Record 2506S side rebate plane

[Eric The Viking]

Just when I was beginning to get really frustrated by eBay recently, I finally did get something for a reasonable price:

Better still, it looks like it's been USED, not left to rust in its box or whatever, and everything's there with it. There's a small, insignificant chip out of the nose casting on one corner, and the handle looks horrible (you can't see clearly, but I think it was DIPPED in shellac -- the coating is at least 1mm thick and chipping off). It's also got rust coming where the plating has been rubbed off, but that's easy to clean up. Blades have plenty of useful length, although the left-hand one as a couple of small nicks in it. And I was too impatient to let the Plus Gas do its job and chewed the bolt holding the nose on (slightly)

£31, plus very reasonable postage, so I'm pleased.

I do have one puzzlement though: grinding/honing angles. Ignoring what it's for, it's really a low-angle bevel-up jobbie with a fixed mouth. I'm guessing the casting angle is about 10-15 degrees, certainly not more, so what angles should I grind/hone to for general use, as a starting point? It strikes me that, if an Eclipse is wide enough to fit, I can simply reverse the blades and use the plane body as a carrier, to get a clean bevel. The previous owner flattened the backs for me!

So, team: primary and secondary bevel angles?

E.

PS: it's not rust below the handle in the pic, it's flakes of shellac, I think.

 

[Racers]

Hi, Eric

Nice plane, I have one(and the Stanley 98/99 and a pair of wooden ones) the usual plane angles seem to work well .
You will need to grind the point off as it will stick out past the edge, but you will need to set the depth of cut first then you can find out how much to remove.

Pete

 

[toolsntat]

Hello Eric, I have a honing guide for these blades somewhere with the specific angles marked on it (not sure exactly where though :roll: )
Its a cleaver bit of work as it even allows for the under and over bed angles of the plane body :wink: 8)
I'll try and find it but in the meantime perhaps someone else may come up with your answers.....

Cheers
Andy

 

[Alf]

I just went to Planecraft full of confidence - after all, if Record's very own hardback propaganda, er, plane advice won't have the answer, who will? Who will indeed, 'cos Planecraft is silent. Fascinating. But ultimately unhelpful. However, going on experience with the LN pair, the Veritas and a Stanley #79 (Problem? What problem?) I'd suggest start with a single bevel of 25°, and if you find it crumbles then slap on a secondary greater than that but still as low as possible. Or just go straight to 25°/30° as Pete says, and don't worry about it.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts.

25/30 probably does it for me. It's unlikely to see really horrid grain in the near future, and I can quickly re-cut the secondary bevel if necessary.

I'm hoping to have a look at how to grind+hone the blades tomorrow, if I get time. Happily, my dad gave me one of those old ball-bearing Record honing guides a couple of years ago. I haven't really used it yet, but I think it is one of the few that works well with skewed blades. We'll see...

Thanks again, E.

 

[bugbear]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts.

25/30 probably does it for me. It's unlikely to see really horrid grain in the near future, and I can quickly re-cut the secondary bevel if necessary.

I'm hoping to have a look at how to grind+hone the blades tomorrow, if I get time. Happily, my dad gave me one of those old ball-bearing Record honing guides a couple of years ago. I haven't really used it yet, but I think it is one of the few that works well with skewed blades. We'll see...

Thanks again, E.

They're useless, and I speak as a fan of honing guides, owning "more than one".

On the angle front - be careful. It's "obvious" that the blade should be ground so that the cutting edge is vertical to the sole, and parallel with the mouth. Obvious, but wrong. With the bedding at such a low angle, the bedding would need to be VERY precisely ground so that such a blade also gave a parallel shaving. The beds aren't (IME) ground well enough to make this assumption, so blade grinding needs to be "empirical" such that a parallel shaving results in use.

BugBear

 

[Eric The Viking]

On the angle front - be careful. It's "obvious" that the blade should be ground so that the cutting edge is vertical to the sole, and parallel with the mouth. Obvious, but wrong. With the bedding at such a low angle, the bedding would need to be VERY precisely ground so that such a blade also gave a parallel shaving. The beds aren't (IME) ground well enough to make this assumption, so blade grinding needs to be "empirical" such that a parallel shaving results in use.

Good point.

Furthermore, it strikes me (shouldn't have dropped it on me toe, but anyway) that given the way it's clamped, etc. it's going to be interesting to get the blades consistently aligned in use, too. They both tilt - they're not coplanar at all, so I've belatedly realised that I can't do what I hoped was a neat trick of flipping both over into the 'wrong' groove and using that to hold them steady for honing.

It'll most probably have to be freehand (don't snigger, Jacob!), but I'm going to have a think about it before starting anything.

Cheers,

E.

