# No5 Jack How much is too much



## Bluekingfisher (13 Jun 2014)

This Stanley No5 arrived in the post yesterday, one of my recent eBay winnings.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/321417793856? ... 1439.l2649.

I reckon the plane is a 2005 model but it was clear it has never been used, so in effect a brand new plane.So, with my new found hand plane fettling skills I was set to tuning it up. Apart from needing the blade flattened etc the sole has a bow in it from front to back, well the middle 2/3 section at least. I can just about get a 0.8mm feeler gauge into the gap. 

It also rocks very slightly at diagonal corners. I could insert a 0.5 mm feeler gauge at both corners although, apart from that (an the fact the handles are plastic) everything else seems ok.

Is the issue with the sole going to cause problems by taking that amount of metal off or is that gap with accepted tolerances for a newish Stanley. I ask as all my others are old, whereby previous guardians have previously flattened the sole.

One other thing. The blade iron, like the rest of it was untouched and a little rough around the gills however, it is a little thicker than the older blade irons. What is the quality of the metal like on newer blades? 

Much appreciated

David


----------



## bugbear (13 Jun 2014)

Bluekingfisher":2c75uzm8 said:


> ..the sole has a bow in it from front to back, well the middle 2/3 section at least. I can just about get a 0.8mm feeler gauge into the gap.
> 
> It also rocks very slightly at diagonal corners. I could insert a 0.5 mm feeler gauge at both corners although...



I do most of my precision metal work thinking in thou's, since I've read lots of 1900-1940s books. Converting says that you have a 30 thou banana - the much repeated British spec is 3.

You have much filing (or something...) ahead of you.

BugBear


----------



## Vann (13 Jun 2014)

Bluekingfisher":16zu5qra said:


> This Stanley No5 arrived in the post yesterday, one of my recent eBay winnings.
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/321417793856? ... 1439.l2649.
> 
> I reckon the plane is a 2005 model but it was clear it has never been used, so in effect a brand new plane.


I'm at work at present, and ebay etc are blocked, so I can't look at the auction photos. However...


Bluekingfisher":16zu5qra said:


> I can just about get a 0.8mm feeler gauge into the gap.
> 
> It also rocks very slightly at diagonal corners. I could insert a 0.5 mm feeler gauge at both corners although, apart from that (an the fact the handles are plastic) everything else seems ok.
> 
> Is the issue with the sole going to cause problems by taking that amount of metal off or is that gap with *accepted tolerances for a newish Stanley*.


I don't know that accepted tolerances for a fit-for-purpose jack plane are any different now from a hundred years ago. It's only manufacturing tolerances that have changed - and they're not necessarily acceptable anymore...

I believe the last British Stanleys rolled off the production line in 2004, so maybe yours is an early Far-East model?



Bluekingfisher":16zu5qra said:


> ...all my others are old, whereby previous guardians have previously flattened the sole.


Or the previous guardians didn't have to flatten the soles, as the planes were made to useable standards to start with. Back in the good-olde-days the raw castings were left to season in all weathers for ~ a year to let the stresses relieve themselves _before_ the plane was machined. That didn't always do the trick, but there were a heluva lot less unuseable plane-shaped objects from reputeable manufacturers back then.



Bluekingfisher":16zu5qra said:


> One other thing. The blade iron, like the rest of it was untouched and a little rough around the gills however, it is a little thicker than the older blade irons. What is the quality of the metal like on newer blades?


Again, the reputation of modern Stanley etc. irons is not good ("made of cheese" is often quoted). However, the proof is in the eating - you can only try the iron and see how it holds an edge. No point throwing it out until it's soiled its own reputation.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (13 Jun 2014)

Ah well, for the money I guess I can't complain too much.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jun 2014)

:idea: Buy older ones next time? Other people have good reasons for doing it.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jun 2014)

Bluekingfisher":2kermca2 said:


> Ah well, for the money I guess I can't complain too much.



In another thread, it was recommended that a beater plane for taking off bark, outer layers (with paint/grit) is useful 

BugBear


----------



## Bluekingfisher (13 Jun 2014)

phil.p":2f75lqp9 said:


> :idea: Buy older ones next time? Other people have good reasons for doing it.



I have older planes, certainly the bench planes, this one was purely as bugbear outlines above, as a beater plane for rough work.

I was just interested in establishing what levels of bow or metal removal was acceptable in a plane.

At 20 quid excl p+p it isn't going to change my quality of life, so worth the venture.


----------



## SurreyHills (13 Jun 2014)

The challenge with trying to get the sole flat is that you could need to remove a lot of metal and if this from the middle of the plane you will be opening up the mouth. If you have to take too much off you may find there isn't enough metal around the mouth and you end up with a massive opening. If it's from the corners then it will be easier as there's less metal to remove and you won't affect the mouth opening.


----------



## GLFaria (13 Jun 2014)

Bluekingfisher":26a0n2ww said:


> phil.p":26a0n2ww said:
> 
> 
> > :idea: Buy older ones next time? Other people have good reasons for doing it.
> ...


Well, if you do decide on straightening it, it wil certainly change your quality of life, at least while you are at it! :lol: . Think of lots of beer (or tea if you'd rather).
At least, you will end with a much lighter plane  ; the sole might end a bit on the thin side for stiffness, though...

I am pretty sure my old Handyman, which I bought in the early 70's, wasn't that much off, and it took me days, like a week or so, to get it flat with heavy-grit emery cloth - I think I started at P60.


----------



## Graham Orm (13 Jun 2014)

I have a plastic handled #5 which 'now' cuts as sweetly as any I have used. Like yours the sole had a hollow but didn't rock. I got mine for a song and so had nothing to lose by being a bit drastic with tuning methods. I have a sanding belt that's long enough to take the full length of the plane. I used that with a very coarse grit to get the hollow out. After some more flattening by hand just to clean up really, it instantly made it into a working tool. Finer tweaking to chip breaker, frog and blade has made it a superb tool. I have 2 other well tuned Stanley #5's (A 1910 and a 1930's), but always reach for my plastic handles by choice. To look at, I can't find a difference between them but it just seems easier to keep on the money. It cuts fine and evenly.

