Kunz Replacement Plane Irons - #3 & #4 - any good? (and WoodRiver blades? Good? Bad?)

[Chris Hudson42]

Anyone tried the supposed .095 thick Kunz replacement irons for Kunz regular inexpensive planes? Or have a Kunz plane like this and can comment on the blade?

These irons appear to be about $20 - rather than $50.

I've a nice old type 13 #4. Gone thru Charlesworth 'Tuneup' - and the blade will still slightly chatter -mostly near the beginning of the cut. The iron is a replacement Record - I think about 0.78.

After paying $25 for the plane, its a bit frustrating to see thicker replacement blades at $50.

Other than Kunz, any other suggestions for a thicker but reasonably priced replacement iron??

Thanks!
Chris

P.S. - with the WoodRiver #3 now at less than $90, and the #4 at less than $100 - you could almost replace the old Stanley iron, chipbreaker, and lever cap for the same cost as Hock, LV, LN aftermarket - even if you throw away the WR plane.

So same quesion - how good is the WR iron/chipbreaker combination???

[Jonathan McCullough]

I have the Wood River and I really like it. The blade is thick, the chip breaker is, as I understand it, like the Lie-Nielsen. The plane itself is very heavy. The frog is based on the old Stanley Bed Rock design. I fiddled with it some to close up the mouth. The blade only required a bit of a touch-up before use, less than five minutes. Probably less than three if you don't count setup time. All the surfaces are lapped. In use, it does splendid work, and that's what counts for me more than the size of the chips. The wood looks beautiful (any wood so far, though I've been building mostly with cheap pine) and I can't imagine wanting to spend time or money on sandpaper to clog up the beautiful figure in wood. You can dial in a shaving so tight that you're really just sort of picking up stray fibres. Looks like a butterfly sneeze it's so fine, but I don't think it makes the wood look as nice. I have a well-tuned old Bailey-type Stanley #4 too with a Hock blade, and a Sargent #3. They all work very well, but with all the time and money put into tuning up the old planes, I'd say the Wood River was a good buy. The most important thing is figuring out how to sharpen and use it, and there it's good to have that experienced neighbor guy show you that, if you can find him.

[Zach Dillinger]

I have the Wood River #3 and I like it fine. The iron and chipbreaker are substantially thicker and work quite well. The iron takes, and holds, a nice edge. I use mine quite often, especially when the iron in my preferred #2 Stanley is in need of a touch up. The only thing I'd be careful of is to make sure the chipbreaker's receiving slot will line up with the Stanley depth adjuster. I've never tried switching them and it might cause problems.

Other than that, give it a go and let us know!

Zach

[Chris Hudson42]

Thanks Zach and Jonathan,

With the current 20% off sale on Woodrivers until 3/27 - I have been tempted to try one.

I have so far, though, been put off by what seem many reports of off-center frog machining/seating (the also reported chipbreaker off-square reports don't bother me much - should be easy to fix).

Maybe the quality problems are now fixed? (Are your purchases recent??)

Zach (and Jonathan also if you have any thoughts) - how does the durability of the blade - holding an edge - appear compared to your #2 Stanley (with standard Stanley blade? Or Hock replacement or whatever?)

Thanks!
Chris

P.S - I use Brent Beach's jig and microbevel sharpening techniques - see: http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/index.html

Also his approach to use a 1" belt sander for the primany bevel - switching to it after first butchering some irons on a Grizzly Tormak clone. (Very uneven bevel angle across the blade - though to the eye - it seemed fine)

Incidently, the Harbor Freight 1" sander is on sale for $34.95 - works great, looks very well-built and durable. Perhaps one of the rare truly good buys at Harbor Freight:)

[James Scheffler]

Anyone tried the supposed .095 thick Kunz replacement irons for Kunz regular inexpensive planes? Or have a Kunz plane like this and can comment on the blade?

These irons appear to be about $20 - rather than $50.

I've a nice old type 13 #4. Gone thru Charlesworth 'Tuneup' - and the blade will still slightly chatter -mostly near the beginning of the cut. The iron is a replacement Record - I think about 0.78.

After paying $25 for the plane, its a bit frustrating to see thicker replacement blades at $50.

Other than Kunz, any other suggestions for a thicker but reasonably priced replacement iron??

Thanks!
Chris

P.S. - with the WoodRiver #3 now at less than $90, and the #4 at less than $100 - you could almost replace the old Stanley iron, chipbreaker, and lever cap for the same cost as Hock, LV, LN aftermarket - even if you throw away the WR plane.

So same quesion - how good is the WR iron/chipbreaker combination???

I would try replacing just the chipbreaker with a new Hock. They're about $25 at Tools for Working Wood. In fact, I'm doing just that. I ordered three last night for my old Stanleys. I'll report back my findings (I know that doesn't help you right now).

For what it's worth, (and I hope I don't offend) I decided that I wanted to support a small company that makes its products in western democracies with hopefully fair labor practices (USA and/or France). I also ordered a Ray Iles carbon steel blade, made in England. I've struggled with the whole buying from China thing. I have Chinese-made tools, and may buy more in the future. But in this case I see this as a toss-up in performance and the new blade/chipbreaker option is a bit cheaper, so that tips the balance for me. Blade + chipbreaker + shipping is less than $75.

You may need to file open your plane's mouth a bit for the Ray Iles blade. TFWW also sells Hock blades at a good price and they will fit with no worries.

Jim S.

[Chris Hudson42]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the Hock chipbreaker idea. I sure do have plenty of thin blades to try them with:). Be looking for your report on them.

No offense on the Chinese stuff - we all know their currency is kept artificially low etc. (Been there, seen that - but it was over 10 years ago). But I didn't find Taiwan much different then, either. Maybe even worse pollution.

OK on the mouth. Seems like anything much over .095 will likely need opening.

Let us know about the Ray Iles blades, too?

Regards,
Chris

[Jim Koepke]

I've a nice old type 13 #4. Gone thru Charlesworth 'Tuneup' - and the blade will still slightly chatter -mostly near the beginning of the cut. The iron is a replacement Record - I think about 0.78.

After paying $25 for the plane, its a bit frustrating to see thicker replacement blades at $50.

Other than Kunz, any other suggestions for a thicker but reasonably priced replacement iron??

Thanks!
Chris


Howdy Chris and welcome to the Neander Cave.

I am curious about the chattering you are experiencing. A thicker blade can lessen or eliminate the chatter, but it is not always the fault of the blade.

Having used some pretty thin blades and Hock blades I can say from experience the thicker blades do have advantages, but the thin blades can also be optimized to work well.

Sometimes it is the actual wood versus the thickness of shaving setting up a resonance. Often it is the mechanical relationships in the plane.

One thing to look for is any space between the blade and the frog when everything is in place. If the blade is not seated fully on the frog, it can chatter.

This can be caused by a frog being too far back. This would make the blade rest on the back of the mouth. A large unsupported area of blade is prone to vibrate.

A second cause could be a chip breaker with too much spring bowing the blade. This would require some careful adjustment to the chip breaker. Too little spring on a chip breaker can also cause problems.

Another chip breaker related problem would be if the chip breaker is not seating properly across the width of the blade.

Here is a post from the past with a bit of information:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?p=1158886#poststop

If the blade is setting in contact with the frog, then the next step would be to see if the frog is properly seated.

Check the items above first. If they are all good, then it may be necessary to check the frog's seating.

jim

[Joel Goodman]

I also ordered a Ray Iles carbon steel blade, made in England.
You may need to file open your plane's mouth a bit for the Ray Iles blade. TFWW also sells Hock blades at a good price and they will fit with no worries.

Jim S.

I have a Ray Iles carbon iron on my jointer and like it. I did have to open the mouth a touch -- an auger file worked well because it has a "safe" edge without teeth so that the mouth doesn't get wider. What Joel at TWW says about the warp in the blade is true -- it flattens really easily as the blade is slightly concave on the back, sort of like a japanese chisel. Let us know if you like the Ray Iles blade as much as I do. Also I think that with an iron as thick as the Ray Iles then the standard chipbreaker is fine.

[Jeff Willard]

Just wondering, has anybuddy ever experimented with the LN improved chipbreaker in an older Stanley or such, with the thinner iron?

[jerry nazard]

There is a recent thread on chipbreakers over on Woodnet that is well worth reading.

[Chris Hudson42]

Jim,

One question leads to another - I notice the guys selling the Hock chipbreaker also offer the Clifton 2-pc 'Stay Put' (?)

What are the advantages/disadvantages of one over the other? Anybody trying both have any opinions?

[Casey Gooding]

I recently tried a LN chipbreaker on my Stanley #3. It didn't work. The screw didn't line up in the frog correctly. I believe they state on the website that their chipbreakers may not fit all Stanley planes.

[Chris Hudson42]

Hi Jim,

The chatter occurs only on some straight grained walnut, and only toward the start of the cut - never soft yellow pine. I've done David Charleworth 'Tuneup' steps (a FWW article some years back). The frog is flush with the backside of the mouth, sole -seating lapped, frog-blade seating lapped, etc.

Could be my technique, too. The walnut is relatively short - I may not have the pressures right on tote and knob. And I have a bit of a tendancy to sort of 'swoop in' - like landing an airplane - and I'm suspecting I don't have the best contact between the sole and the workpiece just as I start the cut. Then I 'land' - and everything is OK from there. Could be a chipbreaker seating or bending blade. I do have one Hock blade - I'll try that tomorrow if I can. If I still have the problem - I'll think its my technique - or perhaps the flatness of the sole?...

[Jim Koepke]

Hi Jim,

The chatter occurs only on some straight grained walnut, and only toward the start of the cut - never soft yellow pine. I've done David Charleworth 'Tuneup' steps (a FWW article some years back). The frog is flush with the backside of the mouth, sole -seating lapped, frog-blade seating lapped, etc.

Could be my technique, too. The walnut is relatively short - I may not have the pressures right on tote and knob. And I have a bit of a tendancy to sort of 'swoop in' - like landing an airplane - and I'm suspecting I don't have the best contact between the sole and the workpiece just as I start the cut. Then I 'land' - and everything is OK from there. Could be a chipbreaker seating or bending blade. I do have one Hock blade - I'll try that tomorrow if I can. If I still have the problem - I'll think its my technique - or perhaps the flatness of the sole?...

I think I would have to agree that it is technique.

To start a stroke, it is good to register the toe on the wood.

This is done by setting the front of the plane firmly on the wood with the mouth off the wood. Firm, but not a lot of pressure. Then start the forward stroke. If your blade is not taking too thick a shaving, this should solve your chattering problem.

My only experience is with Stanley and Hock chip breakers. I do use one Hock blade with a Stanley chip breaker on my #8. It works fine.
I did have to file a screw on a Hock chip breaker to work to my liking on my #3.

jim

[James Scheffler]

I have a Ray Iles carbon iron on my jointer and like it. I did have to open the mouth a touch -- an auger file worked well because it has a "safe" edge without teeth so that the mouth doesn't get wider. What Joel at TWW says about the warp in the blade is true -- it flattens really easily as the blade is slightly concave on the back, sort of like a japanese chisel. Let us know if you like the Ray Iles blade as much as I do. Also I think that with an iron as thick as the Ray Iles then the standard chipbreaker is fine.

I didn't make it clear, but the Ray Iles iron is going on a 4th plane, with a standard chipbreaker. It's a Stanley transitional jointer, which doesn't work with the aftermarket breakers (adjuster slot is in the wrong place).

Thanks for the tip on opening the mouth! I may try to put the iron in my No. 6 just to see if the thicker blade *and* thicker chipbreaker helps or is overkill. The mouth on the jointer is plenty big from prior sole flattening.

Jim S.

[James Scheffler]

Jim,

One question leads to another - I notice the guys selling the Hock chipbreaker also offer the Clifton 2-pc 'Stay Put' (?)

What are the advantages/disadvantages of one over the other? Anybody trying both have any opinions?

I don't know, no experience with it. I searched for user reviews of the Hock vs. Lie-Nielsen vs. Clifton here and on other sites. (I was in what my wife calls "analysis paralysis":D). I didn't see anything consistent in terms of what works the best. I was happy with my one Hock blade so I went with Hock for the chipbreakers as well.

[Jeff Willard]

...'swoop in' - like landing an airplane...

I tend to "helicopter in":eek:-and you think that you have chatter prollems?:D

[Joel Goodman]

I recently tried a LN chipbreaker on my Stanley #3. It didn't work. The screw didn't line up in the frog correctly. I believe they state on the website that their chipbreakers may not fit all Stanley planes.

The Hock is similar and does fit the Stanley's -- at least it did in my #6!

[Jim Koepke]

One thing I have noticed on some planes is the frog can be moved back further than the mouth allows for proper blade projection.

You can guess where my first filing on the mouth would be if it were in need of opening.

jim

[Tri Hoang]

I have good success with a WR blade/chip breaker combination. It does not hold an edge as well as a Hock/LN/LV blade but it's serviceable. At a discount of 20% and free shipping, I think it's worth a try if you are on a budget. You'll find that the lateral adjusters on the WR are craps. Just call up LN and order their parts for it. I think it'd run about $12. The WR lever cap is pretty soft and easily damaged by tighten screw. The tote is skinny...not very comfortable in my book.

[Chris Hudson42]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to provide your suggestions and advice. Its changed my thinking on how to proceed.

I did eventually decide to order 1 each #3 and #4 Kunz irons for my Stanley - just to give it a try. Did so based on them supposedly being 3/32 (.093) rather than the Stanley regular 5/64 (0.78). May not seem like much difference, but since stiffness is proportional to the cube of the thickness, the 3/32 should be almost twice as rigid. I will report back my impressions after they arrive and I try them in comparison with a standard Stanley blade on the same workpiece and plane.

Since then I've found out that Hock offers a lower-priced high carbon iron for $30 (#3) and $31.50 (#4) (thru a dealer, the third entry if you Google 'Hock Replacement Plane Irons). Now that I know about them, and unless I am thrilled with the Kunz, my next blade will likely be one of those. Only $6 more than the Kunz when shipping is factored in (the 2 Kunz cost $50.32 with the shipping).

I also somewhat reluctantly ordered a WR #4 (under $100) at the last minute while free shipping was in effect, while praying I don't get one with the off-square frog machining. The deciding factor was the suggestion that I simply try a less-expensive solution - the $25-or so replacement chipbreaker. My thinking is I will try the WR chipbreaker with a standard blade - on the same Stanley plane - to see how it compares to the stock Stanley combination. If results are good, I'll then order thicker chipbreaker(s) for that plane.

Also, I do think some of the 'starting chatter' was technique. If I try hard to register the front of the plane on the workpiece before I start, and make sure I have enough pressure on the ball - its less, if not at all.

Finally, if I need to open a mouth, I will now be doing it at the back - rather than the front (every other magazine suggestion I've seen) (right Jim K? Correct me if I misunderstood). Though reluctant to use a file, I may, followed by then mounting the frog as close to flush with the mouth back as possible - then use Permatex Valve grinding or other lapping grit, to lap the frog face and sole mouth together at the same 45-degree angle - using an old blade to do so (I've the perfect blade for that - a Home Depot Buck Brothers replacement for $3..:>). I will do this with an 'expendable plane' first - a totally worthless brazed repaired old #4.

Anything worthwile I'll try to report back. Thanks Again!
Chris

[Joel Goodman]

I think filing or grinding the frog and back of the mouth is a very hard way to open up the mouth, involving removing a lot of metal. It's not hard to open the mouth in the front with an auger file. You may not have to do it at all -- see how the iron fits. I was nervous about about it but it turned out to be pretty basic. I left the mouth of my jointer a little tighter than it might be. I figure that if I want to hog off wood some time I can always drop in the thinner iron. The Hock irons are real carbon steel -- the modern Stanleys and I'm sure the Kunz are not -- I think you'll find the Hock or Ray Iles (or LN or LV) a much better iron.

[James Scheffler]

I got my Hock chip breakers and Ray Iles carbon steel blade from TFWW the other day. I tried one of the thick chip breakers in my type 11 Stanley No. 6. Instant major improvement! :) I had tuned this plane previously, but maybe not to the level than some of the gurus here can do. The plane previously did not chatter with stock blade and chipbreaker, but the new chip breaker made an improvement in slicing through knots easier and it tears out less in wrong-way planing. (There was actually no tear-out at all in some white oak going against the grain.)

I sharpened up the Ray Iles iron. As advertised, it is slightly convex across the length and width, which maybe helps a little in initially flattening the back enough to sharpen. It's a little like a built-in ruler trick. The iron wasn't as smooth on the back as a Hock or Lee Valley, but way better than several other irons I have flattened (which were either antique or modern Stanley blades). The blade got very sharp. I used it in a Stanley transitional jointer with stock chipbreaker, and it made a definite improvement in overall performance.

Jim

[Chris Hudson42]

The Kunz irons arrived. Here are my impressions. I compared to a Chinese iron for a #4 Footprint ($11), the regular Stanley #4 ($12, Sheffield, England), the #4 Kunz $20.50) and the #3 Kunz ($19.50). (Both Made in Germany), and finally, A French HC Hock (about $32)

First thing is the difference in thicknesses between the two Kunz. Before ordering, one supplier lists them both as 3/32 (.093), another - the one I ordered from - did not list 3/32. The ones I got may be NOS (New Old Stock) - there was a little splotch of light rust high up on the #4. It measured .088 - but the #3 is clearly thinner at .080, with the Chinese and Stanley at .082/.083..

So if you are looking for a thicker iron, It makes no sense to buy the #3 Kunz.

What about the #4 at .088? Well, using the same digital caliper, my lone Hock #4 'Hi Carbon' French iron does measure .093. So the Kunz is halfway between the Hock and Stanley/Chinese.

Another thing to note on both Kunz, the 'business end' - the amount of iron below the cap iron screw cutout, is noticeably less than the Stanley/Chinese. What about surface finish? The Kunz seems similar to the Stanley, which is better than the Chinese, which is better than a 'standard line' Anant. But the Hock surface finish is noticeably better than all of them.

With shipping the Kunz blades cost a total of $50 -$25 each. Hock HC irons are about $30 - $32 each - with free shipping.

Buy the Hocks.:)

Chris

[george wilson]

I'd never recommend a Kunz product. They are pretty rough looking,and do not have the quality you would expect from a



german plane.

A friend ordered the Kunz scraper plane,which is modeled after the large Stanley scraper(can't recall model #'s,though I have 1). He sent it back. IIRC,the pin that the scraper mechanism hinges upon was fitted loosely,and the scraper didn't work smoothly. I had a little Kunz bench plane,and gave it away.