What is the normal practice for setting a hand plane's frog and mouth opening? Close it up until chips jam then back off a bit? I've never seen anything in writing that addresses this.
[OP]
Member
What is the normal practice for setting a hand plane's frog and mouth opening? Close it up until chips jam then back off a bit? I've never seen anything in writing that addresses this.
Guest
set it up in line with the casting. It should leave a mouth that is fairly open, but not a quarter of an inch or so.
If you need tearout control, then use the cap iron to do it - it's much more effective than the mouth is and it doesn't leave you suspending the iron over open space like will happen with some frogs that are moved forward.
If you look up information that is more than two years old or so about setting the frog of the plane, it will probably be incorrect, or to those who take offense to me saying that it's incorrect that if not incorrect, the advice will at least be suboptimal and keep you from meeting red green's requirement of at least being handy if you're not handsome.
Last edited by David Weaver; 07-08-2014 at 5:17 PM.
Contributor
+1 on what David said.
My usual way to set a frog on pre-type 10 planes is to set the blade on the frog to align the back of the mouth with the face of the frog.
If the mouth hasn't been filed this usually leaves a sufficiently tight mouth for most situations.
Moving the frog forward to tighten the mouth leaves some of the blade unsupported. This can lead to the vibrations most woodworkers know as chatter.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
there are three ways to make a plane not tear out.
1 increase cutting angle
2 decrease the mouth
3 close chipbreaker
bailey pattern planes are designed to be able to use #2 or #3. in my shop, #3 works better.
Hope this is not off topic...
I just won a vintage plane auction, min bid on a Sargent #414, under $10. I am currently cleaning up the parts. The frog on this plane appears to be relatively rough, the surfaces and edges having quite large grinding scratches and chips missing from the frog's leading edge. There is also something black, appears to be paint splatter, probably dating to the planes manufacture. I am wondering if I should spend the time to smooth surfaces and improve the leading edge? I suspect that doing so might be wasted time unless the "rough" frog seems to adversely affect the position of the blade & chip breaker as the frog is not touching the work only setting the position of the blade & chip breaker. Still, now that I have it in pieces and have the gear at hand to clean and smooth the other surfaces I am thinking that at least cleaning the black material off should help the blade to lay flatter and steadier.
Contributor
Mike,
As always, pictures help to tell us what you are questioning.
My tendency is to only address that which needs to be addressed. If the blade is fully seating and the frog to sole fit is good then if it bothers me some cosmetic work might be done.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Jim,
Here is a picture. Compared to the Record, Paragon and certainly the Veritas planes I have, the surfaces and edge on this frog are very rough. It has occurred to me that someone might have done work to it after it was manufactured. The paint certainly could be from someone trying to repair it or dress it up for sale. The edge of the frog is my main concern. Not sure that the picture shows how rough/chipped the edge is. My attempt to do a close up does not show much more. That leading edge is also at least 1/16" out of square. If I grind the edge square I will loose 1/16- 1/8" of the frog which might create another problem. Also the frog is marked #409 and it is on a 414 plane. Although, I believe I have seen frogs for 414 planes in pictures that were stamped with both a 409 and 414 on the frog.
IMG_0144.JPG
IMG_0142.jpg
Last edited by Mike Holbrook; 07-11-2014 at 9:40 PM.
Member
I am not any kind of expert on sargent planes, but don't the 409 and the 414 use the same frog? like the stanley 4 and 5?Originally Posted by Mike Holbrook
I suspect those part #'s were swappable too Bridger. I have been a Veritas and wood plane guy until I recently decided to try a couple old classic planes. All the pictures I have seen, which is not many, show 414 planes with 414 or 414 & 409 marked on the frog. Mine is the only 414 I have seen with a frog marked with only 409. In my research into manufacture date and specific parts of my plane I have found reason to wonder if all the parts in my plane are from the same plane or manufacture date. My real question has to do with how rough and out of square the front edge of the frog is. The fact that the front edge of the frog is out of square to the sides is my largest concern.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote