About 15 years ago, I resumed woodworking and
got a bit more serious about learning to do finer work, particularly cabinetmaking and restorations. I didn't have a
cabinet scraper, and it didn't take long to realize that if I was going to work on figured woods or surfaces bigger than a
cigar box, I would need one.
I had written in the first incarnation of this webpage that
if I was going to go buy another No. 80 today, I probably would find an older No. 80M, but years
ago I didn't know the difference and bought a new 'made in England' Stanley No. 80 from a local store. It
worked well enough on straight grain, but no matter how finely I set the iron, it tended to chatter on curly material.
I went looking for everything I could find on tuning this tool up (not much), followed it, wasn't satisfied, and studied
the tool to see if I could improve it.
What I noticed once I really started studying this tool:
1. The clamping bar only contacted the iron on the edges of the iron.
If the iron is being induced to vibrate, having it clamped only on it's edges is
a poor way to damp out vibrations.
2. The Stanley iron was a bit thin
More thickness means more stiffness, and more stiffness means critical (natural)
harmonic frequency changes, usually for the better.
3. The tool wasn't all that heavy to begin with
More mass means it is more likely to stay in contact with the work surface, and
less likely to chatter. One of the several key reasons why a heavy smoothing plane works so well.
I devised some modifications that gave much improved results, and I used that No.
80 in modified form for over a decade.
Step 1 - make sure the sole is flat and wax the entire tool
Now, in the first version of this website put up as
a result of Steve Reynolds' interest, I couldn't remember the exact steps I went through a decade ago. Well, guess
what. Tony Seo came up with a very good buy on the body for a No.80M recently, I bought it, and I went through
these steps once again. As I knew what additional items I needed, I ordered a new Hock iron (blade) in advance and
picked up a couple of brass items (which we'll cover in just a bit) so I had everything ready when I went to do this again.
By now your first question is likely: What does he do to this scraper?
First step is to take the scraper apart, clean
it, lap and polish the sole, and wax the entire body including the sole.
If you're going to really do this right, you will also replace
the standard iron with a Hock iron. This alone produces a noticeable improvement. The tool can
be improved further by following the rest of these steps.
Step Two is to take a second cut (fine) file and smooth
the back of the body where the iron beds against it. Leave no rough spots or high points.
Step Three: Grind (or file) flats on one side
of each of a pair of ordinary ¼" washers. Choose washers that are a bit thinner than the iron you
will be using. You want to make a flat in the side of the 'doughnut' shape - take off about ½ the width of the
material (test fit later and maybe grind a little more if need be). Set these washers aside, as you'll use them
when you are assembling the tool.
For the fourth step, position the clamping bar so it bridges
across a couple of relatively thin scraps of wood, pick up your small deadblow hammer (or something similar
that won't mark up the bar), and give the center of the bar a light whack. Check the results. Probably
nothing, so give it a little stronger whack ... and repeat until you've got about 0.010-0.020" inch concavity in the bar.
You can measure this as shown in the picture if you have a small straight edge and a set of feeler gauges. If no
feeler gauges, a standard 3x5" index card is about 0.010" thick and I'm sure you can take it from there. You do
this to get what structural engineers call "preload" in the bar. The intent is to eliminate lifting the center
of the bar off the iron and better distribute the clamping pressure across the bar. Same idea as using curved cauls
when veneering.
Gently curving the bar and centering the iron
between the screws (using your previously ground washers as centering guides) addresses the problem of non-uniform
clamping.
Checking the amount of bow in the bar with a feeler gauge
The photo at right shows that the final outcome should
be about a 0.015 inch (or 0.4mm) curvature measured between the center of the bar and the ends. No magic about
the 15 thousandths ... it just worked the first time I tried doing this. More seemed to be too much, lifting
the ends off the blade. The convex side of the clamping bar will be placed against the iron when assembling the
tool, leaving the ends lifted a bit off the iron before I tighten the screws. So, if your tool's bar has a logo
on it, pick which side you want to be facing out and up before you start whacking with the hammer.
Step Five is replacement of the stock thumbscrews Stanley uses to clamp the bar in place. The
threads in the body are ¼-28 on the three No 80's I have had, which made that an easy task. [I do not know if older
No 80's are the same thread, and Stanley is a little famous for using oddball thread pitches. I've also heard that the
latest No 80's come with metric threads. If yours has different threads than mine, you'll have to determine
whether you can proceed using a different machine screw size.] I substitute a ¼-28 x 1" hardened capscrew
for the thumbscrews. Slip each screw through the clamp bar, then through one of the flattened washers, and
then run the thread of the screw through the body. This leaves over ½" of screw thread projecting out the
other side of the body.
