My honing jig setting gauges

[Tom M King]

These pictures should be self-explanatory. They work with any honing jig. If you have a MkII, and don't like the fiddly contraption to put on the front, this eliminates the need for it. They set up the exact angle regardless of the thickness of a plane iron, or chisel. As you can see, they work with any jig. I use several different jigs for different things. I had the standard jamb in place one for the Eclipse, but even it wasn't accurate for different thickness tools.
honingjigsfullsmall.jpghoningjigbaresmall.jpgThey're actually easier to use than it looks like. You place the point of the tool all the way in, slide the jig towards the point until it takes up all the slack, and tighten. That's it. You can't push any jig too far, and you don't have to hold the tool in the perfect position to get it exact. Pushing the jig in does the setting.
I don't know what any of the dimensions are. The only thing I measured was the angles. I thought I might make one out of Corian if I liked how they worked, but the prototypes work so good there's no need for any "improvement".

[Curt Putnam]

Nice, very, very nice!

[James Pallas]

That is the best idea i have seen for a good long while. Well done!
Jim

[Jim Koepke]

Great idea.

jtk

[Joe Bailey]

This is the method utilized by the cheaper of the (2) Veritas honing guides -- the 5 sides of the guide correspond to 15°, 20°, 25°, 30°, and 35°

VHG-1.jpg

[Glen Canaday]

Looks like that method will work for pretty much any honing jig. Nice work!

[Frederick Skelly]

Thank you Tom. Looks like a great idea!
Fred

[Trevor Remster]

Love it Tom. I was just going to make a setting jig, but different. You changed my mind. Thanks for sharing.

[Lenore Epstein]

Tom, I think your version is a big improvement over the old Veritas guide, which is enough of a pain that I've gone to rectangular blocks on a board to set projection angles. Well done!

So how did you shape the blocks?

[Tom M King]

I just rigged up a simple complementary angle jig on the miter saw. The thickness of the angle pieces are a little thicker than the thinnest push stick I had on the table saw. and the inside length of the angles is a little less than what is the maximum required for the MKII jig at 35 degrees. The size of the 3/4 Birch plywood bases is what I could square up, and clean up, of a couple of scraps under the miter saw. I didn't measure anything other than setting the angles on the miter saw. I probably used a large deep engagement clamp to clamp the little piece to be cut from under the base of the miter saw.

It is indeed almost automatic to get something set exactly, and not as fumbly as that commercial jig. The trouble with the rectangular jig that measures the amount of projection is that it creates a variation with different thickness cutters, and only works for one particular jig.

I've found that in order to not waste fumbling time if you use jigs, the whole process from grinding, if needed, to honing needs to be done accurately, easily, and quickly, not requiring great co-ordination of doing a three handed job with two hands. I've used freehand for many years, but found that it ends up taking more time getting something back right after many honings. The same with micro-bevels-the micro ends up taking over the whole bevel, and then you have to start all over again.

I've gotten through all the Be a Man freehanding stuff, and gone almost entirely back to a quick and easy start to finish accurate system. Being able to freehand is a useful skill to help in this though. For instance, I only use the MkIi for 6,7, and smoothing plane irons, and the cambered roller stays on it all the time. Being able to feel where the edge is on the stone helps in that, and comes from being able to freehand.

[Lenore Epstein]

Well, it'll warm up again by the end of the week, and your jig might just inspire me to get the circular saw out on the porch to cut the angled blocks (I have no other powered saws, but setting my noisy little buzz saw up for that kind of simple cut and squaring off a chunk of plywood is just a matter of patience).

I bet the total time and effort would come out about even whether I work the whole bevel a little bit every session or spend less time on my microbevel several times and then give back the time I saved when I need to reset the bevel. If I really miss my shiny little slivers of polish I can always go back to rectangular blocks--or just make an angled shim for the angled blocks in place of the 1/8" scrap of plastic I use with the squared ones.

Thanks again for sharing, Tom.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Lenore

It is not necessary to be super accurate with the angles of a setting gauge. The aim is to replicate the angle in use. That's what is important.

Hi Tom

This is a good gauge. However, I do not see the difference with the Lee Valley gauge, which I have had for nearly 20 years. I must pull it out and look at it again.

The one modification I would add is a side fence (make the angled section wider and close one side), to ensure and/or aid in guiding the blade is sitting square to the internal foot of the gauge. The wall should square the blade (as do all the similar "vertical wall gauges". However, this gauge has an extra setting to perform, which is ensuring that the back of the blade sits flush against the angled projection. This dual process is fairly straightforward with an Eclipse (as it is side clamping), but less quite so with the Veritas gauges (both Mk I and II).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Phil Stone]

Hi Lenore

It is not necessary to be super accurate with the angles of a setting gauge. The aim is to replicate the angle in use. That's what is important.

Hi Tom

This is a good gauge. However, I do not see the difference with the Lee Valley gauge, which I have had for nearly 20 years. I must pull it out and look at it again.

The one modification I would add is a side fence (make the angled section wider and close one side), to ensure and/or aid in guiding the blade is sitting square to the internal foot of the gauge. The wall should square the blade (as do all the similar "vertical wall gauges". However, this gauge has an extra setting to perform, which is ensuring that the back of the blade sits flush against the angled projection. This dual process is fairly straightforward with an Eclipse (as it is side clamping), but less quite so with the Veritas gauges (both Mk I and II).

Regards from Perth

Derek

I agree that a guide for setting the blade square to the sharpening guide would be a good improvement, and it is my biggest complaint about the Veritas Mk I angle-setting device. Having a repeatable bevel angle is only useful if the blade is equally square to the jig each time the iron is sharpened. It seems sloppy to have to set that by eye when greater precision is implied by the angle-setting jig.

[Tom M King]

The only cutters I use guides for, that I worry about square, are done with the original Eclipse guides. The only things I use the MKII for are lightly cambers ones, like 6, 7, and smoothing irons. I keep the cambered roller on it all the time. The old Record guide with the ball roller is only used for short radius cambers like a 5, and scrub iron. The Eclipse guides (originals) hold a chisel or iron plenty square enough automatically.

I remember using that Veritas gauge. I think I have one in a drawer somewhere. It might work the same, but I don't remember it being quite as automatic as this one seems. I probably only ever tried it with the roller that came with it, but that's been so long ago that I don't remember much about it. The difference may be the length of the arms, or simply wood versus plastic and metal.

Thinking about a more automatic, fast jig for the grinder now, that doesn't change with cutter thicknesses. Repeatable angles make jigs fast and quick. Freehanding ends up taking more time at some point sooner or later.