Mortise chisels again!

Re: Mortise chisels again!

Alan Hamilton

>Patrick,

I'm currentyly chopping mortises with my new Two Cherries mortise chisels. Prior to my most recent birthday I used Marples mortise chisels.

There is a vast difference between the two. The Two Cherries are very robust: the blades are thicker and longer than Marples; and the handles are at least twice as big around, and about 1 1/2 times as long. My Two Cherries are bigger around, heavier, and just beefier than my Marples.

With my paws I can get a better grip on the Two Cherries big handles. With that better grip I can more easily resist the natural tendency of mortise chisels to turn in the wood (they try to turn so the edge is parallel to the grain, just like a cut nail; and that, of course, is a bad thing).

My Two Cherries chisels also have the better steel, significanty better steel IMHO. They take a better edge and hold it longer. It takes a little longer to put a good edge on them, but they work so much better I don't mind.

As for what size to get--if you only get one--I would remember the old saw about how wide a mortise should be: more than a third, less than a half the thickness of the stock. That's a little hard to do these days. In three quarters stock that would mean you ought to use about a 5/16" chisel. Two Cherries are ground to metric sizes, and there is one that is a bit more than a 1/4" (4/16") and a little less than 3/8" (6/16"). I wouldn't sweat it though; with my Marples chisels I used a 1/4" chisel on three quarters stock, and I've not yet had a failure.

Alan

Re: Mortise chisels again!

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>Here's what the best mortise chisels I've ever used look like below...and I've used English shorties, "sash" ala the new L/N's and laminated Japanese.

Those old millwright mortise chisels show up on ebay occasionally as "framers" or "firmers"...which they are not...so they often go cheap, hidden in handleless lots, if you know what to look for.

New Haven, Swan, Mix, Dixon, Dickerson, PS&W, Fulton and some other lesser-known manufacturers made them for door, millwork and window factories.

I find them to be 30-50% more powerful than the best Japanese using the same, lead-weighted mallet...and the Japanese that far or farther ahead of weaker "sash" chisels.

I can't talk to the German ones because I haven't tried them, but if they are carbon and not A2 or M2 steel, they might be OK, as they look beefy.

A2 and M2 just don't take the edge carbon steel does...especially older 19th Century cast steel...from my observations. That's fine in a plane you are reluctant to dismantle, but silly in a chisel when your stones are right there on the bench with you.

Look at my "Haunched M/T" thread Part I below if you want to see the size of the chips these honkers take in one blow.

Re: Mortise chisels again!

Tom Colligan, Peoria

>Bob, when you're in the middle of chopping a mortise and need to sharpen the chisel and your stones are on the bench how do you sharpen the chisel? I can picture just working the back, is this correct? Or do you freehand sharpen the bevel as well? Thanks and thanks for your fine articles.

Re: Mortise chisels again! *LINK*

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>I sharpen them the same way as any chisel, and this the pieces below talk to that.

Some folks recommend honing the sides, too, but I've never done that.

http://www.cianperez.com/Wood/WoodDocs/Wood_How_To/Smalser_on_Mortises.htm


Basic Sharpening

Re: Mortise chisels again!

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>A really typical application of a MT joint is the joint where an apron, stretcher, etc. meets a leg. In my most recent Fine Furniture MT application, I did indeed use rails and stretchers made from 4/4 stock, but they went into 8/4 legs. I selected the mortise size from the thickness of the legs in to which they were made, not the thickness of the rails and stretchers. I think I used 1/2-inch. (can't recall exactly, and the tenons are hidden) That left me with about 1/8-inch shoulders on the tenons.

Is this wrong? Should one use skinny 1/4-inch mortises in 8/4 stock?

Chisel Power

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Bob,

I do not understand the concept of a longer chisel being more powerful. Would you be so kind as to explain the physics of this?

Thanks.

Re: Mortise chisels again!

Patrick Gibbons, Houston, no Astros in the WS, TX

>What I have read suggests that the thickness of the tenon is practically immaterial. The surface area is the critical factor being that the more glue surface the stronger the joint. By that reasoning, a 1/4" x 1 1/2" x 4" tenon is stronger than a 3/4" x 1" x 4" tenon, the first tenon having a total glue surface of 12 square inches and the second having a surface area of 8".

