O1 plane blades

[John Erickson]

Is there a company other than Hock /Lee Valley supplying O1 plane blades as replacement for LN bench planes, that are closer to the original thickness.

[scott lipscomb]

No help, here. I did not find any. I ended up making my own. I understand why LN uses A2-their blades are beautifully machined, polished, and flat, but I have tailored my sharpening around the stones that I like to use, and A2 just doesn't work well on them. I have noticed the A2 micro-chipping, too.

I like O1 best of the modern offerings.

[David Carroll]

Same. I didn't find any either. But I do occasionally see New Old Stock of plane blades on eBay, and from some of the Fine tool dealers from time to time. That's where I got a replacement iron for a No. 5, when I needed one.

DC

[John C Cox]

While it's not specifically what you asked for, most of the quality older plane irons were made of low alloy, water hardening tool steel along the lines of W1. The Woodcraft wood river series are the Chinese equivalent of W1. I've had good luck with them, though I don't know if they'll drop into a Lie Nielsen without adjusting the frog. Old Stanley irons are thinner, but they were mostly some flavor of oil hardening steel after the 1950's. In the 1990's they changed to an alloy steel closer to 52100.

[Don Peters]

Ron Hock made O1 irons for both the LN low angle block and the low angle jack, and maybe others. I bought both the former from him before he sold the company. Nicer all 'round than the A2. I'd start by calling LV; if that doesn't' get anywhere, I'd call Ron.
dp

[Derek Cohen]

Is there a company other than Hock /Lee Valley supplying O1 plane blades as replacement for LN bench planes, that are closer to the original thickness.


John, I have Veritas blades in my LN planes. They are am little thinner (either 3/32", from the Stanley Replacement series - or 1/8", from their original BD bench planes) than the original (3/16") but that makes no difference to performance. Just move the frog to the mouth size you want.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[John Erickson]

Guys, thanks for the help.
Scott, when you say "I ended up making my own " I'm very interested how you went about this. Please give us details.
Derek, LV is our goto tool store in Canada and I thought the same regarding the Hock/LV .125" blades.

[Robert Hazelwood]

I use an O1 Hock blade in my LN #4. It's thinner than LNs iron by enough that I had to file the slot in the chipbreaker (for the adjustment pawl) slightly wider. Since the pawl is tapered and the chipbreaker slot is designed to fit very tightly on it to reduce backlash, when you reduce the iron thickness the CB ends up a closer to the bed of the frog and therefore on a thicker part of the pawl than originally intended. The CB hangs up on the pawl and won't allow the iron to fully seat on the frog.

It's very little work to file the CB slot, but if you overdo it you will create extra backlash.

[scott lipscomb]

Hi John,


I do have some specialized equipment that is helpful in making tool blades, and its a rabbit hole that I dove down into a few years ago. The tools that I have that are handy are a vertical mill, a belt grinder, and a heat treat oven (mine is an old lab oven that I updated with an inexpensive PID). O1 is pretty forgiving though, and tool blades can certainly be made with a hacksaw, files, and a very simple forge. I have followed David Weaver’s adventures in heat treating and he seems to get really good results with very modest tools.


In my experience, O1 does benefit from a well controlled heat treat. Holding the steel at 1475 for 20 minutes seems to give better results than just taking it to critical for a moment before quenching. I tempered this last batch at between 325 and 350 and am very pleased with the results. The blades have a very crisp feeling on the oil stones that I like and I can get them as sharp as any of the steel in the shop.


There are a bunch of great resources for blade making available on the web. My favorites are: knifesteelnerds, David Weaver’s blog, and the various knife making forums around the net. Ron Hock also has a good tutorial on heat treating O1. I don’t think his website is still up (I could be wrong on this), but I think some of his blog posts are archived on various servers.


I think, overall, that I like LNs 1/8” blades more than the thinner Stanleys that I have a bunch of. They both have their up sides. The 1/8” blades, when hollow ground, are very easy to reference when free handing, which is cool. They also have a robust heft. The old Stanley blades that I have are almost universally good blades, though, and work well with oil stones.


Here is pic of the recent batch. They aren't pretty, but they work better for me than the ones that came with the planes. I don’t have any LN bench planes-mine are all early to mid 19th century, but I would likely buy a bronze #4 if I found one. I am certain its a beautiful tool…but I’ll replace the blade with O1, or other carbon steel.


