no5 jack or low angle jack plane ?

[Trigs]

hi guys, Im new to the site and cabinet making in general although I served my time as a joiner. Question is whats the working differences between a no5 and low angle jack plane. I in intend to use it for squaring up and flattening short pieces of rough timber to make jewelery boxes. cheers

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I don't mean to be rude, but you're a joiner - why do have you the need to ask?

 

[Vann]

Question is whats the working differences between a no5 and low angle jack plane.

If you're working with tame timber, the main difference is well over a hundred quid.

The LAJ is one of the most versatile planes on the market. By changing the irons (or the cutting angle of your iron if you only get one) you can change the EP from below 40degrees to 60 or more, to tame the most gnarly wood.

That said, a No.5 is designed as a jack plane (for roughing), but makes a passable smoother too (again preferrably with a different iron for each task. And you can pick up a good second-hand No.5, or three, for the cost of an LAJ.

Whatever you do, DON'T buy a new Stanley or Record No.5/05 - it'll need more fettling than a old second hand one.

HTH.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Jacob]

I'd go for an old Record or Stanley 5. Or perhaps two of them so you can compare/contrast/cannibalise. They are very nice planes, and cheap - often less than £20 on ebay, less than the price of a blade for one of the expensive options. In fact sometimes less than the price of a new blade for the Record/Stanley itself.
There is no advantage in low angle planes as such, IMHO, except for the small block planes where the low angle makes them convenient for one handed use. NB you can change the EP on any plane, not just LA versions.
If you want to buy new I'd go for the Stanley SW no 4 which is excellent and cuts just as well as more expensive options (Clifton, LV etc) but isn't quite so pretty.

 

[Trigs]

Cheers guys I think I'll try both I've spotted a few on eBay already.

To answer Phillip P's question, I spent all my time on new builds and and renovations where the use of jack planes was never needed in an age of power tools and a ticking clock, combined by my boss' greed for money I missed out on a few things.

 

[bugbear]

hi guys, Im new to the site and cabinet making in general although I served my time as a joiner. Question is whats the working differences between a no5 and low angle jack plane. I in intend to use it for squaring up and flattening short pieces of rough timber to make jewelery boxes. cheers

Given the price of a good s/h Record #5 on eBay, I'd get that anyway, even if you also get a LAJ.

If you're using fancy wood for jewelry boxes you may well want a high EP plane, for which a BU plane is most convenient, but not really available secondhand.


Edit; a good article on high EP, near the start of the modern rediscovery:

http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.shtml

BugBear

 

[G S Haydon]

Could not agree more with Jacob and Bugbear. Pick up a old Stanley or Record "Bailey" type (not much newer than early 1960's) and see how you go. Such a small investment for such a versatile tool. I'm in the process of preparing some e-bay bench planes at the moment, all great tools for very little money. If the "Bailey" jack does not work for you then take the plunge on the LAJ and see how it works for you and the type of work you do.

 

[Jacob]

Could not agree more with Jacob and Bugbear. Pick up a old Stanley or Record (not much newer than early 1960's) and see how you go. Such a small investment for such a versatile tool. I'm in the process of preparing some e-bay bench planes at the moment, all great tools for very little money. If it does not work for you then take the plunge on the LAJ.

Hmm - I'd take the plunge on the new Stanley SW no4. Much better value for money than the LA/LV offerings.
What the low angle planes and the Stanley SW have in common is not very satisfactory adjustment. Variations on Norris - look good but don't work.
The old Bailey design as seen on old Stanley, Record, and new Clifton, is far superior

 

[G S Haydon]

Trigs

Just so you know I can't speak from experience on the low angle jack, I've only ever needed the "Bailey" type so far. A lot of people seem to find a use for them though. If you do purchase one let us know how you get on. Bear in mind also if you do buy a low angle jack and you don't like it, you could probably sell it on for very little loss. What brands have you looked at?

 

[GazPal]

Hmm - I'd take the plunge on the new Stanley SW no4. Much better value for money than the LA/LV offerings.

What the low angle planes and the Stanley SW have in common is not very satisfactory adjustment. Variations on Norris - look good but don't work.

The old Bailey design as seen on old Stanley, Record, and new Clifton, is far superior

I also tend to much prefer the basic Bailey pattern due to it's ease of use and ability to adjust while the plane is in use, but buy a pre-70's example whenever possible as they're generally much better made.

