Are the thin Stanley irons as bad as I think?

[Jim Koepke]

Most notorious is my 4 1/2 which simply refuses to take a consistent cut. I really want to like it, but it's making it hard on me. I think it needs a hock.

My #4-1/2, type 6, makes a much better and more consistent cut since the sole was lapped.

I have used both Hock blades and Stanley blades in most of my Stanley bench planes. The thickness of the Hock blade does dampen the feel during the cut. My Hock blades are the High Carbon version. The A2 may retain the edge longer, I do not have experience with them.

A lot of my Stanley blades have been bears to get flat backs. Even I will use the ruler trick on some of these. Many times the problem is not with the original manufacturing of the blade, but the last user 50 - 100 years ago who put it away after taking some shavings off of damp wood that left a bundle of rust and pitting all over the blade.

It is possible in an untuned plane, the stiffness of the thicker iron may be able to improve performance. The thicker blade is most likely just covering up some of the short comings of a plane that has not been optimized for its best performance.

A lot of problems can be caused by the chip breaker. A chip breaker making contact only in the center may allow a blade to resonate, which translates into chatter. There are a lot of things going on in the world of physics in relation to how far from the cutting edge the chip breaker is seated.

If the chip breaker is bent to increase its spring, it can lift the blade to the point of not seating properly on the frog. This can decrease performance. Having the frog set too far back can cause a similar situation. I have seen many frogs that suffered from pitting or poor machining. A proper lapping of the frog's face and bedding can also improve performance.

I do find the Hock HC blades slightly better than Stanley blades. The Hock chip breaker is a much better chip breaker than the Stanley chip breaker. A properly tuned Stanley chip breaker will perform as well as the Hock. Some times better is not just the end performance, but the quality of the item. I do not foresee having to tune many Hock chip breakers.

jim

[Russell Sansom]

I have a corrugated Bedrock 608 with a stock iron and it has served me well for several decades. I always felt that I lucked onto a special iron because it would keep a usable edge forever. After reading this thread I might guess that it's because I take very thin shavings most of the time.
I've found Stanley irons vary quite a bit in how they feel on the stone and how they hold an edge. We're probably spoiled a little by the consistency of the state of the art blades coming out of Hock, Lie-Nielsen, etc.

[Terry Beadle]

I would recommend upgrading the blade in the jointer ( #7 or #8 ) as this plane should be set to take shavings of 4 thou to 6 thou. The smoother usually takes a shaving of 2 thou or less. The jointer should be used to remove most of the wood to level the board and the smoother used only for a few strokes to do the final tear out tuning.

C. Schwartz, in his video Coarse, Medium and Fine details this regimen as the way to go. Since the jointer will do most of the work, it should get a blade upgrade first. The standard Stanley blade can be used as is in the smoother and doesn't need much more than stropping for most work sessions as it is not used as much.

However, if you use your Bedrock 605 or 606 to do the majority of stock removal then upgrade it first.

All the above being said, I highly recommend the Hock, LN, or the Clifton High Carbon blade upgrades for all your planes. They are simply worth it. IMO.

[James Taglienti]

I have to disagree... I can understand wanting a nice, thick, consistent shaving from a jointer... however most of us are jointing wood 1 1/4" or less and this narrow width doesn't seem to put as much stress on the iron as a full width smoother shaving. However I agree that blade dipping and chatter is unacceptable in a jointer. Upgrading the iron in a jack plane has always seemed like the last move, at least to me, since it is a hog and surface quality and consistency is not utmost.

Nothing can ruin a surface and an ego like a chattering or inconsistent smoother... behavior that is almost unnoticeable or ignorable in a jack can become a big problem in a #4.

[Jim Belair]

Several of you have referred to the LN or Hock replacement irons. No one has mention the LV irons. Are they less effective replacements? I can't recall but the LVs may be thinner than LN & Hock with the advantage of fewer fit problems but then less added beef also. I think they are .095. LV catalog says they are "17% thicker" which doesn't seem like much- but is it enough?

Jim B

PS I also agree- smoother highest priority for iron upgrade.

[David Weaver]

Several of you have referred to the LN or Hock replacement irons. No one has mention the LV irons. Are they less effective replacements? I can't recall but the LVs may be thinner than LN & Hock with the advantage of fewer fit problems but then less added beef also. I think they are .095. LV catalog says they are "17% thicker" which doesn't seem like much- but is it enough?

Jim B

PS I also agree- smoother highest priority for iron upgrade.

The LV irons are similar for the A2, i don't know if there are HCS available as stanley replacement irons. LV's HCS are not hardened to as hard as Hock's.

I have one of the A2 LV irons in a jack plane, and it works fine.

The thing that makes hock my go-to is that you can always get them cheap at craftsman studio, they always arrive pretty fast (across the country here) without having to pay for shipping.

[Orlando Gonzalez]

Dave,

Lets say that, for whatever the reason, you couldn't get both the Hock blade and chipbreaker. What would be the better combination:

Hock blade/Stanley chipbreaker or Stanley blade/Hock chipbreaker,

given that the blades are properly tuned/sharpened/honed and chipbreakers are also properly tuned.

Thanks

[Joel Goodman]

I would say go for the blade, if you can only get the blade or the chipbreaker. A Stanley chipbreaker properly tuned will be fine. Also if you don't mind opening up the mouth you can get thicker blades then the usual .095" replacements from either LN (get the blades made for their planes -- 1/8th") or Tools for Working Wood (Ray Isles carbon steel-- just shy of 1/8th") for about the same $ as the .095" blades.

[David Weaver]

That's a good question.

I'm not sure which one contributes more to the performance of the plane over stock - probably the iron since a stanley chipbreaker set up well works nicely. They (the stanley chipbreakers) just always seem to me to be the part of the pair that's in worse shape when I get an old plane.

My personal preference, in order to have an iron that lasts as long as possible, would be to buy the iron if the stanley chipbreaker I had didn't require too much work to get set right. I just don't like having to take the whole works apart to sharpen the iron more than I have to - inevitably, it's always dull right when you're 90% done with something, too.

If I had a damaged chipbreaker, or a really mangled one, I would get the chipbreaker first, though, or you'd be forced to set the plane up with the bad chipbreaker up and out of the way do that chips didn't get stuck in it. I think the old style chipbreaker like hock uses is a lot easier to set up properly than a stanley chipbreaker that someone honed improperly or beat up.

I have a buddy who likes the combination of millers falls irons and hock chipbreakers - even above hock and hock.

[Glen Canaday]

I'll say that the MF irons are good, but I have never had a chatter issue with them or even with the stock Stanley. Albeit, I have never used a new Stanley iron.