Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1337640
I freely admit that I am out of my depth on this thread, but talking of squaring the plane cheek for shooting (look at me using the jargon like I know what I'm talking about!), wouldn't it be easier, and less expensive, to adjust the shooting board rather than the plane? Assuming it is out of true to such an extent that it affects your work, planing/sanding the wood the plane runs on seems easier than removing metal. If you get it wrong, throwing away a scrap of shooting board seems cheaper than throwing away the plane. I appreciate that everything 90° and true would be best, but if my plane falls short of perfection, I know I can happily make more mistakes on cheap wood than I can on expensive planes.

Have I just commited a heresy, or is there a sensible reason that the plane MUST be square, as opposed to having the shooting board specific to a particular plane?
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1337649
Unless you're doing real specialist work, TN, you don't shoot with a block plane. Bigger planes don't seem to suffer so much from the out-of-square-sides disease. I'd be very cautious of producing an out-of-planar shooting board to compensate for a dodgy plane body. Most people only use one plane for shooting, I reckon, and you just need to pick one that is somewhere near square (they don't have to be perfect as you can compensate with the lateral adjustment lever).
User avatar
By bp122
#1337657
Trainee neophyte wrote:I freely admit that I am out of my depth on this thread, but talking of squaring the plane cheek for shooting (look at me using the jargon like I know what I'm talking about!), wouldn't it be easier, and less expensive, to adjust the shooting board rather than the plane? Assuming it is out of true to such an extent that it affects your work, planing/sanding the wood the plane runs on seems easier than removing metal. If you get it wrong, throwing away a scrap of shooting board seems cheaper than throwing away the plane. I appreciate that everything 90° and true would be best, but if my plane falls short of perfection, I know I can happily make more mistakes on cheap wood than I can on expensive planes.

Have I just commited a heresy, or is there a sensible reason that the plane MUST be square, as opposed to having the shooting board specific to a particular plane?


Being a novice here as well, I see the point you are making, but I would have to disagree here. I would like to have my tools as close to workable perfection as possible, of course within reason. But more importantly, once altered, I believe there is no guarantee that the shooting board wouldn't change under moisture, fatigue or mishandling - This raises an issue that you have to keep the board married to the plane in terms of built-in-error very frequently. Whereas altering a plane itself, if need be, may be a more stable option to bank on. - I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

Besides, for someone like me who loses tools in the 2 square feet of space I work in, if I lose a plane that my shooting board is married to, I am stuffed :D (homer)

But as Mike mentioned, seldom people use block planes for shooting. So this may be immaterial.
By Just4Fun
#1337661
My choice of plane to use on a shooting board is not exactly random but is not consistent either. No good reason for that, it is just the way I work. Making the board match an out-of-square plane would not work for me.
None of the planes I have used on a shooting board have needed work to make them square and I would not know how to do that anyway. If any plane did need work like that I would rather reach for another plane.
User avatar
By ED65
#1337677
Trainee neophyte wrote:I freely admit that I am out of my depth on this thread, but talking of squaring the plane cheek for shooting (look at me using the jargon like I know what I'm talking about!), wouldn't it be easier, and less expensive, to adjust the shooting board rather than the plane?
...
Have I just commited a heresy, or is there a sensible reason that the plane MUST be square, as opposed to having the shooting board specific to a particular plane?

Actually you're right on the money here, other people have had the very same thought and built their shooting boards accordingly.

The lateral adjuster can of course compensate for quite an amount of out-of-square but where the situation exceeds the adjustment range of the lateral then this is a reasonable solution (if squaring the iron won't resolve it). You might choose to do this for example if your plane has fairly thin cheeks to begin with; while one wouldn't see this on a typical Record :D it's not that uncommon on older Stanley castings, and they can be irregular one side to the other too, further increasing the chance this might be found.

But even if it's the case that you simply CBA lapping/scraping/filing the relevant cheek that's fine too! Given that many users already dedicate a plane to use on a shooting board I can't see that there's any real objection to building the latter to suit the former.
User avatar
By toolsntat
#1342489
Bm101 wrote:Having assessed some of the varied answers from respected and experienced members it's clear to me that the main thing that is becoming increasingly obvious that as Derek points out, each of us finds different solutions to suit our needs. :-$ :-"
So I'll post this like the Government burying bad news after a terrorist attack.
I'm really not that bad but I justified this as an apron plane at the time.
I don't own an apron.
Breaking aris's I reasoned.
Yeh. I know.... :oops: Bottle of red probably.
My last tool purchase because I wanted it. I have long learnt since then btw.
Still. It cost far less than that 50pence for scale is worth.

Image

Look at it though. :wink:


Just read your pm Chris and didn't know about this outstanding little cutie. Top marks for holding on to it =D>
Know nowt about 50p bits :oops: #-o
Cheers Andy
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1342491
I'm embarrassed to say I have only just read everyone's considered replies to my dipstick question - thank you all for the attention. :oops:

Good news is that I have been hand planing this week, with a purpose! My planer/thicknesser is so innaccurate that I used a hand plane!!! (I then put it through the thicknesser, and squared the sides with the table saw, but it's a start.)