Hey all,
I’m currently thinking of buying a jointer plane, and I’m wondering if anybody has any particular preference between a No 7 and a No 8. I’ve never had the opportunity to use either kind, so any personal experiences with either would be useful. Thanks.
Replies
What you need it for will determine which is best. The #8 will be (very)slightly heavier so you don't need as much down force. Being wider, you can joint wider boards but for most, a #7 will be fine if you can't find a #8.
Have a MillersFalls equivalant to a # 7 and it works fine. One thing about the #8 is the wider blade meens you need wider sharpening stones. Sometimes though you can get a nice #8 for less than a #7 because the 7s are more in demand. For most work the 7 is just fine.
Have fun
Troy
Also in the LN line, the 7 shares the same blades with the 4 1/2 and 6 (maybe more, that's all I know). That can be a plus.My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
the blade size is common with the #5 1/2 too....
When faced with the same choice between the #7 and #8 I opted for the #7 to take advantage of the blade / frog interchangeability... Given the state of my health too I figured the #8 was a tad too much tool... the #7 does a fine job of reducing me to a gibbering wreck... the #8 would be the death o me... ;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
<<Given the state of my health too I figured the #8 was a tad too much tool...>>
C'mon now laddae...if ye were so frail as a new-born lamb, ye would not be doin' this hand tool thing, now would ya? ;-)
But you're right...the #8 is a bit of a beast; once you're done using it, your arms know they've been slingin' some metal around....for a shorter board, I'll often resort to a #6 just because it's a little lighter and handier.
Anyway, hope all is well with you.
Cheers!
James
Anyway, hope all is well with you.
Och... there's nothing wrong with me that canna be fixed with some shop time... This time o year is silly season at work; loadsa rigs and rig support vessels mobilising for the season...
I've a tasty wee project all figured out just waiting for some shop time.... what I wouldn't give for some peace to get on with it....Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
<<Och... there's nothing wrong with me that canna be fixed with some shop time... >>
I thought so... ;-)
Ahhh....yes...shop time...that magical time of peace and renewal... You're absolutely right...there is little that an hour or three in the shop can't cure!
<<I've a tasty wee project all figured out just waiting for some shop time....>>
This sounds like fun....
<<This time o year is silly season at work; loadsa rigs and rig support vessels mobilising for the season... >>
As they used to say on Hill Street Blues (an old cop soap opera), "Hey! And let's be careful out there!"
Cheers!
James
I have both a #7 and a #8 (an old Stanley and an old Sargent VBM, respectively). The #8 gets far more use than the #7. It (the #8) peels off the shavings with a lot more authority, seems to balance better, and takes fewer strokes to get a piece of wood flat than with the #7 (the latter could just be my imagination). I like and use both of them, but find myself reaching for the #8 a lot more often. [The #8 gives you a better work-out, too, for whatever that's worth.....] ;-)
As a couple of others have pointed out, the #4-1/2, #5-1/2, #6, and #7 all share the same iron and (normal angle/high angle) frog size in the LN line-up. If you go for the LN, then I'd seriously consider the #7, for the flexibility that the frog interchangeability gives you on those four planes. Could be very useful, as you expand your plane arsenal. And, you could always add the #8 later, if you decided to.
James
You asked about a jointer and not a try plane. You need to know the difference (because it will answer your question for you). Try planes are surface planes designed to work faces and non-mating edges. Jointers are fitting planes that are used to make wood joints.
For a jointer, whose primary operation is match planing, you want the longest, and widest tool available. I don't think the #8 is long enough or wide enough. MHO. Its really too narrow to match plane 6/4 rough stock. Its blade is 2-5/8" (pretty sure). #7 is 2-3/8" wide (?). Two pieces of 6/4 r side by side are about 2-3/4".*(see below)
But if these are your only two choices, pick the #8 for your jointer. But you'll need a #7 sooner than later. Don't try to use them interchangeably (since their blades are shaped differently).
IMHO, the best jointer on the market is C&W. I think they'll send you a 30" plane, and I would ask for a 2-7/8" blade. (I don't have one, so I'm not positive about that stats). I also prefer wooden try planes to metal ones. They are longer (which makes them more accurate/easier to use) and considerably lighter (which makes them easier to use). The weight of a plane is not an advantage, its a disadvantage. C&W makes a fine try plane as well, but my advice is to pick one up on ebay or at a flea market for $20. IMHO, these are the best deals in woodworking today.
