I am considering trying to convert an old Bailey #5 jack plane to use as a scrub plane. Do you think this is possible/practical, and if so, could you offer some suggestions as to going about it? Any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
Tis a pointless endeavour. The jack plane is nothing more than the English version of the continental European scrub plane. So there is no conversion to something your plane already is. Put a good radius on your iron, back your frog to the fullest extent possible, and be content with your plane.
Adam
Edited 2/22/2006 8:42 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Adam,
Would you recommend a beefier iron than the current one, and how much of a radius would you recommend?
Thanks Again,
Dave
Let's see...what would a thicker iron do....Well, it would reduce chatter (or so the theory goes anyway). Does that mean anything to you? It would also take a little longer to sharpen. So that's not so good. I think its easier to sharpen thick irons since you have more bezel to sit on. You'll have to do this one freehand because of the camber. Thin blades are generally good candidates for honing jigs. But I'm not sure if the thicker iron would help you. The thicker iron will also close up the mouth a little and that's bad. Remember that the amount you close the mouth is roughly 1.4 times the difference in thickness.Yeah, I'd skip a thicker iron presently. Try a camber such that there is approx an 1/8"' of sag between the corners of the blade. Then don't try to take a full width shaving. Just adjust down a little and see how you do.Adam
If, in taking a deeper cut when used as a scrub plane, you have a problem with chatter, it would be due to the blade extending farther than normal and a thicker iron could help because it is stiffer and raises the resonant frequency of the chatter. A thicker iron can still chatter but in hand planing, the speed of the plane is usually too slow for it to occur if the plane is set up correctly. It's still possible that the cap iron and chip breaker aren't providing enough pressure on the iron, but used as a scrub plane, this wouldn't really matter. If it will be used as a jack plane, chatter would be a problem and a thicker iron would help.
You get the problem here. The thicker blade is thicker, but not at its edge. The bezel is also longer meaning support from the bed/frog is actually higher. So this is an engineering problem certainly beyond a guess from me. My take on thick irons is that thick laminated irons are easier to sharpen. Thick all steel irons take longer to hone, but at least you've got good support from the wide bezel. Thin irons can be fine if they are of good quality. It just takes a little more skill if you hone them freehand, but they are generally faster to sharpen.
The question I have for you is why chatter matters less with a scrub than a jack plane. I think Stanley made a pointless distinction between the two (#5 jack and #40 scrub) to sell us more tools. Ditto for the #5 and #6. These are all functionally the same tool. No reason for us to continue to believe 100 yr old advertising. Pretty sure they used to say smoking was good for you too. We don't believe that one anymore either. What's the difference between a #5-1/2, #5-1/4 or a #5-11/16. Its nice to have a tool you are comfortable with but there's no objective functional difference between any of them. Right? Smoothers and jack planes and try planes and jointers are all different tools. Scrub planes and jack planes and fore planes are all the same.
Adam
"Scrub planes and jack planes and fore planes are all the same."
I disagree. I don't care about Stanley marketing. I just know that using my 40 is not the same as using my 5. The 40 is narrower (1 1/4" vs. 2"). The 40 has a thicker blade. The the convex bevel is of a much smaller radius that one would likely efficiently use on a 5. The 40 came with a wide mouth, while the 5 would have to be altered to provide nearly the clearance.
At base, all planes are fixed blades that remove wood. One could smooth a face with a small block plane. One could joint an edge with a shoulder plane. And on and on, but it doesn't make them all the same. The 40 is optimized for the roughest thicknessing right out of the box. A 5 can be converted to do a similiar job, and even do it well, but that doesn't make the two redundant any more than a bandsaw and a jig saw are redundant. And just as I would not wish to resaw with a jigsaw, I'd rather have my 40 to hog a 1/2" off the face off a riven plank for example than a 5. The converted 5 would work (but note that it would no longer be an optimal 5 for other 5 uses as the mouth would be too wide and the convex blade too pronounced, but it would be slower going. In short, for some tasks the 40 is optimal, while a converted 5 is more of a make-do.
Scrub planes and jack planes and fore planes are all the same
Horsefeathers.!!!!
