Cap iron setting

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I have read a number of times over the years about the virtues of setting the cap iron molecularly close to the cutting edge of the plane iron, and there are lots of videos and articles out there showing impressive results. When I try to do that however, I encounter one of two problems:

-As you advance the cap iron plus plane iron into the thorat of the plaint, the combination is too thick for the throat of the plane, and even very thin shavings jam,

-The cap iron is not long enough, and the locking screw does not have room to traverse in the recess in the frog, so the iron cannot be advanced far enough to get into the throat and take shaving.

Has anyone else had these issues? I have a motley collection of Stanley users, but I have now tried the close setting on all three with the above results, and am wondering what I am missing.

The good news is I get pretty good results with "normal settings", but in light of everything I read I am curious about the results I might see with the "close" settings.

[Robert Engel]

How far do you want the blade protruding?
I don't know exactly what you're doing but the blade only has to protrude a thou or two beyond the mouth, so the cap iron should never be hindering.

I keep mine about 1/32 behind the blade.

Have you tried adjusting the frog back a little? This solves the narrow mouth issue.

If you are using a Stanley cap iron there shouldn't be a problem.

Others more knowledgeable than me will chime in, I'm sure.

[Mike Cherry]

It is my understanding that if you get things right between the blade and cap iron, you can essentially ignore the mouth setting. Normally a tight mouth helps keep the fibers in place longer. This gives the blade time to cut them before they tear. The close chip breaker breaks the chip sooner preventing tearing. This is at least how I understand it.

[Brian Holcombe]

Nicholas,

It depends....

On a #4 plane set for smoothing I have the cap iron very close. On a Jack, #7 plane or a try plane I have the cap iron settings close enough to minimize tearout but not so close that I'm jamming shavings. The reason is two-fold, the thickness of the shavings being the primary. One a Jack, a 7 or a try plane I'm taking heavier cuts, the heaviest being with the jack plane, the try plane being about a .005" shaving and the #7 about a .002-3" shaving.

On the smoother plane I'm taking .001"~ or lighter and set the cap iron where I get straight or rolling shavings (straight are more ideal). If the cap iron is set so closely that the shavings wrinkle up then I back it off just a hair.

There is no one-size fits all for these things, so thats why most people will offer a range. I dont measure my settings any longer, I just set by eye and go by the chip feedback. The wood you're planing has effect on it, the grain you're planing has effect, ect, ect. To give you an idea, most of the time for a finish plane the setting is likely right in the range of .010" or closer, for my other planes it's probably more like double or triple of that.

Your planes should be able to accommodate the proper chip breaker settings, if they cannot it begs the question of the length of the chipbreaker, is it original to the plane? Stanley experts will know more about this than I will, but I've only modified one of my planes (LN not stanley) due to my settings vs the manufactures intended range of settings.

When you say the shavings are jamming up in the throat I suspect this could actually be a faulty mating between the chip breaker and the back of the plane iron. If there are shavings stuck between the two surfaces when it jams then you have your answer. If you would like a double check use a piece of paper. Paper is about .003", place it between the iron and the cap at different spots along the mating surface, if you can pull the paper out then the mating surfaces need work.

[Kees Heiden]

Do you have the original Stanley capiron in an original Stanley plane with the original blade? I haven't yet seen one that has the problems with adjusting deep enough like you describe. And all my Stanleys, both the very old and the very new have enough room in the mouth when the frog is pulled back.

So I am curious what you have there. Any pictures perhaps?

[Steve Voigt]

As others have mentioned, moving the frog back should solve the clogging problem.

I can't imagine why shouldn't be able to adjust the cut deep enough. You ought to be able to set the blade 1/8 below the sole--not that you'd ever need to, but it should be possible. I wonder if the mouth is not the culprit--if it's too small, and you are using an original Stanley cap iron, maybe the hump is bottoming out on the forward part of the mouth.

As an aside re earlier posts, 1/32 is not close enough to get much of a chipbreaker effect, except in very heavy cuts. For most situations, the effective range is more like .004-.020. Of course, it can be set back further than that, because the majority of planing situations don't really require a super-close setting--you only need it if the grain is reversing, curling, etc. you should also be able to take thicker shavings than one or two thou; with the CB set correctly, tearout-free shavings of .005 or more are not a problem.

