# Replacement blades for Record 405.



## Vormulac (31 Jan 2007)

Anyone know if these are available or if the blades are the same as those for any other plane? I have one in decent condition, but with only a couple of blades.

Ta.

V.


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 Jan 2007)

Clifton make them but they are expensive. Try here http://www.classichandtools.com/acatalo ... Plane.html

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Vormulac (31 Jan 2007)

Holy Moses!! :tongue9: 
You're not kidding about the price!! Right, I'll be praying that the use the same blades as another plane and I can keep my eyes peeled for one of those!!

Thanks for that Paul.

V.


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 Jan 2007)

Also try Rutlands who sell the Anant look-a-like 405. Much cheaper :wink: http://www.rutlands.co.uk/cgi-bin/psProdDet.cgi/A45

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear (31 Jan 2007)

Vormulac":a2mxk8v9 said:


> Anyone know if these are available or if the blades are the same as those for any other plane? I have one in decent condition, but with only a couple of blades.
> 
> Ta.
> 
> V.



IME the cheapest way to get a full set of #405 blades is to buy a #405.

Really.

BugBear :shock:


----------



## MrJay (31 Jan 2007)

I've no idea if these would fit a 405, but you might know better.


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 Jan 2007)

MrJay":5ui6st0g said:


> I've no idea if these would fit a 405, but you might know better.



They look similar to the blades for the Stanley #50 combination plane. This question came up previously and I tried the blades from my #50 in my #405. They will fit but they are shorter than the #405 blades and the adjuster screw won't engage (it's a different fitting anyway). This is not necessarily a problem because the blade depth could be set by sight. One advantage of the #405 and the Stanley 45 is that the blade clamping bolt is such that even thinner blades will fit and be held securely, which increases the options when attempting to find spare blades.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## AndrewP (31 Jan 2007)

I seem to recall Ray Isles telling me that the Clifton blades are too think to fit the 405, so it might be worth checking before you take out that mortgage :-({|= 
Andrew


----------



## mr (1 Feb 2007)

There is a set of record blades here http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Boxed-Set-of-...6QQihZ007QQcategoryZ13874QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

As far as I can tell they're the right ones, although there are 23 blades in my box and only 15 here.

Mike


----------



## Alf (1 Feb 2007)

BB is quite correct, I fear. Ray Iles does a set of fluting cutters for the #405 iirc and I expect Jim Read in the States will do them if asked, but otherwise you can occasionally get them in ones and twos from dealers (but it can soon add up, although you have the advantage of only getting ones you actually want). One option is to make some yourself - a thing I'm always meaning to do, but Tuit where art thou? 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Modernist (1 Feb 2007)

Just a thought re the above. I have recently returned an Anant Bull nose plane because the sole was not square to the sides. I have a suspicion that these are finished by linishing, rather than surface grinding and will be a square as the fingers of the operator.

To be fair Rutlands were very gracious and helpful and I exchanged it for a Veritas version (plus a hefty cheque) but am delighted with the result.


----------



## Vormulac (1 Feb 2007)

Well spotted on those ebay listings folks, I'll be keeping my eyes on those I think! Guess I'm just going to have to keep my eyes peeled on the usual channels to see what crops up in terms of spare blades.

Any idea how one would ascertain the date of a 405? I just noticed during my many trawls of ebay that some appear to have one clasp on the box and some have two (as does mine).

As always, thanks to everyone for their contributions here! 

V.


----------



## bugbear (1 Feb 2007)

mr":5s3yay5p said:


> There is a set of record blades here http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Boxed-Set-of-...6QQihZ007QQcategoryZ13874QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> 
> As far as I can tell they're the right ones, although there are 23 blades in my box and only 15 here.
> 
> Mike



As the seller states, those are for a #050, and are different to those for the #405.

BugBear


----------



## mr (1 Feb 2007)

Ahh, I didnt notice that in the description, I can only apologise for wasting everybody's time  Just goes to show that one needs to pay attention, particularly when trawling through ebay.
Mike


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Feb 2007)

But I bet they will fit. I'll take some photo's in a minute to test my theory  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (1 Feb 2007)

I think Pauls on the right track....

you can switch most of the blades around....the 50's blades are a bit too thin to be clamped I've noticed sometimes in some other planes....all you need do there is shim it.....I just cut up an old feeler as a shim.


