# Aftermarket plane irons and breakers, opinions?



## Visions

I'm looking for some general opinions about the different makers of aftermarket plane irons and breakers.

I'm thinking I may upgrade the irons in a few of my planes that I really like, and I'd like to hear what you all think about the different models offered by different makers.

I've used a few, but in reality my experience is still very limited. I would imagine there are some on here who have tried nearly every manufacturers irons and have a lot more experience with replacement irons than I.

In order of interest, these are the planes I'm considering upgrading:
Stanley #32 transitional (don't knock the half and half planes, I love my #32!)
Stanley #4 (or Millers Falls #9)
Stanley #5
Stanley #9-1/2 block plane

None of these planes are collectors items or valuable (except to me), so I don't mind opening mouths for thicker blades, etc.

Thanks for any help or input you can provide.


----------



## BrandonW

I've used Lie-Nielsen irons in my Stanley #4 and my Keen Kutter #5. They work very well and offer a huge improvement over the thinner (and often pitted) original irons.

I have a Hock in my #12 scraper plane, but haven't used it much. Hock irons have a great reputation, but they're a little too square at the top for my taste. Pitiful reason to not like them, I know.

IBC / Rob Cosman blades are getting really good reviews. I'm sure the Dude will chime in and try to sell you some.

I've also heard great things about Veritas aftermarket irons. I know Chris Schwarz has a Veritas blade and chipbreaker in his Stanley 5 type 11.

Clifton's are also probably very good, but they sure are expensive. Around 80 bucks or so for an iron.

Really, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the ones I mentioned. They all use quality steel and are substantially thicker than the old irons. I usually look for which ones have the best deal going on. I do know that Woodcraft has some IBC blades on sale now, so you may be interested in that.


----------



## bluekingfisher

Can't help you much on this one Kenny, I have about six planes, (just Stanleys) including a couple of jointer planes, a jack plane, rebate plane a No5 and a 4 1/2 and a couple of smaller block planes.

It was always my intention to get into hand tool work but as yet haven't got around top it. Most of my are all pre/post WWII when the steel used was still pretty good so have served me well for the rough work I need them for.


----------



## Dcase

May I ask why you are considering replacement irons? Is it because the irons you have now are in bad shape or are you looking for improvement with performance?

My personal opinion and advice would be if your going to buy a premium iron/breaker set then get it for your #4. You will notice the upgrade/improvement the most in your smoothing plane. I would start with that one and if you think your others would benefit then you could go back and get new irons for those as well.

As for what brand… I have both Pinnacle and Hock irons and I am very happy with both. I think they are all going to be about the same performance wise, the real results will be based on your sharpening skills.

Oh and I love my #32 also, its my favorite of my trans planes. If you do get an iron for that one I would get the Pinnacle replacement through Woodcraft. It takes the Stanley #8 sized iron and they are on sale all year through Woodcraft online. I think the #8 sized iron is like 35 dollars. I wouldn't worry about getting new chip breaker with that plane. The old one will work with the new blade.


----------



## ChristianCastillo

Stu of Toolsfromjapan.com, has begun carrying Tsunesaburo Blue Steel plane irons for various models of western hand planes. Blue Steel is steel widely used in Japanese tools, and it is priced very economically to compete with offerings from many of the aforementioned domestic plane blade suppliers, just something to think about. Brent Beach, on his sharpening website, did a test among various plane blades, and without taking powdered metals and high speed steel into consideration, he said that the Tsunesaburo blue steel plane had the best edge retention among the high carbon steels.

Just something to think about.


----------



## Visions

Thanks for the advice.

Some I want to replace as they are in rough shape (#32 and #5), others as I'm looking for an upgrade of sorts. I also want a straight iron for my #5 so I can hone an aggressive radius on the stock cutter.

As well, I use my planes a lot, and I'd like to see about better edge retention on some of them. I do have an aftermarket iron or two (IBC and Lie-Nielsen), and I've been impressed with both. I also have some Hock irons for wooden planes that I haven't made yet, so while I know they take a good edge, I haven't used them at all.

Thanks


----------



## Dcase

Kenny, if the iron in your 32 is rough then I would really consider that deal Woodcraft has on the Pinnacle replacement. I have one of the Pinnacles that size in my #8 and I have been really happy with it. I have thought about getting another one for my 32 because the iron in my 32 is also pretty rough.

