The Veritas Shooting Plane

[Trafalgar]

The advantage of a dedicated shooting plane is very marginal (if anything at all) and it certainly wouldn't show on the finished item.

Hi Jacob

This is one of those statements that is neither correct nor incorrect. Consequently no one challenges it, and it passes into Truth (which it is not).

No one tool is completely indispensable. It is possible to work around just about anything (my chair build is in this category).

If I were a professional woodworker I would be looking to get away with the fewest number of tools that will still do the job. Less to maintain, less outlay, and a larger profit margin. Some tools will be a compromise - do the job tolerably well, not as well as a dedicated tool, but good enough. My first handplane on a shooting board was a #5 1/2. I was not complaining.

The dedicated shooting plane is a pleasure to use. There is nothing like one for sneaking up on a perfect fit for a drawer front. Of course you can do this with the #5 1/2 as well - just not as delicately, as smoothly, or with the same ease to reach this level of precision. And then some dedicated shooting planes do this better than others - more comfort, better control, easier to set up, etc.

Only you can decide if these factors are important to you. It is not a right or wrong thing. It is a choice.

Regards from Perth

Derek

But you claim that the quoted section of Jacob's post is not truth ("... and it passes into Truth (which it is not))"

What part isn't true? The quoted section of Jacob's post states that the advantage is marginal and that the results do not show on the finished item. I think both of these assertions are very much true. Drawers can be made to fit with a plane and there is nobody in the world who could ever tell if said plane was used whilst riding on a shooting board or not or if it was a dedicated shooting board plane. Alan Peters comes immediately to mind, or maybe he used his Record 07 on a shooting board. If anybody could make a drawer fit it was Peters.

After having made an actual outlay of funds, or perhaps even received one for free, there are very few people who will feel that they somehow 'don't like it,' at least not early in their ownership. Which brings up a question - whatever became of the Marcou handplanes you reviewed a few years ago? They still kickin' around the shop? If I recall, they were the cat's pajamas at the time only to never be heard about again. It would be tragic if they're just sitting in a drawer somewhere.

Marcou plane review:

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... other.html

Does one really need PMVII:

"It should also be recorded that the Veritas' A2 blades used by the Marcou and BUS held an excellent edge throughout. They completed the entire planing extravaganza without being re-honed."

... and in Jarrah and Tasmanian Blackwood...

 

[bugbear]

Which brings up a question - whatever became of the Marcou handplanes you reviewed a few years ago? They still kickin' around the shop?

You got an axe to grind? If so, grind it somewhere else.

BugBear

 

[MMUK]

I doubt that I will ever be in the position to buy a dedicated shooting plane, apart from the fact I'm too tight lol. If I found I desparately needed one, I'd modify a woodie to do the job

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

What part isn't true? The quoted section of Jacob's post states that the advantage is marginal and that the results do not show on the finished item. I think both of these assertions are very much true. Drawers can be made to fit with a plane and there is nobody in the world who could ever tell if said plane was used whilst riding on a shooting board or not. Alan Peters comes to mind, or maybe he used his Record 07 on a shooting board...

Did I say anything different?

After having made an actual outlay of funds, or perhaps even received one for free, there are very few people who will feel that they somehow 'don't like it,' at least not early in their ownership. Which brings up a question - whatever became of the Marcou handplanes you reviewed a few years ago? They still kickin' around the shop?

Ah .. the personal attack. I recognise that from Wood Central, and WoodNet, and Saw Mill Creek, and Knots and ....

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Trafalgar]

What part isn't true? The quoted section of Jacob's post states that the advantage is marginal and that the results do not show on the finished item. I think both of these assertions are very much true. Drawers can be made to fit with a plane and there is nobody in the world who could ever tell if said plane was used whilst riding on a shooting board or not. Alan Peters comes to mind, or maybe he used his Record 07 on a shooting board...

Did I say anything different?

Why, yes you did. You said his assertions if not challenged "pass into truth which they are not." If you agree with him, yours was a strange choice of words.

