Stanley #112 scraper plane
Dale and Rosemary Thompson
I am looking for instructions on how sharpen, set-up and efficiently
use a Stanley #112 cabinet scraper.
Any lead towards references will be much appreciated. If you have
your own secret instructions, and are willing to share, that's also
great.
Thanks,
Dale Thompson
da...@sinewave.com
bridger
the cabal will visit you at 3:00 am.
put your affairs in order now...
jobel
As memory serves they are sharpened at a 45 degree angle. I have not
used mine in a number of years but I do rember that they were a bit
tricky to get to work right.
JL
DIYGUY
http://www.brendlers.net/oldtools/scraping/scraper.htm
I find that the following jig is extremely useful as well:
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=32631&category=1,43072,43089&abspage=1&ccurrency=2&SID=
As for efficiency - well, how do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice ...
Ross
very light burr toward the flat side of the blade. When I say light, I mean
very light, just lay the burnisher lightly on the edge and give it a couple
of strokes. Set the angle of the blade a few degrees forward and set the
blade flush with the bottom. I just set the plane down on a piece of wood
and let the blade fall to the bottom and tighten. Then move the blade a few
more degrees forward and it should begin to cut. Make your adjustments
small until you begin to get shavings.
--
Ross Canant
www.myoldtools.com
"Dale and Rosemary Thompson" <dal...@sinewave.com> wrote in message
news:u6k53v0e2g88ljpm1...@4ax.com...
Andy Dingley
<dal...@sinewave.com> wrote:
>I am looking for instructions on how sharpen, set-up and efficiently
>use a Stanley #112 cabinet scraper.
The Garret Hack plane book has a piece on sharpening them. It's also a
good read on planes in general.
The scraper needs to be thick, and sharpened on a stone to a 45°
angle. Then turn a burr on the edge, using a rod burnisher, just like
any other scraper.
You may find that a Hock blade doesn't fit, being too wide (if you
have an early #112). Standard rectangular scrapers will fit, but are
usually too thin and not rigid enough - the #112 has a long
unsupported length and they're prone to chatter.
I hate my #112 (it's a bad one, made that way), but it's a useful
plane and well worth persevering with. I find it gives a much better
result for heavy scraping than my #12 does.
mike
learn to use the scraper, to go very lightly. The most common problem
is chattering across the wood. Lighten the cut and try cutting at a
small angle to the grain. Very light cuts.
Mike in Pelham, NC
Dale and Rosemary Thompson wrote:
Jeff Thieme
<snip>
> I hate my #112 (it's a bad one, made that way), but it's a useful
> plane and well worth persevering with. I find it gives a much better
> result for heavy scraping than my #12 does.
Now this is interesting. I've been wanting to get a good scraper plane.
I'm sick of this #80. I seem to be better at getting it to either dig in
or leave a bunch of chatter marks. I've thought about getting Lee Valley's
new version (05P32.05), but I'm concerned that I'll still end up with the
same problem.
I'm assuming you've used a #80 when I ask this question, but how do you
find the #12 to work compared to the #80 and #112? I've been saving up to
buy a good user #112, but if a #12 (or 12 1/2) will do the job, I'll jump
on one of them. I mainly use scrapers in the late stages of preparation
before finishing. That is, I wouldn't be using the scraper for 'heavy'
scraping. Is the #12 a better tool than the #112 for fine tuning the
surface?
-Jeff
Andy Dingley
>I'm assuming you've used a #80 when I ask this question, but how do you
>find the #12 to work compared to the #80 and #112?
I love my #80, but it's a lightweight tool for finishing work, not
something for heavy stock removal.
A couple of years ago, my wrists went wrong (RSI / tendonitis) and I
could no longer handle a scraper by hand. I acquired examples of most
of the available scrapers, to use instead.
The #12 and the #112 are much the same scraper mechanism, but with
different handles. They have a thick non-chattering scraper blade,
edged at 45° and with a tilt adjustment. The #112 has fore-and-aft
handles like a bench plane, the #12 has a transverse broomhandle.
With the #112 handles, you can control the pressure on the plane's
sole, balancing it fore-and-aft. With the broomhandle, you can only
control the total force and not the balance. Although the #12 works
well when you lean over it, a longer stroke where you start to stretch
is likely to allow it to rock and chatter or dig in. If you do need to
work something large with the #12, it's important to move your whole
body along the bench, not just reach with your arms.
My #112 is a dog (bad manufacture) where I've already spent one day
rebuilding and re-riveting the thing, but needs a similar amount of
effort again. A friend has since bought a Lie-Nielsen, which just
works beautifully straight out of the box.
Jeff Thieme
<snip>
> My #112 is a dog (bad manufacture) where I've already spent one day
> rebuilding and re-riveting the thing, but needs a similar amount of
> effort again. A friend has since bought a Lie-Nielsen, which just
> works beautifully straight out of the box.
Is your #112 a Stanley or a Kunz?
-Jeff
in Syracuse
Andy Dingley
>Is your #112 a Stanley or a Kunz?
Old type 1 Stanley. Not as well machined as a Kunz.
Jeff Thieme
Ouch. I was under the impression that the Kunz planes were substantially
inferior to the Stanley.
-Jeff
in Syracuse
Andy Dingley
>Ouch. I was under the impression that the Kunz planes were substantially
>inferior to the Stanley.
They are. Mine was just made of a Friday afternoon (right before
Queen Victoria's Jubilee, by the look of it).