What's the matter with this Stanley #5?

[Mark Gibney]

The iron will not advance below the sole on this #5. I can't work out why? - this is where you come in. I hope!

427028

I've been restoring this plane, all that's left to do is to hollow grind the iron and hone it. But today I discovered this problem.

Here you can see that the iron is not touching the wood, even though it is advanced as far as it can be.

427029

427030 427031

Here's a shot showing the iron + chipbreaker advanced, with the frog off the plane

427032

And with the iron retracted as far as it will go

427033

And for what it's worth here's a shot of the yoke.

427034

I'm stumped. What's going on here? I suppose it could be that this chipbreaker is not the original and does not fit this plane?

Mark

[Derek Cohen]

Mark, it is the chipbreaker. The adjustment slot can vary between makes and Stanley years of manufacture (about 1/4" up or down). What have you got?

Stanley, LN, Clifton ...

https://i.postimg.cc/kMZXSdYQ/More-About-Shooting-Planesand-Their-Blades-html-6fba3917-zpspxjbdvnq.jpg
Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

The chip breaker is the most likely suspect.

Can you post an image of the frog mounting area on the plane?

Your frog looks to be an early type 9 frog. It could be possible you have a frog and base mismatch. That would be easy to see since the front of the frog should touch down on the area behind the mouth.

The image of the frog with the blade advanced looks like it should be out far enough to shave wood. You can always move the chip breaker back from the edge a little just to see. If the chip breaker screw isn't secured well, the blade can slip back.

jtk

[steven c newman]

The slot is different between the iron Stanley planes, and the wood bodied Transitional models.....there are chipbreakers out there, that even had 2 slots. Where someone had cut a new slot in a Stanley #24, to fit into a Stanley #4 or #5.

One further clue...the chipbreakers for those older Transitional planes had a patent date stamped into them.

[Jim Koepke]

One further clue...the chipbreakers for those older Transitional planes had a patent date stamped into them.

Stanley/Bailey planes also had patent dates stamped on the chip breakers into the 1880s. After this time they likely were also gone from transitional plane chip breakers.

jtk

[Mark Gibney]

Thank you all for the replies. It may be Monday before I have a chance to check the plane again. I have several orphan chipbreakers sulking in drawers so maybe one will fit.

[Mike Brady]

Nice restoration work. I miss doing that.