After having made an actual outlay of funds, or perhaps even received one for free, there are very few people who will feel that they somehow 'don't like it,' at least not early in their ownership. Which brings up a question - whatever became of the Marcou handplanes you reviewed a few years ago? They still kickin' around the shop?

Ah .. the personal attack. I recognise that from Wood Central, and WoodNet, and Saw Mill Creek, and Knots and ....

Regards from Perth

Derek

It's not a personal attack. I'm just curious about the status of the tools you've reviewed in the past. I think it's more than a fair question and might impact on how your current reviews are perceived, and used.

What about the HNT Gordon Smoother and Try Planes? You still use those guys?

 

[Racers]

I find shooting a pain in the hand with out putting on a glove, the Veritas I tried at Cressing Temple was very nice to use, much better than a hand plane on its side.

Pete

 

[MMUK]

What part isn't true? The quoted section of Jacob's post states that the advantage is marginal and that the results do not show on the finished item. I think both of these assertions are very much true. Drawers can be made to fit with a plane and there is nobody in the world who could ever tell if said plane was used whilst riding on a shooting board or not. Alan Peters comes to mind, or maybe he used his Record 07 on a shooting board...

Did I say anything different?

Why, yes you did. You said his assertions "pass into truth which they are not."

After having made an actual outlay of funds, or perhaps even received one for free, there are very few people who will feel that they somehow 'don't like it,' at least not early in their ownership. Which brings up a question - whatever became of the Marcou handplanes you reviewed a few years ago? They still kickin' around the shop?

Ah .. the personal attack. I recognise that from Wood Central, and WoodNet, and Saw Mill Creek, and Knots and ....

Regards from Perth

Derek

It's not a personal attack. I'm just curious about the status of the tools you've reviewed in the past. I think it's more than a fair question and might impact on how your current reviews are perceived, and used.

 

[yetloh]

Do not be discouraged Derek, you provide a valuable service to those of us who like tools and are lucky enough to be able to shell out for top quality specialist tools because we happen to like them and enjoy using them. Incidentally, this applies also to professionals; it is not just affluent amateurs who buy top quality tools. We all know that specialist tools are not generally essential but there is always someone around to labour the point and there will always be some who question motives. It was this sort of attitude which led to the much lamented loss of Alf to this forum - her insights and humour were enjoyed by many but lost to us by the thoughtlessness of one or two.

Your comments on blades are interesting. I'm not a big fan of A2 steel, finding that it has a tendency to crumble at the edge, which I have also noticed on a couple of Veritas blades. Certainly, the PMVII dooes seem to be superior. On LN v Veritas generally, other things being equal, I would always go for Veritas simply because they innovate and actually try to improve on old designs rather than just copy them. Given that the Veritas shooting plane looks like being significantly cheaper than the LN, the choice looks pretty obvious.

Jim

 

[Trafalgar]

Do not be discouraged Derek, you provide a valuable service to those of us who like tools and are lucky enough to be able to shell out for top quality specialist tools because we happen to like them and enjoy using them. Incidentally, this applies also to professionals; it is not just affluent amateurs who buy top quality tools. We all know that specialist tools are not generally essential but there is always someone around to labour the point and there will always be some who question motives. It was this sort of attitude which led to the much lamented loss of Alf to this forum - her insights and humour were enjoyed by many but lost to us by the thoughtlessness of one or two.

Your comments on blades are interesting. I'm not a big fan of A2 steel, finding that it has a tendency to crumble at the edge, which I have also noticed on a couple of Veritas blades. Certainly, the PMVII dooes seem to be superior. On LN v Veritas generally, other things being equal, I would always go for Veritas simply because they innovate and actually try to improve on old designs rather than just copy them. Given that the Veritas shooting plane looks like being significantly cheaper than the LN, the choice looks pretty obvious.

Jim

Poor A2 tool steel. It certainly was amazing at one time -- able to make it through a complete flight of tests in some of the toughest woods around and not even need a re-honing (really, what more could be said?), then only to be presented a few years later as not really stacking up all that great in tests vs. PMVII, or at least poorly enough to imply it would be worthwhile to change it out all over again. Whipsawed to death comes to mind. Last season's Prada. Read those comparisons. If you are able to reconcile the results on the one hand (a few years earlier), vs. the results on the other, you are a much better man than I.

