# 40 1/2 scrub plane..



## Midnight (26 Jun 2004)

any thoughts re what to expect from one..???

I ordered one tonight cos with this #@&%$'n leg injury, trying to work this oak is kickin my butt somethin fierce..
Took the opportunity of upgrading my chip breakers too...


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jun 2004)

Midnight - can you shed light on what makes it a scrub plane? I've seen loads of people use #4s and #5s as scrubs - opening the mouth right up, cap iron well back from the bevel, deep cut depth. 

Jeff Gorman has even taken a crappy modern Record SP4 and set it up as a scrub, so was wondering why the need for a dedicated plane?

Curiously,
Esp


----------



## Midnight (26 Jun 2004)

Esp..

Bearing in mind the closest I've got to having one is having the invoice for it...
To date, I've managed to get by with my #5 with an agressive radius honed into it, kept the frog so far back as the tip of the blade is at rest on the rear of the throat. It works to a point, but the pair of oak boards on the bench right now have it well beat; I'll get part way through a stroke before hitting either a knot or a band of reversed grain. At that point, the plane takes off on a latteral vector trying to contour the wild stuff. With my leg in the condition it's in, that change in vector brings tears to the eyes and turns the air rather blue..
The L-N 40 1/2 has neither frog, adjuster nor chip breaker; as far as scrubbing's concerned, they're redundant. The blade is sharpened on a 3" radius, is masssivly thick at 3/16" and A2 steel, so hopefully it has the mass and stiffness to plough through the wilder stuff...
More than that I can't say till I get it in the shop and let it do its thing....


----------



## Chris Knight (26 Jun 2004)

Esp,

Wot Midnight said. I periodically turn an old Miller's Falls smoother into whatever plane I haven't got by using another iron or massively altering whatever iron is in there. As such it does occasional duty as a scrub plane and suffers the same problems described by Midnight. I live with it because I am/am not a handtool freak and am not above using an adze or axe or angle grinder if it will get the job done. Also I mostly use my Scheppach planer except when I have lapsed again and bought half a tree..


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jun 2004)

OK

What is a scrub plane?


----------



## Midnight (26 Jun 2004)

http://www.lie-nielsen.com/tool.html?id ... 5732024281

galoot's version of a mini-gun.... doesn't take prisoners...


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jun 2004)

Cool, thanks for the info Midnight & Waterhead; must admit, I've always managed with a converted smoother, but never had to do anything too gnarly  

Let us know what it's like Midnight, when it turns up.


----------



## Alf (28 Jun 2004)

I got a Stanley #40 1/2 amongst the tool chest goodies. Can't say I've ever felt the need for a dedicated scrub before, but it's bloomin' good fun. Sorry, nothing else to contribute - just can't let a gloatin' opportunity go by... :wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (28 Jun 2004)

This from a dyed in the wool, bottom feeding, old tools guy: The LN 40 1/2 is a joy to use.
Personally, I use a Sweetheart vintage Stanley #40. I considered buying an LN because I've been able to sell #40's for near the price of LN's. I eventually decided to keep one Stanley to use. 
I work with rough lumber 90% of the time and I do not own a thickness planer so I use a scrub often. I have #5's with variously cambered blades but they do not begin to compare with a true scrub for removing a large amount of wood.


----------



## Midnight (28 Jun 2004)

Roger Nixon":32dzme3r said:


> This from a dyed in the wool, bottom feeding, old tools guy: The LN 40 1/2 is a joy to use.
> Personally, I use a Sweetheart vintage Stanley #40. I considered buying an LN because I've been able to sell #40's for near the price of LN's. I eventually decided to keep one Stanley to use.
> I work with rough lumber 90% of the time and I do not own a thickness planer so I use a scrub often. I have #5's with variously cambered blades but they do not begin to compare with a true scrub for removing a large amount of wood.



Hi Roger..

That's exactly the kinda feedback I was hoping to hear.. Although I do have a thicknesser, I got tired of having to work within the limitations imposed my what my benchtop jointer could handle; I've since turned semi-knuckle dragger, and can honestly say that I'm having more enjoyment from each project thesedays. 
Jennifer from L-N's sales dept e-mailed this afternoon to the effect that he plane should be here by the end of the week... it ummmmm... canna get here soon enough...


