LN Replacement Irons/ Hock Breakers

Re: LN Replacement Irons/ Hock Breakers

Dan Clermont in BUrnaby

>Sorry about the incomplete post.

On the other hand why do people recommend the LN Chipbreaker yet no one recommends the Hock?

Curious Dan Clermont in Burnaby

Re: LN Replacement Irons/ Hock Breakers

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>I have the LN improved chipbreaker and the truth be told I cannot see the difference that the chipbreaker made. The high angle frog supposedly makes a difference but that's another story. As for hock irons hock now sells A2 cyro irons as well as O1. O1 can be made sharper there are pics somewhere on the internet. I have a replacement Iron from Sheperd tools for a #5 stanley it's A2 cryo came with the back milled flat and stays sharp a long time.I have a few LV replacement irons and LV planes all The LN 4 1/2 is only used for final planing and often gets a quick touch up. IMO looks like a case of putting butter and peanut butter on your toast.There is a little more on O1 on Steve Knights website on plane irons.

Re: LN Replacement Irons/ Hock Breakers

Christopher Schwarz

>Dan,

The LN replacement irons are excellent and they are almost the same price for the common sizes.

My guess is that the reason you don't hear much about the LN replacement tooling is because LN doesn't promote it as heavily as Hock and LV can � plus Ron Hock's blades are in Woodcraft and Japan Woodworker catalogs. Only a guess.

As to the chipbreakers' performance (or perceived lack of it) I would never give up my improved chipbreakers. They are superior on so many fronts I just don't even know where to begin this early in the morning. If anyone wants to discuss this, let me know once I get some coffee.

Chris

Re: LN Replacement Irons/ Hock Breakers

Dan Donaldson

>My main reason is that I can walk up to the local Woodcraft and buy them immediately. (If it weren't so cold that is ;-))

Re: LN Replacement Irons/ Hock Breakers

Tony Augruso

>I'd be interested in hearing why the replacement chip breakers are so much better.

There's a woodshow coming in a 4 weeks and I need to figure out what I'm going to buy. LN will be there and I always need an excuse to stop by.

Thanks,

Tony

Please do discuss the LN Chipbreakers, Chris!

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>

Re: LN Replacement Irons/ Hock Breakers

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>I sort of dispute the assertion that no one talks about using Lie-Nielsen replacement plane irons. Such discussions have led me to get a few. They offer some which I believe that Hock does not offer, such as the one for the Record 778.

That said, about all Hock does is sell plane irons, so when one thinks "replacement plane iron maker," Hock tends to come to mind. And, they are advertised and sold in more outlets than the Lie-Nielsen irons.

Re: LN Replacement Irons/ Hock Breakers

Frank Mutchler

>On lump or two? Now, about those chipbreakers??? ;>)

have both...

John Truxell-Svenson (jvs)

>I would guess that the main reason is visibility as mentioned above. Added to that would be the question of how much there really is that differentiates them in A2 irons (Ron Hock, of course, as HC irons as well). The maximum blade thickness is determined by the plane's yoke (and both are as thick as they can be), the steel is described the same way, they took the same amount of work to initially flatten and hone, and (in my hands at least) perform the same way. I bought an LN iron because I wanted an extra to have on hand when I put in an order with them for something else, and wasn't ordering anything from another vendor at the time. Great blade, and so are my Hocks--for me, there would be no way to tell them apart without looking at the maker's mark.

I've never seen an LN cap irons, but again, love the Hocks, and have started using them on Cliftons instead of the "stay-sets" that came with them. Pre-Clifton, I bought my first one on a lark, and install them pretty much automatically with no regrets, since it is a cheap upgrade at ~$20 and makes a performance difference to me. Since I don't take advantage of the design when I sharpen (whole thing comes off anyway), there is no cap piece to keep track of with the Hock, it adds up to a little less fiddling when putting things back together. Both stay-sets also came slightly warped--something that has never happened to me with a Hock, and I would bet that LNs are up to the same standards.




/jvs

Re: have both...

Sean Evoy in Ottawa

>My stay sets were also slightly warped and I, too, have switched one of my planes over to a Hock, but I am currious what people's experience with the L-Ns are.

Re: have both...

Wendell @ Murphy, TX

>How does the Clifton iron compare to the LN & Hock irons?

Wendell

Related question

Wendell @ Murphy, TX

>What a timely post! I have been doing online price research to find a replacement blade and chip breaker for #5-1/2. I was looking at the LN site and they actually sell two different blades. One blade is designed for older Stanley and is thinner than the blade that comes on a LN 5-1/2. Which blade would you buy? In checking out prices, I've found that it costs basically the same amount to upgrade to eihter LN, Hock, or Clifton chipbreaker and blade. Between these three makers, who would y'all choose?