The downside with Norris style adjusters is the lack of ability to adjust the degree of cut/shaving thickness on the fly, as you generally need to slightly loosen the cap iron before adjustment. My son has one of Stanley's newer SW #4's and their SW #62 which are very nice planes to use, but it pays to either set them up for a specific cut and leave them set, or be prepared to take short breaks while they're adjusted.

The simplest solution to the low angle bevel up plane quandary is to simply invest in and use a block plane. It's just as easy to achieve the same cutting pitch adjustments with a Bailey style plane by back bevelling a couple of ordinary spare irons (No need for thicker irons) to the desired angles and switch them when needed, but - most of the time - a finely set mouth and cap iron:cutting iron combination can produce the same results.

 

[Trigs]

Ches for the replies guys, I picked up a couple of planes on eBay earlier on, a Stanley bailey no 3 and no 5, I only meant to buy the no 5 but got carried away by the low low prices. When a 62 of some type comes up I'll buy one to compare.

Also got my LN low angle block plane, the quality is outstanding. makes my old Record which i spent a long time setting up doomed to be shelved, will defiantly consider paying the premium prices for the extra quality.

 

[G S Haydon]

Enjoy them Trigs

 

[Vann]

The old Bailey design as seen on old Stanley, Record, and new Clifton, is far superior

I also tend to much prefer the basic Bailey pattern due to it's ease of use and ability to adjust while the plane is in use, but buy a pre-70's example whenever possible as they're generally much better made.

He means a pre-70's Record or Stanley. Pre-70's Cliftons are hard to find :mrgreen: and of course all Cliftons are well made.

It's just as easy to achieve the same cutting pitch adjustments with a Bailey style plane by back bevelling a couple of ordinary spare irons (No need for thicker irons) to the desired angles and switch them when needed, but - most of the time - a finely set mouth and cap iron:cutting iron combination can produce the same results.

And if you do get chatter, consider upgrading to a thicker cap-iron - before you consider a thicker cutting iron (cheaper; less hassle to fit; and probably just as effective as a thicker cutting iron).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[bugbear]

Ches for the replies guys, I picked up a couple of planes on eBay earlier on, a Stanley bailey no 3 and no 5, I only meant to buy the no 5 but got carried away by the low low prices. When a 62 of some type comes up I'll buy one to compare.

That would need to be one of the modern ones being sold on - the old #62's were much more fragile than the modern ones, which use better materials. An undamaged original is a rare and valuable collectors item.

BugBear

 

[Mike Wingate]

You have a No.3, so that is not much different from a no.4, just narrower. I would get a No.6 to plane longer pieces flat. I have replaced my cap irons with Quangsheng thicker ones, and nearly all my plane blades with QS versions. So much better in a Record/Stanley model. I have a QS no.62. It is amazing how it copes with tough wood and problem grain. A worthwile purchase.

 

[Eric The Viking]

The thing about pre-1970s is fairly important. I bought my first plane, a #5, around 1982. I fettled it and it has a number of good irons for various jobs (and yes, you can change the effective angle pretty easily--with a microbevel), but there's one glaring and really annoying issue: the sides aren't square to the base. This makes it useless on a shooting board.

That's a simple check with a known-good engineer's square at the time of purchase. If you're making boxes, I'd expect you to be shooting mitres, etc. and not being able to use it on a shooting board would drive you nuts.

I have a #4 that's similarly challenged, too, and that one is Record, war-finish (so it's not just the later ones), but that one was never intended for shooting-board duties.

A decent #5 or 5 1/2 will be a go-to plane for years.

E.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It matters more that the edge of the iron is at 90 degrees to the shooting board than that the side of the plane is at 90 degrees to the sole. I was taught 45 yrs. ago at school than if we removed an iron to sharpen to sharpen it that we had to check the edge of the wood for squareness afterwards, as knowing that the side of plane was at 90 degrees to the sole was no guarantee that the cutting edge would be as well.

 

[Trigs]

It seems well documented that old baileys are far superior to new ones, I'm interested to see how they compare to more modern 4 1/2 I have which I've spent the last few weeks trueing the sole and sharpening the iron and now cuts pretty well.

 

[Jacob]

... the sides aren't square to the base. This makes it useless on a shooting board.

Usually correctable by tilting the blade a touch.

 

[G S Haydon]

It matters more that the edge of the iron is at 90 degrees to the shooting board than that the side of the plane is at 90 degrees to the sole. I was taught 45 yrs. ago at school than if we removed an iron to sharpen to sharpen it that we had to check the edge of the wood for squareness afterwards, as knowing that the side of plane was at 90 degrees to the sole was no guarantee that the cutting edge would be as well.

+1