Millers Fall Flexible Lever Cap

[MarkSLSmith]

Folks, 

I recently had one of those rare "wow, that's a new one" moments.  

I hadn't owned a common Millers Falls hand plane until I brought one (a No. 9) back from a flea market purchase last fall.  These planes have the Millers Falls Flexible Lever Cap (I think found on all main line MF planes?).  I was truly surprised by how well the flexible lever cap secured the cutter to the frog, especially when I compared it to its direct competitor, the Stanley Bailey #4.  

It's easier to see it in action than to describe it, so I made a video.  For those who want to cut to the chase, the relevant section starts at 6:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_5P-1RalbQ&t=422s

I haven't used this plane enough to quantify the advantages of this feature, but it seems like it would be a really good deal.  

Mark

[Admiral]

Oh yeah, clearly a superior design. IMNSHO, the top of the line MF bench planes are at least the equal of, and sometimes a tad superior, to the stanley planes.

[Tony Z]

Please do not advertise this bit of MF info!!!!!! I need a MF #15 (5-1/2 size) plane for my working stable! My # 9 (3 size) and #14 (5 size) are regular users. I am ready to experiment with the MF levercap on the Clifton two-piece chipbreaker.

[bandit571]

Weird Fact Dept. :   Have never had any chatter from any of my Millers Falls bench planes...ever...



Lever cap..

   
From a No.14 Jack...needed a wee bit of clean up...

   
Been sitting bit too long...

   
Hmmm, there IS a Patent Date on the face of the cap....underneath it says it was merely applied for?

Numbers read....334A ?

[Mike Brady]

Not to pee in the Cheerios, but the nicest plane I ever found in the wild was a Millers-Falls with the two-piece lever cap.  It also was a total dog as a working plane.  Couldn't make a fine shaving.  I do agree that the build quality in almost every respect: casting weight, plating, even the japanning was superior to Stanley;  but it was not a good woodworking tool, so I never collected another one.

[Greg Jones]

The patent info doesn’t match because the parts were cast before a patent was granted, once it was they stamped the patent number on the face of the cap. None of the Type 1 planes I own have a patent number on the front. The 334A is the casting lot number.

[Shaun]

Sort of timely. I just "borrowed" my Dads Miller Falls 24C. I am slowly working through cleaning it up and was going to ask about the lever cap.

[bandit571]

Cherrios  drained.
.and...Millers Falls No. 14, Type 2 was put to work..
  

   
Ash needed jointed to be ready for a glue up, today..

   
Checked for gaps.   One face was a tad too thick..

   
And some burn marks needed removed...

   
Panel for the back of a box is now glued up. Which left two panels for the sides..

   
Needed jointed, a face planed flat, and a tad thinner..

   
So the 4 could be glued up into 2...when the clamps are freed up..

   

Could be in the way mine are tuned up?

[MarkSLSmith]

Folks, 

I recently had one of those rare "wow, that's a new one" moments.  

I hadn't owned a common Millers Falls hand plane until I brought one (a No. 9) back from a flea market purchase last fall.  These planes have the Millers Falls Flexible Lever Cap (I think found on all main line MF planes?).  I was truly surprised by how well the flexible lever cap secured the cutter to the frog, especially when I compared it to its direct competitor, the Stanley Bailey #4.  

It's easier to see it in action than to describe it, so I made a video.  For those who want to cut to the chase, the relevant section starts at 6:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_5P-1RalbQ&t=422s

I haven't used this plane enough to quantify the advantages of this feature, but it seems like it would be a really good deal.  

Mark

For those who have not produced a fine shaving, I note that I had to do a fair amount of work on the chipbreaker.  I do not know whether this is because it was such a rustbucket when I got it, or whether it was that way when new.  I suspect the latter, because the iron seems to be quite long, ie not much used.  This might imply that it was little used because the original owner didn't correct the chipbreaker problem and instead gave up on it.

Plane success factors.

Sharp cutter   50%
Chipbreaker    20%
Tuning/fettling      10%
Sole not concave   10%  (ie the mouth should not be elevated relative to the board)
Planing technique    5%
Any other factor      5%

Mark

[bandit571]

Shavings, in Ash...

   
Plane is a Millers Falls No. 9, Type 4
No chattering was found..

   
Same with the No. 11 Junior Jack....and I was using it as a jointer,  since most of the parts were 12" or less long..

   
YMMV, of course...