----------



## Bean (28 Jun 2004)

These sound like fun and a good excuse for not buying that tailed devil :evil: I was looking at and all the shavings it will spray over my shop  . 
Now where do I get one from, I cannot run to a LN and I have seen none at any of my usual suppliers (car boots & garage sales)

Bean


----------



## Anonymous (28 Jun 2004)

There are other scrubs available. ECE makes a horned woody scrub that is very nice & around half the price of an LN (I don't know how prices compare there).
At boot sales, look for Stanley #40's or #40 1/2's (much rarer, ALF did a driveby gloat earlier :lol: )


----------



## Anonymous (29 Jun 2004)

Lee Valley do one too:

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=46873&category=1,41182&ccurrency=2&SID=


----------



## Alf (29 Jun 2004)

Another option is to make your own. Scrubs are just about ideal as a first plane; no tight mouth required.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## blurk99 (29 Jun 2004)

Alf,

Is it possible to adapt a knackered old stanley #5? my dad gave me one of my filrst planes and it had a great chip in front of the mouth, it's a fine door stop on the shed but could it be adapted? i've never seen the sole or mouth of a scrub plane up close y'see....

jimmer


----------



## Alf (29 Jun 2004)

It surely could, and many people have done just that (see Mike's post above). I'll take a shot of the sole of mine which will be worth more than all the laboured descriptions. :wink: 

Cheers, Alf

Edit: Pesky camera wanted to focus through the mouth opening, but you get the idea. The rule's right on the edge of the mouth, btw.


----------



## Adam (29 Jun 2004)

Alf":1kt9om3v said:


> Edit: Pesky camera wanted to focus through the mouth opening, but you get the idea. The rule's right on the edge of the mouth, btw.



Cameras need contrast to focus, and your picture looks like it doesn't have enough. Does you camera pre-focus - using a "half" button press? If so, put something like a pencil, or other item with a dark edge on the photo in the place you want to focus, half-press the shutter button (so it focuses), remove said item, and complete the shutter button click to take the photo, in focus. 

Adam


----------



## Alf (29 Jun 2004)

Ah, good tip. Thanks, Adam. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## blurk99 (29 Jun 2004)

Thanks for the photo Alf, i'll be at the 'doorstop' with the Dremel this weekend and have a go at making one of those, it's got to be a better use for an old stanley hasn't it?
jim


----------



## Alf (29 Jun 2004)

Better than a door stop, yep. :lol:


----------



## Anonymous (29 Jun 2004)

Espedair Street":26x2ydab said:


> Lee Valley do one too:
> 
> http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=46873&category=1,41182&ccurrency=2&SID=



That is the ECE I mentioned earlier. LV and many others sell them. High quality, low price and fun!


----------



## Midnight (3 Jul 2004)

The parcel cleared customs this morning.....

<checks the watch......... drums fingers....... looks out the window......checks the watch.....


----------



## Alf (9 Jul 2004)

Thought this thread showing a conversion of a jack to a scrub might be of interest. Those shavings really aren't scrub-a-like at all though.  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jul 2004)

mmmm... good idea for my chinese #5 (but with a veritable Stanley iron). 

Now... Alf, what's the point of rounding the fore lip of the mouth ? 

Second question: how to re-bevel the iron (as in the American thread) without making a whole mess ?  

Cheers
Alberto


----------



## Alf (9 Jul 2004)

Alberto,



> Now... Alf, what's the point of rounding the fore lip of the mouth?


I assume to allow plenty of space for the thick chips which tend to be that shape in cross section (thickest in the middle, curving away towards the edges). Although, if the mouth is big enough, I don't suppose it matters much.



> Second question: how to re-bevel the iron (as in the American -thread) without making a whole mess?


