One hand plane to rule them all for power tool woodworker?
I’m primarily a power tool woodworker, but looking to find a hand plane to help me flatten panel glue ups. Primary night stands, coffee tables (my current project) and smaller pieces, though perhaps an occasional bench or table, but those would probably be exceptions and not the rule. I’d also like something that I can come in after my scrub plane and flatten boards that won’t fit on my jointer so I can get them into my planer.
I’ve been watching a lot of Rob Cosman and thinking maybe a no. 5 1/2 would be a good all around compromise, but I’m also toying with the idea of a no. 4 or no. 4 1/2 and a no. 6 might be a better combination in the long run since I’d also like to get my sanding down to a minimum as I do prefer planing in these instances. I’ve read a no. 6 is a nice plane for a shooting board as well which is something I would also like to try at some point.
I find the number of bench planes rather dizzying and I’m not that interested in owning more than 2-3 at the most (at least for now…) The no. 5 1/2 seems like a good compromise for general purpose tasks like smoothing, flattening, etc…, but I can’t help but wondering if having a smoother and fore plane would be more versatile for my needs.
Replies
Longer is better for flattening, shorter for smoothing. Compromise is a #5. If you can have 2, I would go #6 and #4 1/2.
The wide planes are harder to push. A 4-1/2 is too awkward for me. Ditto the 5-1/2.
If you dont do much hand tool stuff, you should be thinking about shooting boards and other specialized processes.
If I could only have one plane, it would be either a Lie Nielsen low angle block plane, or a L-N # 4. My second plane would be the other one of these two. My third would be a #5.
Look at what people who worked with these tools for decades and decades bout and used. Those are the planes worth having. In order of popularity, you find a ton of block planes, followed by number 5s, 4s, and 3s. You see much fewer of the 1/4 and 1/2 sizes in comparison. Likewise the 6s. There are a fair number of 7s and 8s, but they were bought more by professional cabinetmakes than carpenters and homeowners.
If it was a more rare tool, it was rare for a reason -- it wasn't as worth having then, and isn't now.
“[Deleted]”
I do tables and stands as a hobby. To flatten glues up I use a 6" random orbit sander, or if they are real bad, a 4 x 24 belt sander. I just tuned up some of my planes, nothing expensive, and tried to flatten practice boards. I had a lot of trouble with grain direction. For your information.
A No. 5 is probably the most "all-round" plane. If you're doing mostly smaller pieces I'd not go as far as a 6 or 7 because it won't see much use. If you can have two I'd second the suggestions of a low angle block plane as they can handle end grain.
Funny, I am re-reading Lord of the Rings right now ;-)
Too many right answers here. My standard answer is a Low Angle Jack as it is long enough to work as a jointer and can be a smoother for larger surfaces. I planned ahead and got the Veritas LAJ knowing that the BU Smoother, Shooter and the Jointer took the same irons.
I ordered different angles on each plane and now have multiple irons for each of them; low angle for end grain, 'normal' for general work and high angle for difficult or tearout prone material. It is easy to put a hot dog on the LV LAJ or ask for the shooter for Xmas like I did (I couldn't bring myself to spend the price since I already had the LAJ) BUT, like I said, many right answers here.
One plane? Ha!
But for a start, a bevel up jack plane with three blades: Or six. Or as many as you need for different tasks and timbers.
A bevel up plane can be configured for taking lots or a little - for shaping but also for smoothing. It can also do easy timbers and gnarly rascals. It can be a foreplane or even a small jointer. It can't be a block plane though - unless your hand-span is very big indeed. It will make a good chuting plane. (Plenty mass; low cutting angle possible for that end grain).
Just buy and shape blades with different micro-bevels (to get low, mid & high cutting angles) and different cambers. A jack can even be a scrub plane with a heavily cambered blade and an open mouth.
You'll still want a block plane though. A bevel up low angle block plane such as that from Veritas can also be configured to perform many tasks on many timbers via multiple blades and their different configurations of the bevel & edge. You can even turn it into a Number 3 by adding a front knob and a rear tote.
***
Eventually you will find the commonly purveyed "reasons" to buy more planes that are dedicated to a single task. All of us rehearse these "reasons" to the holders of our purse strings, as we succumb to the lust for man-toys. (And they are also women toys these days - huzzah)! I will not fess-up my own number .... but they have a tall & wide cupboard all of their very ownsome.
Lataxe
I'm also saying low angle jack if all you can get is one. For all the reasons listed. They don't call it a jack (of all trades) for nothing. I got the Lie-Nielsen, mostly because of the hotdog attachment. It's an accessory handle that makes it easier to use the jack on a shooting board.
Hmm a belt sander is interesting. I had been looking at one of those for a deck refurb and thought it might be handy in the shop as well. I looked at a Makita since I could mount it upside down as well. I did have a few issues with grain direction as well when trying to plane the panel flat, but I was hoping a properly tuned plane could help with this. They are definitely a lot quieter than a belt sander! :D
Hmm not sure what keeps happening to my comments, but they aren't showing up...
Anyway, I appreciate all the input. I figured if 8 people answered I would get 8 different answers! :D
I already have a low angle block plane which I use quite a bit for cleaning up edge grain and little chamfers and whatnot. I also have a no. 5 which is an old budget record plane with plastic handles. I've never been able to get it setup right and that's why I'm interested in replacing it with something that I don't have to spend endless hours. I spend several hours trying to get the blade flat and then realized the chip breaker doesn't mate flush to the blade where it contacts and quite frankly I just want to get to sharpening and making shavings.
I've heard a lot about LAJ and seems like they are really versatile if you buy several blades. I had myself all talked into one a while back, mainly because it seems like there is a lot less setup than a traditional bench plane, but I really like being able to adjust the depth of cut as I'm planing with my traditional plane hence why I was thinking about a 5 1/2 to replace my No 5. I had heard that the 5 1/2 had a bigger handle so and my 5 sometimes pinches my hand a bit when I'm really getting after it, though it could be from poor technique as I'm new to all this.
Sorry Nek, some of your comments are getting hit as spam. Not sure why.
I use the Belt Sander as a last resort. I got a HF 4 x 24 as I don't use it sll that often and 'float' it with the grain as I go back and forth across the board. After I get the bumps out ,I go to my 6" ROS working down to 220. Then O use my Makita 1/3 sheet finish sander. Then I hand sand with the grain. I just did this with some hickory charcuterie boards. (Really warped and cupped - but it was cheap.) End result was fine.
,
RO sanders are slow to remove material compared to a plane. In truth, so is a belt sander, even with an 80 grit belt on it, since the rough scratchy surface produced will have to be refined "through the grits" up to anything between 180 and 320, depending on the timber and nature of the piece being sanded.
RO and belt sanders are also difficult to control sufficiently to make or keep a large surface area truly flat. Dips can so easily be created. Anything other than a truly hard pad on a ROS will almost certainly create undulations of various kinds - not always very evident without a straight edge - or the application of a finish. A sanding frame on a belt sander makes a big difference in reducing it's inclination to dig dips.
The plane - especially one with a longer sole - is far faster at removing material from a large surface and far easier to use in a way that creates or maintains a flat surface. An RO sander with a fine grit is useful on the large surface for a final finish, e.g. if plane tracks have been left. But then so is a smoothing plane with a slightly cambered sharp blade set very fine.
The jack plane can be configured to be both the initial remover-flattener of surface bump, as well as the final smoother. When smoothing, it's long sole will continue to keep that flatness of the surface.
You could use a scraper instead of an RO sander or smoother for the final finish - but they too can easily create a dip on a large surface if used with less than a meticulous eye and process for an even application all over the surface. It's very easy to over-concentrate on the bit with a plane track or a mild bit of tear-out, creating a slight hollow.
A scraper plane with a long sole will do a better job than a hand-held scraper, for those surfaces still having some teeny tear-out even after the normal smoother. You can now get a scraper blade for the Lie-Nielsen jack plane, as I recall.
Selection of the right plane blade (cutting angle) and set, used in a grain-aware manner can anyway reduce tear out even on the nasty woods. Higher cutting angle; very sharp blade; thin shavings. Sometimes a skew cut helps, sometimes not.
Lataxe
By limiting yourself to one plane, you may be setting yourself up for disappointment. If your primary task is flattening panels you need a 7 or 8. If you want a plane that will do other things well, you need other planes. IMO.
In my work, the #6 is actually probably the most used plane and it is a multitasker for me: edge jointing, face planing, & shooting board, flattening panels.
I recommend you set up 2 irons for it, one slightly cambered for face planing and one straight for edge jointing and shooting.
For a lot of years, I had a 3, 4 and 6 (and a couple of blocks, a 78 and a small router).
The 3 is a great little smoother, especially for smaller parts. The 4 is a good smoother as well. But. I've used it for all kinds of stuff. The 6 I've used as a jointer, with my shooting board, etc. It's weight works great when I need a little extra oomph.
digging through a toolbox the other day, I found an old Craftsman #4 size. I think it's an old Sargent. I've decided to set it up as a scrub...
I just picked up a 5 1/2 and found it very useful right away... Mine only has a 2 1/4" blade, so it's not the more modern 2 3/8. I'm not so worried about the missing 1/8". I've got that in my 6. But, the size and weight seem perfect for a lot of work.
But, I honestly am not sure I could pick just one.
I do a lot of work with power tools. However, I find that hand tools are better at those last tweaks to pieces. So, having my small collection of hand planes has come in handy and the dust rarely settles on any of them.
Ahhh ok, I was so confused. Thanks for taking a look, Ben!
One or two planes? That's the way it starts....I now have eighteen.
Planes with plastic handles are more useful as paperweights, which is probably why you can't get it set up. Should be plenty of old 5s on Ebay from Stanley, Record etc - some of them might be shot to pieces but most are in decent enough condition that a quick fettle will restore it to working condition, and it'll be a lot better made.
If I can only have one, I would buy the LN #62 with several blades
Although you have said you have one, and it is not even close to being an answer to your question, I am going to put a vote in for the block plane in case some future power tool user comes looking for their first plane...
The reason for this is that it is probably the most versatile addition to the power tool user's kit, is small, cheap and above all, easy to get good results.
With a block plane, you can shoot small edges to get a perfect mitre. You can shape templates and ease edges far more quickly than with a router. It can be used to trim kumiko and inlay pieces, sharpen pencils(!) and shape pieces that are often too small to work without a jig in most power settings.
Overall if I had to keep only one plane, it would be the block plane. Second choice would be a shoulder plane (I have a nice little bullnose Stanley which is a pain to set up but does the job, though if santa is listening, the medium veritas would be nicer...) and third the smoother of whatever size. For me a No4 is my go-to. I have a 5 1/2 but it is on the big side and I don't enjoy pushing it as much as the 4.
Here is the OP's original question and statement of the purposes he has for a plane (or two):
"...but looking to find a hand plane to help me flatten panel glue ups. Primary night stands, coffee tables (my current project) and smaller pieces, though perhaps an occasional bench or table, but those would probably be exceptions and not the rule".
A process of elimination can help. A no 8, 7 or even 6 is going to too big for most of the above tasks. A No 5 is long enough to achieve a flat surface and edges with "smaller pieces". A No 6 would also do them but it's a bit unwieldy for smoothing and otherwise faring smaller parts than those above-mentioned "exceptions" of larger surfaces. A No 4 and below are really smoothers of an already flat surface rather than a producer of a flat surface. (Unless the pieces are very small).
A no 5 is not ideal for smaller parts .... although for this ....
..... see Rob_SS's post above. A block plane is invaluable for those small smoothing, shaping and fairing jobs other than the main larger areas of table tops or cabinet sides. And for small pieces in general.
***
The "best" plane can only be "the best plane for certain tasks". The jack and the block planes have a wider range of suitable tasks than most other plane types. A good pair to start with then.
But if certain styles of woodworking and types of pieces are one's main output, other planes become "the best".
Hand working with lots of rebates, M&Ts and similar need a shoulder plane (as Rob_SS also mentions) for example. A router plane is also extremely useful. And a shorter smoother will be less of a beast to push for extensive smoothing with smaller furniture.
If you do small work, such as small jewelry and similar boxes, a No 3 or 2 or even a 1 (and perhaps some mini-planes) are very useful.
If it's 8 foot long dining tables, a No 8 will make the nice edges and take out those annoying waves in a very large table top that always seem to arise following the glue-up of its planks.
Lataxe
5 1/2 for the win. It’s a great all around plane.
I think low angle jack possibly the Veritas because of its mass I own both but I think the Veritas would work for a jack, smoother And a small jointer because of its weight. Cheers
As a hand tool woodworker, I have a lot (ok, excessive) amount of hand planes to choose from. The three that get used the most are my No 4 with a cambered plane. I use this one to hog off material and save the irons on my other planes as I get closer to the end. The No. 5 is a general all purpose plane. The No. 3 I use for smoothing and I like it's size for this. I also have a 4-1/2 and 5-1/2. They are a big wide for my taste in that it takes a bit more effort to use them.
If I had to choose one plane to rule them all, for me it would be either a No. 5 or No 4. Given the No. 4 is lighter, I'd probably go in that direction. I prefer the lightness of the Stanley's from 80 to 120 years ago even though the yoke and blade adjustment has more slop in it than current premium planes.
MuskokaLayne, at the Lie-Nielsen shows, they also push their low angle jack with the adjustable mouth (basically same as the Veritas). Having now woodworked for 5 years with hand tools, I think there is a lot of good points to this approach. I personally prefer the standard bevel down planes but couldn't argue if someone wanted the bevel up low angle jack as their one plane.
Fivebirdscustom, I also have an old Craftsman #4 size. set up as a scrub. It may be my favorite plane. I think I paid all of $25 and it was basically like new in the box. It works very well. I could do just about everything I need as a hand tool woodworker with this one plane with two blades since I start with S4S wood.
One or two planes means you have to pick what you want them for. If flattening and jointing edges, yes, #5. If smoothing, #4 or #3. I would go with a #4 if you think your flattening needs are less than your smoothing needs. #5 is, IMO, too big for smoothing woods with winding grain and figure -- you want to be able to maneuver small areas that go this way, and then reverse to go that way when needed.
As others have suggested, a #4 with a scrub blade is decent for flattening when you have to take a lot of stock off. Then switch blades for smoothing.
Reply to nek4life [posted Aug 30, 2020 08:29pm | #10]: Regarding your No. 5; take the 10 or 20 minutes necessary to flatten the chip breaker, or, if you want to take a flyer, invest in a Hock blade and chip breaker. They do wonders for the less expensive models of, but still good quality, planes.
[I would've replied to your post directly, however, the "Reply" link isn't working properly either.]
Joe Leonetti - I am looking forward to converting that old Sargent made Craftsman. A scrub is one I haven't owned before...
I don't do a ton of work with rough slabs, but I am trying to do more! I think having a scrub plane will assist me in that intention.
A stanley 6 and 4 are perhaps the two planes you want.
The 6 will do all of the things you suggested (including a reasonable job at face jointing) and a 4 is a plane you'll find a use for smoothing (even if you think you won't), and all kinds of fitting work where a #6 will be too awkward and something like a block plane is undersized and also awkward due to being undersized.
i'd avoid the bevel up planes - they're a dead end.
DW,
You opine,
"....something like a block plane is undersized and also awkward due to being undersized.
i'd avoid the bevel up planes - they're a dead end".
Two personal preferences expressed as universal laws of woodworking! Hmmmm.
Moreover, the prejudice agin' the bevel up design of plane goes unexplained. What is this "dead end" one wonders? Must I replace all my fine BU planes with manky ole Stanleys even though them BUs seem to work rather well?
Lataxe
* They stay sharp less long in anything other than endgrain cutting,
* they have no ability to control tearout without getting a bunch of blades and swapping them around (and maintaining camber on all of them, which is a pain because of the low bed angle
* the orientation of the planes themselves stays in the cut less well vs. a stanley with a cap iorn
* the lateral adjustment on them is terrible and if one ever does something like face jointing a board, they will allow work about half as fast (at best)
* the depth adjustment can't be managed well on the fly because tensioning the lever cap strains the adjuster
* the proportions are off and the typical stanley handle arrangement that puts ideal downforce at the mouth when pushing the handle is lost. Instead, the planes goad you in heavy work to pull on the front knob or try to get further behind them, limiting how much travel you can have with your arms if you choose the latter
* the feel of vertical in them is poor, so if one wants to plane a square edge, they're less good
* the irons are near double the thickness of most bevel down planes and the reward for having to sharpen more often is having to do it (or grind) to twice as much metal
All of these things are at a compromise to learning to use the cap iron, which takes about a week to do better than anything a bevel up plane does.
It's not a matter just of preference, it's a matter of fact. Stanley made these planes for something like 30 or 40 years, and when people used planes for more than posting about on the internet, nobody really wanted them.
They offer supposed simplicity, but they're detrimental to users for anything other than smoothing, and even at that, they're far behind just using a cap iron on a much less expensive plane.
I'm not unfamiliar with them, either. I had the BUS, the LV Bevel up Jack and have a LN 62 at this point. It's not ever going to be a choice to use it over any decent stanley, and the cost is multiples of an old stanley. Cost to me isn't a real issue, and as much as people complain about the cost of tools, it's not really a real issue for anyone else either as this is an expensive hobby if you're going to make anything decent. The other issues are unrecoverable.
