Has this cutting iron seen its last days???

[Pete Hotard]

Recently picked up a Bedrock 606 type 6 at an estate sale for a couple bucks. It was heavily rusted, but it was cheap so I got it anyway. After a bath in some EvapoRust (If you aren't using this stuff, try it, you wont be disappointed) and some time on the wire wheel, the entire plane came out pretty nice. The only problem is the cutting iron. It has some pretty bad pitting on the back and on the bevel. These pictures of the back were after going through 2 strips of 120 grit paper on a marble block. Doesn't look like i'm even coming close to getting past the pitting. Would it serve me better to just order a new iron for this plane? Part of me wants to keep it because it is a SW model, but ultimately i'm trying to make this thing a user. Open to suggestions (other than rubbing away at more sandpaper) to flatten the back and remove the pitting. Also, if I were to order a new iron, what would ya'll suggest?

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i178/olemissduckhunter/IMG_6958.jpg (http://s72.photobucket.com/user/olemissduckhunter/media/IMG_6958.jpg.html)

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i178/olemissduckhunter/IMG_6955.jpg (http://s72.photobucket.com/user/olemissduckhunter/media/IMG_6955.jpg.html)

[Mike Henderson]

One of the best things you can do with an old plane to improve its performance is to replace the iron with a modern, thicker iron. Look at the Lee Valley PM-V11 iron.

Mike

[Paul Sidener]

How are you going to use the plane?

[Pete Hotard]

well I have a stanley 5 and 7 so I was thinking of using this plane to hog off large amounts of material before flattening with my #7.

[Jim Koepke]

well I have a stanley 5 and 7 so I was thinking of using this plane to hog off large amounts of material before flattening with my #7.


Would it serve me better to just order a new iron for this plane? Part of me wants to keep it because it is a SW model, but ultimately i'm trying to make this thing a user. Open to suggestions (other than rubbing away at more sandpaper) to flatten the back and remove the pitting. Also, if I were to order a new iron, what would ya'll suggest?

This blade would be okay for hogging of material like a scrub plane. One of my thoughts with a blade like this is to use it like a toothed blade.

If you want to get full service from this plane give it a try with the blade from your #7.

My guess is once you do, you will want a new blade for it.

As to what new blade, there are a lot of great blades available out there. As Mike suggests, a new blade from Lee Valley will not be a disappointment nor will it take much time to put right into service.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Recently picked up a Bedrock 606 type 6 at an estate sale for a couple bucks. It was heavily rusted, but it was cheap so I got it anyway. After a bath in some EvapoRust (If you aren't using this stuff, try it, you wont be disappointed) and some time on the wire wheel, the entire plane came out pretty nice. The only problem is the cutting iron. It has some pretty bad pitting on the back and on the bevel. These pictures of the back were after going through 2 strips of 120 grit paper on a marble block. Doesn't look like i'm even coming close to getting past the pitting. Would it serve me better to just order a new iron for this plane? Part of me wants to keep it because it is a SW model, but ultimately i'm trying to make this thing a user. Open to suggestions (other than rubbing away at more sandpaper) to flatten the back and remove the pitting. Also, if I were to order a new iron, what would ya'll suggest?



It's hard to tell how deep the pitting is from the picture. Do you have any sense of how much material you'd have to lap off to get it down to clean metal from the edge to where the cap iron mates? (that's the only part that really matters)

Those don't look like terribly deep shadows so from what I see I'd be optimistic. You might want to try another go on the paper, except this time focussing on just the part immediately behind the edge.

EDIT: Based on another look at the picture, you're in luck - the major pitting is mostly back where it doesn't matter. If you can either clean up or grind off those pits right along the edge then you're good to go.

[Warren Mickley]

Irons like this are the ones that I use and prefer. None of the ones I am currently using have as much life as the one you have.

[Glen Canaday]

I'd sharpen it and go as is.

You're roughing with it, probably cross grain or diagonal. You're not intending to smooth with it so any tracks the pits might leave won't ruin your surface.

Modifications to permit a thicker iron are modifications to something that is in dwindling supply and won't likely be seen again for the price you paid (and some would not buy it from you if you did the modification..it will lose collectibility), so since you're roughing with it and it's already cleaned and how it needs to be to use it, I'd rock it right now.

You've got nothing to lose trying it out!

[Mike Henderson]

I'd sharpen it and go as is.

You're roughing with it, probably cross grain or diagonal. You're not intending to smooth with it so any tracks the pits might leave won't ruin your surface.

Modifications to permit a thicker iron are modifications to something that is in dwindling supply and won't likely be seen again for the price you paid (and some would not buy it from you if you did the modification..it will lose collectibility), so since you're roughing with it and it's already cleaned and how it needs to be to use it, I'd rock it right now.

You've got nothing to lose trying it out!
An old plane that was very rusted and you picked up for a couple of bucks is not a collectable. Most of the modern thicker blades can be used in a plane without modifying the plane, but even if you had to modify the plane, you would be setting it up for better performance from the modern blade. Your plane is a user and you should do what you need to to make it work well.

And the biggest improvement you can make to an older plane is to replace the blade with a modern, thicker blade.

Mike

[Patrick Chase]

An old plane that was very rusted and you picked up for a couple of bucks is not a collectable. Most of the modern thicker blades can be used in a plane without modifying the plane, but even if you had to modify the plane, you would be setting it up for better performance from the modern blade. Your plane is a user and you should do what you need to to make it work well.

I have basically the same reaction as Mike: These are tools, not religious relics.

The crraftspeople who bought and used them wouldn't have hesitated to modify them whenever doing so would improve their utility as tools, and I suspect they'd have a good laugh at our expense for thinking otherwise.

EDIT: With that said (and as I noted above), this blade looks like it could be made usable even for fine work by working just the part of the back immediately behind the edge. All you really need to do is to ensure that no pits intersect either the edge or the area where the leading edge of the cap iron mates with the blade back. Most people try to flatten out at least the first ~1/2" to leave room for grinding/sharpening, but you don't actually have to do that all at once.

[don wilwol]

If I was going to use it with a camber, I'd just use it. For smoothing I'd cut it back past the pitting and use it. Even cut back past the pitting it my last your lifetime.

[Archie England]

What you have does appear to be pitted throughout. Numerous replacement blade options are available (Hock, Veritas, LN, Clifton, Wood River, NOS--especially Stanley, etc.). I've tried most and, thus, issue this caution--thicker blades may perform better but they can introduce new problems of fitting to a plane.

[george wilson]

Very many of the REAL OLD plane irons I have seen had their edges dubbed a LOT to make the plane cut like a higher angle plane. That is better for planing figured or obnoxious grain like yellow pine,where the grain reverses. It tears out no matter which way you plane it.

You could just grind away the pits at the cutting edge and use it for a higher angle plane. If you grind deep enough,the pits will vanish.

[Patrick Chase]

Very many of the REAL OLD plane irons I have seen had their edges dubbed a LOT to make the plane cut like a higher angle plane. That is better for planing figured or obnoxious grain like yellow pine,where the grain reverses. It tears out no matter which way you plane it.

You could just grind away the pits at the cutting edge and use it for a higher angle plane. If you grind deep enough,the pits will vanish.

Yep.

If I'm reading the photo correctly a "double-thickness ruler trick" would probably add enough back bevel to get past the pitting. That would add 1 deg of back bevel, which wouldn't be very noticeable in practice.

[george wilson]

The plane would be a little harder to push,but would tear out less. Just take a lighter cut.

[Rob Lee]

Pete -

That pitting looks fairly deep. Instead of lapping the pitting out, you may want to consider a 5 degree back bevel .... call it the "Yardstick trick" ....

Cheers -

Rob

[Mike Holbrook]

I think that those with more sharpening experience and lots of tools/sharpening devices at our disposal tend to assume that others have all those options and experiences. If the OP does not have: jig for holding an exact angle for micro bevel, some sort of grinding system that he is use to using that can tackle primary or secondary bevels... then a new blade which already has all the major work done to it might be a reasonable option.

[Jim Koepke]

I think that those with more sharpening experience and lots of tools/sharpening devices at our disposal tend to assume that others have all those options and experiences. If the OP does not have: jig for holding an exact angle for micro bevel, some sort of grinding system that he is use to using that can tackle primary or secondary bevels... then a new blade which already has all the major work done to it might be a reasonable option.

+1 on this.

I have spent many hours on blades that looked better than Pete's only to toss them aside as they kept needing more work.

