derekcohen
14th July 2003, 07:54 PM
I recently purchased a Lie-Nielsen blade/chipbreaker combination for my Stanley Bedrock #604. My initial impressions were favourable but were based on several hastly (and impatient) plane strokes. I mentioned this on another forum. One of the members there asked if I would put together something a little more objective. That is, is the LN a significant improvement over the original Stanley chipbreaker (or does it just look nice)? So this is what I did:
I used the LN and original Stanley chipbreakers in the newly-tuned Bed Rock #604. The blade here was a new LN. This is very slightly thinner than the standard LN blade ( do not recall the actual dimensions, but the standard blade is 1/8" thick). The blade arrived at the same time as the chipbreaker. It was pretty flat to begin (looked like it was lapped on a 600 grit diamond stone), but I sharpened it further, front and back, to 6000 on a water stone and honed with green crayon.
The LN chipbreaker did not need any lapping, but I did run it and the Stanley over my waterstones to 4000 (overkill but what the hell).
For comparison I used my best similar plane. This is the home made infill based on a Stanley #4 I published pics of before. It uses the 1/8" LN blade together with a chip breaker from an old Mathieson woody. This plane, however, has the blade set at 55 degrees.
Care was taken to set up each combination exactly the same as each other. For example, the chipbreakers were set 1mm from the edge of the blade, and the blade was set for a very fine cut. This could be kept identical on the Bedrock, while the infill has a mouth of .002".
The same timber was used, a piece of Jarrah which had a mix of straight grain together with a section of unpredictable and difficult grain (that caused significant tearout using a standard blade in a Stanley #4).
The order of planing was (1) the #604/LN blade plus Stanley chipbreaker, (2) the #604/LN blade plus LN chipbreaker, and (3) the Stanley infill/LN blade.
I have enclosed pictures (via my scanner) of the surface of the Jarrah section planed by each combination.
It is very evident that the LN chipbreaker is a significant upgrade over the original Stanley one. The jump from LN/LN on the #604 is not a big to the LN/infill but it is still a significant (and prefered one). Obviously the latter comparison is not altogether fair as the blade angles were different (favouring the infill on Jarrah).
Results may be different on other timbers. But I believe that the LN blade/chipbreaker combination is a very worthwhile upgrade for any standard Stanley plane.
I will post pics separately. The urn address is not working.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I used the LN and original Stanley chipbreakers in the newly-tuned Bed Rock #604. The blade here was a new LN. This is very slightly thinner than the standard LN blade ( do not recall the actual dimensions, but the standard blade is 1/8" thick). The blade arrived at the same time as the chipbreaker. It was pretty flat to begin (looked like it was lapped on a 600 grit diamond stone), but I sharpened it further, front and back, to 6000 on a water stone and honed with green crayon.
The LN chipbreaker did not need any lapping, but I did run it and the Stanley over my waterstones to 4000 (overkill but what the hell).
For comparison I used my best similar plane. This is the home made infill based on a Stanley #4 I published pics of before. It uses the 1/8" LN blade together with a chip breaker from an old Mathieson woody. This plane, however, has the blade set at 55 degrees.
Care was taken to set up each combination exactly the same as each other. For example, the chipbreakers were set 1mm from the edge of the blade, and the blade was set for a very fine cut. This could be kept identical on the Bedrock, while the infill has a mouth of .002".
The same timber was used, a piece of Jarrah which had a mix of straight grain together with a section of unpredictable and difficult grain (that caused significant tearout using a standard blade in a Stanley #4).
The order of planing was (1) the #604/LN blade plus Stanley chipbreaker, (2) the #604/LN blade plus LN chipbreaker, and (3) the Stanley infill/LN blade.
I have enclosed pictures (via my scanner) of the surface of the Jarrah section planed by each combination.
It is very evident that the LN chipbreaker is a significant upgrade over the original Stanley one. The jump from LN/LN on the #604 is not a big to the LN/infill but it is still a significant (and prefered one). Obviously the latter comparison is not altogether fair as the blade angles were different (favouring the infill on Jarrah).
Results may be different on other timbers. But I believe that the LN blade/chipbreaker combination is a very worthwhile upgrade for any standard Stanley plane.
I will post pics separately. The urn address is not working.
Regards from Perth
Derek