Replacement plane iron, standard thickness

[mathias]

Hello,

I try to advance from fictive online woodworking to real woodworking at home work. Been reading different forums for years and recently bought a few planes to start.

I would like standard thickness irons, quality equal or better then the 1930-1950 original Record irons that came with the planes.

So far I've seen Stanley, Irwin Record and Faithfull. How are they in your opinion? Are there better ones?

 

[Racers]

Why do you need to replace them?

Why do you need standard thickness?

Have you considered replacing the cap iron? do they have Stay set cap irons?

Pete

 

[mathias]

I do not need to replace them but would like to have additional ones.

I do not need std thickness but have decided after reading different views to stick to std/thin irons. A personal choice.

Std cap irons, if replaced it will probably be stay set.

 

[Racers]

The square shouldered Record blades are very nice the equivalent ones would be the Ray Isles O1 Steel ones.
Cap irons make a big difference stay set are nice but LN etc are good.

Pete

 

[mathias]

Thanks Pete I'll keep them in mind though they cost quite a lot

 

[Racers]

I thought they where a bargain! £20-£25 for a very nice plane blade is very cheap.
Quangsheng from Workshop heaven are similar price slightly cheaper for the 2" slightly more for the 2 5/8"

Pete

 

[Mr_P]

Aren't the Quangsheng thicker than standard ?

£20/25 bargain ??? You can get a decent plane for that or a rusty one for a lot less.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/281593142310? ... EBIDX%3AIT

 

[Racers]

Aren't the Quangsheng thicker than standard ?

£20/25 bargain ??? You can get a decent plane for that or a rusty one for a lot less.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/281593142310? ... EBIDX%3AIT

Trouble is they usually have a line of pits under the cap iron! that can be hard work to get round.

Pete

 

[Mr_P]

Not a problem I've come across, very short is common though.

Usual problems with rusty "bargains" are cracks under the rust,deeply pitted soles and the cheaper they are the worse the packing.

 

[heimlaga]

If your old irons are good enough to use there is no need to waste money on a second set of irons. Just sharpen them as they get dull.
If your irons are worn out or too pitted you need to buy new irons.

 

[mathias]

I'd like to have extra irons if they don't cost too much.

Does any one have experience of modern Stanley, Faithfull, Irvin Record or other lower price irons?

 

[Vann]

Does any one have experience of modern Stanley, Faithfull, Irvin Record or other lower price irons?

I don't - but the modern Record and Stanley irons are generally considered to be of poor quality (with the edge-holding ability of a slice of cheese (hammer) - okay that's an exaggeration, but you get the picture). I doubt Faithfull would be any better.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Billy Flitch]

Any old iron any old iron, any any old iron, you look neat talk about a treat,you look dapper from your napper to your feet. Sorry about that I couldn't help it.

In all honesty try the irons before you decide to do any thing, they may be better than you think.The steel planes have backing Irons the modern name for them is chip breakers but there job is still the same to back the iron up.

 

[G S Haydon]

The standard cap iron found on a stanley, record or the like are excellent. Stay sets and aftermarket are also good. Just be cautious buying aftermarket or bit's not original to the tool. There are consequences I read on this forum about eventually the lever cap screw shearing the threads on a frog due to it not having as much bite. A longer screw could be a wise option.

The Ray Iles iron seems like a nice idea although I have no experience of it, I think it's standard thickness or perhaps a hair more? If you go for a thicker iron be prepared that you might have open the mouth up and further compound the lever cap screw issue.

I had a faithfull #4 and found the iron to be fine for my needs. It got sharp and cut wood nicely. YMMV

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I think for standard thickness irons, replacements are still available from Stanley and Irwin Record. Even if they don't quite match the supposed magical qualities of those made in the 1930s and 1950s, they won't be complete rubbish. They'll take a fair edge and hold it a reasonable time, and won't cost a fortune.

I've only used one Faithfull plane, a new No 3. The iron seemed a bit soft compared to others I have; it sharpened very quickly, and whilst it's edge-holding wasn't fantastic, it did a reasonable job; it was fair quality for the price, which was ludicrously low. (The rest of the plane was barely adequate, but, as I say, ludicrously cheap....)

 

[David C]

Ray Iles and Hock both use 2.4mm, i e 50% thicker than standard.

There used to be a Japanese laminated iron, Ax ?, which might be closer to original thickness.

David Charlesworth

 

[Cheshirechappie]

There used to be a Japanese laminated iron, Ax ?, which might be closer to original thickness.

David Charlesworth

There still is - http://www.axminster.co.uk/japanese-lam ... ane-blades - though the thickness is not specified, it does appear similar to original thickness. The reviews on the site are positive, too.

Not cheap, though...

 

[mathias]

If my Record No4 isn't a frankenplane it was made 1931-1939 according to http://www.recordhandplanes.com and so it seems from the photos I have seen of the No6 that is on its way.

The No4 has the so called square iron and the thickness is 2.4mm. I have no experience of younger Record planes so I don't know of planes with 1.2mm irons (50% of 2.4mm)

Edit: or perhaps it should be 1.6mm as standard iron (1.6+50%=2.4mm) instead of above mentioned 1.2mm with regards to David's statement above?

 

[Vann]

If my Record No4...

The No4 has the so called square iron and the thickness is 2.4mm. I have no experience of younger Record planes...

Edit: or perhaps it should be 1.6mm as standard iron (1.6+50%=2.4mm) instead of above mentioned 1.2mm with regards to David's statement above?

Yes I don't think David has that correct. The older Stanley (USA) irons I have measure ~1.95 to 2.05mm thick, while the thickest Record irons I have are the oldest, at 2.4mm thick. The others all fit somewhere in between.

Replacement irons seem to be all over the place - from 2mm to 3.175mm (and that's excluding some Lie-Nielsen and Veritas really thick ones made specifically for their own planes).

If you don't want to spend much money buy a Faithfull iron and see what you think, before buying anymore. If you want a really good one, I believe the Japanese laminated "Smoothcut" (at just 2mm thick) is probably about the best there is for a really keen edge - and no problems with screws or yokes being too short. I bought a few Clifton irons, but haven't really put them through their paces (the only one that gets regular use is in my Cliffie No.3 and I'm happy with that). Another is fitted to a Record No.08, but to avoid problems with screws, yokes, and the need to file the mouth, I had it surface ground down to 2.75mm (from about 3.175).

HTH.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[David C]

Well, I have just measured some old irons.

A Stanley rule and level 1.8mm, others 2 or 2.2mm.

The 50 % figure is clearly incorrect though I have seen it used re Iles replacement blades.

David