When flattening, remember to keep the frog and blade in place with the blade wound back so that the stresses on the sole are not changed.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (13 Jun 2014)

Bluekingfisher":m65m5wa7 said:


> this one was purely as bugbear outlines above, as a beater plane for rough work.



Given it's role is dedicated to one particularly non precision task I don't see any need to flatten the sole. A rough tool for a rough job is fine so unless you want to go through the exercise purely for the learning, I'd be inclined to let it be and perhaps pick up an older one and fettle that.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jun 2014)

Grayorm":2vc6j32d said:


> When flattening, remember to keep the frog and blade in place with the blade wound back so that the stresses on the sole are not changed.



I can just about believe that tightening the frog screws down, where the screws pull up on the sole between two outer contact points on the frog could just about distort the sole.

I struggle rather more to believe that tighting up the finger operated cam can generate enough pressure to distort the sole; amongst other things, it would first have to distort the frog (which is a pretty much massive blob of cast iron) enough that the frog (in turn) distorts the sole.

In short, yeah, have the frog in place, but don't worry too much about blade can lever cap.

Next time I've got my surface plate blued up, I'll try to remember to actually do this experiment.

BugBear


----------



## Bluekingfisher (13 Jun 2014)

Thanks again boys, invaluable advice.


----------



## MMUK (13 Jun 2014)

£48 new on Amazon so not too bad a deal I guess 

I have two of these, one a freebie from a friend and the other I bought new about 15 years ago for under £30. Both have the same rear handle repair on the front screw (a common failure so I'm told) but the quality is OK, they are both definitely UK made and pre-2000. The blades are good on them too.

In contrast, my Amazon ex-display bargain (under £23) 4 1/2 has pocks all over the casting so at the moment is not suitable as a finishing plane and will need some work.....


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jun 2014)

Don't forget if you're worried about "pocks" in the castings - the corrugated soled ones have huge "pocks".


----------



## Harbo (13 Jun 2014)

Yes but their pocks are in straight lines 

Rod


----------



## woodbrains (13 Jun 2014)

bugbear":19af26qd said:


> I can just about believe that tightening the frog screws down, where the screws pull up on the sole between two outer contact points on the frog could just about distort the sole.
> 
> I struggle rather more to believe that tighting up the finger operated cam can generate enough pressure to distort the sole; amongst other things, it would first have to distort the frog (which is a pretty much massive blob of cast iron) enough that the frog (in turn) distorts the sole.
> 
> ...



Hello,

You are absolutely right. Tensioning a blade while sole flatting is an artefact from woodies, where this is essential. There is no stress transferred from the blade assy to the sole in a Bailey plane. The frog screws do however, so definitely leave the frog mounted.

If you have a lot of metal to remove from order the frog area, be careful how thin it gets here. The mouth widening thing is not a worry, as the frog can be moved forwards to compensate. But, the iron beneath the frog is thinner than the rest of the sole, so take care how far you go. The frog screws will distort the area here beyond fixing, if it gets thin enough.
Mike.


----------



## Graham Orm (13 Jun 2014)

bugbear":1841lk1t said:


> Grayorm":1841lk1t said:
> 
> 
> > When flattening, remember to keep the frog and blade in place with the blade wound back so that the stresses on the sole are not changed.
> ...



Fair comment BB I'm reciting what I've learned and what I've done. It worked, but who's to say it wouldn't have without the frog & blade in place. I'd be really interested to hear the outcome of your test.


----------



## Graham Orm (13 Jun 2014)

Speaking of pocks & grooves, I have polished plane soles to a chrome like finish, it doesn't work. It causes drag and although a little candle wax cures it, the act of polishing the sole in order to make it slide more easily isn't worth the effort.


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2014)

Unbelievable, isn't it? How Stanley dares to bring something like that to the market. I am certainly not in the flat sole brigade, but this is rediculous, even for a #5, and shouldn't have been neccessary in the first place.

When you do decide to make it a little flatter, I'd use a file first to remove the worst. But I am a little bit afraid that removing almost a mm will weaken the body too much. Depends where it needs to be removed.

Of course, don't worry about the mouthsize. It's a roughing plane after all.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jun 2014)

Corneel":1tjrzthx said:


> Of course, don't worry about the mouthsize. It's a roughing plane after all.



Mouths growing under trueing is (another) woodie thing, caused by the sloping wear. Even on a woodie, the mouth widening is roughly the same size as the amount removed. Over time this can be substantial (I've seen some "drag racer" woodern jacks), but I wouldn't worry on a Bailey.

BugBear


----------



## Bod (13 Jun 2014)

Planes from any factory, have always needed sharpening, before 1st use.
I suggest an experiment.
Sharpen and set the blade,as normal, then try it!
All types of wood, hard and soft, dirty and clean.
It will be interesting how it performs.

Bod


----------



## J_SAMa (13 Jun 2014)

Honestly, if the sole is really as bad as you say, then I find 20 quid a little too much... Just got a good old USA No 4.5 for £16. And if you really wanted a BEATER, don't dismiss woodies. £0.99 to 5.00 per piece for the ones in really bad shape. A bit of rehabilitation work (certainly easier than restoring metal planes since you can take another plane to it) and off you go.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jun 2014)

£29 actually, inc. p&p. Enough.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (14 Jun 2014)

I've been on the lookout for a #5 as well. Here in Oz they appear quite rare. They may be the most common plane in the USA, perhaps so too in the UK, but I rarely come across them in Perth. The ones that I see are Australian (which have a poor reputation) or occasionally Made in England, and handled in painted beech or plastic. When for sale they command high prices - $50 - $80, sometimes much more. 

A few weeks ago I learned where all the #5s go ...

I was in Cape Town (celebrating my father's 100th birthday) and visited a shop that specialised in re-purposing objects. I am not a fan of shabby chic but there was a great deal of creative thought there. Then I turned around and saw this clothes rack that for some reason appeared familiar ...







The reason I was looking for a #5 was curiosity. I had never used one, having a woody jack I built, and before that a #5 1/2 - they seem far more common than #5s. I decided to get one via eBay USA. When I looked at the shipping costs, it made more sense to pay a little more and get a cheapish Bedrock #605, which I did. I can sell that more easily and get my money back. 

