Sargent 409

[Tom Bussey]

I am not sure if this should be in metal working or if here is okay.

First off. I am not a fan of Sargent planes. I was at an auction last fall and there was this rusty Sargent plane that I was not even going to bid on. The plane looked to be really in bad shape because I got it for $2.

I got to thinking about Paul Sellers. He used a #4 for a scrub plane, so I took it apart, cleaned the years of grime and rust off with a wire wheel on my bench grinder and then I milled the mouth opening bigger. I am not sure
how big the opening should be. If I got it to big I am out $2.

450474
I reground the top and bottom of the plane iron and then I ground about a 4 inch radius on the blade. There is about 3/32 arc on the blade Again I don't have a clue id it is big enough or if the radius needs to be smaller.

450475 450476

I need to go over to my shop and take it for a spin. Our winter storm warning just ended at noon today and since my shop is unheated it will have to wait for a better day, but I am looking forward to using it.

just a couple more pictures,

450477 450478 450479 450480
This is not restoring, this is repurposing.

I hope this gives you something to think about.

Tom

[Stephen Rosenthal]

Tom,

I did the exact same thing with a Stanley #4. Works great.

[Jim Koepke]

Nice job on the repurpose Tom.

The arc on the blade looks similar to the arc on the scrub blade on my #5:

450522

It works fine, you might begin to like your Sargent.

The #5 blade is on the left. The center is from a #5-1/4 (it could also be used on a #3). The right blade is from a #40.

jtk

[Tom Bussey]

I am sure that I will like the Sargent for a scrub plane. But my preference when it comes to planes is a Keen Kutter K series plane. I also have a ECE reformed smoothing plane that I use also. If I remember right it is bedded at 50 degrees.

Just so someone doesn't get confused I wrote K series not the KK series. Not a fan of the KK series made by Ohio Tool.

[Nathan Johnson]

Just curious...what is it you dislike about the Sargents?

[steven c newman]

Happen to have both a Sargent No. 408 VBM and a Sargent No. 414c,VBM.......use both just the same as the Stanleys and the Millers Falls versions......no differences seen. YMMV.....

[Tom Bussey]

I happen to like frog adjusting screws. And the blade adjusting screw is opposite the the Stanley planes. But as I stated above, personally I prefer the Keen Kutter K series planes the best. It is the same plane as the Bedrock round sides. Frogs even enter change but different casting numbers.

I know that the VBM plane are great planes and the blades are something else. I found the blades harder to work with, tougher to work with and I am sure because of that they will stay sharper longer than a lot of other blades.

I think Miller Falls planes with the 2 piece lever cap are a little better than the Stanley Baileys. Frog design is the same.

And I think that the type 11-about 14 bailey planes were the best of the Bailey lot. When the frogs face stopped from being solid machined to casting pockets the quality started going down heel. The later Bailey's allowed to much movement side to side at the front of the frog. The Bedrock doesn't have any lateral movement what so ever period. And neither does any type of plane that copied the bedrock design.

This is my person opinion and an opinion is like a nose, every one has one. I should be entitled to mine just as you are to yours.

[Tom Bussey]

Now we are back to scrub planes and I am hearing that the old Stanly 78 rabbet plane make good scrub planes. I have a couple of the 78s before the lever for adjusting the blade came about. I think the depth of cut was much harder adjust without it. But it wouldn't effect a blade with a radius much so I will have to try out one. They just take up space on a shelf otherwise.

I thought it interesting so I thought I would pass along the information.

[Jim Koepke]

Now we are back to scrub planes and I am hearing that the old Stanly 78 rabbet plane make good scrub planes. I have a couple of the 78s before the lever for adjusting the blade came about. I think the depth of cut was much harder adjust without it. But it wouldn't effect a blade with a radius much so I will have to try out one. They just take up space on a shelf otherwise.

I thought it interesting so I thought I would pass along the information.

It seems odd that a rabbet plane would make a decent scrub plane. There are stranger tales about.

The toe seems awful uncomfortable for such a task.

