Best replacement blade/cb for 605 Bedrock?

[John Stan]

Hi,
I have a 605 that is ready for the upgraded blade/CB. Does anyone have any thoughts on the best choice for a replacement blade and chipbreaker for a 605 Bedrock. Key requirement is it fits without modification to the plane - e.g. widening the mouth.

I have Hock blades and chipbreakers in both my 604 and 607 and they work well and as advertised. I have never tried the LN or any other brands. Before I pull the trigger on another Hock, I wanted to query the collective wisdom of the group. Are the LN replacement blade/CB any better than the Hock? Do they fit without modification? Anyone tried an IBC or Pinnacle blade?

Thoughts?

Thanks,
John

[Prashun Patel]

Especially since you have good luck with the Hocks, I'd recommend a Hock.

[David Weaver]

I would recommend hocks from craftsmanstudio dot com because they don't require you to do anything to most planes to use them, and the steel is as good as anything else - and they're the least expensive.

I have two of the IBCs, btw. They are good quality blades, and their preparation is very good, similar to LV but different (they are honed and they have a nice anti-rust coating on them). I found the LV replacement irons with the full lap on the back to be the only irons that are truly flat, the IBC irons were very close but I didn't get scratch marks all the way to the edge right away with a polishing stone like I do with LVs.

The hocks require a little more prep, but if you prepped the iron on your bedrock, that doesn't really pose any problem.

In terms of durability, all of the irons in the low 60s hardness range are about the same, especially when comparing like alloys.

I agree about no modification, and wouldn't get the IBC chipbreaker and iron combination and file the mouth on your bedrock. On a cheap bailey, no problem, but not a bedrock, as it's something you have a duty to disclose that you did if you ever want to sell the plane.

You will not gain any practical performance by putting a .140 iron in a reasonable condition plane versus a .095 iron.

[Tom Henderson2]

Hello John-

We are fortunate to have so many excellent choices!

First, let me emphasize that I'm not an expert by any means, so take my comments with a few grains of salt.

Like you, I've used Hock blades on older Stanley planes and had excellent success. But I've thought that the next time I need a replacement blade, that I'd try the Lee Valley blades... by all accounts they are excellent and I believe that the backs are prepared a bit better than the Hocks, so that should translate into less work for the end user prior to first use. I believe the LV blades are about the same thickness as the Hock's.

Like trying a new menu item at your favorite restaurant, you may like it better than your "old favorite" but sometimes you may not like it quite as well. But such are the risks of adventure.

LN blades are good too. You can't go wrong.

I don't believe that Lee Valley sells replcement chip breakers. Hock does, and I've used a couple with good results. LN sells them but with some disclaimers about how they may not work with other makers blades, so hopefully somebody will chime in with their experience.

Craftsman Studio (www.craftsmanstudio.com) is an outstanding vendor who usually sells Hock blades at a bit of a discount. They are an LN dealer too.

So I'd suggest trying an LV blade (O-1 or A-2, your choice) with an LN chipbreaker and reporting back as to how you like it.

Congrats on the Bedrock; I've coveted one for ages but always seem to be a few minutes late on reading the Swap&Sell listings!

-Tom H.
Ventura, CA

[Jim R Edwards]

I have a hock blade in my 604 bedrock, K4 (bedrock) and my Record 4 1/2. I have had no problems with them. I do not use a #5's very often so I left the stock blade in them. I have never used anyother aftermarket blades so I cannot comment on them.

[Sam Takeuchi]

Tsunesaburo laminated blue steel blade

This (http://www.japanwoodworker.com/product.asp?s=JapanWoodworker&pf_id=18.138.50&dept_id=13611) is tad bit expensive, but impressively great blade. As far as ease of sharpening, quality of edge and performance go, I consider this blade to be the very best among the high carbon steel blades. Of course if it was tiny bit thicker to be about the same thickness as other available replacement blades (its thickness falls right between stock Stanley and Hock/LN replacement blades), that'd be perfect, but it hasn't chattered or caused any problem for me, even on harder than usual hardwood. I have it coupled with LN improved cap iron by the way. I highly recommend it. It's a wonderful blade.

If you want A2, I don't think you'd notice big difference between manufacturers. I haven't really come across any A2 that makes me go "ah this is it!". They all seem to behave and perform about the same, equally good, but don't stand out among the crowd. In that respect, high carbon steel blades show more characteristics that are much more noticeable.

[David Weaver]

Relative or perceived sharpness among the steel types is dependent on sharpening media.

I think to really feel like you can sharpen anything without paying attention to wire edges, etc (and I don't mean during sharpening, but as a matter of not having to make sure you've removed them at the end), anything about 8k pretty much takes them out of mind for all steels, even M2.

As far as perceived sharpness, I think the folks who have the perception that A2 doesn't have that same keenness and pure shiny surface on wood left behind aren't using ultra aggressive abrasives (waterstones are ultra aggressive if they are good quality, as are ceramic stones and diamonds).

My experience using a lot of different stones and a lot of different steels is that the one steel that stands above the rest in terms of keenness at a lower grit is white steel.

Other than that, if I'm using a shapton 15k, I can't tell the difference in sharpness from O1, A2, or even white steel - and that includes not being able to see a difference on surfaces that have been planed.

They do fail a little differently, but that's after the initial sharpness goes away.

Add M2 to the list if you use diamonds - diamonds sharpen M2 steel as if it is nothing special in terms of durability, but M2 does wear a lot more slowly on anything else I've tried, including the tormek and shapton stones. Shaptons will still sharpen it to easy shaving sharpness, but the steel comes off on the stone a lot slower.

As far as durability goes, I tested A2 irons a while ago, in hard maple. I used them until they were either so chipped as to be unusable, or until they would no longer plane. The least durable iron lasted, i think, a little over 750 strokes in an 18" board, with a .002" shaving. The most durable, I gave up at 1100. It hadn't quit, but it got dull enough that it was really undesirable to use and it left behind a poor quality surface (but still hadn't chipped).

All of them lost that "shiny" look by 250 strokes.

I did not test any high carbon irons, but my experience subjectively is that the really hard ones last 2/3rds as long as A2, and the softer ones (high 50s hardness) last a materially shorter period. But, still, if you're using hard high carbon irons and doing so for 300 or 400 strokes, and maybe resharpening after 150 or so if you're really shooting for that shiny surface that shines without even adding wax, you're not giving up that much of your time to sharpening.

The only wood I've dimensioned by hand that steel really makes a huge difference is ebony and cocobolo. Cocobolo that has the little shiny glints in it when you cut it is the worst. I've dulled an A2 jack plane to the point it wouldn't cut in that thicknessing less than a quarter inch off of a 5x5 inch piece. M2 makes an enormous difference in it, but I can't ever remember working it in the first place unless I was making planes or plane parts, so as nice as the durability of M2 is to have in a plane or two, most of the time A2 is my favorite steel.

One durability test of irons and just once each and I'll never do that again - they last a lot longer than I would've thought when you're actually counting strokes, and doing extreme torture tests to advertise durability (like thicknessing a cocobolo board and measuring how much was removed) isn't instructive because the relative performance isn't the same as it would be in any woods you'd normally work a lot of to begin with.

Not sure how I got on all of those tangents, but moral of the story is you should buy what performs well, and any of the good high carbon and A2 irons perform well, and if they don't, the sellers and manufacturers will more than likely work with you to make you happy. I think everyone should try A2 and high carbon, because if your sharpening methods and tools will do what you need to do with A2 (make it so you can't tell the difference between what it does vs. high carbon by looking at the resultant surface), then the extra durability of A2 is worth having in a plane iron.

Caveat that I've never used oilstones seriously - I usually suspect oilstone users will have an almost universal preference of high carbon steel.

[lamar bailey]

Timely post after reading it I went to Craftsman studio and got a new Hock blade and chip breaker for my #4 and a blade for my block plane. It was cheaper than getting a a pinnacle blade and chip breaker for my #4. Can't wight to try them out as I am just getting into handtools. Now I need more planes and chisels. :)

[Jim Koepke]

David,

That is an interesting evaluation. Did I miss the length of the pieces being planed?

My curiosity is wondering how many liner feet of planing was done.

jim

[David Weaver]

18" hard maple.

I expected a little less length, and something more interesting other than what the real conclusion was that even some of the new vacuum oven hardened blades have chipout issues in the first grind or two, and the durability of the iron is probably most predictable based on when you start seeing lines on the edge of the board.

None ever showed up on the iron that was still planing at 1100 strokes (or maybe it was 1050 that I gave up, can't recall exactly, but it was over 1000).

If the plane started to lose a little bit of thickness in the cut, I adjusted the iron out to keep the shaving thickness the same.

Used a Lie nielsen 4 1/2 at 50 degrees to make it easy on myself (instead of pushing an 8 or something that long) and waxed often with paraffin - might've been every 20 strokes. A waxed plane with the iron in the 500 stroke realm will edge joint with less resistance than a freshly sharpened unwaxed plane.

I did not allow the thickness of cut to vary - I would guess that the irons would stop cutting acceptably earlier at 1 thousandth of an inch, but I figured that out too late and slogged through it. I may be wrong about that, who knows? I think it's pretty plain that an iron will stop cutting 1 thousandth shavings before it stops cutting 2 thousandths, but maybe the .001 shavings would wear the edge slower.

All of that is why I get pretty excited when there are claims that one iron is better than the other when they are of the same alloy and the same specified hardness. The only A2 iron that I can remember seeing listed as being poor quality was the shepherd iron, and I don't bet too many people have those. I have two, and in a couple of months when I finish the first kit, I'll find out if mine is one of the bad ones. I hope not. I ran the width of the 8" test board down to a stick, so I don't have enough left to test more irons on the same wood.

Doesn't really matter - it'll be in keeping with the prior irons if it chips out early, that'll predict an early death.

Anyway, I think with replacement iron makers, there's more variation within brands than there is between brands, and each time they get so dull they don't cut on regular hardwoods, you'll know you've done a lot of planing.

[lowell holmes]

I have Hock irons in my 604, 605, and 607. They do a good job, I have no complaints.

[Johnny Kleso]

I like the LN blades as the tops are not shortened like Ron's blades

[Ken Werner]

Well I feel very ashamed to say this but...I just can't get used to the squarish top that the Hock blades have. I like the tapered form that Stanley used, LN and Veritas followed. I have a Hock CB from Craftsman Studio, and it is very good. BTW, another endorsement here for Craftsmanstudio.com. They have been great to deal with and offer excellent pricing.

[Jim Koepke]

18" hard maple.

[snip]

I did not allow the thickness of cut to vary - I would guess that the irons would stop cutting acceptably earlier at 1 thousandth of an inch, but I figured that out too late and slogged through it. I may be wrong about that, who knows? I think it's pretty plain that an iron will stop cutting 1 thousandth shavings before it stops cutting 2 thousandths, but maybe the .001 shavings would wear the edge slower.



David,

Thanks for the information.

I think you are correct in that a dulled blade will not make thin shavings, but can still make a cut. The thin shaving check is one thing I do with a plane that I have not used in awhile to see if the blade needs honing.

Imagine you would have to do another test to see if the .001 shaving will dull the edge slower or not.

Yeah! Right!:D

jim

[Tom Vanzant]

John,
Pull the iron and c/b out of your 604 and put it in the 605. You'll know right away if you need you modify the mouth.

[Dale Murray]

And NOW I resurrect this thread!

Tonight I just finished working over my 605 I bought a few years ago and its time to think about blades, thus this thread is back to life.

What is the consensus these days?

[Andrew Nemeth]

I recently purchased blade and cap iron sets from Lee Valley for a 605 and a 608 I'm working on. I choose the LV sets for a few reasons. LV offers their blades in 01, A2, and now in pmv11. I'm realativly new to hand tools, but from what I have read about the pmv11 chisels, the alloy looks like a promising option. At the time I ordered, the LV sets were a little less expensive than the other options I looked at (Lie Nielsen, IBC) when buying both an A2 blade and a cap iron (although I ended up ordering the pmv11). I was able to just drop the LV sets into my planes without any modifications and the fit and finish are on par with my LN irons in my other bench planes. I can't comment on the performance of my LV set yet as I still need to true and lap the soles of both planes before a real test drive. I should mention that I ruled out a Hock set primarily for aesthetic reasons as I do not particularly like the look of the squared off blades in a vintage metal bodied bench plane. However, Hock blades still do have a strong following.

[Dale Murray]

Just to update what I did.

I bought an IBC Blade/Chip Breaker set. I did have to open the mouth of the plane by 1/16-3/32" of an inch. I did not mind since mine is a bit of a mess - wrong tote, wrong knob, sides are not square. The frog and cap are correct and the base is flat. So long as I dont shoot with it I am fine.

After fitting the blade I flattened the back on 8000 norton stone, honed the blade at 25* from 4000 to 8000, then put on a micro bevel with 8000. Ran it across a piece of pine and pulled off gossamer thin shavings.

The end result is a $155 invested in a plane that works beautifully.
I can see myself buying bedrocks off ebay instead of buying premium planes from LN or LV in the future.

[lowell holmes]

I have a Hock iron and a Clifton chip breaker in my 605. I made the change probably 8-10 years ago. The Clifton breaker is two piece. You can sharpen the iron without removing the breaker. There has never been an issue withthe set up. I have the same combination in my 604 and 607 also.

[steven c newman]

Let's see, $155 to make an old plane "new & improved?
Questions:

Maybe a NOS SW iron like what was on the plane to begin with?


As for all the cash laid out to rebuild one plane, for about $10 less, 265004This is a WR #4 V3. I am pretty sure one can order a replacement iron and CB from them. They also make wider ones, too......

Still not sure WHY someone thinks a new thicker plane is a cure-all for a plane.... 265005This is a rebuilt DE6c, with a Berg iron under the CB. Fairly sharp....

[Dale Murray]

What I was curious about is if I could get this old plane with new blade to cut as nicely as my LN #8. The adjustments are extremely smooth and cut very nice. The blade and breaker that came with it left a bit to be desired though I could have messed with them a bit too, but meh.

I have a Stanley #5 with the original blade, it cuts alright but nothing to write home about.

Ultimately, if I can score a Bedrock 3,4,6, or 7, for under $150, slap a blade in for another $60-80 and have it perform as well as a new $325+ tool it seems reasonable to do so.

[Jim Koepke]

Dale,

If you are pleased with what you have, who is anyone else to try and rain on your parade?

My choices would be different than yours... So what?

Your choice is no more nor no less valid than mine.

You like Bedrocks, great. I like Bailey style planes, also great.

It is enjoyable to read your experiences about your tools and your excitement for the future of your tool finding hopes.

jtk

[lowell holmes]

Well,

I have Baileys, Bedrocks, LN, and LV.

They all do their job.

I have a little #3 Bailey that was made in Canada. It was a school plane (there is a number engraved on the Tote). Currently, it has become the plane I use most.

Of course I'm fickle and the LV or LN planes will assume that role.

I didn't mention the 5 1/2 Bailey I use a lot.

[Dale Murray]

It would be dandy if I could afford new planes whenever the mood struck me, but that is not the case. I decided to try a 605 because they are fairly common and what Lie-Neilsen is based on; good enough for them, good enough for me. If I can get score a bedrock and have all the features of a bedrock and performance near or equal to a LN plane at 1/2-2/3 price, it seems reasonable to do so.

If somebody wants to rain on my parade the jokes on them, I am not putting on a parade. I asked a question, I made a decision, I shared the decision and results with the group.

Later today I intend to tune the blade that came with the 605 and have it as a spare for my Stanley #5.

[Chris Hachet]

It would be dandy if I could afford new planes whenever the mood struck me, but that is not the case. I decided to try a 605 because they are fairly common and what Lie-Neilsen is based on; good enough for them, good enough for me. If I can get score a bedrock and have all the features of a bedrock and performance near or equal to a LN plane at 1/2-2/3 price, it seems reasonable to do so.

If somebody wants to rain on my parade the jokes on them, I am not putting on a parade. I asked a question, I made a decision, I shared the decision and results with the group.

Later today I intend to tune the blade that came with the 605 and have it as a spare for my Stanley #5.Glad to know they are fairly common, I would like to own a 605 someday.

[steven c newman]

The WoodRiver #5 MIGHT just be a Dead Ringer for that Bedrock 605. Might check it out sometime.

And yes, I am quite happy with my WR #4 V3 one. List price was $140 or so......

I THINK the #5 runs about $159 and change. Also based on the bedrock design.....