I do wonder why the #5 is so uncommon in Australia, and why the #5 1/2 abounds (I have two, and this is the only plane I have in duplicate .... and no longer use).

The #605 needed stripping to bare metal then repainted, and all surfaces were lapped (the sole was mildly banana-shaped). It ended up a nice looking and solid plane.






Where it counts ...






Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbrains (14 Jun 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Derek



If it wasn't sacrilegious, I want some for my workshop! Somewhere for me coat and apron to hang, a #7 for extension leads. I think they would work better the other way up though. Maybe there is a market for plane hangers for the woodworker who has everything-- enter VERITAS. =P~ 

Mike.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (14 Jun 2014)

With a half hour to myself this afternoon I set about the #5 with some 60 a grit paper. You will remember I had about 0.8 mm gap in places. Well after a the half hour I have the sole tight all done the left side. I can't slide my thinnest feeler gauge 0.05 mm in anywhere. Down the right it is tight all the way from the back to the area adjacent to the mouth which has a tight 0.15 mm gap tapering down to 0.1 mm towards the toe.

I suppose I could live with this but I'll give it a little more time when I have the time to do it to see how close I can get it to "flat"
David
com/user/bluekingfisher/media/imagejpg1-2.jpg.html]



[/URL]

photobucket.com/user/bluekingfisher/media/imagejpg3-1.jpg.html]



[/URL]


----------



## Bluekingfisher (14 Jun 2014)

Having googled the measurement and the British Standard (BS) tolerances for sole variation it seems 3 thou of an inch is the figure to achieve. I am still a little way off on the area around the mouth and toe on the right side. With a current gap of 0.15mm (6 thou) I still have some work to do although I have some satisfaction that the gap around the sole is within those tolerances everywhere else.

Should be achievable though.

David


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Jun 2014)

If you're intending the plane for rough work, you've probably got it about near enough. Ideally, the front and back of the mouth, the toe end and the heel end should be co-planar. For a smoother or try plane, spot on co-planar, but for a jack, near enough.

I think I'd be tempted to smooth out the 60-grit surface a bit, though there's no need to go too far. Reasonably smooth to the touch should be fine - say about 240 grit or so. 

By the way, should you fancy replacing the plastic handles, Crown Tools make a Rosewood replacement set - I think Axminster stock them, among other retailers. Home-made is also perfectly in order, of course!


----------



## Bluekingfisher (14 Jun 2014)

Cheshirechappie":34hgponq said:


> If you're intending the plane for rough work, you've probably got it about near enough. Ideally, the front and back of the mouth, the toe end and the heel end should be co-planar. For a smoother or try plane, spot on co-planar, but for a jack, near enough.
> 
> I think I'd be tempted to smooth out the 60-grit surface a bit, though there's no need to go too far. Reasonably smooth to the touch should be fine - say about 240 grit or so.
> 
> By the way, should you fancy replacing the plastic handles, Crown Tools make a Rosewood replacement set - I think Axminster stock them, among other retailers. Home-made is also perfectly in order, of course!



I have just watched a you tube video with Chris Schwartz, he too mentioned no need to a perfect sole on a jack plane. In fact his words were "if it looks flat from a galloping horse three miles away, then it's flat enough" so maybe I have it good enough for the purpose.

I have got a couple of sets of hardwood handles bought from MTS for about three quid the pair. They actually look and feel like nice handles.

Thanks for confirming the level,of flatness required 

Cheers

David


----------



## Graham Orm (15 Jun 2014)

Bluekingfisher":3p3wijn7 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3p3wijn7 said:
> 
> 
> > If you're intending the plane for rough work, you've probably got it about near enough. Ideally, the front and back of the mouth, the toe end and the heel end should be co-planar. For a smoother or try plane, spot on co-planar, but for a jack, near enough.
> ...



But then again he might be wrong. If there's a void in front of the mouth it's inefficient no matter what you're doing with it.


----------



## JimB (15 Jun 2014)

Derek, I think you've managed to solve the problem of why that era of Stanley planes were so poor. Obviously a mix-up with the design department thinking they were manufacturing coat hooks.  
ps a marvellous anniversary.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Jun 2014)

> I have just watched a you tube video with Chris Schwartz, he too mentioned no need to a perfect sole on a jack plane. In fact his words were "if it looks flat from a galloping horse three miles away, then it's flat enough" so maybe I have it good enough for the purpose.



That does surprise me. Chris S has also mentioned that he carries an extra (straight) blade to use the #5 as a smoother or jointer, if the need arises. Roughing out certainly does not need the flattest sole in the world, but taking a fine shaving and doing so consistently does require a flat sole, especially in front of the mouth. 

My #605 has only been lapped on 100 grit. I may take it to 240 at some stage, but it seems smooth enough at this point. It never ceases to surprise me how much effort it is to flatten the soles on sandpaper, and then how quickly the soles scratch on wood. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Jun 2014)

JimB":31jd6uip said:


> ... ps a marvellous anniversary.



Thanks Jim.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Harbo (15 Jun 2014)

A good way of lapping planes is to use valve grinding paste or silicon carbide grits on a sheet of Acrylic - the plastic "holds" the grit in place.


----------



## iNewbie (15 Jun 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > I have just watched a you tube video with Chris Schwartz, he too mentioned no need to a perfect sole on a jack plane. In fact his words were "if it looks flat from a galloping horse three miles away, then it's flat enough" so maybe I have it good enough for the purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> That does surprise me. Chris S has also mentioned that he carries an extra (straight) blade to use the #5 as a smoother or jointer, if the need arises. Roughing out certainly does not need the flattest sole in the world, but taking a fine shaving and doing so consistently does require a flat sole, especially in front of the mouth.



