Fitting Lie Neilsen blade to my Record No.5

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

Chipmonk

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
England
I think it would be wise to diagnose your problem correctly before applying any remedy!

Typically, there are two problems that can arise when fitting 'modern', thicker blades in a Baily style plane. The first is the wrong distance from the toe end of the chipbreaker to the slot that engages the cam of the adjuster yoke. That has to be spot-on, even 1.5mm off optimal will cause trouble due to the limited arc of travel of the adjuster cam. If the distance is the same on your original CB & the new one, then the CB should not be the source of the problem.

The second common problem is that the cam can't reach far enough through the thicker blade to engage the slot in the chipbreaker properly. In extreme cases, it won't reach at all, but more commonly it just touches the edge at the full extent of its travel which isn't enough to get the blade extruded or retracted fully.

I'm somewhat confused by your various descriptions & terminologies, but it seems like you have the latter problem, or possibly a combination of both. A new yoke with a longer cam should be the solution in that case. Don't do anything to the bottom part of the yoke, i.e., the part that engages the thumbwheel, that will NOT be a cause of the problem unless someone fitted a weird yoke, which seems highly unlikely in a 1 yr old plane.

If you are fitting a thicker blade than original, you should be able to set the frog back, even to the point where the bevel of the sole is sitting a little proud of the frog. The thicker the blade, the further up the back of the blade the sharpening bevel goes, so the blade will clear the sole bevel even if it is jutting forward a bit. To what extent you can get away with this is subject to the vagaries of individual planes. Manufacturing tolerances have gone to hell in a handbasket since late last century, so I'd need to examine your particular plane before making any further judgements...

Cheers,
Ian

Yeah, I definitely have both problems. I've held up both my new LN and my new Hock CBs against the original Record and they are both 1.5-2mm closer away from the mouth end. Both my Stanley No.4 and Record No. 5 have the same distance, so LN and Hock are shorter (and shorter overall).

I've been playing with them for a while now and the mouth simply isn't big enough or the frog at the right angle to get it to work. If I move the frog back to accommodate it, the blade isn't supported. If I put it in the right position (there isn't really that much room for adjustment) then the blade touches the front of the mouth at the same time as it's starting to appear underneath (i.e. when it can cut). No room for shavings to get through, maybe for final finishes, perhaps.

Personally I suspect you will end up with a new LN blade & chip breaker and an unusable modern Record if you take a file and other tools to it to modify. I wouldn't be surprised that even if you manage to get it fitted, you will just find another reason why it's most probably a bad idea.

I'd sell the Record and get a better plane to start with. If you get one more likely to fit the LN blade then great, if not, sell the LN kit and get the alternative modern blades that will.

Yep, I'm tending to agree with you. Having examined in in good light, I can't shake the feeling that grinding the mouth won't be the end of my problems. It would be a shame to do all that work and end up with a limited range of usage. So...

Option 1: Use the longer lever and grind the mouth back 1-1.5mm and hope that's the end of it.
Option 2: Throw more money at it and get a better plane that take the LN 3mm.

I prefer option 2. This isn't isn't a bad plane, I'll just use it for less demanding work. Maybe I can find a decent 2mm A2 steel blade that fits it (it's Stanley-compatible, as far as I can tell).

It's not the blade ... it's the LN chipbreaker. The slot for the blade projection is further forward by 1/4". The LN chipbreaker will work will with LN planes, and all else is a lottery.

Try the original chipbbreaker with the blade.

I suspect that the blade is too thick anyway, even if you open the mouth - the yoke will be unlikely to reach through the slot to make adjustments. If so, get the Veritas replacement.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I tried the original CB with it, but while that looked OK, it had the same problem with the mouth being too narrow. The lever reaches better, but there's no room to adjust it to fit the mouth. I've gone back and forth with all combinations many times and it always comes down to the thicker blade hitting the front of the mouth or not being supported by the frog. I've tried sitting in back so the back mouth bevel isn't providing support, but adjusting down to cutting depth means there's a nasty gap behind the blade and it still doesn't have room for shavings to come through.

You have got 3 issues to consider
  • The bade is thicker so the yoke possibly wont be long enough to engage in the cap iron
  • the blade is thicker so the frog will have to move backwards. If it cant go further back you will have to file the front of teh mouth to open it uo
  • The new chip breaker may have the slot for the yoke to engage in the wrong place
I would try the new chip breaker with the old iron to see if the slot is in the right place. If it isnt then it wont work and you will need a different chip breaker, (If you try and file it you will end up with sloppy depth adjustment and loads of backlash)
Try the new blade with the old cap iron, this will show if the yoke will reach (if it doesnt you need a longer yoke) and if the frog can be adjusted to accomodate the thicker blade. I would try and steer away from filing the mouth.

I have a number of planes with different combinations
If you speak to workshop heaven they have number of options. I have found the quangsheng chip breakers work for me in record planes. I would also recommend the thin laminated Tsunesaburo blades as a direct replacement with no messing around
Ian

Yep, all true! Cheers for the tip on the CB filing. I can see how that would cause both.

Ah, I hadn't seen the Tsunesaburo blades, they look good. Thanks for that, seems like a great option. That is the one I'll get for the record, I think. I'll have to find a home for the LN blade now, though. Any suggestions for a plane that will take a LN 3mm with LN CB? That isn't >£300 :D
 

Chipmonk

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
England
I've seen a video on that. I should probably have a go at it while I save up for something that can handle it while also being adjustable.
 

IWW

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2017
Messages
331
Reaction score
245
Location
Brisbane
It's not the blade ... it's the LN chipbreaker. The slot for the blade projection is further forward by 1/4". The LN chipbreaker will work will with LN planes, and all else is a lottery.....

Derek, I suspected the LN chip-breaker was a bit different from the Stanley/Record "standard". I remember one of the Ubeaut forum members (Luke) had trouble with a LN CB years ago, but cannot remember the details, I think in his case he was trying to alter the toe angle & filed too much off it. As I said above, even 1.5mm off optimum position for the cam slot in the CB is a problem, so 6mm is totally out of the ball park. You will never get that CB to work satisfactorily in your Record whatever you do.

I'll add my voice to the others that have advised ditching the LN blade/CB combo & going for something you can drop in without further mucking around. I'd also echo shed9 & predict that even with a good blade & CB your plane may not live up to your expectations. It's possible to fettle most planes into reasonable working order if you have the experience & expertise, but the inexperienced can end up making the situation worse. Much worse, in fact, in my own early days I managed to turn a sow's ear of a plane into something that might have been produced at the other end of the pig!

Cheers,
 
Last edited:

IWW

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2017
Messages
331
Reaction score
245
Location
Brisbane
...... I should probably have a go at it while I save up for something that can handle it while also being adjustable. ....

They're ALL "adjustable", Chipmonk:
Adjuster hammer.jpg

With a little practice, the tippy-tap method can be at least as quick & accurate as using a screw adjuster. In fact, I can set the plane pictured far quicker than my Norris A5, which I find a bear of a thing to set.

However, I do remember thinking for a long time that a plane without a screw-type adjuster was a grossly inferior thing. I have a couple of Bailey planes that are my daily workhorses & I often want to change the set on the go with these so I appreciate their easy dial-up blade setting ability (which imo is vastly superior to the Norris mechanism, despite its cleverness). But for the "set & forget" planes like a fine smoother, I'm quite content with my little brass hammer.....

Go ahead & make a woody or even a metal-bodied plane for your LN blade set - even if it doesn't turn out a world-beater, the lessons you'll learn in the process will be invaluable.... :)

Cheers,
 

Alwyn

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2022
Messages
12
Reaction score
3
Location
Australia
Hi there, I'm wondering if anyone else has tried to do this?

I've got an Irwin Record No.5 jack plane (14" with 2" blade). It's a year old and dubious quality, but good enough for my needs, however, I'm already fed up of sharpening it. It seems to hold its edge for several hours (while I'm sleeping), but I'm making it my shooting board plane and it needs to be tip-top.

