# A simple box...(a slow and lightly updated thread)



## D_W (6 Feb 2018)

I have started the making of a skew cutting brick intended to be a shooting plane. Build-alongs of this type of thing aren't that interesting (if they were, I'd put them on youtube) and it's not like a million people haven't already made infills with mostly hand tools, so I'll keep the updates short and seldom. 

Perhaps a skewed plane isn't as common, but lots of things you can do well enough with limited tools , despite not being able to achieve perfection. 

(I also took delivery of a LV skew shooter last week, we'll see if I can match it. )

The pins and tails are a little funny in spacing because they're laid out by eye, and the skew mouth means they can't match, anyway - the mouth area needs to be a pin on the sole or you'll be in big trouble. Even when the mouth is surrounded by a pin, it gets distorted in the peining stage and needs to be cleaned up.


----------



## patrickjchase (6 Feb 2018)

Out of curiosity, what do you make of the LV? 

I like that plane a lot, but I also think that it could prove somewhat polarizing. It's definitely an unconventional design.


----------



## D_W (6 Feb 2018)

I'm not a fan of their design (general aesthetics, not function), but I understand that they really like it, so there's that. That's just opinion. 

I haven't gotten the plane out of the wrapper yet, but if I don't manage to use it in a couple of months, I might not use it much (and I'm sure it's a great plane - I can't look at the design and see anything about it that would suggest it wouldn't work well - it's simple and the ideal combination of elements for an end grain plane - skew and bevel up, and low angle bevel up at that). The handle location suggests track use from my limited experience making wooden planes to shoot, but if you're going for full white collar planing luxury (which I think I will be with the brick above), the track is really the ultimate beer in one hand and smooth working plane in the other setup. 

Fair chance that I completely screw up something on this plane, either in concept or execution, and get quite a lot of use out of the LV, though - but so far - it has to get out of the wrapper first, and I've been doing a lot of cutting/filing/drilling and thinking about this one (and I use the same bench for all things - so vacuuming and possibly a bit of card scraping needs to occur to work wood). 

Without having used LN or LV's plane, I chose LV to give me a "feel bar" to shoot for, assuming that its general setup and orientation is better for shooting than LN's stanley copy.


----------



## swagman (7 Feb 2018)

> (I also took delivery of a LV skew shooter last week, we'll see if I can match it. )



DW; sounds like superb logic. Forking out $400. + usa for a premium shooting plane, so you can do a comparison test with the shooting plane your building. #-o


----------



## Bodgers (7 Feb 2018)

swagman":1u52v7im said:


> > (I also took delivery of a LV skew shooter last week, we'll see if I can match it. )
> 
> 
> 
> DW; sounds like superb logic. Forking out $400. + usa for a premium shooting plane, so you can do a comparison test with the shooting plane your building. #-o



It's actually about 330, plus you could get a lot of that back resale...


----------



## D_W (7 Feb 2018)

That's exactly right, Bodgers - both on the price and the idea. 

Stewie, if I thought $35 of spread between the bought and sold price of the LV shooter was going to be an issue, it sure would be stupid to keep building infills that have a couple of hundred dollars of consumables and materials in each.


----------



## nabs (7 Feb 2018)

quite right DW - it is perfectly logical to measure your own efforts against a something that is known to be a very good standard. 

Are there any better ways to improve your skills than by observing the work of others and trying to match or improve on it? I think not. Looking forward to the updates!


----------



## D_W (7 Feb 2018)

Exactly right. In this case, if I can't better the LV plane, I'll just use it. If I can at least match it, then I'll ultimately sell it (or it'll end up rusting at some point from disuse and then it will automatically be sold by house rule). 

A reasonable person would've just bought the LV plane and used it, but I like to build planes. Even though this infill is relatively low cost (I'll be making the iron, too, which keeps the cost down - as well as whatever the ultimate retention mechanism is), it'll still be at least $200 in materials and consumables. Probably $250. If it doesn't go well, it won't be worth $250 finished. 

If I was worried about money, I'd be hustling to make and promote my wooden planes. 

Stewie's got a rub with LV. Off and on with me, but all is fair, I've shoveled some back in his direction at times, too.

All that said, if my plane is substandard to LV's in performance, I'll say it straight up without hiding it. I haven't made a single plane yet that doesn't have some kind of mistake in it, and sometimes they are garish. There's a good chance of it here due to the complexity of the layout and the sequence needed to get everything done. Making a pattern and 5 or so of these to get the pattern right would be a more certain way to go about this.


----------



## Ttrees (9 Feb 2018)

Nice work David
Is that regular mild steel, or somethinng else, and if so, 
Is it annealed? 
The plane looks to be dismantableable at the moment, what I'm trying to say is...
The dovetails are only in one oreintation only,...

I take it the plane will not come apart once you assemble it, never mind when you pein some rods in there, at various locations
and the fact your peining the dovetails also, means it will never give a hint of seperating.
I know your a fan of efficiency and tradition, and safely guessing you will use a wooden wedge...

Are you going to incorporate /have you incorporated an end section of metal to the design, to either end, but mainly at the striking end 
for protection to the infill, or would this possibly be counterproductive?

Love to see more pics, especially if your annealing steel or doing anything like that.
Thanks 
Tom


----------



## D_W (9 Feb 2018)

It's just annealed hot roll (1018 or something, anything malleable works fine). If it's not annealed, don't purchase it. The cheaper stuff like this can be out of flat a little bit, so you mallet anything that's too far out of flat so that it's close.

Then, lay out the pins so that one is at the mouth and one at each end (the pins are on the sole), and lay the tails out in between. If the plane is steel on steel, your objective is to get them to disappear with good metalwork. if you're doing brass or gunmetal over a steel sole, then you need to be a little bit more deliberate and mark them neatly. I marked these by eye (they're not all the same slope or anything). 

The key to getting the plane to hold together is to file a secondary notch at the edge of the tails and pins (both sides) so that the metal sort of wraps around the pins and tails and holds things together after peining. If you don't do this, you run the risk of pushing the pins and tails apart when you insert the infill (which needs to be very tight or it will look sloppy). 

Corners must be clear - if there is some slough left in a corner, it's not like wood where you can pound it together - it just won't go together. The neater the metal work (and tighter), the easier it is to pein the dovetails together quickly and neatly with no gaps. You don't even want a small pinhole anywhere, but you'll probably have a few cosmetic issues the first few that you make. 