If I were to group my scrub plane alongside my smoother, jack, fore and jointer a blind fool would be able to tell that although they're similar, none are identical and of the lot, the scrub has the least amount of common features....Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
I kinda see your point. I'm not talking about the way the planes looks though. That's irrelevant and a bit misleading. Here's what I'm thinking. You tell me if it applies to this discussion or not:I think it really helps in this case (or it might be fun) to try to dissassociate ourselves from the work (one of the rare tmes this is helpful). Just for fun, lets pretend we are wealthy nerdowells- okay, Henry Mercer! And we collect planes and other tools with which we have no personal experience. How then might we classify the tools we collect?Well Mercer actually did this, right? And it appears to me that he quickly discovered that you can't use physical characteristics to categorize or classify tools. He didn't go down to the level we are arguing about. But inevitiably he classified tools based on their function. We could go so far as to say they were classified based on the craftsman's intention.So either in terms of intention or function, I think the scrub plane and jack plane are the same. They are both roughing planes. 200 years ago, both planes were fully formed (existing in their present form) and never existed together. English shops had jacks and no scrubs. European shops had scrubs but no jacks. That's a nice theory anyway. The traditional European horned scrub plane is an aggressive tool that is too short to flatten well. The jack flattens okay but is less agressive. So we're talking about the degree to which the plane does what we want. That's the argument for the side that both jack and scrub are the same. But you guys are right in saying you can strraighten an edge with a smoother too. It does the job, just not as well. And I wouldn't say the smoother and try plane are the same. Rabbet planes are different from ogees or smoothers. Those planes really are different. So I'm not sure I'm right that scrubs and jacks are the same. In case you're wondering why I think this matters, understanding the function of a plane helps you decide what features you need to perform that function (fine mouth or wide mouth, long sole or short) and eventually how o choose one plane over another without relying on opinions from people like me. (I think I recall writing an article about this!)Adam
Adam... I gotta be honest; trying to make sense of what you're saying is doing a fine job of frying the few brain cells I have left... small wonder I'm paid from the neck down.!!
I think it really helps in this case (or it might be fun) to try to dissassociate ourselves from the work
The dissassociation you're speaking of implies that you want me to think like a collector..?? Sorry... that aint gonna fly... I equate collectors as skumbags.. and a particularly low form of skumbag at that... Call me a Philistine (I dare say the cap would fit me well) but I'm more interested in how well a tool performs its function than its history. To my mind the only way you'll confuse a scrub plane with a try plane is if you cover one eye, poke the other till it's watering pretty good and compare them from the opposite side of a street..
200 years ago, both planes were fully formed (existing in their present form) and never existed together. English shops had jacks and no scrubs. European shops had scrubs but no jacks.
Ever wonder why Brits are (historically) better craftsmen but Germans are considered more efficient..? I've a wee theory but it involves keeping the tools in their proper context i.e. in the hands of a someone who knows what he's doing with em...
200 years ago our apprentice system was a bit different to how it is now; apprentices paid for the training they were hoping to gain from an extablished craftsman... From experience, the craftsman understands that the best way the green behind the ears kid is gonna learn is by getting some hands on time (preferably on a piece that's of little consequence)... I'd imagine the instruction would run along the lines of..."here ye go son... see if ye can flatten this wee board wi yon jack plane... I know the board looks like a banana but dinna worry yersel... ye'll di just fine..." Now you see why an 18th century jointer / thicknesser was called "the apprentice"...
As for your point that never the twaine shall meet... I guess you don't fully understand the mechanisms of a free trading culture huh...?? If ideas and designs can migrate from place to place, it doesn't take too great a leap of deductive reasoning to figure that the tools that created the physical representation of the designs would migrate too... Makes sense really, even with one eye covered and the other watering like crazy.. My basis for the theory resides in a collection of volumes written for the Gentleman Cabinetmaker back at the dawn of the last century. By then, the recommended set of basic hand planes included both a Bismark plane and a Jack plane... the use of both being considered as established practice in the profession (I'm guessing that by then even apprentices needed to be paid a wage, hense the need for more efficient stock preperation).
So I'm not sure I'm right that scrubs and jacks are the same.
There's hope for ya yet... ;)
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
I have a early 90s Record #4 smoother which I changed into a scrub plane and it works very well.I am removing a lot of wood.I use a LN62 next and the #6 for final flattening .It is what you do to get the results you want not the name of the plane.A regular scrub would take a deeper narrower bite and mine takes a little thinner wider bite.When I switched to better quality smooth planes I had no need to buy a new scrub.
