Hi All, reading through Joe's recent thread on frog positioning, the discussion touched lightly on the benefit of the thicker blades and chipbreakers on new planes (LN/LV). I was wondering if those of you with experience in this matter can speak to the benefits of using a thicker blade in an older plane (with old chipbreaker), and whether there is an appreciable improvement in performance if a newer chipbreaker is added as well?
Thanks in advance.
There is a benefit to better blades for older planes but thicker irons and chip breakers require irreversible alterations to the older plane that I am unwilling to make: opening the mouth of the plane and replacing the adjuster with one that can fit through the extra thickness of the blade and cap iron. Irons from Hock do not require alterations, in most cases, so I have used them. The reason I don't like to alter old tools is that once you do you can't go back to using the original blade/cap iron combo.
[QUOTE=Hasin Haroon;2700435]Hi All, reading through Joe's recent thread on frog positioning, the discussion touched lightly on the benefit of the thicker blades and chipbreakers on new planes (LN/LV). I was wondering if those of you with experience in this matter can speak to the benefits of using a thicker blade in an older plane (with old chipbreaker), and whether there is an appreciable improvement in performance if a newer chipbreaker is added as well?
Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE
Hasin,
Not much to be gained with thicker iron and chip breakers other than you can find them....Good Record and Stanley cutter sets are getting hard to find and are a crap shoot off eBay. The Stanley chip breaker on Stanley irons can not be bettered, the newer chip breakers work well on thicker irons, not so much on thin irons. The thinner high carbon cutters bring a lot to the table, first they fit, they are easier and quicker to sharpen with any method and they are easier to camber than thick irons. In use with a sharp iron you can not tell the difference between thick or thin. While I have some Hock cutter sets in my older planes when I can find good vintage sets I prefer them. We've been sold a bit of BS on the advantages of heavy, thick and A2.
Older thick lamented irons with a thin hard high carbon cutting layer and a thicker soft layer are another story but they do not fit metal planes :).
Of course YMMV.
ken
My experience is that the biggest improvement you can make to an antique plane is to put a modern, thicker iron in the plane. I only have my own experience to go by on that - I can't offer any scientific explanation for why it works better than the original iron.
Most modern replacement irons are thicker and I don't know it that's the reason they work better or if the steel is better. But a modern iron will greatly improve the performance of an antique plane.
Mike
[If the original chip breaker is good, I haven't found a lot of improvement in putting a modern chip breaker on an old plane with a modern iron.]
A long long time ago (must have been pre 2012 ;-)) I was having troubles with skipping on hard wood. Skipping is the stuttering start of a plane stroke. Somewhat different from chatter which can happen anywhere during a plane stroke and usually means a defect in the plane. Back then I invested in a thicker blade. Since I learned that setting the capiron a lot closer to the edge, bedding the iron fully so it also rests on the back of the mouth and especially better planing technique, helped greatly to avoid skipping. I am now mostly back to the original blades and I am happy with them. Especially the older Stanley blades are perfectly allright.
Those original blades have a treat. They are not too hard. That means they don't fail early due to chipping, they just smootly wear away. They are not made of super steel, but the kinds of wood I use and the oilstones I use make a perfect combination with the older Stanley blades I have.
Anfd the old Stanley chipbreakers are fine too. After they have been properly fitted to the cutting blade.
Mike,Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Henderson
I've in fact done the opposite and put a thin Tsunasaburo laminated iron into a plane that would normally take a heavier iron. The result was to my preference.
Great responses (meaning, they affirm my experience thus far) to the OP question. I'm not willing to alter vintage planes, either; but, I have swapped out a vintage blade with a LV or Hock replacement blade while keeping the old chip breaker. This works just fine for me. At the same time, many of the vintage blades work well, too. Too often, I buy a new tool only to learn what good performance is, then realize that same level with the vintage planes. Paul Sellers continually affirms the abiding value of the vintage Stanley's (and others). At the same time, I truly like my LN and/or LV purchases, too.
i got a 5-1/2 stanley with a used up blade. i replaced it with a tapered, laminated blade made for a wood body plane. there was considerable fettling to make it work. the result is a plane that feels a bit different in the cut but produces the same result. I wouldn't do it again.
