I’ll do my best to articulate the problem I’m having with a Sargent 408 No. 3 bench plane. Sorry for the long-winded explanation.
I’ve used this plane infrequently with reasonable success for a few years now. Bored between projects, I decided to take a closer look at the plane’s iron (blade) and tuning.
Onto the core issue…
Wanting to close the mouth, I set about advancing the frog forward. That’s when I noticed that the blade & chip breaker assembly were not seated flatly on the surface of the frog. Instead, the blade was resting on the rear surface of the mouth and the upper surface of the frog—leaving a noticeable gap between the blade and the frog. As (to my limited thinking) this leaves the blade only partially supported and more prone to chatter, I moved the frog forward, closing the mouth and allowing the blade to seat flatly on the frog from top to bottom.
That was easy. Unfortunately, it rendered the plane useless. With the frog positioned sufficiently forward to permit the blade to seat flatly, it is no longer possible to retract the blade below (within) the sole. So…
I can use the plane with frog set rearward, introducing an undesirable gap between the frog surface and the blade.
I can move the frog forward, allowing the blade to then rest flatly on the frog, which introduces a condition wherein there is not enough depth (of cut) adjustment nut travel to retract the blade into the sole. In other words, even with the depth adjustment nut at the end of its travel, the blade sits well below the sole.
Because the notch in the chip breaker is where actual contact with the yoke is made I played with the chip breaker’s position in relationship to the blade. Not a solution.
I’m at a loss. Was this perhaps a silly flaw in this plane’s design? Is there something I’m failing to see/understand?
I’ve used this plane infrequently with reasonable success for a few years now. Bored between projects, I decided to take a closer look at the plane’s iron (blade) and tuning.
Onto the core issue…
Wanting to close the mouth, I set about advancing the frog forward. That’s when I noticed that the blade & chip breaker assembly were not seated flatly on the surface of the frog. Instead, the blade was resting on the rear surface of the mouth and the upper surface of the frog—leaving a noticeable gap between the blade and the frog. As (to my limited thinking) this leaves the blade only partially supported and more prone to chatter, I moved the frog forward, closing the mouth and allowing the blade to seat flatly on the frog from top to bottom.
That was easy. Unfortunately, it rendered the plane useless. With the frog positioned sufficiently forward to permit the blade to seat flatly, it is no longer possible to retract the blade below (within) the sole. So…
I can use the plane with frog set rearward, introducing an undesirable gap between the frog surface and the blade.
I can move the frog forward, allowing the blade to then rest flatly on the frog, which introduces a condition wherein there is not enough depth (of cut) adjustment nut travel to retract the blade into the sole. In other words, even with the depth adjustment nut at the end of its travel, the blade sits well below the sole.
Because the notch in the chip breaker is where actual contact with the yoke is made I played with the chip breaker’s position in relationship to the blade. Not a solution.
I’m at a loss. Was this perhaps a silly flaw in this plane’s design? Is there something I’m failing to see/understand?