Re: Chisel Power

Patrick Gibbons, Houston, no Astros in the WS, TX

>Don, I would believe it to be more powerful because of the increased leverage in extracting the chips.

Why More Powerful by 50 Pct (PIC)

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>...and they're also heavier by about 2X.

This question from another forum provides the basis of my opinion:

Bob, several times I�ve seen you mention that old chisels are better than the modern Japanese ones. And you�re not the only one. I also notice that the �best� Japanese chisels (or at least the most expensive ones) use century old or older scrap iron for the top lamination and that in the high medium price range the makers also claim to use steels for the cutting portion similar to pre-industrial steels.

But modern chisel makers seem to be going more and more towards modern materials like A2 that are expensive, and marginally more difficult to grind and heat treat.

I wonder then if you would expand on what properties you and others find in old steel that you don�t find in new, and why modern manufacturers don�t gravitate towards similar compositions. I could understand it if it simply were marketing, but I�m certain there must a lot of performance pressure put on modern makers by all of us folks doing quasi scientific �comparisons� on the weekends�.

Mostly because the older cast, carbon steel simply takes a much better edge than harder steels....and even your Ron Hock agrees. Not slightly better....much better.

It's best seen on the lathe. No comparison at all between one of my hand-honed cast steel gouges or skews converted from old socket chisels to my freshly-ground Sorby HSS tools. The old steel wins hand down, remains sharp just as long...and doen't take any longer to touch up on the stones than to regrind my Sorby's.

I also believe the older carbon steels perform better and longer than modern carbon steels because they were forged more akin to the way Barr Quarton does it today in his 200-dollar chisels than in a modern factory...but I'm a user, not a metallurgist, and this is very subjective.

The key, of course, is sharpening. I touch my tools up on the stones generally every day and I've had enuf practice at it that hand honing takes no longer than regrinding...and my cast lathe tools will last decades longer than with the periodic regrinding of my HSS lathe tools.

I have some A2 irons...they are fine...but they do take a bit longer to hone and they don't take as good an edge as my carbon irons. That's OK by me in a plane I'm reluctant to lose my adjustment on to sharpen...but it's a showstopper for me in a chisel, where I want to also be able to pare a few microns of end grain in addition to heavy mortise blows.

The laminated Japanese chisels are fine...but the brittleness of that hard edge is a liability in places where it may get knocked off the boat and chip....when it chips, it chips big, requiring a lot of grinding. If I were to own another set, I'd put octagon handles on them so they don't roll.

No argument about the steel my Japenese set was made of...but just compare the size, depth and cleanliness of the chips between them and the millwright chisels in hard pounding...and that Doug Fir is a heck of a lot softer than that hard maple:

That's a 30-50% improvement over the Japanese...

...and even the Japanese will likely make the new A2 L/N Sorby sash chisel copies you are so exciyed about look anemic.

Baloney!

bill tindall

>Plane iron performance is greatly more demanding than bashing a chisel into a board (mortising). Nearly everyone that fusses over planing agrees that A2 can be sharpened to as high a degree as carbon steels and many conclude that any of the modern high quality (not Chinese) tool steels can be sharpened equivalently. I challenge anyone to provide quantitative evidence otherwise. Differences have not been detected in any of the microscope pictures of sharp edges I have seen. So it stretches the imagination to think that some potentially tiny difference in edge sharpness, if indeed any exists, determines how deep a mortise chisel can be bashed into the side of a board. What determines how deep the mortise chisel penetrates is solely determined by the bevel angle because it is this wedging action that limits penetration, not resistance of the sharp, or even fairly dull, edge.

Long mortise chisels are easier to orient vertical and that is a good reason to perfer a longer chisel, especially if one mortises infrequently. Other things to worry about are how well the handle fits the hand. I prefer an oval handle as it helps orient the chisel. If depth of penetration is important then worry about toughness of the steel because toughness will limit how small a bevel angle can be ground without snapping off the tip while prying chips. Don't worry about how sharp it is because it doesn't matter if you are wacking it with a mallet.

Baloney Redux *LINK*

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>Like I said....just my opinion there, Bill.

