The Bowl Gouge: Bowl-Guys vs. Hollow-Formers

[John Tisdale]

Two ways to learn something: Ask an open-ended question or take the closed-ended approach, I'm doing that here, which is stating understandings to folks who may know better. I'm a hollow-former and my perspectives are from that discipline.

Bowl-guys make greater demands on both the design of the gouge and their ability to use the tool. Attributes like flute-shape and grind are primarily bowl-guy issues - doing an inside finish cut in one pass requires lots of variables to come together - hats off.

Hollow-form-guys (at least this one) use the gouge for outside profiling and rarely get more than 1/2" off the rest - tool presentation and direction are what works with least risk. However, like the bowl-guys, we need durable sharpness. Most of my efforts today are with mistletoe-burl mesquite - hardest and heaviest in N. America. And then I load that down with epoxy - thin epoxy to impregnate bark inclusions and thick in worm-holes and inclusions too small to be openings. I've settled on the Dway M42 with their standard grind.

I read the posts on this or that bowl gouge with interest but have not seen anything that makes me want to experiment. I've used Thompson and the V10 Glaser (red-handled) - never got the Thompson to perform and the only difference with the Glaser is price - why pay 2x for same results. ANY SUGGESTIONS?

 

[hockenbery]

I do mostly face grain hollow forms many with NE opening and NE bowls.
Most all from green wood.

To me most hollow forms are like two bowls joined at the rim.
I shape the outside much like shaping bowls with special attention to the curve connecting the top and bottom.

I mostly use an Ellsworth ground gouge. My favorite tool is the Jamieson gouge made by thompson.
I often get 4” + off the rest when working a long curve.
This tool works extremely well for the flute up shear cut and for pull cuts.

The flute up shear cut is by far the best method I have found for cutting the inside wall of an Ne opening.
I can see both the outside wall and the inside cut enabling me to both eyeball the thickness of the wall and the consistency of the thickness for an inch or so. This I learned from David Ellsworth.

 

[John Tisdale]

The inside wall at the opening requires a technique all it's own. I've been using the large Rolle Munro for that cut - can't say always perfectly. Will try using the gouge.
I compared pictures of the Jamieson/Thompson to the Dway - only difference I can tell is the Dway appears to have a sharper (more acute) angle. My thinking is the "flute up shear on the inside opening" requires a less acute angle. Also takes a bit of skill

 

[Dave Landers]

To me most hollow forms are like two bowls joined at the rim.
I shape the outside much like shaping bowls with special attention to the curve connecting the top and bottom.

Same for me.
I do both bowls and hollow forms. And whether I'm doing a face-grain or end-grain (or mostly grainless burl) hollow-form, I use the same cut on the outside as I would on the bottom of a bowl (just adjusting the direction of cut based on grain).

My bowl gouge of choice is a swept back grind (Ellsworth, Irish, call it what you will) on a parabolic flute, and I prefer a long wing.

My current favorite gouge is a Crown Pro-PM - seems to hold an edge better than my Henry Taylor M42s. Haven't tried others... yet.

I don't really worry to much about the gouge-wars and steel-wars. I've got something that is working for me, and until I need another gouge it doesn't really matter.

 

[Bill Blasic]

I also do both but I'm strictly a Thompson gouge guy who has never found another that is better. My grind is the hat makers grind from the Vector Grind Fixture and there is nothing that I change for any cut.

 

[Dean Center]

IMHO, shaping the outside of a bowl, or hollow form, especially with green wood is easy peasy, relatively speaking, and just about any gouge will do a good job if you pay attention. Your feelings about the endless discussions about bowl gouge grinds and steel are about the same as my feelings about the endless discussions of captured hollowing rigs and aiming mechanisms. To each her own.

 

[Odie]

IMHO, shaping the outside of a bowl, or hollow form, especially with green wood is easy peasy

^^^^^ Yep.....and, this is why nearly every demonstration you'll ever see is with unseasoned wood.

When it comes down to dry seasoned wood, especially with heavy dense hardwoods, the differences are dramatic. The difficulty in getting a clean tear-out free cut is compounded, and the ability of the demonstrator will be exposed......for better, or worse!

ANY SUGGESTIONS?