Well I can't speak for doing it on a Bailey iron, but what I did on my #40 1/2 was:
-Select a radius. I chose 3" in the end, if I recall correctly. Advice in the Porch Archive seemed to vary between 2 and 3" and I reckoned it was easier to grind it tighter if I wanted to, than the other way round. :roll: 
-Draw it out on a piece of card, and cut it out.
-Scribble marker pen over the back of the blade, offer up your radius template and scratch round it into the marker pen ink.
-Set grinder rest so you're grinding straight across the edge, no bevel angle at all, and freehand the curve down to the guideline.
-_Then_ set the grinder rest to the desired angle and put a bevel on the curve.
-Freehand hone the bevel as usual (hey Mike, you're gonna have to learn to freehand hone after all :shock: )
Resulting in:






This is definitely a case of "If I can do it, anyone can"; heck, I even used the hand cranked grinder so it was one handed. :lol: And of course, the actual quality of the edge isn't very important anyway in this case, so it's nothing to worry about. Have fun.  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jul 2004)

Hice one Alf

I have an oold Record #4 - by the end of the weekend I hope to have a Record Scrub!!

Do you remove the chipbreaker when converting as the LN doesn't have one?

Cheers

Tony


----------



## Alf (9 Jul 2004)

Tony":3gdxulvy said:


> Do you remove the chipbreaker when converting as the LN doesn't have one?


On the whole, I'd think not. You might have to set it back quite a way though, but it'll still give a bit of additional rigidity to the blade I think. Ideally a suitably sized iron from a woodie would be good, 'cos of the additional thickness. I really don't know for sure though, 'cos I've never done it!  

Cheers, Alf

P.S. How old a Record #4? Not "old" old I hope? :shock:


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jul 2004)

No, not 'old', just 4 years - retired when i got the 4 1/2

Cheers

Tony


----------



## Alf (9 Jul 2004)

Phew!


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jul 2004)

To be a little more accurate, opening up the mouth of a #4 or #5 and putting a camber in the blade makes these planes jack planes not scrubs.
The 3" radius Alf put on her plane is pretty close to my most agressive #5. If you put any more camber in, the chipbreaker either extends over the ends of the blade or you run out of room on the the depth adjustment. 

A chipbreaker really has no place on a scrub plane because the shavings (if you can call them that) aren't fragile enogh for the chipbreaker to have any effect other than clogging.

My scrub has a much more agressive camber. I don't try to grind on a radius, I just put in the amount of camber I want (about 1/8" on a jack, 3/16" or so on a scrub) and grind somewhat symetrically. (I use a hand grinder, too, Alf!) On these planes (jack and scrub) only the center portion of the blade cuts so there isn't any need to be critical. This goes back to my assertion that there is no need for LN type precision on bench planes. If you try to prep wood in .001" increments, you will never get a board 4 squared and I'm too slow as it is.

What I do think is helpful on the LN scrub is the thick A2 blade. With no frog or chipbreaker to stabilze the blade, a scrub blade vibrates a lot. Since the cut is focused to a small area in the center of the blade, it is under much more strain than other plane blades and it gets HOT! The thicker, tougher A2 LN blade should have a big advantage over the Stanley blade in edge retention.


----------



## Alf (9 Jul 2004)

Roger Nixon":yqg7pzb2 said:


> A chipbreaker really has no place on a scrub plane because the shavings (if you can call them that) aren't fragile enogh for the chipbreaker to have any effect other than clogging.


Agreed - kind of. But backing off the cap iron well away from the edge would solve any problems.



Roger Nixon":yqg7pzb2 said:


> My scrub has a much more agressive camber.


