Thread: Hock blade for Stanley 4 1/2

GW

Hock make excellent plane blades. I'm sure you'll be happy with one. I only have hands-on experience with one, which is in a Stanley #65 block plane. I really can't tell the difference between it and a LN blade.

The Hock will fit a Stanley plane without modifications. If you want to use a LN blade you will need to specify "Stanley Replacement" versions. These are thicker than the original Stanley but thinner than the full LN. I have one in my Bedrock #604 along with the LN chipbreaker.

My Stanley #4 1/2 uses a Clifton blade and stayset chipbreaker. This fits - only just - and is a chance you take since it did not fit another.

Hock do make a chipbreaker. While the plane blade will work with the Stanley chipbreaker, the chipbreaker itself can provide as much improvement as the plane blade! So the best upgrade is to change both.

You will notice a change on a shooting board, but only because the extra mass will offer increased momentus, and the blade will retain an edge longer. If you really want to experience an upgrade on a shooting board, then use a bevel up plane with a low angle setting.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks, Derek.

I think I'll pursue a Hock blade.

I had ordered a LV LA Smoother from Timbecon, but I cancelled that order when (1) it turned out there was a lengthy delay and (2) I wondered to myself if this really was the best use of $270, and have decided instead to invest in something I'll use more often - a set of Japanese chisels.

So this means I'm back to the old Stanley 4 1/2 for shooting.

By the way, any thoughts out there regarding optimum honing angle and / or backbevel for shooting?

Cheers,
GW

Green, can't recommend a honing angle per se, but I think the lower the effective cutting angle the better for end grain so I reckon no backbevel.


Cheers.................Sean

Thanks, Scooter.

Recommended cutting angle, then?

Cheers,
GW

GW

Scooter is correct. However, I think that the issue here is that you are confusing "cutting angle" with "bevel angle".

The lowest cutting angle on the #4 1/2 is 45 degrees. This is simply using a blade without a backbevel with any bevel angle. If you add a backbevel, you increase the cutting angle. The bevel angle, per se, has no effect on the cutting angle. On the other hand, a lower bevel angle (say 25 degrees) will have greater penetration than a higher angle (say 30 degrees) and feel sharper. It will not last as long, however. So your choice is "sharper vs durability".

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks, Derek.

I'm happier to go for 'sharper' if it means an easier, cleaner cut -- even if it means a little more time sharpening.

Thanks!
GW

Originally Posted by Green Woodchips

I had ordered a LV LA Smoother....I wondered to myself if this really was the best use of $270....

There you go.

You'd think nobody ever did any fine woodworking in the 900 years before somebody came along and made prestige tools for the well-heeled.

Your prewar Stanleys can be tuned to function just as well...a Bailey is a Bailey whether it costs 30 dollars or 300 dollars.

Yeh, I agree.

You don't backbevel a shooting plane.

Even though a 4 and 1/2 Iis quite functional as a shooting plane, if I was you I'd use a plane whose blades not as wide, to reduce the height of your hand off the table. ie. a no.3 or 4. or whatever.....4 and 1/2's have wide blades. Your more likely to tip a 4 and 1/2 laterially on a shooting board than a plane with less width...uno ? ....

Besides, I'd say its a certainty that your never shoot stock thats 2" in thickness anyway. So ideally, a plane that takes something like a 1 and 1/2" wide blade is the go, I reakon. A thick blade ! definetly install a thick blade.

Tipping your plane can be a problem when shooting. Best, IMO, to remove its possibility altogether. SO, , I suggest you do this to your 4 and 1/2 green woodchips, if you really want to keep shooting with it. I did this to one of mine, as an experiment. Weld or tap/bolt on a steel plate to the side of the plane, setback from the sole a mill or two. Greese that plate up and you'll have a heavy moving, completely stable plane.....just some advice, that I doubt you'll take (shrug).

Here's a big obnoxious photo..(sorry I couldn't attach it small for some reason)
<div><img src="http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d74/apricotripper/shootingtable2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /><br />

And I tend to agree with Bob. The improvement geewiz planes make over the standard planes that been around for years, seems insignicant in practise. IMO, better off buying a $30 plane, tinker with it so you understand it better, tune it, and spend your $270 saving on timber instead ....(says the guy whose never owned a geewiz plane )

Thanks, Jake.

You are right on two counts: yes, I will improve this with a thicker blade, or use my no.4 instead, and yes, I will not be welding anything to the side of my planes! But I gotta love your ingenuity ...

Cheers,
GW