Kinda sounds like you have already come to your own conclusions, John......and, you are someone who is an advanced turner, with considerable experience under your belt......so, that would be expected.

My suggestion would be to stick with M2 HSS tools......and, sharpen much more often. It is my belief that a turner will have a sharper tool applied to wood for the duration, when learning to keep the tool "in the zone". This means there is a learning process to this philosophy, in addition to sharpening much more often. Since most new turners don't want to go through an extended learning process, or sharpen that often.....I suspect very few turners, at all, will consider this method......but, that's my take on it anyway.....and it's what I do!

-----odie-----

 

[Doug Freeman]

I’m a bowler & HF’r. OD work is the same, and I use 2 gouge grinds, Ellsworth & 40/40. The 40/40 is not necessary, I use it more as tool control skill building, taking heavy push cuts with reduced tearout and working on control of the tool. With either tool there are times its 3-4 inches off the rest depending on shape.

I prefer the Ellsworth grind for versatility - push, slicing, shear scraping, flute up finish cuts. A parabolic flute allows a slight convex curve down the entire wing, which helps with slicing and shear scraping, and the larger nose radius is needed on both tools for push cuts. Stuart Batty recommends a parabolic flute for the 40/40 but says some other shapes can work.

I have the Thompson made for Lyle Jaimeson, which is a large nose radius V gouge - the flute sides are straight. Its difficult for me to get the rear of the wings convex. Its easier to get the convex shape with a parabolic flute. That shape improves the shear scraping and slicing cut sometimes, depends on size, shape, angle of tool/edge. The steel is great and holds an edge for a long time.

The extended edge life of the 10V steel only pays off with larger pieces with a lot of roughing, and bark and inclusions. I resharpen to make the last cuts for shape, and the edge still has a lot of “roughing life” left, so a lot of the edge life benefit doesn't get used. M42 gets sharper (I use a tormek clone with stone wheel, cbn may get the pm steel as sharp dont know) and lasts much longer than m2. It does not stand up to hard inclusions quite as well as the Thompson 10V.

Dway states they have a parabolic U flute and use m42, but I have not had a gouge to inspect flute shape. I suspect its about as good of gouge as you will find for flute shape and steel.

I have an m42 bowl and m42 and pm steel spindle gouges from Crown. All excellent tools. Their bowl gouges are parabolic flute.

Ashley Harwood’s gouges are parabolic flutes and 10v material, which interests me.

There are some other options but I’m not sure you will experience much improvement.

 

[Forrest Forschmiedt]

I want the contributors to these threads to know there input is appreciated.

Having bought a bigger lathe last year I am working with bigger pieces. As Odie says, dry, seasoned hardwoods challenge lesser tools.
The batch of 20 yr cured cherry I have been working with dulls my Sorby M2 bowl gouges surprisingly fast. You can feel the cut change as the edge dulls. Even hogging out a bowl, it would be nice to do more cutting and less tearing.

I don't mind spending a little extra on good tools but I want to know which tools will definitely be an improvement before buying.

These may be boring and repetitive threads for the more experienced turners. Not so, for me and others newer to the game.

 

[robo hippy]

Hmm, mostly a bowler, but do a few hollow forms. Biggest difference I can see is that most hollow forms are end grain, while bowls are more side grain. Other than that, you can use what ever you want. Watching some of the 3rd world turners make huge forms, they use scrapers for a lot of their roughing and even finish cuts. I can relate to that since a peeling type cut works very well for end grain turnings. I would think a spindle roughing gouge would be good, and even the continental type SRGs would be great on hollow forms. There are many who use bowl gouges on spindles. I do all of my shear scraping with scrapers and a burnished burr.

robo hippy

 

[Dave Landers]

most hollow forms are end grain

Generally true, especially for more "vase-shaped" forms. But I really like doing side-grain hollow forms (usually of me a more rounded "pot" shape) - except that the interior fills up with shavings instead of dust, and digging it out is a chore.

I would think a spindle roughing gouge would be good, and even the continental type SRGs would be great on hollow forms.

On an end-grain HF (grain running parallel to the axis of the lathe) I do often use an SRG (spindle roughing gouge) - it can produce a really great cut.

 

[Mark Jundanian]

Never occurred to me to use a spindle Rougher to form the outside of an end grain HF, but that could have some advantages.

