Thread: Carter C4 Scrub plane

Pics straightened, M.A.

Discovering scrub planes was one of the big revelations in my woodworking life too! I used to wonder how the old-timers managed to get huge rough boards kicked into shape with little more than potato power at their disposal. Like yours, my first scrub plane was a modified #4, and it showed me how (relatively) easy it can be to turn a chain-sawed chunk of wood into a useable board.

And suddenly, it dawned on me what those deep, angled grooves I'd seen across the back-boards of old cedar CODs and chiffoniers were all about. They were tough men, but they didn't waste time prettying up the bits that were to remain out of sight....

Cheers,

P.S. I've since graduated to a 'proper' scrub plane. It's marginally better than the #4, the heavy single-iron being the main improvement, but the #4 did an excellent job (& cost very little!).

Thanks Ian. The photos I put in the plane making thread were fine and done only minutes before these ones. I am still sort of kicking myself for not buying the Stanley but they do look like a spindly sort of thing. I assume they hold up alright. I guess when you're dressing everything by hand your priorities change .

I just checked those other photos and they weren't correct.

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

I just checked those other photos and they weren't correct.

Not sure my 'moderator' powers stretch to editing in that section, but I'll have a look at it sometime if one of the others hasn't righted them already. One simple way to fix laid-over photos is to view them in Windows photo-viewer and straighten them up there. Depending on the version you have, it will either automatically save them at the orientation you'd set them to, or it will ask you if you want to keep them that way.....

I've had no experience with the Stanley version, I got a Veritas (back when they were much less expensive & it was on 'special'), which is certainly a delightful tool. I should think the Stanley would be every bit as good to use, but not having actually used one, I could be wrong there.

I had a wooden version for a while, and it was quite good to use. The light weight was a real plus for a scrub plane, but the sole (it was Beech) was possibly a bit soft for our harder woods, it was in pretty rough shape when I first got it. It cleaned up easily enough, but I reckon if you used a bit of Ironbark or similar (I've read that Red Ironbark was much favoured for plane making down your way a century or more ago), it should solve that problem.

You know, I reckon a metal scrub plane would be a very good project for someone like yourself to ease into a bit of metal plane-making. They are pretty basic things, & in fact you could probably use a bit of channel steel for the body instead of dovetailing it together, though brass sides do look the part.....

Cheers,

I use my Stanley 40 more than I thought I would. Sometimes the extra width of a 40 1/2 would be good cross grain.
Hard to find a Stanley 40 1/2 though.

3.jpg

I've also found myself using the scrub plane for board edges prior to jointing if there's sapwood/bark, edge damage or general funkiness that needs to go.
Chalk line, scrub to the line, joint with a 7 or 8.

Thanks TT and thanks Ian. Just spent a little while this morning cutting and filing brass inserts for my plane challenge plane and I am not a fan. I like making sawdust and shavings much more. I'm thinking of metal as a necessary evil but then those infills can look very, very nice.

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

....... I'm thinking of metal as a necessary evil but then those infills can look very, very nice.....

Wotchit - you're weakening... you probably don't need any more slopes to slip down just yet....

I can't disagree with your point of view, wood is my primary love too - I make tools to make woodworking more pleasurable, though you'd all be forgiven for thinking otherwise (I'm beginning to wonder myself!). Once you get the hang of it, I don't think there's any more difficulty in making a metal bodied plane, just different challenges. It can come together in a most satisfying way, & you can achieve levels of precision that would be extremely difficult with wood. OTH, it can all go horribly awry very quickly too (damhik!), but so can woodwork. I ruined an otherwise perfectly-fitting infill recently, with just one slip of a chisel....

Cheers,

I thought I'd gone mad when I saw your pics of your Carter Scrub Plane. I thought, that's no Carter Scrub!
But of course you've modded the already heavy duty Carter Smoother.

Carter did make a Scrub Plane, the C10. Very heavy duty with a quite wide 2" iron.

Here's mine with a non-original iron:
IMG_20201001_131202.jpgIMG_20201001_131252.jpg

I love scrubs the Stanley No.40 being my favourite followed by a Stanley No. 5 with a slightly opened mouth and cambered iron:
IMG_20201001_131018.jpgIMG_20201001_131115.jpg

I also have a nasty English Stanley No. 5 with plastic knob and handles converted into a paint stripping scrub plane! (not pictured)

V

Hi V. Sorry to confuse. In all the literature i have read I have seen nothing about Carter making scrub planes. Yours looks pretty nice by the way. Yes my C4/scrub is real solid. It's a lot more substanial the my Stanley #4

Thanks for sharing your effort, MA. Good to be able to compare notes.

This is my attempt at scrubber conversion. I cambered the iron on a Stanley #4 (handyman?).
Seems to be working ok, though it's nowhere as heavy as Carter. Not sure if the width of the mouth is standard or the the previous owner had widened it.

IMG_20201003_175007975.jpgIMG_20201003_175032179.jpgIMG_20201003_175056871.jpg

Andy

Hi Andy. Looks great. I think the mouth has been widened. The camber on your blade looks similar to mine.

I think yours is a pretty standard late model #4, Andy, plastic handles & all.
The mouth may have been got-at, but it looks like the frog is just set well back, which is usually good enough. As long as the thick shavings scrubbing generates come through cleanly, it's fine.

And scrubs are better light, imo. You make a lot of short, choppy passes across the board you're working on, & it doesn't take much effort to cut the wood, so the bit of extra help you might get from inertia on the forward stroke is cancelled by the stop/reverse part of the cycle. I maintain the less metal you have to push around the better in this instance - a typical wooden scrub plane is quite a bit lighter than a #4, but they clearly do the job....

Cheers,

Well said Ian, the Stanley No. 40 is so light and deftly applied it's a marvel how much material it can hog out very quickly.

The Carter C10 is overkill for sure.

Personally I find all Carter tools overweight and of 'generous' proportions.

V

Originally Posted by dubrosa22

......Personally I find all Carter tools overweight and of 'generous' proportions....

Ah well - those blokes of my dad's generation & before were tough old geezers & maybe they relished tough tools. Perhaps we've just become a bit soft & not up to such manly stuff?