Scott

516450516451

[steven c newman]

I have some irons by Millers Falls, usually in one of these..
516466
And they are usually solid tool steel, and you can feel that they are thicker than Stanley's irons...

Plane? A No. 9, Type 4...the last of the "Good" models....

[Mike Brady]

Lie-Nielsen made O-1 steel plane blades and chisels for a short time. I know because I have several of them. Why they quit making them is a question you could ask at one of their "hand-tool experience" events, which they have recently resumed. I went to the one held at Lost Art Press a couple of weeks ago. Does Ron Hock make blades that fit L-N?

[scott lipscomb]

My understanding is that A2 can be more manufactured with less defect than the shallower hardening steels. Most notably with regard to changing shape in the quenching process. If a blade changes shape during the quench, it triggers a process of flattening the back of the blade which takes a lot of work.

[Robert Hazelwood]

Does Ron Hock make blades that fit L-N?

They are not quite a drop-in replacement. See my post above. Because they are 1/32" thinner than the LN blade, you have to modify the chipbreaker (very slightly) or the iron won't seat fully onto the frog. But if you can do that, they work great.

[clinton cox]

Hi John,


I do have some specialized equipment that is helpful in making tool blades, and its a rabbit hole that I dove down into a few years ago. The tools that I have that are handy are a vertical mill, a belt grinder, and a heat treat oven (mine is an old lab oven that I updated with an inexpensive PID). O1 is pretty forgiving though, and tool blades can certainly be made with a hacksaw, files, and a very simple forge. I have followed David Weaver’s adventures in heat treating and he seems to get really good results with very modest tools.


In my experience, O1 does benefit from a well controlled heat treat. Holding the steel at 1475 for 20 minutes seems to give better results than just taking it to critical for a moment before quenching. I tempered this last batch at between 325 and 350 and am very pleased with the results. The blades have a very crisp feeling on the oil stones that I like and I can get them as sharp as any of the steel in the shop.


There are a bunch of great resources for blade making available on the web. My favorites are: knifesteelnerds, David Weaver’s blog, and the various knife making forums around the net. Ron Hock also has a good tutorial on heat treating O1. I don’t think his website is still up (I could be wrong on this), but I think some of his blog posts are archived on various servers.


I think, overall, that I like LNs 1/8” blades more than the thinner Stanleys that I have a bunch of. They both have their up sides. The 1/8” blades, when hollow ground, are very easy to reference when free handing, which is cool. They also have a robust heft. The old Stanley blades that I have are almost universally good blades, though, and work well with oil stones.


Here is pic of the recent batch. They aren't pretty, but they work better for me than the ones that came with the planes. I don’t have any LN bench planes-mine are all early to mid 19th century, but I would likely buy a bronze #4 if I found one. I am certain its a beautiful tool…but I’ll replace the blade with O1, or other carbon steel.


Scott

516450516451




Hello Scott, do you have a store front by chance or have an interest in making O1 for LN available to purchase?

[Tom Bussey]

I do have a couple of PM-V11 blades in my plane stash but mostly I have Hock 01 blades. My planes are Keen Kutter K series planes which are Bedrock round sides with casting numbers changed. I grind the primary bevel at 22 degrees and then hone a 25 degree bevel on the blade. Yes I know that a 25 degree is for soft wood and a 30 is for hardwood. But a 25 is sharper and the 01 is easy to sharpen and it holds a cutting edge longer than plain high carbon steed I have sharpened up to 4 time in a day. Without getting in to Physics. One can have the side adjacent of 1/8 inch and at the same angle the side adjacent of another at.030. each will have the same strength at the .030 spot.

Anyway. with a 22 degree angle I have a little more clearance where the blade meats the sole of the plane so I have never had to make adjustments to the body of the plane. I also use aftermarket chip breakers. The only reason not to is I would maybe wish the yoke was a little taller for a little better engagement

I thought a selling point of a thicker blade was less shatter. I haven't had a problem with the Hick blade thickness.

I have stated why I like the Hock blades the thickness that they are. Why do you want a thinner one?

[Derek Cohen]

Is there a company other than Hock /Lee Valley supplying O1 plane blades as replacement for LN bench planes, that are closer to the original thickness.

Just remembered - Clifton make O1 blades and these are 3/16" thick ... same as the LN. I have one that I occasionally use in a LN #3.