Adam
* The jointer plane offers the powered up woodworker capability he doesn't currently have. A jointer plane can better handle thick, insanely wide, long stock as in table tops. My table is made from 2, 17" wide 6/4 walnut boards roughly 8' long. They weighed in excess of 65 lbs each. They are really too big for a power jointer, not to mention that I was able to clamp out a small amount of twist that would be all but impossible with a power jointer. This is a very simple job with a hand plane. I'm not trying to challenge power tool afficianadoes but rather suggest every woodworker would benefit from a long jointer plane if he or she wants the ability to work stock like this. BTW, the finished table is really dramatic.
I agree with the illustration Adam presents as justification for a 30+" length plane. However, I think Messrs. Stanley, Bailey, Lie-Nielsen and Lee will be surprised to learn that all these years they have not been producing jointer planes in the #8 size.
<<However, I think Messrs. Stanley, Bailey, Lie-Nielsen and Lee will be surprised to learn that all these years they have not been producing jointer planes in the #8 size.>>
I have to chuckle a bit at your comment: a couple of weeks or so ago, in another thread, there was a rather involved and passionate debate on the definitions of, and differences between, "jack," "try" or "trying," and "jointer" planes.
As I remember it (and I could be a bit off here), the two main things determined during this debate were that:
(1) it largely depends whether you are using Continental or English/American definitions (and of what era) as to what (size) plane is labeled what; and,
(2) the label depends on what the plane is being used for (i.e., is the plane being used to flatten the face of a board or the edge of a board? Same plane -- different function, and, therefore, different name...also -- just to confuse things: same function, different size, and therefore, different name)
At any rate, the precision use of terms, along with a common understanding of what those terms mean, will go far in precluding misunderstanding.
Cheers!
James
I didn't say that! That's not what I said! HEY! COME BACK HERE! I'M NOT DONE YET!!
<<I didn't say that! That's not what I said! HEY! COME BACK HERE! I'M NOT DONE YET!!>>
TOO FUNNY!!!!!
It was just plane funny.
Another guy who thinks his jointer is bigger than my jointer.....
You guys rock. Thanks for the laughs. And remember...like Mike says...size matters.Adam
Thanks for all the input and opinions. You've already helped me out. In response to Adam Cherubini's post defining jointer vs. try planes, I need a try plane more than a jointer. I already have a 6" power jointer but enjoy working with stock more than 6" wide. Thus, I need a way to flatten the faces of boards before I run them through a power planer ( I know, not very hand toolish of me, but I don't own a scrub plane or a grinder to make one out of a jack plane).
Also, I am specifically looking at the LN planes.
Scrub planes and jack planes are (possibly meaningless) variations of the same tool. Not two different tools. No 18th c Anglo/American shop had scrub planes. They had jack or fore planes (Moxon said Jacks and Fore planes are the same tool as well. Teh only difference being the owner).If you are prepping a board by hand that you intend to push thru a planer, a #5 or #6 is best. You don't need a scrub plane for decent commercially sawn stock in my opinion. In terms of utility alone, these planes should be the absolute cheapest planes you can get. They need not have stiff frogs, thick blades, flat soles, or any of the fancy bells and whistles. LN or LV are probably good buys in terms of passing down a plane or reale value. Otherwise, any flea market find will perform as required for this task. (Some guys ask these planes to perform other tasks- That's where the manufacturers try to make their jack planes perform like smoothers).The try plane is used for edge work and wherever you need flatness (that your power planer can't provide due to excessive width for example). So you'd flatten a workbench top with a try plane, possibly a table top or wide carcass side if you felt it necessary (I usually don't). Try planes should take finer cuts than jacks but coarser than smoothers.Things were so much simpler in the 18th c before all these manufacturers muddied the waters by making the same plane in different lengths and calling them different names. There are only three surface planes and they do three different jobs; fore/jack, try plane, and smoother. I think every woodworker should have these 3 planes. If you've got extra money buy a block plane, but only after you've got the surface planes. If you've got a lot of extra money, buy a good smoother. The other planes can all be junk. You should see Alan Breed's planes. Or his chisels! Yikes!Adam
Hi Adam,
I picked your comprehensive reply to the OP as a convenient point of entry to this thread.
Terminology is important for communication.
My answer to the OP is the same as that of the first responder--what best serves his needs despite the terminology depends on what he is making. For instance, I may joint two small panels for an edge glue-up, but do I need to use a 30" jointer if those panels are only 10" in length? 20"?
I think some people substitute function [jointing] in place of proper plane-type termingology [jointer] frequently. In my work, at the scale of things I make, I most often joint using a jack with a straight as opposed to cambered blade. Sometimes it is with a try plane with a straight blade. Rarely have I had need for a 30" or longer jointer. The scale of my work doesn't warrant it.
Well, hope I haven't fully muddied the water.
Take care, Mike
Edited 4/25/2006 10:13 pm by mwenz
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled