Hand plane skip (chatter?) Sargent 414

[Gary Focht]

I purchased a couple of Sargent 414 hand planes off EBay. One is a VBM and the other a somewhat later model. I did a bit of rehab on each. In testing on a bit of poplar with some reversing grain on one end, the VBM will dig in and skip a bit. It is not a tight, close chatter, but bigger jumps. The other plane handles this section well with no problem. I swapped blades, blade/chip-breaker combos, lever caps, frogs, frogs and blade assemblies. The VBM body chatters and the later model does not.

Quite frankly, the bodies look and feel quite similar. The frog seems to sit nicely. Is there anything I can do to make it work better in this reversing grain section? It does work well in normal grain in seems. Have not tested other woods (have some maple, walnut, and southern yellow pine on hand).

[Michael Bulatowicz]

Hi Gary,

I am no expert in plane restoration, but it sounds to me like the leading end of the frog isn't making contact with the body on the VBM. If you chalk the frog, carefully install and remove the frog and you should see chalk on the body under the toe. If not (or if it's just a thin line) this might be the problem.

I fixed a similar is ssue with one of my planes by adding a metal shim under the toe of the frog. On mine, a cut off piece of a card scraper did the trick.

I hope this helps.

[Jim Koepke]

I did a bit of rehab on each. In testing on a bit of poplar with some reversing grain on one end, the VBM will dig in and skip a bit. It is not a tight, close chatter, but bigger jumps.

Michael mentions a common cause of this problem. One of my earlier planes has this problem on some harder species of wood.

Another could be if the plane's sole is concave over the length. You might be able to see this by using a straight edge against the sole with the blade retracted.

One way to detect this without a straight edge is to use a short (about 1") piece of wood to set the blade to just start taking a shaving. Set it on a longer piece of wood on which your better plane will take a shaving. Try the problem plane on this without applying downward pressure. If it can not take a shaving, apply downward pressure over the blade while trying to take a shaving. If it takes a shaving with pressure and not without, the sole is likely concave.

A convex sole could also have this kind of reaction in some cases.

jtk

[Jim Matthews]

If the blades are interchangeable, make a swap and retest. If the problem stays with the show jumper it's likely got an too much blade exposed.

The mating between cutting iron and cap iron not only handles chip ejection, but also acts as two springs in opposition.

(Like a leaf spring truck suspension)

Some of the steel from this era was uneven in quality.

I prefer pro-level tools as their mechanics are good enough to overcome my technical deficiencies.

[Gary Focht]

If the blades are interchangeable, make a swap and retest. If the problem stays with the show jumper it's likely got an too much blade exposed.

The mating between cutting iron and cap iron not only handles chip ejection, but also acts as two springs in opposition.

(Like a leaf spring truck suspension)

Some of the steel from this era was uneven in quality.

I prefer pro-level tools as their mechanics are good enough to overcome my technical deficiencies.

I did swap irons, chip breakers, even frogs. One plane body works well, the other does not. I will investigate further this weekend - looking mostly at the frog seating area. The sole is quite flat as far as I can tell based on straight edges and feeler gages.

My Veritas No 4 smoothly glides through this area, so I do appreciate how well a premium plane works with little prep effort.

[steven c newman]

Sometimes, it is just the frog being set too far forward....the old "close up the mouth" to prevent tear-out myth. There is a small ramp at the back of the opening of the mouth...face of the frog needs to be coplanar with that ramp....move the frog forward, and you lose the support of that ramp, right when the iron is trying to cut....allows just enough backwards flex in the edge of the iron, to cause it to vibrate in the cut, "chatter"......

[Gary Focht]

Sometimes, it is just the frog being set too far forward....the old "close up the mouth" to prevent tear-out myth. There is a small ramp at the back of the opening of the mouth...face of the frog needs to be coplanar with that ramp....move the frog forward, and you lose the support of that ramp, right when the iron is trying to cut....allows just enough backwards flex in the edge of the iron, to cause it to vibrate in the cut, "chatter"......

Steven,

What I had noticed was that the ramp and the frog were not quite at the same angle and that if I put a straight edge on the frog that it hit the ramp before reaching the opening if the frog and ramp lined up for a smooth transition. So I had moved the frog forward slightly to get the plane of the frog face lined up with the opening (straight edge just touches opening when placed on frog). However, I moved the frog back slightly just now and it performed better it seems. Just a quick test, so will do more testing tomorrow when I have time.

I did set up to measure how flat the seating surfaces are with a dial indicator and the plane sitting on a granite surface block. The surface down near the ramp drops about 0.004 from one side to the other. The seating surface near the bolts is pretty darn flat. I may need to shim that front seating surface slightly. The bolting area on the “good” plane is less flat than on the “bad” plane, but the seating area by the ramp is flatter on the good plane.

Thanks for all the help, everyone. I’ll let you know if I get it all worked out.

[Gary Focht]

I did add a shim to both the seating area by the ramp and the area by the bolts on the 414 to eliminate some slight wobble I had not noticed previously. Did that on a 408 also that was not performing up to par. Also moved the frogs back slightly to more closely align with the ramp, although angle of the the ramps and the frogs don’t match exactly. They both seem to cut much better in the reversing grain area.

I have an EverKeen No 4 that I need to work on next, but it is equivalent a type 7 Stanley (I think) and there is no seating area at the mouth - just the flat area by the bolts and the frog floats near the mouth. Not sure if I can get it performing well on reversing grain, but I’ll give it a go.

[Rafael Herrera]

Gary, I had similar problems with a Sargent made Winchester 22" jointer. It would chatter and just stop on its tracks. The frog seemed to be sitting well on the base, at least it does not rock. What I ended up noticing was that the ramp of the back of the mouth is not milled at 45 degrees. In my initial setup I moved the frog forward to have the iron rest flat on the frog. I think that that resulted in the cutting edge to not be properly supported and caused the problems. I moved the frog back and now the heel of the bevel is resting on the mouth ramp. When tightening all together I think there's some flexing of the iron and the contact points are heel of the bevel and the top of the frog. The plane improved significantly.

The picture shows the angle difference between the mouth ramp and frog.

Rafael

20210318_225900.jpg

[Gary Focht]

Gary, I had similar problems with a Sargent made Winchester 22" jointer. It would chatter and just stop on its tracks. The frog seemed to be sitting well on the base, at least it does not rock. What I ended up noticing was that the ramp of the back of the mouth is not milled at 45 degrees. In my initial setup I moved the frog forward to have the iron rest flat on the frog. I think that that resulted in the cutting edge to not be properly supported and caused the problems. I moved the frog back and now the heel of the bevel is resting on the mouth ramp. When tightening all together I think there's some flexing of the iron and the contact points are heel of the bevel and the top of the frog. The plane improved significantly.

The picture shows the angle difference between the mouth ramp and frog.

Rafael

20210318_225900.jpg

Rafael,

That is exactly what I am experiencing. I am not sure I needed to shim, but i did so. Having the bevel basically on the ramp is what helped the most.

I would try a thicker, modern retrofit iron, but I don’t think I have enough length on the depth adjustment yoke to accommodate a thicker blade. Plus, I would have to file the lateral adjustment lever to fit a narrower slot in a Stanley retrofit iron.

I do think it is performing well now, so all is good.

Gary