Thats video - the short version is here, Derek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IChJoMrNzhw


----------



## bugbear (15 Jun 2014)

Bluekingfisher":23v9zgsi said:


> With a half hour to myself this afternoon I set about the #5 with some 60 a grit paper. You will remember I had about 0.8 mm gap in places. Well after a the half hour I have the sole tight all done the left side. I can't slide my thinnest feeler gauge 0.05 mm in anywhere. Down the right it is tight all the way from the back to the area adjacent to the mouth which has a tight 0.15 mm gap tapering down to 0.1 mm towards the toe.
> 
> I suppose I could live with this but I'll give it a little more time when I have the time to do it to see how close I can get it to "flat"



Well done for being brave (or doing good research) and starting with a really coarse grit - a lot of people start way too fine and slow. You also used a big enough sheet to avoid some of the "edge" problems that tend to generate convexity (build up of swarf in the middle of the sheet, more wear of the abrasive in the middle of the sheet; large sheets have more "middle" and less "edge", proportioanally speaking).

A quick check shows the particle size of 60 grit is 268 micron or 10 thou (1/100"), or 0.25 mm. Now, sandpaper particles aren't exactly lathe tools; I would guess that the scratch depth is around 1/3 to 1/2 of the particle size at most. However, I think you're approach the limit of what you can do with 60 grit.

You're now up against some new problems; it's clearly not possible to make a concave sole on a flat sheet of abrasive, but it's rather easy to make convexity, just by leaning. 

You're also at a stage where the pressure of the metal on the abrasive is lower - when your plane was only touching at a couple of high points, the pressure was high (and thre rate of removal also high). Now you've got a nice large "flat" the pressure is lower. The leads to spending lots of time rubbing the plane back and forth, with more rick of convexity...

Finally, when your plane was damn near 1 mm out, your reference didn't need to be very flat to be flatter than your plane. Now your plane is flatter, that is no longer so self evident. You need to consider what accuracy you're aiming for in the plane, and (hence) what accuracy is needed in your straight edges and/or lapping surface.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (15 Jun 2014)

60 grit is spot on. No need to go finer. If you just _use_ the plane the sharpness will soon be lost - the tops of the scratch ridges get smoothed even though the troughs remain. You can speed this up with a quick pass over very fine e.g 400 grit. You don't have to work through grit sizes - one jump very coarse to very fine is OK.
Easiest if you use paper backed grit and have a large flat area (I use planer machine table) and just flood it with white spirit. This will keep the paper stuck down enough and also carry away the swarf. 
Keep the paper between boards so it stays flat in between uses.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Jun 2014)

For lapping planes, chisel and plane blades, I use a 3' x 4" section of 1/2" granite. It is as flat as I can measure. Very rigid. To this is contact glued 100 grit cloth-backed "paper" designed for abrading metal. This 100 grit cuts fast, sheds swarf well (not all sandpaper does this), and does not leave the deeper scratches of 60 grit. As I mentioned earlier, I may go to 240 grit. I do not feel any urgency to do so. It is a jack for roughing out, not a smoother.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (15 Jun 2014)

Going straight from 60 to 400 is OK for a smoother too.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Jun 2014)

One small thought - if you do end up deviating from 'dead flat', then it's better to end up slightly (with the emphasis on 'slightly') convex rather than concave. For a jack plane, that'll be no problem - the sole by the mouth will still contact the wood. If it's concave, the sole of the plane won't be in contact with the wood at the front and back of the mouth, so the iron will have to advance more than is needed for a given depth of cut, and there will be nothing to control breaking-out ahead of the iron, thus making any tear-out problems almost impossible to overcome with that plane.

For a try plane and for a smoother, VERY slight convexity would be tolerable, though the nearer 'dead flat' the better.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (15 Jun 2014)

I did give it another hour or so today with the 60 grit again. I had some 40 grit sandpaper but I thought if would just cut deep gouges rather than remove metal in a uniform manner. I may have just as well taken it out into the street and rubbed if on the Tarmac

.
To be honest, I didn't seem to make much of a difference today, possibly due to the issues highlighted by Bugbear?? I was concerned a little with the co planer state of the sole mentioned by CC earlier. So not having much sauces with the 60 grit I pulled a large cross cut file and set about it , probably too much. I set about it too vigorously but it did identify the sole was also slightly concave. I thought removing the high points from the edges would allow me to take it back to the 60 grit, which was placed on the TS as a reference surface. 

I had mixed feelings. The hand filing did remove much of the concave (perhaps too much) but it left some heavy scratch marks. The sole now seems far more uniform across the whole,sole but the scratch marks from the file may take some more work to,remove. I will probably just improve this slightly in case I go beyond a flat sole. I have a couple of files with a less aggressive cut so I may take a little more time with those. If nothing else it has been a great learning process.

Thanks again for all the advice boys.

David


----------



## Jacob (15 Jun 2014)

An hour is too long. With paper backed grit (flatter and cheaper) on a solid base (mdf faced chipboard will do) and a good flood of white spirit it shouldn't take long to get it flat. Keep it flooded and change the paper often but keep the old stuff as effectively a finer grade, though you will have more than you can use in the end.


----------



## Mr_P (15 Jun 2014)

Jacob can you give us a link ?

I've run out and need some more.

Strongest I've found is the sand paper from a belt sander.

(Fed up owner of a lumpy bronze casting)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Jun 2014)

Judicious use of a flap wheel on an angle grinder should be safe and relatively quick for basic truing. :idea:


----------



## Jacob (15 Jun 2014)

Mr_P":8masczz3 said:


> Jacob can you give us a link ?
> 
> I've run out and need some more.
> 
> ...


Google. It's very common. Try Halfords.
Belt sander paper is too thick and uneven - you need the cheapest paper backed stuff which lies very flat on a smooth surface. Don't stick it down (too bumpy) just wet it well and it sticks enough. Water or white spirit. Keep replacing it - unless you are happy to spend a lot of time saving the price of a new sheet (50p ish?).
It's one of those rare (?) circumstances where the very cheapest option is also the best.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jun 2014)

Silly me .. I would give you the exact opposite advice to that provided by Jacob. 

Sandpaper for metal is different from sandpaper for wood. For metal, a waterproof glue is used, the grit used is generally aluminium oxide, and the grit is arranged on the backing so that it does not clog up. All this means that the grit lasts longer, cuts faster, and swarf is more easily cleaned away.

I would also argue that used coarse sandpaper is not "smoother". Sandpaper for smoothing has smaller and more grit. All that happens with coarse grit as it gets used is that the grains round over. It is more likely to polish than sand.

