Hand Tools

Subject:
Re: Comment
Response To:
Re: Comment ()

david weaver
there is probably a reason for that. But, in cherry..

* the BU plane would need more wax more often
* veritcal alignment with the type is more problematic (which is a problem planing something in a vise), and

planing the ends of long panels in medium hardwoods over here is just less effort with the stanley due to those things. Not to mention, it requires no screwing around with a separate plane.

One more situation that makes me annoyed with the forum wisdom, because there was a time where the general advice was block plane or BU plane for end grain. Woe be to the person who would ever think about completing the amount of work that I did yesterday with a block plane. They'd have arthritis. On a board of this width, which is typical of a long drawer, a larger plane like a bu jack (Which was the recommendation for a while) is awkward. The #4 is superior. I don't have the luxury of a crosscut sled or anything of the sort to minimize use of the plane or take the equivalent of a few very slow controlled wood show type shavings.

The BU jack can work, but it's not as good, and the workpiece needs to be larger (putting more work back over to the shoot board) for it not to be awkward. On the ends of panels, the lower weight and smaller footprint of the #4 and its fine proficiency for planing end grain makes it better. I'd guess that if I was a historical reader, I'd find that most endgrain work was done in a vise with a full sized smoother, and only small precise or thin work was done with planes like strike blocks.

© 1998 - 2017 by Ellis Walentine. All rights reserved.
No parts of this web site may be reproduced in any form or by
any means without the written permission of the publisher.

WOODCENTRAL, P.O. BOX 493, SPRINGTOWN, PA 18081