Do you prefer a Norris style adjustment or a Bailey style adjustment

[Larry Feltner]

I read the recent Fine Woodworking article comparing smoothing planes and found it interesting that the primary criticism of the Veritas plane was that the guy who wrote the article preferred a Bailey style adjustment mechanism to the Norris style adjustment mechanism on the Veritas plane. I haven't used planes enough to have a preference, but I'm slowly working on it. I'm just curious as to which adjustment mechanism most on here think is better and why. Is there enough of a difference to really matter?

[David Weaver]

Don't really care, you have to be able to use them all. On a fine-cutting plane, a hammer is nice for adjustment, especially for lateral adjustment, but for depth, too.

When the plane gets too heavy, then it's not so handy for backing the iron out, but otherwise it's nice.

The lateral adjuster on a bailey plane is a bit coarse for smoothers - it's sort of like steering a boat on a railroad track, but you can get used to it (LN's adjuster is better). Its coarseness is nice for any other kind of planing, though - I doubt they arrived at that level of coarseness by accident.

The only adjuster I don't like much is the norris style with the telescoping action (i only have one plane like that), because it's quick (moves the iron too much for each unit of turn on the adjuster) and apparently easily damaged if you try to use it while the iron is locked down.

[george wilson]

I think the reason for the telescoping adjustment must have been so that the smaller screw inside the larger screw did not rotate. This made it possible to have a solid joint between this smaller screw and the ring that encircled the cap screw on the plane iron. The trouble was,the telescoping screw arrangement doubled the speed that the blade would advance as the adjustment knob was turned.

I have a later model Norris jack plane that did away with the old,and delicate double screw. Just one substantial,fine thread screw of decently strong diameter.

For many years,after just using simple woodies,adjusted with a little brass hammer,I'd just as soon use a hemmer adjusted plane,too. The metal planes I have posted thus far are all hammer adjusted,though I did make some screw adjustable types also,just for the fun of making a more complex mechanism.

[David Weaver]

On my norris adjuster infill, the iron sits on the adjuster itself, and the plane also has a bedding block instead of a thick sole. I never liked that too much, because it makes it harder to really fit everything as precisely as you would want to. One thing I like about the no-adjuster infills is that nothing on the bed moves, and you can set up the mouth so that you have two points of contact on the back of the iron that are right at the mouth on the metal, out at the edges. then the iron is very stable no matter how hard the wood, and it adjusts as you'd expect it to when you hit it with a hammer.

[Jim Koepke]

My fondness for hammer adjustment has increased with the number of planes in my shop that use this method.

What is not liked about the Norris style adjustment is not knowing exactly where things are with different planes. Since the cap needs to be loosened when adjusting the blade some planes will "tweak" the blade a little when the cap or blade lock is retightened. This is most noticeable on planes like the Stanley 45. On my two newer LN planes, a #62 and #60-1/2, this is not an issue. I am not sure those are really considered to be Norris style adjusters.

What is most liked about the Bailey adjuster is the cap can be under tension to set the adjustment. This allows for adjustment while the plane is moving on the surface being worked. The problem many people have with the Bailey adjuster mechanism is the backlash. The tolerances needed to remove the backlash are possible, but with time and wear backlash will appear.

jtk

[Frank Drew]

I think the adjustment is a bit finer on a Norris than a Stanley-type (Record, in my case), but I can live with any of them, including hammer adjusted.

[Martin Cash]

I have found that the Veritas style Norris adjuster is awkward to use for lateral adjustment of the blade. I have put this down to the fact that it is so short and my fingers are large. This makes even small movements of the adjuster translate into large movements of the blade.
The Stanley lateral adjustment lever, on the other hand, is longer before it meets the fulcrum and translates into very fine adjustments of the blade. On a well fitted Stanley, the lateral adjuster/blade combination is very precise. Combine this with a nice tight depth adjuster with no slop, and you have an excellent system.
I much prefer the Stanley combination on a good plane, over the shorter Norris solutions like on the Veritas, for this reason.
Cheers
MC

[Jim R Edwards]

I like a Norris adjuster much better than the Bailey style.

[David Keller NC]

I have many planes of both types (yeah, I know, it's a problem ....). For roughing work, and even jointing where the objective is gnerally to take off a thicker shaving, I prefer the Baileys because the iron is usually quite curved and so the lateral adjustment isn't too fussy. But I much prefer a modern rendition of the Norris A6 for smoothing work - the one I use most was made by Konrad Sauer. Konrad significantly slowed the fast-adjustment complaint of the original Norrises, and because of a tight fit between the adjuster circle and the iron & cap iron cheese-head screw, lateral adjustments are quite precise.

However, if someone was to make a Bailey plane of surpassing tolerances for the blade advancement/retraction (I'm talking really tight tolerances here - my Lie Nielsens are anywhere close enough), I'd probably overlook the fussiness of the lateral adjustment.

[Paul Erickson]

There are different types of Norris adjusters. The veritas planes use different counter pitches which varies the amount of blade travel per revolution of adjustment wheel. The courser counter pitch of 32tpi makes finer adjustments easier on the Bevel Up Veritas planes. The 56 tpi counter pitch on the Bevel Down Veritas planes, combined with the smaller adjustment wheel, and that angle of attack of the blade makes them harder to adjust than the Bevel Up planes. The link below is a discussion of some of the relevant issues.

canadianwoodworking.com/showthread.php?37253-Lee-Valley-Plane-Event/page4 (http://forum.canadianwoodworking.com/showthread.php?37253-Lee-Valley-Plane-Event/page4)

Personally, I find the Veritas BD planes impossible to adjust properly. No problems with the BU planes. I prefer the Bailey adjuster as finer shaving are much more easily achieved.

cheers, Paul

[Peter Pedisich]

I like the ECE Primus mechanism:D
That is, second to hammer on wedge.

[Kevin Foley]

To me it depends on the size of the plane. For smoothers I like the Norris style adjuster but for jack, fore or try I like the Bailey for on-the-fly adjustability. I am developing a preference for a plane (smoother or panel) with a levercap and no adjustment mechanism -- hammer taps to fine tune. This is probably due to my ineptitude at adjusting a wooden wedge. I am better able to dial-in pressure on the iron assembly with a cap screw. I also understand the damage to the fine threads often found on Norris adjusters. I've been tempted to give the iron a few taps with a hammer when I can't get it right with the adjuster.