----------



## bugbear (1 Feb 2007)

Paul Chapman":tuit4mbr said:


> But I bet they will fit. I'll take some photo's in a minute to test my theory
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



A closer look reveals that the adjuster notch is (indeed) on the same side for the #405 and #050, so they may fit.

So ignore my previous confident naysaying.

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Feb 2007)

Thanks Jake :wink: Here's proof.

The first picture is of my Record 405 with a normal beading cutter fitted







The next one is of my Stanley #50 combination plane (1970 vintage) with a normal beading cutter fitted (this has a lever for blade adjustment rather than a screw)






The next one shows the two blades, Stanley #50 on the left and Record #405 on the right. You will see that the Stanley is much shorter.







The next one shows the Stanley blade fitted in the Record #405. It fits perfectly OK except that it is too short for the screw adjuster to engage. That doesn't matter because you can easily adjust the blade without the screw adjuster






My advice would be if you can find some combination plane blades cheap and in good condition (not rusty and pitted) buy them because they will fit.

Hope this helps.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Feb 2007)

Just another thought. The later Record #050C combination plane (the one with the open, blue, plastic handle) used the same blades as the #405 multiplane - see Jarviser's website here http://www.jarviser.co.uk/jarviser/tools4a.html So if you can find some of these second-hand, you'll be laughing :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Vormulac (1 Feb 2007)

Doesn't the #44c use the same (or at least, sufficiently similar) blades?


----------



## Alf (1 Feb 2007)

I'll just toss this and this into the fray and leave it to you to work out if the slots are in the right places or not - my head aches. :roll: :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Feb 2007)

Alf":2gj9i0z3 said:


> I'll just toss this and this into the fray and leave it to you to work out if the slots are in the right places or not - my head aches. :roll: :lol:



I reckon they are the ones made for the #405/#050C with blue plastic handle. I remember seeing them packaged in those blue plastic wallets and they have "Bahco Record Tools" on them, which is the period when Record manufactured the 050C with the blue plastic handles (but I think they stopped making the #405 when Bahco took over Record and did a bit of rationalisation). The slot is on the corect side as well. Hope your head ache is better :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (1 Feb 2007)

The record 44 ones I use to plough off a thin edge in a stanley 45 I've fixed up.....slot in blades lines up if thats important to you. Tungsten steel though,,,, Brittle for me I've found though if the grinding bevels any lower than 30 degrees. But if your aware of it, its managable. 

3mm files are pretty good too. Wiltshire brand (australian) though seem to be the only brand that Iv'e come accross that makes a good blade without the tempering process. ...but I've also found with the stanley 45 I have to shim with that feeler, after a bit of meats lost from grinding off the serations. . ... but, old files are next to free

What I've also done is, which worked well.......cut a couple of blades from old woody mathersons ( or the like).....uno , worn out ones with the edge right up close to the slot.......well, just chop off on either side of the slot and you've got a couple of good blade blanks for your combination plane. Nice and thick. I love it. 

old chisels as well make good combo blades.....have to get a blade whose thickness is around 4mm to fit though. 

ummm....thats all I can think of.


----------



## Anonymous (5 Feb 2007)

Took a photo of a stanley 50 blade in a stanley 45 that I used today. 

Thought it might be relevant here.

The blades not thick enough to bind up.....easy fixed with a shim....like I was talking about last post. 

Can see the shim sitting on top of the blade there.


----------



## Vormulac (5 Feb 2007)

Thanks for all the help and advice folks, it looks like a case of thinking outside the box and seeing what's available.


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Feb 2007)

Jake Darvall":22ktn6vf said:


> Took a photo of a stanley 50 blade in a stanley 45 that I used today.
> 
> Thought it might be relevant here.
> 
> ...



That's helpful, Jake. As a matter of interest, I've just had another look at my Record #405 and Stanley #45 (not gloating - its all in the interest of hand-tool research you understand  :lol: ). Here are two pictures - the first with a Stanley #50 blade fitted to my Record #405






You will see that the blade fits quite snugly in the slot. The second picture is of the same blade fitted in the Stanley #45






You will see that the slot is definitely wider in the Stanley #45. This doesn't matter because, as you say, you can fit a shim if necessary (I don't need to on mine). The blades from the Record #405 and Stanley #45 are the same thickness and are fully interchangeable. At last we seem to have found a difference between the Record #405 and Stanley #45  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (5 Feb 2007)

there you go.... I don't have a 405. Interesting difference though. The shims fine. Doesn't stop you from using the tool.... but prefer not to bother with it. uno. 

Generally do you think the 405's is better made than the 45 ? ..... cause thats something I've noticed in other record types. More rugged.....skates straighter....that sort of thing. eg. I feel more care has been put into the making of my record 50, over the couple of stanley 50's I've got.


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Feb 2007)

Jake Darvall":8mrt20us said:


> Generally do you think the 405's is better made than the 45 ? ..... cause thats something I've noticed in other record types. More rugged.....skates straighter....that sort of thing. eg. I feel more care has been put into the making of my record 50, over the couple of stanley 50's I've got.



Both my examples seem equally good and I'm very pleased with both of them - they are quite old and dirty looking but work well. The only difference is the handles - those on the Record are better finished with the corners rounded over so it feels better in the hand. But in terms of performance I would say they were equal.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## dunbarhamlin (6 Feb 2007)

Concur. My 405 does seem better made than my 45, though:
I prefer the tote on my 45 - it's a little wider and just fits my hand better.
Also, I think the fence attachment/adjustment is better on the 45 - far rather have thumbscrews than have to mess around with a screwdriver.
The blades for each seem of comparable quality - both needed a significant amount of work on their backs (and I've just finished regrinding my 405 blades - the previous owner obviously didn't appreciate that he really couldn't sharpen freehand - I _know_ I can't [] )


----------



## Paul Chapman (6 Feb 2007)

dunbarhamlin":6adztfqb said:


> [*]Also, I think the fence attachment/adjustment is better on the 45 - far rather have thumbscrews than have to mess around with a screwdriver.[/list]



:? Both my Record #405 and Stanley #45 have thumbscrews.

One fault with my Stanley #45 which I forgot to mention concerned the fine adjuster on the fence. Both the #45 and #405 have a very useful fine adjuster on the fence but I noticed that on my Stanley #45 the wooden fence facing was sometimes bowing out at the centre. When I removed the wooden facing I noticed that the adjuster screw was too long and pressing on the wooden face causiing it to bow out. Two photos, the first one with wooden face removed and fence screwed out a little 






The second photo shows the fence screwed up and the screw protruding






This was easily cured by drilling a small clearance hole on the reverse side of the wooden facing. It might be worth checking if you are having trouble with your fence. My #405 didn't have this problem.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (6 Feb 2007)

I must check my fence face Paul for that problem too. Thanks. 

I have noticed when using the fine adjust the face turns askew a little. Which is a bit of a worry I thought .....also I had trouble with locking its setting fixed.....the locking screw would lock one side only but not the other....cause a little wiggle. 

Really feel those are big problems. They both must affect the cut. 

I've given up on my fine adjust.....now just keep it all bound up tight out of use...which is a shame, because when it works well the fine adjust would be a handy feature. Better than the stuttered adjustment of the fence arms on those rods. uno.


----------



## Paul Chapman (6 Feb 2007)

Jake Darvall":3jx0k7bn said:


> I have noticed when using the fine adjust the face turns askew a little. Which is a bit of a worry I thought .....also I had trouble with locking its setting fixed.....the locking screw would lock one side only but not the other....cause a little wiggle.
> 
> Really feel those are big problems. They both must affect the cut.
> 
> I've given up on my fine adjust.....now just keep it all bound up tight out of use...which is a shame, because when it works well the fine adjust would be a handy feature. Better than the stuttered adjustment of the fence arms on those rods. uno.



I think it's worth keeping those parts of the plane cleaned and lubricated so that they run as nicely as possible. As you say, the fine adjustment feature is excellent for getting the cuts spot on. However, most of us can only afford to buy these planes second-hand and often the plating has started to wear off or they might be a bit rusty, which affects significantly how well and accurately the fence components run on the rods.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (7 Feb 2007)

Sounds right Paul. I don't know how I can go about fixing the rake though on my old 45's. I recall, cleaning everything up of rust etc...lubricated, but still I can rake it a little in my hands. Bothers me. When you make a setting, be it the depth stop, or the fence, I believe it should be certain it won't move in use. 

Slipping fences and skates have bothered me so much that I've actually welded on little rods onto the thumbscrews, so you've got more leverage to tighten them well and trully. If something slips accuracy's thrown to the wind. IMO. Has happened in the past. 

Maybe I shouldn't worry about it so much. don't know. :roll: Thanks for photo's Paul. That tip on the fine adjust. I'll remember that one.


----------

