#3 vs. #4 bench plane

[Rob Matarazzo]

I'm planning to buy a WoodRiver bench plane but am a little undecided between a #3 and #4. I already have a couple of block planes that I like and a #5 jack plane, so this will fill the gap between them. I don't have a Woodcraft store near me, otherwise I would just go and see which one feels right. Any advice?

[Chris Griggs]

Get a No. 4. 3's are a great size, but if you have large hands they can be a little cramped behind the handle. Plus I just subjectively feel that the No. 4 is the perfect all around size smoother. It's got enough weight to plow through hardwoods and difficult grain, but its small enough that you can still smooth a surface pretty easily that isn't dead flat.

[Ben Beckham]

I'd say it depends mostly on your hand size. Giant mitts may have trouble with a 3, and tiny hands might be overwhelmed by a 4 for smoothing. I have average size hands, and I have a few of each of the #3 and #4 in old Stanley Baileys, and I reach for both sizes about equally as often. I use the different sizes depending on the scale of work I'm doing, or if one happens to be sharper than the other, or if one is closer to me when I need it, or if I just feel like using a low knob/high knob plane, or...

Cliff notes: doesn't matter much.

[David Weaver]

I'd also get a #4. There's probably a good reason you see more of them than anything else. I've been through just about everything stanley, LV and lie nielsen have to offer (except I've never used a #1....and have no interest in it either), and the 4 is by far my favorite smoother to use.

[Gary Hodgin]

A matter of preference but I'd go with the 4.

[Joe Leigh]

Another vote for #3

[Prashun Patel]

i have a couple #3's (Stanley and LV small BU smoother). I love them, but the narrow base make them a little tricky for smoothing larger things. I just like them because they can be used like large block planes. If you are looking for a strict smoother, i'd pick a #4. Even for the small handed, #4's are not heavy. Further, smoothing isn't as sweaty work as flattening and thicknessing.

[Jim Koepke]

My vote is on the #3.

My reason is if you purchase a plane at a yard sale or flea market it will likely be a #4. The #3 is rare out in the wild.

My current set up is one #3 in my shop and three #4s. For small work, the #3 is often my choice. The #4s also get a lot of work.

If a #3 popped up at a yard sale or other venue at a decent price, it would be invited to come home with me.

jtk

[steven c newman]

My #3s are getting most of the work. A Union #3, A Millers Falls #8, and even a Handyman#1203. I do have (at last rollcall) four #4 smoothers. Been wanting to try out a Union #5A as a panel smoother. Might do it this weekend...

[Lloyd Robins]

I don't really have enough experience to give a reasoned preference, but I did just want to note that Old Street Tool and other wooden plane makers use a 1-5/8 to 1-3/4 iron in a smaller smoother which is close to a #3. (They also use a 55° angle, but that is another story). So, smaller smoothers seem to have a place in the world.

[David Weaver]

It depends on how you use your smoother. I don't think most people would be very happy with a smoother of that size for general furniture work when something else is available.

There is a difference in philosophy between how Warren Mickley has described smoothing (straight through strokes on a surface), and IIRC Larry described historically accurate smoothing as being more of a spot removal issue, at least sometimes.

Most users are practicing something much closer to what Warren describes. The last time I saw warren mention anything, it was a plain stanley #4 - a plane he won a WIA smoothing contest with against a quantity of very expensive planes.

[Stew Hagerty]

I have vintage Stanleys in both #3 & #4 sizes. Others have said to get the #4 if you have "large hands" or "giant mitts". I would offer a different take on it. I say that unless you have "small hands" or at least "smaller than average" hands that you get the Stanley Bailey #4. The #4 design is shear perfection. Oh sure, Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley, and others have tweeked Bailey's design a bit here and there, but the basic size, shape, & configuration has remained the same since 1869. Yes, of course the #3 has also been made since 1869 and yes companies have reproduced tweeked versions of the #3 as well. But not as many and not as often.

In goldilocks terms the #4 seems to be "just right". It is big enough to cover a surface without wearing you out, while still small enough to work on small things quite well. It seems to me that the #3, with a 1/4" smaller iron (6.25%) and a 12.5% smaller footprint, has always been meant for smaller work or smaller hands.