Mike,
It seems to me that what Adam, Mercer, and Moxon are calling a "jack plane", and what you and Stanley call a jack plane are two different things. According to Moxon, what the 18th century joiner called a foreplane was the same thing that the house carpenter called a jack plane. Their function, as Adam points out was identical-the initial preparation of stock, (quoting Moxon) "to take off the irregular Rifings". He goes on to point out that their open throat, and the iron, ground so it "rifes with a Convex-Arch in the middle of it" make it useful only for that purpose. Moxon does not mention, or describe by any other name, a "scrub" plane.
By the 20th century the Stanley type jack plane was more of a "jack of all trades" plane, usable for roughing, smoothing and trying, but master of none of those uses. It seems to me that that's why your trade manual recommends a "Bismark" (is that a scrub plane?) and a jack plane. By then, the jack really had evolved into something else, while keeping its old name.
As far as trade techniques jumping cultural barriers, my experience tells me that "we've never done it that way" is an even greater barrier, one that resists all but the strongest of financial pressures. A German type "horned" scrub plane just doesn't feel right in my hands, because I learned to use a foreplane with the handle in the back, where it is supposed to be. Don't need to use one to make the boards flat to build a piece of that teutonic baroque furniture either. If it ain't Baroque, don't fix it, that's my motto.
Regards,
Ray Pine
Ray,
Good points. You seem to have hit the language nail right on the head.
Moxon's book is not yet a part of my library, but, based on your comments here, it will soon be -- too much good information apparently not available anywhere else. IIRC, even Whelan's The Wooden Plane doesn't mention the difference in any prominence, and I don't remember seeing it in Salaman's Dictionary (although I may just have missed it....), either. Going have to re-look in the Dictionary to see if Bismark plane is listed....
The language mix-up reminds me of the old joke about the four services "securing" a building....
<< A German type "horned" scrub plane just doesn't feel right in my hands, because I learned to use a foreplane with the handle in the back, where it is supposed to be.>>
ROFL...Perhaps not...if you're German, then....das Griffstück ist nach Vorne..... genauso wie es anhängen soll! Another good point about the cultural barriers and differences.
Tschüß!
James
I think you are being too hard on the #5. You can radius the blade, set back teh frog and restore it to its jack like state. Its not so very different from the traditional 16" wooden jack/fore plane.
What I think happened, and I see this trend continuing, is that Stanley made one frog, and one basic casting then stretched it a called it different tools without regard for the different jobs done by those tools. It seemes to me that today, LN and to some extent LV are making a wide range of smoothing planes each with a different name and length but smoothing planes none the less. There's the low angle jack smoother and jointer smoother and high angle jack jointer smoother etc.
Who is served by seperating jacks from fore planes, or jacks from scrub planes? Is it better for us to have multiple planes that do the same job? Manufacturers are making distinctions where there are none and failing to recognize the distinction that should be there. LN and LV make excellent smoothing planes. What I'd like to see is a 28", 3" wide jointer and a light weight, open mouthed single iron jack plane. My idea is to make it plastic- something damage tolerant, cheap, light and slippery. Like UHMW.
Adam
P.S. BTW, I mentioned my (insame) plastic plane idea to Rob Lee and he said he'd make a plastic plane as soon as I make a chippendale chest out of mdf and drywall screws! Touche' Rob!
I think polycarnbonate would work better than UHMW because it would be stiffer. The sole could be UHMW, that would be slippery and if it's thick enough, it could be repaired if it was scratched or gouged.If you actually made a Chippendale from MDF it would be an OK way to see how good your finishing skills are.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Adam,
<<What I think happened, and I see this trend continuing, is that Stanley made one frog, and one basic casting then stretched it a called it different tools without regard for the different jobs done by those tools. It seemes to me that today, LN and to some extent LV are making a wide range of smoothing planes each with a different name and length but smoothing planes none the less. >>
I see your point, but I'm not sure I totally agree with it: Yes, you can use a #8 to do final smoothing on a 6" x 6" x 3" jewelry box or to trim tenons and use a #1 to joint 12-foot-long board edges and flatten the faces (just to take a couple of thoroughly ridiculous extremes), but neither of them would really do those things very well. Now if you were to reverse the uses from those listed above, you'd likely get a lot better results....
Sure the basic "pattern" of the Stanley-style bench plane is the same, with different lengths and widths, but does that make them all "smoothing" planes? Only in the most generic sense that running any plane over a piece of wood is going to make it some degree smoother. The same argument can be made in relation to wooden bench planes: they are all of the same basic pattern; a 34" jointer is nothing more than a bit wider and very much longer, parallel-sided, handled version of the coffin smoothing plane. Yes......but again, only in the most generic sense. It's primary function -- obviously -- is to make the edges of (long) boards straight and square; smoothness is almost a freebie by-product of that goal.
