Thread: Stanley Bench Planes Replacement Blade Bulk Order

Originally Posted by thumbsucker

. . . and it is view Bobls and myself that S390 would give us a superior blade to the Acadamy Saw Blades at 1/5th the price of a Acadamy Saw Blade.

Sorry to correct you TS but I did not say this and it is not my view.

This is what I said in a PM to you the other day.

yes I think the S390 is a very fine steel. The heat treatments it requires puts it well outside most home or basic shop metal worker abilities and facilities as it really needs a computer controlled furnace to treat properly.

Will it be that much superior to the other steels - I'd say the gain will be marginal and it won't blow anything out of the water. It's also probably well beyond the average woodworker to benefit from. If it was that good Lie Neilsen etc would use it.

Is it worth an experiment, I guess that depends on the cost? If its only a few $ more per blade its worth a go. I'd certainly be interested in a piece.

I did not say it "would give us a superior blade to the Acadamy Saw Blades at 1/5th the price of a Acadamy Saw Blade" - I have no experience with Acadamy Saw Blades, and neither do I consider myself a plane blade expert. I have dabbled with various steels and I have some knowledge of metallurgy- that's about it

Personally I think some of you may be getting carried away with this. FWIW, my opinion still is "it is worth an experiment" but I would not advise replacing every blade in your plane collection until it the hypothesis is tested. Then you maybe can make a decision based on replacing your plane blades based on direct personal experience.

Not wanting to outright poo-po the idea (I love experiments), I'm just setting the record straight. I would still like to participate and try out a couple of blades.

Sorry Bobl I did mean to misquote you, I got excited as I was typing. So let me state the case for S390. My case is based on the data sheet and talking with Warren Spencer. Going on this information, I think its reasonable to conclude that S390 would give us a blade that is able to take a very fine and sharp edge in comparison to M2. Since M2 was never intended to take a sharp edge, but rather to be used at high temperatures. S390 was designed for a finer sharper edge thanks to the powdered metallurgy process.

In terms of abrasion resistance S390 is as good as M2 (see chart below) and in all likelihood would out perform M2 because S390 is almost twice as chip resistant (see chart below). Since "fatigue damage is usually what limits the life of tools and fractured carbides apparently play an important role in the damage process of crack initiation and propagation". It is because of these factors that I feel that S390 would give a better blade in comparison to a blade made from A2, D2, or M2.

S390 has another positive feature in that it has a higher level of grindability. Grindability relates to how easy it is to sharpen, since the hard vanadium carbides are much harder then aluminum oxide the larger these hard vanadium carbides are the harder the plane blade will be to sharpen. This is a very common complaint of HSS. However due to the powdered metallurgy process that S390 undergoes the vanadium carbides are much smaller making it much easier to sharpen.

Here is a nice intro to grindability.

I am a pessimistic bastard, however I see S390 as getting a closer to the holly grail for woodworking cutting tools. S390 should deliver faster and easier sharpening with a sweeter edge so much loved in steels like O1, with the abrasive and heat resistance of HSS without the drawbacks traditionally associated with HSS.

However this is an experiment as Bob points out. At the very worst we will get a durable blade that takes a nice edge for less the $20, so it is not that bad after all. I however expect much more. I am willing to say this because, Bohler makes really high quality steel and they have they an extremely good name for doing so, so we can depend on them to supply us with the best there is. In regards to the heat treatment Oppy has done an excellent job for us in the last two batches, and they know what they are doing and they do it well. To be honest my biggest concern is getting the centre slot and keyhole the right sizes. This is were we need to pool our dial calipers.

In the end if people want to play it safe then we can use D2 or M2, without any problem, it will be cheaper and safer option, but we will be aiming lower, and ultimately we would be settling for less. I suggest everyone read the data sheet and make up their own minds.

Having said all this; we are not the first to try S390 in a cutting tool. S390 is a well established in industry were it is used in applications like shaper cutters and punches, milling cutters, broaching tools, taps, reamers and bimetal strips for saw blades. Their is no reason to assume that S390 will not work just as well for plane blades as it does for hundreds of other cutting tools used in industry everyday.