[Stewie Simpson]

Hi Kees. I have heard it said that Stanley was well aware of the importance of a closely set capiron to combat tear out with their bench planes, but I have some major doubts Stanley ever sold any of its metal planes off the shelf preset with the frog pushed back and a closely set CB. The same comment would apply to other well established brands of metal planes using the same design pattern, such as Record Planes.

Stewie;

[Stewie Simpson]

David Weavers comment on another forum seems to make plenty of sense.

the cap iron set should be slightly larger than the thickest shaving you'll take with a given set.

Stewie;

[Kees Heiden]

I have no idea how Stanley or Record sold their planes. I wasn't around to look at them! But that doesn't change my experience that every Stanley or Record I have had in my hands were capable of being setup like Steve describes above. And those were planes from around 1900, from the 1930-ies and post war UK made planes, so, quite a range, The old ones certainly have a much tighter mouth then the newer ones, but with the frog set back it is no problem to create a 0.6 - 0.8 mm wide mouth. Plenty enough for a smoother.

There is a little snippet about the setup of a capiron in one of Stanleys booklets.

324959

[steven c newman]

Sounds like it is merely the wrong cap iron. Find the OEM one for that plane, tune it to mate with the iron.

Thicker irons and chipbreaker/cap irons are not always the answer to chatter problems.....tuning the plane up the correct ways usually is the best.

Close settings? The only close settings needed is right at the end of the iron and chip breaker. 1/16" to 1/64" between the ends of the two will work nicely. Too tight a mouth merely clogs up with shavings, one needs the room for them to escape out the top. A SHARP iron, a "No-gap" cap iron, set close to the edge work quite nicely. Has for 100+ years now...

[Steve Voigt]

I'm referring to routine situations and I'm guessing about 1/32 could be between 1/64 and 1/32 it doesn't matter that much IME.
I would guess somewhere in the .020-.025 range. On nicely grained wood, I routinely get .001 thick shavings and very nice surfaces.
I have tried setting the chip breaker much closer on my smoother and haven't seen the difference.
Regardless, in my experience this is fine for 90% of the planing I need to do.

I do agree with the posters recommendation, when difficult grain situations arise.
I go much closer and narrow the mouth down -- before I resort to scraping, that is :o.

I can't envision setting a cap iron .004 back if the edges on the blade are eased or blade cambered, so what about this case?


Robert,

If you are taking .001 shavings in "nicely-grained wood," there is no need for a close-set chipbreaker. With a sharp blade, you will likely not get tearout, and close-set chipbreaker won't improve a surface that is already tearout-free. That's why you're not seeing any difference. You could move the chipbreaker back to 3/32" and it wouldn't matter; conversely, you could move it forward and still see no difference, until you moved it too close and it started to degrade the surface.

The close-set chipbreaker matters when you are (1) planing difficult, e.g. curly or reversing grain; or (2) taking heavier shavings. If you are doing either of these things and getting tearout, then you will need to move the CB closer than 1/32" to solve the problem. However, it is completely unnecessary to close the mouth down. Do it if you want, but it is a less effective strategy than setting the CB close. If the CB alone doesn't do it, then there is a problem somewhere--either it's not set close enough, or maybe you are using an after-market CB with an insufficiently steep bevel on the front.

Regarding your last question, it is rarely necessary to use a setting as close as .004, but once in a while you need to. On a smoothing plane, the camber will certainly be less than .004, so it is not a problem to set the CB right at the edge in the corners. If you have a try plane iron with slightly more camber, the corners of the CB can even slightly overhang the iron, so long as the depth of cut is set so that the CB is not below the sole. I slightly round the corners of my CBs, not as much as one might round the corners of a cutting iron, but just enough to break the sharp corner, and this also helps with super-close settings. There is also nothing wrong with having a slight--like a couple thou--camber on the CB itself. (Just don't try to match the CB camber to the blade camber; I argued about that a long time ago with Dave Weaver, he was right, I was wrong.)

Anyway, I'm not trying to be disagreeable; I made the comment because the OP referred to a "molecularly close" setting and your comment right after referred to 1/32"…the juxtaposition seemed to imply that 1/32" was close enough and I just wanted to be clear that that isn't always the case.

[Jim Koepke]

-As you advance the cap iron plus plane iron into the thorat of the plaint, the combination is too thick for the throat of the plane, and even very thin shavings jam,

-The cap iron is not long enough, and the locking screw does not have room to traverse in the recess in the frog, so the iron cannot be advanced far enough to get into the throat and take shaving.

Has anyone else had these issues? I have a motley collection of Stanley users, but I have now tried the close setting on all three with the above results, and am wondering what I am missing.

Some very good answers above. From the last part of what is quoted, having all Stanley planes makes this a bit easier to address.

Parts often got switched around on planes. You may have a cap iron(s) from a maker other than Stanley. The cap irons may have been modified by a previous owner. I have a few cap irons picked up in odd lots that do not fit any of my Stanley/Bailey planes. Many have mentioned problems with some after market blades and cap irons not allowing for good adjustment. Not all makers have agreed on the usefulness of a the cap iron/chip breaker setting in avoiding tear out.

There is a chart of chip breaker/cap iron measurements in .pdf available here:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?109710-Would-this-be-Useful&p=1107683#post1107683

That may be a good place to start in verifying you have the correct chip breaker/cap iron for your planes. A few posts down is some information on mouth measurements.

If you are going to use the chip breaker to regulate your shavings it is my suggestion you start with the frog set to the back of the mouth. On some of the earlier types of Stanley/Bailey planes the mouths came tight from the factory, as mentioned above. It may be necessary to remove just a hair of metal from the mouth. I have a type 4 - #6 plane that is like this. Any shaving over about 0.004" is too heavy even with the frog all the way back. The mouth on the same plane in a type 9 is also a bit tight with a Hock blade.

One of my planes recently had a similar problem. The shavings appeared to be jamming at the throat when they were actually getting caught under the chip breaker - blade junction and backing up into the throat. A bit of time honing the edge and adjusting the flatness of the chip breaker corrected this.

As Brian said, wrinkled shavings indicate the cap iron is set too close to the edge. They may also look wrinkled if the shaving is catching a burr on the leading edge of the chip breaker.

Brian also mentioned using a piece of paper to check the cap iron's mating to the back of your blade. A piece of paper can also help to indicate if your mouth is overly tight. A thin strip fed in from the underside may also help see where the shavings are catching.

It is also important to remember your blade needs to be sharp and some adjustments may be necessary before this all clicks into place.

Good luck and let is know how this turns out.

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I appreciate all of the thoughtful replies.

By "close setting" I am indeed talking about setting the cap iron extremely close to the cutting edge of the iron. I have a block plane with an adjustable mouth, and when I experimented with that it never seemed to make much of a difference, so I have concerned myself with getting the mouth opening smaller on the bench planes.

Kees, I do not have pictures at the moment, will try to get a couple that might be helpful when I get home from work. I have never spent a lot of time trying to date what I have, but I think I have an older No. 7 (judging by the keyhole shaped slot in the lever cap) a probably post WWII era No. 5 (judging by kidney shaped hole in lever cap, and orange paint) and a WWII era No. 3 (plastic adjusting knob, plus I believe my grandfather bought it when he came home from France).

The irons I am using now are brand new Veritas replacements with the matching cap irons. I had the same problems with the Stanleys originals though, so I am not sure it is caused by the little bit of difference in the thicknesses. I am not having shavings jam between the cap iron and iron. I have not tried the paper test on them, but those surfaces are pretty tight. The jamming is between the cap iron and the throat.

Here is a sketch of how I set the frogs: Looking from the side, black is the frog, blue is the back side of the throat, green is the front of the throat, and red is the iron/cap iron. Apologies in advance for my artistic abilities, but I hope it helps make clear how I have them set. Other than getting the frog square in the casting, I focused on getting the front of the frog dead even with the back of the throat (I read or imagined that might help reduce chatter by supporting the entire blade). Do folks set them further back than that? They are not projecting into the throat at all the way I have them set now.

324969



Nick

Edited because I forgot to attach the sketch.

[Jim Koepke]

Do folks set them further back than that?

Some may, but for me it is a problem being caused rather than corrected.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

That's where I set my frog too (on the post WW-I stuff, before everything is different). It's a pitty you are so far away, otherwise it would be easier to help. You use the LV capirons I read. Give it another try with the Stanleys and see where it ends up. The LV blades are quite thin I seem to remember, so that shouldn't change much. But measure them nonetheless. Somewhere around 2mm thick is reasonable.

Have also a look at the angle at the front of the capiron. If it is much more then 45 - 50 degrees, it ends up in the way of the shaving aperture. If there is enough room, then it is no problem, but if it is tight then it certainly doesn't help.

And have a look at that link from Jim Koepke and see if that is helpfull.

[Mike Cherry]

Thinking about your blade depth problem, I remembered that I once got a little carried away with the closing of the mouth on an old Bailey and the depth adjustment ran out of thread. This prevented me from taking a thicker shaving. Could this explain your problem perhaps?

[Jim Koepke]

My recollection is LV has blades and cap irons specifically made for Stanley planes. I also recall there may have been some problems with these in their early design.

You might try getting in touch with LV to see if they may have a better solution than trying to modify what you have.

jtk

[Robert Engel]

I deleted my post because I basically agree with you and didn't want to sound argumentative.
In retrospect I probably am setting it closer than 1/32 I've never really measured it.
If the shavings come off the plane to my liking I don't change anything.

I think its a starting point for him though.


Robert,

If you are taking .001 shavings in "nicely-grained wood," there is no need for a close-set chipbreaker. With a sharp blade, you will likely not get tearout, and close-set chipbreaker won't improve a surface that is already tearout-free. That's why you're not seeing any difference. You could move the chipbreaker back to 3/32" and it wouldn't matter; conversely, you could move it forward and still see no difference, until you moved it too close and it started to degrade the surface.

The close-set chipbreaker matters when you are (1) planing difficult, e.g. curly or reversing grain; or (2) taking heavier shavings. If you are doing either of these things and getting tearout, then you will need to move the CB closer than 1/32" to solve the problem. However, it is completely unnecessary to close the mouth down. Do it if you want, but it is a less effective strategy than setting the CB close. If the CB alone doesn't do it, then there is a problem somewhere--either it's not set close enough, or maybe you are using an after-market CB with an insufficiently steep bevel on the front.

Regarding your last question, it is rarely necessary to use a setting as close as .004, but once in a while you need to. On a smoothing plane, the camber will certainly be less than .004, so it is not a problem to set the CB right at the edge in the corners. If you have a try plane iron with slightly more camber, the corners of the CB can even slightly overhang the iron, so long as the depth of cut is set so that the CB is not below the sole. I slightly round the corners of my CBs, not as much as one might round the corners of a cutting iron, but just enough to break the sharp corner, and this also helps with super-close settings. There is also nothing wrong with having a slight--like a couple thou--camber on the CB itself. (Just don't try to match the CB camber to the blade camber; I argued about that a long time ago with Dave Weaver, he was right, I was wrong.)

Anyway, I'm not trying to be disagreeable; I made the comment because the OP referred to a "molecularly close" setting and your comment right after referred to 1/32"…the juxtaposition seemed to imply that 1/32" was close enough and I just wanted to be clear that that isn't always the case.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Anyway, I'm not trying to be disagreeable; I made the comment because the OP referred to a "molecularly close" setting and your comment right after referred to 1/32"…the juxtaposition seemed to imply that 1/32" was close enough and I just wanted to be clear that that isn't always the case.


"Molecularly close" is kind of a joking reference to "way closer than I have an accurate way to measure." I don't have anything graduated in hundredths of an inch, much less thousandths, and if I did I am not sure I could read graduations that small.

[Stewie Simpson]

The following recent blog entry from Paul Sellers might be of interest;

The cap iron (you may know this as the chip breaker for some unknown reason) should be set to 2mm or thereabouts. You do not want to set it more as there is no point and the cap iron diverts the shaving upwards and separates the shaving away from the throat. Setting it nearer is only necessary for very isolated situations and rarely necessary because this then restricts you from taking the heavy cuts that reduces wear on the cutting edge and on your body too.https://paulsellers.com/2015/11/edge-planing-square-to-tilt-or-not-to-tilt/?utm_source=Paul+Sellers%27+Blog+Subscription&utm_campaign=0925ff6d0c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1e2877c3d7-0925ff6d0c-337925241

[Jim Koepke]

The following recent blog entry from Paul Sellers might be of interest;

The cap iron (you may know this as the chip breaker for some unknown reason) should be set to 2mm or thereabouts. You do not want to set it more as there is no point and the cap iron diverts the shaving upwards and separates the shaving away from the throat. Setting it nearer is only necessary for very isolated situations and rarely necessary because this then restricts you from taking the heavy cuts that reduces wear on the cutting edge and on your body too.https://paulsellers.com/2015/11/edge-planing-square-to-tilt-or-not-to-tilt/?utm_source=Paul+Sellers%27+Blog+Subscription&utm_campaign=0925ff6d0c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1e2877c3d7-0925ff6d0c-337925241

For those who do not have an inch to metric conversion chart in front of them 2mm is about 5/64". 1mm is larger than 1/32".

