Welcome to our world of Locks and Locksmiths (click logo or scroll down to view all):-
 www.Antique-Locks.com 
  
HoL
   COLTi
Or are you looking for modern, or recent past,
Keys, Locks or Safes.
keys, locks & safes
Industrial Archaeology of Locks HoL Museum
COLTi
  
Please support our forum sponsors where you can.
Researching locks from antiquity to the recent past.Maintaining a reference collection & archive.Today's scene and cutting edge developments.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,369
    Country: Wales

    Default

    The projections off the ends of the pins simply look to be left rough from being parted and cut off the parent stock, quite common on rougher, non visible parts.
    Its good practice to re-face and remove them, but many don't bother if it doesn't show.
    There's nothing to say either of the pins are the originals, they could have been replaced a couple of times throughout the safes life as they are very easy parts to turn.
    Huw

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Kansas city
    Posts
    20
    Country: United States

    Default

    I hadnít thought of them not being original. Thanks for the info The bottom pin is 1/8Ē shorter than the top pin. It doesnít show any wear on either end. The top pin was carrying the weight. On the lower portion of each pin is a length long cut 4x per pin. Was this to bind the pin transferring some of the force to the top half of the pin? Just curious.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails image.jpg   image.jpg  

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Kansas city
    Posts
    20
    Country: United States

    Default

    This morning I was again looking at the hinge pins to insure I have the correct size made this week. The top pin alone was carrying 100% of the weight of the door. Does this sound correct? The lower pin would need to be 7/16 longer to share the load. Thanks to Huw pointing out that the pins might not be origional I feel I should ask for opinions on what to do.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,369
    Country: Wales

    Default

    Cartertank it's more common for the pins to act purely as the pivots for the carriages to swing on, one resting on the other, the main vertical load being on the small mating surfaces of the two carriage faces, which often have a bronze or brass bearing spacer (like a washer) fitted between the two.
    On some very heavy doors provided with adjustment the ends of the pins are made to take more load, but they are usually hardened and sit on large ball bearings at the point of contact inside the carriages. They are always precisely faced off and centred to fit the bearing.

    If the door looks to have dropped slightly and appears low when closed in the body (it'll drag on the bottom if bad enough) then it might be that it originally had spacers between the carriages.

    Making new ones at the same time as the new pins would then reinstate it back to how it was, but only if it's needed for the door to be correct height-wise.

    I might be barking up the wrong tree whether your safe originally had the spacers or not, as I simply don't know, but a few image searches should reveal if they were fitted or not.
    Huw

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Kansas city
    Posts
    20
    Country: United States

    Default

    The origional problem was the door was tight opposite the hinge. It made opening and closing difficult. There wasnít any spacers when I took it apart. The wear on the pin in the photo is why I thought the pin carried the weight. From the second photo can you tell if it had spacers before. Would the darker ring on the carriage face be the diameter of the missing spacer. Thanks
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails F41EC613-F3AB-4224-B63A-DCA13D2C5236.jpg   98832B7E-E111-4078-834D-E8C1482DA9D6.jpeg   F3BD7E85-FE87-4B39-9A0B-722DBFDEB138.jpeg  

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    612
    Country: Bulgaria

    Default

    Having one carriage taking all the weight is a very common experience in older safes. Don't let it worry you. Of course if you can do something to get both of them doing their share of the work, that is ideal.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,278
    Country: United States

    Default

    There will always be some side load on the hinge pins and wear can often occur on the side of the pins and/or in the hinge block itself. But after noting your statement of the door being hard to open and tight opposite the hinge, I look liked closely at the safe with the door still on. The gap on the hinge is very noticeable and none on the opening side. Hard to say why this is so. Maybe the door took a hit, or swung open so hard it bent the hinges, or the safe was dropped. Often it is due to excessive paint on the door and jamb on the hinge side, but I wouldn't expect that with only original paint. I would closely inspect the fit on both the hinge and opening side jambs. Get new pins made that are an easy but not sloppy slip fit into the door hinge. Make them the length of the shorter pin. If the door swings easily in the open position, but gets tight only upon closing, the hinges are probably okay. If it swings hard, the hinges are out of alignment with themselves. I don't like grinding on doors, but in this case that might the best solution. Focus on the opening side as is easier and will show where the rubbing occurs. Be prepared to do a lot of grinding. Continuing to stress the hinges usually results in their loosening up on the body and that won't help anything. Sometimes a large hammer can put hinges back into alignment, but I wouldn't do it on a fire safe like yours.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Kansas city
    Posts
    20
    Country: United States

    Default

    Thanks doug and chubby for your input. I dropped the pins off at the machine shop. They said theyíd be ready in a couple of days. Called me 2 hrs later said they were finished. Great! Got em home and fitted. Shut the safe door same problem as before. Iím trying to convince myself that itís better than before. Iím going to try some different sizes of brass washers tomorrow. It would be a huge pick me up if someone could give me a little info on my 4x combo pictured. Iíve been searching the archives to no avail. Or any info as to the time period of my fire safe. Iíd like to try and figure out what building at the university may have been itís former home.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails D7FAFDF6-F031-4536-8300-39FA658A6884.jpeg   DB225C7F-7F08-4D22-937F-32D7A15C24DB.jpg   image.jpg   image.jpg   image.jpg  


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    135
    Country: United States

    Default

    I found this online. Maybe someone else has more info.

    Hall's Safe and Lock company was founded in 1867 and was founded by Joseph L. Hall. Hall's safe & Lock "quit business" in 1892 according to later Hall's Safe Co. advertisements in their safes. For more info on Hall's look up a U S Supreme COurt decision back during the October term 1907, Number 136.
    So essentially the Hall's Safe & Lock Co started in 1867 and went out of business in 1892.
    Hall's Safe Co. started in 1896.
    Herring Hall Marvin started shortly after 1892...
    In 1907 the Supreme Court said Joseph L Halls five sons had the right to use the Hall's name even though it was sold to Herring, Hall, Marvin. The Hall's Safe Co. had to label all their safes with the following:

    NOT THE HALL'S SAFE & LOCK COMPANY WHICH QUIT BUSINESS IN 1892 OR IT'S SUCCESSORS. ALL SAFES MADE BY HALLS SAFE CO. HAVE THIS TRADEMARK.
    The trademark was a eagle with it's wings spread and a Hall's safe in the mid-section.

    The ruling was actually in February 1908. So if Halls started with the disclaimer on the decal after the ruling your safe would be 1908 or newer.

    Here is the court ruling.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/208/554.html

    That ruling actually reversed an earlier ruling #106, if I read this legal mumbo jumbo correctly. It is here.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/208/267.html

    2lxukcg 1
    Last edited by 00247; 12-12-17 at 02:38 AM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Kansas city
    Posts
    20
    Country: United States

    Default

    Last night I found a cool Sargent and Greenleaf catalog and price sheet from 1929. It had a similar imprinted dial although it was slightly different. Here’s the link to catalog
    http://w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/Sargent%...%20Nr%2021.pdfimthi

    the catalog did show the options for inside Safe door lock options.pg 81-84. So now I know what I’m looking replace. No improvement with door sticking. Not from lack of attempts.
    Last edited by Cartertank; 12-12-17 at 10:32 PM. Reason: Grammar

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •