Replies

1. 
   nazard | Mar 16, 2010 10:56pm | #1

   I purchased a Wood River #4 about a year ago just to see what the plane could do.  My blade was not so good until I ground it down a bit and sharpened it several times.  It was not very flat.  The chipbreaker needed work on the mating and beveled surfaces.   After tuning, the plane works just fine - but I wouldn't purchase one just to get the blade and chipbreaker.

2. 
   9619 | Mar 20, 2010 09:46pm | #2

   Hi,

   I can't tell what your motivations are for getting aftermarket blades for Kunz planes.   I work at a Woodcraft store, and have used the kunz and the Wood River planes as well as the new Stanleys.    I wouldn't buy a Kunz, a Wood River or a new Stanley.  If I was looking to save money, I would (and I have) buy old Stanleys and I would fettle them well.   I find they work very well, even without a Hock blade and chipbreaker.  

   if you have some cash, then I'd recommend either Lie Nielsen or Lee Valley planes.  No need to pay more than the cost of a LN or LV.  You can't buy a better plane.  You can buy a fancier one, but not a better one.  Holtey will polish his better, and charge you 10 grand, but it won't make you a better woodworker.

   Simply, my advice is: stay away from the new cheap stuff.   Either pay for the good stuff (LN or LV), or buy old Stanleys and fettle them well.   You can make masterpiece furniture with either, or with old wood planes. 

   Have fun.

   Mel

1. 
   cahudson42 | Mar 21, 2010 09:13am | #3

   Kunz Irons

   Thanks everyone for taking the time to provide your suggestions and advice.

   I did eventually decide to order 1 each #3 and #4 Kunz irons for my Stanley - just to give it a try. Did so based on them supposedly being 3/32 (.093) rather than the Stanley regular 5/64 (0.78). May not seem like much difference, but since stiffness is proportional to the cube of the thickness, the 3/32 should be almost twice as rigid. I will report back my impressions after they arrive and I try them in comparison with a standard Stanley blade on the same workpiece and plane.

   Now that I know about them, and unless I am thrilled with the Kunz, my next blade - if needed - will likely be the $31.50 Hock - only $6.50 more when the free shipping is factored in (the 2 Kunz cost $50.32 with the shipping)

   Thanks again!

   Chris

1. 
   9619 | Mar 21, 2010 10:21am | #4

   Chris,

   Please let me know what you think of the Kunz replacement irons.          Let me give you an analogy.   Both LV and LN have a beading tool.  The LN tool's cutters are MUCH thicker than the LV, but in spite of this, at least one person rated the LV as a much better tool.     You know the physics of the thing.  So why did the thinner blades work better for this guy on this tool?    There are lots of possibilities.  

   THere is PHYSICS, and then again, there is the real world.  I have come to think of the woodworking world as more interesting than the Physics world, and that is after a 30+ year career at NASA, of which the last seven were in Astrophysics.

   Have fun.

   Mel

1. 
   cahudson42 | Mar 24, 2010 01:02pm | #5

   Kunz Irons - 1st Subjective Impresions

   Hi Mel and everyone,

   The Kunz irons arrived. Here are my first impressions. The attached JPG shows, left to right, a Chinese iron for a #4 Footprint ($11), the regular Stanley #4 ($12, Sheffield, England), the #4 Kunz $20.50) and the #3 Kunz ($19.50). (Both Made in Germany)

   First thing is the difference in thicknesses between the Kunz. Before ordering, one supplier lists them as 3/32 (.093), another - the one I ordered from - did not list 3/32. This is the one I bought from. The ones I got may be NOS (New Old Stock) - you can see some light rust on the $4 - but the #3 is clearly thinner at .080, and the #4 at .088, with the Chinese and Stanley at .082/.083..

   So if you are looking for a thicker iron, It makes no sense to buy the #3 Kunz.

   What about the #4 at .088? Well, using the same digital caliper, my lone Hock #4 'Hi Carbon' French iron does measure .093.  So the Kunz is halfway between the Hock and Stanley/Chinese.

   Another thing to note on both Kunz, the 'business end' - the amount of iron below the cap iron screw cutout, is noticeably less than the Stanley/Chinese. (Holes are lined up in the JPG). What about surface finish? The Kunz seems similar to the Stanley, which is better than the Chinese, which is better than a 'standard line' Anant (not shown). But the Hock surface finish is noticeably better than all of them.

   All blades have been sharpened the same way - using a variaion of Brent Beach's 'scary system'.  (See: http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/index.html )  except I use cheaper AutoFinish grade silicon carbide paper, with the finest being 10 micron (P2000)

   I will now try to do some kind of non-scientific test using the same plane and workpiece, and each sharpened blade in turn.

   Chris

   
3. 
   cahudson42 | Mar 25, 2010 05:49pm | #6

   WR #4 - 1st Impressions

   When I ordered the Kunz irons, I also somewhat reluctantly ordered a WR #4 (20% off until 3/27 - under $100) at the last minute while free shipping was also in effect, while praying I don't get one with the off-square frog machining. The deciding factor was a suggestion that I simply try a less-expensive solution to thicker blades - that is a thicker -  $25 or so - replacement chipbreaker. My thinking is I will try the WR chipbreaker with a standard blade - on the same Stanley plane - to see how it compares to the stock Stanley combination. If results are good, I'll then order thicker chipbreaker(s) for that plane instead of irons.

   The WR #4 arrived today.

   I probably should back up a sec. on why I am looking at all this. I am solely interested in planes for smoothing - finishing. The last step before finishing. I use machines before that. A 15" surface planer. And after glueup, a scraper to remove the glueline squeezeout, and then sometimes a Bosch 3365 hand planer to level things. It can leave mill marks - so the final smoothing with hand planes.

   So the challege is having planes (and my technique - a major part of the problem..:>) capable of leaving a smooth - not necessarily level surface with minmal tearout and chatter marks/plane tracks.

   Now here are my 'out of the box' first impressions of the WR:

   Packed great in a nice well-made wooden box. Nice. In sealed bag. No rust etc.

   A well-machined sole - seems as good as my Lee Valley BU 4 1/2 smoother. MUCH better than any Anant (including Kamal) or 'contractor' Stanley. Not perfectly flat however. It appears a bit concave behind the mouth and before the heel. But the area before the mouth, right after it, and near the heel are coplanar. I'm not going to lap it to start.

   The lever cap was horribly overtightened, as was the cap iron screw. However, the Lever Cap front edge was machined on the underside, and seems square (unlike reported problems with this being out-of-square). Both iron and cap iron are 0.125 - more on this in a sec. The iron finish on both sides was equal to my Frence made Hock, IMHO.

   The frog seemed machined square, and was mounted square to the mouth. Fortunately, here the two back holddown screws were not severely overtightened. However, the Frog seemed mounted way too far toward the rear from the back of the mouth, maybe as much as 1/8 or 3/16.  I found out later there is a likely reason for this. The 0.125 iron is impossible to get correctly projected unless you do this. Move the frog forward to what would seem like the best position for iron support - and the iron will crash into the front of the mouth before projecting  No matter how far back I put the chipbreaker. (another approach that sometimes solves this problem). Interestingly, I could take my .093 Hock and the .125 WR breaker - and its perfect. You can move the frog forward to where it should (in my view) be, get the blade to project nicely for a fine shaving, while the mouth is very tight, as well as the chipbreaker very close to the blade edge. If I ever buy a replacement blade for this thing - its likely going to be the .093 Hock.

   The brass adjuster was smooth - the yoke is cast rather than the typical stamped steel in new Stanleys, both Anants (including the Kamal) etc. But there still is considerable backlash.

   The blade simply had a 25 degree primary bevel - unlike LN or LV - you will need to hone it for sure.

   So for $100? Bit early yet - I really need to use it a bit..:>) but compared to:

   1. Buying a Bailey old Stanley in grungy but not rusty shape off eBay for $25. Add $15 shipping. Now its $40. Do a 'Charlesworth Tuneup' - lapping the frog mounting points, the sole, and the front of the frog, hour or two. Now the iron and chipbreaker? Bent? Rusty/pitted? Can you get it to work? Or are either a new iron and/or chipbreaker needed?

   2. A true Bedrock off eBay? Let me know when you see one with a minute or so to go thats less than $100. Then the snipes fly in and its $150 - $200.. Too me, no way worth it.

   3. An Anant Kamal at $50? Well, it does have a thick blade and chipbreaker. But its a Bailey design. And you still need to do the Charlesworth Frog mounting lapping, etc. etc.

   4. A LN at - $300? Beautiful - but I can't justify that.

   5. A LV at $200? Too me, this is the only choice that compares. My LV BU smoother is definitely a cut above the WR - all around.

   Also unfortunately, my WR is a sample of one that appears to be good. We have many examples of LV that are always good.

   WR or LV? How would you go? And why?

   Chris

   
1. 
   davidweaver | Mar 25, 2010 05:53pm | #7

   Nice write-up, and good pictures. I don't know anything about the WR planes other than what I've seen online, and from talking via email with the president of WC. Last I talked to him after the LN split, he mentioned they were concentrating on improving the WRs among other things.

   It's helpful to know if they are any good, because beginners are sort of in a pinch if all they want to do is get a plane to avoid sanding where possible, but without dropping a lot of dough. The pretty bits on the outside of that and the surface of the frog look pretty tidy.

   The first ones didn't appear to hit the mark, at least not with consistency, and the stanley smoothers appear to have missed the mark, at least in regard to keeping up with the two L's.

   In the end, the more options to a new woodworker, the better.

   (it "starts" with smoothing machine marks, by the way. Don't be surprised if at some point, you just have the itch to move them more and more into your processes on pieces where you aren't worried about the number of hours to completion - and even some where you are).