That is fine for a scrub plane or maybe even a jointer. In well behaving wood it might even be fine for a smoother.

I believe someone mentioned setting the chip breaker at twice the distance of the thickness of shaving as a rule of thumb for a beginning point. From my jointers it is difficult for me to push a plane through much more than about a 0.015 shaving. For that, 1/32" (0.0313") would be a good setting to start. If there was any tear out, then maybe setting it a little closer and/or a lighter shaving might be the solution.

Like so many things in life, some folks either believe or they do not. Once a mind is set it can be difficult to prompt a change of direction.

jtk

[ken hatch]

I'm surprised on one has mentioned The English Woodworker's video on using the cap iron to control tear out. http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/cap-irons-tear-out-video/

It is a good demo of the effect of a correctly set cap iron vs. one that is not.

ken

[Steve Voigt]

The following recent blog entry from Paul Sellers might be of interest;

The cap iron (you may know this as the chip breaker for some unknown reason) should be set to 2mm or thereabouts. You do not want to set it more as there is no point and the cap iron diverts the shaving upwards and separates the shaving away from the throat. Setting it nearer is only necessary for very isolated situations and rarely necessary because this then restricts you from taking the heavy cuts that reduces wear on the cutting edge and on your body too.https://paulsellers.com/2015/11/edge-planing-square-to-tilt-or-not-to-tilt/?utm_source=Paul+Sellers%27+Blog+Subscription&utm_campaign=0925ff6d0c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1e2877c3d7-0925ff6d0c-337925241


If all you are doing is planing ripple marks off of straight-grained white pine, you have no need of the chipbreaker effect.

[Steve Voigt]

I'm loathe to mention my own site, but it seems appropriate for once. I've compiled a pretty good bibliography of web sources on setting the double iron on this page (http://www.voigtplanes.com/p/jack-fore.html).

[Steve Voigt]

"Molecularly close" is kind of a joking reference to "way closer than I have an accurate way to measure." I don't have anything graduated in hundredths of an inch, much less thousandths, and if I did I am not sure I could read graduations that small.


I knew you didn't mean it literally, but I knew what you meant. :)

There is no need to measure, though for first-timers, using feeler gauges taped down to a substrate can be very helpful. But mostly it is about doing it by eye: set it as close as possible, then back it off if you can't cut at all (way too close, or too heavy a cut), or if the shavings come out like crinkled bacon (a tad too close, though sometimes necessary). As Brian mentioned, when the shavings come out straight, you know the CB is doing its job:

324984

[Warren Mickley]

About eight years ago I took a lot of flak for suggesting that asking where to place the cap iron was like asking which gear one should use for a five speed car. If you just use fifth gear it will stall; if you just use first gear it won't go very fast. The idea that there is some ideal distance that can be used in every situation is ridiculous. In 1812 retired cabinetmaker Peter Nicholson wrote "The distance between the cutting edge of the iron, and the edge of the cover, depends altogether on the nature of the stuff." If you really want to learn to use a double iron plane, you have have to experiment and get a feel for when the cap iron is too close and when it is too far away from the edge.

[Sean D Evans]

What is the bevel angle on the blades? I had a problem once getting the iron to advance far enough to take a cut because I ground the bevel too steep and it was hitting the sole in front of the frog. That wasn't on a Stanley though.

[Jim Koepke]

If you really want to learn to use a double iron plane, you have have to experiment and get a feel for when the cap iron is too close and when it is too far away from the edge.

That is likely the best answer for many questions we see often.

People have to just accept they must experiment to find what works best for them.

There is no experience to be gained by letting others dictate how you should solve a particular task.

By the time I could walk in from the shop and type a question out on the computer and wait for an answer or two dozen conflicting answers, a dozen different ways could have been tried on my bench.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

What is the bevel angle on the blades? I had a problem once getting the iron to advance far enough to take a cut because I ground the bevel too steep and it was hitting the sole in front of the frog. That wasn't on a Stanley though.

That sounds more like an improper frog adjustment to me. Anywhere from a 1º bevel to an 90º bevel, the blade should have a clear path through the mouth.

Please note, the range of angles was used as an extreme example. A standard bevel down plane with a bed of 45º should usually have a bevel angle of no less than 25º nor much more than 35º. Too little and the blade dulls on a single cut. Too much and there is no relief angle and the blade will roll over the work.

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Looking back through the posts, many of the comments are helpful to me, but it occurred to me some photos might be helpful if somebody is reading this later and not sure what everyone is talking about, so here are some photos:


325008325009325010


The one on the right side shows the kind of setting I am experimenting with. You are looking at a Veritas cap iron, with the Veritas iron under it, next to my ruler. The setting is about a 64th, or maybe a little more, but in all honesty I have trouble making it out. Somebody asked about bevel angles. I think it is 30, but the iron is brand new and I have not changed it beyond about five minutes of honing, so whatever the factory grinds it to is what is on there.

The photo in the middle shows my #3 for purposes of illustrating this issue. Nothing special obviously, but of some sentimental value to me.

The one on the left I have marked up to show the problem I am having with this one. The locking screw on the cap iron is circled in green. The recess where the crew sits in the frog is circled in red. The yellow is where the locking screw runs into the end of the recess and stops the blade from advancing. It is not an issue of not being able to advance the iron to take 1/4 shaving or anything ridiculous like that, it will not advance into the throat enough to project below the sole at all.

This is one of the problems I have had with the "close"settings. I understand folks are confident the original iron/cap iron won't have that problem, but I did run into it before I bought the Veritas irons, so I don't know, maybe the cap iron the plane came with was not original to the plane.

With respect to the jamming issue, I tried the "paper test" Brian mentioned, and the thinnest paper I have around is newsprint. I could get it to move a little, but mostly it tore. When I pull the blades out I don't see anything jamming between the iron and cap iron.

Jim's post about the iron dimensions is also very interesting.I have not sat down and measured what I have against his measurements, but I will have a look at that.

Steve, your page is very helpful. I have read some of those articles and seen some of the videos before. I had not seen Kees' article or video before, so thank you for the link (and Kees, thank you for making them obviously).

Nick

[Robert Engel]

Boy its a mystery to me. I'll be watching to see who figures this one out.

I have used the same LV blade/cap iron in a Stanley #4 with no problems.
I notice you've got the frog set right to the edge of the mouth and it can be moved back a little.
Have you tried that?

The only thing that comes to my mind is to confirm that is the correct frog for that plane.

Short of that, grinding the blade shorter is the only thing I can think of and I know you don't want to do that!

[Kees Heiden]

Grinding the blade shorter certainly won't help! It is a issue with capiron and frog. Weird that the original capiron has the same issue. It almost seems like you found a dud. Otherwise I am stumped too.

[Stewie Simpson]

Could the fault be traced to the depth adjuster itself. The Y adjustment lever(7) might be bent out of shape and jamming; the threaded stud for the adjuster wheel(8) may have some damage to the actual thread.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=parts+of+a+stanley+plane&biw=945&bih=386&tbm=isch&imgil=EUY3xFkCZ1IZ0M%253A%253BSySItxlUQRGa1M%253Bh ttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.antique-used-tools.com%25252Fcomparts.htm&source=iu&pf=m&fir=EUY3xFkCZ1IZ0M%253A%252CSySItxlUQRGa1M%252C_&usg=__nvTdAq0GMDFETrIPMYjqhQUdl6M%3D&ved=0CCUQyjdqFQoTCILNvo2FhskCFSVepgodAjUBcQ&ei=n_tBVsKBA6W8mQWC6oSIBw#imgrc=Ivt5Sc1Vk9YEMM%3A&usg=__nvTdAq0GMDFETrIPMYjqhQUdl6M%3D

[steven c newman]

Simple...the bolt that holds the two blades together will NOT fit the recess in the frog. Where is the OEM bolt? And the chipbreaker, One can replace the iron, as long as the OEM bolt and chipbreaker are retained. The new chipbreaker/iron sets wind up too thick for the older frogs, depth adjuster will NOT reach through to the slot in the chipbreaker. Return to the old cb and bolt, and see what happens. But that bolt for that chipbreaker is the problem.

