Hock Replacement Irons

[Prashun Patel]

I'm thinking to replace my Stanley #7 blade with a Hock. Do I need to also replace the chip breaker?

[Matt Radtke]

You may not NEED to--it comes down to how long the chiprbreaker screw is. If it is long enough to keep the blade and chipbreaker together, you're fine.

If you're getting the new blade locally, I'd try without first. If it doesn't work right, go get the 'breaker.

[David Weaver]

If there's nothing wrong with the chipbreaker, no.

I have planes that have iron and chipbreaker and planes that have only the iron replaced (where the old CB is in good shape), and there isn't a lot of difference in use.

If you were thicknessing persimmon, maybe there would be a difference, I don't know - but for "normal" woods like cherry, maple, and especially softwoods, if the plane is set up properly, just the iron itself will make a great difference.

If you find you do need to replace the chipbreaker for any reason, i think craftsmanstudio ships anything hock for free, so you could get the chipbreaker later without it being any more than iron plus chipbreaker.

I kind of like the sprung feel of the stanley stock chipbreaker against the levercap, it feels less sensitive to the height of the frog screw. I have a bad luck streak of finding planes where the chipbreaker is totally beat up - in one case, on a #8, someone decided to stop using the plane after they had worn a hole through the front of the chipbreaker (i.e., you could see daylight through it). The mouth of the plane looked similar (it was worn hollow, but not close to through like the chipbreaker). They must've been using the plane to clean off the edges of dirty or sandy rough sawn lumber - it was really beat.

[Terry Beadle]

Your current breaker should work fine with your new blade. It may need to have the edge seat touched up. Mr. Radtke's comments are dead on.
I will say, I like the two piece Clifton breaker. It makes touch up honing a breeze and it's well machined so not much fettleing required.

You will enjoy a tremendous increase in sharpness IMO. Edge retention is also a big improvement over the stock blade. I have two of Mr. Hock's blades in service and both are a delight to use.

[Richard Dooling]

Just a thought but you may want to consider the Lee Valley or the Ray Iles replacements instead. I've only bought a couple of Hocks and while they are great blades they were also a bear to flatten. Did OK with a Lie Nielsen blade but it was still a good bit of work.

But then others may have had better luck than I have had.

On the other hand Santa brought me the LV LA jack :cool: and the blade back was very flat. I ordered the high angle blade to go with it and it is the same. About 20 swipes on sand paper on glass and I have uniformly polished backs.

They claim, "a flatness tolerance of [plus or minus] 0.0002" or better over the working surface, and with an average roughness surface finish of 5 microinches (0.000005") or better."

The other approach is the one being taken by Ray Iles where he checks the blade warp that results from heat treating the steel and ensures that the back is the side with concavity.

From Joel at Tools For Working Wood, "What Ray does is check every iron for concavity and then grind the bevel on the side that is slightly convex. What you end up with is an iron with edges that quickly contact the stone, so you get a quick area of flatness right next to the edge where it matters."

That makes sense to me and it's apparently an an approach that was abandoned many years ago. Ray Iles just seems to keep reviving some great ideas. I wish I could afford his pig stickers.

.

[Prashun Patel]

Thanks, I called Hock and Mr. Hock told me the cap iron can improve the stability of the blade, but is not necessary since the Hock blade is only marginally thicker than the stock blade, which means the cap screw of the stock breaker should engage properly.

[Eddie Darby]

You might want to look at this possible option.

http://www.woodcraft.com/Product/2080171/29547/Matched-Chip-Breaker-and-Blade-Set-238W-for-Stanley-Handplanes-412-512-6-and-7.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA7l488rwFg

[Brian Kent]

Prashun, are you aware of Craftsman Studio prices - $33.50 or $39.50 (regular or A2) with free shipping.

[Andrew Gibson]

I think I will toss my thoughts in on this subject.
I have a hock A2 iron and a hock chip breaker in my #3. I also have a LV A2 iron in my #4 and now #4 1/2 both with stock chip breaker.
all are excellent and I would recommend either.
I think the chip breaker makes a difference, you might have to do a little feting with the depth adjuster, If I recall correctly I had to take a couple passes worth off with a file to get my #3 adjusting properly with the hock chip breaker.

I think the LV irons I have seen were flatter then the Hock. This is the reason I think I prefer the LV's. I also started getting good at sharpening about the time I got my first LV Iron so that makes me like them a bit more as well...

Today I used both my #3 and #4 1/2 and both blades performed equally well. I need to give both a touch up as well as several of my chisels. I need to stop putting that off, though I blame the cold weather.

[Joel Goodman]

The other approach is the one being taken by Ray Iles where he checks the blade warp that results from heat treating the steel and ensures that the back is the side with concavity.

From Joel at Tools For Working Wood, "What Ray does is check every iron for concavity and then grind the bevel on the side that is slightly convex. What you end up with is an iron with edges that quickly contact the stone, so you get a quick area of flatness right next to the edge where it matters."

That makes sense to me and it's apparently an an approach that was abandoned many years ago. Ray Iles just seems to keep reviving some great ideas.

I have one of the Ray Isles carbon steel irons and love it. It flattened very quickly as advertised by Joel, and takes a fine edge. But note that it's almost 1/8th inch thick and I did have to open up the mouth on my type 15 #7 with an auger file. The stock chipbreaker, however, is fine with an iron this thick. The adjuster works ok although there is a little more backlash -- but I take up the backlash so no big deal. The stock chipbreaker screw engaged fine.

[Jim Koepke]

I have a few Hock blades and chip breakers.
If the Stanley chip breaker is properly tuned, it will work fine.

I have not had much problem flattening the backs of Hock blades. My method is usually to just get the center polished out towards the edge as much as a few minutes will do and leave it at that. This is about the same as putting a camber on a blade.

Try it, you will see.

jtk

[Don Dorn]

I have a hock iron in a well tuned Grizzly #5 and it works very well. I'm very impressed at the length of time it holds an edge before needing refreshed. This is the second time I've heard that people have some issue flattening a Hock iron. I was pretty lucky in that mine didn't take long.

My question has to do with the necessity of it it. For the inordinate number of people that use the ruler trick, why is polishing and flatting the back so critical. Personally, I like to take the time up front and flatten and polish the back of premium irons like LV, LN and for me, Hock. This is because when I'm done with the secondary bevel, all that's necessary is to wipe the back off on the 8k to get rid of the bur. If I were one to use the ruler trick - I don't see the benefit of bothering with the back when you get it. Am I missing something here?

[Sam Takeuchi]

For my #7, I have a 2-3/8" Tsunesaburo blue steel blade (http://www.japanwoodworker.com/product.asp?s=JapanWoodworker&pf_id=18.138.60&dept_id=13611) and a LN 2-3/8" cap iron. This blade is thinner than most of replacement blades commercially available, but thicker than stock blades. It's a wonderful blade and coupling it with thick replacement cap iron makes it probably one of the best high carbon steel blades available today. In fact, I would choose this blade over A2 blades as well. Not because it would outlast A2, but I feel that this blade has better balance of edge retention and ease of sharpening than either O1 or A2. Some people may know this blade from Brent Beach's website and I agree with his conclusion that this is an outstanding blade and it stands out from the rest. It is quite expensive compare to other replacement blades, however, so maybe it's not for everyone.

Like Ray Iles high carbon steel blade, back of the blade is slightly concave and it takes very little time to create flat behind the cutting edge.

[Richard Dooling]

My first blade replacement was a LN blade and breaker set for a #5. It required a bit of adjustment to the plane to work and I ended up using the breaker on a thinner Stanley blade and a Stanley breaker on the thick LN.

The problem was that the thicker blade moves the breaker and the slot for the depth adjuster away from the depth adjuster lever. The new breaker's slot was positioned higher on the breaker's long axis and that made the travel a little too short. Using the breaker with a thinner blade brought it back just enough to to be usable.

Now I just buy the blades and make sure the old breaker is properly tuned. My feeling is that these new blades are thick enough to make the additional stiffness provided by the breaker a non-issue in most applications.

There are different opinions but I don't think the chip breaker is so much a chip breaker as it is a stiffener for the relatively thin original blades. Of course they also provide the adjustment slot - so they are necessary.

There are no chip breakers in many woodies and none in bevel up planes. If I had to choose I'd rather have an adjustable mouth to help control the point of failure in the wood fibers.

.

[Joel Goodman]

My first blade replacement was a LN blade and breaker set for a #5. It required a bit of adjustment to the plane to work and I ended up using the breaker on a thinner Stanley blade and a Stanley breaker on the thick LN.

The problem was that the thicker blade moves the breaker and the slot for the depth adjuster away from the depth adjuster lever. The new breaker's slot was positioned higher on the breaker's long axis and that made the travel a little too short. Using the breaker with a thinner blade brought it back just enough to to be usable.


.

My understanding is that the LN breakers are designed for their planes are are not totally compatible with the Stanley planes. From experience I can say that the Hock chipbreakers are compatible, and I believe the LV are. I do agree that with a thick enough blade the heavier chipbreaker may be overkill -- but not all the heavy chipbreakers have the issue you experienced.

[Richard Dooling]

Joel I believe you are right on this. I think that LV touts their blade breaker combos as compatible. I also don't know what issues there are as concerns different types/versions.

Say a type 4 vs. a type 17. Sooo many variables:confused:

[Joel Goodman]

My only experience is that the Hock chipbreaker works with a #7 type 15 and a #6 type 13!

[Jim Koepke]

Joel I believe you are right on this. I think that LV touts their blade breaker combos as compatible. I also don't know what issues there are as concerns different types/versions.

Say a type 4 vs. a type 17. Sooo many variables:confused:

Those dimensions did not change through the years on Stanley bench planes as far as I know. I have mixed and matched chip breakers over many types from type 4 to 17.

Here is a chart I made on Stanley cap irons:

178321

If anyone has information to add or different measurements, I would appreciate their listing such.

It was my hope at the time to get others to post their information for other makers planes.

I have a few chip breakers laying around that I would like to know what they might fit.

jtk

[Richard Dooling]

Thanks Jim, I was hoping you might chime in.

.