Here is a chart which compares specific metals, S700 is Bohlers code for M2.

Attachment 87217

This image compares the grain of S390 versus more conventional cast steel. Note how small and even the speaks are in S390 in comparison. This is why S390 will take a finer edge and will easier to sharpen then M2 and D2.

Attachment 87218

switt775 thanks for the spreadsheet. Woodwould will find it invaluable. The dimensions are all over the place. However it also means that we have some leeway in how we get these blades cut out.

switt775 have you tried swapping blades between different era plane bodies? Do they fit and does the adjuster still work when the slot and keyhole size and location is different.

We have around 85 Stanley Replacement Blades allocated, this means we have filled one sheet, at this point. One sheet to go.

Tempering

The data sheet for S390 states that it can between Tempered to 66 - 69 HRC.

It maximum Toughness is at 66 rc after which point its Toughness starts to decline.

It would seem that we would like to have the steel as tough as possible and less prone to fracturing and therefore we should limit the HRC to 66.

Any thoughts?

Attachment 87219

Googling S390 came across this -

The HSS sawblades are supplied as standard in high speed steel grade M2 = DIN 1.3343, but can also be delivered in cobalt-alloyed steel grades, such as M35 = DIN 1.3243 and S390 Powder Metallurgy Steel. These blades are specifically suited for use in manual, semi-automatic and fully-automatic sawing operations. All blades are hardened to 64/65 RC, triple tempered and press quenched.

Interesting that RC is 64/65.

Found this on a site dealing with Automative Broaching tools:

ASP30 / S390 These materials are sintered versions of M42 material and have the same properties as ASP23 / S690 but because of the metallurgical build-up this material has the following:
Advantages - Best performance of all other material listed. Can be titanium coated which will give a further improvement in broach life.
Disadvantages - Most Expensive sintered material listed and limited availability.

other material listed were M2, T1, M35, M42, and ASP23 / S690.

Source

Originally Posted by thumbsucker

• dynoforce:
  
  • No. 4 @ (2" wide)
  • No. 4 @ (2" wide)
  • No. 4 @ (2" wide)

G'day TS,





I would like to get the following,

• dynoforce
  
  • No. 4 @ (2" wide)
  • No. 4 @ (2" wide)
  • No. 4 @ (2" wide)
  • Iron cap for no. 4
  • Iron cap for no. 4
  • 50 x 4 x 100 mm for HNT Jack
  • 50 x 6 x 100 mm for HNT Trying/Smoother
  • 50 x 6 x 100 mm for HNT Trying/Smoother

Highly appreciate another great effort by you.

At last a Christmas gift I can really use. SWEET

Cheers mate

GUNN

Originally Posted by SilverSniper

I took some measurements for a Hock 2 3/8" blade.

What is the angle of the bevel on the chip breaker?
What are the dimensions to the screw?

Found a good picture of a hock chip breaker:

Hi Thumbsucker

Originally Posted by thumbsucker

Here is a list of the most common commercial thicknesses:

• M2 - Acadamy Saw Blades Replacement Plane Irons are 3 mm thick
• D2 - Ray Iles D2 Replacement Plane Irons are 0.2921 mm (0.115") thick
• A2 - Lie-Nielsen A2 Replacement Plane Irons are 0.2413 mm (.095") thick
• A2 - Clifton Replacement Plane Irons are 0.3048 mm (0.12") thick
• A2 - Hock Tools Replacement Plane Irons are 0.238125 mm (0.09375") thick and 7" long.

Actually the Cliftons are O1 steel (forged)



I've read what BobL has to say, and I'm still in. I realise this is an experiment and I figure that, at worse, I've still got irons better than modern Stanley, and if all goes well I'll have some bloody excellent irons.

IMHO stick with S390 and go for 66rc (maximum toughness)..

