Quangsheng V4 No.6 review

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

dh7892

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2008
Messages
152
Reaction score
1
Location
Orpington
I was lucky enough to have some money given to me by She Who Doesn't Have To Be Obeyed But It's Probably A Good Idea To Just In Case. I wanted to get something that I would use for a long time and perhaps something that I wouldn't have bought otherwise.

I decided on a plane. I wanted something bigger than I've currently got and something new since all my planes are second-hand ones.

I thought about a No7 from LV or LN but, even though I'd been given the money, £250+ just seems like a huge amount of money to spend. So, after reading a bit and seeing the generally favourable responses, I decided to go for the Quangsheng. Since WH don't have a No7, I went for the No6.

At this point, I should be clear to all that I don't have any credentials for doing reviews. I've used my small selection of hand planes a reasonable amount and I think I know how to get a blade sharp and how to cut wood, but I've never used a plane bigger than a No4 and never used one of the better planes (LN, LV, Clifton etc) so I don't have anything to compare against.

That said, I think a beginners' opinion can be valuable so here we go...

First, the obligatory box shot.

2011-01-14-20-32-48.jpg


I like the way it's packaged. It looks like someone cares about the product. I have no idea if all new planes come packaged in this way but it looks good to me.

After removing the coat of protective oil, I decided to give it a try straight away. I didn't expect it to work well straight out of the box but I thought I'd give it a go for the record.

I tried it out on a hunk of Mahogany that I have left over from a guitar body.

2011-01-14-20-44-56.jpg


It took shavings but they were a bit rough and there was plenty of tear-out. Not surprising really.

So, I took a trip to the sharpening station:

2011-01-14-21-19-42.jpg


The blade's nice and thick, the chip breaker fits very snugly and there is a good finish on all of the ground surfaces. It took no time at all to bring the iron up to a razor sharp finish.

Then, it was back into the plane and I attacked the Mahogany again. One thing I found slightly annoying is the fact that I can't reach the adjustment with my fingers whilst I'm holding the handle. And I've got pretty large fingers. This might be standard with bigger planes because I imagine that the handle placement needs to be right so that the weight distribution feels good and this means that the blade will be further away from the handle. But it does slow down the work in getting the blade depth just right.

That being said, my newly sharp iron transformed the plane into a very competent shaving machine. It feels very sturdy and has a pleasant heft to it without being too heavy. The handles are very comfy and I must say that I find it to look very nice too. It seems that earlier QS planes had Grasswood handles which folks didn't seem to like much but these "Chinese Rosewood" (whatever that its) handles look and feel very nice to me.

2011-01-14-21-20-10.jpg


I moved on to a block of Maple and, whilst I was taking good enough shavings, I started getting some tear out at one end where the grain went a bit awkward.

At this point, I had something of a revelation. Having decided that this plane ought to be able to handle this wood without tear out, I set about trying to work out how to improve the performance. The most obvious thing to try was the mouth. The frog attaches to the body with two locking screws and an adjustment screw. These are all accessible from the back so can be adjusted without removing the blade. I just loosened the two screws and twisted the centre screw to move the frog forwards until the blade was closer to the front of the mouth. Then I locked the two screws and I was all set. Very quick and easy.

2011-01-14-21-32-26.jpg


And what a difference! I could now get full length, transparent shavings with no tear out whatsoever. I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to many of you and I've seen plenty of comment about how a tight mouth improves performance. But this was the first time that I've had the equipment to try it out. What a difference! Hence my revelation. Both in terms of the ease of adjusting the QS and how much it improves the performance. As you can see, I got a bit carried away and produced a nice pile of shavings.

2011-01-14-21-24-54.jpg


I didn't check the sole and sides for flatness and squareness. I've seen Matthew's video on the web where he demonstrates this and I see no reason to think I'd be unlucky with this plane. Given that the performance of the plane seems very good to me, I conclude that it's either flat or it doesn't need to be!

In summary then this plane is, in many ways, just like the perfect woman:

It won't cost you the earth but it's not too cheap.
It's not carrying too much extra weight but it's got meat where you want it.
You get the feeling that it would happily ride wood for hours without a drop-off in performance.
All of the mating surfaces are smooth and tight-fitting.
It will need the occasional wax to keep smooth.
It's easy to close the mouth if you're getting too much chatter.
I'd recommend it to all my friends. :shock:

I'd like to try using this plane on a shooting board but, I'm starting to think it's a bit big for that and I can't find my board at the moment. When I track it down, I'll give it a go and see how it gets on.

All in all, I'm very happy with it and would happily buy another QS. I add my humble voice to the calls to Matthew to get a QS shoulder plane and a No7 in the shop.

Dave
 
Dave,

Is the rear tote big enough for your hand? I don't have particularly big hands but found that on the No 4 the handle wasn't big enough, mainly because it is more upright than most Bailey planes, resulting in uncomfortably squashed up fingers.

So far as shooting boards are concerned, it should be fine. I use a No 7 on a shooting board for butt jointing long edges; the ideal tool for the job in my opinion.

Jim
 
Good review. I see that you're using the 3M papers from Workshop Heaven which are excellent, but if you cut each full sized sheet into strips 70mm wide (which is more than adequate for plane and chisel blades) the total sharpening 'footprint' is drastically reduced - Rob
 
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I'm pretty certain I'll be buying a QS No. 6 (not 7) sometime this year so it's always good to see ahead of time that it's a good (not god) choice.
 
"it's a god choice."