Personally, I use both. But I use them for different things. In fact I have them set up quite differently. The #4 is my go-to plane for general smoothing (I also have a 4 1/2 that I use for larger projects, but that is a whole other thread discussion) while I use the #3 for edge smoothing. My #4 iron is honed straight across except for a small and extremely slight upturn at the edges to minimize ridging. The iron on my #3 is honed with a very very mild camber. For whatever reason, this seems to produce a better edge on my workpieces. BTW, if someone knows why this is so, I would love to hear it.

Well, anyway, that is my take on the 3 - vs - 4 controversy.

[David Weaver]

The #4 design is shear perfection.

I hesitated to call it a genius design since I've done so so many times in the chipbreaker threads, but it really is just that. It is an absolutely genius design, and the reputation that it's ever gotten for being only for rough use or easy woods is purely because we seem to know less on average about using tools than people did when it was developed.

In almost every single instance where someone asks what plane they need to get to work a given wood, the answer is that you can figure out how to do it with a #4 faster than any new tool will arrive at your front door.

[Rob Matarazzo]

My hands are on the large side, so it sounds like the #4 would be the best choice. I was leaning that way anyway, but I wanted to get a few opinions. Thanks!

[Don Dorn]

What a diverse bunch. I use a 3 for shaping, a 4 for smoothing, but a bit heavier cut and a 4.5 for fine smoothing.

[Stanley Covington]

(except I've never used a #1....and have no interest in it either).

The No.1 makes a great little paperweight! People's first reaction is interesting here in Japan.

Stan

[Russell Sansom]

I do a bit of small scale work and some pattern-making in bass wood. The #3 is good for that. It does make an excellent block substitute as well. Otherwise I concur with the four-crowd.
Russ

[allen long]

Have you thought about getting a good user Stanley No 4 on Ebay? I have found several excellent users (4, 5, 4-1/2, and 6) for very reasonable prices. The older ones that came with sweetheart blades sharpened and honed to cut nearly as nicely as my LN, LV, ploanes and Stanleys with Hock blades. You would have a solid performer that you could use with a little tuneup that would perform every bit as well as or better than the Wood River.

Note that you will also have to fettle the Wood River to get it to perform well.

Later on, you can upgrade the blade with a Hock, LV or LN blade and you will have an heirloom-worthy Amercan-made plane with much more history and character than the Wood River.

Or, this could also be something to thnk about for your next plane buy of a No. 3 . . . ! I love the Stanley No. 3 my father gave me - especially after adding a Hock blade.

[daniel lane]

The #4 design is shear perfection.

I see what you did there...

[Chris Griggs]

Note that you will also have to fettle the Wood River to get it to perform well.

Like it or not this simply isn't true. Unless you consider honing the blade or putting a secondary bevel on the cap iron feddlling. I'm not going to go into the discussion of made where, or who copied who, or peoples personal feelings love or hate about these planes - everyone is entitled to their opinion in those regards and everyone has the choice to vote with there wallet on whether these planes live or die.

You're suggestions for alternatives are all excellent and I fully agree with them, but the fact of the matter is the WR don't require fettling. Like it or not, they simply don't.

I will add. I own a second generation WR 6. From a purely user perspective, it is an excellent tool. Definitely nicer to use than a vintage plane. That said, I probably wouldn't buy another one for a couple reasons.

1) Given the option (and that includes availability and also the options my wallet allows) I would much rather support LV or LN.

2) Vintage bench planes, especially smoothers are dirt cheap, and I now have the skill to get one working as well as a premium plane in very little time.

3) The WR's have gone up enough in price that I don't believe they are as good of a value as they once were. I got my 6 for like a $100 maybe a $110 when they were clearing out the second generation planes to make way for the V3s. A WR 4 is now $140, and LV No.4 is $200. If you are able to come up with the extra $60 you will not regret it. The LV and LNs are nicer tools. However, if you are not, know that in terms of what it does to the wood, the WR will perform as well as any other properly setup/sharpened bench plane, and enjoy your new tool. Actual performance has as much or more to do with the user than the tool anyway.

[steven c newman]

Another Vintage option, IF you can find one, is one of the Millers Falls premium type smoothers. an #8 or a #9, or even a #10? I have just re-furbbed a #8, and, VERY NICE! A thicker iron than the Stanley type 11, #4 I have. Once I got it fettled up, it was making see-through shaving in Oak.