Most of the time my LN #3 uses a PM-V11 Veritas Stanley Replacement blade as our local woods are not ideal for O1. Also, most of the time, my LN #4 1/2 runs the original A2 blade - it gets infrequent use, and the A2 blade has been fine.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

I have been to about a dozen Lie Nielsen hand tool events, but I have never seen one of their planes produce a quality surface. I don't know the reason for this. It could be because of the high angle planing, the high chrome plane iron, the sharpening media, or the sharpening technique, but I never figured it out.

If you are going to sand the surface anyway, I guess it doesn't matter, but it would mean extra work.

[Derek Cohen]

Warren, I imagine that sharpening and set up, along with cutting angle, are all going to play a part. Who knows how many used a plane at an Event, and the standard to which it was set up?

The early, hammered rather than later cast, Clifton blades are very nice.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Warren Mickley]

[QUOTE=Derek Cohen;3305332]Warren, I imagine that sharpening and set up, along with cutting angle, are all going to play a part. Who knows how many used a plane at an Event, and the standard to which it was set up?
/QUOTE]

Who knows? I know. I have watched them sharpen the irons and then seen the result.

[Derek Cohen]

[QUOTE=Derek Cohen;3305332]Warren, I imagine that sharpening and set up, along with cutting angle, are all going to play a part. Who knows how many used a plane at an Event, and the standard to which it was set up?
/QUOTE]

Who knows? I know. I have watched them sharpen the irons and then seen the result.

Warren, I have no doubt that you could have done a better sharpening job. Also a better job of setting the chipbreaker, and using it with a standard angle frog to better effect. But then that might also mean that the LN blades (and planes?) are potentially better than presented by LN. How good could they get?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[John C Cox]

My own experience with A2 and HSS irons is that they are unparallelled for roughing and stock removal. They do really well when you are already planning to sand your finish. I think 99.9% of plane users sand their finishes, so it doesn't matter. They can be prepped for no-sand finish work, but they don't produce anywhere near the same working edge life when you're trying to get a glassy surface with zero fuzz and lines. The first couple licks off of a diamond prepped iron will be real pretty.

It takes some chops to make no-sand surfaces. I saw Rob Cosman do it at plenty of his little demo/teaching events, and the Pinnacle stuff he sells is all A2. I've seen him do it with Wood River stuff too, and that's typically some Chinese equivalent of W1. I even saw him do it with Lie Nielsen planes early on, before Woodcraft shifted gears. I decided it's more the workman's skill than it is the specific equipment.

[Jim Koepke]

I thought a selling point of a thicker blade was less shatter. I haven't had a problem with the Hick blade thickness.

It is a matter of physics. A thicker blade has more mass which means more energy to produce chatter or vibrations in the blade. Some of my Stanley blades will "sing" when set for a thicker shaving in some woods. Here are two old merged together posts from a thread on chatter



…
I can cause my planes to create a type of chatter on a heavy cut. I sometimes call it a 'zipper cut' because it sounds like a zipper being opened or closed. My guess at what is actually occurring is the blade cuts until some of the wood splits free (tears out) and then the blade is stopped by the next area of wood that is solid and the whole sequence repeats again. The shaving and the surface left behind have lines perpendicular to the direction of the plane's motion spaced very close together.

It shouldn't require investment in a high dollar blade or chip breaker. It is true that a thicker blade will be less likely to chatter. The cause is usually not caused by the lighter blades used by Stanley or the thinner replacements made by others. Chatter is a type of resonance. All the components of a plane need to work together to cancel out the resonance thus eliminating the chatter.

There are way too many causes of chatter to list them all. As Kees mentioned having the frog positioned properly may be of help.

For a start, the frog should be set so the back edge of the mouth and the plane of the frog's face are in the same plane. We can work on adjusting the mouth later.

The frog holding screws also need to be holding the frog securely.

How thick of a shaving are you taking when you get chatter?

One way to reduce chatter is to take a lighter shaving. How thick is the shaving you are taking when you get this chatter?

What is the angle on your blade's bevel?

25º or less is more prone to chatter on heavy cuts. More than 30º is prone to skipping. Sort of like chatter but different.

When you hold your plane up and look at the side, can you see a space between the blade and the frog?