So.. I bought a Lie Neilsen blade and chip breaker, which arrived today. They are really nice bits of kit. I tried putting them into the Record and it doesn't fit. The LN seems shorter, so the Y-adjusting lever can't reach the adjusting nut (to stay on track and push it down). It's close, but it's not going to work.

I didn't expect this, but I should have done more research. I'm willing to do some modifications to make it work, but just wondering whether anyone has done similar and what they'd suggest?
Similar experience. Bought Veritas and a Hock for my Bailey no. 6- can't fit. The blade and chip breaker are so much thicker which I think is the problem. Can't get a Stanley blade so resorted to swapping blade from my 4 1/2 when I need to use it.
 

raffo

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2020
Messages
105
Reaction score
69
Location
Pennsylvania
Here's my Millers Falls no. 6 equivalent, with the 1/8" iron I made. You can see how much I had to move the frog and file the front of the mouth to allow for the shavings to pass. I didn't have to enlarge the mouth, though. I'm using the original chipbreaker. I can retract and advance the iron well enough to control the plane. It's set up to take fine shavings. If I were to move the chipbreaker up, I could move the frog a bit forward and still be able to get good shavings. There's a picture of an oem iron for comparison. Sounds like the LN chipbreaker is incompatible, so you'll have to make it work with the original one.

20220331_002228.jpg
20220331_002309.jpg
20220331_002922.jpg
20220331_003001.jpg
20220331_002745.jpg
20220331_003522.jpg
 

okeydokey

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
522
Reaction score
135
Location
West Sussex England
Different approaches
Buy an older Record No 5 (is a no 4 iron the same size) plane iron ebay for example the steel is allegedly better
or find a used tool shop they might let you swap a few irons around to see what works. Where in the country are you?
Could it be your sharpening angle is a bit wrong so the sharp edge wont hold an edge properly?
 

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
470
Location
Perth, Australia
Stanley, LN and Clifton chipbreakers. Note the relative position of the slots. The LN is 1/8" - 1/4" further back ...

More-About-Shooting-Planesand-Their-Blades-html-6fba3917-zpspxjbdvnq.jpg


UK-made Stanley #3 with Clifton blade. No mods to mouth. Works a treat!

Stanley-Clifton-zpsqyjdthwd.jpg


Regards from Perth

Derek
 

Chipmonk

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
England
Derek, I suspected the LN chip-breaker was a bit different from the Stanley/Record "standard". I remember one of the Ubeaut forum members (Luke) had trouble with a LN CB years ago, but cannot remember the details, I think in his case he was trying to alter the toe angle & filed too much off it. As I said above, even 1.5mm off optimum position for the cam slot in the CB is a problem, so 6mm is totally out of the ball park. You will never get that CB to work satisfactorily in your Record whatever you do.

I'll add my voice to the others that have advised ditching the LN blade/CB combo & going for something you can drop in without further mucking around. I'd also echo shed9 & predict that even with a good blade & CB your plane may not live up to your expectations. It's possible to fettle most planes into reasonable working order if you have the experience & expertise, but the inexperienced can end up making the situation worse. Much worse, in fact, in my own early days I managed to turn a sow's ear of a plane into something that might have been produced at the other end of the pig!

Cheers,
OK, cheers. I was hanging on to hope, but I can see that it's not going to work out. I'd like to use these LN parts in something, but I can't afford or get an LN here in the UK (no stock for a while now, it seems).

I've been looking at the Quangsheng planes, wondering if it would fit that as an upgrade or backup. It occurs to me that I've seen a plane with an adjustable mouth somewhere... maybe it's the low-angle ones, so they can be bevel-up or down...
 
Last edited:

Chipmonk

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
England
Here's my Millers Falls no. 6 equivalent, with the 1/8" iron I made. You can see how much I had to move the frog and file the front of the mouth to allow for the shavings to pass. I didn't have to enlarge the mouth, though. I'm using the original chipbreaker. I can retract and advance the iron well enough to control the plane. It's set up to take fine shavings. If I were to move the chipbreaker up, I could move the frog a bit forward and still be able to get good shavings. There's a picture of an oem iron for comparison. Sounds like the LN chipbreaker is incompatible, so you'll have to make it work with the original one.

View attachment 132802 View attachment 132810 View attachment 132804 View attachment 132805 View attachment 132806 View attachment 132807
Thanks for that, very interesting.

The CB is only a problem due to the length of the arms from the yoke/y-lever. The extra thickness doesn't seem to be an issue at all, but I'm not 100% sure. It all seems to be due to the mouth and angle of the blade tip being further forward. I've got a new, longer yoke coming, so I'll check that out. I'll post some pics when I do.
 

Chipmonk

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
England
Different approaches
Buy an older Record No 5 (is a no 4 iron the same size) plane iron ebay for example the steel is allegedly better
or find a used tool shop they might let you swap a few irons around to see what works. Where in the country are you?
Could it be your sharpening angle is a bit wrong so the sharp edge wont hold an edge properly?
I'm in Middlesbrough, NE. Looking at this: tsunesaburo-aogami-laminated-plane-blade-50mm-2in at the moment. It seems like a good bit of kit.
I'm using a honing guide and sticking with the original angle, but the poor quality steel seems to be a common issue with this plane. I've renovated 3 planes now and they cut really well, but this one is the cheapest and quickest to dull.
I think my main issue right now is figuring out how I can use this in an affordable plane (without building it, which I'd love to do at some point, but not right now).
 

Chipmonk

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
England
Stanley, LN and Clifton chipbreakers. Note the relative position of the slots. The LN is 1/8" - 1/4" further back ...

More-About-Shooting-Planesand-Their-Blades-html-6fba3917-zpspxjbdvnq.jpg


UK-made Stanley #3 with Clifton blade. No mods to mouth. Works a treat!

Stanley-Clifton-zpsqyjdthwd.jpg


Regards from Perth

Derek
But... how? That blade is even thicker than the LN, isn't it? I've tried mine on my Stanley No.4 and it has the same issue as the Record, in that it runs out of space in the mouth and touches the toe side of it when at cutting depth.

I will mention that the Stanley (1940s) feels like a much better plane overall and it *almost* works but clogs up the mouth after 2 or 3 passes.
 
Last edited:

IWW

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2017
Messages
331
Reaction score
245
Location
Brisbane
........The CB is only a problem due to the length of the arms from the yoke/y-lever. The extra thickness doesn't seem to be an issue at all, but I'm not 100% sure. It all seems to be due to the mouth and angle of the blade tip being further forward. I've got a new, longer yoke coming, so I'll check that out. I'll post some pics when I do. .....

Yes, but it isn't the length of the arms from the pivot-point to the thumbscrew that's an issue - they will be the same on your new yoke, or should be, or they won't engage the thumb-wheel properly.

Derek's picture clearly shows the source of the problem as far as the adjuster is concerned, the cam slot in the CB is too far back on a LN to suit Stanley/Record models. This means you run out of travel on the thumb-wheel stud before you can get the cam into position to properly engage the CB slot (it would also be at a weird angle & not work smoothly). That there LN chipbreaker will never work properly in your plane whatever you do, other than fill the existing slot with weld & cut a new one......

I'm surprised that you can't get the frog back far enough to give a workable mouth, LN blades aren't all that much thicker than any other after-market blade in my (limited) experience. I have never encountered a too-tight mouth in replacing blades in old planes, though I have read that others have, & don't doubt it happens. There is quite a bit of variation in mouth openings, so no surprise that some are smaller than others. Record must have tightened their tolerances a lot recently!

With thin original blades you need to have the frog and the sole aligned or nearly so, or the back of the blade bevel will rest on the sole and be lifted off the frog a little when you tighten the lever-cap down, which could lead to a chatterbox. But with thicker blades, the sharpening bevel goes higher up the back of the blade (assuming you are using the same grind angles), so the frog can be set a bit further back without the bevel fouling the sole. In any case, I am not so alarmed about taking a file to the front of your mouth if it really is necessary to accommodate the blade, it's not a highly precious artefact, and in any case, in 95% of situations a super-fine mouth is not all that important on bevel-down planes if the cap-iron (chipbreaker) is used to proper effect.

