To those who own the No. 9

[Rick Erickson]

More specifically the LN No. 9. If you had to do it over again would you buy it again or live without it. Currently I'm shooting with my 5 1/2 and even my 8. These seem to work well but I'm wondering if the 9 is that much better. After all it was created for a reason. Was that reason just to make more money or is it really that much better? I've heard some well respected hand tool people say it was too light to work well as a shooter.

[John Stan]

More specifically the LN No. 9. If you had to do it over again would you buy it again or live without it. Currently I'm shooting with my 5 1/2 and even my 8. These seem to work well but I'm wondering if the 9 is that much better. After all it was created for a reason. Was that reason just to make more money or is it really that much better? I've heard some well respected hand tool people say it was too light to work well as a shooter.
In a Rob Cosman day class at Woodcraft, I think I recall him saying that the 5 1/2 was his preference for shooting. His reasoning was the 5 1/2 was heavier than the 9. I think his quote was the "9 would be great if it had a bag of sand in it". I also think he said the 8 was even better for shooting but could be unwieldy due to its size.

[Dan O'Sullivan]

Rick
The little shooting I have done with the LN62 has been real easy. I have also done some trimming/shooting with bevel down planes and had good results. So.. have I gone out for the LN 9? Not yet. I think you can get away with the LN or LV low angle bu jacks and put your money on another plane. I like BU's and I like BD's. I'm saving for a high angle smoother from LN. I have a couple woodies I made with Hock blades that do a great job on the wild figured walnut I am currently surfacing. To run some comparisons, I have tuned up the woodies and the LN62 with a high angle grind. Truthfully, I'm very happy with the wood and the LN.

Final Answer: I think you can get away without the 9.

[Jim Koepke]

Rick,

Since I am currently doing a lot of shooting on 8 & 12 inch boards, my thoughts were to purchase the LN #62 rendition.

Since trying my #5-1/2, I am having second thoughts. Of course, just this instant a peek was taken at Blood & Gore and the #62 by Stanley weighs in at a pound and a quarter more than my #5-1/2.

Forget about those second thoughts. If the LN version tips the scales like that, it is still on the top of my shopping list.

My other favored plane for the shooting board is the #65-1/2 Stanley. This one because it has the lower profile lever cap instead of the knuckle joint lever cap, making it more comfortable and easier to grip. ymmv

The #65-1/2 is a bit light for holding any momentum through a big hunk of wood. Believe it or not, pushing a bit more mass is less tiring in the long run. The #5-1/2 is not a very comfortable plane to grip. I did start another thread on an impromptu auxiliary handle that was made. My thoughts are that if this plane is made to work too well, then there won't be a reason to buy the #62. Of course, then the money could be spent on something else.

My thoughts on the #9 is that it was a plane used to trim miters and was also targeted to an industry that was much larger 100 years ago, piano makers. Most likely, cabinet makers and such trimming miters on molding and other small pieces liked more control as opposed to the brute force wanted when shooting a long edge.

I could have been an analyst.
I could have helped people in prisons.
I could have been a con tender.

Ducking and covering,

jim

[Gary Benson]

Rick,
I have used by LN 62 with hot dog for most of my shooting, until I got my 5 1/2. For me, the 5 1/2 often works even better. As you said in another thread, the best plane for shooting is the sharpest one you have, regardless of size or design. I think the #9 is cool, likely a little more comfortable, but from what I have seen, would not work any better than the ones you have.
Gary

[David Gendron]

Eric, you can get away without it for sure. That said, I have a dedicated miter plane, not a LN #9 but a woodie made by Philip Edwards and love it, I use it only for shooting and that way it's always ready for that. I don't think you need a miter plane to shoot wood, but having a plane dedicated for the shooting board is sure nice.

[Rick Erickson]

Thanks all.

Gary, very true. My 5 1/2 and 8 work fine - even on end grain :-). However, I was thinking about turning my 5 1/2 into more of a dedicated Jack plane (heavy camber). I've got some huge Walnut slabs I need to break down and my scrub just isn't cutting it. I figure once I make the change I probably won't want to go back. That is why I was considering the #9.

[Gary Benson]

In that case, I would go for it. I am still using my 5 1/2 for a super-sized smoother. If you want a dedicated shooter, the #9 is it. Most people buy the 62 for it's flexibility, but due to my laziness, I have really only used it for shooting. The sides of the 62 are kind of small, have to be careful not to tip, #9 is rock solid on its side.
Gary

Hey, it's only money right? Plus you seem to be willing to sell lightly used ones anyway, consider it a test drive.

