Veritas Blade/Cap Iron Sets for Stanley #4 and #5 Bedrock Planes

[Don Rogers]

My recently purchased 2 sets of Blade/ Cap Iron are top notch but the .100 thick blades prove to be too thick for my Stanley Bedrock #4 & #5 planes.


The blades have extremely small clearance between the front of the blade opening when set downward to have the blade protrude below the plane base. Moving the frog back does not help because the bevel side of the blade contacts the back side of the opening and the front clearance amount is still too small to allow a decent chip thickness.


The seller’s Customer Service person said that their Blade/Cap Iron sets perform well in 80% of these planes but 20 % have a smaller opening which needs to be filed out to make a larger opening. Mine must be in the 20% category.


The #4 was my father’s who used it most of his working life and I really hate to modify it. The #5 is a Flea Market buy but is in excellent shape. Filing open it’s blade opening would be practical but I’n not too sure of my skill in doing this.


The seller offered to take back the set or sets and I could then replace the blades with the thinner (.080”) Stanley blades. This would leave me with no improvement over the existing blades (except the Original #4 blade was well used and has almost no sharpening length left - it needs replacing).


I would like to keep both sets but would like your opinions on filing the openings and just how to do that, For example, how much should be filed out? Will doing this affect the planes performance and could I later go back to using the thinner Stanley blades should I want to?

Don

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Don

I would file open the mouth to fit the Veritas blade (they are the best on the market at this time). The modification will not change the heritage of the plane, but it will ensure that the plane can be used and enjoyed by yourself, and that it may be passed down to your children as a plane that found use by the father and grandfather for their continued enjoyment.

Edit to add: Before filing the front of the mouth to fit the LV iron, consider how much could instead be removed (filed) at the rear of the mouth to permit the frog to move further back. That way you will be able to return to the original blade if you want.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Andrew Fleck]

I recommend you get a safety file if your going to be enlarging the mouth. I found a decent one at Brownells. It's a website that sells firearms related stuff. On the plane that I did it to I colored the bottom of the plane in the area I wanted to file with a black sharpie. I then scribed a line into the plane bottom in the colored area so I had a reference to file to. It was then just a matter of clamping the plane in a vise and filing evenly until I got to my line. I sanded out the file marks up to 240 grit. You also might want to angle your cut slightly. It's supposed to help with chip ejection, but I have never seen anything that actually proved it. It might be unnecessary. I didn't do it to mine and it works great.

[Richard Line]

I'm going to suggest pausing for a moment, before starting to file. I also put an LV blade & chip breaker into a #5, and thought the mouth wasn't big enough. When I looked from the top, it looked as though the blade & chip breaker were hitting, or about to hit, the front edge of the mouth. Fortunately, I turned the plane over and looked from underneath, sighting up, parallel to the blade. There was enough room for the blade to extend and make reasonable cuts, but not deep enough to hog off lots of material. Check the fit from the under side before you go at it with a file. If it needs to be filed, do it. Having a safe edge file is good advise, but with care you can get by with some tape on the file's edges.

[Joe Bailey]

I have filed several mouths on different planes for just this purpose. It is a very easy task.
Nevertheless, if you feel you want to preserve your father's plane as is, consider upgrading just the chipbreaker to the Veritas model.
Even with the stock blade (or new equivalent) you will experience an improvement over that flimsy OEM chipbreaker.

[David Weaver]

I'd leave your dad's plane as is if it were me and hunt down a stock stanley iron. they are all over the place in 2" size. There's nothing it won't do with a stock style iron.

As for the flea market plane, I've changed course over the years and would just use stock irons, but everyone has different priorities. I wouldn't hesitate to file it if you feel the need to.

The stock thickness blade would be fine, though. The thick blade trend is just like spec sheet buying. In reality, you'd probably be better off with a thinner blade, it will still do everything with the cap iron set right (i.e., no chatter), and it will grind more quickly when you have to reset the primary bevel.

[Mark Engel]

I have quite a few vintage Stanley planes that have been fitted with aftermarket irons. Most have worked fine without the need to open the mouth. On the few that needed to have a wider mouth opening, filing them open a bit was not something that seemed to be 'ruining' the plane. Opening the mouth a bit just seemed to be part of the fettling process.

Most of the aftermarket 'premium' irons are thicker than the old Stanley irons, but that is not my reason for using them. The currently available aftermarket irons are, imo, made from better steel. They hold an edge longer than the old steel irons, requiring less frequent honing/sharpening. The old steel irons may have a slight advantage in terms of how sharp they can be made to be, but that advantage is quickly lost once the blade has been applied to wood. The old steel irons quickly start to lose their sharpness while the newer steel holds on to the edge for a much longer period of time.

For me, opening the mouth of a plane to allow the thicker irons to do what they do is small price to pay for the improved performance.

The real test, though, is in the surface left behind. I would challenge anyone to show that the surface produced by the old irons is better that what is produced by todays O1, A2, PM-V11, etc. irons.

[David Weaver]

The biggest difference between older irons and current O1 irons is hardness. I think if someone compared a 58 hardness O1 iron to a vintage iron, they'd find them to be similar in durability.

The surface would be indistinguishable between any of them.

The place where vintage irons make the most sense is if you go back to using the stones that they were designed for (natural stones). They seem to last plenty long with them, and sharpening is very quick. I never was that happy with vintage irons when applying the "charlesworth" method (a final 35 degree angle with multiple bevels), because limited clearance like that favors an iron that wears slowly. Going to vintage irons using only one stone (a washita stone) and a grinder, I don't think I will ever go back to modern irons.

[allen long]

One thing I didn't see mentioned (sorry if I missed it) but have you tried the new blade with the existing stock chip breaker / cap iron?

[Jim Koepke]

Some of my planes choked on thicker shavings using original irons even with the frog set back as far as could be without bending the blade.

Unless you have a pristine plane that should be under glass, carefully filing 10 to 20 thousandths of an inch from the mouth is not going to destroy a plane's value. If it is a pre-type 9 no one would notice if it was taken off of the back of the mouth.

It seems from plane to plane Stanley didn't always make the mouth opening the same size.

jtk

[phil harold]

Unless you have a pristine plane that should be under glass, carefully filing 10 to 20 thousandths of an inch from the mouth is not going to destroy a plane's value. If it is a pre-type 9 no one would notice if it was taken off of the back of the mouth.

jtk

Jim has it there
File off the back of the mouth
DAMHIKT

[Bill Rhodus]

I agree with David's response, buy a Stanley iron off of the net, especially if you are using oil stones. Nothing wrong with the aftermarket irons but the stock irons work fine for all part time woodworkers.

[Don Rogers]

Thank you all for your input and advice . It has given me confidence to file the opening on the Flea Market #5 and, if successful, do the same on the #4.


I had also been toying with the idea if filing the rear of the opening (see Derick’s and Jim Koepke’s reply). David Weaver is probably correct about the original Stanley blade thickness being sufficient - But I want new Veritas Blades for whatever reason. Alan Long’s suggestion to try the original cap iron was done but I wanted the Veritas blade/cap iron combination. In other words, I just want something new.


According to my calculations, the original Stanley blade at 0.80” thick takes up some 0.113” horizontal space of the mouth opening while the Veritas, at .100 would require 0.141” . The difference (and amount to be filed out) would be 0.028” for the mouth opening to be the same as the original. The original mouth openings on both the #4 and #5 measure 0.178” each (oddly enough). Looks like the new mouth openings should be about 0.206”. This should result in about 0.065” opening in front of the blade which is the same as the originals. I know it will be difficult to do this exactly but I believe I can come close.


Now that I think about it, It would also be difficult to notice an opening 0.028” wider.


Please let me know if you see errors in my thinking and thanks for everyone’s help.


Don

[Don Rogers]

The #5 mouth has been opened to approx .200" and seems to work well with the new .100" thick Veritas plane blade along with their Cap Iron (Chip Breaker). I'm pleased with it now and hope to similarly modify the #4 later this week.

The modification was not nearly as difficult to do as I thought it would be and it does not appear to be reworked in any way.

Thanks to everyone who replied for their help and encouragement.

Don