Here is how mine was made more comfortable > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?254976

jtk

[Tom Bussey]

I thought it was kind of odd to and I didn't think it would make a good scrub .But it is worth a take look see. And thank you for the idea for a front knob, Jim

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Tom. Interesting comments about the frogs and screws. I know that you have much experience blue printing planes.

Scrub planes typically have a narrower body/blade. Generally around 1 1/2 - 1 3/4” for the blade. The aim is to go deep and not wide when planning. So, a 3” radius for the bevel. A #3 would make a better scrub than a #4, and a #5 1/4 is sometimes sought after for this purpose.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stephen Rosenthal]

A #3 would make a better scrub than a #4, and a #5 1/4 is sometimes sought after for this purpose.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek,

You’re 100% correct, but when you have a LN #4 and a junker Stanley #4, you repurpose the Stanley and make it work. At least that’s what I did.

All the best,
Steve

[Scott Winners]

I finally had time enough to be curious about this thread, never seen a Sargent plane in the field here.

FWIW I have a homestore #4 that I converted to a scrub. 3" radius on the blade, BRB, the mouth width is 0.259", blade thickness +/- 0.080. In use I only have the middle third or so of the blade actually sticking out below the sole of the plane, but going crossgrain, or 45 degrees from crossgrain, on softwoods, I have had chips stick to the 9 foot ceiling in my shop. I just kept openingthe mouith until the chips stopped jamming and then opened it a little more. Like a two handed gouge. Slash, slash, slash. Great for clearing off roughsawn surfaces on softwood timbers 5x5 inches and up. If I ever build a timber frame structure I will start with roughsawn, use the #4 scrub to get the wood clean enough to do the layout on, cut the joints and then go with the grain with something like a #5 or #6 with a much gentler radius on it for finish surface, and then cut in the shoulders around the mortises. Carving up all my timbers like Westminister Abbey ain't happening, and I am not going to live long enough to wish I had taken a #8 to all that surface area either.

I have been reading some Chris Schwarz lately, I -think- at least at some point, he was using a #5 as a scrub, but with an radius near 8 inches. The difference is he is stopping there for not show surfaces, like the undersides of tabletops or the insides of drawered cabinets, #5 scrub, radius near 8 inches, done. More time and effort on the table top and etc of course.

In 2 3/8" (4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6 and 7 Bailey) I do have a blade/chipbreaker with about a 12 inch radius on it. I think of it as a scrub, it sure is not a smoother, but handy for when a glued up panel comes out of the clamps all hoggly-woggly again. I suck at gluing up panels, and I am man enough to admit it.

I can see using a #3 as a scrub. I wouldn't take on a pile of 8x8 with it, but depending on the scale of the project it could be perfectly reasonable. I think I will try it. I have a #3 Bailey taking up space here with a poorly seated frog. Stephen, Derek, what sort of stock sizes do you take on with a #3 scrub? Jim?

[Derek Cohen]

what sort of stock sizes do you take on with a #3 scrub?

Scott, I rarely do. Occasionally I have a board where I need to remove a lot of waste, and then I use a Veritas scrub plane. But this is rare. Much of the timber I get is rough sawn from the mill, and I will section it, then joint on a machine. If there are boards with mild twist, etc, then I much prefer to use a jack plane with a 11-12" radius. This is a more sensible plane than a scrub plane. I have two jack planes: one is a woodie I made, and the other is a Stanley #605 I restored completely.

https://i.postimg.cc/3NMFNb7h/Newtote2.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/MGmsNnWq/Bedrock-605-8-zpszrgx4yk1.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

I can see using a #3 as a scrub. I wouldn't take on a pile of 8x8 with it, but depending on the scale of the project it could be perfectly reasonable. I think I will try it. I have a #3 Bailey taking up space here with a poorly seated frog. Stephen, Derek, what sort of stock sizes do you take on with a #3 scrub? Jim?

