Greetings all,
First time posting here, have used this forum for years rebuilding various reels. I wanted to document a customization option for the vintage Mitchell 302. I'm sure it's possible on any of the old 300-400 series that have matching removable covers on both sides of the body. I read about this on a pier fishing forum some years back but no one included pictures. Some people were left confused. The idea of it intrigued me and so I went for it. It turned this old Mitchell into a tank. The idea is to add a floating drive gear to the other side of the pinion gear, thereby sandwiching it in, cancelling out any axle deflection under heavy loads. It also has the added benefit of double dogs.
To begin, you'll have to source an extra crank-side cover plate with the drive gear and all the dog components.
You'll measure 3\8" off the plate and mark the drive gear tube.(Mine is a hair shorter.) You'll want to cut on this mark as square as you can. You can file or belt sand to fix and inconsistency. Now you'll just have to shorten the drive gear shaft. I just placed the drive gear back into the plate and marked the excess shaft with a sharpie. Cut this 1/16" shorter from your mark.
The most difficult part is fabricating a cap. Luckily, if you've hit the 3/8" cut mark, a dime should fit perfectly. I drilled and tapped the drive gear tube and secured with (3) 4-32 x 1/2" screws, adding a little rtv silicone under the rim of the dime before I added the screws.
Once you've applied your grease, and placed your shortened drive gear into the side plate, all's that left is to attach your custom plate on the reel body.
I always add a smear of grease over the second dog because with the two dogs engaged, it can be a little loud. Feel free to ask any questions and I'll try to answer.
Hi.
Very cleaver, John. You have great skills too.
-steve
Hey John! That's cool. We don't see a lot of customization of 302's on here, so that's good to se. I know they are out there, and the 302 is prevalent to work with.
We have an intro thread; pop over there and introduce yourself. Where are you and what are you using this for? Imma guess the Northeast for stripers :)
John
I would like to see more of what you did inside . Are you dragging another drive train on the other side ?
Welcome from Salem va,,,, ;D
Welcome, J d 177. Cool. I have some parts. Ditto what Joe asked.
Quote from: oldmanjoe on January 19, 2025, 05:42:56 PMI would like to see more of what you did inside . Are you dragging another drive train on the other side ?
For the main drive, i installed the crosswind cam. Replaces the aluminum inner cam to a solid brass. I experienced way better line lay than stock.
Other than that, i replaced the bearing with an abec 5 from boca. Also, ht-100 drag stack. I bought the handle from a guy who machined delrin and sold his wares on eebay back in the day.
I inherited this reel from my pops who bought and used it as a lighthouse tender in Cape May, NJ during the 70's. He has loved watching it become something he'd never expected.
Quote from: thorhammer on January 19, 2025, 01:22:13 PMHey John! That's cool. We don't see a lot of customization of 302's on here, so that's good to se. I know they are out there, and the 302 is prevalent to work with.
We have an intro thread; pop over there and introduce yourself. Where are you and what are you using this for? Imma guess the Northeast for stripers :)
John
Although im not from the northeast, i absolutely got "hooked" from striper fishing in the bay area of California while working as a traveling electrician during the last decade. Ill definitely head over to intros. I was born and raised in Florida but i reside in central Oregon now but constantly travel for work.
Central Or...we got people there.....
Not much need for a 302 in Central OR. Have lived in K-falls, Bend and Summer Lake.
Where would one get a cross-wind cam?
I checked my parts. Do you leave in anything of the planetary gear system on the other main gear? That's what I have for both gears. Looks like the opposing small inner gear wouldn't fit with that little knob on there.
Quote from: Gfish on January 20, 2025, 02:33:45 AMNot much need for a 302 in Central OR. Have lived in K-falls, Bend and Summer Lake.
Where would one get a cross-wind cam?
I checked my parts. Do you leave in anything of the planetary gear system on the other main gear? That's what I have for both gears. Looks like the opposing small inner gear wouldn't fit with that little knob on there.
I use this for surfcasting for surf perch and stripers on the umpqua. I got my crosswind cam off ebay. I know they are available right now from "the fisher-man".
No need to keep anything but the main gear on the passive side.
Quote from: Gfish on January 20, 2025, 02:33:45 AMNot much need for a 302 in Central OR. Have lived in K-falls, Bend and Summer Lake.