My advice is to get the _appropriate_ sandpaper, rather than just aim for cheapest. For small sections that need only a small amount of work it really does not matter what type of sandpaper is used. However, when it must last longer and cut faster, then it does matter. Then I always glue mine down to avoid it moving, such as curling up, which will dub edges. 

As tempting as it seems, I do not start below 80-100 grit. The grit from 60 leaves deep scratches. I could not imagine jumping to 400 from there. If I used 60, I'd next go to 120, and then 240. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Jun 2014)

I would spot grind (by hand) the high spots with emery cloth which most certainly is meant for metal working. It starts at 40 grit or so.

Once you get it close to flat from having knocked down the high spots then practically any sandpaper will do and the thinner the better for polishing out the entire sole. Or continue on with emery paper, 3M is your friend: 

http://www.3m.com/product/information/E ... Paper.html

Emery cloth:

http://www.amazon.com/3M-03008-Emery-Cl ... B000FP8HUU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emery_cloth


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2014)

There's a culture clash between tool _polishers_ on the one hand and tool _users_ on the other. 
You can be both but if you don't want to waste your time polishing you don't have to. 

This is for *users* only (polishers just ignore the following):

A coarse grit will do it all, 100 or less. 
Thin paper lies flattest and doesn't need sticking down - it'll stick enough with white spirit or water, on a flat impermeable surface (I use my planer bed). 
Is also is cheaper, which doesn't deter you from binning it sooner rather than later and getting the job done quicker. Flood the surface.
One grit will do - the plane will be a bit snatchy at first but the sharp edges of the scratches soon get blunted and the become low friction i.e. you loose the tops of the ridges but the furrows remain. 
You can speed this up by going straight to a fine grit say 400 - a very quick pass just 30 seconds of rubbing - still well flooded with white spirit or water
For a long plane use two sheets.

PS and cloth backed grit is completely the wrong material for flattening operations. The cloth back is for strength on belt sanders, flexible ROS bases, or for application to rounded surfaces (car bodies etc) - all non flat activities. So spot grinding (above) is OK but not for "flattening".


----------



## iNewbie (16 Jun 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Sandpaper for metal is different from sandpaper for wood. For metal, a waterproof glue is used, the grit used is generally aluminium oxide, and the grit is arranged on the backing so that it does not clog up. All this means that the grit lasts longer, cuts faster, and swarf is more easily cleaned away.
> 
> I would also argue that used coarse sandpaper is not "smoother". Sandpaper for smoothing has smaller and more grit. All that happens with coarse grit as it gets used is that the grains round over. It is more likely to polish than sand.
> 
> ...



This.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (16 Jun 2014)

Jacob":3ct6njil said:


> There's a culture clash between tool _polishers_ on the one hand and tool _users_ on the other.
> You can be both but if you don't want to waste your time polishing you don't have to.
> 
> This is for *users* only (polishers just ignore the following):
> ...



I have just been using the sandpaper dry, tearing off a section from a roll, placing it on the table top of my saw, simply holding the roll with one hand will flattening one handed. I'll try your advice with the white spirit. I don't wan to use wsater on my cast iron table top.

Thanks for the advice fellahs.

David


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2014)

Bluekingfisher":1p66s2z5 said:


> Jacob":1p66s2z5 said:
> 
> 
> > There's a culture clash between tool _polishers_ on the one hand and tool _users_ on the other.
> ...


it's the thin A4 sheets which stick down (enough) with white spirit alone. Too thick and it might not stick. Try it.


----------



## Racers (16 Jun 2014)

I clamp my abrasive down and stretch it tight, if you don't it forms a wrinkle just ahead and behind the plane as you push it, this causes a the front and rear edges to round over.
I found this out the hard way.
My set up.




Pete


----------



## CStanford (16 Jun 2014)

The key to all of this is to spot grind the high spots (with the abrasive around a small block) before attempting to lap the entire sole. You have to get it pretty close before moving to the stage where the abrasive is attached to one's flat substrate of choice. Otherwise, a banana is almost the sure result.

Only when the plane is both concave from end-to-end and either concave or dead flat from side-to-side does it really make sense to go straight to the lapping table, and then you still have to be very careful.

If the plane has irregular bumps, swales, and twist you have to methodically knock the high spots down before lapping it out.

And if it's really bad, as in the OP's plane, it might make more sense to scrape the sole:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/plane%20sol ... 20105.html


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jun 2014)

The best way to flatten the sole of a cast iron plane is to scrape it. Mark the high spots on a lapping plate with lapping fluid, and then scrape these away. Redo ... and redo ... and redo ... until there are no further high spots.

If you are not looking for precision (woodworking is not metal working, and all that), then sandpaper on a flat surface is the next best thing. Two points to keep in mind: (1) the substrate for the sandpaper must be flat, and the sandpaper must be flat on the flat substrate. There is no point in lapping on a sandpaper that is not flat. Keeping it flat is the job of a thin, even coat of _sprayed_ contact glue. Use a medium tack glue that can be scraped off when so needed. Holding the sandpaper down with water or anything that evaporates is just not good enough. Long lengths will curl at the edges, or lift as you push on them. (2) Technique is important. Lapping is not the same as sanding. If you try and sand the plane on the flat substrate, you will rock it and cause the sole to turn into a banana (that's how mine was). You have to push down on the plane as you simultaneously push it forward-and-back. Find a position where the load is spread along the whole length.

As I mentioned earlier, sandpaper for metal abrading is different from that used for wood. Charles gave it a name, emery cloth. That is one form (it comes in long roles). Another is A4 sheets on a fabric backing. That's the one I can get, in 100 grit. I cut it into sections and contact glue it to the substrate. It is flat, flat, flat. 

You can re-use the contact glue on the substrate several times. No need to scrape it off. 

Before I acquired the current substrate, a 3' x 4" section of 1/2" granite, I had a similar section of glass. I also experimented with belt sander belts (removing the join area). These work OK, but not as good as emery paper.







Here is the granite: 






I simply rest it on the tablesaw when it is used. Afterwards it stands in a corner.






The paint brush is to brush away any swarf.