 

[Kirk Amidon]

I want the contributors to these threads to know there input is appreciated.

I don't mind spending a little extra on good tools but I want to know which tools will definitely be an improvement before buying.

These may be boring and repetitive threads for the more experienced turners. Not so, for me and others newer to the game.

Forrest - I agree with you, so tough to make decision when there are so many options to try, and when they are not inexpensive mistakes. I'm getting to the point where I've used a 40-40 enough on my PSI gouge, that I know I want to get a good one, but which one???

I'm one of the very few in my club using a 40-40, so while I've tried some different gouges, I'm not able to try one with the grind I'd use, making it more of a challenge.

 

[Doug Freeman]

I want the contributors to these threads to know there input is appreciated.

Having bought a bigger lathe last year I am working with bigger pieces. As Odie says, dry, seasoned hardwoods challenge lesser tools.
The batch of 20 yr cured cherry I have been working with dulls my Sorby M2 bowl gouges surprisingly fast. You can feel the cut change as the edge dulls. Even hogging out a bowl, it would be nice to do more cutting and less tearing.

I don't mind spending a little extra on good tools but I want to know which tools will definitely be an improvement before buying.

These may be boring and repetitive threads for the more experienced turners. Not so, for me and others newer to the game.

Forrest - I agree with you, so tough to make decision when there are so many options to try, and when they are not inexpensive mistakes. I'm getting to the point where I've used a 40-40 enough on my PSI gouge, that I know I want to get a good one, but which one???

I'm one of the very few in my club using a 40-40, so while I've tried some different gouges, I'm not able to try one with the grind I'd use, making it more of a challenge.

Edge holding - I have what I consider an interesting chart of test data of different steels done using a ringmaster bowl lathe. A college professor used it as a class project. I’ll find and post it, but the conclusion was that, yes, the better steels hold up better, just not the 2-5x type #’s I’ve seen advertised. My experience with m42 and 10 V is that they are well worth the 20-30% premium over m2. My one pm gouge is spindle. I dont have a good comparison, other than it holds an edge much better than an m2 spindle.

I have come to the conclusion that parabolic flutes are the best all around shape (except for a U bottom gouge, which I have yet to try) for most of the grinds/applications. My previous post mentions several sources for parabolic flutes in m42, 10V, and Crown’s pm steel. I think any of them would be a good choice. I make my handles and use Cindy Drozda’s tool insert to hold them, and about any tool fits. If you prefer certain handles, tool bolsters, etc, that may eliminate some of the options.

Dry hardwood is definitely more of a challenge than wet wood. The 40/40 grind slices through it easier than my 60 deg swept back grind, just due to edge geometry. It also slices through heavy roughing cuts more easily.

 

[Doug Freeman]

Here is the chart I referred to earlier, as well as a pdf of the published study. This is the only controlled test I've ever been able to find for the various tool steels cutting wood. I've spent 35+ years in mfg in various technical/engineering roles, and conducted many similar type tests (just not with wood). It appears to me to be a valid methodology and a good test. Too bad he did not include m42. Happy reading!

 

[Dave Landers]

Forrest - I agree with you, so tough to make decision when there are so many options to try, and when they are not inexpensive mistakes. I'm getting to the point where I've used a 40-40 enough on my PSI gouge, that I know I want to get a good one, but which one???

My opinions (for what they're worth):

First, I suggest a parabolic flute, it's probably the most versatile and works for basically any grind (except the U is better for a bottom-bowl grind). I think since you use a 40/40, the flute shape is not quite as critical. But if you see the light someday, you can re-grind to an Ellsworth - just kidding . If nothing else, it narrows down the choices.

Next, I think you'll be happy with the steel from any of the "good" tool makers. M42 or a powder-metal or CPM 10V. I wouldn't really sweat it too much. In any case, you'll notice the difference from what you have, and that's good.
I have a PM and a couple M42s, and I do like one for some things and the other for other things. But the differences where the metal meets the wood are really subtile. If I didn't have both I wouldn't know. Both do the job, and both are way better than the "HSS" gouge they replaced.

