5 1/4 Stanley to Scrub Plane

[Jeffrey Kalakay]

Sorry if this has be posted elsewhere (I looked but couldn't find any threads) but I was looking to convert my 5 1/4 Stanley into a scrub plane and have a question about the lateral adjuster. Would it be a bad idea to remove the adjuster since I see scrub planes don't require them? The adjuster is rather loose and ive tried to peen the rivet to make the adjuster tighter without damaging the frog but would it just be a better idea to carefully drill the rivet, and remove the lever? Or will i just end up compromising the frog plane itself?

Thanks in advance!

Jeff

[John Lanciani]

Sell the 5-1/4 and buy a 40, don't ruin a 5-1/4 trying to make it what it isn't.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Sell the 5-1/4 and buy a 40, don't ruin a 5-1/4 trying to make it what it isn't.


100% agree. A 40 or 40 1/2 isn't that expensive, you'll likely make a few $ in the trade.

[Richard Coers]

You're going to need a much bigger mouth opening in the sole too. Just buy a scrub plane.

[Tim Best]

Hi Jeffrey,

How often do you need a scrub plane? Just curious. I converted a no name, newish (this century) #4 into a scrub. It works and is aggressive, but I rarely use it. The narrower, shorter body on a 40 (or similar) is probably more ideal. I think Derek Cohen recently had an post about this topic.

Tim

[David Bassett]

OK, mods moved this here, so we have two threads with the same name & topic in the same sub-forum now. (Here's the OTHER THREAD (https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?289587-5-1-4-Stanley-to-Scrub-Plane).)

Instead of "converting" your plane, just set it up for scrubbing. Add a camber to the iron, (or get a second iron and camber it,) move the frog all the way back, set the chip breaker back a little more and go to work. Instead of a 3" (or whatever) radius on the #40, maybe camber the blade with a 5" radius since it's slightly wider. Many people will rough with a full sized Jack plane and your small Jack isn't much bigger than the Stanley scrub planes, so it should work fine for you without destroying it's original function/capability.

[Jim Koepke]

Here is my response, with some added, to the other thread:

Howdy Jeff and Welcome to the Creek.

There is no reason to remove it.

If its flopping around bothers you, try some tape to hold it.

That way if you do not like it, you can always turn it back into what it was.

BTW, my first scrub plane was made from an abused #5-1/4 and is still in use.

Currently there are three full time scrubs in my shop:

451936

My #5-1/2 came set up with a blade cambered for use as a scrub. That was recently used on a rough cut piece.

jtk

- Now a moderator can delete the other and there shall be only one…

[Mike Henderson]

I have a #40 scrub plane and a 5 1/4. I don't use the #40 very much since I got a powered jointer. But I do use the 5 1/4. It's a good size for a lot of the things I do. It's between a block plane and a full sized bench plane.

If I were you, I'd buy a #40 and keep the 5 1/4 for use as a regular plane.

Mike

[Jeffrey Kalakay]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I think I'll end up just doing a full refurbish on the 5 1/4 and just buy a scrub. I've never seen a 40 in person so I was wondering size wise whats it comparable to? I have bear paws for hands and wondering if comfort would be an issue.

[Jeffrey Kalakay]

OK, mods moved this here, so we have two threads with the same name & topic in the same sub-forum now. (Here's the OTHER THREAD (https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?289587-5-1-4-Stanley-to-Scrub-Plane).)

Instead of "converting" your plane, just set it up for scrubbing. Add a camber to the iron, (or get a second iron and camber it,) move the frog all the way back, set the chip breaker back a little more and go to work. Instead of a 3" (or whatever) radius on the #40, maybe camber the blade with a 5" radius since it's slightly wider. Many people will rough with a full sized Jack plane and your small Jack isn't much bigger than the Stanley scrub planes, so it should work fine for you without destroying it's original function/capability.

It wasn't the mods, I posted it in the general woodworking subforum before I saw there was a hand tool specific one. My apologizes for the double post, I have used a message board since the early 00s.

[steven c newman]

I took an old Great Neck Corsair C-5 jack plane....reground the edge of the iron to an 8" radius...mouth was HUGE anyway....made a nice $8 Scrub Jack out of it.

I have the Millers Falls No. 11....same size as the Stanley 5-1/4.....I left the iron straight across....just a long bodied #3 sized plane, I can either use as a small Jack, or a long #3 smoother....tis a nice change from a long day of pushing the "full sized" planes around...

[Warren Mickley]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I think I'll end up just doing a full refurbish on the 5 1/4 and just buy a scrub. I've never seen a 40 in person so I was wondering size wise whats it comparable to? I have bear paws for hands and wondering if comfort would be an issue.

The 40 scrub plane was invented around 1890, long after most timber was prepared by industrial machines. It was named after the German shrupphobel, which is a short wooden roughing plane with a big horn in the front. The 40 was used by carpenters for rough fitting, but was never very common.

If it is comfort you want, I recommend a wooden jack plane, which is about 16 inches long. It is less tiring to use because it is light and your hands are farther apart which gives leverage control. This is the tool that was used in America in the hand tool era. I recommend a double iron jack.

[Michael J Evans]

The 40 scrub plane was invented around 1890, long after most timber was prepared by industrial machines. It was named after the German shrupphobel, which is a short wooden roughing plane with a big horn in the front. The 40 was used by carpenters for rough fitting, but was never very common.

If it is comfort you want, I recommend a wooden jack plane, which is about 16 inches long. It is less tiring to use because it is light and your hands are farther apart which gives leverage control. This is the tool that was used in America in the hand tool era. I recommend a double iron jack.

I agree, I have both a wooden jack with a decent camber and a German shupphobel. While the German plane can take a much deeper/aggressive cut, I prefer the jack for comfort / handling. Although if you need to remove a lot from a edge the German plane with it's narrower blade can really hog off material.

[Jerry Olexa]

Agree. get a #40 scrub specifically made for that function///

[Jim Koepke]

Jeff, you make no mention of why you are thinking of a scrub plane.

It might also help to know more about what you intend to build and the lumber you use.

It could also be helpful to include your location in your information. You might be close to another member who is willing to let you test drive their scrub plane(s).

Another consideration might be the cost of a scrub plane. A spare blade for your #5-1/4 will cost less than a #40.

jtk

[Jeffrey Kalakay]

Jeff, you make no mention of why you are thinking of a scrub plane.

It might also help to know more about what you intend to build and the lumber you use.

It could also be helpful to include your location in your information. You might be close to another member who is willing to let you test drive their scrub plane(s).

Another consideration might be the cost of a scrub plane. A spare blade for your #5-1/4 will cost less than a #40.

jtk

I want a scrub because although I do have access to a jointer and planer at my job, im incredibly drawn to hand tool work. Mainly because I hate the sound of machines (even with ear protection). Plus I want to be able to go through most of the process from start to finish (minus cutting down the tree myself) that i can. Plus a lot of the rough saw lumber in my area from hardwood dealers is cheaper than s4s or s2s, so id like to save as much money as possible while developing a skillset.

Im in San Diego.

[Mike Henderson]

Preparing stock by hand is physically demanding. Many woodworkers use machines to prepare the stock and then do the assembly using hand tools. But knowing how to prepare stock by hand is a good thing to know - it gives you an appreciation for what our (about pre 1825) ancestors had to go through. Although from what I've read, it was the apprentice who had to prepare the stock.

Mike

[You'll need a couple of winding sticks. You can make a set yourself.]

[Jeffrey Kalakay]

Preparing stock by hand is physically demanding. Many woodworkers use machines to prepare the stock and then do the assembly using hand tools. But knowing how to prepare stock by hand is a good thing to know - it gives you an appreciation for what our (about pre 1825) ancestors had to go through. Although from what I've read, it was the apprentice who had to prepare the stock.

Mike

[You'll need a couple of winding sticks. You can make a set yourself.]

Oh, I know its physically demanding, which i think is part of the appeal (im not crazy, I swear) but id like to have the skill just like I can make all sorts of jigs to do joinery with a table saw and/or router, but I determined to develop a hand tool skillset

[Warren Mickley]

Although from what I've read, it was the apprentice who had to prepare the stock.


Kaare Loftheim, after studying 18th century woodworking and working as a cabinetmaker at Williamsburg for forty years, said this "We think that when there was a lot of stock preparation to do everyone in the shop worked at it." I have operated a hand tool only shop full time since 1987 and I agree with him. The truth is that it is a lot easier to teach a teenager to make professional quality dovetails than to do fine stock preparation. Rob Cosman can teach you to make dovetails in a day; he won't teach you to do stock preparation in a day.

If you have an 18th century source suggesting that apprentices did the stock preparation I would be very interested in seeing it. The apprenticeship contract that the master was responsible to teach the boy the art and would receive his labor as compensation. The sooner he could get the boy up and running, the better.

[Charles Guest]

Kaare Loftheim, after studying 18th century woodworking and working as a cabinetmaker at Williamsburg for forty years, said this "We think that when there was a lot of stock preparation to do everyone in the shop worked at it." I have operated a hand tool only shop full time since 1987 and I agree with him. The truth is that it is a lot easier to teach a teenager to make professional quality dovetails than to do fine stock preparation. Rob Cosman can teach you to make dovetails in a day; he won't teach you to do stock preparation in a day.