Glue it down to a flat substrate. Use the appropriate sandpaper. Watch your technique. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Jun 2014)

You're right about scraping but one can use spot sanding as a proxy. 

The main point is not to start at the lapping table which is where the whole mess will almost always go from bad to worse if the plane has anything but the most minor irregularities, i.e. it probably didn't need treatment in the first place.

Most people start at the lapping table assuming that a flat substrate makes the process fool-proof. It doesn't, by a long shot. One has to be able to unerringly identify high spots. If there is any confusion about where the plane's sole is actually high then failure is the likely result.

My main point is this: all of this can actually be done, and should be done, without lapping at all. Or if lapping is done it's more of a high-grit polishing operation at the tail-end of it all.


----------



## bugbear (16 Jun 2014)

CStanford":clgz4i3y said:


> You're right about scraping but one can use spot sanding as a proxy.
> 
> The main point is not to start at the lapping table which is where the whole mess will almost always go from bad to worse if the plane has anything but the most minor irregularities, i.e. it probably didn't need treatment in the first place.
> 
> Most people start at the lapping table assuming that a flat substrate makes the process fool-proof. It doesn't, by a long shot. One has to be able to unerringly identify high spots. If there is any confusion about where the plane's sole is actually high then failure is the likely result.



IME, plane sole errors are either overall curves (and convexity is hard to remove) or localised wear (i.e. localised low spots).

I don't think I've seen a plane with localised high spots, which would be very easy to remove of course.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (16 Jun 2014)

The use of engineer's marking blue might convince you otherwise about the irregular bumps and swales.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ..... Holding the sandpaper down with water or anything that evaporates is just not good enough.


Yes it is - if the paper is thin and the table flat and impermeable. You don't leave it to evaporate - you do the job and then put it away


> Long lengths will curl at the edges, or lift as you push on them.....


No they won't - if the paper is thin and the whole kept well flooded with white spirit (or water if you aren't using your planer!). Helps if you store your paper flat between boards.
I see why you are confused - it's not like glue you don't leave it in situ - you wet it, do the job, put it away.
Try it and see. 
I don't make this bolox up you know! I've done several plane soles this way. If I have to do another I'll do it the same because it is quicker, simpler, cheaper and faster than all the other hand methods I've tried or seen described. And the finish from 80 grit is perfectly OK once the sharpness has gone or been eased.


----------



## bugbear (16 Jun 2014)

CStanford":2fils26z said:


> The use of engineer's marking blue might convince you otherwise about the irregular bumps and swales.



If you're talking to me, I'm semi notorious for my advocacy of a print-cut approach using surface plate and prussian blue.

I know whereof I speak.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (16 Jun 2014)

I'd certainly love to see a plane sole with a regular curve, convex or concave. It would be my first time for sure.

I would also love to know how you make the distinction, bump(s) vs. a regular convexity or concavity, through a section of the sole.

Grinding to a regular curve would seem a more miraculous manufacturing feat than grinding them dead flat. I've found no evidence that they ever did either on a consistent basis. Obviously, the goal was a flat sole. How that morphed into ones with regular curves is interesting, to say the least. Do you have any theories on how this could have happened, regular curve that is? And how a disproportionate number of them have apparently come your way?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Jun 2014)

Unusually, I agree with Jacob. I've done a few of mine this way and not had any problem whatsoever.


----------



## CStanford (16 Jun 2014)

phil.p":2s6ymn5e said:


> Unusually, I agree with Jacob. I've done a few of mine this way and not had any problem whatsoever.



My sense is that we would all have much trouble with one over a millimeter out if we went straight to the lapping table. That, or have an unusually sensitive hand to be able to balance the sole on the high point and grind it down. It usually sits on the high point, settles on a low point at the other end and while the high point is taken down the low point is too so the plane stays, on a net basis, at best as out of truth as it was when one got started.


----------



## GLFaria (16 Jun 2014)

With the sandpaper or polishing paper I use, no matter what the grit, I found out that with baby oil instead of water the sandpaper doesn't have the tendency to curl it has with water. But it does slip on my glass plate, so... clamping... heck, Pete, how do you manage to do any kind of work on so cluttered a table (or whatever that so-calles surface is)? Plainly nightmarish! :wink: 

I only use spray adhesive for "heavier" work - hence almost never; much as I would like ito, I don't buy that many used (or new for that matter) planes. And it's just too much trouble cleaning the plate afterwards... (ok, call me lazy)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Jun 2014)

Surely it can't settle on a low point? For the end to be a low point, there would have to be two high points - in which case it wouldn't settle on the low point.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2014)

CStanford":lpruigif said:


> phil.p":lpruigif said:
> 
> 
> > Unusually, I agree with Jacob. I've done a few of mine this way and not had any problem whatsoever.
> ...


It will (can only) settle on high points only. There will be at least 3 of these. They will all be diminished until the thing is flat. You could always put more pressure towards one rather than another if you want to.
A level of over-thinking going on here! As usual it's much simpler if you go at it brain-off head-down.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2014)

GLFaria":15x2bhli said:


> With the sandpaper or polishing paper I use, no matter what the grit, I found out that with baby oil instead of water the sandpaper doesn't have the tendency to curl it has with water. But it does slip on my glass plate, .....


If you use thin paper and just wet it thoroughly it won't slip, once it's nicely flattened out


----------



## bugbear (16 Jun 2014)

If a high point is truly localised, it will be abraded very aggressively, compared to a less localised "mean plane".

Thought experiment: Consider a case, where an other wise flat plane (of either type  ) has a localised bump, a 1 mm hemisphere, projecting above the plane.

I don't think anyone would be too worried about removed this with abrasive - although there will be "some" unwanted abrasion in areas other than the bump, it will be slight. The action of the abrasive is moderated by the size of the features being worked on - large features lead to lower pressures leading to lower removal rates. For once, the laws of nature are on our side, at least at the level of precision we're discussing.

The only time this joyous thing doesn't happen is a uniformly convex banana.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (16 Jun 2014)

Jacob":1vrq5ux1 said:


> CStanford":1vrq5ux1 said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":1vrq5ux1 said:
> ...



When well-meaning woodworkers speak of lapping and lapping and the out-of-flat situation not improving it is this phenomenon in play: the high spot is coming down but a low spot is coming down right along with it. If the high spots are at both ends of the plane, and they are pretty much the same 'height' then all will be fine. If not, then trouble lies ahead.

Some planes have no more than a heel bump, right under where the handle attaches. You can lap fore and aft the rest of your life and it won't improve one millionth of an inch. Just scrape or sand down under the handle and, voila', flatness. Some have a bump under the front knob and back handle. These usually will lap out fine all at once but you have to compare the height of each bump to another spot on the plane, doesn't matter where but you have to use the same spot. If the bumps are the same height, then lap away. If not, work on the highest one first. 

It's no different than working wood. You have to figure out where the highest spot is first and work on that area to the exclusion of all others until it comes down in height to the 2nd highest spot, etc. etc. At some point with wood you can then just take through shavings and the truth of your long plane will do the rest of the work. And this is the same thing the lapping table does. But you have to get to that point first. The fact that you were able to go straight to the lapping table is proof that the sole was close to true to begin with. It isn't so with all planes.


----------



## bugbear (16 Jun 2014)

Jacob":ohmpb8gf said:


> It will (can only) settle on high points only. There will be at least 3 of these.



If the sole is either a good old Sheffield banana (curved in 1 direction, common) or domed (curved in 2 directions, not common) that's not true.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (16 Jun 2014)

Oh all right! I was thinking more of the typical flatness with blemishes, rather than the avocado or other special shape.


----------



## woodbrains (16 Jun 2014)

Hello,

There seems to be an awful lot of advice about plane flattening from the 'just use it as it is' and the 'planes weren't flat when they were made of wood' crowd. (hammer) 

Mike.


----------



## GLFaria (17 Jun 2014)

Jacob":3pijp9in said:


> GLFaria":3pijp9in said:
> 
> 
> > With the sandpaper or polishing paper I use, no matter what the grit, I found out that with baby oil instead of water the sandpaper doesn't have the tendency to curl it has with water. But it does slip on my glass plate, .....
> ...


"Thin" being a relative notion, I don't know if the paper I can get and use is thin or not according to your references. But I know for sure that it curls a lot if I use it with water and no adhesive.
On the other side, if you mean "wet it thoroughly" with oil, I guarantee it is usually fully soaked - those d***d baby oil bottles never have a decent spout, and most of the time when I just want a couple of drops I usually get a full - big - spoon of it... Does anyone know a trick for modifying these stoppers so one can get a reasonably metered amount instead?


----------



## JimB (17 Jun 2014)

Going back to the original question, "how much is too much?", I'd say this one was too much if you wanted it for a tool, just right if you wished to learn the esoteric arts of flattening metal and, pretty cheap if you merely wanted to display the downfall of a once proud trademark.


----------



## lanemaux (17 Jun 2014)

Hi GL , if you want a better bottle for spreading baby oil (pleasantly scented mineral oil) you might try a lighter fluid bottle . Even if you don't smoke dollar store lighter fluid can be had cheap , the fluid removed for other purposes like the BBQ and the bottle makes a very precise dispenser , one drop or many. I wind a band of electrician tape on mine so it stands apart from real lighter fluid. Make sure to use a funnel to transfer though or you just exchange one mess for another , DON'T ASK.


----------



## bugbear (17 Jun 2014)

Jacob":p4q9mwgp said:


> Oh all right! I was thinking more of the typical flatness with blemishes, rather than the avocado or other special shape.



Yes - the more uniform defects tend be residual stress from poor manufacture, the more localised defects are normally the result of wear. Both are common enough.

BugBear


----------



## GLFaria (17 Jun 2014)

lanemaux":30t6hkcl said:


> Hi GL , if you want a better bottle for spreading baby oil (pleasantly scented mineral oil) you might try a lighter fluid bottle . Even if you don't smoke dollar store lighter fluid can be had cheap , the fluid removed for other purposes like the BBQ and the bottle makes a very precise dispenser , one drop or many. I wind a band of electrician tape on mine so it stands apart from real lighter fluid. Make sure to use a funnel to transfer though or you just exchange one mess for another , DON'T ASK.


Thanks, lanemaux, I'll look for one. Anything must be better than those slippery, messy, oil-spilling Johnson Baby Oil bottles (being just a very lousy amateur working mostly very soft woods and not having to sharpen all that much, I can afford the luxury; and besides, that's what they stock at my local drugstore...)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jun 2014)

I used a Zippo for 30 yrs, and I didn't see fluid in a bottle.


----------



## GLFaria (17 Jun 2014)

And I don't smoke, so I have no idea at what the fluid comes in...


----------



## Jacob (17 Jun 2014)

GLFaria":2x6h4wj3 said:


> Jacob":2x6h4wj3 said:
> 
> 
> > GLFaria":2x6h4wj3 said:
> ...


Then it's (absolutely) not thin enough. 
Has to be paper backed (not cloth - wrong material altogether for flattening). Though I notice "latex" backed in some ads - don't know if this is the same stuff, probably is - makes sense - the water (or white spirit) helps it stick by "suction".


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jun 2014)

GLFaria":r0td8ikc said:


> And I don't smoke, so I have no idea at what the fluid comes in...


Cans that would be extremely difficult to refill.


----------



## GLFaria (17 Jun 2014)

Jacob":142knzck said:


> Has to be paper backed (not cloth - wrong material altogether for flattening). Though I notice "latex" backed in some ads - don't know if this is the same stuff, probably is - makes sense - the water (or white spirit) helps it stick by "suction".


Paper backed, wet and dry.


----------



## Jacob (17 Jun 2014)

GLFaria":30gpw2gj said:


> Jacob":30gpw2gj said:
> 
> 
> > Has to be paper backed (not cloth - wrong material altogether for flattening). Though I notice "latex" backed in some ads - don't know if this is the same stuff, probably is - makes sense - the water (or white spirit) helps it stick by "suction".
> ...


OK get a new flat sheet from the pack, lay it on a pool of white spirit on your table (impermeable - steel, plastic, glass etc) pour more on top, wiggle it about and squeeze the liquid from under, gently start the grinding op but pinning the paper down with a finger if it's still floating about. Eventually it is pressed flat and won't move, keep flooding with fluid as necessary. 
Store your paper between boards so that it stays flat.


