Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Thickest iron for #8?
Peter Berglund in Denver
>What's the thickest iron I can use in a #8 (without opening the throat)? I have some 1/8" O-1, and need to make a new iron, but I think that may be a little too thick. Anyone have any experience using thicker irons than Hocks? (I know I'll need a new screw for the chip breaker). I also need to make a new iron for a Sargent 5306 knuckle-joint low angle block plane, but with bevel-up and an adjustable mouth, 1/8" shouldn't be a problem.
Peter
Re: Thickest iron for #8?
Peter Berglund in Denver
>Thanks, Bugbear. I was afraid that would be the answer. Dunno what I was thinking when I purchased the 1/8" O-1. Guess I can use some of it for extra cutters for the #45. IIRC, they're that thick.
Thanks also for saving me a search - I was feeling kind of lazy last nite after a long day in the shop.
P
Re: Thickest iron for #8?
Jim in Burlington Ontario
>I have made several irons out of 1/8" thick 01 and you only have to file a little tiny bit out to make it fit. I always use a fine file.
Re: Thickest iron for #8?
Bob Hackett
>There was a post regarding the adjuster problem awhile back.If I remember correctly it involved brazing 2 small bars onto the back of the chipbreaker so the adjuster would work.These bars were a slip fit in the slot in the iron.They would have to be in order to move the chip breaker as the iron was shortened thru sharpening.Maybe a search of the archives can help
You could always get the iron surface ground to size at a machine shop if you didn`t want to touch the mouth with a file.I`d be surprised if the grinding took even an hour for a good shop to accomplish.Then you wouldn`t even have to flatten the back.:^)
Mainely,Bob
Re: Thickest iron for #8?
Jonathan Peck - N.Y.
>Not sure why you need a new iron, but here's my 2c
If the original iron was either run out of slot or too pitted to salvage, the mouth of your #8 could probably use a little touch up anyhow. In this case, I recommend filing the mouth. If the mouth is rounded over where it meets the sole or is chipped, filing to a nice crisp arris will enhance your planes performance and leave a better finish when the mouth is set fine. Again in this case file the mouth
Unless your #8 is mint in the box and collectable, do not worry about it. You are not defiling your plane, you are performing routine maintenance on a "user" grade common as dirt Stanley bench plane.
On the other hand, stock Stanley blades work well. If you are experiencing chatter or an uneven finish...your Stanley blade is probably not the problem. I would look at the area of the sole in front of the mouth, the bedding of your iron, the mating of your chipbreaker to the iron and the bedding of your frog. A thicker blade will not improve these flaws.
Re
glh
>Highland Hardware has a good artlicle on fitting a Clifton blade and chipbreaker to Stanley planes. The article appears under the Education (or Articles, can't recall) link on its web page. I'm sure the same considerations would be appropriate for Hock irons. I had a recent problem fitting a LN replacement blade and improved chipbreaker to my 608C. I now have a 2 5/8 in. LN blade and chipbreaker that I can't use because it would require me to file more than I want to off the mouth/sole. Oh well, maybe some day I can afford a LN #8, already have spare blade and chipbreaker.
By the way, the original blade (bad condition,but repairable) won't work with new chipbreaker, nor will the original chipbreaker (bad condition, but repairable) work with the new blade--less filing but still more than I want to do to the plane.
Stanley irons???
Jim Reed @ Tallahassee
>Most Stanley bench plane irons are too soft for my taste. I think they were made for use by carpenters on soft woods. It means that they don't hold their edge while working hardwoods and need to be sharpened too often. Also means that they chatter. In my experience a 3/32" iron properly heat treated will provide superior performance.
Re: Stanley irons???
Jonathan Peck - N.Y.
>Are you're talking about the difference between O2 carbon steel and A2 tool steel and not chrome vanadium?
I believe that the difference between O2 and A2 is more a matter of personal preference rather than A2 being superior to O2. Each has it's own charecteristics that might appeal to any particular woodworker.
You can say that O2 is easier to sharp, takes a keener edge and holds its edge while A2 is harder, more brittle and more difficult to sharp, but holds its edge marginally longer, even if it is less sharp than O2. I'm sure someone will correct me on this if I'm wrong:-)
I have plenty of Stanley planes with their original irons and have not experienced chatter, so I can not answer that.
Re: Stanley irons???
Jim Reed @ Tallahassee
>Most of the Stanley bench planes I have worked with have been from 1900-1950. I don't have enough test equipment to tell what they are made of or how hard they are. I do a country boy test and scratch the blade with my Old Timer pocket knife. They scratch easily and all seem to be quite soft. As for chatter, that is easy for me to create with a bad blade, especially in hard woods like cherry and maple.
S53 vs O2 vs A1/A2 *LINK*
Jonathan Peck - N.Y.
>Some food for thought, again I think personal preference for O2 is a matter of ones work.
S53 replacement irons
Re: O2?
paul womack
>Do you mean O1, as recommended by Hock, and commonly used for all manner of blades?
BugBear
Re: blade comparison
paul womack
>Here is by far the most credible comparison I've ever seen of multiple steels/manufacturers.
I'd rate it to blades what Lyn is to smoothing planes.
If you have questions that aren't answered by that page, he has much more stuff on the rest of his site.
BugBear
Ooops..ayup that's O1
Jonathan Peck - N.Y.
>