Some of this, as mentioned elsewhere, is cultural: what we Americans might call a jack, try, or fore plane, used for basic flattening and rough smoothing, the Brits, in some cases, call a "panel" plane, used for final smoothing of long(er) boards for interior paneling (I'm sure you already know this, but bear with me). So...here we have the same 13" to 18" long plane, but depending on what it's used for and which side of the pond you're on, a very different label, with vastly different connotations about the quality of both the plane itself and the work done with that plane.
So, while the planes may be very similar in form, they are often very different in function and use. And it is the different labels applied to sometimes the same plane that differentiates that function or use. In my mind, it is not all just semantics; the different labels evolved to describe the different functions of the planes. As time has passed, additional subtleties have been added to the meanings of those labels. For example: There's a great deal of difference in what comes to mind when a "panel plane" or a "jack plane" is mentioned, despite the fact that they are both about 14" long and about 2" wide..... Perhaps this analogy will better make my point: a Yugo, a Ferrari, and a Rolls Royce are all automobiles and will all get you from Point A to Point B, but there are vastly different connotations of use, desirability, and quality in those three labels, as well as the vehicles themselves.
<<Who is served by seperating jacks from fore planes, or jacks from scrub planes? Is it better for us to have multiple planes that do the same job? Manufacturers are making distinctions where there are none and failing to recognize the distinction that should be there. >>
I think that we are well served by the different labels to distinguish the different functions and uses. I also think it useful to have multiple planes to do the same type of job: there are frequently times where a low angle or a York pitch plane of the same size will do a better job than one of standard pitch; sometimes a #3 size plane will do the job better or more conveniently than a #4, etc. The world would be a truly dull place if everything was the same: You can have any color Model T you want....as long as it's black.
Out of curiousity: what distinctions are manufacturers missing that you think they ought to be recognizing?
James
Edited 2/24/2006 3:44 pm ET by pzgren
multiple names for the same tool.... same name for multiple tools... sheesh.... no wonder my head's fried.. Toss in cultural differences and no wonder things get confusing..
It seems to me that that's why your trade manual recommends a "Bismark" (is that a scrub plane?) and a jack plane.
Yea... to all intents and purposes the ECE scrub plane is identical to a Bismark in all but name. I know exactly where you're coming from with the ergonomic differences; I'm still struggling to get used to my moulding planes...
As far as trade techniques jumping cultural barriers, my experience tells me that "we've never done it that way" is an even greater barrier, one that resists all but the strongest of financial pressures.
Yupp.... I know whatchya mean. Dinosaurs are alive and well, flourishing in the workplace. Fortunately there's just enough craftsmen out there with the curiousity to go see how things are done elsewhere; progress, evolution... call it what you will... either way, it happens. Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
The iron isn't any thicker at the edge but by being thicker and harder overall, it's also stiffer, just as an iron made from the old tool steel would be if it wasn't laminated. When the iron can't cut well, it will flex backward, if it can. The chatter is caused by the iron releasing and going to its original position and repeating the process. Kind of like a diving board with the adjuster- by stiffening it, the frequency goes up so it may not be as noticeable. The scrub can chatter all it wants- it's not giving you a finished surface and whatever chatter marks are there, can be cleaned up during smoothing. I don't think I would want to try scrubbing with a #5 that was ground to a proportional radius to the #40 or 40 1/2- that would be a real workout because of the extra width. RE: the models that fall/fell in between- their marketing strategy worked right? I haven't seen a Stanley brochure but I would imagine they marketed the #6 as easier to use than the #7 for smaller people without giving up much length for edge jointing. The 5 1/4, 5 1/2, etc are pretty wierd, but the 5 1/2 is the same deal as the 4 1/2 where it has the wider iron and can apparently smooth a board faster or just cover more area. I'm not sure how a #5, a #40 and a #6 are the same when they're so different in length and width.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
The scrub can chatter all it wants- it's not giving you a finished surface and whatever chatter marks are there, can be cleaned up during smoothing. I don't think I would want to try scrubbing with a #5 that was ground to a proportional radius to the #40 or 40 1/2- that would be a real workout because of the extra width.Well this is more or less exactly what I do. The radius is not as great and the shaving is a touch wider. But this is exactly what I am advocating. Radius the blade of your #5. And it doesn't matter if you get chatter from either plane.Stanley marketed the #6 not as a short #7 but as a loner #5 calling it a "fore plane". Moxon said in 1687 that the names were interchangeable. At least, I'm at a loss to distingusih the difference in their purpose. And the length of a plane has little to do with the size of the user- Were that true I would be frightened to see the planes made for me! Ripsaws should be sized by the user, but not planes- they are sized to the work.Adam
Smoothers and jack planes and try planes and jointers are all different tools. Scrub planes and jack planes and fore planes are all the same.
