LN replacement blade or Hock blade+chipbreaker ?

[pompon44]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?]

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]

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 ?]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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