Even if my suggestion of using it as a toothing blade or a scrub plane were followed, it is likely to have clogging at the chip breaker issues.

Life is too short to try and polish everything that falls out of the back end of a plane.

There are a lot of listings on ebay for various > stanley 7 plane blade < with some decent, almost new, looking blades on deals in the $30 range for the blade only.

jtk

[Allan Speers]

If that were an old, laminated Sheffield blade, I'd flatten the back a wee bit, then give it a slight back-bevel.

- but with a thin, "modern" blade like that, I'd definitely replace it with something nicer & thicker.

[Tom Vanzant]

As others have said, it's not a religious relic and not a collector, but a user. If the iron cannot be brought to your standards, replace it. There are many choices at hand. Modifications to the base may be needed for clearance with a thicker iron. Also, make certain the nose of the depth adjuster engages the cap iron reliably.

[Shawn Pixley]

I'm with Jim here. I wouldn't have enough time to lap those pits out. I'd find a replacement that fit into the plane without having to modify the mouth.

[Bruce Haugen]

I can't help it, but that blade isn't used up. This one, original to my #7, type 2, roughly 160 years old, this one is used up:

332529

[don wilwol]

I can't help it, but that blade isn't used up. This one, original to my #7, type 2, roughly 160 years old, this one is used up:

332529


I dunno? I'll bet there's another sharpen or 2 in there. Just take very blight passes on the stone. ;)

[Zach Dillinger]

I can't help it, but that blade isn't used up. This one, original to my #7, type 2, roughly 160 years old, this one is used up:

332529

Keep it away from knots!

[lowell holmes]

I would replace it with one of Rob's irons. I have two of his irons and breakers in two of my planes. I really like them.

[bridger berdel]

I for one am going to advocate for thin blades. I had a play the other day with a LN #7 with a thick A2 blade. Trying to hone that thing without frequent trips to the bench grinder is a thankless task. Give me a stock thickness blade anyday.

[steven c newman]

There seems to always be NOS irons on the "bay". Just watch for the 2-3/8" wide irons. Might even order a couple, one for camber, one for no camber. Choice would also include which end the hole is on the slot.

[Warren Mickley]

The advantage of these early 20th century irons is that they are thin like the 18th century irons. That makes them easier to sharpen. And, like the 18th century irons, they are laminated. That makes them even easier to sharpen. And, like the 18th century irons, they are low in chrome. That makes them easier yet to sharpen. They have a nice texture which makes for a fine edge.

There is a suitable iron of this type buy it now for $21 or so. If your iron were mine I would remove the pitting.

[Jim Koepke]

There is a suitable iron of this type buy it now for $21 or so. If your iron were mine I would remove the pitting.

I am thinking removing the pitting would take more than $21 worth of abrasive material between sandpaper, diamonds or stones.

Some of that pitting looks pretty deep.

Some of the blades I saw on ebay today looked like good candidates for replacement blade.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

To remove pitting I have had succes with loose SiC 60 grit on a granite tile. The tiles were very cheap from the home centre, some left overs. The SiC is even cheaper. After that it is on to the usual succession of stones, making sure each and everyone is very flat. It still is a load of work, but the grit takes the sting out of it.

The virue of these old blades is like Waren describes, and they don't make them like that anymore. Actually, that is not true, you can buy similar ones from Japan, but those ain't cheap.

[Jim Koepke]

The virue of these old blades is like Waren describes, and they don't make them like that anymore.

Currently there seems to be a load of SW blades available on ebay. As limited as my budget may be, I would seriously consider a replacement.

If it was only going to be used for rough work, it might be worth giving the old blade a try. If one wanted to do some panel flattening or other work with it, a new blade is in order.

jtk

[Rob Luter]

It's shot. I'd get a new iron. I put Hock irons on a couple of my workers and they're night and day better than the old Stanleys I took off.

[Patrick Chase]

It's shot. I'd get a new iron. I put Hock irons on a couple of my workers and they're night and day better than the old Stanleys I took off.

As many have pointed out with fairly detailed reasoning it is not "shot", though it may be more work than it's worth. Depends how the owner values their time vs money.

If you go the aftermarket blade route I'd suggest Hock or LV/Veritas. Both are very good blades, and at 0.1" they're thin enough to avoid major surgery on the plane. While I think it's perfectly fine to modify old planes, the whole point of going the replacement route in this case would be to avoid major work

[Patrick Chase]

I am thinking removing the pitting would take more than $21 worth of abrasive material between sandpaper, diamonds or stones.