A small block plane in general is a trimming plane They're for site work. Most of the things that you'd do with them in the shop are done better by a simple stanley smoother, including things like trimming end grain with wood in a vise, etc.
As far as the BU planes, even that (trimming end grain of panels or wide boards in a vise) is done far more easily with a stanley smoother than a bevel up jack. The seeming simplicity of the planes is a draw, but it's a dead end. They aren't very good at much. They remind me of a combination pocket knife - advertised as being able to do everything other tools do simply, but few end up using them for much.
lataxe, apparently my point by point reply has to wait for moderation. I haven't seen a single "moderated" post get through yet.
If you think the stanley design is manky vs. BU planes, I get the sense that you're probably not making much or planing much. A common stanley plane is far more capable, faster to use, and easier on the user.
DW,
It's an interesting point of view and your explanations have a logic to them - assuming the propositions about cap-ironed BD configuration vs the capless BU arrangements are some sort of universally true, commonly expressed and objectively measurable set of behaviours. But are they? Where are the equivalents of those unicorn microscope pics and the associated experimental procedures and data to make what you say more than one man's opinion?
But you're correct to assume that I don't spend my days planing for hours as I'm a mere hobbyist, so I don't have the breadth of experience to make such comparisons or propositions myself in support BU planes being worse, the same or better than the capped BD items. However ....
In the work I do perform with a plane, I find the BU versions simpler to use and to to sharpen than what were admittedly very poor copies of the older Stanley designs - the dreaded blue Record post-war things - which I foolishly bought when first starting out in WW. Those are, I suppose, the "manky Stanleys". (The same TSOs were available - still are - with a Stanley label on them).
********
I have no problem putting a camber on any of my BU blades, which are all set up with a 25 degree bevel having only the secondary bevel made to various lower or higher cutting angles. The cambering only needs doing once then maintaining as the secondary/tertiary bevel is honed and re-sharpened.
Using a secondary (and perhaps a tertiary) bevel - and perhaps that unicron procedure - means a BU blade takes no longer to hone or resharpen than a BD blade, surely. Only the very edge is being treated, not the whole bevel, so the thickness of the blade makes no difference until a major regrind is done. I find a Sorby Proedge grinder very rapid at that.
I can't compare BU and BD plane efforts or ability to "stay in the cut". However, all the BU planes I do use seem to "stay in the cut" in that I can set them to take very wispy or very thick shavings, or anything in between, then plane happily away with no skittering or jumping off the work.
In short, your description of the drawbacks of BU planes is unfamiliar to my own perhaps limited experience. But perhaps I need to use them for thousands of hours rather than the few hundred I've accumulated over the past decade or so of WW? :-)
***
Of late I've been using what's probably a No3 sized bevel down plane but one having thick blades and no cap iron. I have three blades for it, with various back bevels to create different cutting angles. Despite the lack of a cap iron, the higher cutting angle blades seem able to take shavings from nasty wood with minimum or no tear out. Should there be any, one of the blades can be turned upside down to make a scraping plane, which also works very well to take wispy shavings despite having no burr.
I feel that a plane's ability to work well has contributory attributes besides its main design of bevel up or down. There are surely many other factors in the design that add to, or detract from, a plane's ability to work well.
Lataxe
I had a work colleague who would wait until two loudmouths (well known to have strong opinions) went to the break room. My colleague would then wander in and drop a "red meat" political comment designed to provoke the two loudmouths. They would bite and start a long, loud argument. My colleague would go back to his cubicle and just smile.
I think this thread is one of those.
That could never happen here.
Lataxe - I guess my comments are from experience - but I am also an amateur. I think we have been told about people who make a living using mostly or only hand tools, but I think most of those folks are not telling us the whole story about making a living.
I started with bevel up planes, steep planes, etc, and aside from getting a LN 62 to test, the planes that dominated historically seemed to be better at pretty much everything.
But, my comments about one being better than another depend on someone learning to use both planes as well as they can reasonably used. This may be pretty slim in practice on both types of planes.
This isn't meant to be unreasonable crticism - I feel like maybe the sentiment and commentary here are kind of where they were around 2008 or 2009, except there's not as much mention of Tage Frid every time anyone said anything at all.
I guess in all of the above, if the OP gets *any* plane that he'll get familiar with and intend to enjoy using (so that he will continue to do it), he'll be better off. The mention of face jointing is one that stick in my mind as being pretty difficult to do more than once or twice with a BU plane, though, and the tasks mentioned suggest two planes rather than one.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled