Stanley 52 shooting board

[gasman]

In Jim Kingshotts book Making and Modifying Tools, he talks about Pattern Making and in particular, he made a Stanley 51/52
I would dearly love to make a Stanley 52 chute board and I just wondered if anyone has done that before? I have a medium engineering firm who are very friendly just up the road but wanted to ask on the forum first in case someone has a pattern etc
Cheers
Mark

 

[custard]

There's a shooting board question on the General Forum that touches on this. If your motivation for making one is hobby engineering then I'm sure it's a smashing project, but as a functional device in a furniture making workshop it's not so clear cut.

I've used a Stanley 52 and it has a number of drawbacks, not least it's a big heavy lump that takes up space and requires a lot of effort to lift it onto and off your bench. If you have a massive workshop and could give it a dedicated bench then maybe, but for most of us a 52 is pretty inconvenient given that you often want a shooting board for a quick end grain clean up on a small component. Another failing is that it requires quite a bit of constant tinkering to run smoothly and accurately, the tiniest bit of thermal expansion or even an almost invisible amount of micro corrosion can see it sticking in some areas and running loose in others. Which means it's out with the spanners and Garryflex block when all you really want to do is just square up a component and crack on.

Good luck!

 

[D_W]

In Jim Kingshotts book Making and Modifying Tools, he talks about Pattern Making and in particular, he made a Stanley 51/52
I would dearly love to make a Stanley 52 chute board and I just wondered if anyone has done that before? I have a medium engineering firm who are very friendly just up the road but wanted to ask on the forum first in case someone has a pattern etc
Cheers
Mark

I haven't, but I've got a wooden plane in mind that is a little less complicated to build.

I thought in the video (of the same thing, where he shows that plane) he sort of no-sells the amount of effort required to make something of that sort. Just sort of an "oh, you just make a pattern, take it to an ironmonger too have it cast and pooof, you have this plane for pennies on the dollar".

Am I correct that he had experience as a patternmaker, and if not him, his father? Most of the rest of us would struggle with details, and probably end up with a plane that was either fragile or 22 pounds.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

.....
I've used a Stanley 52 and it has a number of drawbacks, not least it's a big heavy lump that takes up space and requires a lot of effort to lift it onto and off your bench. If you have a massive workshop and could give it a dedicated bench then maybe, but for most of us a 52 is pretty inconvenient given that you often want a shooting board for a quick end grain clean up on a small component. Another failing is that it requires quite a bit of constant tinkering to run smoothly and accurately, the tiniest bit of thermal expansion or even an almost invisible amount of micro corrosion can see it sticking in some areas and running loose in others. Which means it's out with the spanners and Garryflex block when all you really want to do is just square up a component and crack on.

Good luck!

I have used a Stanley #51/52 for a good many years now. It was interesting when the LN and Veritas versions of the #52 came out since I anticipated that many (all) would find that using one required modifying their shooting board.

Most planes used on a shooting board are held at their centre. This offers decent control and directionality along the runway. The #52, however, has the handle at the rear. It is also angled, but that is a separate matter. Pushing from the very rear of the plane causes a significant loss of control compared to other planes. The control is returned when the plane is captured inside a track. The handle at the rear then offers more power than a central handle, and the combination of a track and rear handle makes using the #52 effortless. But without the track it is an uncontrolled lump of iron.

Below is the Veritas version in a wooden shooting board. Note that it is captured in a track ..

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[David C]

Mark,

I have been using the L-N 51 on a board, with adjustable guide/chute, even simpler than Derek's. (It has a sacrificial fence held in place with a toggle clamp).

It has angled guides for the horizontal plane, mostly 45 degrees, left and right handed.

Also a sloped mountain like structure, L & R handed for small mitred boxes.

Obviously the only thing missing is a pivoting fence, but I have no need of one.

Incidentally the L-N 51 works a great deal better than the old Stanley model.

As Custard said, if you enjoy engineering build the 52, but for shooting, wood and MDF do fine!

best wishes,
David

 

[gasman]

Many thanks gentlemen for your replies.
I guess it is a step too far - but the version in Jim Kingshotts book looked lovely and, as I also already have a LN51 I thought a more permanent shoot would look good. Maybe I will make another wooden one similar to one of yours
Best wishes
Mark

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

If you do build the #52, this is what it will look like with the LN #51 ...

If not metal, what about a wooden version?

Regards from Perth

Derek