The other thing to consider is what sort of handle you like - do you want a fixed wood handle, un-handled so you can make your own, or will you buy into somebody's handle "system"... etc. This is mostly personal-preference, so you already know and my opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Dean Center]

Here is the chart I referred to earlier, as well as a pdf of the published study. This is the only controlled test I've ever been able to find for the various tool steels cutting wood. I've spent 35+ years in mfg in various technical/engineering roles, and conducted many similar type tests (just not with wood). It appears to me to be a valid methodology and a good test. Too bad he did not include m42. Happy reading!

That's very interesting information. I've long wrestled with the sense that my Thompson 10V gouges don't stay sharp longer than my Crown PM gouges, which I thought wasn't supposed to be the case. But this chart shows that the PM actually lasts longer, if I'm reading correctly.

Also, M4 is not quite the same as M42, if I've got that part straight.

 

[Bill Blasic]

Other than being called PM (Powdered Metallurgy) and the word sintered I have no real idea what is in the Crown PM tools. Where the 10V and 15V contents are widely known. The Cryo treatment stated that it does nothing for wear but that is a little disingenuous as the Cryo as explained to me is to line up all those ites to make the steel better. Now 15V as shown has better wear characteristics than 10V but with a turning gouge if it gets real sharp it has a tendency to be chippy (along with wear the edge can chip because it is much harder 15% Vanadium vs almost 10% vanadium in 10V). Plus the fact that 15V is much more expensive than 10V. I have one of Doug's 15V 5/8 V gouges and have run it against my 10V 5/8 V gouge and sharpened the same on my 180 grit CBN it does stay sharper than the 10V and I have not run into any chipping (probably due to the fact of using the 180 CBN which I feel gives the best all around sharpening to any woodturning gouges). Now since this steel in woodturning tools is hard to come by it has a special place in a drawer as I have a half dozen 10V 5/8 Vs (my go to tools) where it is I know I have it and can't get another easily it is a keepsake.

 

[Kirk Amidon]

My opinions (for what they're worth):

First, I suggest a parabolic flute, it's probably the most versatile and works for basically any grind (except the U is better for a bottom-bowl grind). I think since you use a 40/40, the flute shape is not quite as critical. But if you see the light someday, you can re-grind to an Ellsworth - just kidding . If nothing else, it narrows down the choices.

Next, I think you'll be happy with the steel from any of the "good" tool makers. M42 or a powder-metal or CPM 10V. I wouldn't really sweat it too much. In any case, you'll notice the difference from what you have, and that's good.
I have a PM and a couple M42s, and I do like one for some things and the other for other things. But the differences where the metal meets the wood are really subtile. If I didn't have both I wouldn't know. Both do the job, and both are way better than the "HSS" gouge they replaced.

The other thing to consider is what sort of handle you like - do you want a fixed wood handle, un-handled so you can make your own, or will you buy into somebody's handle "system"... etc. This is mostly personal-preference, so you already know and my opinion doesn't matter.

Thanks Dave. Should add that I have a Dway gouge ground in Ellsworth/Irish way and use that too. There is some level of Ford /Chevy with the high end steels, but I suspect there are probably nuances with shape that will make differences as one improves.

Definitely not considering re-grinding the D-way I have, and will add another "good" gouge to be my primary 40-40. The PSI has been good to learn on.

As for handles, I've tried a couple of the system handles, and prefer the feel of wood.

Appreciate all the opinion, it is always good to get different perspectives.

 

[Forrest Forschmiedt]

Because I have the annoying habit of over analyzing these type of things, I found an earlier thread on this subject.

Earlier AAW thread

In the thread there is a link to Hudson Tool Steel's website, which has a couple charts showing properties of many different tool steels.
While I do realize that material properties presented like this to not necessarily translate to real-world performance, it is interesting when geeking out on tool purchases and comparing metallurgical properties. Interesting how much higher the wear resistance of V10 is rated over M2.


https://www.hudsontoolsteel.com/site/CompareToolSteel
https://www.hudsontoolsteel.com/site/CompareHighSpeedSteel

 

[robo hippy]

I do wish that the M42 HSS had been included.

robo hippy

 

[Forrest Forschmiedt]

I do wish that the M42 HSS had been included.

robo hippy

It is interesting to compare the metal properties of M2 and M42 in the Hudson Tool Steel link comparing high speed steels.
From that chart the M42 rates higher in wear resistance and shows a slightly higher rockwell hardness but rates lower in toughness and grindability.

