Gold-Plated Hammers – Yes, Really!
Articles Forums Gallery Marketplace Videos

WoodCentral Forums

Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge

This $39 jig will make you a WOODWORKING GOD!

#5 1/2 vs #6

Posts

#5 1/2 vs #6

#1

#5 1/2 vs #6

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>Branching off from Andrew's thread below...I compared a Stanley #5 1/2 with a Clifton #6. I believe the 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6, & 7 all have the same 2 3/8" blade.

The 5 1/2 appears to be about 1" shorter at the toe and about 2" shorter at the heal than the Clifton #6. Roughly the same difference comparing the #5 1/2 with a Stanley #6.

So...what I'm trying to figure out is why does the 5 1/2 exist? Surely that combined difference of 3" can't be its sole justification??

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#2

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

William Duffield on the Cohansey

>Variety is the spice of life. Maybe Stanley figured there was a market for wide planes for guys with short tool boxes. The "modern" concept is "shelf space". For example, have you looked at the toothpaste section lately? Why don't they just put all the added ingredients in one tube and be done with it? OTOH, why doesn't everyone just use baking soda? On yet another hand, the Furniture Guys once claimed St. Roy could build a house with a rock, but I don't think Stanley couldn't figure out how to market rocks.

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#3

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>Maybe it was to provide a nice set of #5 planes; after all, with the #5-1/4, #5, and #5-1/2 you could plane and joint just about anything you wanted to ;) The 5-1/2 is an awesome plane; stout I like to call it, sets down heavy. I hardly ever use mine, but to have a set of bench planes you need to have them all. I'm still missing my #1, but will probably have that in 5 or 10 years, then move on to the Bedrocks. Course it would be nice to have sets of the standard and Bedrock bench planes in all the different types.

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#4

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

John Horobin

>What you have to remember is that the 5-1/2 as orginally designed had a 2-1/4" blade - this was ideal - moving to a wider width destroyed the balance and when you include the orginal in the range it looks much more sensible. The early 5-1/2 is my favorite jack.

John

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#5

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

AD

>Interesting you say that John,

I have an earlier bedrock 605 1/2 with the narrower blade and a later, Australian made Stanley 5 1/2 wider version and I actually prefer the wider version. It seems to be a heavier casting as well as a larger plane. I also have a standard #5 but after getting the 5 1/2 I hate to use it and will sell it soon. Just seems to skinny!!!

regards,

Andrew

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#6

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

TMStock

>B&G indicates that the #6 was hawked as a short, lighter weight jointer plane for folks hauling their stuff from job to job, rather than some essential element missing in the 4/5/(7)8 holy trinity of stock prep.

That said, the question raised is why anyone would opt for a #6 over a #7 as a jointer, when the #6 is a full 6" shorter, but only 5-6 ozs lighter (both are around 8 lbs). If the Cliftons are closer to the WWII casting weights, the weight difference between their #6 and a Stanley #7 or #607 is probably nil.

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#7

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>I think ,Sir Will, that Stanley just couldn't figure out how they could buy up all the quarries.JR

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#8

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

joel

>there is about a pound difference between the Clifton #6 and #7

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#9

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

Todd Hughes

>Stanley no. 6 at 18 in. long is only 4 in. shorter then a no.7[22 in. long] and not 6 in. shorter.A Stanley no. 6 from the 1930's weighs 7lb. which is 1 lb less then a no. 7. Also cost about a $1.00 less when new,[$6.25]

I think the reason the no. 6 was so popular is that most people for the work they did didn't feel the need to spend the extra money on a bigger heavier plane and thought that the no. 6 would serve them well enough....Todd

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#10

Clifton weights

Robin Frierson

>Joel, could you tell us how much the new Clifton #4 1/2 and #5 1/2s weigh. BTW, you were right, the Best things didnt have them in stock!!

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#11

Re: Clifton weights

joel

>We have them in stock now.

The 4 1/2 is about 6 lbs.

the 5 1/2 is about 7.2 lbs.

