On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:54:25 -0600, sam wrote:
In article , NOSPAMrp77469
says...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:49:50 -0600, sam wrote:
In article , NOSPAMrp77469
says...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:41:42 -0600, sam wrote:
Two Stanley 151 spokeshaves, one Sweetheart, the other new
One No 60 spokeshave, Sweetheart
One No. 80 card scraper, no blade, dated 6-2-14
One No. 82 scraper, no blade
One No 66, Feb 9.86, no blade or fence
All for 25 bucks. Someone found a box in his attic.
s
Good buy. With all the bucks you saved, you can buy some Hock replacement blades. One of the guys
in our hand tool group bought a set of new-made cutters for the 66 from either LV or LN a couple
months ago.
I have thought about buying Hock blades, especially for my
finish plane, but I'm also kind of vain about my ability to
sharpen anything with a wet stone and a leather strop with
a little compound. I add a little wax to the sole of my plane
and I'm good to go with the Stanley blades.
s
I've got a small Hock that came with a chisel plane kit one of the guys in the hand tool group gave
me. Tiny as it is, it is an impressive piece of steel. I scarey sharpened it to 1500 grit.
A couple guys in our group have noted improvements when switching to Hock blades from the standard
Stanley's. I never thought to ask if they got $30-50 worth of improvement from the upgrade. If it
solved a chatter issue, I'm sure they sure did.
My #80 (scraper, Jeff) came with a piece of saw blade for the scraper, and I think it is a little
too soft. I recently bought a #12, (a bigger scraper, Jeff) with no blade, so decided to order a
Hock from these folks before the sale ends this month. I've never dealt with them before, so we
will see how it goes.
http://www.craftsmanstudio.com/html_p/hand_tools.htm
Regards,
Roy
With the new (old) 80 card scraper and new (old) 82 scraper,
I had planned to take my hand card scraper from Rocker ($7.98
I think; it's probably 4" by 7") and cut 1/3 of it for the
82 and keep the other 2/3 for the 80 card scraper. Maybe I'm
too cheap.
s
My curiosity now being aroused forced me to slip out to the shop and measure some blades. The 80
blade is about 0.055" thick. The blade on the 81 came in at 0.042", which is exactly 1mm. I
checked one of my Disston's and it measured 0.031 or 1/32". Hock blades are listed as 1/16 or
0.062. My LV curved scrapers are 0,021 (0.5mm), and my LV cabinet scraper is 0.031. I have an 82,
but no cutter for it, but guess 0.030 - 0.040 would be right compared to the others.
I checked Leonard Lee's book which said earlier scraper blades (for the 80 and 81) had typical
hardness and thicknesses of saw blades, since they were made from the same stock. These must have
been two man saws to be 0.055" thick. He listed typical hardness as 38-42 Rockwell for the older
blades with newer scrapers being in the 48-52 range.
The only drawback to using thinner stock that comes to mind is perhaps some chatter. Let us know
how your experiment with the thin card scraper comes out. Worst case is that you now have a small
hand scraper for getting into tight corners.
Roy