From those comparison points, one might assume that M42 holds an edge better for cutting but may be more brittle. Lower toughness rating may imply that M42 would be more likely to chip and M2 might actually be easier to put a burr on when sharpening and be better for scraping.

But, like I said, real world performance and properties on paper do not necessarily agree.

 

[Doug Freeman]

From those comparison points, one might assume that M42 holds an edge better for cutting but may be more brittle. Lower toughness rating may imply that M42 would be more likely to chip and M2 might actually be easier to put a burr on when sharpening and be better for scraping.

I can say my m42 gouges have not chipped out edges, and I use the 5/8” shaft bowl gouge for a lot of roughing through bark and inclusions.

My 10V Thompson gouge and Crown pm spindle gouge do not form much of a burr when sharpened. Not a lot of ductility in those materials. The m42 gouge grinds and burrs similar to m2, and I think it would be good scraper material.

 

[Lars Hansen]

"My 10V Thompson gouge and Crown pm spindle gouge do not form much of a burr when sharpened"

@ Doug: Absolutely agree. My gouges are mostly Crown PM but my scrapers - standard and NRS - are M2/M2 cryo for that very reason.

 

[robo hippy]

Well, I have not been able to tell any difference in edge durability between the M42 and the V10. As for burrs, since I use scrapers for all of my heavy bowl roughing, I don't notice any difference that way either. There can be huge variations in burrs, depending on what grit wheel you are using, and if you are just barely kissing the bevel on the grinding wheel, or doing heavy grinding. None of the burrs on these metals come close to the burr on the tantung that is used on the Big Ugly tool, which can last for half a day. Even a burnished burr on the metals won't outlast the one on tantung. I have been able to burnish a burr on the tantung as well.

robo hippy

 

[Gerald Lawrence]

^^^^^ Yep.....and, this is why nearly every demonstration you'll ever see is with unseasoned wood.

Have to point this out since you do not go to demos nor run with the pack, Almost all demonstrators use dry wood in their demos that I have seen. Yes there are exceptions to this but exceptions exist to almost everything in this world.

 

[hockenbery]

^^^^ Yep.....and, this is why nearly every demonstration you'll ever see is with unseasoned wood.

Have to point this out since you do not go to demos nor run with the pack, Almost all demonstrators use dry wood in their demos that I have seen. Yes there are exceptions to this but exceptions exist to almost everything in this world.

I would agree there are a lot more dry wood demos. But a lot of that has to do with what is being demonstrated.
Boxes, pens, spindles, segmented, returning a dried bowl, platters, ornaments, jewelry, etc…. All require dried wood.

Hollowforms, Natural Edge bowls, NE goblets, roughing a bowl for drying ….. all require green wood.

Many demos are in between and the the demonstrator will usually opt for less than dry wood because most symposium ask you to limit dust by not sanding and turning green wood when possible.

When I demo traditional bowls I rough a bowl from green wood and return a dried bowl I show the whole process.

 

[Odie]

Have to point this out since you do not go to demos nor run with the pack,

Ah yes, Gerald......but I have seen many many demonstrations online, and many of those are demonstrations done for turning clubs. Also, I consider not "running with the pack" an advantage since I'm not subject to "group think" as much as most other turners. I would not be where is am today, if I hadn't been spending a lot of my "time in the saddle" in relative solitude.


Al raises some valid points in his post above. ^^^^^

-----odie-----

 

[Odie]

Continued:

This first 20 years of solitude learning I've had, I feel is extremely important to my development as a turner. I have come to conclusions and insights that are mine, and mine alone......and, because of that, my path to where I am now is much less traveled. That process is continuing to this day. Hindsight is great when coming to the conclusion that my individualistic, and not a "group" traveled path, is extremely important to where I am now.....as well as what my final destination will be.

There is no question that I have learned a great many things because of my participation on these forums......but, what I have learned is accepted because of the prior experiences I've had.....and, the opposite it true, in that what I have rejected is also the result of the experiences I've had!

-----odie-----

 

[Gerald Lawrence]

Continued:

This first 20 years of solitude learning I've had, I feel is extremely important to my development as a turner. I have come to conclusions and insights that are mine, and mine alone......and, because of that, my path to where I am now is much less traveled. That process is continuing to this day. Hindsight is great when coming to the conclusion that my individualistic, and not a "group" traveled path, is extremely important to where I am now.....as well as what my final destination will be.