[James Owen]

More specifically the LN No. 9. If you had to do it over again would you buy it again or live without it. Currently I'm shooting with my 5 1/2 and even my 8. These seem to work well but I'm wondering if the 9 is that much better. After all it was created for a reason. Was that reason just to make more money or is it really that much better? I've heard some well respected hand tool people say it was too light to work well as a shooter.

Rick,

I've done shooting with a number of planes: Bevel down planes include a #4, a #4-1/2, a #5-1/2, a #6, and a #8, all in both LN and vintage Stanley versions; and I've also used several different LA BU planes, including a 60-1/2, a 62, a 164, and a 7-1/2, all LNs. But by far, my favorite shooting plane is the LN #9. It is simply the easiest, most comfortable, and most accurate shooting board plane that I've ever used; I wish that I'd bought it years earlier.......

Mine is set up with both the knob (the one that LN put on its earlier versions) and the hot dog. Not only is this very comfortable, but it also gives exquisite control over the cut.

The width of the sides makes keeping the plane flat and square on the shooting board a piece of cake. Adjustments are simple and quick, and the A-2 iron is easy to hone and holds an edge well.

I find the weight to be just about right: there's enough mass to plough through hard woods, like oak and maple, and even tropical exotics with a high mineral content, but not so much that you couldn't use it all day long. It's easy to set up for both fairly rank and super-fine cuts, and it can be used to remove a fair amount of wood in a hurry, or it can be very delicately and very slowly pressed along the edge of a board to remove gossamer shavings.

All in all, I really like the #9: it does an excellent job on the shooting board, and it's the first plane I reach for when I need to do any shooting. If you do a lot of shooting, I recommend taking a close look at adding one to your plane inventory. And, of course, take one for a test drive first, if you can!

[Rick Erickson]

Ah, now were talking. Thanks for helping me spend my money James :-) I'm glad someone out there is using one. I was reading one of Tom Fidgen's blogs and he seems to like it. Gary, like you I'm waaay to lazy to change my setup once I have it set the way I want it. I guess a dedicated smoother is in my future.

[Mark Stutz]

Can you live without one? YES. Will you like it when you get it? Yes. I'm with James on this. By far the most comfortable plane to shoot with I tried. I have both the handle and hot dog, though I think the handle is now an option that you have to request. For just a couple of swipes, about anything will work, but I found the 62 more difficult to keep square. My hand pressure wanted to tilt it.

Now if LN were to make a #51:D:cool:

I'm still on the lookout for a bronze #9:D

Mark

[Pat Zabrocki]

Can you live without one? YES. Will you like it when you get it? Yes. I'm with James on this. By far the most comfortable plane to shoot with I tried. I have both the handle and hot dog, though I think the handle is now an option that you have to request. For just a couple of swipes, about anything will work, but I found the 62 more difficult to keep square. My hand pressure wanted to tilt it.

Now if LN were to make a #51:D:cool:

I'm still on the lookout for a bronze #9:D

Mark

+1 on everything Mark said

Pat

[David Colafranceschi]

I have the #9 but I don't use it for shooting, I use it specifically on end grain and I like the boxy feel of it for that. For instance when I have to clean up the end grain on a large panel that would not fit on a shooting board I clamp it in a vise and use the #9.

In my opinion the heavier the plane the easier it is to shoot with. That being said I use my 5 1/2 and 8. The 8 just glides through cuts with it mass. I think the low angle jack is to light and the sides to small for shooting. There are those that disagree but when you compare it to a 8 or 5 1/2 it is pretty apparent. I have the 62 and have only used it in a shooting board once-didn't really like it. I do believe LN is coming out with the shooting board and plane set that Stanley used to make, I don't think that will be too far off.

I wouldn't trade or sell my #9, I use it for a specific job and in that job it performs extraordinary. It's a personal preference. If you bought it and don't like it to shoot with you will find other uses for it and not regret the purchase.

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks all.

Gary, very true. My 5 1/2 and 8 work fine - even on end grain :-). However, I was thinking about turning my 5 1/2 into more of a dedicated Jack plane (heavy camber). I've got some huge Walnut slabs I need to break down and my scrub just isn't cutting it. I figure once I make the change I probably won't want to go back. That is why I was considering the #9.

Have you thought of using a #6 for the dedicated Jack? You might find the extra weight helpful for hoging off wood.

jim

[Rick Erickson]

I have Jim - that was the other thought. I just figured if the 9 was that much better than the 5 1/2 I would kill two birds with one stone. The 6 is still an option though.

In terms of the 51 it looks like it is coming soon. There is a blog post on woodworking magazines site. Schwarz wrote it. The 51 is coming first quarter of this year with the 52 to follow after. Hey, maybe that will be worth the wait (although it won't be cheap).

