Thread: Ron Hock plane blades - am I hallucinating?

Hi Mark

Did you re-set the frog further back?

You cannot compare the clearance of a 45 degree bed (the Stanley) with a LN that has a 50 degree bed. The higher bed opens the mouth.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Just open the mouth a bit. I have some thicker blades for my planes and I had to file the mouth on most of them to get clearance. On most it was a half dozen strokes with the file to get them to work.
With the variations in castings over all the years the Stanleys were made you can't expect Ron's blades to fit every plane without some modification.

Mark

I have bought several blades of Ron Hock & I have been very pleased with both the blades and the service.

There is lots of information available on the web regarding the refurbishment of planes and the fitting of thicker blades. Generally this follows the path of firstly moving back the frog, then if this does not provide sufficient clearance, file the front of the mouth. If you intend to use the # 5 1/2 for smoothing then a fine clearance between the blade and the front of the mouth is better. Rather than setting the mouth opening at a specific size, based on the dimensions of other planes, I suggest the better way is to open the mouth in small increments, until you get the clearance to the size you want. I suggest aiming for around 0.4mm.

Regards

There was recent discussion about blade thicknesses in Stanley Planes here, through to post #100. Unfortunately Scribbly Gum is no longer available for comment.

Thanks all for advice.

I received a gracious reply from Mr. Hock, who pleaded a jammed-up mailing system as the cause of emailus interruptus. He advised the same, which I did, and it all works fine now (although paranoia about the mouth being parallel - parallelanoia? - did prey on my mind a bit until I got hold of a set of feeler gauges that went up to 8mm in .2mm increments).

I ended up taking out about 1.2mm from the front of the mouth on each, making them both about 5.8mm, instead of 4.6-4.7mm. I do hope that he or someone, in 5-25 years, is still making such things as quality 2.4mm blades . . .

Not to steal thunder for Mr Hock or this post, but has anyone had experience with the Lie-Nielsen replacement blades and improved chipbreakers, or the ones from Rob Cosman? I have on of the Hock blades in a Stanley 4 1/2 and it indeed does perform well. Just curious on the other ones?

Or on another tact, is one better off saving the money on the replacement parts and just springing for a new Lie-Nielsen and be don with it?

Opinions?

Neil

The very best blades will be offered by Lee Valley in the near future. Their A2 blades are probably the best A2 blades on the market. However they will soon be coming out with the powdered metal PM-Vll blades, which are going to leave everything for dust. Trust me on this - I have tried them all, and have been involved with testing the PM blades over the past year. I am not sure when the blades for Stanley planes will be available, but Lee Valley (Veritas) have already geared up for the BU planes, and these will be available quite soon. It may be worthwhile to wait a little longer. If you cannot, I'd recommend the Veritas A2 blades over the LN and Hock.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

..........the powdered metal PM-Vll blades, which are going to leave everything for dust.......

Hmmm, a very big tease, Derek. I will trust you, but I still want to read what you have to say about sharpening the beasts! There are few free lunches. A few years ago I splashed out on an Academy blade, because I was working with some really nasty stuff at the time, and fed-up with what it was doing to my HSS replacement blades. The Academy blade certainly held an edge on siliceous wood much better than anything else, but it is a bear of a thing to get truly sharp (I'm a Luddite who still uses oilstones for my final honing steps, which may have some bearing). I hope the PM blades have achieved a better compromise.....

I remain a fan of the HSS type blades, and often spruik the LV blades as probably the best bang for buck. They are thicker, but not too thick, have good edge holding, you are far less likely to temper the edge if you get a bit heavy-handed when regrinding the bevels, unlike with HCS blades, and relatively easy to hone. But I also own a couple of Ron Hock's HCS creations, and they are very good blades too - easy as falling off a log to hone a working edge on them, & they keep it almost as well as the harder blades. I suggest that someone starting out at sharpening might find one of these easier to get truly sharp than some of the harder blades.

It's always been a matter of weighing up the differences & choosing which compromises you'll live with, to date. Are these PM blades going to radically alter the old equation??
Cheers,

Hi Ian

The PM-Vll steel has about the same resistance in honing as A2. That is, just a little more effort than O1 on the average sharpening set up. No more effort when on modern types, such as Shaptons and Sigmas. The advantage is that it holds an edge in plane blades twice as long as A2. And it will do so at lower angles in chisels, with more impact resistance. It is less of a bear to hone than HSS.

Regards from Perth

Derek

There are two Hock Stanley replacement blades in the kit and both backs had to be lapped to begin with. I was underwhelmed. Not the case with V. blades for V. planes.