Some of that pitting looks pretty deep.

Removing what pitting? All of it, or just the parts that matter (immediately behind the edge).

The OP already tried to remove all of it, with predictable consequences (lots of time and abrasives expended, not much achieved). That doesn't prove anything about the fixability of the blade though. I would be shocked if it took more than $1 of abrasives for somebody like George or Warren to get that blade into usable condition.

[Jim Koepke]

I would be shocked if it took more than $1 of abrasives for somebody like George or Warren to get that blade into usable condition.

Possibly, but then the next time the blade needed honing past the first 1/16" or so it would be back to removing pits.

Some of the pitting looks rather deep. Looking at the bevel it appears there will be a lot of grinding to get it in shape. Pretty soon it will be into the rather extensive area of pitting.

It may be possible, but let's be honest here, there is likely to be a lot more frustration with a blade like this than there would be by biting the bullet and buying a new blade.

You may be much better at putting blades like this back in service than me. I have quite a few very much like the one in the original post I have cast aside. If you are up to it I would gladly pay a few bucks a blade if you want to bring them back from the dead.

jtk

[steven c newman]

The way most old irons come into my shop.....I MIGHT take 1/2 an hour to resharpen and tune it.

The worst part about adding those "thicker" new irons? The tab on the depth adjuster yoke will not reach all the way through them, and still engage the slot in the chipbreaker. Then you faced with using a hammer to adjust a plane that wasn't designed for those thick irons.

If you don't want to sand away the bad parts...go out and buy a couple NOS irons on the bay. I usually can get a iron like the OP's ready to go in LESS than an hour, and I don't work to a "time clock" doing it.
332588
What came in the door, and what was done to it..
332590
This iron was a little too short to use, had another the same width, and age, just a lot longer is all. afternoon's work..maybe to clean and tune.

[Rob Luter]

As many have pointed out with fairly detailed reasoning it is not "shot", though it may be more work than it's worth. Depends how the owner values their time vs money.

If you go the aftermarket blade route I'd suggest Hock or LV/Veritas. Both are very good blades, and at 0.1" they're thin enough to avoid major surgery on the plane. While I think it's perfectly fine to modify old planes, the whole point of going the replacement route in this case would be to avoid major work

i guess "more work than it's worth" equates to "shot" in my shop. Your mileage may vary :D

[Jim Koepke]

Interesting Steven, the second image is titled "Long view." That is where I live.

If there wasn't so many things needing done around here I might get back into rehabilitating planes for fun & profit.

jtk

[Jerry Olexa]

Looks like it would be a good "user" esp to hog out lots of rougher wood....But if you want to improve it further,closer to optimum, a new iron would do wonders in my opinion.

[Mike Henderson]

The worst part about adding those "thicker" new irons? The tab on the depth adjuster yoke will not reach all the way through them, and still engage the slot in the chipbreaker. Then you faced with using a hammer to adjust a plane that wasn't designed for those thick irons.
ALL of my bench planes have modern, thicker irons in them and all of them work fine. I'm sure you can find some extra thick irons where the depth adjuster won't work with it but all the major blade suppliers have tested their irons with old planes and know that they work. I also did not have to file the mouth - just slide the frog back a bit.

When I started woodworking, I used to rehab the old original irons that came with planes that I bought. Then, for some reason, I got a new modern thicker iron for one of my bench planes. It was like night and day it was so much better.

As I said several times before, the greatest improvement you can make to an old plane is to replace the iron with a modern iron.

Mike

[Patrick Chase]

ALL of my bench planes have modern, thicker irons in them and all of them work fine. I'm sure you can find some extra thick irons where the depth adjuster won't work with it but all the major blade suppliers have tested their irons with old planes and know that they work. I also did not have to file the mouth - just slide the frog back a bit.

When I started woodworking, I used to rehab the old original irons that came with planes that I bought. Then, for some reason, I got a new modern thicker iron for one of my bench planes. It was like night and day it was so much better.

As I said several times before, the greatest improvement you can make to an old plane is to replace the iron with a modern iron.