I also have a couple planes by Union, "type 2" I think they are. The #3 has a very thick iron, and had a BIG bevel on it. Secondary bevel is about the same as most other iron's primary one. Might try the Union #5A as a smoother this weekend. Just a long #4-1/2? This one is afew inches longer than a #5, and a bit wider. Again, it also has a thick iron, just not as thick as the #3.

[Rob Matarazzo]

I went ahead and ordered the WoodRiver #4 last night. Since I've heard plenty of good things about them, I wanted to have one example in my arsenal. Someday I may take a crack at finding a vintage plane on ebay, but for now I'm not confident enough to know how to recognize a good deal. My other planes are Records and Stanleys that I bought new 15-20 years ago. I think I am covered for now in planes. Thanks again for all the recommendations.

[Chris Griggs]

I went ahead and ordered the WoodRiver #4 last night. Since I've heard plenty of good things about them, I wanted to have one example in my arsenal. Someday I may take a crack at finding a vintage plane on ebay, but for now I'm not confident enough to know how to recognize a good deal. My other planes are Records and Stanleys that I bought new 15-20 years ago. I think I am covered for now in planes. Thanks again for all the recommendations.

Congrats. I'm sure you'll be satisfied with it. Always fun to get a new tool!

[Stew Hagerty]

I see what you did there...

I was waiting to see anyone would catch my pun.

[Trevor Walsh]

I have a 2,3 and 4; I use the 4 the most.

[daniel lane]

I was waiting to see anyone would catch my pun.

Heh. :)

To contribute to the thread, I have and use a #4 the most. (My most used are a #62, #4, and low-angle block plane.) However, I recently purchased a Stanley #3 with the intention of putting it in my son's tool box. Having recently held it, though, I'm really going to want to try it out myself! Aside from the narrower sole, it just seems like it will be easier to maneuver on small stock. Playing with this one, I was able to get the chipbreaker a hair's breadth from the end of the blade, so I'm looking forward to trying it on some figured wood and seeing how I experience that particular topic for myself.


daniel

[allen long]

I stand corrected about the Wood River. Don't really have strong feelings against them. How are the blades? Not sure why I am asking because I already have more dang planes than I actually need - and a couple I still have to finish rehabbing, But, I am interested in getting the real skinny on the business end of the Wood River.

Kind Regards . . . .Allen

[Chris Griggs]

I stand corrected about the Wood River. Don't really have strong feelings against them. How are the blades? Not sure why I am asking because I already have more dang planes than I actually need - and a couple I still have to finish rehabbing, But, I am interested in getting the real skinny on the business end of the Wood River.

Kind Regards . . . .Allen

Hi Allen. Sorry if I jumped on you. I've just seen a lot of people who've never used the WRs deliberately and incorrectly tell others (typically newbies) that they are crap (in terms of use) because of their feeling about other aspects of the WRs production. Those feelings/opinions are of course valid, and like you I don't have super strong feelings either way about the WRs, but misinforming new woodworkers really ticks me off.

Anyway, I see that you were not doing that, so again, I apologize if I jumped on your post a bit. Anyway, I can only speak to the 2nd generation WRs, and supposedly the 3rds are better yet. The blade for mine was a little chippy when it was new, but pretty quickly became as good as any other good blade. I think I had to do a little work on the back, but not much. Everything on mine was flat and square, everything felt solid. I've been using it heavily for 3 years and its worked for me very well. I even dropped it toe first on concrete once and other than a couple of burrs to file off it was fine, and remained flat and square.

The WRs will give you everything you need and more in terms of having a solid tool that does what its supposed to do. What you get with the LNs and LVs (in addition to getting to support N. American workers and very very well run companies with great customer service) has a lot to do with comfort and ease of adjustment. The LVs and LNs have a nicer balance to them, the adjustments are smoother and more dialed in, and the fit and finish on the blades and such is higher (as in the backs are dead flat). Of course, you also get more options in terms of blade material, bed angles, and BU vs BD.

So there you have it. Despite being a huge LV fan boy I can't fault the WRs at all in terms of use and performance. They are well made high performing bailey stye planes, and the bailey design is and always has been brilliant. But all the said what you get if you can and do spend the extra on the LVs and LNs is totally worth it to me.

[Mike Cogswell]

Like it or not this simply isn't true. Unless you consider honing the blade or putting a secondary bevel on the cap iron feddlling. I'm not going to go into the discussion of made where, or who copied who, or peoples personal feelings love or hate about these planes - everyone is entitled to their opinion in those regards and everyone has the choice to vote with there wallet on whether these planes live or die.

You're suggestions for alternatives are all excellent and I fully agree with them, but the fact of the matter is the WR don't require fettling. Like it or not, they simply don't.



Chris is absolutely on target. I have three WR V3 planes and other than honing the blade and putting a bevel on the cap iron none have required any "feddling". I also have an embarrassingly large number of LN and LV planes that I have to hide from SWMBO. Functionally, the biggest difference between my LN #4 and my WR #4 is the fact that the LN has noticeably less backlash than the WR and I can use the LN with a high angle frog (which I don't currently own). Both would take a nice shaving right out of the box (well, after you wiped all the oil off) and the honing only made them better.

I love my LN planes - they are a joy to look at and to use. I take comfort in the fact they are made in the USA and have a lifetime warranty. But the current WR planes are an excellent quality and value. My newest WR is a #6, which was on sale in December for $151.99 compared to the LN price of $375.

Since I already have every size bench plane save the #1, I was going to recommend the WR #4 as a good choice and excellent value. But, I see you already pulled the trigger on it.

[Jim Koepke]

However, I recently purchased a Stanley #3 with the intention of putting it in my son's tool box. Having recently held it, though, I'm really going to want to try it out myself!

Careful, you may end up getting something else for your son.

My #3 comes out often when just the slightest shaving needs to be taken. It is just a little lighter than the #4s for coaxing a small imperfection off of a surface.

jtk

[Michael Ray Smith]

It depends on how you use your smoother. . . . There is a difference in philosophy between how Warren Mickley has described smoothing (straight through strokes on a surface), and IIRC Larry described historically accurate smoothing as being more of a spot removal issue, at least sometimes. . . . .

I think David is spot-on in his description of the different uses for smoothers. The slightly wider No. 4 is easily the better choice for straight through strokes, but a smaller plane works better to smooth areas of tear-out and other spot issues. As a novice a few steps ahead of you in assembling tools, I predict your immediate needs will be more along the lines of smoothing sections of tear out, but eventually you'll need to deal with both issues.

So, I suggest that you think about not only this purchase but also the next. If this will be the last smaller plane you buy for quite a while, I'd go with Jim Koepke's advice and buy a No. 3 because, IMO, it's a little better at dealing with both issues than the No. 4 and because it will probably meet your immediate needs a little better. However, if you think you're going to continue to fill in the gaps (somehow our estimate of the size of a gap in tools that needs to be filled gets smaller and smaller as we go!), I suggest you get a No. 4 for straight through stokes and consider something even smaller than a No. 3 for spot removal -- either a Stanley No. 2 (if you can spring for the bucks) or a low-angle block plane from Lee Valley and add the tote and front knob and an extra 38 degree blade so it can serve not only as a block plane but as a bench smoother. I have all four -- a Stanley No. 2, the Millers Falls equivalents of a No. 3 and No. 4, and the LV low-angle block plane with the accessories. With those choices, the No. 3 is probably the one I use least. I use the No. 4 for straight through strokes on a surface and the No. 2 or the LV block plane for areas of tear-out and such.

[Stew Hagerty]

I think David is spot-on in his description of the different uses for smoothers. The slightly wider No. 4 is easily the better choice for straight through strokes, but a smaller plane works better to smooth areas of tear-out and other spot issues. As a novice a few steps ahead of you in assembling tools, I predict your immediate needs will be more along the lines of smoothing sections of tear out, but eventually you'll need to deal with both issues.

So, I suggest that you think about not only this purchase but also the next. If this will be the last smaller plane you buy for quite a while, I'd go with Jim Koepke's advice and buy a No. 3 because, IMO, it's a little better at dealing with both issues than the No. 4 and because it will probably meet your immediate needs a little better. However, if you think you're going to continue to fill in the gaps (somehow our estimate of the size of a gap in tools that needs to be filled gets smaller and smaller as we go!), I suggest you get a No. 4 for straight through stokes and consider something even smaller than a No. 3 for spot removal -- either a Stanley No. 2 (if you can spring for the bucks) or a low-angle block plane from Lee Valley and add the tote and front knob and an extra 38 degree blade so it can serve not only as a block plane but as a bench smoother. I have all four -- a Stanley No. 2, the Millers Falls equivalents of a No. 3 and No. 4, and the LV low-angle block plane with the accessories. With those choices, the No. 3 is probably the one I use least. I use the No. 4 for straight through strokes on a surface and the No. 2 or the LV block plane for areas of tear-out and such.

Michael, you mentioned the LV Low-Angle Block Plane. Well, I have one all decked out with the tote & knob and I absolutely love it. While it is about the size of a #2 in most respects, it has quite a bit more hand room. I have mine outfitted with the standard 25 degree blade for most of the things I use it for. However, I have a 50 degree blade and a 38 degree toothed blade for working highly figured woods and dealing with tearout. It's an amazing piece of iron, and I use it all the time. I have a Stanley Sweetheart L-A block plane that I use for more typical block plane things.

253476253477

[steven c newman]

Getting to finish up a little table. Needed to bevel the edges, so253478A Stanley#1203 to rough it out, then a Stanley #18 to smooth it down. Tried a #5A ( 5-1/2 size) to smooth out the top, and will go back over it with a M-F #8253479253480 unless you fellows think a #6253481would work better.

[Hovey Moore]

Michael, you mentioned the LV Low-Angle Block Plane. Well, I have one all decked out with the tote & knob and I absolutely love it. While it is about the size of a #2 in most respects, it has quite a bit more hand room. I have mine outfitted with the standard 25 degree blade for most of the things I use it for. However, I have a 50 degree blade and a 38 degree toothed blade for working highly figured woods and dealing with tearout. It's an amazing piece of iron, and I use it all the time. I have a Stanley Sweetheart L-A block plane that I use for more typical block plane things.

253476253477

I have mine decked out with handles as well and it is a an amazing little Baby BUS. I wouldn't want to smooth a large table with it but it is perfect for touching up tearout spots, or making chamfers.

[Rob Matarazzo]

I thought I'd post an update to this thread. As I mentioned earlier, I went ahead and ordered the Wood River #4 a few weeks ago. I haven't done much with it yet, other than sharpening the iron and a few tryouts on some pine. The other day I was planing the edge of a piece of two-by-four with my jack plane and grabbed the Wood River to try a few strokes. After a few attempts at adjusting the iron, I found the mouth clogged so I removed everything to make some adjustments. To my surprise, I found numerous gouges in the front edge of the cap iron. I don't know if I just did something wrong in setting up the plane or if metal is just too soft, but it was kind of a disappointment.

[Don Dorn]

Both are viable choices, but I go with the #3. Granted, my hands aren't overly big so it fits fine, but the main reason is that I use a #3 as a shaper and as a block substitute. Additionally, it does a great job of final smoothing, just as the #4 does.

That said, I've somewhat culled my herd of LN bench planes and would not choose a WR either. For me, those smoothers are too heavy to do the kind of work I'm used to with them.

[Chris Griggs]

Cap irons are always made out of soft material and they are ground at a low angle so they dent up very easily if you set them close without a secondary bevel. If you think it came that way exchange it (contact WC, if they're smart they'll just send you a replacement cap iron). Regardless, whether you keep it or exchange it, put a 50 degree or so secondary bevel on the tip of the top/outside (not the mating surface). This will make it work better if you use it to prevent tearout and keep it from chipping. This is one reason I like the old style CBs better than the supposedly "improved" ones.

BTW, if you were not setting it very close I highly doubt it chipped in use. Unless you are pretty sure you did something to it just try to get a replacement anyway. WC should give you the benefit of the doubt...all of their competitors would.

[Mike Cogswell]

Rob

I've used my Woodriver #4 V3 extensively for over a year. It's the plane I drag along when I'm working outside my shop and I use it the most in the shop. So far there isn't any hint of damage to the cap iron. I agree with Chris - take it/send it back. Woodcraft should replace the cap iron.

[Rob Matarazzo]

Thanks for the advice. I contacted Woodcraft and they are sending me a new cap iron.

[Bill White]

I have a #3, #4C, #5 1/2 and a #7. For general planing, I find these will accomplish what I need. In addition to a Stanley low angle block, a small Stanley bullnose, and a collection of woodies, I'm plane poor.
Bill

[steven c newman]

Plane poor???257548 I think I'm the one that is plane poor....