But I'm hardly the only one:

"BENCH PLANE BLADES

These blades offer a substantial improvement over the inferior chrome-vanadium junk that comes with most new tools. Our high carbon steel blades can be honed easier and sharper. And our Cryogenically treated A2 blades will hold an edge longer. "


Hock Tools Page One

Carbon Steel v. Modern Alloys

Steve Elliott

>I've sharpened and tested carbon steel blades both new and old, and a variety of high alloy blades as well. In fact, just this issue of better edge sharpness got me stuck for a while because I wanted to resolve it.

The assertion that carbon steel blades take a sharper edge comes up often in anecdotal discussions of blades, and I believe there must be some basis for it from a user's perspective. On top of that, my reference book on heat treating steel claims that "typical hardness ranges of 63 to 65 Rockwell on the case [surface] make a very special quality in this steel in that it will allow development of the sharpest edge of any steel in the marketplace."

I tried to duplicate this result myself and was unable to find any consistent difference in �sharpest edge� among the blades I tested. My methods included a thread-cutting test that gives data that can be evaluated statistically. (Details of this test can be found here.) All of the blades tested would take very sharp edges.

The best thing I learned from my efforts was that the higher alloy steels were more likely to have a wire edge, scratches from a coarse stone, or other edge defects even after I thought I was done sharpening. My 200x microscope images have given me a much better idea of how long to hone on the finest stone for each type of steel.

If the people reporting a sharper edge on carbon steel blades were using the same sort of technique I used before getting the microscope, the "less sharp" edges on the alloy steels could be the result of incomplete honing.

In practical terms, I believe an excellent edge can be put on most of the steels used for plane blades today. The exception may be the stock blades on newer hardware-store planes.

The limiting factor for blade sharpness is more likely to be the condition of the edge after it is used a little. After a few strokes, the sharpest edges are already way less sharp when viewed under the microscope. That's why I finally decided to give up my attempts to find out which steel would take the very sharpest edge and concentrate on wear performance.

Re: Baloney!

Bob Hackett

>Bill,

I don`t understand it myself but I will agree with Bob about the performance of old carbon steel over modern HSS in some applications.I prefer laminated steel blades for thier performance over anything else I`ve come across including a buddy`s japanese chisels.

I also own Sorby,Henry Taylor,And Oneway(particle steel)and Glase(also particle steel)HSS Turning tools.I always seem to grab the old CS detail gouges for that final cut as they just seem to perform better even after being honed with the exact same hone as the HSS tools.My brother reached the same conclusion without any prodding from me,even took my best Charles Buck small gouge out to Utah with him(I miss it too).

There`s just something about that old cast steel that`s just magic.Some things even science can`t fully explain.

I am looking forward to trying some of that particle steel you`ve been working with though.I know there`s always something better out there and it pays to keep an open mind.

Mainely,Bob

Hellooooo.......

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Everyone seems to be talking about something other than length of chisel. My reading of Bobs post was that his long chisels were twice as powerful as shorter chisels. Then we digressed into a metallurgy discussion.

Can someonw explain to me why longer chisels are more POWERFUL? If I cut my chisels into half as long lengths, will they not chop as powerfully?

Re: Baloney (long)

joel

>"Nearly everyone that fusses over planing agrees that A2 can be sharpened to as high a degree as carbon steels"

I would disagree with that and say that almost everyone I know would go the opposite way. However lots of people (myself included) like the longer edge retention of A2.

I've done a little testing, not so scientific but I find that for the same 30 or more degree bevel angle carbon and A2 seem to work about the same. BUT, I can sharpen a carbon blade to a lower angle and get an edge that tests sharper for me. When I sharpen the A2 to the same lower angle I get not so sharp an edge and it crumbles.

For a heavy use plane - a jack for example and a regular use smooth plane - A2 is great but for the tricky woods I like a carbon blade. And yes bevel angle effects the performance of even bevel down planes.

BUT there is enough variation between carbon blades and between A2 from different sources and other alloy blades that I am loath to postulate a hard and fast rule. I can say that I have seen enough variation to undertand why serious individuals, trying to to an honest test can reach dissimilar conclusions. The sample of the tests is never truly encompasing, that's nearly impossible to do. And the testing methodologies try to compare steels at common angles, not exploiting each steel at it's optimium, which is how people actually use the tools.