Mike

I think it's important to be clear about which new iron and how much "thicker" it is. Stock Stanley blades for bench planes were 0.080" thick. The Veritas and Hock blades are 0.100" and 0.095" (3/32) thick respectively. For most planes that's a small enough difference to avoid modification to the depth adjustment yolk etc. I think IBC are also 0.095" these days but am not sure.

Where people get into trouble is when they fetishize thickness (presumably because they're worried about "chatter") and try to use 1/8" thick blades. I'm forgetting which brand made those at the moment, unfortunately.

[steven c newman]

It so happens, that when a WoodRiver #4V3 was in the shop for awhile....I did indeed try the iron/chipbreaker out on a Stanley #4........did not fit, could not adjust. However..the Stanley iron worked very nicely.

[Patrick Chase]

It so happens, that when a WoodRiver #4V3 was in the shop for awhile....I did indeed try the iron/chipbreaker out on a Stanley #4........did not fit, could not adjust. However..the Stanley iron worked very nicely.

Yep, the IBC-made irons in the Wood Rivers are about 1/8" thick (I have a #3v3 and a #5v3). Same goes for the irons Veritas makes for their own non-custom bench planes and the ones L-N makes for their own BD planes.

That's utterly irrelevant to this discussion, though, because all 3 of the above-mentioned manufacturers (IBC, LV, and L-N) also make thinner irons (0.095"-0.100") specifically for retrofitting Stanley planes. Those are the parts that Jim and others have been recommending here, and that you and others keep insisting won't work. They will.

As I said above, when a retrofitted iron turns out to be too thick that usually means the person doing the retrofitting tried to do something silly.

[Mike Henderson]

I think it's important to be clear about which new iron and how much "thicker" it is. Stock Stanley blades for bench planes were 0.080" thick. The Veritas and Hock blades are 0.100" and 0.095" (3/32) thick respectively. For most planes that's a small enough difference to avoid modification to the depth adjustment yolk etc. I think IBC are also 0.095" these days but am not sure.

Where people get into trouble is when they fetishize thickness (presumably because they're worried about "chatter") and try to use 1/8" thick blades. I'm forgetting which brand made those at the moment, unfortunately.
Yep, I went and measured the irons in my planes. They're all about 3/32 - some a tiny bit more. All work fine with the depth adjustment and the mouth.

In addition to the thicker iron, they're all modern steel. I don't know which makes the most difference, but a modern thicker iron greatly improves the performance of the planes. I have Lie Nielsen irons, Hock irons and Lee Valley PM-V11 irons. The planes go from Stanley #3 to Stanley #6. If I can remember, I have two or three #3's, probably 4 or 5 #4's, including a few Keen Kutter #4's, two 4 1/2's, a 5 1/4, several #5's, a 5 1/2 and a 6. Most are a type 11 - I tried to buy all type 11's. That's the bench planes. I have a bunch of others, but speciality planes.

Mike

Mike

[Kees Heiden]

You have way too many planes Mike ;)

I used to be in the same boat, thinking that the modern replacement irons were so much better. I turned a 180 degrees on that one. I now set my planes with the frog in line with the sole of the plane, that adds an extra point of support. I also set the capiron a lot closer then I used to, that adds stability too. There is nothing wrong with the steel in those old irons, they get incredibly sharp very easilly. The sharpness might last a bit shorter but that is hard to diagnose in daily practice.

The blade of the OP looks pretty bad on closer inspection of the picture, those pits can be surprisingly deep. But I can't diagnose from a picture if it would be hopeless with coarse enough grit.

[Jim Koepke]

The blade of the OP looks pretty bad on closer inspection of the picture, those pits can be surprisingly deep. But I can't diagnose from a picture if it would be hopeless with coarse enough grit.

Every time I look at the images of that blade it looks worse. There is pitting on the bevel and appears to be shadow detail in some of the larger pits.

That is a lot of pitting. I am not sure if there are bi-metalic reactions between chip breakers and blades or if it is planes being put in a damp location with wood dust between the blade and breaker that causes so much of the pitting seen on old blades.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

It's damp and dust. I don't think there would be a lot of bimetalic action between an iron cap and a steel blade. On the Stanleys it is probably a steel capiron too, just a low carbon steel.

[Kees Heiden]

BTW, i am reparing an old, pre WW I, Stanley #5. The face of the blade is so terribly convex that it is very hard to get a good fit on the capiron. No other way then just drudging on on the stones, which isn't easy. The convexity makes it hard to get it flat.

I really like to save the blade, it just looks so much better with the right blade instead of one of those modern ones. And I know when I get the blade ready to work, it will be a good one.

But this really is not the pleasurable part of the hobby.

[Mike Henderson]

But this really is not the pleasurable part of the hobby.
Amen. I used to spend a LOT of time flattening the back of old plane irons. Every old plane I bought came with a blade that took a lot of work. All were not flat and many had pitting - maybe not a bad as the OP's, but bad.

And I got pretty good results from an old blade once it was set up. But the performance was better with a modern blade.

Mike

[john zulu]

I would just ditch the blade since the back is pitted. In short a sharp edge is impossible now... But it will make a good backup for rough work.

[Allan Speers]

BTW, i am reparing an old, pre WW I, Stanley #5. The face of the blade is so terribly convex that it is very hard to get a good fit on the capiron. No other way then just drudging on on the stones, which isn't easy. The convexity makes it hard to get it flat.

I really like to save the blade, it just looks so much better with the right blade instead of one of those modern ones. And I know when I get the blade ready to work, it will be a good one.

But this really is not the pleasurable part of the hobby.

With something like that, it's probably best to anneal the metal first, then work it, then re heat-treat-it. While I have yet to do this myself, I plan to. It doesn't sound all that hard to do, and there's plenty of info online about how to do it.

[Jim Koepke]

The convexity makes it hard to get it flat.

One way to make this a little easier is to use a strip of abrasive paper about as wide as the convexity. Work the blade with push and pull strokes instead of side to side. Check often and continually clean the abrasive with a brush, vacuum or a magnet wrapped in paper.

This can also be used if you have a plane with a convex sole.

The key to success is constant checking of the progress and adjusting the size of the abrasive sheet.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

I was succesfull with my jack plane iron. I used the technique Jim describes, but I used the side of my 1000 grit waterstone instead. Worked very well. I still didn't get all the way into the corners, but the capiron fits tight now and I can get the edge sharp.

Not the best picture, but you can see how the corners are not perfect yet, You can also see that this iron has been used quite a bit, but there is still plenty of life in it.

332642

It's always a lot of work however which way you go about it, and when I'm done I promise myself, this was the last one. Until the next crops up of course...

[Jim Koepke]

It's always a lot of work however which way you go about it, and when I'm done I promise myself, this was the last one. Until the next crops up of course...

And while working diligently to put that old blade back in to useable shape we think of all the money we are saving so we can spend it on a tool other than another plane blade.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

Ahem, indeed! :D

[steven c newman]

Used to just hold the back of a plane blade against the side of the grinders wheels. Have a "notch" to set them in, too. Cup of water sitting nearby.

One other way, might be a bit quicker.....set the iron with the high spot up. A hard surface under the iron. Ball pean hammer to "adjust" the iron back into flat. Then finish on the stones.

same with a chipbreaker that is bowed a bit.

[Kees Heiden]

I tried the hammer method too. Paul Sellers wrote about it a while ago. Well, maybe my hammers aren't strong enough, but nothing happened.

And yes I know how to wield a hammer.

[Ray Selinger]

Changing out a old Stanley blade for a new replacement Veritas blade is easy until you get to the till to pay for it.

[Jim Koepke]

I tried the hammer method too. Paul Sellers wrote about it a while ago. Well, maybe my hammers aren't strong enough, but nothing happened.

And yes I know how to wield a hammer.

And some blades will not bend before they break.

jtk

[Allan Speers]

And some blades will not bend before they break.

jtk


'Swhy I recommend annealing first. Plus, then you can use a high speed grinder to add any camber, etc, with no worries.

PLUS, when you re-harden, you know that the blade is (theoretically) back to the RC it was supposed to be, vs possibly being heat-weakened by some previous owner.

[Patrick Chase]

'Swhy I recommend annealing first. Plus, then you can use a high speed grinder to add any camber, etc, with no worries.

PLUS, when you re-harden, you know that the blade is (theoretically) back to the RC it was supposed to be, vs possibly being heat-weakened by some previous owner.

That's assuming you can avoid any of the many things that can and do go wrong with "amateur metallurgy". The most common is that the surface layer decarburizes during treatment, which leads to time-consuming material removal on a scale that makes mere pit removal look trivial.