Bowl Scrapers

[Fred Conte]

I would like to get a few inside bowl scrapers and I'm looking at Penn States offering.(page 61 of their catalog)

Also is a square end scraper of any use for bowls, currently I only have a 1" round nose scraper.

Of the various side scraper profiles which would you recommend.

Thank you for your advice...

Fred

[CPeter James]

Talk to Richard Rich Rossio at : disoorder@aol.com. He has the Benjamin's Best at better prices, faster and cheaper shipping. I have about 20 of them from him and find they work very satisfactory. I did "tune" them up with a little polishing and sharpening.

CPeter

[Jim Becker]

The best bowl scrapers are as heavy as you can pick up...more mass means more control and less chance for chatter should you have to hange them off the rest more than you would prefer. Easier to control as you hold them for shear scraping, too.

Square nosed are less useful for bowls, but essential for many box styles. However, these are best with end-grain forms. (They will work for face-plate orientation, but cut cleaner for end-grain orientation) A square nose scraper is also handy for truing tenons in some cases. I do like to grind the left side so it presents a sharp edge for box work there, too.

I also find it handy to have a round nose in the arsenal for a lot of little things,

[CPeter James]

I corrected Rich's email address.

It is: disoorder@aol.com

CPeter

[Gordon Seto]

Some of the scrapers you showed are for undercutting the rims.
You can also consider something like this:
http://www.packardwoodworks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=tools-srby-mtss
You can also use some old planer blade to make your own special shape cutters.
Jim's advice is very good. Thick and heavy is good. A lot of the time your tool rest can't get close to the bottom of your bowl even you have a curved tool rest. ¼" scraper would just create chattering without hanging too far. They are difficult to get rid of.

[robert hainstock]

They are very useful, and seem to be good quality. Bought mine from Woodtirngz.com :)
Bob

[Reed Gray]

I use scrapers a lot on my bowls. An excellent tool. You want high speed steel at least. Bigger and heavier are better, but then I always like bigger and heavier tools. They just feel better for me. For both inside and outside of the bowls, I prefer the ones with the quarter round profile on the right, with a swept back edge on the left side. The rounded part is good for hogging off a lot of material, and the inside transition area of the bowl. The flatter profile is better for flattening off the bottom of the outside of the bowl, and for final shaping of the outside of the bowl. It is also excellent for shear scraping. I slightly flattened tip is good for going across the bottom of the bowl. If the tip on the right side is slightly rounded over as well, you can pull and push cut easily. With roughing cuts, it doesn't really matter which direction you cut most of the time, and when you get closer to final shape, then you make lighter cuts, and in the proper direction. The round nose works, but is better suited to roughing cuts, and making the transition on the inside of the bowl. The one I am using now, I am slowly converting to a quarter round. You can also make nice shear cuts with it especially on the inside of the bowl. There is also a Raffen skewed scraper which I like a lot. It isn't as round as the round nose, so better suited for final shaping.
robo hippy

[Ben Gastfriend]

I think a round nose scraper is critical. Nice and thick. Since I don't do boxes I don't find a square one critical. (yet we woodturners have alot of non-critical tools, don't we!) The side cutting bowl ones are very helpful, and I find that when I use one, I don't have to start out with a "50 grit gouge", depending one the type/dryness of the wood. Let me know how you like the Ben's Best. I was thinking of getting a couple. Good luck!

[Fred Conte]

Many thanks to all who gave me excellent advice.

As far as heavy tools, I only have a mini Rikon so my bowls won't be too big, so would 1/4" thick tools suffice?

I was at HF today and saw their $37 turning set and thought I could regrind 5 of the flat tools into profiles that I want to play with, would this be a waste of money, they are only 1/4" thick.

Thanks Peter for the corrected address, I resent the email to Richard.

Fred

[Gordon Seto]

For under $5 a tool, you can't even get HSS blank from ENCO at that price. I converted some of mine to special scrapers, such as the dovetail scraper for the chuck. I think they should be OK for the undercut scrapers for bowl rims, because you don't have to hang out the tool too far from the opening. I would prefer a heavier one for the bowl bottom.

[robert hainstock]

The HF tools, (HSS) are useful. I have reground a couple of mine and they hold an edge quite well. The benjaman's best, (PSI) from Woodturningz are excellant out of the box. they aare 1/4 x 3/4 at least. they are especially nice if your lathe is limited to a 12in swing.

[Fred Conte]

Gordon - I couldn't agree more, the price to experiment is very cheap, if they are as good as Benjamin's Best I might give them a try! I know alot of folks here bought this set when just starting out and liked them.

Robert - my primary turning set is the 8 pc from from PSI, I'm amazed at how well they hold an edge and easy to touch up. Though I have the 8" Woodcraft slow grinder I use my HF 1" belt sander with 180 grit alot more for quick touchups when turning.

Fred

[Mike Peace]

Many thanks to all who gave me excellent advice.

As far as heavy tools, I only have a mini Rikon so my bowls won't be too big, so would 1/4" thick tools suffice?

I was at HF today and saw their $37 turning set and thought I could regrind 5 of the flat tools into profiles that I want to play with, would this be a waste of money, they are only 1/4" thick.

Thanks Peter for the corrected address, I resent the email to Richard.

Fred

Get the better HF red handled set #35444. They are slightly thicker than the $37 set.

[Dean Thomas]

The HF sets are fine to start with, especially for experiments and for getting past the learning curve of sharpening.

When you decide to "get serious" and want more than 1/4" scrapers, visit Craft Supply USA. They have some 3/8" scrapers from Henry Taylor and a couple from Sorby in various configurations that are darned nice tools. A WHOLE lot less dancing around when hanging out a little longer than you might want. Price isn't bad, either, IMO.

[David Walser]

The turning tools from Penn State are good quality. So, too, are the tools from Harbor Freight. (The tools from Sorby, Hamlet, and the other "name brands" are better, but the knock offs are still very good.) However, I don't think I'd recommend the Penn State or HF scrapers for serious bowl work. Bowl scrapers are typically 3/8" thick, about 1/8" thicker than the cheaper ones. In bowl turning, you frequently need to hang the scraper a good distance off the tool rest and the extra thickness of the heavier name brand scrapers comes in handy. (I have a Hamlet scraper and two from HF. The Hamlet is much better for bowl work.)

I feel just the opposite for turning boxes. For smaller boxes, the thicker scrapers just don't fit in where you need them to go. Here, the knock offs really excel.

As for square edge v. round nose scrapers, square edge scrapers can be made into a round nose or semi-radius scraper quite easily. All it takes is some time at the grinder. For boxes, buy some of the Penn State square nosed scrapers and change the profile.

[Dick Strauss]

Fred,
The 1.5" PSI round nose scrapers are just shy of 3/8" thick. At 1/3 the price of the Sorby ($25 vs $75) for a little lesser quality, I chose the PSI (BB) tools instead.


Good luck,
Dick

[Dave Rudy]

The biggest problem I have had with scrapers is longevity between sharpenings. I found as a beginner I was often using them without a burr --it's amazing how fast the burr goes.

I use primarily negative rake scrapers (student of Stu Batty). Finally decided to try Doug Thompson scrapers (10V) WOW do they last longer (minutes vs seconds). Worth the difference IMHO.

Dave