Looking for a good plane

[pat fowler]

Hey guys, I'm looking for some opinions here and would love as much input as possible from the vast array of knowledge I have come to expect and admire here at the Creek. I want to get a good shooting board plane, something that will excel over my regular bench planes. I have an array of old Stanley planes from 1 to 8 plus a 9 1/2 and 60 1/2 and do not feel that any really does a great job on a shooting board. Really the best is the 60 1/2 and that I feel has to be because of the low angle. Where it fails is that it is so small and light that it lacks the momentum needed to finish the cut with authority. Now the question is should I pick up a old Stanley 62 or should I look to spend a few more dollars and get a LV LA jack or a Lie Nelson 62. I feel that the LV or LN would do the job well but I have never felt that I needed to reach out beyond the old tried and true Stanley planes. I have no trouble with putting in some clean up and tune up time, I actually enjoy it, but I want to get the right tool for the job. Any input will be much appreciated. Pat.

[Russell Sansom]

I have used a #8 for many years jointing edges as well as end grain. While it takes a little time to get used to it physically, the mass is hard to beat. I have set it for a fine cut and blade tension just right to move the blade in and out with just a flip of the thumb as the shooting job demands.
These days, with several fantastic LN planes in the stable, I find myself grabbing the LN #9 ( so-called "mitre plane") quite often. It's far less demanding than my trusty Bedrock 608c, even if blade adjustment is a little more finiky. Each has its place. Between the two, the job gets done.
Once in a while I will try the LN #5 jack or the general-duty #6 that's always on the bench ready to do whatever I ask of it. The #6 is in the same ball park as the #8, but it isn't of much use unless I tweak it down for a very fine cut. Bottom line, I like the smooth, solid mass of the tuned-for-fine #'s 8 and 9.

[David Weaver]

Bench planes should be fine, but if you want to go to a premium plane, I would get the LV LA jack. Bigger cheeks, heavier, and cheaper than the LN. There's something nice about a bevel up plane on a shoot board, but I think it's more benefit to the user (for feel) than it is for results on the workpiece.

[Jim Paulson]

Pat,
I agree with David here. The LV LA jack is a sweet plane in general and it works beautifully for shooting. I am totally impressed with the quality and the heft of the plane. As others have indicated you can use a variety of planes for shooting. Especially if you are truing up a longer board on side grain.

If you are up to a little tuning, I think that the next best thing without purchasing the LN #9, is to pick up a Bedrock 605. I recently refurbished one and equipped it with a Ron Hock replacement iron in A2 and with the frog adjustment, I can get it to shoot real well. It is awesome to minimize that gap in the throat with the Bedrock style frog and get ultra thin shavings. It is not hard to tune a plane if you don't hurry it. I invested some time in draw filing, flattening the sole, and getting the one side to be at 90 degrees, but the results are now gratifying. The benefit of springing for a LN plane is beauty, greater mass, but the additional cost. Maybe some day I get a LN #9, but the LV LA jack is plenty for me now.

Food for thought,
Jim

[pat fowler]

Russell, thanks for the reply, I have not tried using my # 8 as it seemed much too large but I will give it a try. I really do not use the the # 8 very much and may just set it up for fine cut and see about dedicating it for shooting. The LN # 9 is a bit more than I would want to spend right now. I would love to get the LN 51 but it is way more than I am willing to pay.

Dave, Jim, I may just get the LV LA jack, I think that this all may be just a ploy on my part to talk myself into venturing into the world of premium plans. Thanks for the gentle nudge ! All of my planes are Bailey's, I have never tried to acquire any Bedrock planes as I have not been convinced that the extra expense was justified. I may be completely misguided here but everyone must have a plan. Thanks for the suggestions and responses. Pat.

[Jim Koepke]

Pat,

For a long time my shooting plane was either a Stanley #65 for small things and a #6 for larger work. The bench planes are a lot more comfortable to use with a hot dog. Derek Cohen has two tutorials on his page showing ways to make your own:

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/index.html

Because of a bad shoulder from a cycling accident many years ago, I bought an LN #62 and their hot dog. The plane is wonderful for shooting and the Low Angle takes less effort than a bench plane to push through long sections of end grain. The low angle also seems to produce a smoother surface.

In my opinion, whether you purchase the Lee Valley or the Lie-Nielsen LA BU Jack you will have made a good decision.

If getting to Cincinnati isn't an ordeal for you, Lie-Nielsen is scheduled to have a Tool Event there on April 15 & 16 if you can wait that long.

There may also be someone local who has the LV LA Jack for you to give a test drive. I was pretty sure that I wanted an LN #62, the test drive pushed me down the slope.

jtk

[Kevin Foley]

Pat,

I've got an LN 9 for shooting. It's great but for most things it's overkill. The sides are as close to square as you can get. I'll shoot with a 605 or 608 to save a trip. It's not absolutely necessary have the sides perfectly 90 degrees on a plane with a lateral adjuster. Take a test cut, check for square, tweak the lateral adjuster and retest until you bring the angle to a perfect 90. Advantages of the LN 9 are that it's easier to close the throat for a final glassy cut, the low angle cutter, lot of weight in a small package. Downside is that sharpening is a bit picky -- blade needs to be square, and the price says LN is proud of it. Old Stanley 62's are fragile. Old metallurgy castings are too brittle for low-angle ramps. New Stanley 62's have better metal but the fit and finish are unimpressive. LV seems to have built their bevel-up planes with high sidewalls to make them reasonably good for shooting. If you have a selection of planes that are capable of shooting but they aren't doing the job you want, might as well get a plane built to be a shooting machine instead of a jack-of-all traded -- pun intended.

My 2c, best regards, Kevin

[pat fowler]

Jim, I know how you feel, most of my joints seem to cause me to figure out how to do things causing myself the least pain, but getting old beats the heck out of the alternative. I'm think I am leaning heavily towards the LV LA jack, it seems most everyone has much good to say about it.

Kevin, I really was interested in the LN miter plane but as you mention LN is very proud of it and I just can't justify the cost. I have to assume from all the good things I read about LN planes that they are a real treat to own but again I have yet to feel any real temptation to pay the premium price that they demand. I have a very good assortment of vintage Stanley planes and may just continue to fiddle with them and maybe fettle one to the point that I am satisfied with it as a shooter. Or maybe I will get to the point that I finally justify the purchase price of an LV jack.

Thanks to all that taken the time to respond and I do really appreciate the input from all. Pat.

[Jim Paulson]

Pat, check out this quick youtube using the LV LA jack. I love using this plane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8Wf6xRBC94

Peace,
Jim

[Charles Goodnight]

I have to say it: During the WWII the P51 Mustang was considered a good shooting plane. During the Vietnam war the F-4 Phantom was a good shooting plane. Depending on your needs I could recommend either one.

[Orlando Gonzalez]

This is what I use. It's the Skew Miter from Phil Edwards at phillyplanes-dot-com-dot-uk

185028185030185029

[Jim Koepke]

I have to say it: During the WWII the P51 Mustang was considered a good shooting plane. During the Vietnam war the F-4 Phantom was a good shooting plane. Depending on your needs I could recommend either one.

The LV is likely more economical and will cover a few of the holes the others leave in their work.

jtk

[john brenton]

Philly planes are pretty sweet looking. If I had money to burn I'd get that toted smoother...it's gorgeous.

[QUOTE=Orlando Gonzalez;1651317]This is what I use. It's the Skew Miter from Phil Edwards at phillyplanes-dot-com-dot-uk

[Jon Toebbe]

I'd echo the advice to get a LV Low-angle Jack. It's my all-purpose bench plane, and I love it. Plus, given how collectible the Stanley #62 planes are, I'd be very surprised if you could find a good, clean user for significantly less than the price of the Veritas. Plus, I seem to recall reading that one reason that #62's are so rare is that the combination of brittle cast iron and fairly thin casting behind the mouth took their toll. A new-fangled ductile iron plane should hold up better for the long haul.