Abut like trying to put a chipbreaker from PEXTO/Worth into a Stanley.....different sizes, won't work.

[Jim Koepke]

Something about the frog doesn't look right. I will try to get out to the shop later and see if I have a frog of that type for a #3 to compare.

Things have been busy around here and I haven't been to the shop in a few days.

jtk

[steven c newman]

325037
two frogs from Stanley. Top one is a Stanley No. 5-1/2 Type 17, under neath is a Stanley #6c, T-10

Top one is the "4th" version of the Stanley frogs. That help out any?
325038Stanley Victor #1104, as for the size of the bolt for the chipbreaker..
325039
As long as it will just hold onto the iron through the slot. These are also a bit thinner than the new bolt heads are. Chipbreaker here is set back 1mm. No chatter, see-through shavings. Victor apparently loved red paint....everywhere.

[Jim Koepke]

under neath is a Stanley #6c, T-10

Are you sure on this?

It doesn't look like a type 10. It also looks more like a Union Mfg. Co. frog.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Yep, it is a T-10...the one I traded a couple junker planes for last summer. never had a Union N0. 6c
325046
This is a Stanley made for Wards, No.3 from WWII Should be close to what the OP has.
325047
Rubber wheel and all...
325048
A look at the bolt to hold things together..
325049
with the frog coplanar with the little ramp on the base. Chipbreaker is 1mm back from the edge. Nice, tight mouth. iron has the "WARDS MASTER QUALITY" stamp.
325050
One of three tools in use tonight...

[Larry Williams]

About eight years ago I took a lot of flak for suggesting that asking where to place the cap iron was like asking which gear one should use for a five speed car. If you just use fifth gear it will stall; if you just use first gear it won't go very fast. The idea that there is some ideal distance that can be used in every situation is ridiculous. In 1812 retired cabinetmaker Peter Nicholson wrote "The distance between the cutting edge of the iron, and the edge of the cover, depends altogether on the nature of the stuff." If you really want to learn to use a double iron plane, you have have to experiment and get a feel for when the cap iron is too close and when it is too far away from the edge.

In the interest of helping others, I'd think one could describe what they do 99% or 99.9% of the time.

325160

[Warren Mickley]

In the interest of helping others, I'd think one could describe what they do 99% or 99.9% of the time.

325160
I am sorry you misunderstood what I was getting at in the Goldenberg thread. What I meant was that I rarely set the cap iron, put the plane together and then find I have it set wrong and have to set it again. In practice the cap iron is set at the time of sharpening for the anticipated work. I do change the adjustment of the cap iron often, but only when I already have the iron out for sharpening.

Here is an example: Suppose I have used the smoothing plane to smooth the sides of a walnut carcass then later I have to smooth drawer fronts which are figured. Before doing the drawer fronts I take the iron out and sharpen and adjust the cap iron for the figured wood. I generally do sharpen the iron before doing drawer fronts, usually the most conspicuous part of a piece, even if the cap iron does not need adjustment.

In retrospect, I probably would have enjoyed a Goldenberg plane forty years ago when I was learning to use the double iron. I did a lot of setting the cap iron, adjusting the plane, trying a few passes to see what happens, then adjusting the cap iron all over again. With the Goldenberg you can make a small adjustment without haveing to take the plane apart,

[Stewie Simpson]

Here is my Goldenberg Smoothing plane with the double iron assembly exposed. The adjustable set on the cap iron is a brilliant design feature.

Stewie;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/goldenberg%20france%20hand%20plane/DSC_0332_zps6039f74e.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/goldenberg%20france%20hand%20plane/DSC_0332_zps6039f74e.jpg.html)

[Mike Cherry]

Here is my Goldenberg Smoothing plane with the double iron assembly exposed. The adjustable set on the cap iron is a brilliant design feature.

Stewie;


I had no idea something like that even existed! Thanks for sharing.

[Robert Engel]

Grinding the blade shorter certainly won't help! Yes you are right. Don't know what I was thinking about.:confused:


It is a issue with cap iron and frog.I think its got to be one or the other.