Most of my irons are on the thick side simply because I've "invested" in newer planes, but I also have a couple Stanleys with original irons. My experience is the same as Brian and a couple other's who's spoken up: When property tuned the thin irons perform every bit as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Holcombe
I only have a few projects with hand planes under my belt, and very much appreciate the experience and perspectives of others. All of my planes are refurbished Stanley's and until last week, I had used one Hock blade and otherwise original irons in all of my planes. I had acceptable results in all applications except for figured woods where I experienced tear out.
As many have stated, they have been able to enjoy great success with original irons, even in figured wood. Setting the chip breaker super close to the edge of the iron didn't cure my problems.
My first attempt to use the thicker iron and chip breaker in my No. 4 required that I back up the frog. I backed it off further than necessary. I did wind up taking a few light passes with a file on both the front and back-side of the mouth and moved the frog forward so that the thicker blade is bedded fully on the frog ramp. I was encouraged by the results obtained using the new blade and chip breaker, but also challenged to revisit the challenge of getting similar results with the old blade.
So back to the water stones with the original iron (Norton 1000 -> 4000 -> 8000). I also spent some time tuning the chip breaker to make sure that it seats well on the iron.
Using the same plane with both irons on the same piece of red oak with an ugly knot and some cascading grain I got comparable results. I honestly can't tell the difference. The science tells me that the PM-V11 iron is going to retain an edge much longer than the original iron. I haven't used it enough to know to have personal experience but I expect it to be so.
While the iron adjuster lever doesn't protrude all the way through the thicker chip breaker, it engages sufficiently to adjust the iron depth - at least on my number 4. I haven't tried the blade in the No. 5.
So to all of those who advocated for sticking with the original equipment - I'm a believer.
And for all of those who claim the thicker irons and chip breakers make a difference - I'm a believer.
So I guess in the religion of plane irons and chip breakers this make me an inter-denominationalist?
The PM-V11 blade and new chip breaker are in the plane now. My 14 year old has some work to do in the days ahead in white oak for his 4-H wood working project, so the journey continues.
I'm just saying...
Attachment 362452
At a Tool Event at the Crucible in Oakland, CA Ron Hock expressed an opinion about his blades. He said, "people aren't buying this" while pointing at a blade, "they are buying this," while pointing at a freshly planed surface. Many of the old Stanley blades are fine. The biggest problem is the inconsistency in their hardness. Next would be if they have a lot of light pitting.
Then there is a simple rule of physics. There will be more of a dampening of vibration with a thicker blade. This will make a plane feel different in use.
One of the biggest factors may be the improvements in metallurgy. Modern blades may be better at holding an edge during use.
jtk
Hi Jim
I agree with you. The damping factor of thicker blades is real.
I suspect, however, that this is more apparent - and more useful - when the chipbreaker is not closed up, or the bed of the plane is not fully supporting the blade.
Thick blades have been around a long time ... on woodies and infills, and many of these used chipbreakers as well. Obviously there was a perceived advantage to using thick blades 150 years ago. This perception transferred to Stanley planes when the replacement market opened up. Not that the blades were that much thicker - it was not until LN began making their planes that blades returned to the days of infills. Again, I think that there was this perception that "thicker is better".
I have used a wide range of blades in my Stanleys and, indeed, in my LNs, and the thickness factor does have a limit where it becomes a non-issue. For example, I think that most would be hard pressed to find an advantage in a 3/16" thick blade over a 1/8" thick blade. My LN #3 is used with a PM-V11 blade, and this is thinner than the original A2 blade, which I recall as 1/8". There is no difference in damping (with the chipbreaker pulled back).
The other factor that cannot be ignored is that new replacement blades from Veritas and Hock are flatter and more reliable steel than vintage Stanley blades, which may be overheated, warped and abused, and in short supply.
Regards from Perth
Derek
A qualified yes. I added Hock blades and chipbreakers to my Sweetheart era users and it was an immediate improvement.
Ken, Verbatim.