throat adjustment on Handyman #5

[Tyler Davis]

I've got a Stanley #5 (Handyman). Not the best palette, I'm told, but everyone needs a set of training wheels, and this is mine.

I am trying to figure out how to adjust the throat and depth of cut for thin shavings / fine work. I figure I will use machines for rough work. On pg. 60 of Garrett Hack's Hand Planes book, he shows a diagram of how to adjust the frog and sole so they are in one continuous plane. However, when I do this, the throat is a full 1/8" open, which is way too much (Hack suggests 1/64"). If I advance the frog forward to close the throat, the iron will not be supported near the bevel.

so, what am I doing wrong here?

[Jim Koepke]

I've got a Stanley #5 (Handyman). Not the best palette, I'm told, but everyone needs a set of training wheels, and this is mine.

I am trying to figure out how to adjust the throat and depth of cut for thin shavings / fine work. I figure I will use machines for rough work. On pg. 60 of Garrett Hack's Hand Planes book, he shows a diagram of how to adjust the frog and sole so they are in one continuous plane. However, when I do this, the throat is a full 1/8" open, which is way too much (Hack suggests 1/64"). If I advance the frog forward to close the throat, the iron will not be supported near the bevel.

so, what am I doing wrong here?

The sole and frog in a continuous plane is a starting point.

With a thicker blade, it may be possible to move the frog back just a hair more for chip clearance.

If you were going to use the #5 as a scrub plane, then right where it is with a wide open mouth is where you want to be.

For thin shavings, move the frog toward the front of the plane.

Even when taking heavy cuts, the blade is most likely being supported by the frog alone.

If time and other constraints allow me to take some pictures to show this, they will be posted later.

jim

[Bill Houghton]

so, what am I doing wrong here?

Nothing. Some of the Stanley planes have very large "default" mouth openings; the cheaper ones will be more prone to this tendency, as will the newer ones. As Jim Koepke points out, much of the time the iron is supported by the frog alone anyway. Consider, for instance, the fact that the side of the iron touching the frog is tapered back at the edge - this due to the bevel that you need to provide clearance; on a lot of tools, until you have the iron set to a very coarse cut, the iron's not touching the sole of the plane, just the frog. Also note that this is even more true with the thicker irons that are generally agreed to be good for chatter prevention.

Adjust it forward and try it out. You are likely to find you're worrying unnecessarily.

Let me take time here for a little rant: a lot of the literature about hand tool use discusses matters in an alternate, ideal universe; or proposes a particular setting for a plane or other tool as if any other setting will cause the tool to refuse to cut, or the wood to catch on fire, or something.

There are certain absolutely for sure true things, such as that cutting edges need to be appropriately* sharp, and that tools need to be clean and shiny enough not to drag on the wood as you use them (note that a plane can be rusty as all get out in spots that don't touch the wood or affect the settings of the cutting iron, and still, amazingly, cut wood).

But for a lot of stuff, there are dozens of wrong ways to do it, just as many dozens of right ways, and even more ways that, while not exactly wrong, are not exactly right either. Unfortunately, consciously or not, most authors talk about the right way they've chosen as if it is The Right Way.

This leaves the newbie in a spot: do you adopt a particular author's Right Way and persist in it, even if it's not working for you, busily blaming yourself for your incompetence? Do you disregard all advice and fumble along? What do you do?

My suggestions are: read EVERYthing (this is what makes public libraries so great - you can read many things at far less cost in the taxes you pay than buying all the books would entail), keeping a salt shaker on your bedside table so you'll have plenty of grains of salt with which to take the advice offered; experiment on your own after mulling over what you've read and paying close attention to what the wood's doing; find internet fora like this one to test what you're learning and what you think you aren't; keep on learning, by reading, listening, and experience, for the rest of your life.

Some folks are able to accelerate this process by going to one of the workshop programs, but not everyone can afford these (if I'd floated this idea with the accountant, also known as the love of my life, when I was starting out frightening innocent bits of wood, at which time we had two kids and beater cars that I spent every second weekend keeping running, she'd still be laughing).

At all times, remember that the basics are probably simpler than they appear and that the intermediate and advanced stuff is so subtle it'll take you a while to realize that it is too. This should be a comfort, not a cause for despair.

OK, rant over.

*It was a revelation to me, years ago, that an axe used for splitting firewood should NOT be too sharp, lest it get stuck in the log.

[jerry nazard]

Some rants are ugly,
Some rants are stupid,
Some rants are necessary,
Some rants are helpful,
Some rants are educational.

Bill just delivered a necessary, helpful, and educational rant! All at once.

[Jim Koepke]

The sole and frog in a continuous plane is a starting point.

With a thicker blade, it may be possible to move the frog back just a hair more for chip clearance.

If time and other constraints allow me to take some pictures to show this, they will be posted later.

And the picture proves me wrong. Just goes to show what seems logical is not always correct.

This shows the blade resting on the sole without the blade projecting enough to touch wood.

One can learn new things everyday. Today I learned I was in error about blade, sole, frog clearance.

FWIW, the blade is ground at 30°. It does not look like a 25° bevel would give clearance either. This is a type 10 and later base and frog. Should not be different for earlier types. Not sure if you can see in the picture, but the cap iron (chip breaker) is not seated well to the blade. This will be shown again in my fettling thread to be posted later.


Some rants are ugly,
Some rants are stupid,
Some rants are necessary,
Some rants are helpful,
Some rants are educational.

Bill just delivered a necessary, helpful, and educational rant! All at once.

In agreement on this,

jim

[Mike Cutler]

Tyler

Move it forward and it will work just fine. I also used to agonize over that conundrum until I realized that taking full advantage of the frog adjustment would move the blade forward anyway, and out of contact with that portion of the sole/mouth.
I once bought an ugly Stanley #7, that upon disassembly I found a bunch of hard "white stuff" between the blade, the frog and that portion of the mouth/sole. What a mess it was to clean up. Turned out that hard "white stuff" was rifle bedding compound. It's original owner had bedded the blade for a near 100% perfect contact. I wish I could have met that person.
If all else fails and you get chattering, you can try bedding the blade. But I don't think you'll need too.

Bill

Nice "rant".;)

[Sam Takeuchi]

Another vote for 'don't worry about it'. Even if you align the frog with the back of the mouth, it's almost never perfect anyway. Either because the back of the mouth isn't flat or straight, minuscule movement of frog while screwing it down, bevel side of the plane iron not being flat, etc. There bound to be certain gaps and unsupported areas unless everything is done perfectly. The fact is, there are countless planes out there with frog at forward position working perfectly fine (including mine). All that stuff in the book, don't trying to translate it onto your plane. Author's plane isn't your plane. Your plane is different from others in minor details. So are mine. Take it as a guide, but adjust it to fit your plane. If it chatters, get a thicker replacement blade that will resist flexing. That should compensate for whatever unsupported area of the plane iron to some degree as well as closing the mouth a bit. With that kind of mouth opening, you can probably throw in full thickness Lie-Nielsen blade and that should take care of chatter problem (if there is any).

Primary concern is function. If moving the frog forward and it works fine, you don't have to change it back to make it what it's supposed to be and have gaping mouth that can't take thin shavings (1/8" is a gaping mouth).

By the way, even if it's bit wider than 1/64", that's fine. I think the idea of narrow mouth opening is over emphasized, more than necessary for the majority of users. Unless you are tackling a work piece with nasty grain or tear out prone wood, slightly wider mouth will work fine. When you want to work on difficult wood, I don't think you'd want to use Handyman to begin with. That's when you reach for a plane you can trust to do a good job, like highly tuned up vintage or made by trusty manufacturers in Canada or Maine (or smaller assorted manufacturers of exquisite planes).

[jerry nazard]

That's when you reach for a plane you can trust to do a good job, like highly tuned up vintage or made by trusty manufacturers in Canada or Maine (or smaller assorted manufacturers of exquisite planes).

Sam: I always enjoy your posts. That last sentence was most cleverly crafted!

-Jerry

[Jim Koepke]

A sharp blade beats a tight mouth like four aces beats any two pair.

jim

[Tyler Davis]

thanks guys

I agree with the approach of "learning by experiment", I was just looking for advice on a starting point. Actually before I read the literature, I unknowingly had the frog pretty far forward due to my "ignorance" and as I recall it was cutting pretty good!

[Jim Koepke]

thanks guys

I agree with the approach of "learning by experiment", I was just looking for advice on a starting point. Actually before I read the literature, I unknowingly had the frog pretty far forward due to my "ignorance" and as I recall it was cutting pretty good!

If you have good results, not much else matters.

jim