Having the blade in full contact with the frog will help reduce chatter. This brings up the lever cap screw. If it is too loose it can result in chatter. It should be tight enough to secure everything, but not so tight as to make the plane difficult to adjust. My preference is to have it tight enough so when the depth adjuster is backed off in to its backlash zone a few shavings can be taken before the blade moves back. Some will like it tighter than this. It should also be tight enough to prevent the lateral adjustment from changing.

If the chip breaker is not seating on the blade properly it can be a source of chatter.

There are likely many that didn't come to mind while typing this.

jtk

The original thread is here > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?243823


I think 99.9% of plane users sand their finishes, so it doesn't matter.

Then I must be in the 0.1%. It would be interesting to see a poll on this. With sharpening and good plane technique there isn't any reason to fuzzy things up with sandpaper.

jtk

[John C Cox]

The mass is directly proportional to the thickness, but stiffness goes up with the cube of thickness.. So, a 50% thicker blade is 50% heavier, but almost 4x stiffer.

Anyhoo, I had excellent results by simply upgrading the chip breakers to Hock units. That nearly eliminated chatter. That doesn't help with lines caused by chips in the blade, but it makes a huge improvement in tear-out on Stanleys. Probably wouldn't make that much improvement in a Lie Nielsen, as their chip breakers are generally pretty good.

[Jim Koepke]

I can cause my planes to create a type of chatter on a heavy cut. I sometimes call it a 'zipper cut' because it sounds like a zipper being opened or closed.

While looking over this thread a thought popped into my brain. This may have been done using a type 6 plane. Before type 9, the front of the frog was unsupported. This may have added to the cause of chatter.

Something else that popped into my head when seeing the title of this thread was one of the blades that came in a recent care package from my brother. It was an old Buck Brothers 2" tapered iron. It is likely O1 steel. (correction: the blade was checked today and it measures 1-11/16")

Pictures later.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

It's interesting that of all the planing troubleshooting questions that pop up, I can't remember anyone asking help with a chattering Stanley Bailey plane. Tear out questions come up all the time.

What I see a lot, as a reason to get a modern plane or a thicker after market iron, is that they will not chatter. One can screw around with the frog or get a plane where the frog toes are not supported (I've an Ohio plane like that) and maybe create some chatter on purpose, but other than that, where is chatter an actual issue?

---

I made a few 1/8" thick irons out of O1 bar stock. Make them in the sense I cut them and filed them to shape. The heat treatment was courtesy of the despicable David Weaver. They came out really well. If you get a chance to get O1 irons (and if properly heat treated) you'll not be disappointed.

Rafael

[Jim Koepke]

What I see a lot, as a reason to get a modern plane or a thicker after market iron, is that they will not chatter. One can screw around with the frog or get a plane where the frog toes are not supported (I've an Ohio plane like that) and maybe create some chatter on purpose, but other than that, where is chatter an actual issue?

As you mention Rafael, "screwing around with the frog" may cause a short section of the blade to be unsupported when the mouth is closed tight. It may be users learning anew the use of the chip breaker has removed chatter from being a common occurrence.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Pictures later.

Mentioned pictures later for an old Buck Brothers iron:

516774

It measures 1-11/16". It might work in a #3 or #5-1/4 plane.

Detail shot of the stamp:

516775

The blade is taperred and most likely the laminated hardened steel is O1.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

As you mention Rafael, "screwing around with the frog" may cause a short section of the blade to be unsupported when the mouth is closed tight. It may be users learning anew the use of the chip breaker has removed chatter from being a common occurrence.

I was jokingly making the point that one has to actually go out of his way to create chatter. I tried closing the mouth early on, it doesn't work, it forces you to move the cb back to prevent the shavings from choking at the mouth. It's a popular advise, though. Along with getting higher angle frogs.

[Rafael Herrera]

If the iron says "cast steel", it's made out of "crucible steel", an early version of tool steel. I found this video showing the manufacturing process. It probably looked the same in the 19th century. The "cast" in the name comes from the molten steel being poured into molds. It looks like it was a tough job.


https://youtu.be/q-BVuQZSm08

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks for the video link Rafael. It was kind of funny it is called Making Steel by Hand and the first thing you see is some one pressing the clay with their feet.

I only watched about 30 seconds as there are a lot of other things to take care of at the moment.

jtk

[scott lipscomb]

Hi Clinton, making plane blades for sale is not likely in my future. I did see that Highland Woodworking sells Clifton Plane Blades, which they call .12 inches thick. I wonder if those would be a direct fit for Lie Nielsen? I bet those are nice blades.