If you have an 18th century source suggesting that apprentices did the stock preparation I would be very interested in seeing it. The apprenticeship contract that the master was responsible to teach the boy the art and would receive his labor as compensation. The sooner he could get the boy up and running, the better.

Not an 18th century source, but a portion of an article by Mack Headley (Jr.) of Colonial Williamsburg Mack Headley | Eighteenth-Century Cabinet Shops and the Furniture-Making Trades in Newport, Rhode Island | American Furniture 1999 (chipstone.org) (http://www.chipstone.org/article.php/301/American-Furniture-1999/Eighteenth-Century-Cabinet-Shops-and-the-Furniture-Making-Trades-in-Newport,-Rhode-Island)

"Townsend would have delegated tasks such as running errands, cleaning the shop, sawing lumber, and preparing stock [emphasis added] to his less experienced apprentices. As their skills improved, they would take on increasingly more difficult jobs. By the end of their term, they would be able to dovetail drawers and carcasses, cut and fit mortise-and-tenon joints, plane moldings, and perform other tasks, though not as quickly as a seasoned journeyman. In larger shops such as John Cahoone’s, some journeymen specialized in production of certain forms. Job Clark, for example, made eight desks in one year. Cahoone paid Clark £12 for making each desk, and he sold them for £36.[18]" End quote. Here's a Master's thesis on Cahoone for anybody interested: https://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/26688/THE_MARKET_ECONOMY_AND_THE_FUR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

I, for one, can't imagine why you'd teach somebody to dovetail stock they didn't know how to four-square first. It's silly on its face, and completely out of sequence. If somebody is aware of a school anywhere in the world that teaches joinery before stock prep I'd love to hear of them. It makes no sense now, and it made no sense then.

The family firm: Mack S. Headley & Sons (headleyandsons.com (http://www.headleyandsons.com/)) Not sure how involved Mack is -- think this is mostly Jeff (?)

Headley at Williamsburg: Mack Headley: Learning and Teaching 18th Century Craftsmanship - Woodworking | Blog | Videos | Plans | How To (woodworkersjournal.com) (https://www.woodworkersjournal.com/mack-headley-learning-teaching-18th-century-craftsmanship/)

A collection of Mack Headley articles in Fine Woodworking: Mack S. Headley, Jr. - FineWoodworking (https://www.finewoodworking.com/author/mack-s-headley-jr)

[Mike Henderson]

Kaare Loftheim, after studying 18th century woodworking and working as a cabinetmaker at Williamsburg for forty years, said this "We think that when there was a lot of stock preparation to do everyone in the shop worked at it." I have operated a hand tool only shop full time since 1987 and I agree with him. The truth is that it is a lot easier to teach a teenager to make professional quality dovetails than to do fine stock preparation. Rob Cosman can teach you to make dovetails in a day; he won't teach you to do stock preparation in a day.

If you have an 18th century source suggesting that apprentices did the stock preparation I would be very interested in seeing it. The apprenticeship contract that the master was responsible to teach the boy the art and would receive his labor as compensation. The sooner he could get the boy up and running, the better.

I learned how to do stock preparation in a hand tools woodworking class. It's not intellectually hard, it's physically hard. The instructor went through the concepts and watched us as we did the work and answered questions. I know I was able to produce good stock in a day and I think most of the rest of the class was able to, also.

We then took the stock and used it in a (simple) project.

I'm sure that "when there was a lot of stock preparation to do everyone in the shop worked at it." It only makes sense because you can't start building things until you have prepared stock. The statement brings up the next question, "When there wasn't a lot of stock preparation to do, who did it? The apprentice or the master?"

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

I'm sure that "when there was a lot of stock preparation to do everyone in the shop worked at it." It only makes sense because you can't start building things until you have prepared stock. The statement brings up the next question, "When there wasn't a lot of stock preparation to do, who did it? The apprentice or the master?"

This would all likely depend on how a shop was organized. Was lumber purchased when items were ordered or did shops keep a supply on hand? It might have been lumber was ordered by the wagon load then prepped and stored. In the meantime the journeyman workers may have been finishing other orders.

One of the challenges for a shop owner/manager is to keep everyone working either productively or supportively. If someone doesn't have an immediate task, there was likely a list of things needing doing like sweeping, sharpening or prepping stock.

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

[QUOTE=Mike Henderson;3098501]I learned how to do stock preparation in a hand tools woodworking class. It's not intellectually hard, it's physically hard.

/QUOTE]

Apparently you think stock preparation is drudgery and I think it is an art. What might account for that difference?

[Mike Henderson]

[QUOTE=Mike Henderson;3098501]I learned how to do stock preparation in a hand tools woodworking class. It's not intellectually hard, it's physically hard.