Sorry Adam.... but I just don't see this at all... fore and try planes might be inter-changeable in terminology, but for the life of me I can't see how a scrub and a fore plane can be thought of as identical. I guess part of the confusion stems from who's definitions you're using...
Case in point.... compare a scrub(#40) with a jack(#5)... there are obvious differences in length, width, mass, blade thickness, width and design, blade support / adjustment and the mouth... The #5 is longer, wider, heavier and more complex in design, the blade being wider, thinner, straighter (in sharpening profile) and due to the additional complexity, capable of fine adjustment in both pitch, yaw and throat opening.
It's obvious (to me at least) that in both form and intended function, these planes are vastly different. It's been my experience that how they perform is similarly, different. The differences are in their degree of refinement...
The #40 is a mechanically crude tool, being simple and rugged, making it ideally suited for its intended use, the crude shaping of a rough sawn boards... It should come as no surprise that the tool performs this function with surprising ease.
The #5 however has a higher degree of refinement and complexity. Its strength stems from its ability to perform different tasks simply through changing its state of tune... set course its the ideal tool to follow on from the scrub, starting to refine the roughed out shape of the board. Set finer, it can perform the bulk of the work involved in flattening a board in both length and width. Set extremely fine it can perform admirably as an uber smoother, ideal for taking a controlled fine cut in grain that a conventional smoother lacks the heft to work with authority.
Near as I can see it, there's little if any overlap in the capabilities of the 2 planes (you want to try finish smoothing burl elm with a scrub plane..??) Over time I've learned through trial and error that my stock preparation is vastly more efficient when I use both planes (and one or two others as need arises) together, occasionally in tandem but never interchanging their role...
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
" fore and try planes might be inter-changeable in terminology, but for the life of me I can't see how a scrub and a fore plane can be thought of as identical."
Going back to Moxon again, The fore plane is so called because it is used beFORE any other plane. The stock, roughly flattened with the fore plane (thus serving the same FUNCTION as the scrub plane- although the Continental scrub plane was shorter and narrower), is then perfectly flattened with a try (or trying) plane. When you've done so, it is "tried and true". (So, THAT's where that expression comes from.) According to Moxon, the foreplane's iron is radiused, and set "rank" (like the scrub plane). The trying plane's iron is ground straight across, and set to"a little above a hair's breadth".
Again, the difference is in what uncle Stanley has done with the old traditional terminology, and the standardization imposed upon us by their new fangled industrial manufacturing limitations. So that a jack, fore, and try plane differ in STANLEY's catalog only by their model number, length, and (maybe?) the width of their blades. In 1750, the jack and fore planes' function (and size) were identical-the difference was what YOU called the same tool, depending on whether you were a carpenter or a cabinetmaker (ven du war ein Deutchlander, du callst it ein scrubbender!). The try plane was a few inches longer, usually with a blade 1/4" or so wider, with its blade ground differently, set differently and with a narrower throat than your scrub, fore, or jack plane. Functionally, the try plane was a shorter version of the jointer plane.
I'm not arguing with what you are saying. Only pointing out that what Adam (and I) are referring to by the same name (jack, try) as you, are different tools- er, or.. maybe, that is, we're all talking about the same tool (scrub, fore, jack), with different names...uhh..er... It's clear as mud now, right?
Cheers,
Ray Pine
ummmmm..... lemme see if I got this right...
in one hand we're talking same tool, different name..
in the other hand... same name, different tool.... right..???
kerfufflement.... gotta love it... ;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Mike,
You got it. It's the same thing, only different.
Cheers,
Ray
I can tell you from past experience that if you're expecting scrub plane performance from a modified jack, you'll be sadly disapointed if not disolusioned... Using a jack as donor plane will give you a huge weight handicap to overcome; a scrub plane is a lightweight, narrow plane with a narrow but really thick blade for a reason...
Trying to take a scrub thick shaving with a bench plane blade will probably result in you breaking the plane and causing you serious injury... think about it... bench planes are designed to take wide shavings, not plough furrows through a board...