N. B. The reason why old tools sometimes have fabulous steel in them is that the crap has long since rusted away.

Thank you Steve for your...

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>efforts to do this objectively and empirically.

I just grow so weary of folks throwing about anecdote and opinion on this topic because they lack the discipline or curiosity or commitment to attempt a valid study. Yes a valid study is difficult to conduct, but efforts such as yours come far closer to the mark than any collection of opinionated anecdotes.

I've commented at least a dozen times that I've examined the surface finish of smoothers using almost every common (e.g, O2, A2, Japanese laminated blue and white steel) and a many relatively uncommon (e.g. A11, V15, M4) steel alloys and without exception, I've found that all could be brought to an edge that produced essentially identical surface finishes when used in the same or similar plane.

As your comments and article points out, the quality of your sharpening is almost always the determining factor in the quality of the finish left by a blade, and that variations in that quality simply swamp out any potential differences in alloy. If one seeks a better surface from a sharp edge, they are going to have more success carefully examining the result of their sharpening efforts under magnification, rather than jumping aboard the latest gossip on the prefered steel.

Again, as you rightly point out, alloys differ in the effort required to bring them to a refined edge. I believe one of the greatest reasons for the supposed differences in alloy related edge performace is related to a failure to recognize that many of the less common alloys will require harder, sharper abrasives and more abrasion time than some of the relatively "softer" alloys like most carbon steels. If one understands this, and evaluates one's sharpening efforts under magnification, one can achieve comparably refined edges on virtually all of the alloys employed in plane and chisel blades.

Edge retention is an entirely different matter, as you correctly identify, and edge retention does differ considerable between alloys. Folks will make their own judgments as to how much edge retention is important to their work styles.

But with respect to the surface finish, my experience has consistently been that blade alloy is simply not a consistent factor in the performance of a comparably refined edge, irrespective of whether that edge is on a plane blade, a chisel, or a woodturing gouge or skew.

Going away again knowing that objective comparative information will largely be overlooked or ignored as the myths carry on.

Re: Thank you Steve for your...

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>Sounds like a similar situation to finishing...

Re: Baloney Redux

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I have several Hock "carbon steel" blades and while I don't have any of his A2 blades (which if I understand correctly, come from a number of sources anyway), I do have A2 blades from many other different manufactures (LV, L-N, Shepherd, SMT, etc.). As stated below, I just don't find any difference in surface finish peformance when they are sharpened to comparable optically verified edges, using the same geometries and in the same plane.

Ron Hock is a great guy and has long offered much needed and appreciated products, but I don't see any objective evidence to back up his assertion. If he can produce such evidence, and describe how he obtained it, I'll see if I can employ the same methodology and determine if the results are replicable. Otherwise, I can't take Ron's assertions all that seriously.

Re: Hellooooo.......

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>Lever.

They lever more powerfully. mUch easier to clean that mortise bottom as I demonstrate.

But length is also weight and the weight helps, too.

Next Time I'll Answer Offline.

Bob Smalser, Seabeck, WA

>I don't claim to have any answers but my experience, which I've provided in some detail, usually in the form of a final product, the tools and sharpening just one of several ways to get there from here.

Maybe it's how I sharpen the old-fashioned way...dunno...but I can easily show longer noodles and deeper cuts from the older steel....and sometimes better longevity, too....especially in gouges.

But it works for me, it's dirt cheap, and it's drop-dead easy to teach.

Sometimes we lose sight of the bottom line not being the tools.

Re: Hellooooo.......

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I'll have to test this with some Swans, PS&W and Witherbys that are laying about, probably have a couple or three "firmer" chisels among ebay sets I've bought; but as to cleaning out the mortise without levering Japanese chisels with vigor, I use what are typically called Shoji chisels (harpoon, corner, and bottom scraper).

Pam

Re: Next Time I'll Answer Offline. *LINK*

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Bob, I was kind of surprised to see this auction listed in my regular "Japanese" query. Want to comment?

Pam


Millwright chisels on ebay

Thanks Bob!

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Now I get it!

Re: Next Time I'll Answer Offline.

CONGER - The Irish diaspora in Munich

>Looks familiar... Bob is well 'published'.

-g-