/QUOTE]

Apparently you think stock preparation is drudgery and I think it is an art. What might account for that difference?

It certainly might. I was glad to learn how to do it, but now, I really appreciate my powered jointer and planer for fast, accurate stock preparation.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

This would all likely depend on how a shop was organized. Was lumber purchased when items were ordered or did shops keep a supply on hand? It might have been lumber was ordered by the wagon load then prepped and stored. In the meantime the journeyman workers may have been finishing other orders.

One of the challenges for a shop owner/manager is to keep everyone working either productively or supportively. If someone doesn't have an immediate task, there was likely a list of things needing doing like sweeping, sharpening or prepping stock.

jtk

Even if the shop bought a wagon load of lumber, they would hardly prepare it before they knew what they were going to do with it. I think most cabinet makers in the 1700's worked on individual pieces of furniture - they were not "factories" producing a lot of the same thing. If that was the case, I would only prepare the stock when I had a project for it because different projects might require different preparation.

Mike

[A modern example of this was Sam Maloof. Sam had a big warehouse full of hardwood of all kinds. When he started a project he went into the warehouse with a cart and selected the wood for that project. Some pieces would be thicker than other pieces, and some might be quarter sawn while other pieces might be flat sawn. He chose what worked best, in his judgement, for the project at hand.

I would expect our ancestors would have done the same.]

[Charles Guest]

Read the master's thesis I posted about the economics of Newport furnituremakers. Anybody who thinks that the shop owner of a busy 18th century firm four-squared lumber all day long, if at all, is borderline delusional. Ditto the experienced journeyman in his employ. I'm sure everybody pitched in if there was a big order, but on a day-to-day basis, no.

[steven c newman]

There IS a cheap plane out there....from Harbor Freight...the Windsor No. 33.......wide open mouth, fairly thick single iron.....IF you were to grind a 3" radius on the iron....you now have a very hungry #3 sized hand plane as a Scrub Plane....Slightly wider than the Stanley No. 40....Cost right now? About..$15, counting tax...

[steven c newman]

So.....#5-1/4 for a Scrub Plane, or..just buy either the Stanley No. 40....or one of the "Horned" wood bodied ones from Europe?

Not about HOW one did stock prep 200 years ago....it is more about how one will prep stock next time in the shop...like maybe next weekend?

hmmmm....

[Warren Mickley]

I have spent my life doing hand tool woodworking. What I found was these old 20th century experts had a poor grasp of the trade. That is why I asked for 18th century citations, not the speculations of dilettantes.

[Jim Koepke]

I have spent my life doing hand tool woodworking. What I found was these old 20th century experts had a poor grasp of the trade. That is why I asked for 18th century citations, not the speculations of dilettantes.

Gee Warren, did you expect everyone to hold their breath while waiting for those in the know to step up? :D

Speculation and dilettantism is something to delight in on a cold snow bound weekend.

jtk

- Interesting 'dilettante' comes from the same root as 'to delight.'


mid 18th century: from Italian, ‘person loving the arts’, from dilettare ‘to delight’, from Latin delectare.

[steven c newman]

Sounding more and more like a grumpier version of George Wilson.....doesn't he?

[Jim Koepke]

Sounding more and more like a grumpier version of George Wilson.....doesn't he?

George and Warren have a certain quality that seems to be rare these days, common sense.

Often they become restless around those of us who are at times living proof of said rarity.

jtk

[Jerome Andrieux]

> I would expect our ancestors would have done the same.

It really depends on time and space. There was no such thing as "woodworker" in the European pre-18th century, but a lot of different corporations, working as a long supply chain. Wood was expensive enough that stock was usually not an option for the furniture maker. However, depending on the specialty, strategies would differ. For instance, the chair making was set up so that the customer would place an order to the "finisher" (varnish, cushions, etc), which would back order the carcass to an assembler which would back order the raw parts (legs, stretchers, ...) to a factory shop and have them engraved and decorated by yet another company. It was rare that a shop would execute an order in house from start to finish.

The supply chain was divided in corporations by law, as documented in Roubo’s work. Workers had to bring their own tools (but not allowed to possess sharpening kits, to prevent freelancing). They had to choose their specialty, not being able to buy everything at first. They also had to start with tasks that didn’t require lots of fine high maintenance tools.

[Charles Guest]

I have spent my life doing hand tool woodworking. What I found was these old 20th century experts had a poor grasp of the trade. That is why I asked for 18th century citations, not the speculations of dilettantes.

Well I, for one, can't just stand by and let this kind of virtuosity go unnoticed. As soon as SAPFM opens up nominations next year, I'm nominating you for a Cartouche Award. I was frankly surprised that you weren't a past winner already. A travesty.