Using these capscrews gives me three opportunties:
1. I tighten the capscrews with a box end wrench; much easier and much better clamping power than the thumbscrews
and either a bit easier on your fingers or you don't have to mangle your thumbscrew with a pair of pliers.
2. The protruding thread gives me a place to add a locknut
3. The locknut can be heavy, to add mass to the tool to improve its resistance to chatter.
My previous experiments used oval solid brass knobs available from the home centers for about $4 each. They're
still available, and I used them again in modifying the No. 80M. They add quite a few ounces, I think they improve
the tool's balance in use, and provide me a more comfortable place to position my thumbs for greater control of the tool.
I've seen another Galoot try this with round brass knobs, and that looks as though it will work too.
So, if you choose to go this route, Step Six is to modify the brass knobs (whichever style you prefer) to
make them usable. These knobs come with the usual 10-32 drawer knob thread. Not usable with a ¼-28 screw.
But, a 7/32" drill bit is close to the proper drill size to produce the pilot hole for a ¼-28 tap, and leaves plenty
of brass for full depth thread. If you want to drill the threads out without using electrons, I suggest
you need a breast or post drill and a sharp bit, with the knob cushioned in a machinist's vise. An ordinary eggbeater
drill probably isn't up to the job. The picture below left shows me tapping the drilled out original threads to
get about 5/8" to 3/4" of new ¼-28 thread in the knob base. To finish this step, clean out the brass chip waste in
the threaded holes when you're done with the tap. A shot of WD-40 spray down the holes helps in clearing the waste.
tapping threads into the brass knobs
The first time I did these modifications, it involved trial and error to get the right
mix. No need for that this time, but now is a good time to check progress. So let's review a little bit.
By now you should have the assortment of parts shown below. You might want to save the two bar clamp thumbscrews, but
you won't need them for this tool anymore unless you want to sell it to someone else without most of these improvements.
When you're done reading through this, you'll realize that all of these changes, except the file work, are reversible!
I noted above that I used two hardened (grade 5) ¼-28 x 1" cap screws
to replace the thumbscrews. These high-strength screws are admittedly overkill, but I have a bunch of these in
my stash of fasteners.
Your washers should be slighly thinner than the Hock iron, and the flats you
ground or filed in each are intended to mate with the sides of the iron. The washers are used to align the
iron with the centerline of the tool. When I did my filing to flatten the body where the iron beds against
it, I also made the body flat around the mounting holes so the washers also would be well bedded.
OK, let's move on to Step Seven. If you haven't already done so, you should sharpen
your iron and put a nice burr on it. I flatten the back and ScarySharp (tm) the cutting
edge, then swipe it on a bit of green honing compound on a block of maple to polish the bevel before turning the
burr. If you need some help with the basics of preparing a proper burr on the iron, I suggest you visit: http://www.brendlers.net/oldtools/scraping/scraper.htm#PlaneEdge
Step Eight: Now the tool is assembled
and adjusted. When you slide in the iron, make sure the flats of the washers are against the iron; if they were not
ground narrow enough, now's the time to fix that. Leave the center adjustment thumbscrew loose until you get the iron's
edge lined up with the sole. A good way to get it lined up is to take a sheet of thin paper, place it on a smooth surface.
Place the leading edge of the sole on the paper, while making sure the iron evenly touches the surface,
and gently snug down on the clamping bar screws. Then tighten the screws, being careful not to nudge the iron.
Test the depth of cut; it should just barely scrape the surface, and maybe pull a tiny fine shaving. Now turn in the
center thumbscrew to bow the iron a bit (not much to start), then make trial passes and adjustments as needed until
you get an even light shaving. I shoot for a shaving at least half the width of the iron.
Be sure to flatten the back and do a good job bringing the bevel to a polish before turning the burr
This is what you should have in front of you when ready to assemble your modified No. 80
Not too complicated so far, is it? ... Eight steps
involved, and the new bits on your No. 80 are:
2 - 1 x ¼-28 capscrews to replace the two clamp
bar thumbscrews
2 - ¼ inch washers
2 - solid brass oval drawer knobs
1 - replacement iron
So, you've read this far, and you're probably wondering: How long
did all this take?
From start to shavings, with parts needed already laid on the workbench,
and with me taking pictures through the process for your benefit -- 70 minutes to do all of the above. You
don't have to do the trial and error, and neither did I this time. The first No. 80 I modified took much longer.
About the same time as it took to put together this website and save you some time and mistakes if you want to try this.
Now I've put the No. 80M together, adjusted the iron, and what do I get?