Where would one get a cross-wind cam?
I checked my parts. Do you leave in anything of the planetary gear system on the other main gear? That's what I have for both gears. Looks like the opposing small inner gear wouldn't fit with that little knob on there.
Here is the completed interior of the passive side. No extra parts
Got it, thanks. I won't be drilling out any holes, though, raw aluminum will start the corrosion process.
Forgot to mention, when installing the passive side, to sync the dogs, you'll want to engage the main dog and reel back till it stops. Hold this position while doing the same on the passive side. You'll have to rotate the gear backwards by hand till it stops. Now you can press and screw the passive side plate on. This will insure that the double dogs are synced. When synced, and reeling, you'll hear one definitive click. To test, engage one dog and notice the handle movement between clicks. With both dogs engaged, the amount the handle is turned per click should match with one engaged.
Hope this makes sense.
I am not trying to be negative , the only thing I see positive is the second dog .
A second ring gear to sandwich the rotor pinion , is only going to mask a worn ball bearing and or the Oscillation slide and it`s shim . Am I missing something ?
Quote from: oldmanjoe on January 21, 2025, 04:44:35 AMI am not trying to be negative , the only thing I see positive is the second dog .
A second ring gear to sandwich the rotor pinion , is only going to mask a worn ball bearing and or the Oscillation slide and it`s shim . Am I missing something ?
My thinking is by surrounding the pinion by two gears 180° from each other, the axle has no option but to fall in line under heavy load. One fail point for this reel's past has been axle deflection under heavy loads (tarpon from piers). I cannot attest to these since i have only used this reel for 8 years and have never landed anything over 20lbs.. It was a solution for a problem that was mostly based on hearsay. But it definitely eliminates a potential weak point
Quote from: Johndixon177 on January 21, 2025, 05:51:55 AMQuote from: oldmanjoe on January 21, 2025, 04:44:35 AMI am not trying to be negative , the only thing I see positive is the second dog .
A second ring gear to sandwich the rotor pinion , is only going to mask a worn ball bearing and or the Oscillation slide and it`s shim . Am I missing something ?
My thinking is by surrounding the pinion by two gears 180° from each other, the axle has no option but to fall in line under heavy load. One fail point for this reel's past has been axle deflection under heavy loads (tarpon from piers). I cannot attest to these since i have only used this reel for 8 years and have never landed anything over 20lbs.. It was a solution for a problem that was mostly based on hearsay. But it definitely eliminates a potential weak point
I can visualize a scenario where some gear wear could actually create some binding and actually lock things up.
:D What I did over looked was the second gear tooth to help take up shock load with simultaneous dog engagement , provided everything is shimmed properly .
quote
I can visualize a scenario where some gear wear could actually create some binding and actually lock things up.
Yes there can be some gear climbing .
Quote from: Midway Tommy on January 21, 2025, 06:37:23 AMQuote from: Johndixon177 on January 21, 2025, 05:51:55 AMQuote from: oldmanjoe on January 21, 2025, 04:44:35 AMI am not trying to be negative , the only thing I see positive is the second dog .
A second ring gear to sandwich the rotor pinion , is only going to mask a worn ball bearing and or the Oscillation slide and it`s shim . Am I missing something ?
My thinking is by surrounding the pinion by two gears 180° from each other, the axle has no option but to fall in line under heavy load. One fail point for this reel's past has been axle deflection under heavy loads (tarpon from piers). I cannot attest to these since i have only used this reel for 8 years and have never landed anything over 20lbs.. It was a solution for a problem that was mostly based on hearsay. But it definitely eliminates a potential weak point
I can visualize a scenario where some gear wear could actually create some binding and actually lock things up.
I can see with any reel with gear wear that binding could become an issue. Using factory gear sets, that are basically good as new is any reels best bet. The ~3/8" left on the main drive shaft for the supplementary side is intentionally left to prevent binding. We can visualize anything, if it actualizes is another story
As expected, there are slight differences in my 3-reel collection. I have a '63 - 302, and James Peters(jgp12000), kindly sent me 2- reels with 302/402 parts probably from different era's, built by the Dearly Departed Keith(handi-2).
