PM-V11 Blades in Competitors Planes

[Caleb James]

Dare I even ask if anyone has successfully used a PM-V11 blade in a Lie Nielsen bench plane? The Stanley replacements that Lee Valley sells are thinner than the stock Lie Nielsen's but some of Lee Valley's bench plane blades coincide. Any thoughts?

[David Weaver]

Ln's A2 blades are superb for A2. I can't see a real benefit in it, even though all of my jointing and rough preparation is with planes, and all of my smoothing is with planes. And sometimes work to final thickness.

Just my opinion.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I recently picked up a Clifton jointer plane on the eBay for a really good price. I thought I'd drop my LV blade (a Stanley #7 replacement) and breaker into it, since I'm used to it - the blade, being considerably thinner than the Clifton, however, meant that the depth adjuster, even at it's maximum forward projection, could get the blade to protrude much if at all through the mouth.

[David Weaver]

Have to use the stock chipbreaker on any plane that's a little different than a standard stanley size.

The same thing burned me early on with a LN #8 iron and cap iron set for a stanley plane (back then I put new irons in everything, but on that plane, there was no choice, the iron was beyond gone and the cap iron literally was worn through in the middle and someone decided they were done). LN ultimately had to make me a custom cap iron, which I was grateful for their ability to produce.

[Bob Coleman]

Slight thread hijack here, apologies if it is not slight enough.

The PM-V11 plane blade page says "Due to minor manufacturing variations over the last century, the pawl on the end of the lateral adjust lever on older planes may have to be filed slightly to fit in the blade slot."

Does anyone have any experience using the blades on early 20th century stanley planes? I'd hate to buy blades that don't fit, or file the pawl and have my older blades not work.

[David Weaver]

If you're going to stick with the iron in the plane, It wouldn't bother me to file it. You shouldn't have to file it much.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Have to use the stock chipbreaker on any plane that's a little different than a standard stanley size.

The same thing burned me early on with a LN #8 iron and cap iron set for a stanley plane (back then I put new irons in everything, but on that plane, there was no choice, the iron was beyond gone and the cap iron literally was worn through in the middle and someone decided they were done). LN ultimately had to make me a custom cap iron, which I was grateful for their ability to produce.

Fortunately I was able to make my LV chipbreaker work all right with the Clifton blade (but as I mentioned, not the LV blade, even with the Clifton breaker)- I still need to play with it, but the two-piece Clifton breaker was a little too finicky for my tastes. I still need to play with that plane - it's a little weird finding the sweet spot where the adjustment is easy but the blade still feel secure. Even with the stock breaker/blade, it gets to this point where it doesn't want to adjust any more unless I release the lever cap and reclamp, where-as my MF Stanley I can adjust the blade through it's whole travel. Backing off the lever screw, I feel like the screw isn't as engaged as I'd like.

I picked this up after realizing my MF #7 was flat in the front of the mouth, and flat in the back, but not co-planar. Having a precision sole is nice, and I snagged it for a lot less than a Lie Nielsen, but I may end up selling this and put it towards a LN; it's a nice piece of kit, for sure, but having handled a LN, I feel like the fit and finish and the feel in my hands I like that better.

[David Weaver]

If you were to only ever have one plane from LN, the #7 would be my choice. You can joint edges and never check with a straight edge again, and they will still be glue ready without tension on them. It will also take a heavy cut pretty nicely....

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

In my limited experience, the only time you'd need to file the pawl would be if the slot was thinner than the slot in the original breaker. Although, if the replacement iron is thin enough you're moving it close enough to face of the frog that the slot is trying to fit over a wider part of the taper of the adjustment lever, you might need to file it.

If the slot is in a different place (measurement "A" in the diagram at the bottom of this page (http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=CB) from Lie Nielsen) you'd be better suited looking for a different chipbreaker than filing the pawl to make it work, but in your case, I'd replace the blade and just use the chipbreaker you've got, or buy another identical breaker from LN to use with your LV blade. No reason to muddy the waters more than need be.

Have you got access to a Stanley of a similar size to what LN you're looking to replace the iron in? Try dropping that iron in and see what happens. I'd imagine even using a slightly narrower iron (i.e. a number 4 iron with a number 4 1/2 breaker in your 4 1/2 plane) would still give you a decent idea what the thickness difference would do for you.