Wendell

Re: have both...

Sean Evoy in Ottawa

>Despite my complaints about the 2-part chipbreaker, I like the Clifton iron just fine. It is thick and it takes an edge well. It needed a fair amount of polishing on the back compared to the L-N scrub I bought around the same time but I paid a whole lot less for the Cliftons, so I can live with that.

To be fair, the chipbreaker is thick too, and when everything is working, it is a great plane to use.

Re: have both...

John Truxell-Svenson (jvs)

>Well, the biggest difference is that they go in different planes. :) The Clifton is too thick to fit in a Bailey even with the frog backed all the way up, so it stays in the plane it came in. All I know about the composition is what the marketing stuff says--"forged carbon steel," or something along those lines. Edge retention is much lower than A2; take your pick of any number of opinions of what the sharpness potential is of each, but it is definitely easier to restore the edge with the stock Clifton iron. The planes are adjusted differently for different uses, too, so it's hard to compare directly. There is nothing evil about most of the stock irons I have either, but they do tend to chatter and tear more, no matter how much time goes into sharpening.




/jvs

Because ANYTHING beats originals

jim_reed@marietta

>I make mostly speciality blades, but knock out some 2" #4/#5 blades for kicks sometimes and put them in the current heat treat batch. Here is the gist of my findings: original Stanley blades are only 1/16" thick and are not very hard. They chatter easily and lose their edge quickly. OK for a carpenter, but bad for cabinetmaker. If you kick the size up to 3/32" and properly heat treat, you can improve performance dramatically.

Re: Related question

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>Buy the thickest iron that will fit YOUR plane. The LN blades designed for LN planes are too thick to fit an original Stanley. The Stanley depth adjuster will not engage the cap iron with the thicker L-N blade in place. The LN blades for Stanley planes (.095" thick) will fit, unless the original Stanley QC was out of specs. If your #5-1/2 is not a Stanley (your post does not say), some experimentation might be in order.

Have all three

Russell Seaton

>I have Clifton, Lie Nielsen, and Hock irons. Haven't really done any sort of comparison though. The Clifton irons are all in bench planes. The Hock is in a bench plane. The Lie Nielsens are in shoulder and block planes. Lie Nielsen and Hock are A2 cryo treated. Clifton is O1.

They all cut well when sharp. Even my original Stanley irons cut well when sharp. The Cliftons hold an edge very well. My Lie Nielsen blades, particularly the shoulder plane blade, seem to chip out. They may hold sharpness for a long time on the unchipped part, but that doesn't really matter if the edge is chipped. Similar to my experience with Japanese chisels. haven't used the Hock enough to get much of an opinion.

The Hock iron required quite a bit of work to flatten. The Lie Nielsen block plane blade required quite a bit of work to flatten. 4 out of 5 Clifton irons required very little effort to flatten.

My Clifton two piece chipbreakers all required some work. Some more than others. They needed the edge ground and polished to a knife edge to meet the iron back. Not the easiest thing to do. Easier to tune a regular chipbreaker.

I'm not really sure the Clifton chipbreakers or other heavy chipbreakers like the just introduced Lie Nielsen and Hock really do much for me. I have the Clifton chipbreakers because they come standard on Clifton planes and there was a $10 sale on the Clifton chipbreakers mentioned on this forum a few months ago.

Thanks Everyone

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>I wanted to thank everyone for their input on this query. I am in ordering a LN ChipBreaker and play with it for awhile to see wha tkind of differnece it makes. If I am still not happy I'll get a better iron.

I am a little doubtful a Hock/LN non-A2 iron can outperform my Anton Berg Eskilstuna Blade which is also a high carbon. The problem with the Berg is the lack of thickness and I hope the Breaker will help improve that

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

Re: Article on LN chipbreaker *LINK*

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Some time back I did a little research for my own interest, then published the results on the Traditional Tool site. Ostensibly it was to see what difference the LN chipbreaker really made. I used the standard LN blade, a Replacement-LN-Stanley blade (fractionally thinner), and a standard Stanley blade (all in a #4 size smoothing plane. Here a Bedrock and my own homebuilt infill). It touches on some of the issues here, but is not quite the same issue (no Hock).

On a more personal note, I have used Clifton, LN, Hock blades, amongst several others, and find that they all do the job extremely well, certainly well-enough for a weekend warrior such as myself. I sharpened up blades in two of my block planes last night, a Hock in a Stanley 65 knuckle cap, and a LN in a Stanley #140. Both sliced into end grain and cut curlies. But the problem with evaluating such blades is that they don't get the same type of use that a smoother or try plane does, that is, extended use. I notice how smoother blades heat up on Jarrah and wonder what affect this has on longevity?

Regards from Perth

Derek


Traditional Tools Article