The picture shows the tight, rippled shavings that come off this offcut of very curly claro walnut. For those who
just need to know, I didn't go through much effort to adjust this iron. Spent only a little time getting the iron even. Pulled
some shavings I thought looked pretty good even though I was going against the grain. I put one in the micrometer
to see what I got (see picture). Read just a bit under 0.002". Not bad. Any thinner, it's unlikely I'd get
a continuous shaving in this wood, as the shavings would disintegrate because of their rippled structure.
Can it pull a finer shaving if you spend the time to adjust it and go with
the grain? I know it can in plain woods; it is a little harder to go much finer in highly figured claro walnut.
I leave that quest to you.
And yes, when done, it works like a Stanley No. 80, only better. The picture at right shows what was achieved going against
the grain ... yes, works quite well.
The picture below from the first incarnation of this webpage shows the results
of pulling my original No. 80 off it's hook and doing next to nothing to tune it up. The shavings are coming
from a broken off chunk of very curly cherry, going with the grain. No chatter, no change made to the set
and no re-sharpening. Shavings measured 0.003" for those who need to know. If the 80M can do less than 0.002"
against the grain in claro walnut, then both of these tools can do better than 0.002" with the grain in cherry, with
no chattering despite the curly grain. Other than one being cast in malleable iron and painted dark blue instead of
black, the No. 80M and No. 80 are otherwise identical tools.
The photo below shows both No. 80's and my No. 81. The No. 81 doesn't
perform much better, even though it has a prior-owner modification -- a thumbscrew to tension the iron that wasn't standard and
actually does improve it slightly. The No. 81 is weighted a little more towards it's base than the No.
80/80M, and it doesn't chatter despite going against the grain. All things considered, these are
pretty good results for the modified No. 80 or 80M vs. a tool that is more purpose built, harder to find, and more
$$dear if you do find one.
Original modified No. 80, without tuning, on very curly cherry
Modified Stanley 80, 80M (front) & a stock No. 81 with Hock iron
Why does it work? Well, I don't have an engineering
analysis to prove it, but if you add mass, stiffen the cutting tool by making it's cross-section thicker, and hold it
more rigidly, it's going to do its job with less tendency to be affected by vibration at the cutting edge.
Total cost? My original No. 80 was
about $30 when new (remember, that was in the late 1980's, and inflation has run up the price on this tool a couple $).
I've seen older No. 80's for sale anywhere from $10 to $50 in flea markets and antique tool shops or by old tool vendors.
The Hock iron added maybe $18 + shipping back then (again, $20-$30 today depending upon where you shop), the brass
knobs still run about $4 each, and you should be able to find all the cap screws and washers you
need for under $1. Altogether, less than $60 invested with the first one, I was pleased with it,
and I used it for over a decade on many projects.
Tony Seo's price on the No. 80M was better, but it was a user missing its iron, otherwise
complete with the obligatory Galootish paint splatters and a couple of old dabs of putty. Not hard to clean up, either.
Since buying Tony's No. 80M, I've started seeing more 80M's. I now have modified two of them as shown here, and picked
up a user-recast of Winchester's version of the No. 80 in bronze that works very well despite being a bit rough in appearance.
The original No. 80 pictured at the top of this page, and another 80M, have gone on to new homes in other
workshops courtesy of Galootaclaus.
My changes to the venerable old No. 80 tool design
don't result in a perfect tool, only a more forgiving tool that allows better results in difficult woods. I added the No.
81 (the heavier, better balanced and rosewood-soled variation of the No. 80) to the workshop a while back and the
modified No. 80M, and I continue to use them both. They do well in a variety of tasks. I also really
try not to drop my tools on the shop floor, so I hope I never 'need' the No. 80M's unique properties, but a little no-extra-cost insurance
never hurts. Regardless, thank you Tony for a good deal on that first No. 80M -- the second one wasn't priced quite
so nicely, but still attractive enough.
Now with the bronze Winchester, the 80M, the 81,
my assortment of hand (card) scrapers, the LN 85 that sits on my plane shelf, and an LN 112 obtained
with Christmas contributions, I probably do have all the scrapers I'll ever need. But, ahh well ... OK ... I'll
find more. They'll be useful. I'll just make storage space somewhere in the shop!
Best wishes, and may what's above be helpful to you!
I may use the 80M, 81, 85, 112, Winchester, card scraper, or a combination while finishing a surface
I need more nails & space to hang any more scrapers ... but more spokeshaves I can handle!
Charlie Driggs
[If you have a question, feel free to email me
at cdinde@verizon.net -- be sure to mention the website in the subject so
I can pick out your message in SpamBlocker.]