[Matt Radtke]

Now if LN were to make a #51:D:cool:


According to Chris Schwarz's blarg, it's coming. Possibly even a matching 52.

[gary Zimmel]

Hi Rick

I use my #9 all the time for shooting.
For me the weight is sufficient to get the job done.
(Although a bronze #9 would be nice)

I use my 5 1/2 sometimes but find the #9 more comfortable to use.

[Randal Stevenson]

A while back, there was a plane for sale in that neander tool newsletter, you all got me looking at.:rolleyes:

There was a plane, that was a sample, LONGER then a number 8 and thought to be a prototype. It sold quick (I was happy, as I was tempted).

Good lord, I was thinking LN bought it and made a #9 bench plane (something like 30" long), for Hercules. I didn't recognize that plane number, LOL.

[David Keller NC]

More specifically the LN No. 9. If you had to do it over again would you buy it again or live without it. Currently I'm shooting with my 5 1/2 and even my 8. These seem to work well but I'm wondering if the 9 is that much better. After all it was created for a reason. Was that reason just to make more money or is it really that much better? I've heard some well respected hand tool people say it was too light to work well as a shooter.

Rick - I own and use the #9 every day in the shop, and I would not be without it. It is an extraordinarily heavy plane for its length, and I personally do not want a long plane when shooting - the length in one of the Stanley bench planes is largely in the back after the blade, and that has the potential for whacking me in the cahones on the back stroke.

Plus, I've done exactly what you propose - I use my 5-1/2 as a roughing plane, and having to switch out a straight-ground blade for a cambered blade frequently would be a real pain.

[Gary Benson]

Interesting side note. I was shooting both the ends and edges of some birdseye for several boxes and found the 62 and the 5 1/2 were causing terrible chip out. Had to use the 4 1/2 with the 55 degree frog. It worked much better on the edges, still worked fine on the end grain. I think I will still likely use several planes on the shooting boards under different situations.
Gary

[Rick Erickson]

Plus, I've done exactly what you propose - I use my 5-1/2 as a roughing plane, and having to switch out a straight-ground blade for a cambered blade frequently would be a real pain.

Thanks for the confirmation David. I was beginning to convince myself I'm being too lazy and should just multi-task my 5 1/2. So either it is a good idea to leave it as is once I set it up OR you are just as lazy as I am :). Side Note: Do you find the 5 1/2 too heavy as a roughing plane over time? That is the big win of the scrub (super light weight). It is just too darn narrow and takes forever (at least on larger panels).

I see a 9 in my future. T-LN is coming to Atlanta on Friday so maybe I will get him to sign it :D

[Doug Shepard]

There's always the Georgia version
http://www.breseplane.com/10_238_Shooting_Plane.html
:cool:

[Rick Erickson]

There's always the Georgia version
http://www.breseplane.com/10_238_Shooting_Plane.html
:cool:

Man, that would be nice!

[Jim Koepke]

Man, that would be nice!

Just being able to afford one would be nice!

jim

[Rick Erickson]

Just being able to afford one would be nice!

jim

Hey, maybe the bank would understand the 'need' for this plane and allow me to skip my mortgage and car payments for a month.

[Mark Stutz]

There's always the Georgia version
http://www.breseplane.com/10_238_Shooting_Plane.html
:cool:

Oh yeah:cool:. I forgot about those:cool: I suspect the LN 51/52 will come in at about that.

[Rick Erickson]

Oh yeah:cool:. I forgot about those:cool: I suspect the LN 51/52 will come in at about that.

This is all making the $375 for the LN No. 9 seem really affordable. I'm now starting to think I'm getting a good deal :D

[Mark Stutz]

This is all making the $375 for the LN No. 9 seem really affordable. I'm now starting to think I'm getting a good deal :D

It's all about perspective!:D But if you've ever seen or picked up one of Ron's planes...you'll realize what a bargain you're getting.

[Jeff Heath]

I do a lot of shooting, and I use my #9 a lot (when business is good, that is). For me, it was an improvement over both the 5 1/2 and #62 (I had the option of either in my shop). The #9 is more comfortable to use, and it's perfect for the task. As far as mass goes, it is not lacking, and I don't think you'd even notice the difference in use. Remember, we're not hogging off material here. This iron, like all our tools, needs to be sharpened to an extreme edge, and when it is, it slices off end grain like butter.

Definately worth the money if you're going to use it a lot.

Jeff

[Tony Zaffuto]

As a hobbyist probably not. I have a LN #9 with a hot dog style handle. If LN had the hot dog handle available for their low angle jack, I would have gone in that direction (I already had the low angle jack).