Scrubbing shape into a board isn't a process you want to be spending too much time on... The core concept behind the scrub is its capability to take a real thick cut. To do that it needs to be built strong enough to survive the shock loading that a deep cut subjects the plane to, that's why scrubs are so mechanically simple...
If you're desperate to get some use from your Bailey, upgrade the blade and chip-breaker but be sure to select a blade no thicker than 0.095". If you'd rather retune the stock blade, hone a radius into it and use it as a course jack (refining the shape left by the scrub).
If you're interested in using a scrub plane... get a proper one. From what I hear, all 3 currently in production perform well... as they should... they're specificaly designed and built to handle the task... Their blades are 3/16" thick not only to lend mechanical strength, but to help disapate the heat generated too... Just a word of caution... wear yer safety glasses when using one... they're a bit of an animal... ;)
Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Been lurking here since this thread began....I have to agree with Mike and Samson: if you want to do scrubbing, then get a real scrub plane.
A converted bench plane will work....sorta, but it's not the optimum (or even a good) solution. Mike's already pointed out the basic disadvantages of a converted bench plane, so there's no need to repeat that.
Some will recommend the ECE wooden scrub. I've never used that particular plane, so I can't comment on it. (However, the two ECE planes I do have and have used are superb planes!!) One of the most common comments on the ECE scrub is that it's lighter in weight than the metal scrubs, and won't tire you out as fast. I'm not sure that I agree with that argument -- but not having used the ECE scrub, I can't really back up my disagreement with anything but speculation.
Extrapolating from my preference for a heavier bench plane for many smoothing jobs -- 4-1/2 vs 4; 5-1/2 vs 5 -- I suspect that the same thing would apply with scrub planes...the extra weight translates into additional momentum (over the lighter-weight wooden scrub) that eases/speeds the removal of large amounts of wood quickly. Again, this is merely speculation on my part. I do know that I like the heft and solidity of the LN scrub, and that it removes LOTS of wood in a HURRY! If you're going to buy a new metal scrub, I recommend the LN to you without reservation.
You could then use your #5 to follow up in cleaning up the furrows made by the scrub plane. IMO, that's a much better use for the #5 than trying to get it to do something it wasn't really designed for.
Just my nickel's worth...hope this of some use to you.
James
Wow , this has been an interesting thread indeed, but I am plumtuckered out from churning out a small thesis ..
Brother Michael of Aberdeen has done us proud, and I have to admit that
I have never seen a scrub plane in the flesh-maybe "they" thought they were not apropriate for use under the African sun. So it follows that I have never used one-have I lived a life of deprivation?
Actually on occasion (rare) I have been forced to resort to remove many thick shavings regardless in a hurry, I have just used a #4 with mouth opened out and a radiused blade.
But if you really want to see shavings flying without the aid of electrons, the ADZE takes a lot of beating.....
Philip,
<<So it follows that I have never used one-have I lived a life of deprivation?>>
Most certainly you have, sir....not having had the pleasure of using a "real" scrub plane for a gentleman and craftsman of your stature most certainly falls within the definition of a criminal omission.... :-)
And there is obviously only ONE way to resolve this disastrous state of affairs: you'll have to create a scrub plane along the lines of those handsome smoothers you've already tantalized us with....
<<But if you really want to see shavings flying without the aid of electrons, the ADZE takes a lot of beating.....>>
Now that's stock removal!!!
With tongue firmly in cheek....
Cheers!
James
Oh dear me... I have a handtool only operation and I can assure you that I would no more use a jack as a scrubber as I would saw my thumb off with a rip saw.
Scrubs are shorter, narrower, lighter, have wide open throats and a thick blade that does not require a cap iron.
If you want the 'easiest' scrubber to use get an ECE wooden model. MASS IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE WHEN SCRUBBING. You want something light and you want something that does not wear you out on the return stroke.
Trust me.
Cutting your thumb off with a rip saw is definitely wrong. That's a crosscutting operation.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
MASS IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE WHEN SCRUBBING. You want something light and you want something that does not wear you out on the return stroke.
Amen...!!!Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
I did this with a beater - a No. 3 "no-name" picked up at a yard sale for the knob and tote.
It's not a No. 40 by any means, but it does fairly well.
The iron wasn't awful -- probably a Stanley, Miller Falls or Sergeant -- and it holds a decent edge. I ground it square, marked 1/8 back from each side and drew a radius, then ground to it. IIRC, I finished it with a file, then used a finer stone.
Good luck,
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled