Not getting even secondary bevel

[Phil Gaudio]

This issue has come up before: yes you are seeing an artifact of the design of this guide. One end of the roller is fixed, and one end is on an eccentric cam. When you adjust for the micro-bevel, it skews the the bevel. Would be much more expensive to design a guide that adjusted both ends of the roller. I sold mine a long time ago: happy with the LN guide at this point.

[Rob Luter]

Yup. I raised this issue in my original post in this thread. I think it has more to do with manufacturing tolerances than one end being fixed and the other on an eccentric. It seems to me the "axle" for the roller is on an eccentric at both ends. The problem occurs when the centerline of the pivots and the centerline of the portion the roller rotates on are not coincident. It doesn't take more than a couple thousands of an inch to create a mismatch where the two angles intersect at the secondary bevel. The visual is amplified by the minute distance between angles. If the secondary bevel was say 25º more than the primary instead of 1º, you'd never notice it.

I used the MKII for a number of years and found it to perform very well. That said, I too made a change to the LN honing guide and am even happier. If I want a secondary (or tertiary) bevel i just back the blade up 1/8" and call it good. It's always perfectly aligned.

In any case, the wood doesn't know the difference. Let's just get sharp and make some shavings.

[Jerome Andrieux]

I used the MKII for a number of years and found it to perform very well. That said, I too made a change to the LN honing guide and am even happier. If I want a secondary (or tertiary) bevel i just back the blade up 1/8" and call it good. It's always perfectly aligned.

Or use a shim under the wheel. Easy, repeatable, protective ...