# LN replacement blade or Hock blade+chipbreaker ?



## pompon44 (30 Oct 2006)

Dear all,

I'm considering upgrading my old Stanley(s) with new blades. Should I go for the full replacement (chipbreaker+blade, Hock) or is the blade (LN) enough ?

Thanks,


----------



## woodbloke (30 Oct 2006)

I tried to do this with my _old _T5 Record jack plane. The LN blade had the rectangular hole for the lateral adjustment lever in the wrong place and I could not get it to fit,  so do beware and check that a LN blade will fit your plane, if it does fit, you will have to enlarge the mouth on it by careful filing - Rob


----------



## Alf (30 Oct 2006)

We are aware there are LN blades to fit LN planes and LN blades specifically made to fit old planes, yes? 'pologies if that's an egg-sucking point, but folks have been had on that before now.

It sort of depends on what you're looking to upgrade. There is some persuasive argument that the cap iron (chip breaker, if misnomers are your thing) will give more _performance_ benefit than just the iron. With an aftermarket iron thin enough to fit a Stanley _et al_, the advantage is instead largely one of _edge-holding_. Fwiw.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (30 Oct 2006)

I agree with Alf

My experience is that a LN blade gives better performance than a Hock and new chipbreaker (I used Clifton 2-piece chip breakers)

the planes I have tried these on are Record #4, Stanley #5, Stanley #6, Stanley #7

The LN blades are much thicker and therefore less prone to vibration (not that I noticed) and the edge lasts much longer in my experience. I personally would go for the LN blade every time

For info, the LN#5.5 blade fits directly into the Stanley #6 (cant't remember the other blade sizes I used and the planes have mostly gone now but suspect the #5.5 fits the #7 too)


----------



## pompon44 (30 Oct 2006)

Hum, Tony, Alf, I'm confused by your answers. Might just be my poor english... but reading you, I do not understand you're agreeing ;-) 

I thought Alf was saying that (blade+cap iron) enhance the performance of the plane (which I'm after), while (blade only) enhance the lifetime of the edge (which is nice, but not as nice as a boost in performance).

I thought that Tony was saying that a LN blade (not a replacement blade, but a plain LN one) was better than (blade+cap iron)... 

BTW, if I go for a LN, I will for a one specified as fitting the old Stanley (i.e. those ones : http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?cat=512 , 0.095 inches thick, not the ones that comes with LN planes, which are more like .125" for a #5 for instance, if I read correctly their web site)

So, is it my froggy english, or are you indeed saying different things ?

Best regards,


----------



## woodbloke (30 Oct 2006)

Alf - that's where I obviously went wrong #-o 'cos I probably bought a LN blade for a LN plane when what I _wanted_ was a LN blade for an older plane, now I understand :lol: - Rob


----------



## Alf (30 Oct 2006)

pompon44":wn62us11 said:


> Hum, Tony, Alf, I'm confused by your answers. Might just be my poor english... but reading you, I do not understand you're agreeing ;-)


Must be my poor English too, 'cos I don't think we're agreeing either :lol:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (30 Oct 2006)

FWIW, I chose an L-N replacement blade and L-N improved chip-breaker for my Stanley 5 1/2 and am very happy. 

Then again I made so many improvements to this plane - under DC's guidance - it's hard to know what proportion to attribute to the blade/chip-breaker replacement.


----------



## pompon44 (30 Oct 2006)

Hi Phil,

Well, thanks for your input. I did not realized that LN chip-breakers could fit in old Stanleys. No problem at all ? Just plug and play ?

Thanks,


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (30 Oct 2006)

I had to move the frog back a bit to accomodate the extra thickness. The lateral adjuster only just engages the slot; I know others have written about needing to extend this but I can just get away with it.


----------



## scooby (30 Oct 2006)

I swapped the iron and cap iron in my old Stanley 5 1/2 for Hock items. The iron and cap iron fit first time with no problem and have improved the performance of the plane by 100%.


----------



## David C (30 Oct 2006)

Thanks Phil!

Pompon,

Either Hock or L-N replacement blades, 95 thou inch/ 2.4mm very good indeed.

I would try this first and see the huge improvement.
You could then add an improved chip breaker, to one plane, after using the improved blades for some time....... and see if any further improvement was noticable.

Only dilemma, A2 cryo high speed steel or carbon steel. Hock makes both, L-N are A2 cryo only. I like A2 a lot. If you sharpen with waterstones you will not have any problem with A2.

I have had an issue with the L-N improved chipbreaker length, for a No 5 plane only. i.e. 2" blade.
The way to get round this is to measure chipbreaker length carefully, from front edge to first edge of slot for Y lever, or yoke. Then e mail L-N and ask for correct length.