I've had a lot of different after-market blades in my time and they have all been "good" blades, whether from China, Europe, or North America in that they are generally tougher than older Stanley & Record irons. Unless you plan to plane lots of hard, abrasive exotics, and so long as you observe the manufacturers' recommendations for grind angles you should get excellent service out of any of the better-known brands on the typical woods from your part of the world.

And btw, the adjustable toes on bevel-up planes are not so you can turn the blade whichever way you choose! It's simple geometry- a 'typical' bed angle for a BU plane is ~18 degrees; the shallowest grind-angle for blades is ~25 degrees. If you insert the blade bevel-down, the back of the bevel will ride on the wood with the cutting edge well above the surface (you'll have 7* of clearance, but the wrong way round!). Blade thickness is irrelevant on BU planes as far as mouth openings go, the cutting edge is always in the same relative position whatever its thickness.

I had this lesson driven home when I got my first block plane at the age of 12, and put the blade in the way I'd seem them in other planes (it was a cheap Stanley 110 & the mouth was huge enough to let it through the wrong way). When I complained bitterly to my father that my plane was "no good", he took a quick look at it, stifled a laugh, reversed the blade, made a few adjustments then handed it back. Bingo, it made shavings!

Cheers,
 
Last edited:

raffo

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2020
Messages
105
Reaction score
69
Location
Pennsylvania
The LN irons are 1/8" thick, same as in my case. I've been assuming he already knows that the LN chipbreaker will not work. It's straight forward to examine the assembly and realize it will not work.

The recipe has been all along: use the original chipbreaker, move the frog back, file the mouth.
 

Chipmonk

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
England
The LN irons are 1/8" thick, same as in my case. I've been assuming he already knows that the LN chipbreaker will not work. It's straight forward to examine the assembly and realize it will not work.

The recipe has been all along: use the original chipbreaker, move the frog back, file the mouth.
Yes, but it isn't the length of the arms from the pivot-point to the thumbscrew that's an issue - they will be the same on your new yoke, or should be, or they won't engage the thumb-wheel properly.

Derek's picture clearly shows the source of the problem as far as the adjuster is concerned, the cam slot in the CB is too far back on a LN to suit Stanley/Record models. This means you run out of travel on the thumb-wheel stud before you can get the cam into position to properly engage the CB slot (it would also be at a weird angle & not work smoothly). That there LN chipbreaker will never work properly in your plane whatever you do, other than fill the existing slot with weld & cut a new one......

I'm surprised that you can't get the frog back far enough to give a workable mouth, LN blades aren't all that much thicker than any other after-market blade in my (limited) experience. I have never encountered a too-tight mouth in replacing blades in old planes, though I have read that others have, & don't doubt it happens. There is quite a bit of variation in mouth openings, so no surprise that some are smaller than others. Record must have tightened their tolerances a lot recently!

With thin original blades you need to have the frog and the sole aligned or nearly so, or the back of the blade bevel will rest on the sole and be lifted off the frog a little when you tighten the lever-cap down, which could lead to a chatterbox. But with thicker blades, the sharpening bevel goes higher up the back of the blade (assuming you are using the same grind angles), so the frog can be set a bit further back without the bevel fouling the sole. In any case, I am not so alarmed about taking a file to the front of your mouth if it really is necessary to accommodate the blade, it's not a highly precious artefact, and in any case, in 95% of situations a super-fine mouth is not all that important on bevel-down planes if the cap-iron (chipbreaker) is used to proper effect.

I've had a lot of different after-market blades in my time and they have all been "good" blades, whether from China, Europe, or North America in that they are generally tougher than older Stanley & Record irons. Unless you plan to plane lots of hard, abrasive exotics, and so long as you observe the manufacturers' recommendations for grind angles you should get excellent service out of any of the better-known brands on the typical woods from your part of the world.

And btw, the adjustable toes on bevel-up planes are not so you can turn the blade whichever way you choose! It's simple geometry- a 'typical' bed angle for a BU plane is ~18 degrees; the shallowest grind-angle for blades is ~25 degrees. If you insert the blade bevel-down, the back of the bevel will ride on the wood with the cutting edge well above the surface (you'll have 7* of clearance, but the wrong way round!). Blade thickness is irrelevant on BU planes as far as mouth openings go, the cutting edge is always in the same relative position whatever its thickness.

I had this lesson driven home when I got my first block plane at the age of 12, and put the blade in the way I'd seem them in other planes (it was a cheap Stanley 110 & the mouth was huge enough to let it through the wrong way). When I complained bitterly to my father that my plane was "no good", he took a quick look at it, stifled a laugh, reversed the blade, made a few adjustments then handed it back. Bingo, it made shavings!

Cheers,

Yeah, I figured that out about BU planes today while looking at them in detail. Cheers, though.

I can get the frog back to widen the mouth gap, but as soon as I adjust it to cutting depth, it closes the mouth completely (on the record, not on the stanley, which is OK for fine shavings and actually serviceable, but hardly adjustable and somewhat chattery). The blade sits on the mouth edge, not the frog and the thicker blade doesn't really give room to move the frog back enough to make a difference, despite it seeming like it should.

A few things I've spotted since I've been taking it apart (note: the new yoke arrived and I've tested it, while also filing the mouth).
  • The mouth wasn't parallel to itself or perpendicular to the side.
  • The lateral adjustment lever is poorly cut and its resting point isn't central.
  • Both of the above made it hard to see what was going on.
  • The frog isn't symmetrical and cannot be set by eye.
  • The frog is poorly cast and it's really hard to get it stay where it's put, adjusting it is a game of whack-a-mole.
So, I've got longer yoke ears and nose (look at it from the side, it looks like a cartoon rat's head), but while it seems to help with the adjustability, it's still not enough. I've given up for today, but I'll have another look tomorrow. It's

A note about Record No. 5 planes:

Their yoke retention pin goes IN from left to right. This is apparently at odds with Stanleys, where it goes from right to left. So when you're tapping it out, it you need to go from right to left. It has a cog-like finish on the left side which means if you tap it and pull it (like I did) then you are just making the hole bigger and making it hard to grip the pin in future. It's impossible to see this when it's inserted and there's no info on any of their sites about this. It's not tapered, so it could have been the assembler's error, but I don't get AF, Record are dead to me.

I took a few pics:

Left to right: Stanley Bailey (19), (Newish) Record No.5, LN, Hock.

NOTE: This clearly isn't what Derek's seeing.

chip breaker side by side comparison.jpg


New replacement yoke. Left is original record (pin made from soft steel). Right is new one from Workshopheaven (their pin was so hard I couldn't create friction surface with tool steel pliers). It's normal for these to made soft, so they break before the frog/CB/blade.

replacement yoke comparison.jpg


The record lateral adjustment lever retainer pin (the 'cog' end is flattened from my beating):

Record lateral adjustment retainer pin was inserted left to right.jpg


The LN blade *almost* in cutting position showing there's no room without filing the mouth (the frog is as far back as is reasonable, since the mouth itself starts providing the support).

record no.5 with lie nielsen blade where mouth is too narrow.jpg
 
Last edited:

Tony Zaffuto

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2007
Messages
397
Reaction score
47
Location
DuBois, Penna.
Had same issue many years ago fitting a iron and chip breaker. I filed out the hole for a yoke, cut a new piece of similar thickness stock and brazed to the chip breaker so the yoke fit.
 

Jacob

Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
22,468
Reaction score
2,510
Location
Derbyshire
I'd look at your sharpening technique first before writing off the blade and going to all that trouble n.b. thicker blades take longer.
Or buy a blade which fits, not one which does not.
 

Chipmonk

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
England
I'd look at your sharpening technique first before writing off the blade and going to all that trouble n.b. thicker blades take longer.
Or buy a blade which fits, not one which does not.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but thanks, I guess?
 

Latest posts

Top