Fromey - It may be a good piece of kit, but Im not sure it's worthy of supernatural being status :)

Adam S

P.S. A nice complete review by the way. If I had a little spare cash after chrimbo then I would prob be up for one of QS, maybe a 6 too.
 
One thing I think they can improve it is by having mushroom shaped front handles like in the LA LV Jack - I just find them
easier to hold

I might be wrong since I don't know why Stanley now uses the balloon shaped ones
 
Fromey":1a62piix said:
I'm pretty certain I'll be buying a QS No. 7 sometime this year.

That would be quite difficult at the moment unless Matthew extracts the digit :lol: :lol: ...they only go up to a No6 at the present time - Rob
 
yetloh":3vosq4ka said:
Dave,

Is the rear tote big enough for your hand? I don't have particularly big hands but found that on the No 4 the handle wasn't big enough, mainly because it is more upright than most Bailey planes, resulting in uncomfortably squashed up fingers.

So far as shooting boards are concerned, it should be fine. I use a No 7 on a shooting board for butt jointing long edges; the ideal tool for the job in my opinion.

Jim

I find it OK. I guess that it probably is on the smaller side but I found it to be quite comfy. I'll report back if my opinion changes after any long periods of use as I guess that's the real test.

Thanks for the advice on the shooting boards. I was hoping it would be OK as it's got nice big sides and I thought the extra mass of a larger plane would help with shooting.

Rob, I agree about the footprint being smaller if I chop up the paper into smaller bits. They're already in half in that picture. I bought the glass that size and, although I do have facilities for cutting glass, I'm happy enough with the size as it is. Thanks for the tip though.
 
I wrote my post while having a coffee break from digging a french drain. The fatigue was more that I expected! :?
 
LuptonM":1a3hrr3x said:
One thing I think they can improve it is by having mushroom shaped front handles like in the LA LV Jack - I just find them
easier to hold

I might be wrong since I don't know why Stanley now uses the balloon shaped ones
Economy - less wood needed. Damn those accountants...

Cheers for the review, Dave - I'll draw a discrete veil over the perfect woman analogy... I think the inability to stop making shavings for the sake of it is pretty telling. :D Many a person who's opinion I take notice of actively advocate a #6 as a shooting plane, btw.

dh7892":1a3hrr3x said:
That said, I think a beginners' opinion can be valuable so here we go...
For the record, so do I. Someone who's been playing with planes a long time can easily get blasé about how much they have to tune a plane and what things might phase a less experienced user.

So how many more votes for a #7 does it need, or are the Chinese elves not equipped to make such a beast? And if they can, is there any chance they'll put the rear tote back in the right place? Questions, questions. Matthew, you out there? Any answers, answers? :D
 
Nice review Dave! I too have a QS No. 6 and I've found it absolutely invaluable. Great plane.

Alf":2dzqq0qe said:
So how many more votes for a #7 does it need, or are the Chinese elves not equipped to make such a beast? And if they can, is there any chance they'll put the rear tote back in the right place? Questions, questions. Matthew, you out there? Any answers, answers? :D

Oh, and while they're at it, a #8 too! ;) I'll order both :D
 
Alf":nnsplyts said:
So how many more votes for a #7 does it need, or are the Chinese elves not equipped to make such a beast?

I have heard, from people in a position to know, that surface grinders (the machine we hope is being used to true the sole) get suddenly much more expensive around the 20" mark.

BugBear
 
Does anyone have any comments about my observation of the adjuster being unreachable from the handle? Is this normal for a plane of this size?

Also, can anyone who has experience of both quantify how close the QS is in terms of performance and ease of use to one of the "better" makes?
 
dh7892":3sn6010l said:
Does anyone have any comments about my observation of the adjuster being unreachable from the handle? Is this normal for a plane of this size? ....
One of the many strengths of the modern Stanley Bailey design is the convenient positioning and ease of use of the handle and adjusters.
Easily overlooked and taken for granted, until you have a go with one of the "new" planes and realise what you have lost. Amongst other things - the realisation that norris adjusters are rubbish, although they do look nice.
 
bugbear":2bxe3si5 said:
Alf":2bxe3si5 said:
So how many more votes for a #7 does it need, or are the Chinese elves not equipped to make such a beast?

I have heard, from people in a position to know, that surface grinders (the machine we hope is being used to true the sole) get suddenly much more expensive around the 20" mark.
Yes, I did wonder if it was something like that.

dh7892":2bxe3si5 said:
Does anyone have any comments about my observation of the adjuster being unreachable from the handle? Is this normal for a plane of this size?
No. I hadn't even realised it was until this came up in another thread recently, mentioned by Brian (here). For some inexplicable (to me) reason, having slavishly copied so much, they elected to put the rear tote further back on the #6.

dh7892":2bxe3si5 said:
Also, can anyone who has experience of both quantify how close the QS is in terms of performance and ease of use to one of the "better" makes?
I went into the matter a little in my review of the V1(?) #3 here.
 
Thanks Alf, it was actually your review of the No3 that made me think about adjusting the depth without taking my hands off the handle.
 
Jim,

Make sure you try before you buy. The #4 tote was small for my hand and mine are not big.

Jim
 
yetloh":35zv5e8h said:
Jim,

Make sure you try before you buy. The #4 tote was small for my hand and mine are not big.

Jim
I wonder if the Chinese base the dimensions for the tote on Oriental rather than Western anthropometric data? If they do, it might explain why the tote sizes seem to be a bit small for our use - Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top