My latest work that needed a scrub plane was a large piece of poplar and another of fir. A fortunate find on a rust hunt adventure brought home a #40:

450879

It worked well on the poplar. It worked well on the fir:

450880

My first scrub plane was a #5-1/4 from a sour ebay deal. The base of the plane looked like it had been beat up in a high school shop class and run over by a truck.

The size of these planks made me consider converting a #5 for scrub use. One of the four in my shop was a type 17 that was a bit finiky in use. It works fine as a scrub:

450883

It gets a bit difficult to push around at the end of the day. My #5-1/2 came with a radiused blade. It was pitted and a touch rusty so it was replaced and hasn't been used.

These three planes are set up as dedicated scrub planes:

450884

Three is likely plenty.

jtk

[Nathan Johnson]

I happen to like frog adjusting screws. And the blade adjusting screw is opposite the the Stanley planes. But as I stated above, personally I prefer the Keen Kutter K series planes the best. It is the same plane as the Bedrock round sides. Frogs even enter change but different casting numbers.

I know that the VBM plane are great planes and the blades are something else. I found the blades harder to work with, tougher to work with and I am sure because of that they will stay sharper longer than a lot of other blades.

I think Miller Falls planes with the 2 piece lever cap are a little better than the Stanley Baileys. Frog design is the same.

And I think that the type 11-about 14 bailey planes were the best of the Bailey lot. When the frogs face stopped from being solid machined to casting pockets the quality started going down heel. The later Bailey's allowed to much movement side to side at the front of the frog. The Bedrock doesn't have any lateral movement what so ever period. And neither does any type of plane that copied the bedrock design.

This is my person opinion and an opinion is like a nose, every one has one. I should be entitled to mine just as you are to yours.

Knowing you've likely forgotten more about planes than I've so far managed to learn, I figured I'd ask for your opinion after you made that statement.
Thanks for the detailed reply.

[Tom Bussey]

A 3 inch radius can be put on a 2 inch wide blade. Depth of cut is what ever your arm strength or what you are trying to achieve. I am talking about the cord of a circle and there is les than 1/4 of an inch (.240).250 is the decimal equivalent for 1/4, if the blade is sticking out .100 of an inch. If you have less than .100 to come of from a board than the distance is less. Some say that a 25 degree angle is for soft wood and a 30 degree is for hard wood. I have a friend who will show you how sharp his chisels are but he can not use them because the angle on the chisel will be the wrong angle for what ever wood he has at the time you are there.

If the chip braker is set back 1/16 from the cutting edge, then side opposite the angle is .0264 if it is a 25.degree and .0312 if it is a 30 degree. So the thickness of the blade at the chip braker is a difference of .0048.

Lets say that I am building a pie safe out of eastern white pine and I have a 25 degree angle on my plane and my wife stops in and wants to to touch up apiece of oak, does that mean I have to stop and change angles. Personally I am going the use the plane on the oak and if and when it gets dull I am going to re-hone the bevel to what ever until it gets to wide and I have to reshape secondary bevel.

Don't get stuck on what some author of some book wrote. There is an old saying those that can, do and those how can't, write. My advise id do what ever pleases you and get on with your life. It is below zero at the present and my shop is unheated so I am not going to run over to it and try the 4 inch radius but I will and I will also try a 3 inch and I will check out merits of a 9 or 10 radius also.

Derek, I believe you cut the tails first. So doe Rob Cosman, but Frank Klausz and I cut them pin first, who is right. It is only a difference of prospective.

3 inch-4 inch what is really the difference? Only a slight difference of a cord of a circle. Use what ever you have at the timeto remove the wood needed to be removed and get on with your life.

[Tom Bussey]

Great reply, It is exactly what I have been trying to say. The planes and tool that lot would turn up there noses at make a good re-purposed tool.

[Scott Winners]

I thought of a use for a #3 scrub. It is an operation I have never done. If I had a 4/4 or 6/4 board on my benchtop, maybe 6-8" wide with some wind on it, a #3 scrub could be real handy to take down the high corners. I could probably dial back the blade depth in the #4 scrub I already have, but a #3 would be a really nice sized plane for that.