Suprisingly decent results with newer cheap stanley plane

[Robby Tacheny]

Recently I have been trying out my vintage planes and sharpening blades. I decided to work on my type 17 #4 today and while I was at it I worked on my 1st handplane which is a Stanley SB-4 from a hardware store. I put a link to it below so you know which one I am talking about.

http://www.amazon.com/Stanley-12-404-Adjustable-2-Inch-Cutter/dp/B000FK3WI2/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1242594548&sr=1-3

Probably a year ago, I decided to get this little Stanley plane (sb-4) to work on some panel glue ups i had done that needed some cleanup. I paid something like $20 or so for it. Anyway, before I used it I flattened the sole of it, fettled the machining on the insides and flattened the back of the blade. The I sharpened it by hand because I didn't yet have a honing guide. I remember it doing ok on the panels. This Christmas I used it on some mahogany and cocobolo that I resawed to clean up the bandsaw marks.

Today I was using my type17 #4 and I don't know what happened. My type 17 obviously still needs some work because I couldn't get very thin shavings on an old piece of pine with little birdseyes in it. Then I thought, well I'll try the other cheaper plane even though I hadn't sharpened it yet.

I got super thin shavings. Translucent, full shavings the full length of the board. Then I sharpened it (it was already pretty sharp) and it shaved my arm smooth. A few more passes and I was done for the day.

Maybe this little plane is a diamond in the rough or maybe I just got an extra decent one? Has anyone else used one?

-R

[Bill Houghton]

There's no conceptual reason why that design shouldn't be OK; sounds like you got a good one, and then improved it. You can now confound the people who insist that a tool must (a) be older than World War II or (b) cost more than $200 to be worthy of use. :D:D

[Mike Henderson]

The one defect that's almost impossible to overcome is a bad iron (unless you buy a new iron). Other than that, almost any plane can be fettled to work well.

My experience with new English made Stanley planes was that the steel in the iron was not good and would not hold an edge. Sounds like you got a good one.

Mike

[Robby Tacheny]

I guess I'll chock this one up to luck. But hey, I'll take it!

-R

[Mike Gager]

ive got the sb4 and it seems just fine to me. ive never owned a mega dollar plane so what do i know

[Mat Ashton]

Buying tools is like buying cars... They pretty much do exactly the same thing relatively well. It's just that some will only drive Mercedes and wouldn't step foot in a Hyundai. Others have found the Hyundai to be more than adequate when doing what it was meant for. Every once in awhile the Hyundai owner needs to do some work under the hood... And as time goes by one ends up in a collectors garage lovingly restored the other is taken to the auto wreckers and crushed unceremoniously. Then the scrap metal is shipped to china and turned into cheap knock off hand planes... Ah the cycle of life... Two hundred years ago I doubt there was much difference in that way of thinking - the more things change the more they stay the same.

[Greg Crawford]

Robby,

My first hand plane was my grandpa's (and my dad's) Stanley Handyman. It was Stanley's "homeowner" grade, not a high-end plane. After reading abut what to do here on SMC, I flattened the sole, flattened the back of the blade and got it sharp, and it cut beautifully. I've since gotten more planes (that slippery slope), and many perform better than the Handyman, but it's still one of my favorites. I smile whenever I'm using it, thinking about my dad and grandpa.

If it does a good job, it's a good plane. You really should post a gloat!

Greg

[Loren Hedahl]

My most used plane, is a low angle Stanley block from the local hardware store about 30 years old. Maybe 15 years ago I bought a Charlesworth book and spent a winter day next to the wood stove flattening and polishing the base and sides, shaping the chip breaker, etc.

It was better, but when I ordered and installed a new Japanese steel blade it became a joy to use.

Then I did the same to an old rusty No. 4 Bailey from a local used shop except I used the Hock blade setup. Again it became a different tool in the process.

The only problem with all this is I really wanted a LN -- just because, OK? But these work so well, there's no practical reason to relegate them to a dusty shelf.

Again, on a practical sense, putting the effort and time into this is probably not entirely wise if one factors in a $/hour figure. You'd probably come out significantly ahead purchasing a premium tool to begin with.

In my case, I had recently retired and I learned a lot about planes in the process. I justify that education experience as priceless.

[Mike Gager]

Again, on a practical sense, putting the effort and time into this is probably not entirely wise if one factors in a $/hour figure. You'd probably come out significantly ahead purchasing a premium tool to begin with.



nobody pays me for my time in the shop, its just a hobby for me and im on a pretty tight budget so spending time fixing up or messing with an old or low buck tool vs buying a brand new high dollar tool just leaves me with more money to buy wood or other things i need


i should add that i dont think there is anything wrong with buying a nice plane if you can afford them, id love to have one but just dont have the funds

[Robby Tacheny]

It is possible that cleaning up, reassembling, and currently tuning a newer block plane, a #4, 2 #5's, a #6, a #7 and a #8 have honed my skills on sharpening the blade and paying attention to setup in general. Also I have paid a little more attention to actually using a handplane too.

Either way, I am happy that my cheap plane works well. Now I just have to get my older refurbished planes working as well as this one.

I am just happy to have a few that work as intended!

-R

[James Scheffler]

Maybe this little plane is a diamond in the rough or maybe I just got an extra decent one? Has anyone else used one?

-R

Maybe you got lucky, or I got unlucky with a modern Stanley plane. I have a 612-003, which is the "contractors grade" version of the No. 3, purchased around 2003.

I'll preface this by saying that I've been using planes for several years. I now own 4 old Stanleys, all of which perform much better than the modern one. The problem with the modern one is chatter when it hits any sort of knot, difficult grain, or end grain. It works fine in clear, straight-grained stock.

Mine had a few issues beyond the "usual suspects" (which I consider to be out-of-flat sole, poor fit between lever cap/cap iron and cap iron/blade, and need for a lot of lapping on the back of the blade).

- The face of the frog was ground hollow across its width, so the contact area between the blade and frog is smaller than it should be. I was able to improve this by lapping the frog with sandpaper on glass, but that was complicated by the blade adjustment stirrup that projects up through the frog. To really make the frog flat, I would need to use a punch to knock out the pin holding the stirrup in place, lap it, and then replace the stirrup/pin.

- The front of the frog was ground at the wrong angle relative to the sides of the frog, resulting in the blade sitting skewed. This isn't a fatal problem, as there is enough range in the lateral adjustment so that the blade can project the same amount on both sides. Therefore, it can still take shavings of an even width. However, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to get the machining right to begin with.

- What I believe is the worst thing is a design flaw, which can't be improved by tuning. The older planes have a lot of machined area where the bed and frog meet. The bed of the modern plane has six little machined dots where it mates with the frog. However, this is made even worse by the locations of the dots. When the frog is moved forward to close up the mouth, it barely contacts the dots next to the mouth. When the frog is moved back to open the mouth, only two of the four dots near the back make solid contact with the frog. I believe this lack of contact area is the major source of the chatter.

On the plus side, the castings are of similar weight as the vintage planes, the controls work fine, and the sides are pretty close to square with the sole. The iron can take a sharp edge, but it doesn't stay sharp long.

Anyway, after this experience I won't buy any more modern "Bailey" Stanleys (although the new premium ones might be decent). By the way, my old No. 4 and modern No. 3 cost the same, $35.

Sorry for the long rant.... :eek:

Jim