Doug Hobkirk
07-13-2014, 4:09 PM
Are blade lengths fairly standard on traditional (Stanley, MF, Sargent) bench planes? 7.5" long, with 2" of blade below the end of the slot?
The slot on the almost new Stanley #4 I am measuring is slightly over 4.5"
Adjusting the chip breaker even with the end of the blade uses the first inch (and gets just beyond the enlarged hole)
If I have used up 100% (2") of the blade (for argument's sake), there is another 1.5" of slot that has never been used.
So the slot could have been 1.5" shorter and he blade could have been 1.5" shorter (keeping the approx. 5/8" beyond the slot)
That would be cheaper to manufacture
The adjustment lever extends beyond the blade almost as soon as the blade gets shorter - it doesn't seem like that's much of a factor. Indeed, it might be more convenient.
Question: Why aren't the blades shorter?
What do others do?
LN #4 blade - I don't have one (feel free to send me one - I'll be glad to pay postage, even from PERTH!)
The blade is 9.5" long (per plane description)
My rough measure of their graphic on the blade is that the cutting blade portion is about 3.2" and the slot is roughly 4.4"
So LN doesn't have slot that's never used (I assume they, like Stanley, have the same "just over an inch" to get beyond the enlarged hole)
Hock replacement blades are 7" long but they would seem to have at least 2" of usable blade - their web site didn't even list the length
I give up - I've gone beyond my attention span. And I think I've provided enough info for novices. And you pros probably could have answered my question even if my entire post was simply "Why aren't the blades shorter?"
Every time I learn something, I find at least one more thing I don't know.
The slot on the almost new Stanley #4 I am measuring is slightly over 4.5"
Adjusting the chip breaker even with the end of the blade uses the first inch (and gets just beyond the enlarged hole)
If I have used up 100% (2") of the blade (for argument's sake), there is another 1.5" of slot that has never been used.
So the slot could have been 1.5" shorter and he blade could have been 1.5" shorter (keeping the approx. 5/8" beyond the slot)
That would be cheaper to manufacture
The adjustment lever extends beyond the blade almost as soon as the blade gets shorter - it doesn't seem like that's much of a factor. Indeed, it might be more convenient.
Question: Why aren't the blades shorter?
What do others do?
LN #4 blade - I don't have one (feel free to send me one - I'll be glad to pay postage, even from PERTH!)
The blade is 9.5" long (per plane description)
My rough measure of their graphic on the blade is that the cutting blade portion is about 3.2" and the slot is roughly 4.4"
So LN doesn't have slot that's never used (I assume they, like Stanley, have the same "just over an inch" to get beyond the enlarged hole)
Hock replacement blades are 7" long but they would seem to have at least 2" of usable blade - their web site didn't even list the length
I give up - I've gone beyond my attention span. And I think I've provided enough info for novices. And you pros probably could have answered my question even if my entire post was simply "Why aren't the blades shorter?"
Every time I learn something, I find at least one more thing I don't know.