Is that the camber it came with, Roger? I was just wondering because the Old Tool List Archive was extremely contradictory on this! I ended up going with what L-N put on theirs (they must know something, right? :wink: )

Really what it boils down to I think, is that a converted jack just isn't the same as a real scrub, but it's better than nothing (or the sofa if LOYL finds out you've ordered an L-N...). And timber being the price it is over here, you don't really want to get too carried away with a scrub anyway. :shock: :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jul 2004)

Alf":3oj8a7nt said:


> And timber being the price it is over here, you don't really want to get too carried away with a scrub anyway. :shock: :lol:
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Amen to that!! :wink:  

Cheers

Tony

Who will be making a #4 into a scrub if he ever gets out of this office tonight :evil:


----------



## Bean (9 Jul 2004)

Ohh I dont know about that Alf, Tony.......It can be quite cheap :wink: 

GLOAT GLOAT GLOAT GLOAT GLOAT


In case you missed it :lol: 


Bean


----------



## Anonymous (9 Jul 2004)

Alf":2q5153zd said:


> Roger Nixon":2q5153zd said:
> 
> 
> > A chipbreaker really has no place on a scrub plane because the shavings (if you can call them that) aren't fragile enogh for the chipbreaker to have any effect other than clogging.
> ...



On my Stanleys. if you back the cap iron away over 1/8", the adjuster doesn't have enough travel to withdraw the blade fully.



Alf":2q5153zd said:


> Roger Nixon":2q5153zd said:
> 
> 
> > My scrub has a much more agressive camber.
> ...



Yes, I've stayed with the camber as I recieved it because it works just right for my woods. I have no idea what the original camber was. I remember that conversation on the Porch but at that time I had no scrub plane for comparison. I have had four #40's since and they were all radiused to about 2" except for one which had been ground nearly straight across :lol: . One of the #40's appeared unused and I'm pretty sure it had the factory grind on the edge. Have you checked your #40 1/2? 



Alf":2q5153zd said:


> Really what it boils down to I think, is that a converted jack just isn't the same as a real scrub, but it's better than nothing (or the sofa if LOYL finds out you've ordered an L-N...). And timber being the price it is over here, you don't really want to get too carried away with a scrub anyway. :shock: :lol:
> Cheers, Alf



What you call a "converted jack" is what I call a true jack and I think it is the most under appreciated tool of all. I keep 2 #5's and 2 #5 1/2's under my bench with cambers ranging from 1/8" down to a few thousandths and are my most used planes. One of them will be appropriate for any project I work on.

I agree about not getting carried away with a scrub! A couple of months ago I turned 16 feet of rough 4"x4" black willow into finshed 3"x3" stock and I was grateful for the fast cutting scrub but I don't use it unless I need to remove more than 1/8" from a board. At that point a jack plane is the appropriate tool.

I have purchased a great deal of lumber for very little cost but most of it is rough and out of wind so the scrub and jack planes get a workout. It also makes any project a long term affair so I'll be buying finished lumber from now on :lol: .


----------



## Alf (10 Jul 2004)

Roger Nixon":1zkja39m said:


> What you call a "converted jack" is what I call a true jack


Ah, the murky waters of terminology.  I'm assuming a certain degree of taking a file to the mouth and so forth when I describe it as a converted jack. Although I think a lot of us, myself included, don't have as an aggressive a camber on the jack iron as perhaps we should, now you come to mention it. Good point. Oh, and it occurred to me a source for a possible scrub-a-like; the humble, and frequently depth stop and fenceless, #78 rebate plane. Nice narrow iron, solid frog. Worth a shot anyway, if anyone has one spare about the place. (Who? Me?  )

Oops, nearly forgot. My scrub came with a straight ground iron, thus giving me nothing to go on.  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (10 Jul 2004)

My apologies, Alf. I missed the part about filing the mouth open which would help alleviate the chipbreaker problems. Another candidate would be the lowly modern Stanley SB planes.

Finding specific information on the amount of camber to be used in plane blades is frustrating. Bernard Jones in "The Practical Woodworker" recommends a "bare 1/8" " for jack planes and the trying plane "not as much" and no mention of scrub planes. And this is the most specific I've found! Garrett Hack in "The Handplane Book" lists cambers of .001" for smoothers and jacks (!) and cambers from 1/64" - 1/8" for rough jacks and scrubs. R. A. Salaman doesn't mention blade cambers at all and Graham Blackburn just says jack plane blades should be "fully rounded" and scrubs "markedly rounded". Mr. Blackburn also says scrubs came about in the 19th century as a specialty plane but there is evidence they were used earlier than that on the Continent, particularly in Germany. They were referred to as roughing, cow, scud, and scurf planes and the German horned variety were known as "Bismarks" in Britain.

Jim Kingshott didn't use a scrub but a wooden jack plane with an agressively cambered blade sufficed very well for him. I don't have any documentation on the setup.

Because of this lack of information, I feel many people are missing out on much of the fun of planing. Planes with cambered irons are easy to set and use even for beginners and plane sole flatness isn't much of an issue so old metallic and wooden planes can be used effectively.

Smoothing planes and jointing planes (jointers, block, rabbet, etc) need to be sharpend straight across but planes used for stock prep should all have some camber.


----------



## Alf (11 Jul 2004)

Roger Nixon":34t8gxcp said:


> My apologies, Alf. I missed the part about filing the mouth open which would help alleviate the chipbreaker problems.


Probably because I neglected to mention it...  



Roger Nixon":34t8gxcp said:


> Another candidate would be the lowly modern Stanley SB planes.


Possibly _all_ they're good for. :roll: 



Roger Nixon":34t8gxcp said:


> Finding specific information on the amount of camber to be used in plane blades is frustrating.


D'you know, I've never really studied the issue? Hmm, might have to see fi I can find what Charles Hayward says, if anything. "Planecraft" suggests 1/64" - 1/32" for "coarse or rough work", which seems a bit light. I suppose the influence of machine-prepared timber must effect the suggested camber, so perhaps we need something pre-machinery. :? 



Roger Nixon":34t8gxcp said:


> Because of this lack of information, I feel many people are missing out on much of the fun of planing. Planes with cambered irons are easy to set and use even for beginners and plane sole flatness isn't much of an issue so old metallic and wooden planes can be used effectively.


Right. The campaign starts here.  



Roger Nixon":34t8gxcp said:


> Smoothing planes and jointing planes (jointers, block, rabbet, etc) need to be sharpend straight across but planes used for stock prep should all have some camber.


<buzz> Objection! Oh deary me, we're going to fall out over uncambered jointer irons... :shock: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jul 2004)

> <buzz> Objection! Oh deary me, we're going to fall out over uncambered jointer irons...



Fall out? No! I think we're dancing in step to the "terminology tango" :lol: . I prefer the terms "fore plane" or "try plane" for those planes over 18" with cambered blades and "jointer" for those planes that actually cut the surfaces to be glued or joined. I keep two #7's handy, one with a cambered iron for "trying" and one with a straight iron for jointing or flattening large surfaces. I keep my #8's honed straight across because I use them for match planing. Using a cambered iron for match planing would create a mess.

Hand tool terminology inconsistency is another barrier to those starting out with hand tools. Most of us will pick a book or other publication and take the author's opinions as gospel. Then we'll find another "authority" who takes a different tangent. Of course the terminology has been affected by time, location and technology.


----------



## Alf (11 Jul 2004)

Roger Nixon":4xncpeci said:


> I think we're dancing in step to the "terminology tango" :lol:


Ah, I like that one.  



Roger Nixon":4xncpeci said:


> I prefer the terms "fore plane" or "try plane" for those planes over 18" with cambered blades and "jointer" for those planes that actually cut the surfaces to be glued or joined. I keep two #7's handy, one with a cambered iron for "trying" and one with a straight iron for jointing or flattening large surfaces.


Hmm, I think maybe we are disagreeing you know. Now this may be hard for some people to believe, but I only have one #7 (yes, it's true :shock: I did have a second once, but I was pursuaded to part with it. A black day indeed). It has a _slightly_ cambered iron, and it gets used for trying, jointing, big a** smoother etc etc. Just the one iron, no swap outs for uncambered alternatives or anything. Now while I'm right on board the idea of needing more tools :wink: , does this ever-so-tiny camber _really_ make any difference to the joining of two boards? Unless, of course, you favour a rubbed joint, in which case perhaps it does? Crumbs, this is hard brainwork for a Sunday afternoon! :shock: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jul 2004)

> Now while I'm right on board the idea of needing more tools , does this ever-so-tiny camber really make any difference to the joining of two boards?