I've measured 5 irons (3x Stanley & 2x Record)

• Total Blade Length max. 191mm (others were used) - I suggest go for maximum
• Total Blade Width 3@ 50.8 (2"), 1@ 50.65, 1@ 50.45mm - I suggest 2" (50.8mm)
• Length of the vertical slot (including keyhole) 1@ 117.7; 2@ 117.3; 2@ 116.8mm
• Diameter of the keyhole 17.75 max 17.25 min mm
• The distance from the cutting edge to the bottom edge of the keyhole 55.2mm max.
• The distance from the top end of the blade to the top edge of the vertical slot 3@ 19.0mm (Stanleys); 2@ 17.2mm (Records)

Originally Posted by thumbsucker

Vann

• No. 4 @ (2" wide) - No cap irons (chipbreakers)
• No. 7 @ (2 3/8" wide) - No cap irons (chipbreakers)

.

Confirmed,

While they're being laser cut we (you) should add a logo cut into the top of the iron - maybe a thumb

Cheers, Vann.

Originally Posted by Vann

go for 66rc (maximum toughness)

I think a max RC of 66 would be advised.

Since any more would make the blade more brittle. The higher we drive the RC the less flexible the metal becomes and the more prone to chipping it will be. This will lead to carbides / chips breaking away at the edge faster and causing the blade to become blunter faster.

Sometimes the steel is so tough that it become brittle and if you were to drop it on the floor, it would shatter like glass. - I have done that once with O1 that I heat treating myself it broke into three parts, when I put it down hard.

By reducing the RC a little, the steel has more give.

Thanks for the measurements.

I have compiled all measurements into a single spreadsheet.

Attachment 87227

• Total Blade Length 160 mm to 196 mm (Longer would be better)
• Length of the vertical slot (including keyhole) 101 mm to 119 mm with an 116 mm average
• Diameter of the keyhole 17.5 mm average
• The distance from the cutting edge to the bottom edge of the keyhole 15 mm to 55 mm (Longer would be better)
• The distance from the top end of the blade to the top edge of the vertical slot 20 mm average

Mic-d PM'ed me this info:

Here's a post showing how critical the chipbreaker yoke hole is. Of course when you think about it, the holes in the blade are just to allow clearance for screws and the yoke. But the dimension of the chipbreaker yoke hole determines backlash and its posiition relative to the bottom of the chipbreaker is critical because it sets the 'throw' of the edge of the blade iron. Too long by even a small amount and the blade will not retract fully into the mouth.
https://www.woodworkforums.com/showth...n+retract+yoke

It points to the importance of getting the chip breaker and the blade just right, otherwise no mater how good the blade is it would be useless if you could not adjust it.

There are some obvious variations between the dimensions of supposedly identical blades in the above list. Are you happy for me to take dimensions from new-in-the-packet Hock No.4 and No.5 blades?

Originally Posted by Woodwould

There are some obvious variations between the dimensions of supposedly identical blades in the above list. Are you happy for me to take dimensions from new-in-the-packet Hock No.4 and No.5 blades?

Hi Wouldwood,

I don't think the diameter of the keyhole or the length of the slot are particularly important as long as there is clearance from the yoke and from the mounting screw in the fully retracted position. The most critical aspect is the position and dimension of the yoke hole in the cap iron. Helmut may have already forwarded you my pm.
I can send you the measurements for #3-#6 from the mouth to the bottom of the mounting screw (and the diameter of the head) and to the yoke in the highest position. This will give you the minimum dimensions that must be cleared, then you can just choose someones measurements that clear these.
Cheers
Michael

Cheers

Originally Posted by mic-d

I can send you the measurements for #3-#6 from the mouth to the bottom of the mounting screw (and the diameter of the head) and to the yoke in the highest position. This will give you the minimum dimensions that must be cleared, then you can just choose someones measurements that clear these.

Please post in thread as it would be most helpful. Then woodwould can incorporate them into the CAD file.

Originally Posted by thumbsucker

Woodwould I see no problem with copying brand new hock blade measurements verbatim. Then use the dimension provided by SilverSniper for the hock chipbreaker.

Sorry, I should have mentioned I have the Hock chipbreaker too.

Originally Posted by Woodwould

Sorry, I should have mentioned I have the Hock chipbreaker too.

Cool

Start your photocopiers