New old pig sticker arrived

[lowell holmes]

(quote) "+1 on making sure the flat sides are at right angles. If they're properly registering, they'll cut straight."

Now you have me confused. My Ray Ailes pig stickers are not perfectly rectangular. They are slightly trapezoidal in shape. The back of the chisel is slightly narrower than the front of the chisel.

I also have Lie Nielsen mortise chisels, however I prefer the pig stickers, but then I don't do as many mortises as you guys do.

[Mike Henderson]

Oy. I don't really want to relitigate this issue for the twentieth time, but I'll make one quick observation.
Your definition of "superior" is based exclusively on edge retention. But there are other measures. "Gets sharper" would seem to me to be more important, and "easy to sharpen" is pretty high on my list.
I think maybe when people develop sharpening routines based on tormeks and worksharps and complicated honing jigs, they come to view sharpening as a difficult and unpleasant task that should be put off as long as possible. So they gravitate toward steels like A2 that allow them to put it off as long as possible, and edge retention becomes the holy grail.
If you instead develop a quick effective routine, sharpening is just a brief and not unpleasant pause in the work, and edge retention drops far into last place as a concern

It's all in what you want. As I said much earlier, if antique steel works for you, God bless you - use it.

I find that the new LV chisels sharpen as quickly as antique chisels, get as sharp and hold an edge longer.

Mike

[Derek Cohen]

Warren, if I were home at this time (I am in Cape Town at present), I would head off to my workshop and make a comparison of the two chisels bevel angles. I see pro and cons each way, but this is just theoretical conjecture since I have always used a mortice chisel with a 20 degree primary bevel. That is, over the past 15 - 20 years.

What are the pros and cons as I suspect? From a wedging perspective, a 30 degree primary should enable one to take a thicker chip/slice. The con is that the depth of the chip will not be as deep as the chisel with the shallower primary. A 20 degree bevel will penetrate deeper but not wedge as strongly.

The technique I follow is to first drill a hole at one end, and then take 1/8" thick chips and chop as deeply as possible. This is the method suggested by Maynard. In this case, chopping a mortice is all about penetration and less about wedging.

Indeed, Moxon says something similar. According to a paraphrase from Chris Schwarz, he reported:

" Moxon's technique .... You start with the chisel 1/8" from the end of your mortise with the bevel facing away from you and the handle tipped slightly toward you. Drive the chisel into the work until it won’t go any further. Do the same at the far end of the mortise. Then work your way between the two cuts, back and forth, in the same manner. ". http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/cSchwarz/mortChisel/mortChis3.asp

Anyone here willing to compare 20- and 30- degree chisels?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

The chisel also has the shape with the bevel side being slightly narrower than the back.

This is common on mortise chisels. The trapezoid sides are supposed to keep the chisel from becoming stuck when working a deep mortise.

Some have squared sides. My recollection is those are called "registered" mortise chisels.

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

I don't think Moxon ever saw a joiner make a mortise. He makes a lame excuse for putting the joinery section before the carpentry section. I think the real reason was so he could move the mortising chapter from the carpentry chapter to joinery and bolster what is still one of his weaker efforts. Moxon thought mortises were made the same way by joiners as by carpenters.

In the joinery chapter, Moxon describes making a one inch wide mortise on the broad side of a quarter. A quarter is a stud, a 2X4 in a house frame. This is very different from making a 5/16 mortise in a furniture or wainscot frame, which would be more typical joiner's work.

[Derek Cohen]

Warren, my apology - I should not have mentioned Moxon as this confuses the issue. It is Maynard I was pointing to, whose technique emphasises penetration rather than wedging. Penetration favours a lower primary bevel. Your thoughts?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

Forty years ago when I started with mortise chisels some recommended a 35 degree bevel on mortise chisels for edge retention. They were full flat bevels. My chisels were around 30 and I thought I would gradually raise the bevel as I sharpened them. However for some reason I found it hard to raise the chisel enough to accomplish this and never got above 31. I now use about 30; you don't want to abuse the edge.

When a guy talks about "penetration" you have to wonder how much he knows about mortising. Mortising is about wedging, not penetration. Of course the Japanese use the same method we do.

Yes the 20 degree bevel is a modern idea. It is counter productive because you want to ride the bevel and you need a heel. If Joel Moskowitz ever did historical research on mortise chisels I have not seen any evidence of it. Here is another historic drawing:
Attachment 311074

I had a really tough time making a mortise with a chisel until I put that together, now I can move through them fairly quickly.

[Steve Voigt]

Thanks for all the replies, guys. Steve was correct that the current bevel is 35 degrees. Just re-measured. It has a slight rounded secondary. The chisel also has the shape with the bevel side being slightly narrower than the back. I'm going to follow Steve's advice and work with the shape as it is. The edge needs to be squared up first.

Did some Googling after posting my question and ran across some other thoughts. Derek a few years back suggested not doing a hollow grind. My Baldor has seven inch wheels. Not recommended? And--English Bolstered Mortise Chisel it is. Some folks thought the "pigsticker" name was coined by Patrick Leach of Blood and Gore fame.

If you find the 35* too steep, it's not hard to back off a little, or even add a 20* primary if that's your preference.
It's interesting, Warren mentioned that he found it hard to steepen the bevel (grinding by hand, presumably). I've found this too, and I believe it's because 90% of the surface area of the bevel is soft steel or wrought iron, which abrades more quickly. The extreme version of this (which I have experienced, unfortunately) is that if you don't pay attention to the tip, you can be rubbing the bevel all day and never getting a burr, because you're only abrading the soft stuff and making the bevel shallower. Damikt.

On hollow grinding--the main issue is just that the bevel is so big that if you try to hollow grind in the usual way, you will get an ENORMOUS hollow. You can also try grinding with the chisel on its side, but then you get a hollow from side to side.
If you want to try flat bevel and the chisel currently has a convex bevel, you might want to hit it very lightly on the grinder, just enough to remove the bulge, so the chisel sits flat and will register easily.

[Warren Mickley]

I am sorry I am not familiar with Maynard. If there is too much penetration with a thin chisel it is difficult to remove the chisel without abusing the edge, chipping or bending. Mortise chisels are thick at the bevel for a reason and thinning it down here is taking away the advantage. If there is no real heel to the chisel it is difficult to remove chips.

[Noah Wagener]

I recall Leonard Lee writing that if you use a low primary angle you need to make sure the secondary extends past the lamination line or the bit could separate from the body of the chisel.