I reviewed the archives and did not find reference to this (although I’m probably the 1,000,000 th woodworker to try it)….
I recently retro-fitted an old #7 Stanley I had with a L-N .140″ blade. It was sort of like that old Reeses peanut butter cup comercial where two un-intended substances collide and make an improvement.
Of course, I had to mill the throat oppening and bet a new blade/chip breaker screw–both of which were easy.
To those who have gone down this path before me…
1) What throat oppening did you settle on?
2) Are there any set-up issues that I need to pay special attention to now?
Thanks for sharing.
Family Man
Replies
i've been thinking about doing the same on my ancient stanley #8 jointer. did you use the stanley replacement blade or the thick one? how much have you had to open the mouth so far? did you use one of LN's new thick chip breakers? if not, do you think the new thick chipbreaker would even fit combined with the thick blade in the already small mouth opening (even if you slightly filed the mouth open) or is that just too much to ask from the casting? lots'a questions (and no answers from me to your original post) but i have been hesitant to spend all the money on new blade/chip breaker to have it ultimately not work. sorry to semi-hijack the thread.
david
I used the standard L-N .140 iron (not the stanley replacement). I kept everything else standard.
I have to admit that seeing the heft of the .140 blade makes the chipbreaker and lever cap look silly. Sort of like a cap gun compared to a cannon. I suspect it would perform even better with these upgraded.
Now that it is done, it gives me new appreciation for the upper end tools--having heft and precision built in at every step. That being said, I used it again last night and it does work nicely.
I'll have to re-measure the opening again tonight, but if I remember correctly I opened it up to .105". I basically did the math adding the extra material thickness (.140-.068 using a little geometry taking into account the frog angle) to give me the same relative opening with the .140 blade that the .068 blade had. I think I subtraced a few mils from the answer (making the gap tigher) so I could sneak into the dimension rather than overshoot it from the git-go.
If you try it, let me know how you make out.
good to know it worked well for you. the iron my #8 has been sharpened to within 1/4" of the lateral adjustment slot, so i think it is about time for a new blade, and my chip breaker looks like it is so old that whatever spring it had has now been sprung. i'll post on the thick blade and new thick chipbreaker after i get it all installed. thanks for the reply.david
Take a look at LNs website I think they make a replacement blade that is .090 thick so you don't have to file the mouth of your plance. For what its worth I put a "Samari" brand laminated blade on my old Millers Falls jointer plane along with a hock chip breaker and it did seem to improve the performance of the plane. Good luckTroy
I tried a L-N replacement for my Stanley 608 and the blade was too thick plus the depth adjustment on the 608 did not work properly.
I also tried a Hock replacement on an older 605 and it works beautifily. I also used a new Hock Chip breaker which is almost identical to the L-N Chip breaker. I love my L-N planes and blades but just assumed the Hock are better fit for Bedrock style planes.
Dan
LN makes replacement blades in two thicknesses I think one is .140 and the other is .090. Sorry if this is a repeat. Good luck
Troy
I have replaced the blades on several of my old Stanleys (#5 and 4 1/2) with the LN blade designed for Stanley use (thinner), no filing required, work beautifully! Might want to consider asking TOm to exchange the blade you bought for the Stanley replacement versions.
do you think that replacement blade would work with the improved chip-breaker? My #5 could use something like that...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
I don't know since I haven't replaced the improved chipbreaker - should be ok I would think as long as the screw was long enough, and shouldn't affect the mouth opening since the chipbreaker is above the mouth.
yupp.... that's what I was thinking....
might be worth giving it a try next time I order from them.. worst it could do is end up as a door stop and its not far away from that right now...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
I fitted an old Sargent VBM #8C with the LN .090 iron and the improved chipbreaker; works like a charm -- takes shavings anywhere from huge thick planks to those that you can read a newspaper through, and there was no need to do anything to the plane except adjust the frog slightly to open or tighten the mouth a bit for the thickness of shaving you want. I suspect that you'll get very good results using the thinner LN iron and the improved chipbreaker on your #5.
James
Edited 11/29/2005 1:14 pm ET by pzgren
Thanks for the heads up James... that about clinches it for me... I've already tuned the plane, but working with the stock blade got to be a chore... didn't matter how sharp it was, whenever it went near figured grain (or god forbid, a knot) it'd tuck tail and run... plane would stop dead in its tracks....
If the blade and chipbreaker upgrade are a viable option it just might be worth my while adding decent handles to it too...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike, Wish you the best of luck with your "upgrade" project. The Sargent and a couple of other old (pre-WW I) Stanley planes were pretty close to door stops when bought, but with the cleaning up and tuning, have turned out to be quite usable planes.
I had a similar problem with some of the original irons: for whatever reason, they wouldn't take a REALLY good edge, and what edge I could get on them wouldn't last; other old plane irons were no problem at all... Now, the only "problem" is that the replacement irons and chipbreakers are worth more than the cost of the planes in the first place.....
I've put both Hock and LN irons & chipbreakers in various of those planes; by my experience, the LNs seem to handle tougher grained woods (American red oak, real knotty pine, and some pretty gnarly cherry) a bit better than the Hocks, and the price difference was negligible.
For working "uncooperative" grain and knots, even doing rough flattening work with a #5, you might look at setting the iron depth so that it takes off just what I call "angel hair" -- REALLY thin shavings; that seems to work pretty well with tougher woods, without resorting to a York pitch plane (which I unfortunately don't have or I wouldn't have had to come up with a work-around.....). It just takes a bit longer to get it planed down to where you want it.... Good aerobic work out, not to mention the arms letting you know that you have abused them!!
Gotta go! SWMBO has just annouced that dinner is ready and that my presence is expected.....James
Troy,Thanks for the suggestion. I believe I was aware of the two thicknesses but might have ordered the thicker one before I checked it out.I will go measure and let you know. i have found both the Lie-Nielsen and Hock to be great additions to older Bailey style planes and other Stanley's. For example the L-N replacement for the Stanley 78 is a great imprivement. I hop they add to their list of replacement blades.Dan
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled