Fettling V cutter on Stanley 71 Router Plane

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

j.ferguson415

Member
Joined
9 Dec 2013
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Location
Royston
Hello,

I have recently got a secondhand router plane that I want to get going. It came with a V cutter, the type that screws into the post, and this seems like it needs a bit of work. When I put the v cutter in the plane and look at it from the front the right hand side is higher than the left so when the cutter is dropped it only cuts on the left hand side. This seems to be cause by the grooved section that beds with the post not being flat, on the right hand side the grooved section is recessed by ~0.5mm but on the left hand side there is no recess and the grooved section is flush with the top of the cutter.

I am planning on trying to get in so it sits flat. I guess I could either file down the grooved section (but would I need to refile the grooves?) or I could use Wet & Dry on float glass and put pressure on one side to try and get it sitting flat (but there is a fiar amount to take off).

I wondered if anyone had any advice on how to get the cutter sitting flat or do you think it is fine as it is?

Thanks

John
 
Welcome to the forum and thanks for this post which has caused me to think, (and apologies in advance to all those who already know all this!)

I Have had a Stanley 71 for over 30 years and in common with a lot of router users, it's a tool that is used infrequently, but when it is used it is always with the same cutter, so I have two others still sitting in the box.

I don’t think that I have ever used the Vee shaped cutter, but your post prompted me to take mine apart by undoing the screw and I noticed something that is new to me.

Normally, Stanley / Record No: 71 type router cutters are shaped like a leg and foot and when the cutting edge is presented to the work, the ‘sole’ of the foot is raised so that only the ‘toe’ or sharpened edge is in contact with the wood. With straight cutters, it’s important to sharpen so that the edge is presented in the same plane as the sole of the plane to avoid ridges.

The Vee cutter on mine, I just noticed, is different. In its normal position – as supplied – it is presented in the clamping post as above, with the ‘sole’ raised off the work.
I have never had the need to take it apart before……. But……

If the screw is removed, I noticed that the hole is offset from the centre of the post and the serrations that match those on the cutter section run from side to side. If the blade is then turned 180 degrees and reassembled, the ‘sole’ section is now flat on the work. This means that the serrated part of the post end is at an angle.
So, it may be worth checking the presentation of the cutting edge in both configurations.

Looking again at my plane, the Vee shape of the cuter is unaltered from new and the two sides and point are is symmetrical in shape to the section of the post, so it may be worth looking at this set of angles on the cutter to see if they have been altered. But it follows that if the cutting blade is mounted with the sole flat and in the same plane as the sole, then the sides should be in equal contact, whatever their shape. If it is mounted in the raised configuration, then only the point is in contact with the work.

So, this Vee cutter is configurable in two ways - raised sole and flat. Nothing about it that I recall in the manuals.......

I hope that this makes sense, but the first thing I reckon is to look at all the configurations carefully before committing to irreversible grinding and filing!

Hope that this helps and good luck.
 
Well, that's intriguing. Like Argus I've owned a Stanley 71 for years but never looked closely at the V cutter or dismantled it.

On mine, there is only one way to assemble it which would work. The end of the post, and therefore the sole of the cutter, are not at 90° to vertical but at about 92.5° so the tip of the cutter is in contact with the wood but not the whole of the sole. If I put it together backwards the cutter would be sloping up, is with the tip higher than the rest.

Also, by eye, the right hand cutting edge looks to be a smidgen lower than the left when it's assembled. I'm not going to mess with it, as it works!

In case it helps, mine has inch markings on the post, which are on the rear left hand side when in use, assuming that you are pushing the tool away from you. And as Argus says, the hole in the post is offset, so the bits only line up tidily if they are the right way round.
 
As Andy said, but I wasn't sure if there is a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way, or two ways of mounting the cutter.

On mine the cutter can be assembled in either position. The difference is that in position two, I loose the couple of degrees offset so that if I mount the blade this way, the 'sole of the cutter is square on the stock I'm open to suggestions if that brings any benefit - however, there is a small amount of blade sticking out at the 'heel' end, but it doesn't get up to mischief.

As I said, I've never used it in anger, but let's see how the discussion progresses.
 
Good call!

As you both said the post isn't square with the grooved base. If I turn mine around there is a small amount of overhang at the back which doesn't cause a problem (although it is close!). What seems to be different is that when it is turned 180 degrees the grooved portion on the post doesn't mate properly with the grooved section on the iron and instead is caught up on the lip/ top of cutter, and this has solved the problem! On mine the top of the cutter is parallel with the bottom when viewed from the back /front but the grooved section isn't and is at an angle which was causing the problem. When the post is caught up on the top of the cutter it holds it so it is almost square. A quick shim with a bit of cardboard seems to have solved it completely and it now cuts like a dream, better than the square cutters (which may need some work.....). I think if it hadn't got caught up then it would have held the cutter so it was near parallel with the bottom of the sole.

Thanks both for your help

John
 
Back
Top