Record 122 hand drill, one of the rare ones?

[ED65]

I lucked on to one of these at the last of three productive car boots I attended recently. The exterior wasn't too rusty but the spindle was seized solid so I feared rust on the inside and as I already had three hand drills at home I wasn't initially interested, especially as I'd bought another small drill just a few minutes previously. But I could tell it was quite early so thought I'd at least ask the price, and after I discovered the chuck was clean enough inside to unscrew just from finger pressure I was definitely having it

Once you get down to looking for it there's precious little info about Record hand drills out there and as many will already know this in part because some were produced for only a very short period during the 30s. Although this doesn't translate into all of them being rare the 122 certainly seems to be judging from the dearth of references to them and, prior to the pics I'll add later in this thread, the one photo of a 122 that seems to be online!

So anyone else have one but you haven't posted about it previously? If so please share your thoughts and any photos you have.

And just thought I'd ask, anyone happen to have a scan of a relevant page from a Record catalogue of 1932-1938 showing the 122?

 

[DoctorWibble]

Perhaps Record were ordered to stop production of hand drills during the war and concentrate on other things. War production of hand drills seems to be mostly SIF who were apparently quite prolific with Record copies. Look forward to photos. SIF definitely copied the 123 and the 124 but I've seen other "mystery" SIFS that are neither. Could your drill be the design source for these others?

 

[Vann]

Once you get down to looking for it there's precious little info about Record hand drills out there and as many will already know this in part because some were produced for only a very short period during the 30s. Although this doesn't translate into all of them being rare the 122 certainly seems to be judging from the dearth of references to them and, prior to the pics I'll add later in this thread, the one photo of a 122 that seems to be online!

So anyone else have one but you haven't posted about it previously? If so please share your thoughts and any photos you have.

And just thought I'd ask, anyone happen to have a scan of a relevant page from a Record catalogue of 1932-1938 showing the 122?

I'm at work ATM, but I have the Record catalogue reprint (Cattledog #15 of 1938 IIRC) that shows the Record drills. Of course my scanner has died, but I could photograph the page if no-one else comes up with something first.

Other reading of Record eggbeaters (models #123 & #124) can be found in Alf's blog http://cornishworkshop.blogspot.co.nz/s ... date=false (I think there are 2 or even three blog entries on Record eggbeaters).

I don't have a #122, but I have 3 more modern #123s and was lucky enough to pick up a #124 (which I'm too scared to use in case I hurt it ). I find the #123s to be every bit as good as the Stanley #803.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[ED65]

SIF definitely copied the 123 and the 124 but I've seen other "mystery" SIFS that are neither. Could your drill be the design source for these others?

I don't think so, no.

While the SIF drills I've seen photos of do resemble some Records I think it's because the very earliest Records and the SIFs were based on the same (American) antecedents. By the 30s some Record drills had a British flavour which was then much later copied in American-made drills. I think I have that right, but there are so many models and copies of features or entire drills it's hard to keep track!

 

[ED65]

I find the #123s to be every bit as good as the Stanley #803.

Once I got it turning freely (which happened incidentally to cleaning with white spirit, so the seller's usual spiel of "A squirt of WD-40 will free that up." about a stuck mechanism for a change happened to be dead on) it seemed to run really well which left me thinking I might keep this one and sell on my 803.

Obviously a comparison was in order, so with three bits of progressively larger diameter drilling two holes apiece I found that my 803 drills just that little bit better and is smoother and quieter. The difference is subtle and I think only an expert would notice except by direct comparison. So the 803 definitely has the edge, but then you'd expect that of a double-pinion model over a single-pinion and my 803 does run particularly well after some refinements.

As part of the restoration I've done a full tuning which I don't expect to do much but no reason not to do it since I got the drill apart. I'll see how it fares in another head to head after the paint has had a chance to fully harden.

 

[AndyT]

Hi Ed

I don't have the right Record catalogue but I can offer this page from a 1940 catalogue from Gardiner & Sons of Bristol, where the no 122 was still offered. (Whether it was available or not is another question - I don't think 1940 was a very good year for the ordinary punter hoping to buy a drill.)

I hope you are not too disappointed that your drill was the budget option by six shillings compared to the model 125 Record - I'm sure it's better than the nameless imported option for only two and ninepence!

 

[Vann]

...While the SIF drills I've seen photos of do resemble some Records I think it's because the very earliest Records and the SIFs were based on the same (American) antecedents...

Record were very good a copying USA woodworking tools. Not only did they copy Stanley's benchplanes right down to the (by then) non-standard threads, their No.145 and No.146 breast drills are almost exact copies of Millers Falls breast drills.

...So the 803 definitely has the edge, but then you'd expect that of a double-pinion model over a single-pinion...

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that the Record No.122 is a single pinion eggbeater. I've picked up a few single pinion Stanley No.805s cheap (the single pinion version of the No.803) - mainly for their chucks. With maybe one exception, they've all been very inferior to their twin pinion big brothers.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Vann]

My three Record No.123s are the same as this one (photo stolen from Alf's blog) and probably date to the 1960s or 1970s.

My No.124 is not quite the same as Alf's - hers being from the first year of production (1932), while mine is the later version (1933-38).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[ED65]

I hope you are not too disappointed that your drill was the budget option by six shillings compared to the model 125 Record

Yes I gathered from the description of it as a model-maker's hand drill on the Tooltique listing that it would be a lower-cost model. The single pinion was a bit of a clue anyway, always a budget option.

I'm sure it's better than the nameless imported option for only two and ninepence!

As this one appears to have had a good few decades of use and is still in remarkable running order (almost no runout!) I'm sure you're right.

Thanks for the catalogue page, most interesting!

 

[ED65]

So here it is as bought:

And the inside of the "I can't believe how clean this is!" chuck:

Even though I've finished the repainting I've not completed the restoration yet so I'll hold off on the 'after' pics for now.

 

[Vann]

...I could photograph the page if no-one else comes up with something first...

Here goes:

Record's No.124 and No.125 eggbeaters were only produced from 1932 to ~1938. I had assumed their No.122 had a similar production period, but your No.122 has a solid disc gear wheel, not the spoked wheel shown in the 1938 catalogue, so I assume it's a later version.

My Record No.123 eggbeaters are much more modern (1960s-1970s?)

As you can see they have a rectangular frame, rather than the spectacle frame of your No.122 and earlier No.123s.

Cheers, Vann

 

[DoctorWibble]

So the two drills 122 and 123 appear identical but that the 123 has the idler pinion and a longer handle.
I'd assumed the spoked wheel was dropped before the dumb-bell frame but you have a 123 with spoked wheel AND rectangular frame. Perhaps the various parts are interchangeable hence there might be a few bitsas around to confuse us.

 

[Vann]

...I'd assumed the spoked wheel was dropped before the dumb-bell frame but you have a 123 with spoked wheel AND rectangular frame...

Nah, the one with the spoked wheel is my No.124 which, along with the No.125, had a rectangular frame from day 1.

I think that your theory that the spoked wheel was dropped before the dumb-bell/spectacle frame is correct - judging by ED65's No.122.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Rhyolith]

Interesting thread! Nice find, I did't even know record made a single pinion drill!

SIF definitely copied the 123 and the 124 but I've seen other "mystery" SIFS that are neither. Could your drill be the design source for these others?

I don't think so, no.

While the SIF drills I've seen photos of do resemble some Records I think it's because the very earliest Records and the SIFs were based on the same (American) antecedents. By the 30s some Record drills had a British flavour which was then much later copied in American-made drills. I think I have that right, but there are so many models and copies of features or entire drills it's hard to keep track!

I have never seen a Suffolk Iron Foundry (SIF) drill made outside of WW2, they seemed to specialise in lawn mower castings and now welding: http://www.weldability-sif.com/pages/home.asp . I assume they where contracted to make drills for the war effort and where probably given record designs to work with (?), some of their designs where also the same as fleetway (first picture below).

Suffolk Iron Foundry (SIF) by Rhyolith, on Flickr

1942 Drill by Rhyolith, on Flickr
SIF Air Ministry Drill 1942 by Rhyolith, on Flickr

The Record No.125 is, in my opinion the best quality British made hand drill (that I have tried) only being matched in smoothness by the american equalised drills, such as the earlier Millers Falls no.2s. The SIF copy is not where near as smooth and noticeably heavier.

Something interesting, I found a SIF (1943 I think) of the same pattern as the first drill above at an antiques fair (too expensive to buy unfortunately), only it had the indented teeth (oppose to them being flush with the outside of the drive gear) like the Record No.125 and shared its smoothness. I can only assume this was the result of some method of producing the gear teeth that was superior? Note that the SIF copy of the 125 above does not have these indented teeth.

Record No.125 "Improved" by Rhyolith, on Flickr
Record No.125 "Improved" by Rhyolith, on Flickr

Millers Falls No.2 1922 - 1938 by Rhyolith, on Flickr