 

[bugbear]

On the angle front - be careful. It's "obvious" that the blade should be ground so that the cutting edge is vertical to the sole, and parallel with the mouth. Obvious, but wrong. With the bedding at such a low angle, the bedding would need to be VERY precisely ground so that such a blade also gave a parallel shaving. The beds aren't (IME) ground well enough to make this assumption, so blade grinding needs to be "empirical" such that a parallel shaving results in use.

Good point.

Furthermore, it strikes me (shouldn't have dropped it on me toe, but anyway) that given the way it's clamped, etc. it's going to be interesting to get the blades consistently aligned in use, too. They both tilt - they're not coplanar at all, so I've belatedly realised that I can't do what I hoped was a neat trick of flipping both over into the 'wrong' groove and using that to hold them steady for honing.

It'll most probably have to be freehand (don't snigger, Jacob!), but I'm going to have a think about it before starting anything.

Cheers,

E.

Not all jigs that control bevel angle also control skew.

Here's a copy of a post I made to woodnet (which isn't archived, so I won't link to it).

That's the blade from a #79 - an inconvenient object to hold and sharpen.

But tightening down the 3 screws holds it to a piece of scrap plywood, and the resulting composite object "plays nice" with most guides and jigs.

The screws are arranged to hold the blade at roughly the right angle, so that the bevel to be sharpened is fairly near to perpendicular to the length on the scrap, allowing sharpening to proceed near-to-normally.


To sharpen the "other blade", I just turn the plywood over.

BugBear

 

[jimi43]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that, like plough planes, these blades must only have a primary bevel.....

Anyone confirm this?

Jim

 

[bugbear]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that, like plough planes, these blades must only have a primary bevel.....

Anyone confirm this?

Jim

I've never read it (and I've read a lot). Someone may have lobbed the idea out on a forum, perhaps.

However, since Record and Stanley both recommend 35 degrees, the bevel is small and readily worked, so the normal benefit of double bevel is reduced. Further, plough aren't creating a show surface, so the need for the kind of edge required on a smoother (which double bevel and fine stones facilitate) is also not present.

BugBear

 

[Eric The Viking]

Interesting thoughts, gents.

35 degrees sounds very sensible. It's less likely to dig in, and although I take BB's point, housings etc. aren't always not-for-show, and a higher angle is cautious. If I do go that route, I'll do a double-bevel, say 28+35 or thereabouts, so that the inevitable hand-honing cock-ups are quicker to put right!

Meanwhile I've been doing a bit of virtual legwork. I'm impressed by its ancestor, the Preston 1369, most notably its delightfully 'straightforward' adjustors. It's also interesting to see the variations on a theme which are out there. It's a shame Record cut costs so obviously though. The handle lets it down - a threaded stud would have been so much nicer. What's actually under the knob appears to be a #6 woodscrew, point uppermost, which must have been set into the mould during casting! It's a jolly good argument for not using excessive force when working it, in case it splits!!!

I'm still pretty pleased overall, although haven't really got near a proper cleanup yet.

E.

 

[DTR]

I thought that when it came to narrow blades, honing a single bevel is recommended because a secondary bevel doesn't save much / any effort in honing. Also, the single bevel offers better support to the narrow leading edge.

 

[Tony Spear]

It'll most probably have to be freehand (don't snigger, Jacob!), but I'm going to have a think about it before starting anything.

Cheers,

E.

Not all jigs that control bevel angle also control skew.

Here's a copy of a post I made to woodnet (which isn't archived, so I won't link to it).

That's the blade from a #79 - an inconvenient object to hold and sharpen.

But tightening down the 3 screws holds it to a piece of scrap plywood, and the resulting composite object "plays nice" with most guides and jigs.

The screws are arranged to hold the blade at roughly the right angle, so that the bevel to be sharpened is fairly near to perpendicular to the length on the scrap, allowing sharpening to proceed near-to-normally.


To sharpen the "other blade", I just turn the plywood over.

BugBear

Blimey Bugbear! For a moment there I thought you were going down Jacobs "Path of Righteousness", until I realised that the bit of plywood was to enable clamping in a Jig rather than freehand!

 

[bugbear]

Blimey Bugbear! For a moment there I thought you were going down Jacobs "Path of Righteousness", until I realised that the bit of plywood was to enable clamping in a Jig rather than freehand!

Could be used freehand if you like - longer objects make for more accurate bevel control, if you want bevel control.

Personally, I use it in a jig.

BugBear

 

[doctor john]

...wow...i have found my people...here in the states it is darn near impossible to find souls that love, or understand. record planes.....the best made in my estimation....thanks for the sharpening tips on the 2506...i am gearing up on home made jambs and will need the little bugger soon.....thanks to you all...

 

[bugbear]

...wow...i have found my people...here in the states it is darn near impossible to find souls that love, or understand. record planes.....the best made in my estimation....thanks for the sharpening tips on the 2506...i am gearing up on home made jambs and will need the little pipper soon.....thanks to you all...

Oh, I don't know. There are some good people on the OLDTOOLS list that tend to appreciate and enjoy good tools, regardless of country or company of manufacture.

BugBear

 

[doctor john]

.....good mornin' bugbear....i guess i hang around in the wrong circles.....i have been told stanley is the best....my experience is otherwise......i will be more conscious of my choice of circles in the future!....thanks for the pat up the side of the head...i needed it.....jj

 

[jimi43]

.....good mornin' bugbear....i guess i hang around in the wrong circles.....i have been told stanley is the best....my experience is otherwise......i will be more conscious of my choice of circles in the future!....thanks for the pat up the side of the head...i needed it.....jj

Old pre-WWII Stanleys are as good as the later Records and I love some of the older ones...the SLR Co ones for instance....so they are not all bad and due respect has to be given to Leonard for the design.

I totally agree that if you compare the like for like...i.e. a newer Stanley with a Record then the Record wins hands down on build quality and finish.

Welcome to the UKW by the way.... :wink:

Jim

 

[Eric The Viking]

I finally got round to fettling my 2506 last week-end.

Given the discussion about sharpening earlier in the year, I thought I might post some details:

• The right-facing blade has a bed angle of 9.5 degrees. The left one has a bed angle of 13.5 degrees.
• The skew angle on the plane is 30 degrees (the two blades make an equilateral triangle with the nose).
• I sharpened both to around 40 degrees of single bevel, 29 degrees of skew.

Works a treat.

I also cut about 1/4" off the screwthread used to attach the handle. The end in the plane is probably 3/16" Whit, but the other end is a woodscrew thread, and it's the woodscrew I cut off. This is because it finished very close to the end of the knob. Losing that much should prevent it splitting, and now allows the knob to fit down onto the plane better.

Might be useful to someone.

E.

PS: I used an Axminster "de-luxe" honing guide - it's basically a broad plate on top of a wide roller, with a rubber padded clamp. It looks ideal for skewed tools, as you can easily scratch the surface with angled lines, or draw them in marker pen, and it doesn't wobble. No good for Bailey plane irons though as a camber would be tricky!

 

[jim_hanna]

A resurrection of an old thread. However there is so little information available online about the 2506 that it seems better to keep it together.
I won a 2506 (with the fence) on ebay recently and searched for sharpening information. I found this thread, a note on Matthew’s blog (of workshop heaven) about sharpening cutters in a Quangsheng 2506 by inverting them and using the body as a holder and a thread on an Australian bulletin board which focused mainly on grinding off the projecting corner of a blade when it extended below the skate.

My example seems to have been used mainly in right hand mode, the blade on that side had an interesting collection of bevels and the outside corner had been nicked off. The left seemed almost unused.
There is a number stamped on the top of the front nose. I thought at first it was a school or workplace mark. Then I removed the handle and found the same mark. Probably manufacturing marks so that the body and nose are machined together and must remain related afterwards.

As best I can measure it the skew angle of the blades on the base on mine is 31 degrees, certainly not 30. The bevel angle on the blades themselves is a shade over 30 degrees, certainly not 35 degrees.
I would be dubious about trying to mark and clamp a blade at a precise angle in a honing guide. Repeatability would be a big problem for me.
I looked at Matthew’s idea about inverting and swapping sides with the blades and using the body of the plane itself to hold the blades. Easy enough to see that this would work with the short blades on the Quangsheng which presumably are at the same bed angle.
It seems wrong that this would work on a Record with the longer overlapping blades at different bed angles.
Inverting and extending the blades a small distance I looked at the alignment.

Right way up.

Right way up the edges of the blades are aligned with the front of the plane. I drew a square line from the edge of a board, extended the inverted blades and put the side of the plane against the line. The blades still looked to be in the same alignment. While the different bed angles for the blades would introduce some error it “might” be small enough to be insignificant.

I wasn’t brave enough to try this immediately but it looks as though it might work. Shown held in an Axi honing guide, to hand when I was taking the pic, but the 2506 does fit an Eclipse type guide which I would have used in practice.

Then I had a different idea.
I have another Stanley honing guide which clamped the blade easily and has a convenient guide to set a 30 degree angle but trying to mark and then set a 31° skew alignment would be the problem.

Then it occurred to me to use the body to set the alignment. The front face of the honing guide can be used against the front of the plane body and the machined bed in the plane body then used to accurately set the skew angle.

This worked very well, I was able to get a single 30° cutting bevel at the correct skew angle. I was able to cut full width thin shavings, admittedly only in pine so far, but the plane has been made useable and further sharpenings will be repeatable.

Hope this is of some help to others.

Jim