----------



## GLFaria (17 Jun 2014)

Jacob":107yav8v said:


> GLFaria":107yav8v said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":107yav8v said:
> ...


Thanks, I will give it a go.


----------



## GLFaria (17 Jun 2014)

GLFaria":1owaq053 said:


> Jacob":1owaq053 said:
> 
> 
> > Has to be paper backed (not cloth - wrong material altogether for flattening). Though I notice "latex" backed in some ads - don't know if this is the same stuff, probably is - makes sense - the water (or white spirit) helps it stick by "suction".
> ...


OK get a new flat sheet from the pack, lay it on a pool of white spirit on your table (impermeable - steel, plastic, glass etc) pour more on top, wiggle it about and squeeze the liquid from under, gently start the grinding op but pinning the paper down with a finger if it's still floating about. Eventually it is pressed flat and won't move, keep flooding with fluid as necessary. 
Store your paper between boards so that it stays flat.[/quote]
Thanks, I will give it a go.[/quote]
Eeerr... no, I won't. Just to be sure, I looked into the properties of white spirit. Now, I work in a very confined environment. Ok, open the door and th window? Small window, and the main wind is towards the the door - which leads directly into the kitchen. Now, as behaves a kitchen, all sorts of gas flames may be alight there at any given moment. I wouldn't feel safe.
I think I would better stay with the oil. Thanks anyway.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (17 Jun 2014)

Jacob":s9hjquk7 said:


> GLFaria":s9hjquk7 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":s9hjquk7 said:
> ...



Sorry to labour the point, but have you found the white spirit to be compatible with long term exposure to a cast iron bed of your planer or table saw bed. 

You see I'm a little prissy over my gleaming cast iron tool beds and don't relish immovable stains caused by the spirit.


----------



## lanemaux (17 Jun 2014)

Hi there Phil. In regards to the tins or plastic bottles that lighter fluid comes in,all the ones I've seen have a pressed on plastic cap with the swivel type nozzle on top. With care and a slotted type screwdriver they pop off fairly well. They are reapplied with just a firm push and seal quite well as the plastic caps are fairly springy. sort of like mounting a really tiny tire. I use mine for any precision lubricating as the baby oil bottle is so clumsy that it ends up lube to floor and not lube to part. As you might remember . a fall with my new and improved crystal bone structure is contraindicated. It is simply amazing how slippery a couple of drops of mineral oil can make a painted concrete floor.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jun 2014)

Greetings. I hadn't tried getting the top off one - the need had never arisen.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (17 Jun 2014)

How much is too much? One penny more than you are happy to pay. I'm sure Holtey, Marcos et al would make a jack plane for you if you have the budget and the inclination.
How much is enough is probably a better question, and for typical jack usage (as a rough prep tool) very little need be spent.

DC - Mr Grimsdale's point about skipping grits is that scratches at worst do not affect performance, and may indeed reduce stiction, so once preferred tolerances have been reached, it is only neceassry to polish the peaks, not remove the troughs.

BB - for localised high spots straight from the factory, check any unfettled CS88. Goodly sized bump just behind the mouth. As you say, easily remedied.


----------



## Jacob (17 Jun 2014)

Bluekingfisher":2h478aks said:


> Jacob":2h478aks said:
> 
> 
> > GLFaria":2h478aks said:
> ...


 :lol: 
Hadn't crossed my mind. Though I wouldn't use water - I don't want things to go rusty.
If you want to do woodwork you have to stop worrying about the shiny newness of your tools - they are going to end up looking used. :shock: Tragic, sad but inevitable. 
I've heard that some people are reluctant to use their benches as it could spoil the finish. :roll:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Jun 2014)

> DC - Mr Grimsdale's point about skipping grits is that scratches at worst do not affect performance, and may indeed reduce stiction, so once preferred tolerances have been reached, it is only neceassry to polish the peaks, not remove the troughs.



Stiction? Really? At 60 .. 100 .. 240 .. 400 grit? I get stiction on a flat 8000 grit Shapton. I very much doubt that you could induce stiction on a jack plane on coarse sandpaper. :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (17 Jun 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > DC - Mr Grimsdale's point about skipping grits is that scratches at worst do not affect performance, and may indeed reduce stiction, so once preferred tolerances have been reached, it is only neceassry to polish the peaks, not remove the troughs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Certainly no stiction - may a little vacuum lift at the end of the stroke on small workpieces - you'd need a fully corrugated sole to avoid that, 60 grit won't do it.

BugBear


----------



## Bluekingfisher (18 Jun 2014)

Hadn't crossed my mind. Though I wouldn't use water - I don't want things to go rusty.
If you want to do woodwork you have to stop worrying about the shiny newness of your tools - they are going to end up looking used. :shock: Tragic, sad but inevitable.
I've heard that some people are reluctant to use their benches as it could spoil the finish. :roll:

_________________
cheers
Jacob

It's not about the tools

I've been woodworking over 20 years so my tools are well used. I prefer to use them for their intended purpose is all, that way they look much like they did when I bought them.

I just prefer to work in a clean and organised environment.

That said, I believe you have answered my question.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (18 Jun 2014)

dunbarhamlin":2a5awl89 said:


> How much is too much? One penny more than you are happy to pay. I'm sure Holtey, Marcos et al would make a jack plane for you if you have the budget and the inclination.
> How much is enough is probably a better question, and for typical jack usage (as a rough prep tool) very little need be spent.
> 
> DC - Mr Grimsdale's point about skipping grits is that scratches at worst do not affect performance, and may indeed reduce stiction, so once preferred tolerances have been reached, it is only neceassry to polish the peaks, not remove the troughs.
> ...



The query "how much is too much" was in relation to how much metal to take off, not the price of the tool. Just thought I would clear that up


----------



## JimB (18 Jun 2014)

The query "how much is too much" was in relation to how much metal to take off, not the price of the tool. Just thought I would clear that up [/quote]
which raises another point - how over-engineered is a Stanley of that era? :wink:


----------