One that James sent me had a solid aluminum(alloy?)main gear with the built-in cross-wind knob. Prefect, right?, No. It probably would have worked, but I can't go with a steel rolled knob, pounded into the gear face. Probably a cheaper modern version. Don't know how much load is borne by the oscillating block/corresponding gear knob, but that rolled knob is unacceptable to me. I squeezed it with pliers and was able to eaisly work it out of the gear(picture). So, maybe go with the planetary oscillation system on the opposite side.
Other than that, gotta shave down the backside of the oscillation block as it is rubbing on the opposite-side main gear face. Onward...
I've read about this on a couple different forums. One guy did it with transparent side plates. The people who fished it seemed to really enjoy it.
The man
Quote from: Ron Jones on January 25, 2025, 03:37:39 AMI've read about this on a couple different forums. One guy did it with transparent side plates. The people who fished it seemed to really enjoy it.
The man
No doubt, as long as your components match manufacturing specs or excel them, this will make your old coffee grinder into a a coffee mill. I love it for casting, plugging and dunking baits for catfish. Has a many places based on your mainline. Never bound, never broke. All the more stable than the original. For those that find this years from now, do it and never look back 🤙
Quote from: Johndixon177 on January 21, 2025, 05:51:55 AMQuote from: oldmanjoe on January 21, 2025, 04:44:35 AMI am not trying to be negative , the only thing I see positive is the second dog .
A second ring gear to sandwich the rotor pinion , is only going to mask a worn ball bearing and or the Oscillation slide and it`s shim . Am I missing something ?
My thinking is by surrounding the pinion by two gears 180° from each other, the axle has no option but to fall in line under heavy load. One fail point for this reel's past has been axle deflection under heavy loads (tarpon from piers). I cannot attest to these since i have only used this reel for 8 years and have never landed anything over 20lbs.. It was a solution for a problem that was mostly based on hearsay. But it definitely eliminates a potential weak point
Quote from: Johndixon177 on January 26, 2025, 04:07:40 AMQuote from: Ron Jones on January 25, 2025, 03:37:39 AMI've read about this on a couple different forums. One guy did it with transparent side plates. The people who fished it seemed to really enjoy it.
The man
No doubt, as long as your components match manufacturing specs or excel them, this will make your old coffee grinder into a a coffee mill. I love it for casting, plugging and dunking baits for catfish. Has a many places based on your mainline. Never bound, never broke. All the more stable than the original. For those that find this years from now, do it and never look back 🤙
Thanks to the OP for posting this mod. It is definitely a fun idea. But like Joe, I am struggling to see the benefit beyond improving dog load (which assumes that dog load is the weakest link, or at least leads to greater gear wear).
Here is how I see it:
From a mechanical engineering standpoint, you are not supposed to use gears to maintain shaft alignment. That just destroys the gears. Secondly, if the oscillation shaft is bending enough to apply force on the hole in the pinion, that means that oscillation is binding, and the sliding assembly at the end of the shaft is also in trouble, and probably the crosswind too. We would be adressing the wrong problem.
On a spinning reel with this type of design, the pinion has its own hollow shaft that is supported by the frame, not much if any from the oscillation shaft. If there is too much pinion shaft freeplay to maintain proper gear alignment under load, then trying to maintain alignment with a counter load (resistance from the idler main) only has the potential to help when the line load on the rotor is on the horizontal plane. When the line roller is up or down, you are not putting any load against the idler. This means that any potential benefit against load from the fish side will come and go while you are winding, and would not be in effect when not winding if the roller on the bail is at the top or bottom of rotation. In fact in these positions you are more likely to be wedging the teeth and jamming them a bit, leading to wear.
In terms of load from the winding side, these type of gears will cause the main to tend to push the pinion up or down (depending on the rotational direction), and not outward against the idler main, unless there is too much freeplay in the handle shaft- which also will only load the idler at for a small portion of the rotation.. So not much help here.
It is less likely but possible that there is some other benefit, such as load sharing against dog resistance helping to keep the main gear better aligned.
The first step to knowing if a modification is useful is to determine if it is needed. Usually this means a track record of a common failure is given situation, or at least a very obvious design or manufacturing issue/limitation.
Once you have a modification, you don't really know it it addressed the problem without pushing the assembly past the point of the original failure. And even then, there is the possibility of a new issue.
This type of testing tends to be destructive, so most of us don't do it, and that is mostly OK. We are modifying fishing reels and not nuclear power plants. But we might not want to get too enthusiastic about a modification when there is a shortage of important data.
Again, a really fun modification, and it sounds like it hasn't made the reel noticeably worse after a decent amount of usage. I would just argue thst the jury should still be out on the benefits.
-J
Ok, ok. The jury, mostly several "Nattering nabob's of negativism"(vice Pres. Spiro Agnew, 1970, my personal American political hero), is "still out on the benefits". But it sounds like J.D.177 has used his for 8 years(unless I interpreted his post wrong) and he really likes it.
So maybe a stress test is needed. Perhaps put some heavy line on it and then tighten the drag as far as I can without breaking something in that system, and see. Most of the work might be in securing the reel for the test. I have a lower 1/2 of a Penn Ugly Stick surf rod(BWS-1100) I found(guy prolly busted the tip section and tossed it, "one man's trash..."), that I can use.
More latter...
The rig.
I'm thinking; pound a spike type rod holder into the lawn, spool-up some 80lb. mono, and proceed. My digital scale only goes to 35lb., though.
I kept the right-side gear shaft and side-plate housing intact, not wanting to cut it in case of an earlier than anticipated failure.
I don't want to break the reel, but I have a complete 302 and 2-mix and match 302/402's. I know, it's pseudo-science, but it's the only kind I can do! JGP12000 if you're reading this what do you think? Are you ok with it? Would Keith approve?
Any guesstimates on what will fail first?
Quote from: Gfish on January 29, 2025, 06:21:49 PMOk, ok. The jury, mostly several "Nattering nabob's of negativism"(vice Pres. Spiro Agnew, 1970, my personal American political hero), is "still out on the benefits". But it sounds like J.D.177 has used his for 8 years(unless I interpreted his post wrong) and he really likes it.
So maybe a stress test is needed. Perhaps put some heavy line on it and then tighten the drag as far as I can without breaking something in that system, and see. Most of the work might be in securing the reel for the test. I have a lower 1/2 of a Penn Ugly Stick surf rod(BWS-1100) I found(guy prolly busted the tip section and tossed it, "one man's trash..."), that I can use.
More latter...
The laws of physics are what they are. Hard earned mechanical engineering best practices are what they are. They don't care if you find them a downer.
The OP has a clever mod, and I think it is worth exploring how effective it might be.
Lots of folk here do modifications that they believe in, but haven't tested enough to provide a high level of confidence that there is an actual net benefit. The whole double/triple dogging adventure comes to mind.
Sal was the only custom modder here who did much of this kind of testing, since it often requires breaking reels. Unexpected results were not uncommon.
I think we should encourage folks that want to share their modifications with us. It would be unreasonable to expect destructive testing. All modification sharing is good as long as we can also have a respectful discussion on potential issues.
———
If you personally want to test this particular modification, you would need to find something that was not working as desired on the stock reel and then show an improvement with the modification, along with some general testing to help verify that there are no undesirable side effects.
As the OP has highlighted, we do not exactly have a solid example of any undesirable behavior, just some unverified general claim of "axle deflection" without a specific damage description.
So your first step is to find something that needs fixing. If it the undesirable behavior turns out to be part failure or excessive wear (which is the usual case), you will have to bust a few reels or at least a few parts in this process.
If you check with Fred, he might have seen enough 302s that came in broken or worn to have an opinion on what a potential problem area is on these reels other than general corrosion. That will give you an idea of where to start.
Next step is to duplicate the failure, preferably more than once.
Now you can test again to find out if the modification addresses this issue, hopefully without having to destroy a few more reels in the process.
Again, I don't think that the OP is obligated to do any of this. I really appreciate that they took the time to share an interesting mod with us.
-J
No matter the result, i am excited to see anyone testing the mod. No joke, love the dedication in this thread. I sent the internal mods and specs to my older brother who is a marine/mech engineer for a giant cruise line to get his opinion.
Ok, Dave. The scientific method you've outlined sounds right to me. However, I don't have the resources or the DESIRE to break parts in several stock and modified reels. So I'll do something I'm kind of leary of doing anyway and see what happens, once. I'm interested in how much stress relative to the real fishing world, it can take and which part(s) will fail.
I have NO political hero's, not even historically. That was(vailed I guess?) sarcasm. VP S.A. Was accused of kick-back bribery that took place before he was VP and pushed into resigning from the Nixon Administration. He was latter convicted. He had a great speech writer though. That triple "n" statement was my favorite. Political genius IMO to gain attention and notoriety using statements like that.
So I'm kidding about the "nattering nabob's of negativity" on this thread. I should have at least used one of those emoji's.
This thread maybe should go into the spinning reel tutorial section.
Nice of you to offer Greg.
I'm not sure that there is a useful way to proceed with testing without a known pattern of failures. And not sure that a somewhat more robust version of this old and somewhat large reel design is something that many folk would get excited about. The basic design kind of limits its ultimate potential.
If you decide to keep going, you might want to consider drag at different oscillation and rotational positions in addition to winding against load (and what ratio of winding load to drag load to use)
If you like your 302s, I hesitate to encourage you to beat them up.
-J
I am glad Jurelometer takes the time to type out his response . I agree with him on his assessment !
There is no reason to try and break a reel . Tell us what part you want to break and we can give you the recipe .
The most overlooked is the sloppy handle bushing . 2-5 thousand in the east to west movement and the gear train heads South .
Best reason in the world Joe; cause I CAN!... But,... no,... I can't. Not yet at least. Loaded it with 80lb. mono, stretched pretty tight for mono and hand-wrapped with slightly diagonal loops on the spool, to prevent the line from digging in. Found a perfect rod holder.
Dave's thinking about testing at different winding loads and oscillation positions was excellent, but as is my tendency when there's more than about 3 variables, I forgot completely about it. Next time. Only did static one position tests. Spool about 3/4 of the way down of it's full movement.
Tested my 35# scale to failure, got it to read #40, pulled harder and broke the line. 2nd try, broke the scale. No-scale tests repeatedly with the line wrapped around a hammer handle resulted in line breakage every time. My best guess is that the breakage occurred at the line guide(only used the one bottom guide). I'd guess the line is breaking at about 60lbs pressure based on earlier use of the weight scale.
Gonna need some 80 or 100 lb. braid.
The reel feels and sounds fine, however, the rotor seems more wobbly than before.
The drag locks down better than I thought it would.
Working on these reels, I've noticed the rotor/pinion ball bearing is on the small side. Height, outside diameter, race thickness, ball size; all too small. This reel has a large rotor and spool.
The 80# mono is no good, maybe too old.
Pictures: 1) safety first, the gloves proved well worth it, only slight pain in my knuckles from the line snap-back.
2) no more digital scale
3) the shorter piece was pressure breakage, the longer was a scissors cut.
4) metal pipe holder rubbing on the stem/seat
5) & 6), ready to test...
Good job on the safety glasses!
Your testing did yield some useful data:
1. Evidence that anti-reverse (dog/ratchet) failure may not be a top concern.
2. Evidence that the stem on the frame can handle higher loads, at least for shorter intervals. That bend in the stem concentrates load and is a point of failure under load for other classic spinners.
3. A possibility that the roter assembly might be the first point of failure under drag load. It looks to me like there is just a single ball bearing that keeps the rotor aligned. The bearing pocket in the frame could get deformed, but it would be more likely that the angular load on the ball bearing would trash the bearing. One other possibility is that the rotor is no longer secured tightly against the pinion.
Maximum drag setting is not as interesting to me as maximum useful (smooth) drag setting, so still an open question here.
IMHO, this starts to point to winding load as the probable weak link, which seems to be the case for spinning reels as general category. Conventional reels as well, but usually conventional reels are a bit more robust for winding vs. drag load.
I think it is useful to think of maximum winding load as a percentage of maximum drag load. At lighter settings this would be 100%, such as the case with freshwater fishing where we can occasionally be turning the handle and not taking line), but at the higher end, it can be too difficult to wind against something like 30 lbs of drag, especially with a single speed reel with high gear ratio. You could play with the reel at different drag settings and figure out what a practical winding load maximum is for this reel.
If you can wind under what you decide is the max practical winding load (make sure that you are winding in line- not a drag slip test) without breaking anything, then we have some evidence of the stock reel's ability to handle short term load. If it fails, then we have some evidence for what to look at to potentially improve it.
The next step would be simulating long term usage under heavy load. Long drag runs then winding it all back in under load. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat...
Not suggesting that you do all this, just spelling out the process as I see it.
The first steps that you have taken are already useful.
-J