Stanley's chute plane and matching machined steel board never really sold that well. Though I do have to say that the concept seemed logical -- if you're going to have that much accuracy in the plane then it needs to run on a board with at least the same amount of inherent stability and accuracy. Still, it was a sales clunker.

Otherwise, in classical reference after classical reference (Ellis, Jones, Hayward, Scott, et al.), most of which (perhaps ironically) happen to be British, we see regular iron No. 6's or woodies of roughly the same size being used on solid wood shooting boards that frankly look as if they'd seen much, much better days. How is that? Would we just snicker if not jeer outright at what "they" considered to be 'square' or shot to an angle? As we sometimes say in the South: Sump'm don't gee-haw. And indeed it doesn't. From Stanley's offering on forward, perhaps these things are solutions in search of a problem, one the old-timers didn't seem to have or if they did it wasn't anything they couldn't handle with little nip and tuck or tap here and there.

 

[MMUK]

OK time to put this bitching and baiting to rest please my American friend. I'm sure I'm not the only member on here that's getting sick and tired of the pathetic games that have been going on recently with some members.

 

[Trafalgar]

OK time to put this bitching and baiting to rest please my American friend. I'm sure I'm not the only member on here that's getting sick and tired of the pathetic games that have been going on recently with some members.

Not bitching and baiting, more like being encumbered with a memory.

 

[MMUK]

OK time to put this bitching and baiting to rest please my American friend. I'm sure I'm not the only member on here that's getting sick and tired of the pathetic games that have been going on recently with some members.

I apologize for being encumbered with a memory.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. However, I can see the subtle digs you've been aiming at a certain member. If you have an issue with him, do your arguing privately via PM. None of use want to see it.

Thank you :mrgreen:

 

[Trafalgar]

OK time to put this bitching and baiting to rest please my American friend. I'm sure I'm not the only member on here that's getting sick and tired of the pathetic games that have been going on recently with some members.

I apologize for being encumbered with a memory.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. However, I can see the subtle digs you've been aiming at a certain member. If you have an issue with him, do your arguing privately via PM. None of use want to see it.

Thank you :mrgreen:

Nothing out there that folks can't read for themselves. Some just may not know it's out there.

 

[Peter Sefton]

You are right we can all read for ourselves, and personally what I don't wish to read is nit picking. The problem with any review or opinion is that it's only a moment in time. I know my personal thoughts on tools and techniques change as I experience new ones.

Big Vic and the Veritas team came to our workshop last September to demonstrate the new Shooting plane, and it was well received by the guests on the day who all had a chance to use it. The general feedback was that it was more comfortable and easier to use than a standard bench plane for shooting work. With its inclined blade this will give a more slicing action and does help to hold the timber against the backstop. New people to woodwork can find shooting a little tricky I find they tend to roll a standard plane over and eat away the shooting board (I know this because its me who reworks them)
I found it very comfortable to use and I may add one to our workshop kit for students use, but I am happy to stay using my Clifton 5 1/2 for my own use at present (although if we get one I am sure I will change my mind, it happens).
We took pre orders on the day but are still waiting for them to hit the UK which should be soon now :!:
Cheers Peter

 

[Kalimna]

Rolling a bench plane on a shooting board then wondering why it wasn't 'working' properly? Then wishing a degree of 'edge refreshment' had been built into the design of the board? Who, me? Nope, not at all

I for one would love to have the time/space/spare cash to plonk for a dedicated shooting plane, but right now I shall just enjoy reading about them. Thank you Derek (and others) for putting up gear that many on here aspire to own, but probably won't.

Cheers,
Adam

 

[David C]

I too, frequently have to restore shooting boards where my students have tilted a 5 1/2 plane, in the beginning!..........

One thing that is clear with the L-N 51, is that it is happy planing end grain, of thicker stuff. 7/8" endgrain goes very easily. I have not explored the limits yet. The Stanley 51 had a flimsey undersized frog so the L-N is a huge improvement.