I couldn't tell you as I haven't tried. If you have successfully made edge joints like this then I would say the proof is in the pudding. Do you stand the boards on edge and check the face alignment with a straightedge? It seems to me the slightly hollowed edge would make that tricky.

After I square edges with the try plane, I clamp two boards to the bench and match plane the edges which requires a straight across blade. Here is a good place for the wider blade of the #8. I'm looking for an even longer woody jointer with a wider blade.

Graham Blackburn and Garrett Hack advocate straight across edges on jointers. Bernard Jones says the jointer is just a longer try plane without saying if the blade profile remains the same.


----------



## Alf (11 Jul 2004)

Okay then, until the pudding goes off, I'll stick with it.  I agree though; if you clamp two boards together and joint the edges, the cambered blade is a Bad Thing.

Just to trade advocates; Jeff Gorman, David Charlesworth and Charles Hayward all advocate the cambered edge approach. Ain't woodworking a marvellous thing? :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (11 Jul 2004)

Yes it is :lol: . All of these people are outstanding woodworkers and teachers (I'm not up on Charlesworth yet and I have only one basic Charles Heywood book). And then there are people such as James Krenov and Cecil Pierce (when things start getting complicated, I think of Cecil teaching handcut dovetails with an old hacksaw). With all these references, I still learn more from other people on fora such as these.

Blade camber is relatively new to me so I come off like a newly converted zealot. I did a lot of experimenting last summer with various cambers and planes and it made a dramatic difference in my woodworking, especially in stock preparation.


----------



## Midnight (13 Jul 2004)

During some enforced down time this weekend, I got my head well and truely stuck in a book that may shed some light on some of the confusion here..
Terminology first..

*Jointer Plane * 26 to 30" long, 3" in sole. Used to shoot long joints, dining table tops etc. Also made in iron up to 24 1/2"

*Trying or Truing up Plane* usual size 22 by 3 1/4" taking a 2 1/2" iron. Used for all purposes for truing up and preperation work. Shorter ones are known as *panel planes*, some of which have a removable slip, so that the edge of the iron can be worked close in for sunk bevels on panels.

*Jack Plane* 17 by 2 1/4" and smaller with 2 1/4" (??) iron used in "jacking up" stuff, or roughly preparing for the try plane.

*Bismark, or Roughing Plane* a single iron plane used for taking off the dirt and first rough surface of boards.

*Iron Panel or Jointer Plane* from 13 1/2 to 26 1/2". English make with rosewood fittings Can be used for joints or finishing. An extremely usefull plane for all types of work.

When first reading that last paragraph, I couldn't help wondering what it was that the author had against Spiers or Matheson planes...however... onto uses...

*Planing* may be roughly divided into four sections. Firstly, Roughing up stuff with a Bismark before marking out. Second, Jack planing, used after roughing to reduce stuff in width or thickness with a greater degree of accuracy before trying up. Third, Try planing, for finishing surfaces and edges perfectly straight and true, and general fitting and jointing. Fourth, Smooth planing, before finishing with scraper and glass-paper. 

*Convexity of Cutting edge,-* Jack plane irons are sharpened slightly convex. Bismark and roughing planes more convex. Trying, smoothing, compass and panel planes almost perfectly straight with the corners rubbed off. Bullnose, shoulder, rebate, fillister and plough irons are sharpened quite straight, care being taken to produce sharp, square corners, which ensure easy working.

The book I'm quoting from is *Modern Cabinet Work* Furnature & Fitments by Wells and Hooper, 4th edition published in 1924.


----------



## Anonymous (13 Jul 2004)

Interesting reference, Mike. Does it say when the 1st edition was printed? The terminology sounds much more like early to mid 19th century than 1924. 
Getting back to your original post, has your scrub arrived yet?


----------



## Midnight (13 Jul 2004)

Roger... the 1st edition was printed in 1908, each subsequent editing benefiting from minor edits.
As for the scrub...
<tutt tuttin...
Check out the tool review section bud..  arrived... and promptly pressed into service..


----------

