Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Sargent 409

  1. #1

    Sargent 409

    I am not sure if this should be in metal working or if here is okay.

    First off. I am not a fan of Sargent planes. I was at an auction last fall and there was this rusty Sargent plane that I was not even going to bid on. The plane looked to be really in bad shape because I got it for $2.

    I got to thinking about Paul Sellers. He used a #4 for a scrub plane, so I took it apart, cleaned the years of grime and rust off with a wire wheel on my bench grinder and then I milled the mouth opening bigger. I am not sure
    how big the opening should be. If I got it to big I am out $2.

    DSC03742.JPG
    I reground the top and bottom of the plane iron and then I ground about a 4 inch radius on the blade. There is about 3/32 arc on the blade Again I don't have a clue id it is big enough or if the radius needs to be smaller.

    DSC03747.JPG DSC03748.JPG

    I need to go over to my shop and take it for a spin. Our winter storm warning just ended at noon today and since my shop is unheated it will have to wait for a better day, but I am looking forward to using it.

    just a couple more pictures,

    DSC03743.JPG DSC03744.JPG DSC03746.JPG DSC03749.JPG
    This is not restoring, this is repurposing.

    I hope this gives you something to think about.

    Tom
    Tom

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    664
    Tom,

    I did the exact same thing with a Stanley #4. Works great.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Nice job on the repurpose Tom.

    The arc on the blade looks similar to the arc on the scrub blade on my #5:

    Scrub Blades.jpg

    It works fine, you might begin to like your Sargent.

    The #5 blade is on the left. The center is from a #5-1/4 (it could also be used on a #3). The right blade is from a #40.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  4. #4
    I am sure that I will like the Sargent for a scrub plane. But my preference when it comes to planes is a Keen Kutter K series plane. I also have a ECE reformed smoothing plane that I use also. If I remember right it is bedded at 50 degrees.

    Just so someone doesn't get confused I wrote K series not the KK series. Not a fan of the KK series made by Ohio Tool.
    Tom

  5. #5
    Just curious...what is it you dislike about the Sargents?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    Happen to have both a Sargent No. 408 VBM and a Sargent No. 414c,VBM.......use both just the same as the Stanleys and the Millers Falls versions......no differences seen. YMMV.....

  7. #7
    I happen to like frog adjusting screws. And the blade adjusting screw is opposite the the Stanley planes. But as I stated above, personally I prefer the Keen Kutter K series planes the best. It is the same plane as the Bedrock round sides. Frogs even enter change but different casting numbers.

    I know that the VBM plane are great planes and the blades are something else. I found the blades harder to work with, tougher to work with and I am sure because of that they will stay sharper longer than a lot of other blades.

    I think Miller Falls planes with the 2 piece lever cap are a little better than the Stanley Baileys. Frog design is the same.

    And I think that the type 11-about 14 bailey planes were the best of the Bailey lot. When the frogs face stopped from being solid machined to casting pockets the quality started going down heel. The later Bailey's allowed to much movement side to side at the front of the frog. The Bedrock doesn't have any lateral movement what so ever period. And neither does any type of plane that copied the bedrock design.

    This is my person opinion and an opinion is like a nose, every one has one. I should be entitled to mine just as you are to yours.
    Tom

  8. #8
    Now we are back to scrub planes and I am hearing that the old Stanly 78 rabbet plane make good scrub planes. I have a couple of the 78s before the lever for adjusting the blade came about. I think the depth of cut was much harder adjust without it. But it wouldn't effect a blade with a radius much so I will have to try out one. They just take up space on a shelf otherwise.

    I thought it interesting so I thought I would pass along the information.
    Tom

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Bussey View Post
    Now we are back to scrub planes and I am hearing that the old Stanly 78 rabbet plane make good scrub planes. I have a couple of the 78s before the lever for adjusting the blade came about. I think the depth of cut was much harder adjust without it. But it wouldn't effect a blade with a radius much so I will have to try out one. They just take up space on a shelf otherwise.

    I thought it interesting so I thought I would pass along the information.
    It seems odd that a rabbet plane would make a decent scrub plane. There are stranger tales about.

    The toe seems awful uncomfortable for such a task.

    Here is how mine was made more comfortable > https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?254976

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  10. #10
    I thought it was kind of odd to and I didn't think it would make a good scrub .But it is worth a take look see. And thank you for the idea for a front knob, Jim
    Last edited by Tom Bussey; 01-30-2021 at 7:14 PM.
    Tom

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    Thanks Tom. Interesting comments about the frogs and screws. I know that you have much experience blue printing planes.

    Scrub planes typically have a narrower body/blade. Generally around 1 1/2 - 1 3/4” for the blade. The aim is to go deep and not wide when planning. So, a 3” radius for the bevel. A #3 would make a better scrub than a #4, and a #5 1/4 is sometimes sought after for this purpose.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek
    Last edited by Derek Cohen; 01-30-2021 at 8:13 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Cohen View Post
    A #3 would make a better scrub than a #4, and a #5 1/4 is sometimes sought after for this purpose.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek
    Derek,

    You’re 100% correct, but when you have a LN #4 and a junker Stanley #4, you repurpose the Stanley and make it work. At least that’s what I did.

    All the best,
    Steve

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Fairbanks AK
    Posts
    1,566
    I finally had time enough to be curious about this thread, never seen a Sargent plane in the field here.

    FWIW I have a homestore #4 that I converted to a scrub. 3" radius on the blade, BRB, the mouth width is 0.259", blade thickness +/- 0.080. In use I only have the middle third or so of the blade actually sticking out below the sole of the plane, but going crossgrain, or 45 degrees from crossgrain, on softwoods, I have had chips stick to the 9 foot ceiling in my shop. I just kept openingthe mouith until the chips stopped jamming and then opened it a little more. Like a two handed gouge. Slash, slash, slash. Great for clearing off roughsawn surfaces on softwood timbers 5x5 inches and up. If I ever build a timber frame structure I will start with roughsawn, use the #4 scrub to get the wood clean enough to do the layout on, cut the joints and then go with the grain with something like a #5 or #6 with a much gentler radius on it for finish surface, and then cut in the shoulders around the mortises. Carving up all my timbers like Westminister Abbey ain't happening, and I am not going to live long enough to wish I had taken a #8 to all that surface area either.

    I have been reading some Chris Schwarz lately, I -think- at least at some point, he was using a #5 as a scrub, but with an radius near 8 inches. The difference is he is stopping there for not show surfaces, like the undersides of tabletops or the insides of drawered cabinets, #5 scrub, radius near 8 inches, done. More time and effort on the table top and etc of course.

    In 2 3/8" (4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6 and 7 Bailey) I do have a blade/chipbreaker with about a 12 inch radius on it. I think of it as a scrub, it sure is not a smoother, but handy for when a glued up panel comes out of the clamps all hoggly-woggly again. I suck at gluing up panels, and I am man enough to admit it.

    I can see using a #3 as a scrub. I wouldn't take on a pile of 8x8 with it, but depending on the scale of the project it could be perfectly reasonable. I think I will try it. I have a #3 Bailey taking up space here with a poorly seated frog. Stephen, Derek, what sort of stock sizes do you take on with a #3 scrub? Jim?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    what sort of stock sizes do you take on with a #3 scrub?
    Scott, I rarely do. Occasionally I have a board where I need to remove a lot of waste, and then I use a Veritas scrub plane. But this is rare. Much of the timber I get is rough sawn from the mill, and I will section it, then joint on a machine. If there are boards with mild twist, etc, then I much prefer to use a jack plane with a 11-12" radius. This is a more sensible plane than a scrub plane. I have two jack planes: one is a woodie I made, and the other is a Stanley #605 I restored completely.





    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    I can see using a #3 as a scrub. I wouldn't take on a pile of 8x8 with it, but depending on the scale of the project it could be perfectly reasonable. I think I will try it. I have a #3 Bailey taking up space here with a poorly seated frog. Stephen, Derek, what sort of stock sizes do you take on with a #3 scrub? Jim?
    My latest work that needed a scrub plane was a large piece of poplar and another of fir. A fortunate find on a rust hunt adventure brought home a #40:

    Scrub This.jpg

    It worked well on the poplar. It worked well on the fir:

    Hogging the High Spots.jpg

    My first scrub plane was a #5-1/4 from a sour ebay deal. The base of the plane looked like it had been beat up in a high school shop class and run over by a truck.

    The size of these planks made me consider converting a #5 for scrub use. One of the four in my shop was a type 17 that was a bit finiky in use. It works fine as a scrub:

    Another Scrub?.jpg

    It gets a bit difficult to push around at the end of the day. My #5-1/2 came with a radiused blade. It was pitted and a touch rusty so it was replaced and hasn't been used.

    These three planes are set up as dedicated scrub planes:

    Three Scrubs.jpg

    Three is likely plenty.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •