Taking the plunge

[steve swantee]

Hello everyone. For the longest time I have been considering buying a thicker LN blade and their new & improved chipbreaker for my trusty old type 7 Stanley No4 just to satisfy my curiosity. After taking some quick measurements, I have decided to get the thicker 0.125 blade instead of their Stanley replacement blade (0.95), as I don't see any problems with the yoke not engaging the chipbreaker. Also there will not be any problems with the mouth, because with this older type frog receiver, there is no rib to prevent blade seating problems if the frog is moved rearwards,and after a quick test, there seems to be plenty of room for adjustment. So I decided to go for it and order the parts. Now I just have to wait a couple of weeks for the parts to arrive. Has anyone else made this upgrade, and what kind of results have you had?

Steve

[Jim Koepke]

I bought some Hock blades and use them in some of my planes.

The extra mass of the blade does cut the vibrations when cutting. Depending on the material of the blade, you may not have to sharpen as often. My blades are High Carbon. Ron Hock said that he and others feel one can actually get a keener edge on HC than A1.

I like my Hock blades. They cut wood wonderfluffy. My Stanley original blades can do the same, they just need to be sharpened a little more often and some times they sing louder.

I would imagine a .125" blade is not going to sing to you much except on end grain.

jim

[Joel Goodman]

I believe that the LN "not made for Stanley" is thicker than .125 -- I believe that it is .140. (Check w LN on this but I think the 2" wides are .125 and the 2 3/8th are ..140) You may have an issue with the fit. I recently put a TWW Ray Iles Carbon blade which is supposed to be .115 ( I think it may be more like .120 but it is noticeably less that .125) in my #7 Stanley (1932 ish) and it barely fit -- I'll have to open the mouth a touch unless I want to keep it with a smoother type supertight mouth. In any case try the blade before you hone it -- that way you have the option to return it!

[Johnny Kleso]

If you get a .125 not the standard LN .140 your blade should just squeek in but you will have to file chip clearance as there is just enough room for blade only..

I have a Tutorial Here
https://home.comcast.net/~rexmill/planes101/tuneup/tuneup.htm

[Jim Koepke]

I believe that the LN "not made for Stanley" is thicker than .125 -- I believe that it is .140. (Check w LN on this but I think the 2" wides are .125 and the 2 3/8th are ..140) You may have an issue with the fit. I recently put a TWW Ray Iles Carbon blade which is supposed to be .115 ( I think it may be more like .120 but it is noticeably less that .125) in my #7 Stanley (1932 ish) and it barely fit -- I'll have to open the mouth a touch unless I want to keep it with a smoother type supertight mouth. In any case try the blade before you hone it -- that way you have the option to return it!

The geometry and adjustment abilities are quite different between a type 7 (18932-1998) than a 1932 ish (type 15?) model.

Depending on how things are lined up though, I would first look to take metal from the mouth by seeing if both edges of the mouth are square to the sides. If they are, then I would at least bevel the front of the mouth slightly to help ease the shavings through. Next, the back of the mouth would be beveled to align as perfectly as possible with the slope of the frog. At this point, check with the square, then check the fit to see if more needs to be removed. This of course takes the position that the sole does not need any lapping. If it does, the lapping will open the mouth a little if both sides are beveled.

I just went out to my shop and checked my No. 4 (type 9), it has a Hock blade at .095". The mouth opening with the blade all the way back is about .020". With a type 9, it is easier to take metal from the front of the mouth due to the rib in the center of the frog receiver.

jim

[steve swantee]

Thanks for the replies. The blade is for a No 4(type 7), not a No 7. The Lie Nielsen website states that No 4 & 5 blades are .125 thick. I have previously filed the front edge of the mouth square, with a bit of back bevel for chip clearance, and have also lapped the sole, so I don't anticipate any of these problems. I'll keep you updated once I receive the parts. Thanks

Steve

[Joel Goodman]

I thought it was a #7 --- the blades for #4s are .125.

[steve swantee]

Hello everyone, I thought I would give you an update on my progress with my Stanley No 4. I finally received my L-N blade and improved chipbreaker the other day, and am glad to say that the .125 iron fit without modification (type 7, remember). The depth adjustment works fine- the yoke is just long enough, and everything works smoothly, and I adjusted the frog for a nice tight throat. This morning I had a chance to hone the iron. I put a small 10 degree backbevel on the back of the iron to change the cutting angle to help with difficult grain. Then I loaded her up and went to the shop. I grabbed a scrap of birch with some curly grain that I had trouble planing with the Stanley iron, and it cut beautifully. Then I turned it end for end and planed it the other way, and once again it cut beautifully. I had a ton of tearout on the same piece of scrap with the stock iron. The blade chatter I had experienced before was completely eliminated, and the plane has a nice weighty feel to it. Amazing how much weight a thick iron can add to a plane. So, after "Taking the Plunge" I think I can definitely say it was worth the upgrade. I can see more L-N irons in my future. While the L-N planes are nice, and I'm sure they cut even better than my old upgraded No 4, I find that I prefer the vintage Stanleys, so this is probably the closest I will ever have to a L-N plane.

Steve

[Brian Kent]

Congratulations. I'm glad you made it work so well. Any photos?

[steve swantee]

Hello again, it's been a while since I posted this, but I remembered that Brian had asked for a picture. I don't have a digital camera, but I finally upgraded my cellphone to one that will take a half decent picture.So here goes Brian, hopefully this will work.
93240 93219 93241
I'm quite pleased with the plane's performance since the upgrade now that I've had a bit of time to give her a go. The only thing that concerned me initially was the fact that the LN improved chipbreaker cannot be set as close to the cutting edge as the original Stanley part ( about 1/8 to 3/16ths away from edge ), but this has been a non-issue so far. I have a 10 degree backbevel on the iron as I said earlier in the thread, and this has eliminated pretty much all the tearout I was getting with the original iron ( 10 deg. backbevel on it too, by the way ). It was just too flimsy and tended to dive down and tear out in difficult grain. Very pleased with the results.

Steve

[Brian Kent]

Looking very nice, Steve. I am glad it works so well, and that's a really fine looking plane too!

Brian