P.S.
Cap iron is English terminology, chipbreaker more common in USA. When I read Hoadley on plane theory, chipbreaker seems to describe the function rather well.

David Charlesworth


----------



## David C (30 Oct 2006)

L-N blades to fit his own planes, may be too thick to fit in old Stanley Record etc.

This is the whole point of the 'replacement' blades being 95thou (2.4mm thick). This thickness is supplied by both L-N and Hock. Only supplier in this country Classic hand tools. APTC and Tilgear might have to order?

Extra thick blades can be fitted, but sometimes require new Yoke/Y lever, or some clever modification to the chipbreaker and possibly throat filing and frog moving.

When fettling/tuning a plane it is always a good idea to investigate the frog seating. i.e. mating surfaces between frog and body casting, as the contact area is often appalingly small and badly machined.

This whole topic will be covered in detail on my 6th DVD which will be out some time next year.

David Charlesworth


----------



## scooby (30 Oct 2006)

David C":1ah3vmme said:


> Thanks Phil!
> 
> Pompon,
> 
> ...



I had a bit of a no brainer moment when I ordered my Hock iron. I originally intended to order A2 but due to not paying attention and rushing through the ordering process I ended up getting the high carbon steel. I'm not overly bothered as I've found the carbon steel to be very good. I've had it about 2 months and only sharpened it 3 times (very easy on waterstones) and it's seen some hard work lately on oak doors.


----------



## David C (31 Oct 2006)

Hock carbon steel blades are excellent, a huge improvement over recent Stanley or Record.

Better steel, better hardness, better thickness.

A2 will keep you working longer, maybe two times longer or more, but this is not a huge issue for many.

David Charlesworth


----------



## bugbear (31 Oct 2006)

David C":5c6gvr0q said:


> P.S.
> Cap iron is English terminology, chipbreaker more common in USA. When I read Hoadley on plane theory, chipbreaker seems to describe the function rather well.
> 
> David Charlesworth



Heh. The function is HOTLY disputed.

There is (possibly defunct) a Japanese paper on chip breaker function under controlled circumstances, in one of those now-gone "super planers".

To function as a chip breaker the edge to chip breaker distance had to be truly tiny - on the order of the shaving thickness IIRC.

This is not _normally_ achieved.

http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpe ... ml#caprion

BugBear


----------



## David C (31 Oct 2006)

Bugbear,

There was a link to that Japanese paper posted by someone on Woodcentral in the last week or so. Perhaps you could find it.

Took the trouble to look at it. Very interesting information, and as you say C/B had to be very close indeed for best function.

You are trying to tell me that Hoadley and Hack are wrong?

Or are you referring to type 2 shavings, at steeper effective pitches, where chipbreaker ceases to have any part of shaving chip production, and a half inch mouth would be fine.

David Charlesworth


----------



## pompon44 (31 Oct 2006)

Dear all,

Thanks for your great inputs. 
I guess I'll order a LN replacement blade with my next LN command (which will probably be the first non-DVD one ;-) something like a block plane maybe 8) ), and see how this goes. Should keep me busy for a while.

Regards,


----------



## scooby (2 Nov 2006)

Alf":3m7g3cqk said:


> cap iron (chip breaker, if misnomers are your thing)
> Cheers, Alf



I've always known it (and called it a cap iron). I did call it a chipbreaker once and was greeted by a confused look by my dad. I've worked with a lot of joiners who didn't know what it was called, suppose it doesn't matter as long as you know how to use the thing,etc.


----------



## Anonymous (3 Nov 2006)

pompon44":3fxcsopg said:


> Hum, Tony, Alf, I'm confused by your answers. Might just be my poor english... but reading you, I do not understand you're agreeing ;-)



OK, I agree with some of what Alf said

What I am saying is that the LN blade is better than the Hock blade and I have never seen any improvement in performance from changing the cap iron (chip breaker) at all. Just my experience on my planes though.

The LN blade is much thicker and so vibrates less and also holds an edge longer than the Hock

This is just my experience trying them out on several planes over the past few years


----------



## Alf (3 Nov 2006)

Tony":3ac96x02 said:


> OK, I agree with some of what Alf said


and then...


Tony":3ac96x02 said:


> What I am saying is that the LN blade is better than the Hock blade and I have never seen any improvement in performance from changing the cap iron (chip breaker) at all.


Neither of which I meant to say, so if I did my apologies for being misleading. I dunno, I'm just hopelessly confused really... :roll: :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Jake (3 Nov 2006)

Alf":e1vx6kmq said:


> I dunno, I'm just hopelessly confused really... :roll: :lol:



Its all gone a bit Alf Through the Looking Glass.


----------



## Inspector (4 Nov 2006)

Pompon44
Here is another option for replacement blades for your planes.

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx ... 43698&ap=1

I am curious as to what you feel you will gain by switching to a new blade? 

The reason I ask is that I hardness tested a blade from an older Stanley #6 at work the other night. Three readings were 62.0, 61.5, and 62.0 HRC. These are in the same range as the replacements. I realize that there is an improvement in edge holding with A2 and that there is some decreased chatter with the thicker blade, but if these haven't been an issue up to this point. What is to be gained? I could understand if the blade had been used up and couldn't be sharpened or was badly pitted.

Somehow I have to believe that a lot of good blades are being thrown out unnecessarily especially in light of the fact that the planes are being employed as a pastime and not used hard in daily production. It's the "fashion" at the moment but if I were ever to replace one I'd make sure I oiled up the original and stored it for the day when someone wanted an original to put back.

I'm not trying to say you or anyone else is wrong for making the change, only that in my view the improvement may not be entirely warranted.


----------



## Alf (4 Nov 2006)

Jake":pr9b9x31 said:


> Alf":pr9b9x31 said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno, I'm just hopelessly confused really... :roll: :lol:
> ...


:lol:



Inspector":pr9b9x31 said:


> Somehow I have to believe that a lot of good blades are being thrown out...


Eeek, I hope not. I'll have 'em; apart from my #5 1/2 that I was obliged to fit with a Hock all mine are old blades. To be honest, and this is no doubt a contentious opinion, I've never really understood the point of fitting a top notch blade to a plane that by design isn't intended for fine work and cabinetry. But then I wouldn't spend time tuning a Skoda to compete in Formula One either, although that may simply be a lack of ambition on my part... :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Lord Nibbo (4 Nov 2006)

Alf":h529k0ed said:


> But then I wouldn't spend time tuning a Skoda to compete in Formula One either, :lol:
> 
> Cheers, Alf



But if you added go faster stripes down each side it would *go faster* or is that a myth, maybe a pair of furry dice hanging in the windscreen would work better! :lol:


----------



## Alf (4 Nov 2006)

Lord Nibbo":11u26502 said:


> But if you added go faster stripes down each side it would *go faster* or is that a myth...


Well even if it _is_ a myth then it must go a _little_ faster - after all a myth is as good as a mile...

Coat, hat, door, me, gone 8-[

Cheers, Alf


----------



## DaveL (4 Nov 2006)

Lord Nibbo":7wzni42i said:


> But if you added go faster stripes down each side it would *go faster* or is that a myth,


The 'go faster' in this case refers to your *money*, not the car.


----------



## David C (4 Nov 2006)

Inspector,

Thickness is very desirable, helps to cut chatter. The harder the timber the more apparent this is.

Stanley's best blades, sweetheart area maybe? are undoubtedly much better than later ones.

My students have been tuning up bench planes since about 1974, and they all detect improvement in performance within a day or two.

It has been an interesting progression;
In the beginning we found older blades were better.
Then Samurai laminated had much better hardness and edge holding but were still thin.
Hock carbon steel were better again due to thickness.
L-N and Hock A2 kept us working longer between sharpenings and are the current favorite. 
Have not tried L-V yet. Ray Iles, Holtey and Academy saw works are all excellent if not superb. 

There are even better blade materials, but generally they require more sharpening time, (diamond lapping).

Of course function is relevant.
My approach is to tune one bench plane for the finest cabinetmaking work. With machinery you don't really need more than one for quite a long time, if ever.
I choose to use a 5 1/2 for perfecting the finish and accuracy from a machine planer/ thicknesser. In the same way Alan Peters chose to use a No 7. He said the work had to be very small indeed before he thought about a smaller plane!

A well tuned plane with a high quality replacement blade achieves about 90 to 95 % of the performance of an expensive bench plane. 

If you work without machinery, this approach no longer works and more planes are needed.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jarviser (4 Nov 2006)

scooby":2kxnb99t said:


> Alf":2kxnb99t said:
> 
> 
> > cap iron (chip breaker, if misnomers are your thing)
> ...


Record call it a Cap Iron, And THE MAN Charles Hayward calls it a Back (or Cap) Iron. I think if you have shavings coming through big enough to be broken up by the cap iron you're a carpenter, not a cabinet maker. Maybe it's all those timber frame houses the other side of the pond?


----------



## scooby (7 Nov 2006)

I'm a bit dubious about admitting this here.. but I thoroughly abused my Hock iron today  Had to reduce some 1/4" thick Plastic fascia and all I had was my Hock equipped Stanley 5 1/2. 

I was dreading looking at the blade after I'd finished. The iron was hardly dulled and had no visible nicks, etc. I was very impressed and relieved.


----------



## David C (10 Nov 2006)

Hock blades, 

as I keep repeating in a boring and repetetive manner, are excellent.

both A2 and Carbon

David C


----------

