "Type 10" ratchets with plug evident from the outside. (These are ratchets in my possession: 2 44975 1/2" Type 10s and 1 43175 1/4" (apparent Type 10 1/4" drive, which has been presumed not to exist).) From this evidence, we know that at least some Type 10s have *plugged* oil holes.
- Disassemble some of these ratchets with plugged oil holes and observe whether the pawl spring hole is coaxial with the oil hole. (It is expected to be.)
(To do)Evidence for #3:
- Disassemble later versions of the ratchets without oil ports or visible plugs and observe whether the pawl spring hole is at an angle that would facilitate it being drilled through the direction switch opening or the drive anvil opening. (To do) (I have 43186 1/4" nonOH and 44985 1/2" nonOH ratchets I can disassemble.)
Interpretation of Evidence:
My hypothesis will be falsified (at least to the extent that it implies a clean transition and *consistent* of use of methods) if:
- We find oil-port ratchets that have angled pawl spring holes that could have been drilled without using the oil hole; or
- We find late-version non-oil-port ratchets that still use plugs in the oil hole rather than angled pawl spring holes.
It's possible we may find variation among the nonOH ratchets where some examples within a Type using plugs and other examples use angled holes. I consider this likely with Type 10 44975 (1/2") and 43785 (3/8") ratchets, if the transition between the methods occurred during Type 10 (or at least before the model number change (44985 / 43784). But we may also find that the transition occurred instead during a later Type. Or (which would surprise me) that there was not a clean transition but rather a mix of plugged and absent oil holes across multiple types.
Related Questions:
The preceding paragraph leads to the next question, which will be "*when* did the transition from #2 to #3 take place?"
Did the move to angled pawl spring hole take place during 44975 (1/2") and/or 43785 (3/8") model number production? Or at the beginning or during the next model number (44985 (1/2) and/or 43784 (3/8") production? (The model number changes (and also the 1/4" ratchet change from 43175 to 43185) coincide with the switch to the "QR2" quick release, which worked around the original Roberts quick-release patent. There's no obvious reason the body would be retooled at the same time, as the QR1 and QR2 drive gears are interchangeable.) The disassembly of "Type 10" examples that do not show evidence of oil hole plugs, and the disassembly of later types, checking for plugs that weren't visible from the outside and/or for angles pawl spring holes will help answer this question.
For the 1/4", the transition presumably took place later, with the move to the 43186 model number, but we can check the 2 known examples of 43175 without oil holes or visible plugs, via disassembly, to confirm that they do not have plugged oil holes and/or angled pawl spring holes.
My remaining question will be "*why* did they use a transitional method (#2)?"
One guess: perhaps some sets of the tooling were modified with the angled hole before other sets, yet they wanted consistent appearance of the ratchets from all lines (i.e., no oil ports on any). I imagine that ultimately all tooling in use would have been modified to use the angled pawl spring hole.
This guess is admittedly kind of weak, considering all the other variations that were accepted, such as stamp font size, use of lines next to the Craftsman name, and presence/absence of "OIL" stamp above the oil port.
Unless those involved in the actual production using method #2 have stated the reasons, we will probably never know.
Who has other ideas of the reason for a transitional method?