I would also suggest buying another #5 so that way you can keep them set and not have to swap irons back and forth. You can get a decent Stanley jack plane for less then 20 dollars. Its a good excuse to buy another plane


----------



## Visions

Thanks Dan, I'm going to look into the Pinnacle at WoodCraft, though I'll need the breaker too. I just checked it to be sure, and it is the plane that has a corner chipped/rusted off the breaker. It's not a big chip (quite small actually), but since I really like the plane and I use it a lot, making it right is probably best.

As for the #5, it is my second #5! I bought it to have a straight-blade #5 (my Dunlap has an 8" radius on the blade), and the blade was just crap when it arrived (pitted under the breaker). But, I got it on Ebay in a lot of 5 planes that I got for an absolute steal ($12+shipping), so I can't complain.

I do have a another #4 that has a good iron though, and the plane isn't really worth restoring (Stanley Defiance), so maybe I'll rob it's cutter for a straight cutter?


----------



## bondogaposis

I have been putting Hock irons and caps in all of my Stanley planes w/ very good results. So far I have put them in my #7, #5 and #60 1/2 block and #80 scraper. I still need to get them for my #3 & #4 1/2. but I can interchange the #7 w/ the #4 1/2 when I need to. The Hock irons are thicker this helps w/ chatter and the steel comes in choice of high carbon or cryo A2. Sometimes you will need to open the throat to accommodate the thicker irons. A few swipes w/ a file is sufficient on most planes to give the needed chip clearance. On my #5, I took the old iron and ground an 8" radius into the iron and use it for hogging off big chips for leveling panel glue ups. I can switch easily between the radius-ed iron and the straight iron and that is pretty convenient. Here is a link to Hock.


----------



## Visions

On a separate note, has anyone ever tried the Buck Bros. replacement blades they sell at Home Depot? 
HERE

NO, not for a "good" iron, I'm thinking it may be OK for a steep radius scrub plane iron or something? I know they don't need to get super sharp in a scrub plane.

I know I've heard some guys have made wooden planes using Buck cutters, and have had decent results. So I'm think it may be OK for a roughing plane? And really, if it sucks, I'm out a whole $3, no big deal.

Any thoughts?


----------



## bandit571

I have a Buck Brothers iron in my Great Neck #1( same size as a Stanley #4) I had to flatten the back a little, otherwise, worked right "out of the box". It is too wide for my #3 Defiance, though one could slim it down to fit. Their "block plane' irons are the ones with notches in them. My #110 needs a plain iron. A little work, and that $3 iron can make some nice shavings.


----------



## Dcase

Kenny, I have several Buck Bros irons and they work just fine. They will require some time to lap the back flat but for 3 dollars you cant complain.

Most any iron can be a good iron the key is in the sharpening.

With those rusted irons that are pitted you can usually clear that up by flattening the back on a coarse sandpaper. I have have salvaged some badly pitted irons and turned them into great users. Its a heck of a lot of work but if your money tight like me you might be up for it.

If your looking to put a new iron and chip breaker in your #32 then it would make more sense to buy as a set.


----------



## DocBailey

+1 on finding the Hock blade shape less-than-pleasing (re: Brandon)

+1 on Dan's comment re equipping the smoother (though I'd point out that the inadequate length of lever cap on nearly all Stanley block planes means that you'll see quite an improvement in that 9 1/2)

Lastly, since you're not worried about opening up the mouth, consider a Lie-Nielsen replacement for Stanley-a bit thicker (I think) than even than *my all-time-favorite replacement irons, which is the Lee Valley iron and chipbreaker setup*-an incredible deal.


----------



## Marlow

+1 on the Lee Valley recommendation: they are dead flat and polished on the back, beyond any I've seen. I would also recommend the LN: how could you go wrong with a LN iron (or product for that matter)?


----------



## Straightbowed

yes the IBC is a rigid iron the combo is best, no chatter what soever and its massive but my old sweetheart still planes better


----------



## paratrooper34

I have two aftermarket blades: one is a Veritas blade for my Record T-5 and a Hock blade for my Stanley spokeshave. I have a whole of lot of planes and everyone but the two I just mentioned, use their original blades. I have both metal bodied planes sporting their thinner blades and old school wood bodied planes with very thick blades. I have also used LN and Veritas planes, so I am familiar with their products also. My experience has shown that as long as I properly tune the plane, the blade (also properly tuned) will do its job as it was intended to do. So why would I bother getting aftermarket blades? I replaced the T-5's original blade with a Veritas A2 blades because the plane is for shooting board use. Having the harder metaled blade is a big improvement due to the abuse that blade takes in that role. The other one, the Hock blade in the spokeshave I bought because I wanted to try an aftermarket blade. Does it work better than the one it came with? No, it doesn't. Both those blades I bought, however, are quality blades. They required little tuning to get ready for use. I've read a particular user bash Hock products. My experience with them so far is excellent. Sure, their blade wasn't a marked improvement over the factory one, but it was still a very nice product and I would recommend them to anyone. Same with the Veritas blade.

Well, that's my two cents.


----------



## Visions

Paratrooper34,
It is my opinion that the type of woods you use most often, and also the level of performance you expect, has a lot to do with whether or not you will truly benefit from an aftermarket iron or iron and breaker combo. As well, the level of precision with which the parts fit together and how well the plane has been tuned overall will have some effect also.
Some are happy with a factory Stanley that has simply been cleaned, sole lightly lapped and the iron well sharpened. And depending on how you use the plane and the type of woods you build with, it may well be all you'll need. 
Others however, find it necessary to go all out and lap or have machined all relevant surfaces and contact points, and can usually notice a difference between these highly tuned planes and those that are not.

Myself, I am closer to the second instance than the first. My planes are all well tuned and some have had my father (who is an experienced machinist) go through them and rework them to achieve a high precision fit and finish.

My planes do work very well. But there are some instances where I feel they could do even better. The only way I see that I can readily improve them at this point is with an aftermarket iron or iron and breaker combo.

My previous experience with upgraded irons tells me it will be the best way to get the improved performance I desire.

This thread was started to gather information about which irons and breakers are "best" or which is generally preferred. From the looks though, it's hard to pick a lemon in a field of peaches!

Thanks for all the help, I'll keep you posted.


----------



## OSU55

Longer edge life is the only improvement I've observed from aftermarket irons or chip breakers. Any chatter or other misbehavior one gets from the standard Stanley irons and chip breakers is usually due to edge sharpness, but can also be incorrect adjustments or poor fits of components, which aftermarket iron/breakers won't fix.

For me two areas of step function (dramatic) improvement came from 1) learning how to get a truly razor sharp and smooth, straight edge, which extended edge life, and 2) understanding the role of the chip breaker fully, which provided dramatic improvement in tearout performance.

These two things demonstrated for me that aftermarket irns/breakers are unnecessary. I keep a stock of cheap factory Stanley blades that I cycle through. I don't have to sharpen during a project, I install a freshly sharpened blade/breaker combo. 2 or 3 factory Stanley blades can be purchased for the price of aftermarket.

For sharpening, do a search for Brent Beach sharpening - he provides very objective and thorough explanation, testing, and methods for honing excellent edges.

For chip breakers/cap irons, search for Kato and Kawai cap iron test. A 70°-80° bevel on the breakers works wonders for tearout reduction.


----------



## sikrap

I have a few Hock irons and I like them, but I don't think they're so much better that I would just toss my original irons for them. As I need to replace irons, I've bought a few Hock irons, but the ones I'm gonna be buying now are the LV PM-V11's. They sharpen easily and hold an edge for quite a while. Just my $.02


----------



## TerryDowning

Another vote for the Buck Bros at the Big orange box. Working just fine in my Jack and smooth planes. Can't be beat for the price.


----------



## JohnChung

I upgraded my Stanley #4 breaker to the Verita's breaker. It was a *definite* improvement as the breaker did not bend when it was tighten. I was able to great a very small gap between the breaker and the blade compared to the Stanley breaker as I wanted to get fine shavings.


----------



## donwilwol

I agree with Mike. If a replacement cutter improves performance it's masking a problem with the plane. I'm not against anyone spending their money on after market irons, we all have our idiosyncracies. I also accept it as a reason to not fully tune. But the bottom line is, a vintage can work just as well.

Edit: I have bought one Hock. It works well, but I replaced it with a vintage of the right type. The Hock is hanging on the wall waiting for the next vintage just to pitted to sharpen.


----------



## lateralus819

To add to a "stock" iron. I just tuned up a bedrock 608. I sharpened it, and to my surprise, could actually joint end grain. I couldn't believe the shavings coming off the end grain. It's tough to push, and you need good downward force, but man it cuts extremely well.


----------



## djang000

Hey guys

I realize this post is probably dead but I have a question regarding this. I bought a #4 (Type 9) with a Sargent iron that has been destroyed by its previous owner (he was using an handheld grinder to sharpen it).

I ordered a LV iron + chipbreaker, only to realize yesterday night that it doesn't fit. Looks like I would need to open the mouth of probably a good 1/16 in order to have the blade protruding without touching that sole. Am I crazy or this is the only solution? I'm a bit hesitant doing so; any advice so I don't hand up banging my head on the brick wall for ever after realizing I destroyed it? 

thanks
sam


----------



## donwilwol

I've not had an LV iron, but first thought would be if the frog is all the way back, and the iron is thicker than the stock, you may have to widen the mouth.

I've replaced a few with Hock irons and haven't had to widen anything, but the LV may be thicker.


----------



## djang000

Hey Don

If i move the frog all the way back, I have the iron pressed on the bed/back of the mouth of the plane… Not sure if it makes sense?

So I was thinking that it would be that part that I would need to be filing first?


----------



## donwilwol

I certainly wouldn't file the back. I actually found a Bailey #5 1\2 that I had to file to get the stock cutter to work. It was obvious it had never been used.

Keep in mind, onced filed, you never get to go back to stock. Its not a suggestion either way, just a statement of fact.


----------



## djang000

I know but I won't ever be able to go back to stock; that iron is in too bad of a shape to be salvaged. I could off course find another vintage iron, but I don't see much of a point here since I already spent for that LV blade…

Just curious why you wouldn't file the back? I was thinking that doing so would allow me to back the frog while keeping the front of the mouth intact if so some weird reason one day I was to go back to an original iron?


----------



## donwilwol

I guess you could, but make sure you don't go beyond the frog. when the frog is back, your cutter should rest on the mouth. And make sure you maintain the correct 45 degree angle.


----------



## Ocelot

I'll keep this in mind before ordering a LV iron!

Measure twice, order once!

-Paul


----------



## djang000

@Don : No exactly; tthat was my intend; move the frog 1/16 back, file the bed of the plane parallel to the frog so it matches perfectly and then debur the sole of the plane. It's anyway unclear to me why you can back the frog but then have the bed and mouth of the plane in the way ?!?

@Paul : Well, I don't think that the LV iron is the culprit. Probably more of a problem with my plane; in the early 1900, I don't imagine stanley having CNC to help them achieve a perfect tolerance like LN or LV today… So I'm guessing that I'm just bad-lucked in this situation and that I would probably face the same prob with a LN or Hock blade. I could off course send them back free of charge, having some PMV-11 irons already at home and seeing the quality of the chipbreaker, I have no intend at all to do so!


----------



## donwilwol

Its also possible the frog is not original.


----------



## djang000

Possible. But I do have another #4, same type; same issue. Now that I think about it, I have pretty much the same situation with my #3 as well. Don; you had in your hand way more planes that I could ever dream of having; have you ever noticed this?

Anyhow; I filed out the back of the mouth yesterday night will trying to keep the 45degree angle of the bed. I actually backed the frog of 1/16 and used it as a guide to file the bed. A 10 minutes job, but I had to screw it of course. Didn't pay extra attention to the frog so once filed, the mouth wasn't perfectly square. Decided to fix it so I had to file a tad more than what I wanted. As a result, the mouth is a bit more open that what I wanted (i would say 1/32 maybe that what I had in mind). So no big drama.

Doing it again, I think I would go for the front of the mouth as you advised yesterday. I think it would be easier to remove 1/32 at a time since you don't need to file the bed so less metal to remove before testing. And my previous thinking of "by filing the back, I can move the frog to the front again to put a thinner iron" isn't that clever, since if I'm doing it, the most crucial portion of the iron wouldn't be back the the bed, so I'm guessing it would shatter and be even worse than just having a mouth too wide? Something to test tonight I guess.

Anyway, lesson learned and the plane is making lovely bible-paper-thin shavings now!


----------