There is no question that I have learned a great many things because of my participation on these forums......but, what I have learned is accepted because of the prior experiences I've had.....and, the opposite it true, in that what I have rejected is also the result of the experiences I've had!

-----odie-----

I know my thought on how I turn and probably all turners, at least how proficient , is more related to how much practice we get. Some of our club were talking last week about how long it takes now to turn a bowl (30 to 60 minutes) vs when we started (2 to 4 hours) . Ok maybe an exaggeration on the then time but still much less time to get there after for me 16 years.

 

[Doug Freeman]

I know my thought on how I turn and probably all turners, at least how proficient , is more related to how much practice we get. Some of our club were talking last week about how long it takes now to turn a bowl (30 to 60 minutes) vs when we started (2 to 4 hours) . Ok maybe an exaggeration on the then time but still much less time to get there after for me 16 years.

No, I dont think the time reduction is an exaggeration. Sometimes I’m not that much faster, but there is good reason - the extra time is spent much much differently.

For me, early on I was trying to learn how to use tools, why is this or that happening, screw up a bevel resharpening, etc. Now time is spent studying the wood, doing exploration cuts, changing orientation, what design is unfolding as more material is removed, whats the rim, the foot, embellishments- a completely different experience.

The amount of RECENT time turning has a big impact. Its not unusual for me to go 3-4 months and not turn anything during “motorcycle season”. I have to spend the time getting “back in the swing” when I’ve been away from it.

 

[Odie]

I know my thought on how I turn and probably all turners, at least how proficient , is more related to how much practice we get. Some of our club were talking last week about how long it takes now to turn a bowl (30 to 60 minutes) vs when we started (2 to 4 hours) . Ok maybe an exaggeration on the then time but still much less time to get there after for me 16 years.

For me, it's not about the time, or the money for that matter......it's about the results.

As with @Doug Freeman, In the beginning, I became faster at making a simple bowl, because I was learning how to use my tools. (This is a process that continues to this day, and will probably never stop.) As with most turners, I relied on power sanding to overcome my deficiencies in creating a perfect surface prior to sanding.

Then as I learned to make a simple bowl (pretty much the same path as most other turners go through), my continued efforts at refining the process became that which made the time element continue to increase. At some point, I began to see the detail possibilities of learning to turn without the need for anything but very fine sanding. This requires maintaining as close to a perfect geometry as possible. Most turners rely on power sanding to overcome a less than perfect surface.....and, power sanding is what destroys perfect geometry. This need for aggressive sanding can be overcome, but it requires fine tuning of the tool skills. Because of this, it necessarily increases the time element quite a bit......but, the rewards are worth it!

These days, I use zero power sanding on exteriors, but continue to use power sanding on the interiors of bowls. I wish I could say it were not so, but, I do spend at least two days (sometimes more!) to do the final turning on one of my bowls! It just has to be, if I'm to push myself to get the kind of details I want in the bowls that I turn.

-----odie-----

 

[robo hippy]

As for time, I am one of those 'efficiency it intelligent laziness' people. Ain't saying I am intelligent either.... The process of getting efficient in my turning is part of my learning, to reduce the process to the least amount of time. An 8 inch bowl, when I started, would have taken me 45 minutes to an hour when I started. Down to 5 minutes when I did a lot of production work. A bit slower than that now days. The process fascinates me as much as the end result. Sanding time and prep time has diminished greatly over the years, but if I don't turn for a while, I get slower, and have more ripples. Doesn't take long to get back into shape though. Well, not as long as it does if I take time off from the swimming pool....

robo hippy

 

[Mike Brazeau]

One of my first purchases when I entered my born again phase of woodturning, just over 20 years ago was a Hamlet 5/8 ASP 2060. As the chart showed earlier it has great wear characteristics, I think partly, maybe mostly, to the cobalt inclusion. It is Parabolic and my go to gouge. M42 also has Cobalt, and now being used by Hamlet as ASP 2060 is no longer available. Not sure of comparable percentages, but would be interesting to see more about it. I did a chart years ago for a presentation comparing the alloys, but do not have on this device and did not include M42.