There is also less shock at the start of a shaving.

Although a dedicated shooting plane is generally not a necessity, it provides a very pleasant way of preparing square end grain. Something which is done a lot here.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Here is the summary of shooting boards, shooting planes, and steel:

Steel first ...

For many years I was curious why many stated that A2 steel folded with a 25 degree bevel and recommended 30 degrees. Lee Valley supplied the LA Jack with a 25 degree bevel and LN supplied all their BD bench planes with a 25 degree bevel.

The factor that become apparent in my recent comparisons of steels and shooting planes is that a BU shooting plane with a 12 degree bed works exceedingly well with an A2 blade ... far better than a BD shooting plane with a 45 degree bed. There is nothing wrong with LN A2 steel. However it could not keep up with the LV A2 steel because of the bedding angle. The higher bed creates greater impact, and this damages the edge significantly - even a BU A2 blade with a 25 degree bevel will far outlast a BD A2 blade with a 30 degree bevel.

Comparing the LV and LN shooting planes essentially comes down to three factors: the greater ease of setting up the LV, the longevity of its cutting action (the low bed), and the availability of PM-V11 steel, which takes it further still.

In use it comes down to the extra mass of the LN, which I like, increasing the momentum to power through end grain. Versus the lighter LV, which slices better, especially after the point where the LN blade would have dulled and begun to create greater resistance to cutting.

If I could have only one which would it be? This is difficult in my case. I would keep the LV. In fact, I had cleaned up the LN to sell, and my wife said I should not. The thing is that I don't actually need to sell it for the space, and it is rather special to me since Tom Lie-Nielsen signed it (years ago, Thomas mentioned to me that there was a #51 in the wings. I said when he built it I would buy it - I have a Stanley #51/52 combination and, as David Charlesworth noted, the #51 is fragile owing to a poorly designed frog).

There is a review of the LN #51 (in a comparison with the Stanley) here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html

The LV also has a special place. I was sent the drawings when it was in design stage, and then got to play with a plastic mock up when I visited the factory in Ottawa a year ago. The shooter in the review was a pre-release version for feedback as part of development.

Now the interesting fact of shooting boards is that the LN and LV planes are something of a game changer. They both require side fences on the shooting board, ala the Stanley #52, otherwise will be difficult to track straight. This way they also are both easier to use than other shooters.

They both are better on a flat board than a ramped board since the ramp actually reduces the skew with which they cut. At the same time, however, the ramp does spread the wear on the blade, so the choice is yours.

My ramped board is now dedicated to a shooting plane I built. Why do I need more shooting planes!! I don't. And they are not even "necessary" tools (as I mentioned before). They are, however, a tool that can bring a sense of joy and pleasure to those that own them. The reason I built another shooter is simply that I was due to demonstrate plane building at a LN Tool Event, and I took along a few different types for demonstration: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Event.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[cagenuts]

They both are better on a flat board than a ramped board since the ramp actually reduces the skew with which they cut. At the same time, however, the ramp does spread the wear on the blade, so the choice is yours.

Derek, what about a reverse ramp with a slight angle to spread the wear? I realise this would mean the trimmed piece would be fighting gravity a bit so I was thinking of keeping the board completely horizontal but then have the shooting slot at an angle. The Veritas would then run downhill, again ever so slightly.

Whatcha think?

 

[bugbear]

They both are better on a flat board than a ramped board since the ramp actually reduces the skew with which they cut. At the same time, however, the ramp does spread the wear on the blade, so the choice is yours.

IMHO the main purpose of a ramped board is to emulate some of the behaviour of a skewed blade - esp the gentler start and stop of the cut. Spreading of wear, whilst a legimate goal, I view as secondary; indeed spreading of wear can be trivally achieved by placing a packing piece under the workpiece some of the time.

Finally, a ramped board also reduces the maximum cutting capacity of the plane, which may (or may not) be important to the task at hand. Most people aren't shooting 2" timber!

BugBear

 

[mtr1]

Derek, you have the original Stanley Iron in the LN, in the pic above. I hope you didn't use this in your comparison with the LV.....?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD