Anyone using a Stanley 5 1/4??

[Patrick Chase]

Veritas sells a No. 5 1/4W for $249 which I've found tempting. Here's how they compare it to the Stanley 5 1/4:

"Our #5-1/4W differs from the original [Stanley] in many ways – mainly, ours has a wider blade and the mouth is 4-3/8" behind the nose, unlike the original at 3-1/2". For better accuracy, an extra-long sole in front of the blade makes it easier to keep the sole flush to the wood when starting a cut. Combined, the mouth location and sensitive feed adjustment let the #5-1/4W serve as a jointer for most cabinet work.

I have the Veritas 5-1/4W and have used a 5-1/4. They are VERY different planes, with different strengths and weaknesses.

Probably the biggest difference is that the Veritas is uniquely proportioned. All Veritas planes are proportioned with the mouth set a bit further back than usual, but the 5-1/4W is extreme in that regard even by their standards. IMO that makes it great for work where you want the plane accurately registered on the piece before you start cutting (when using it as a junior jointer for example) but it makes for very different handling.

Also, the Veritas uses a 2" blade just like the #5, so it isn't any easier to push than a full-blown Jack. In contrast the 5-1/4 has a 1-3/4" blade like the #3.

You can think of the 5-1/4W as either a long-toed #4 or short-heeled #5, whereas the 5-1/4 is basically a scaled-down (in all dimensions) #5.

[Michael Ray Smith]

I use a 5 1/4 as my scrub plane. I added a thicker, cambered blade. No idea what the radius is because I just eyeballed it, but it's not nearly as tight as the blade on a No. 40. I had to open the mouth with the file just a bit to get the blade to fit and to allow clearance for thicker chips, probably so little that most people probably wouldn't notice it. I had a No. 40 before. I switched because I could sell the No. 40 for more than I had to put into the 5 1/4 plus the new blade. As it turns out, I like the 5 1/4 for that purpose better than the No. 40. Some people criticize the No. 40 for being so light, and now that I've switched, I have to agree with them.

[James W Glenn]

I've got a couple some. Their nice for a tool box plane and off the bench boat work. I've seen a number of old rosewood and lignum vite shipwright planes of the same general proportions.

[Curtis Niedermier]

So on Saturday I went back to the store that had the plane that sparked the initial post for this thread. I've rethought my original evaluation of the tool. It's salvagable, but it's missing the iron and lever cap. Finding a new iron isn't too big of a deal. But when I checked eBay (best source I could think of) to see what a lever cap would cost, there weren't many for that size for sale. Looks like I'd expect to pay $30 or so. Honestly, I figure I'll eventually find a complete 5 1/4 in decent shape and can probably get it for about that price. So I think I'll hold off.

I did pick up a handful of cool other tools. I got two sets of brand new Starrett dividers still in the original box. They're only about 3 1/2 inches tall, and the points are wicked sharp. They stuck in my thumb and I didn't even know it. I found another box with a combo of one set of brand new Starrett dividers and a brand new inside caliper, about the same size but slightly longer. There were a few other Starrett tools that I passed up. The store bought out an estate that belonged to, I believe, a guy who taught metalworking and was a hobby machinist, and a hobby photographer with his own dark room. There was some cool stuff. I filled a milk crate with odd and end small pieces.

[steven c newman]

A lever cap for a #3 works just fine. Go to nhplaneparts.com Eric might even have a few....

[Jeffrey Martel]

I've got one. Got it for free, actually. It does OK, but it's a post WWII version, so not the greatest. I mostly use it as an initial rough flattening tool on the diagonals and cross grain type of stuff. Before breaking out the #6 or #8. I've got a regular rosewood #5 that I haven't used yet, actually as it needs some work.

[Lenore Epstein]

You can think of the 5-1/4W as either a long-toed #4 or short-heeled #5, whereas the 5-1/4 is basically a scaled-down (in all dimensions) #5.

Nice summary. Thanks!

[Mike Holbrook]

Michael thanks for posting your alterations to your 5 1/4. Now I want feel too bad running a file into the mouth of mine. The Veritas PM-V11 blade I have for mine, 8" camber, just does not allow for chip clearance. The 8" camber on mine looks like a good amount on the thinner blade. I suspected that cambering it more would accentuate the issue of blade clearance, as the blade would need to extend even further for the entire camber to be exposed.

[Patrick Chase]

Michael thanks for posting your alterations to your 5 1/4. Now I want feel too bad running a file into the mouth of mine. The Veritas PM-V11 blade I have for mine, 8" camber, just does not allow for chip clearance. The 8" camber on mine looks like a good amount on the thinner blade. I suspected that cambering it more would accentuate the issue of blade clearance, as the blade would need to extend even further for the entire camber to be exposed.

You might want to try filing the back of the mouth instead of the front if you haven't already, particularly if your plane is a Bed Rock. If you file the front then you'll eventually lose the ability to close the mouth all the way down with a stock-thickness blade. In contrast, filing the back allows you to set the mouth adjustment further back with a highly cambered/extended blade, but you retain the ability to close down.

EDIT: I should probably clarify that the downside to filing the back of the mouth is that you at least theoretically lose some frog/blade support. When I've done this in the past (for example for the WR #5 that I reviewed here a whole back) I file the front as much as I can while still being able to close down all the way with a stock-thickness uncambered blade. If I get to that point and still need a larger opening then I do all remaining filing from the back of the mouth. IMO it's more important to be able to close all the way down than it is to have every last bit of frog supported by the sole...

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for that suggestion Patrick. I will apply the file to the rear of the mouth. I have been grinding old Veritas A2 BU plane blades, back to 25 -30 degrees. I had one that was 38 and one that was just messed up. I hope to get to the 5 1/4 mouth next.

[steven c newman]

Actually, I do use one

IMAG0068.jpg
No camber, used as a smallish jointer for shorter length boards. Been known to use it to do raised panels.

Millers Falls No. 11.....same as the Stanley #5-1/4.
IMAG0092.jpgIMAG0093.jpgIMAG0096.jpg
Not too bad a plane.

[Glen Canaday]

You might want to try filing the back of the mouth instead of the front if you haven't already, particularly if your plane is a Bed Rock. If you file the front then you'll eventually lose the ability to close the mouth all the way down with a stock-thickness blade. In contrast, filing the back allows you to set the mouth adjustment further back with a highly cambered/extended blade, but you retain the ability to close down.

EDIT: I should probably clarify that the downside to filing the back of the mouth is that you at least theoretically lose some frog/blade support. When I've done this in the past (for example for the WR #5 that I reviewed here a whole back) I file the front as much as I can while still being able to close down all the way with a stock-thickness uncambered blade. If I get to that point and still need a larger opening then I do all remaining filing from the back of the mouth. IMO it's more important to be able to close all the way down than it is to have every last bit of frog supported by the sole...

If you're moving the frog forward to close the mouth, you don't have that support in the first place.

I can't personally get behind filing any part of the mouth. There are reasons behind it that don't really belong in this thread, but the mechanics or such are that if it is desired to close the mouth (which is not required on a double iron plane if the cap iron is set correctly!), filing the back of the mouth will prove irrelevant to the user as the iron is supported by the main casting in only one frog position, and that is the furthest back position such that the iron remains flush on the face of the frog. Any position further back and the iron is lifted from the frog, anything forward of this and the support of that last little bit is lost.

Keep in mind also that the bevel on the iron may be so large that the iron never actually touches this part of the casting, and then it's a moot point anyway.

[Patrick Chase]

I can't personally get behind filing any part of the mouth. There are reasons behind it that don't really belong in this thread, but the mechanics or such are that if it is desired to close the mouth (which is not required on a double iron plane if the cap iron is set correctly!), filing the back of the mouth will prove irrelevant to the user as the iron is supported by the main casting in only one frog position, and that is the furthest back position such that the iron remains flush on the face of the frog. Any position further back and the iron is lifted from the frog, anything forward of this and the support of that last little bit is lost.

Count me among those who think that requiring the iron to be supported by both the sole and the frog is hoary superstition. Never done it, never will, never had chatter as a result (I have had chatter, but it was always because of some *other* bit of idiocy on my part)

[Mike Holbrook]

"I can't personally get behind filing any part of the mouth. There are reasons behind it that don't really belong in this thread, but the mechanics or such are that if it is desired to close the mouth (which is not required on a double iron plane if the cap iron is set correctly!), filing the back of the mouth will prove irrelevant to the user as the iron is supported by the main casting in only one frog position, and that is the furthest back position such that the iron remains flush on the face of the frog. Any position further back and the iron is lifted from the frog, anything forward of this and the support of that last little bit is lost."

The issue is the blade actually touches/rests against the top side of the mouth, leaving no place for shavings to exit. I believe others have experienced this issue, trying to get newer, particularly Veritas PM-V11 blades working in older planes. The issue is made more complicated by the radiuses many people use on blades in these planes. Maybe there is some other alternative, but I do not see what that would be. I think this is very relevant to this discussion as getting an old 5 1/4 plane, with it's very small mouth, to work with newer irons would seem to be quite important and germane to discussion of using these planes. Maybe a user of an old 5 1/4 plane will find used blades, but how long can one count on the old iron inventory to last? I bought an old iron not to long ago, it and the chip breaker were not in good shape (bent) requiring considerable time & effort to correct.

[steven c newman]

Re: Old irons for a 5-1/4 plane. Just about any iron for a #3 sized plane will work, but, use the chipbreaker that came with that 5-1/4 plane. Not all makers used the same sized chipbreaker. Some have almost an inch difference in where the slot is. Even an iron from an old Transistional (sp) that used a 1-3/4 wide iron will work. Again, watch the chipbreakers.

The Millers Falls No. 11 I use, uses the same iron and chipbreaker a Millers Falls No.8 does.

If all you want is a LONG scrub plane, go out and find a CHEAP #5 sized plane shaped object, like ones from Great Neck Tool Co. They have a big, wide mouth. The one I have has an 8" radius ground into the iron. It has been sharpened maybe twice in the time I've used it. Cost a whopping $6+ tax.

Re: Frog and sole mated inline? That is where I always set up the frog. Maybe a fingertip to feel that they are inline. IF at some time, the frog MIGHT need to move forward.....that is when I start to get a bit of chattering. When the iron can rest FLAT on the frog and the small ramp at the back of the mouth opening, never had any chattering. Reason: Chipbreaker might help an iron stay stiff, IF the other side of the iron is also supported. Loose that support, and the iron may start to deflect backwards, away from the chipbreaker. With the support, I can just cut right through a knot, without? It will skitter across, and not cut.

BTW: Have yet to need to install any thicker iron in a Vintage plane. Although, some actually came with a thicker, tapered iron ( Ohio Tool Co. Auburn Tool Co. ) Their mouths were set up to handle the thicker irons. By design.