Thread: Sargent 4 1/2

Groggy - you seem to have checked out anything I might have thought of, so can't give you any new ideas. Just one thing that intrigues me. On all of my Record/Stanley Bailey type frogs, the blades never touch the sole. At a working setting, the bevel extends back to the frog, (particularly with a thicker blade). It seems to me that this has to be so, or there would be no point in having an adjustable frog.
Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

It seems to me that this has to be so, or there would be no point in having an adjustable frog.
Cheers,

Ian, you're quite right, the frog is supposed to do just that. I left a bit out that I could of sworn I put in . I've re-edited the original post for clarity's sake.

The effect of the increased angle (?) is to reduce the support under the frog near the blade by about 3-4mm. ie, the frog is supported further back than what it seems it should be.

I must admit I am thinking this plane is going to have very limited uses.

Thought a pic would help,

Originally Posted by Groggy

Thought a pic would help,

Yep, Groggy - that's what I thought you meant. As far as I'm aware, yes, it is normal. If you were to set the frog so that the sole is in line with it, you might be able to seat part of the back of the blade on it, but as I say, it depends on the blade thickness, and hence how far back the bevel ends.

But I don't think it's intended that the blade touch the sole - this restricts you to one setting, which, as you note, is too far back for a decent mouth opening. I suspect that your frog is either not perfectly seated (but you did say you lapped it, so that should be ok), or it's the general configuration of the frog. On my older Bailey types, there is a step on the leading edge of the frog, which seats firmly on a matching machined flat on the sole when you snug up the retaining screws. The frog sits solidly, and can't chatter.

I once bought a cheap new #3 thinking I could easily tune it up to work like a good 'un, but was defeated by the shoddy frog, which seated only on two (roughly!) machined flats under the screws. I straightened the sole and got the frog seated firmly, but the damn thing was useless for anything other than a fine cut on soft, straight-grained hoop pine! If the going got the slightest bit tough, it would promptly chatter, or 'buzz' as you aptly describe it. Compared with my better planes, the screws were set back a long way with the frog at a workable setting, and with no front support, you could see this might allow chatter in the frog. I reluctantly concluded (after putting a LOT of work into the useless thing) that it was structurally flawed, and no amount of further fiddling would improve it, so I gave it to my then 11 yr old son, knowing it would see more use as a hammer than a plane. It probably worked better in the former role, anyway!

Cheers,

Thanks for the comments Ian. I think I'll save the blade for something more 'worthy' of it. Thankfully this hasn't been an expensive exercise - other than in time.