(The planes are in the store I'm at home so I am taking the shipping weight and subtracting about a 1lb for the box and packageing so I should be fairly close. If you need more accurate weights let me know and I will throw the planes by themselves on a scale on Monday.)

However the key point is like the rest of the Clifton range these are really heavy, solid tools. a good bit heavier than their Stanley and Bedrock parents.

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#12

Re: Clifton weights

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>
























































Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#13

Re: Clifton weights

John Horobin

>The earlier Stanley Bailey types (pre type 16) often seemed to have remarkably thin castings which may well be difficult to duplicate today as they seemed to do amazing things with cast iron. It struck me though that with a Bailey type a thin casting (sole anyway) could be an advantage as it means the frog support comes much lower.

Just a thought as I don't think weight is everything.

John

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#14

Oops ...4" Shorter

TMStock

>

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#15

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

TMStock

>Got the 4" versus 6" difference - I've always used a used a #8, so I think 'jointer' and 24" length automatically follows...4 years of engineering calc, diffy-Qs, and PDEs, and I still can't subtract whole numbers.

But now I'm intrigued that there is so much difference in weight between early and mid-production #6 and #7 planes. Just checking the book weights from B&G, it looks like 6 ozs difference, and the LN 6 and 7 are 12 ozs apart...what gives?

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#16

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

John Horobin

>You could do quite an interesting study of weights. For instance the current Stanley #4-1/2 is the heaviest ever made.

John

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#17

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>It exists because it is just the right size for some folks. I have one (well, it is an LN), and like it.

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#18

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

TMStock

>Although I suppose we might see a 'low carb' version soon...

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#19

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

TMStock

>I guess the same argument applies for the #1, although I never did get my then- 4 year old to enjoy fitting that run of really, really small drawers...

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#20

Dumb question

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>Funny, but with a woodie, a little wax on the sole, and a sharp blade, I don't seem to need all this mass. Well ya know, I can't screw my frog cause I ain't got one...can't complain about backlash cause I ain't got none of that either...and I can't complain my arms are sore from slogging all that mass through whatever just so's I can show swmbo that I really needed it. So, what is that all you use your #5 1/2's for? Do I really need a plane 1" longer with a blade 1/8-1/4" wider and 1lb heavier than my jack? How many panels do any of us rough out that we need a panel plane wanna be anyway? (just kiddin:-)

Regards

Jonathan - who is liking the feel of wood on wood.....smooooth dady-O'

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#21

Re: Dumb question

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>In a certain sense, you are looking at the issue backwards. I do not have a #5. Why would I want a jack plane that is a little narrower, lighter and shorter? Until recently, my lineup was a 4-1/2, 5-1/2, 6 & 7 (I now have a couple of #8's). They all have interchangable blades. I do not own a #4, or a #5. I feel no need to purchase them for use.

YMMV, and I have no objections to another approach, but this works for me.

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#22

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>I think that I fall more into the mainstream of hand-tool woodworking than your example of a 4-year-old making mini-drawers.

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#23

Re: Dumb question

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I really have a lot of admiration for those of you who lack appreciation for tools and have no need whatsoever to own and try out tools simply because they are available and cheap. I have numerous planes that I hardly ever use, but I like getting them out and playing with them occasionally just because they are there.

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#24

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

TMStock

>From now on, my posts will carry a disclaimer:

"Caution - contains humor; may not resonate with all readers..."

And you're absolutely right...I can't go to a garage sale without tripping over 4s and 6s, while I had to look twice this morning to recognize the #1 (missing front knob) being used as a door stop.

Re: #5 1/2 vs #6

#25

Re: Dumb question

TMStock

>For every Kirby in the world - who claims that he's only used a 4.5/7 combo his working career, there's someone that has to have the whole set from 1 to 8, low knob, SW, etc.

Does not make sense to everyone, but I know who's estate sale I'd prefer to attend.

Board footer:

👍 This page answered my questions

Your vote helps other woodworkers quickly find the answers and techniques that actually work in the shop.

Robin, just for comparison sake:
Mfg

ModelLbsOz
Clifton#340
#447.4
#559.6
#686.2
#7913.8
Stanley#5 1/261.0
#6C Type 465.4