I leave 3/16ths to pein, and as I'm filing it off, I keep an eye on the joints and continue to tap any gaps shut lightly. 

The only thing that will keep me from using a wooden wedge under a cross strap in this plane is my past experience with wedges sometimes getting knocked loose in heavy shooting. If I use a wedge, it will have a scroll so that I can tap it out No metal on the ends of this plane, just the sides. 

By the way, you can see which is pins and which is tails on this plane because I haven't filed the secondaries yet. Once they are there (I can take a picture of what they look like - I've already filed them in), both parts look like tails after peining.

You can also just make a finger joint with the metal and file the secondaries in, but the joint will not be quite as strong. I made two planes that way.


----------



## Ttrees (9 Feb 2018)

Thank you David for explaining that
I look forward to your piccys 

Tom


----------



## patrickjchase (9 Feb 2018)

D_W":1k2xrfy3 said:


> The key to getting the plane to hold together is to file a secondary notch at the edge of the tails and pins (both sides) so that the metal sort of wraps around the pins and tails and holds things together after peining. If you don't do this, you run the risk of pushing the pins and tails apart when you insert the infill (which needs to be very tight or it will look sloppy).



There's also the minor matter of the stresses that are placed on the shell when the humidity increases and that tightly-packed infill tries to expand...


----------



## D_W (9 Feb 2018)

I haven't had an issue with that, but expect that over time, the infills will shrink. I can't remember when I finished my last smoother, but it has pulled up from the sole ever so slightly (fraction of a sheet of paper, but you can see it if you're looking for a laser fit). 

I've got about 15 old infills and none have telegraphed their dovetails due to expansion. 

I've noticed the same thing with my beech planes. No matter what time of the year I build them, they get tight on the irons after a little while. They're kiln dried and over a year additional air dry in my basement. Same with the old ones - they were probably dry when they were made, but if they're left without use, they tighten up on the iron and wedge and can blow out their cheeks. 

If I manage to get this plane built in the winter, we'll see if it can telegraph the tails over summer, because I will make the infill within about a thousandth or two of the peined width.

Norris had enough trouble with beech (which is a terrible wood for infills due to the amount that it can shrink and how fast it can absorb moisture) that they eventually stuck a screw through the front bun on the A5. It looks ugly, but I'm sure it was needed (I had two, one with the screw and one without, and would say they are one plane I'd advise nobody ever buy because of the adjuster - the adjustment system is terrible. The only infills I've ever sold other than a shepherd kit that I put together - shepherd's iron was rubbish, so out the door that one went).


----------



## patrickjchase (10 Feb 2018)

D_W":2x0hi9sa said:


> I haven't had an issue with that, but expect that over time, the infills will shrink.



I don't think you can avoid at last some small amount of shrinkage, short of storing the plane in a constant-humidity environment.

Obviously the big challenge there is compression set, just as with dowel joints in chairs. Even if you could put the infill in perfectly dry it would still shrink the first time it tries to expand and is prevented from doing so by the shell.

IMO that unavoidable (and small) amount of shrink is part of the character of the planes.


----------



## Ttrees (10 Feb 2018)

David Is this stuff what you'd call 1018 or annealed hot roll ?
As all I've ever heard of is bright mild steel 

I'm guessing these, and most likely all infills should have the grain orientated horizontal when looking head on, at either end...
like the wooden jacks and such..... If so,
Which way should the endgrain be facing ?

Guessing orientated so the pith side of the stock is facing down at the sole, as if it were to move, it would
favour touching the edges of the iron instead of at the middle, 
Am I on track here, or are there other things at play?
Just I thought I might as well ask

Thanks 
Tom


----------



## D_W (10 Feb 2018)

I buy the steel from an industrial supplier, so I have no idea what different steels look like in scrap form.

My preference for wood is rift with pith centered well so that it doesn't want to twist, and then the pith side is oriented up. Quartered is ok, but the top of a plane can look like a cheap steak knife if all you see is the flat sawn face.


----------



## Ttrees (10 Feb 2018)

I wouldnt have thought there would be much difference in looking at a flatsawn face
if the pith were orientated either way, but then again I'm not used to exotics with features, or in quanitys that I 
could consider the look.
Thanks
Tom


----------



## Racers (10 Feb 2018)

If you are worried about expansion/contraction use Corian.



My Corian infill plane by Racers, on Flickr



New Shoulder plane by Racers, on Flickr



DSC_4720_zps084197e1 by Racers, on Flickr

Pete


----------



## D_W (10 Feb 2018)

They look great, pete! Especially the one with the black infill. 

For some reason, I think of using the toilet when I see the one on the bottom. Or maybe rolling out a pie crust or slicing noodles on the countertop.


----------



## Ttrees (10 Feb 2018)

Those are quite lovely Pete 
I knew you were into hand tool making, but not that much :shock: 
Very slick work, cant say I like the composites though
Will be on the lookout for your next endevour  

Tom


----------



## Racers (10 Feb 2018)

Thanks chaps. 

I have 2 if the second one on the go at the moment they are 200mm by 18mm.
The last one was made as a test piece to make sure I could rivet through the corian. 

Pete


----------



## patrickjchase (11 Feb 2018)

D_W":2wvz5395 said:


> It's just annealed hot roll (1018 or something, anything malleable works fine). If it's not annealed, don't purchase it. The cheaper stuff like this can be out of flat a little bit, so you mallet anything that's too far out of flat so that it's close.



Have you found work-hardening to be an issue when you do this?

IIRC 1018 can gain >50% yield strength from cold working (for example hot-rolled 1018 is nominally ~32 kpsi, while cold-rolled is ~54 kpsi), but I have no sense of how much work it would take to cause that. Most likely what you describe would have an insignificant effect.


----------



## D_W (12 Feb 2018)

Never had any problems with work hardening, but I have had O1 crack (first two planes I made, I used O1 for the sides and bottom per the recommendation of a professional builder. The cracking was minor, though, and I still have and use the plane. 

No trouble with brass or mild steel so far, but I haven't tried 360 brass yet. The cross strap for this plane will probably be 360 brass, so I'll see.


----------



## D_W (12 Feb 2018)

This weekends updates:

* opened the mouth and filed the rough start of it. It should've been left shorter of the sides so that the pins had extra support, but I forgot that. If it's a real concern (I think it is in this case), I'll cut and fit a steel blank to support the sides in peining). 
https://s13.postimg.org/pdy9qr4fr/02112018_169.jpg

(oh, and the sole plate was peined into place). The final infill will be installed about half mm back or so to file out the bit of unfiled area. Or maybe not. I haven't yet decided - it's probably just cosmetic, but I can make a quick wood mock cross section of iron with a 30 degree bevel to see - that'll probably determine whether or not I fix it).

I need the mock infill to lay out the iron and wedge ,and locate where the cross strap will be, as well as what all of the angles will be so that the strap fits mostly flush inside the infill. It's a lot easier to mock this up and create patterns out of wood to measure from. Anything else is dangerous because a big layout mistake is terminal. 

I also cut and tapered the iron. My stock is oversize O1, .26" thick, and I tapered it along its length to 0.22 halfway through its length and 0.20" at the far end (a hollow shape rather than a straight taper - for various reasons). Since this is all being done freehand, the iron will also be full width of the plane body at the mouth end and a little more than a 16th narrow where it exits the plane. 

Forgot to take pictures of the iron, except this view of the side as I was beveling it to fit flush with the sides of the plane. 
(this was before tapering). I never thought I'd have a use for a vixen on ferrous metal, but it rips, and has held up really well. I anticipate using it to flatten and square the final peined plane. 

https://s13.postimg.org/vsxanjdrb/02112018_170.jpg

This kind of building (patterning and fitting without much measuring) is pure bliss.


----------



## D_W (12 Feb 2018)

A picture of the secondary notch for ttrees. notice the small open notch next to the pin. It's filed there so that the pein pulls the parts tight and holds them together. There is no part of these joints that doesn't hold in both directions, as both the pins and tails have this notch. I just filed these in fast since this is steel on steel and I don't want to see any evidence of a joint at all (so it doesn't matter if all of the tails don't have any specific angle). 

https://s13.postimg.org/yoadubpg7/02112018_172.jpg


----------



## Ttrees (12 Feb 2018)

Thanks David 
That clears up a few things, apart from how many/what tools you need, and how long it takes to
pein that. 
I have since started watching Bill Carters videos again, remembering on it that he was hoping to be able to pein the cupids bow details he does.
If he didn't pein that, how is is possible to be able to spread that mild steel out ?

It clearly works for you guys, I just dont know how its done, and how long it takes  

Cheers
Tom


----------



## iNewbie (12 Feb 2018)

D_W":1cjb51vt said:


> I've noticed the same thing with my beech planes. No matter what time of the year I build them, they get tight on the irons after a little while. They're kiln dried and over a year additional air dry in my basement. Same with the old ones - they were probably dry when they were made, but if they're left without use, they tighten up on the iron and wedge and can blow out their cheeks.
> 
> .



I wonder if using thermo-treated wood would make a difference. Its becoming a fad in the guitar building world.


----------



## D_W (12 Feb 2018)

It's not really a problem in wooden planes as long as they're being used. If it's like anything else with guitars, it's probably like something done elsewhere, but for five times the price. I'll have to see what it actually is (before I was a woodworker, I played a fair amount of guitar and bought a lot of them).


----------



## D_W (12 Feb 2018)

Ttrees":3vkz56ye said:


> Thanks David
> That clears up a few things, apart from how many/what tools you need, and how long it takes to
> pein that.
> I have since started watching Bill Carters videos again, remembering on it that he was hoping to be able to pein the cupids bow details he does.
> ...



You literally just hammer it. A bigger plane like this will probably take an hour to pein. The only concerns are to do it evenly and to not strike the metal that you're not peining.

As far as tools, you need a metal scribe, a hack saw and a few extra files. I'd recommend a post drill, too, but you don't really even need that. It helps a lot for accurate drilling, though. (edit to add, layout fluid like dykem is really helpful).

You also need something to act as an anvil, but it doesn't need to be a full blown anvil.


----------



## patrickjchase (12 Feb 2018)

D_W":1aafov75 said:


> It's not really a problem in wooden planes as long as they're being used. If it's like anything else with guitars, it's probably like something done elsewhere, but for five times the price. I'll have to see what it actually is (before I was a woodworker, I played a fair amount of guitar and bought a lot of them).



In this instance "it" is torrefaction, the same thing that LV does to their chisel handles. It does indeed stabilize the wood against moisture changes, though there are tradeoffs, most notably embrittlement and loss of mechanical strength if you take it too far. After all there is a specific name for the residue that remains after torrefaction runs to completion: "charcoal".

As you say it's been played up (and priced up) quite a bit more in the lutherie world than elsewhere.


----------



## D_W (12 Feb 2018)

I wouldn't buy it in a guitar then. I've never had a guitar that's had neck stability issues. At one point, Heritage was trying to make guitar necks out of curly maple, and they had some neck stability issues, but eliminated them by laminating the necks instead of using a single piece of curly maple (IIRC, it was a guitar that they called the 555 or something, which you'd call a copy of the Gibson ES-355, except the guys at Heritage building the guitars were the ones who built the ES-355s - they just stayed behind when Gibson moved out...anyway). 

I wouldn't pay extra for it, but the instrument manufacture world is always starving for a gimmick, be it a strange intonation gimmick, extremely high upcharges for figured tops (figure about $750 of upcharge for $100-$150 of lumber cost, etc). If I knew what I know now, I would've ordered the plainest hand finished and hand fitted guitar from a reasonable custom maker. That'd be about 2gs, but the gotta-haves (binding, inlays, figured top) double the price of the guitar while adding relatively little extra work for a maker - probably 30% more work and cost for double the price. I don't really have faith that I could get a custom maker to make the same effort on a no-option guitar, though. 

Plus, I don't play guitar much anymore, and double plus, I want to make some guitars, and perhaps something more difficult once I get done with the planemaking gimmick.

(edit: and to be fair, I don't think the really small builders would be able to continue making guitars without knocking over the buyers who are willing to purchase the options. Ford doesn't make their profit on a 2wd F150 with standard cab, either).


----------



## patrickjchase (12 Feb 2018)

D_W":14fon500 said:


> I wouldn't buy it in a guitar then. I've never had a guitar that's had neck stability issues.



To be clear, the guitar makers use it to alter the tonality of the wood, not to address neck stability issues. It's the same basic technique that Veritas uses but for a different reason (and probably carried to a different point in the process).

Torrefaction drives volatiles out of the wood without burning, by heating it in an Oxygen-free atmosphere. Those volatiles are basically the same ones that make their way out over the course of decades of seasoning in a dry environment, so the claim is that the guitar has a more "free" tone like a much older instrument. 

I'm not a guitarist, but I am a cellist and we definitely see tonal changes with aging. I have no idea whether or to what degree torrefaction accelerates or emulates those changes.


----------



## D_W (12 Feb 2018)

Neck wood doesn't really do much on guitars. It's nice to say that it alters tonal quality, but that's generally determined by the back and top wood on a guitar, the bracing pattern, and especially, the weight of the bridge on a guitar that doesn't have the bridge fixed right into the top. 

If it's used on tops and sides on otherwise little used woods (not rosewoods - there's no good reason to alter their tonality) that aren't that stiff, maybe it could improve them. That could become a use given that Cites now covers all rosewoods (what a pain) and a lot of people won't want to pay what they paid for rosewood without a gimmick attached. 

Just my guesses - last guitar I bought was a Bourgeois slope D almost 12 years ago. Great guitar - no gimmick would improve it (and I see that Dana Bourgeois is a fan of the torrefied woods due to their ability to sound old when new. He was a good enough builder to thickness tops for consistency with "regular" red spruce, though). 

If it can make lower cost guitars sound like higher cost guitars without making them more expensive, though, more power to them. I'll go look at prices. Thanks to the toolbuilding bug, I'm finally immune to buying more guitars.


----------



## D_W (12 Feb 2018)

Martin charges several thousand dollars for it. Yuck. when I got a "real job(TM)" earlier in life and had the money, I bought the D-28 that I slobbered over as a kid. By then, it was still only about $1750 or so here - probably $3K now. I "lucked out" and got a real cowpat of a D-28, and that solved me of ever paying the Martin premium again. Tidily made little guitar that had no life in it, no boom. 

On the other end of the cost spectrum, Recording King makes a drednought for $425 with it (Adirondack spruce, even) ...(/kip voice) that's what I'm talkin about. 

Dana Bourgeois's folks charged me an extra $200 or $300 for adirondack instead of sitka. But the guitar is good enough that I don't care what they charged. Better made than anything I'll ever be able to make, and as loud as two martins (and much more lively).


----------



## patrickjchase (13 Feb 2018)

D_W":aldwqosl said:


> Martin charges several thousand dollars for it. Yuck. when I got a "real job(TM)" earlier in life and had the money, I bought the D-28 that I slobbered over as a kid. By then, it was still only about $1750 or so here - probably $3K now. I "lucked out" and got a real cowpat of a D-28, and that solved me of ever paying the Martin premium again. Tidily made little guitar that had no life in it, no boom.



Yeah, $10K for a brand new "aged" D-28 seems... extravagant.

As you say Bourgeois is a big user of torrefaction, and from a technical perspective his remarks seem to reflect a solid understanding of the process and its tradeoffs. I'm not a guitarist, but he strikes me as straightforward and well-informed.


----------



## D_W (13 Feb 2018)

Bourgeois was probably one of the first manufacturers to say that you can't tell the difference between a bolted neck and a dovetailed neck. The former is a lot easier to repair and adjust (acoustic guitars are time bombs more or less, they'll need repair if they live long enough to see it). He was also one of the better top voicers in that he worked for stiffness rather than thickness. 

It sounds like he likes it, but I couldn't hear much difference in online videos. I'm not in the market for anything, though, but would like to build unconventional guitars at some point in the future to see what they sound like.


----------



## D_W (13 Feb 2018)

Separate and aside, I finally opened the lv shooting plane that I got last week and sharpened and tested it. It's fantastic to say the least. If I'd have gotten it first, I might have built a infill panel plane instead of a shooting plane. 

Trying to match it is going to be a real challenge.


----------



## Ttrees (13 Feb 2018)

Since were back on topic I was going to ask 
I should have been more specific on what tools I needed.
Do you use a punch for piening atall?
What size of hammer is this you are using... Is it a ball pien hammer ? 
Guessing you might need one when you get close, or do you just use a block of metal as a punch?

Is there things not to do, like a scenario which could work harden the mild steel?

Thanks again
Tom


----------



## D_W (13 Feb 2018)

I use ball pein hammers. They're cheap, and since I'm cutting all of this stuff by hand for the most part (and certainly finish filing the pins and tails by hand), there's usually some metal to move - so no punches, it becomes too tedious and you get in a rush trying to move a lot of metal with large punch strikes. 

This is only the 6th plane that I've peined, so I have a different strategy than I have previously (where I just bashed them to get them closed), but I intend to use a hammer. 

I think softer metal and accurate work from machine tools (if you've ever seen karl holtey's blog) makes punch peining more sensible, because you're only moving little bits of metal very precise amounts. I've got a couple of gaps that I need to close that are probably a thirty second to a sixteenth in size. Not sure what happened.

I've only ever had work hardening with O1, so no plans for that here - it shouldn't be a problem. 

In the event that a pinhole appears while you're flattening a side, etc, you can usually pein it lightly and then remove the peining marks and have a closed joint. These are the kinds of things you just figure out. I'll take a picture of the tails and pins area on my last infill. There were a couple of those during the process, but they're long gone now.


----------



## Racers (13 Feb 2018)

I usually use a ball pein hammer a couple of different sizes including a very small one, and a X10 loupe to see it things are closing up.

Pete


----------



## Bodgers (13 Feb 2018)

D_W":2abo8j0k said:


> Separate and aside, I finally opened the lv shooting plane that I got last week and sharpened and tested it. It's fantastic to say the least. If I'd have gotten it first, I might have built a infill panel plane instead of a shooting plane.
> 
> Trying to match it is going to be a real challenge.


That's sort of made me feel a bit happier about what I have recently done...

Finally bit the bullet and ordered the same plane yesterday. Lee Valley are out of stock until late Feb now. Not a problem for me as relatives won't be bringing it across until late March. I went all in, and got the PMV11 blade.

Totally over kill really, but it will be interesting to see how good it is.

Need to start thinking about a couple of shooting boards for it...

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## D_W (13 Feb 2018)

Just use a simple shoot board to start. The plane is so good that it doesn't really need all of the gadgetry and tracks that most people bling it up with. 

In my earlier days, I would've scoffed at the idea of paying $350 for a shoot board plane, but it's looking pretty inexpensive compared to the effort involved in the infill in this thread (it's a more sensible thing than building the infill, unless you can build the infill well enough that you could sell it for a premium).


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Feb 2018)

I've posted this review before, but the timing is that some may want to be able to read it, either again or for the first time. It compares the LV/Veritas Shooting Plane and LN #51, and the different blade steels available.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html







Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (14 Feb 2018)

The only complaint I have about it is that the iron still gets dull. Plus, it may work better than my infill ends up working, and that'll be like a kick in the pants. 

In the front.

I've got a mild interest in making an iron out of O1 and tempering it really hard. My last infill smoother has an untempered O1 iron from stjamesbay tool co. I'll temper it at some point, but what surprises me about it is that it doesn't really seem to chip. It is almost completely resistant to most stones, though (extremely slow even on something like shapton). 

I might like to try making an O1 iron like that for this plane, and I need to take another look at why the white suita that I tried this iron on turned black so fast (generally expect abrasion to be a little bit slower). It could just be a favorable match for the stone - it doesn't feel soft, but the same stone doesn't want much to do with the untempered O1 iron from stjames bay. 

(of course, that untempered iron sharpens no problem on diamonds - I'm just a bit surprised that it doesn't chip more easily).


----------



## D_W (19 Feb 2018)

This picture is behind now - I've actually got the plane mostly peined, but didn't take pictures. 

I ran into a problem, though - a fairly considerable one. In making the cross strap (which I'm doing just with hacksaw and files), I realized that there's really no great way to drill a 20 degree hole (that isn't time consuming, like making a jig to hold the drill in place - it's just not that important), so I solved that by drilling the hole through perpendicular to the sides and then (because I have a good quality jobber set), just grabbing the sides and tugging them until I'd angled the hole 20 degrees. This makes an oval hole that's much larger than the ends to be peined on the cross strap. 

Structurally, it's not really an issue. The cross strap is already tight enough, and the peining doesn't need to be perfect, but between that and undersizing some of the end pins on the cross strap, there is zero chance that I can pein the hole shut with those pins. 









The cross strap really deserved to be made better, but I'm not selling this plane and I really didn't want to make two or three patterns to get it perfect. 

I intend to try to melt some brass and dribble it onto the gaps and then pound it in before I pein everything. 

There will be other challenges with this - namely that after the peining, I may have to remove enough material at the tail side of the plane (to get square to the bottom) that gaps will appear. We'll see. 

Compared to making a plane with everything square, this really isn't pleasant work.


----------



## patrickjchase (19 Feb 2018)

D_W":37xj31ps said:


> I solved that by drilling the hole through perpendicular to the sides and then (because I have a good quality jobber set), just grabbing the sides and tugging them until I'd angled the hole 20 degrees. This makes an oval hole that's much larger than the ends to be peined on the cross strap.



In my experience that's a good way to go from having a good quality jobber set to having a beater-quality jobber set . There's no way I'd be caught dead doing that to my Chicago 550s or 150ASPs.

I'd probably file the hole in that situation.


----------



## D_W (19 Feb 2018)

As nicely as these bits cut, I'd never choose filing (though you still have to do a little bit to get things together). These are sort of run of the mill USA made bits ("gold strike" brand), but they're so sharp that it takes almost no pressure for them to cut with that move. I do it to open the mouths, too.

I think they're probably about $10 a bit for broken bits, but only something like $65 for the whole jobber set of 29 at a hardware store in Ephrata, PA (they're a little more on the internet most of the time). Really spectacular, and when you're going to build things with limited tools, sometimes you have to push it a little bit. 

Of course, you do that trick at the top of the flutes close to the chuck, and with very little pressure. 

The flutes on these bits will cut you just handling them - really a poor man's treat. If I build more than one of these, I'm going to have to rethink this step, though. It was really miserable work fitting that plate and I don't like that I'm guessing now as to whether or not I'll be able to close the pein. The brass is 360, so it's peinable, but the amount of movement that you can get away with is limited.

I will post the results when done. If I made five of these planes, the fifth one would be pretty nice, I think.


----------



## D_W (19 Feb 2018)

I looked at pictures of the drills you're talking about. They're from a local company here. The 150s are a coated version of the drills that I have - different maker, of course, but they're a little more coarsely finished. I don't have any cobalt bits to compare (no need for them). 

I believe the "gold strike" brand are made by Montana/Norseman - their flutes are absurdly sharp. 

Of course, I learned this trick on cheap bits, and broke them with some regularity (which isn't really an issue - if you break $10 worth of tooling making an infill plane, it's no big deal - the plane is more important than the bits), but so far would say that you could cut 50 plane mouths with one norseman bit and still be money ahead vs. foreign bits. The moment one catches in your set and you think you're going to handle it with a bit of pressure to get it out, you'll be bleeding.


----------



## D_W (19 Feb 2018)

(by the way, my local engineer friend is also horrified by these senseless acts of tool abuse and complete lack of organization. In my opinion, too much thinking about a project like this can just convince you that it'll be too difficult to do without significant tool outlay. The only real concession in this project is the area around these holes - it will ultimately not be round even once it's peined, will not be perfect in shape, but I'll be *very* lucky if that's the only concession. Doling out the dollars and space for a mill setup is out of the question. )

I did learn on this go that vixen files are something i want to keep on hand in quantity (and the ones that screw to body shop holders are often available for $5 or $7 each NOS on ebay. The steel removal rate with them is spectacular, and they're flexible and resharpenable if they to manage to get above the above price.


----------



## patrickjchase (20 Feb 2018)

D_W":1ibiwf3m said:


> I believe the "gold strike" brand are made by Montana/Norseman - their flutes are absurdly sharp.



Montana/Norseman make good stuff, and charge less for it than Chicago-Latrobe. 
The basic 29-piece set of C-L 150ASP-TNs (split-point, heavy-web HSS with TiN coating) is close to $300, and I'm not saying what I paid for my 118-piece set. I have a set of black-oxide HSS Norseman wire-gauge bits (#1-#60) and they've been very good bits.

As you say one of the nice things about shopping from reputable suppliers is that single replacement bits are readily available, so bashing on a single bit like that really isn't the end of the world .

If you keep increasing your metalworking then a set of Cobalt bits might be a good investment. It's not going to matter for the 1018 that you're using in the shooter, but they hold up a bit better if you start mucking with wear-resistant stuff (like, say, tools steels even when annealed). IMO one under-appreciated feature of Cobalt bits is that because they rely on bulk material properties rather than coatings for durability they work as well after resharpening as when new.


----------



## D_W (20 Feb 2018)

I saw a set of those somewhere yesterday for about $130 without the tin coating, but can't find it now. They weren't split point. I don't really get their pricing vs norseman, but they're a local company (Kennametal) and a much larger operation with bigger customers. 

I'm guessing a grand for the cobalt bits in 118 pieces. My buddy here who is an engineer also loves the bits, but I'm too much of a cheapskate for something like that. I envisioned sharpening the has bits I got with some frequency (they are the cheapest norseman set), but haven't had to sharpen any of them yet. Strange how it's cheaper so far to beat decent bits than it was to beat the cheaper ones.


----------



## patrickjchase (20 Feb 2018)

D_W":3upqgnjk said:


> I saw a set of those somewhere yesterday for about $130 without the tin coating, but can't find it now. They weren't split point.



That's about what the basic 118 deg chisel-point 150s in black-oxide coating go for: https://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Latrobe- ... B000LDH1LC. They're good, solid M4 HSS bits.

The 150ASP (split-point, 135 deg, heavy web) adds some more cost to that, and then the TiN coating adds more still, and pretty soon you're up to almost $300: https://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Latrobe- ... dpSrc=srch

If you want expensive check out some taper-length bits. I actually have a set and they cost an arm and a leg.

My experience is that the top-end makers like C-L and Cleveland produce a somewhat more accurately finished bit than makers like Norseman/Viking. I've had to reshape some smaller Viking bits a little before they were up to snuff, and the runouts etc. are just a touch higher. The differences are subtle compared to the gaping chasm between either and the $19.95 Chinese box 'o bits though.

Cheap bits are expensive in the long run as you say.


----------



## D_W (20 Feb 2018)

Not only are they expensive, but I struggled with them getting them to side cut, and never knew that I should be abusing good bits instead. I'm going to make a few bench plane irons at some point in the near future now that I have good bits to abuse. 

As for the better bits above and beyond the norsemen, I figured the cost in Kennametal's products is in the fine bits (not necessarily polish, but in perfection in dimension, etc). I don't have a drill press good enough to use them, and can't be trusted with such things, anyway. My motto is get something close and then smash it with a hammer (peining). I have my work cut out for me on these brass bits, though - I've never even attempted anything like them, and there will be no way to completely cover up the evidence. I'm still a piker, and sometimes you have to suck it up unless you're willing to spend the bucks for a mill and bits that will drill on an angle. that's something I'm not willing to do. No more skews, I think - at least not in infills. I can make a tidy straight plane.


----------



## D_W (21 Feb 2018)

In between peining and screwing around over the weekend, I went through my infill rack and noticed that a bar of soap on a rack above my infill planes had somehow melted and dribbled down, getting soap (hygroscopic) against the soles of a couple of planes. None received any serious trouble, but one was this spiers coffin infill. 

It had a lot of shallow pitting along the sides but was in pretty good condition, and someone listed it poorly and I got it on ebay for $125 or so last year, with the ward parallel iron. Absurdly cheap. I sort of thought now that I have gotten good at filing fast, I might file off the pitting, so I did that, and also buffed off the finish to redo it and even it out. 

A total of about an hour's worth of work, including running a deburring wheel over the rusty iron and cap iron, and then hitting them with 220 on a felt pad to remove evidence of the deburring wheel. 

https://s13.postimg.org/5104fh553/20180220_215424_1.jpg

https://s13.postimg.org/5104fhcuv/20180220_215414_1.jpg

https://s13.postimg.org/n3t76po53/20180220_215404_1.jpg


----------



## D_W (21 Feb 2018)

And shootenstein, partially peined. 

https://s13.postimg.org/h2vi9oyyv/20180220_215706_1.jpg


----------



## D_W (22 Feb 2018)

By the way, re: the question earlier about using a punch. I did use a punch this time on the ends of the pins and tails, but then after using it for the long spans of pins and tails, went back to using a hammer for those. For the length of the tail against the socket, if those are cut relatively accurately, they'll close just with flat face strikes from the hammer. If there are gaps, then punch use might be necessary. 

There are two steps to follow that:
1) start removing the material from the pins and tails (I will be doing that this weekend before fitting the infills, and then doing the final work on the plane)
2) if you see gaps developing, use the ball side of a relatively large hammer (so as not to have deep marks - bigger hammer, bigger radius, shallower marks) and tap any appearing voids shut. Not too deeply, though - the depth of the tapping needs to be removed to have a strike-free surface - it should be part of the draw filing and lapping process, and not create a bunch of extra work. Forcing yourself to remove too much metal is a good way to also find more voids appearing at other pins and tails. They usually just look like pinhole size and are easy to close. 

Final surface finishing of a plane (draw filing and then sanding) will make the pins and tails disappear if they are void free.

Not too deeply, though - the depth of the tapping needs to be removed to have a strike-free surface. 
https://postimg.org/image/dw0yq0h2r/

both planes in this picture are dovetailed, but no evidence exists to be seen on either one. The infills are also tight and gap free on the overstuffing (except for a bit of damage on the spiers). That's no great accomplishment on my plane - it's new. But for the condition of the old spiers to be so good is really a testament to the materials and workmanship. It (the spiers) is a dandy to use, too. I don't generally like coffin smoothers, but an infill coffin smoother is a completely different animal.


----------



## D_W (25 Feb 2018)

With purple heart infills. Some of the hardest purpleheart I've found.

They'll be trimmed flush with the plane body later. The front is loose until the mouth is set. 

https://postimg.org/image/fnslmcsz7/


----------



## D_W (25 Feb 2018)

https://s13.postimg.org/v9xcm6f07/20180225_131833.jpg
https://s13.postimg.org/mrnwhrg6f/20180225_131917.jpg

Rear infill trimmed and pinned, starting to clean the unneeded rubbish off with a vixen. Everything seems to lead to a cut or metal splinter. Opening the mouth to size is next.


----------



## memzey (25 Feb 2018)

Looking good David. Definitely some blood and sweat going into this build! Can’t wait to see the first end grain shavings it makes.


----------



## D_W (26 Feb 2018)

Interesting problem occurred last night when I peined the brass plate into place. It pulled the center of the sole up a significant amount. Possibly 3 Or 4 hundredths of an inch.

That leaves the chance that small voids will be exposed on the joints at the bottom, and those will be glaring.

Plus, it's going to be an enormous amount of physical work. Steel soles don't lap well like cast iron. They're gummy on a sandpaper lap, so spot filing is going to be the way.

On the bright side, the right side is nearly dead square to the sole, for now at least.


----------



## D_W (28 Feb 2018)

Coming along....tons of physical work, but the bottom is nearly flat. I guess peining the sole plate onto the buttom sucked the area behind the mouth up. If the rest of the bottom is close to being in plane except for the first fraction of an inch behind the mouth, I'll have to think about how far I'm going to go chasing perfection. 





I really lucked out, for all of the unexpected things that have occurred so far, the right side is almost dead square to the bottom. I'll have to do very little to it other than clean it up cosmetically and make sure there are no burrs on it that would beat up a shooting board. 

The left side is close to square, but it's not flat like a sole. That is completely inconsequential.


----------



## patrickjchase (28 Feb 2018)

D_W":gmjpajk7 said:


> Coming along....tons of physical work, but the bottom is nearly flat. I guess peining the sole plate onto the buttom sucked the area behind the mouth up. If the rest of the bottom is close to being in plane except for the first fraction of an inch behind the mouth, I'll have to think about how far I'm going to go chasing perfection.



I'd have gone "full Holty", and be running for the surface grinder in the shop at work by now.


----------



## D_W (28 Feb 2018)

Sometimes, that crops into my head. I remember seeing a blog post of Konrad's when he was making a titanium plane (bad idea given its resilience to peining, but everyone has to try things or we don't learn), and he intimated that his machining at that time was done by someone else (may still be). Which actually isn't a bad idea, because accurate machining isn't always that costly and I'll bet he can make two planes for every one he could make if he was doing the machining himself. 

Anyway, I've thought about a mill and lathe, but no need for a surface grinder. But I'd miss the physical work. I added a portaband this year and did some of the bulk metal cutting with it (it's quite nice, because it's simple, and you still work to the line with files, so it's safe). 

If the lifting gets too heavy on the sides, removal in spots is surprisingly easy and fast with a 1x42 kalamazoo sander and a coarse belt. The belt is tight enough that only the very last bit of work needs to be done with files to remove any surface convexity. And it's satisfying to do it by hand rather than to set stuff up and stare at it. 

Besides, with the iron, I needed a taper of about 1/16th of an inch, a bevel on each side of about 15 degrees, and a hollow in the taper, both in the length and width - to bias in my favor. All of that tapering probably took two hours. 

A precise mill setup would certainly eliminate some issues (the width between pins varies by a hundredth, so the infill needs to be made tapered to a hundredth - but you're sawing and planing it by hand, so it's not a big deal. You just have to stop and check and get everything within a couple of thousandths of square/thick/wide, etc. It's quite pleasant to do. All of the peining would be easier with clean mill cuts, though. If I dawdled with the filing pins and tails, I could be twice as accurate, but on this plane, a solidly bedded iron, a flat sole and a square right side are really the goal.


----------



## D_W (28 Feb 2018)

I mentioned previously that I'd post a tip about getting rid of pinholes when they appear (after peining), so this is that:

First picture, about an inch front the front, you can see a void - a little bit more than a pinhole, actually. 





In order to get rid of it, you tap (pein) lightly on it and all around it to close it mostly (not hard - disregard the dark spot, it's just a pein mark that didn't reflect light). This one is actually quite deep, but I still don't want to see it on the finished plane. The dimpling looks garish, but it's not deep, and you can file it off. It might be a thousandth or two. At this point in finishing the surface, I take care of each of these as they show up, and at some point, you'll be finished light draw filing and they'll be gone. 






And then after a few passes of the vixen. A bit of the tail still telegraphs, but that's because the vixen is so rough with metal removal. Some draw filing with a decent single cut file, and that will be gone, and I always surface finish these planes to 220 grit sanded finish (cosmetic). that seems to be a grit level that looks good without looking boutiquey, it's easy to refresh if needed, and it manages to hide the tails well, which is what we want. It will not hide voids, though, if you don't take care of them. 





On a typical build like this one where I "busted out" the pins and tails and filed as fast as I physically could, I'll probably make this repair a dozen times around the plane (perfectly milled pins and tails would make peining perfection a little bit easier), but it looks very amateurish if those pinholes are left on the plane. I already filed the mouth a skosh wide and don't need any other sloppy stuff on this plane. 

The front of the plane is a bit ugly, but squaring it off and cleaning it up is last.


----------



## D_W (28 Feb 2018)

lapping, by the way, is a good way to get nowhere fast. 

You can see that this plane is on a lap, but the lap is only used to find high spots, then those are it with files, vixen, spot sanded on a hard platen, etc. When this is nearly finished, I will probably do a finish lap to make everything uniform before going over the surface with a block and 220 grit, but there's no reward for grabbing a sharp bunch of unfinished metal and running it over ever dulling sandpaper. It'll end up proud at the toe and heel doing that, anyway. Just a few thousandths, but I don't want that.


----------



## Bodgers (1 Mar 2018)

It is looking good. D_W, do you recommend any books for plane building? I have a fantasy that one day I will build something like one of those Marples transitional style planes...


----------



## D_W (2 Mar 2018)

The only material I've looked at closely has been Larry William's excellent video on making side escarpment planes.

Other than that, I've learned mostly by looking at planes I like and trying to do everything by hand so that equipment doesn't limit what I make.

I have heard, though, that Whelans book on planemaking is good. Otherwise, everyone I know who builds planes has generally learned by trial and error, but it's quite pleasant to build planes, so trial and error isn't bad.


----------



## D_W (3 Mar 2018)

Wedge and handle are left to go yet, as well as some cosmetic work, but we've nearly got a working plane. 

The iron is hardened and tempered to low 60s I'd guess (both by temper temperature as well as this iron's resistance to an arkansas stone - a wonderful stone to have on hand to gauge hardness).

This plane will not be in a track at the outset. The back is about a hundredth higher than the front, which isn't a big deal for working by hand, but it's not machinist tolerance. I can nail this within about a thousandth with hand tools, but it can be done at any time later if needed yet. 

https://s13.postimg.org/5p3jsxkzr/20180303_120922_1.jpg


----------



## D_W (4 Mar 2018)

For practical purposes, finished. A little bit of cosmetic work to do, filing, a little bit of lapping and then scraping off any remaining burnished/burned areas from trialing a belt sander to spot remove (vixen by hand turned out to be a better method). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWZE4vC ... e=youtu.be


----------



## knockknock (4 Mar 2018)

Wow, nice work on the plane, and thanks for sharing. 8)


----------



## AndyT (4 Mar 2018)

I'd call that a success! Well done and thanks for taking us along with you. 
I hear what you say in the video about wanting to get on with some rapid woodwork though. I find I really like to do something quick and rough after a slow careful job. Chipboard and screws rather than dovetails and careful planing.

What's next? Did you ever finish your kitchen cupboards?


----------



## D_W (4 Mar 2018)

Thanks guys. 

Andy - yes, cabinets are done, but not up yet. I have to find a time that the Mrs. isn't home, because she's the opposite of helpful when she's around (my kitchen job is fairly easy - floor, cabinet installation, countertop and sink (where they already are now, just new ones) and backsplash.


----------



## Oskar Sedell (5 Mar 2018)

Very nice David, thanks for showing your build and for doing the video.

I have built a wooden skew miter, in pretty much the same configuration. 38 deg bed, 20 deg skew and I’m not entirely satisfied with the ergonomics. Next thing will be adding a handle like yours, with a threaded insert. 

How’s your edge holding up in use? I find my iron is chipping rather than wearing and I’m not sure if this is because the iron is not broken in (honed enough times back from the raw edge) or because the angle is too shallow. Do you have an estimate of your clearance angle?


----------



## D_W (5 Mar 2018)

Hi Oskar - 

My bed angle (if you take an infinitesimally small lateral section) is 40 degrees. I've honed the iron around 30 and left it a bit overhard (it's tempered, but only to about 350 degrees) hoping that it will sort of max out O1 performance. It holds an edge well and wears uniformly (I took about 80 swipes off of the cherry stick in the video and noticed that the iron dulled some over the span, but no chipping - chipping is a bugaboo for me). Trying to shoot a piece of purpleheart 1.2 inches thick and 4 inches wide pretty much killed it, but I don't think you can shoot wood like that. It needs to be assaulted (I planed the bed with a smoother, but it's more like assault than it is planing to plane it). 

On my wooden plane (that's behind the bench), I am contemplating adding a metal sole to it. Normally, I like the slickness of the wood, and the easy tunability, but it takes a lot of wear ahead of the mouth, and the slickness of the plane allows it to move laterally really easily (not an issue if it's in a track). this one has a lot more friction and is easy to use. I contemplated, also, just building an actual skew (like a badger) plane and boxing it in with brass or something similar to get a poor man's infill, but I think it wouldn't have saved any time.


----------



## Oskar Sedell (5 Mar 2018)

thanks David!

I measure the bed angle the same way. 

My iron is made by Phil Edwards, and it´s pretty hard. Judging from the stones it´s harder than all my vintage irons, and about as hard as my Hock blades. Give or take. I will slowly keep raising the angle with each honing and see if the chippiness persists. 

I don´t shoot too many edges so I can´t comment on sole wear yet. Would you put a full metal sole to your wooden plane, or a metal inlay in front of the mouth?


----------



## D_W (5 Mar 2018)

I'd probably start with a screwed-in insert of brass or steel in front of the mouth - since the plane will be on a shooting board, there shouldn't be much wear behind the mouth, and even if there is a little, it won't matter. 

It doesn't seem like it should matter much in front, but it takes away your ability to adjust the iron depth by eye. 

I'm sort of curious as to why some irons don't seem to take a fine edge. I never found Hock's O1 irons to be as good as the ones I've made on my own, and not as good as an O1 iron that I received from St. James Bay Tool Co in an infill kit (that one needed to be tempered). 

If your iron fails to stop chipping after the following:
* several iterations of honing and use
* a total angle at the bevel of 32 degrees or so (you can treat it with a back bevel so that you don't lose clearance - 10 degrees is my personal rule, but you can go a little bit lower. 
* accurate tempering to 400 degrees F

I'd perhaps try a different iron. There is the possibility of damage or decarb on the surface of an iron, but my heat treating conditions are far from ideal (coffee can forge, mapp torch, vegetable oil quench in a separate paint can, and then tempering in an oven to color on large irons - my oven is accurate, though - I have checked it with a separate thermometer. 

Beach's page of irons shows the same thing I found with Hock's - that they are a bit more chippy than some others. I found Steve Knight's O1 irons to be absolutely wonderful (but they're not available in a shape that you'd like, and Steve is out of business), and Hock's larger custom efforts (one that I bought from Ron Brese and one that I bought directly from him) have also been good. It's the HCS stanley style irons that I've had trouble with. 

I remember Ron Hock once saying that an O1 iron is ruined if you see any tempering colors, but I've found the range of 62 hardness tempering colors (straw) to be my favorite - the irons hold an edge well and are tough enough. 

temperature schedules can be a bit inconsistent, but I'm guessing that the iron the plane in the video is somewhere around 62 or 63 hardness. It's too contrary to be sharpened on a washita. 

Rambling on here a bit, because at one point, I believed harder was always better. Then I believed that 59 was probably more ideal, and now I'm sort of in the camp of trying for 62 hardness or so and if the iron works well, leave it alone. If it's too hard for my washita to remove material at a reasonable rate, then I just do the initial work with a fine india. I found the extremely hard untempered iron from st james bay tool to hold up to smoothing - surprisingly, and only tempered it later because it was such a pain to sharpen and grind.


----------



## Bm101 (6 Mar 2018)

Just wanted to say many thanks for sharing an excellent build in such an informative way David. It's been a fascinating read and I've learned a huge amount from some of the insights you've shared. It's been a real pleasure following it. 
Regards
Chris.


----------



## Oskar Sedell (7 Mar 2018)

D_W":s160ld46 said:


> I'd probably start with a screwed-in insert of brass or steel in front of the mouth - since the plane will be on a shooting board, there shouldn't be much wear behind the mouth, and even if there is a little, it won't matter.
> 
> It doesn't seem like it should matter much in front, but it takes away your ability to adjust the iron depth by eye.
> 
> ...



Thanks for rambling on David, I always appreciate your thoughts. (btw. a virtue of the videos you make, the rambling that comes with the making of stuff). 

I have the working assumption that the tendency to chip will be solved by one of the two first bullet points. I have no reason to believe that Phil haven´t worked out his heat treating process. If it however keeps chipping, then I will write Phil and ask what he thinks of it. 

Making my own irons is the next step in my planemaking endeavours, and I´m really looking forward to try out the results of tempering on my own.


----------

