Hi, all. Hoping you can give me some insight on tuning this Stanley #4. From everything I've seen and read, I believe the mouth is supposed be really tight. On this one (my first plane) I have the frog all the way forward, but with the blade set at the correct depth to get a nice, thin shaving, the mouth seems awfully wide open. Am I setting something incorrectly or is there a problem with the plane? I'm happy with the performance, but I don't know what a perfectly tuned plane feels like.
From the shape of the frog and if that is Maroon than it probably isn't anything you are doing wrong. That would make it a much newer model and as such was starting the downhill slide in quality. It probably had a larger mouth new in the box.
B) Tight mouth is overrated-they are nice, but not completely necessary except on a few occasions with very tear-out prone wood. A truly sharp iron with a correctly mated and set chipbreaker will do wonders, even with an open mouth.
kss, yes, the shavings are full width and thin-now that I've learned how to sharpen. Interestingly, my No. 5, which I bought just after this one and should have a wide open mouth, has a super tight mouth. I had to set the frog back just to get the blade to protrude. Here's the frog on the 5.
If your frog already is all the way forward, there is nothing you can do.
Or, if you do not mind modifying your plane, may be elongate the holes in the frog so that would move the frog forward a little more.
Another solution , go buy a wood-river plane, the price is very reasonable and they are excellent plane.
Wood rivers are sold by woodcraft.
About the only want to tighten the mouth is buy a thicker aftermarket iron, but as already stated, if its not broke, don't fix it. It should work as is. Keep the cutter sharp and the chip breaker close.
Hard to tell but from the looks of the picture there's paint where the blade contacts the frog. Look at your #5 and there isn't any. That should be a perfectly flat surface to best support the blade. If your blade is sharp and you can't get the plane to cut well, I think I'd start by rubbing that frog over some sandpaper glued down to a flat surface like a jointer table. You'll have to work around the little nub that adjusts the blade and the rivet on the lateral adjuster, but just taking down any nubs or high spots in the paint could help.
If it is working and giving you good, clean shavings, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I am with JayT when he says that the interaction between the chipbreaker and iron are much more important than the mouth opening. I have noticed a significant difference in performance when I vary the chipbreaker tip location. I haven't noticed much based on the mouth opening
Really appreciate the posts. I think I'll stick with the general consensus and be happy with the fact that it performs well. Doc, you're right: I have it set like image a. And Bert, I have my eye on a couple of Wood Rivers.
Don't want to beat this to death, but if yours is set like figure A, yet you could move it forward, it is fine to do so.
The bevel is not supported on a bevel down plane.
Doc has it right, and that's what the pictures show: the frog is not as far as forward as it could go for a tighter mouth. The name for the color I've seen is cordovan. My dad's smoother is the same make / model, and is a solid performer. The last USA-made bench plane line was this color, and is not typed specifically in any of the studies I've found.
.
.
.
They get no respect at all, I tell ya.
All the bench planes I've rehabbed, I start them out as in Photo "A", then go from there IF needed. Most don't, and they work just fine. I do find that the more like Photo "B" I get, chatter starts to show up. Atleast on the "Non-Premium" planes.
I think I MIGHT have one of them Cordovan 9-1/2 block planes, sitting around…...
Hope that solves it for you Steve. I admit, I don't close the mouths as tightly on my vintage plane. The machining tolerances are as tight, but they still get decent results.
Getting the sole flat is imo far more important than the mouth opening. You may already have a mouth opening wide enough for a thicker modern blade. I like the steel in older Stanley blades. Back in the twentys and early thirtys they were laminated blades with Sheffield steel on the cutting edge. Even then a thicker quality modern A2 is still an improvement. As has already been pointed out, yours is a later model made during Stanley's long slide to oblivion. Flatten the sole, put in a good thick modern blade (you may in fact have to widen the mouth - easy see Rob Cosman video) and you will be in business. But hey, if works as it is you could just use it.
There was a V2 version out, stay away from those.. This was with some Cherry scrap. The one I got had the wrong chipbreaker, so, WR sent out a better one, plane and all. Even provided a way to send to "bad" plane back, ON THEIR DIME no less. I have the mouth set vvery tight, as this is the final smoother plane. Better than a sander.
Perfect advice doc! Gossamer shavings now. Soles on the 4 and 5 are both flat and everything else seems fine. Just grabbed a nice looking 60 1/2 on eBay for $30… I'll let you guys know how that one turns out! I've got dreams of LNs but these old guys will have to do me for now.
I'm sure they are decent planes. I just can't support Chinese imports when there are North American options that are competitive in price. But those are my ideals. I shouldn't press them on others.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
LumberJocks Woodworking Forum
2.5M posts
96K members
Since 2006
A forum community dedicated to professional woodworkers and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about shop safety, wood, carpentry, lumber, finishing, tools, machinery, woodworking related topics, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!