# The Veritas Shooting Plane



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (27 Aug 2013)

As promised, once Rob and Co released their brand spanking new shooting plane, I have published a review of the plane for your entertainment and education 

The website link is here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html







Feel free to ask any questions.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Nippychippy (27 Aug 2013)

Nice review thinking about getting a shooting plane I was fitting oak architraves yesterday and just seems to be with oak the mitries are of at the heal and the toe tight in the middle do you just make a shooting board for the mitres


----------



## Graham Orm (27 Aug 2013)

Great review Derek, thanks for taking the time.

Just searched Ebay for a shooting plane and came up with this beauty! :mrgreen: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1943-WWII...508?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f24fe0f64

Most of us would aspire to just one of those, (You mention you have a LN already) will you keep both?


----------



## bugbear (27 Aug 2013)

Nice review Derek. *AND* you appear to have demonstrated fairly conclusively that there's more to blade quality than the steel composition.

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Aug 2013)

Interesting review, Derek. Thanks for posting.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Harbo (27 Aug 2013)

Excellent review thanks.

Rod


----------



## Nippychippy (27 Aug 2013)

Hi guys am I being daft but I can't seem to find affordable shooting planes lie nelson at 430 just way to much for me till I win the lotto 

Cheers for the help sorry if I am hijacking the post


----------



## woodbrains (27 Aug 2013)

Hello,

Excellent review Derek, thanks.

Regarding affordable shooting panes, the Veritas should retail for a fair amount less than the LN, if prices from the USA are anything to go by, but not enough to make it 'affordable'. There are none that are though, new. The best metal plane that won't break the bank would be a second hand Record T5, with, referencing the blade tests in the article here, a replacement LV, A2 or PM blade.

Mike.


----------



## Nippychippy (27 Aug 2013)

Thanks woodbrains will have a look for that


----------



## Vann (28 Aug 2013)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> The LN blades began dulling after about 30 shavings, at which point they increasingly were required to take more passes to complete a full shaving – instead of cleanly slicing the end grain, they skipped and left untouched sections.
> 
> By contrast, the Veritas blades were still sharp at the end of 60 shavings, and could have gone on planing for much longer. Of the two blades, the A2 began to feel a little more difficult to push at about the 55 shaving mark, but continued to the end of its 60 without skipping a beat.


Interesting. I recall a thread a year or so ago, where _mtr1_ had problems with edge retention on a L-N A2 iron. 

It seems that Lie-Nielsen are not doing something quite right - which is a pity as IMHO Lie-Nielsen tools are the best of the top three. Certainly their back-up was top-notch in mtr1's case.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## bugbear (28 Aug 2013)

Nippychippy":1lwhdh7p said:


> Hi guys am I being daft but I can't seem to find affordable shooting planes lie nelson at 430 just way to much for me till I win the lotto
> 
> Cheers for the help sorry if I am hijacking the post



For many purposes, a "normal" plane will work "well enough" - my personal favourite is a #6.

If you want the oh-so-desirable benefits of a skew blade, the cheapest way is a Philly mitre plane.

http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/skew.html

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (28 Aug 2013)

Nippychippy":1sllryqn said:


> Hi guys am I being daft but I can't seem to find affordable shooting planes lie nelson at 430 just way to much for me till I win the lotto
> 
> Cheers for the help sorry if I am hijacking the post


It's OK don't worry about it nobody really needs them anyway - they are just toys for the comfortably off!


----------



## iNewbie (28 Aug 2013)

Bit like a Sorby Pro-edge, eh? 

Bit of Wet 'n' Dry 'll do for grinding. Freehand of course.


----------



## Jacob (28 Aug 2013)

iNewbie":3vm8iqvs said:


> Bit like a Sorby Pro-edge, eh?
> 
> Bit of Wet 'n' Dry 'll do for grinding. Freehand of course.


Hmm stretching it a bit! Sorby Proedge (or similar) is an extremely useful bit of kit and would get well used in most workshops.
These planes aren't and wouldn't.


----------



## Paul Chapman (28 Aug 2013)

Jacob":hm9mj9ah said:


> These planes aren't and wouldn't.



Maybe not in your workshop, Jacob, but then you seem to spend all day on your computer rather than doing anything which would require a plane.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## PAC1 (29 Aug 2013)

I was pleased to see that Veritas are to produce a leftie version due out in October


----------



## custard (31 Aug 2013)

I wonder how long before LN respond with their own new edge steel?


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Hello Derek, unless I missed it, would you tell me the maximum thickness (height) that the Veritas can plane when it is in the Stanley shooting board, how much of the blade is usable?


----------



## cagenuts (23 Jan 2014)

mark w":32zg2cgs said:


> Hello Derek, unless I missed it, would you tell me the maximum thickness (height) that the Veritas can plane when it is in the Stanley shooting board, how much of the blade is usable?



Mark if Derek doesn't respond I have the shooter but not the board but I can measure from the sole up the blade and then if you have a chutebored you can measure that depth.


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Cagenuts, that would be really helpful. How did you get the plane so soon, I`m still waiting for Uk dealers to stock it.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (23 Jan 2014)

mark w":an949ula said:


> Hello Derek, unless I missed it, would you tell me the maximum thickness (height) that the Veritas can plane when it is in the Stanley shooting board, how much of the blade is usable?



Hi Mark

I will measure this later, however the blade is 2 1/4" wide and skewed at 20 degrees. I'd guess it has about 2" of cutting height. 

The reason I am not rushing off to the workshop to look is that it is all academic - no one is likely to shoot more than about 3/4" on average and more typically about 1/2". 

Why do you want to know?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

I'm in the middle of making a coffee table which, due to its design, required me to shoot end grain of 30mm (about 1 1/8). I used my veritas low angle jack plane which performed very well, I'm thinking of buying the shooting plane but won't if it's capacity is less than my jack plane.


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Edit


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (23 Jan 2014)

Hi Mark

Anything that is wider than 3/4" you might instead just clamp it in a vise and plane it there. Add a fence to the plane if you need help in getting it perfectly square. A shooting board is really only for narrow pieces.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Hello Derek, I don't wish to be rude, but I don't want or need advice on the subject of shooting, I could explain in more detail what I did in shooting for my coffee table, but I was hoping just to get a straight answer. 
Just to repeat, I am not being rude, your reviews are much appreciated.


----------



## MickCheese (23 Jan 2014)

Mark

Sounds a little rude to me and the fact that your wrote, "I don't wish to be rude" twice suggests you though it may be too.

Not sure that is the best method of getting someone to help you with the answer to your question. 

After all, you could probably just look it up on the Veritas web site. 

Mick


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (23 Jan 2014)

Mark

My intention was to be helpful. Your original question and then your reply that you wanted to shoot wide sides indicated that you had only a basic understanding of shooting and shooting planes. I found your response to be rude. You could have said "thank you' and just moved on without becoming defensive.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Thanks Mick, I don't wish to be rude, but I've already looked on the Veritas site, the Axminster site and a couple of other reviews, no joy I'm afraid.


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Derek, to be clear my original post stated I had already shot some thick timber, I do have a good knowledge of shooting and Cabinet Making in general, I have no wish to continue an argument with you, I do find it odd that you choose to leave out that I also said your reviews are appreciated and I did not wish to be rude. Professionals like you do sometimes forget to let the sermon end! Why do you always assume you are corresponding with an amateur, the pieces I was shooting were 30mm x 50mm, shooting them with my veritas jack was the quickest method which produced good results.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (23 Jan 2014)

> Derek, to be clear my original post stated I had already shot some thick timber, I do have a good knowledge of shooting and Cabinet Making in general, I have no wish to continue an argument with you, I do find it odd that you choose to leave out that I also said your reviews are appreciated and I did not wish to be rude. Professionals like you do sometimes forget to let the sermon end! Why do you always assume you are corresponding with an amateur, the pieces I was shooting were 30mm x 50mm, shooting them with my veritas jack was the quickest method which produced good results.



Mark

I am not a professional, just an amateur like you. There appears to be some unfortunate miscommunication here.

Perhaps we should drop this now. I have no desire to continue this conversation in this tone.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## MMUK (23 Jan 2014)

mark w":2jeii5sy said:


> Thanks Mick, I don't wish to be rude, but I've already looked on the Veritas site, the Axminster site and a couple of other reviews, no joy I'm afraid.






Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I will measure this later, however the blade is 2 1/4" wide and skewed at 20 degrees. I'd guess it has about 2" of cutting height.




Was this not an accurate enough answer for you Mark?

I'm not about to tell what size timber you should or should not be shooting but I would like to offer a possible solution for shooting thicker timber if you are amenable to that?

Would it not be an interesting and satisfying project to pick up the biggest woodie you can find and convert it to a shooter with the widest blade you can fit into it? Then you'd have a plane to service your needs and it would be a one-off to your own spec.


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Thanks Derek I agree, sorry if I have caused offense.
Is there any chance of anyone providing an answer to my question?


----------



## cagenuts (23 Jan 2014)

mark w":2zhe09wa said:


> Cagenuts, that would be really helpful. How did you get the plane so soon, I`m still waiting for Uk dealers to stock it.



Mark I received mine last year November but I just imported it directly from Lee Valley.

From the bottom of the sole, there's a 5mm clearance before the blade starts to get in on the action. Again from the bottom of the sole, the blade stop cutting at a depth of 57mm (measured perpendicular to the sole).

Hope this is what you were after.


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Thanks Cagenuts, that info is very helpful, I`m waiting for a UK supplier to stock it, I dread to think what it would cost to import here. Do you have suppliers in your neck of the woods or is importing your only option?


----------



## Jacob (23 Jan 2014)

MMUK":2l1tgm4v said:


> mark w":2l1tgm4v said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Mick, I don't wish to be rude, but I've already looked on the Veritas site, the Axminster site and a couple of other reviews, no joy I'm afraid.
> ...


Or just do it with a 5 or 5 1/2. The advantage of a dedicated shooting plane is very marginal (if anything at all) and it certainly wouldn't show on the finished item.


----------



## cagenuts (23 Jan 2014)

Jacob":1ub9puq9 said:


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



Agree 100% but I bought it because I liked it and no justification came into play.

Mark, we do have one Lee Valley dealer here but they only carry a small selection and I enjoy shipping online so I trend to import stuff. Expensive though, shipping and import duties can sometimes add on an additional 50%.


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Yes Jacob you are probably right, but the lure of a new veritas plane is just too much!


----------



## mark w (23 Jan 2014)

Cagenuts, the anticipation of a Veritas or Lie Nielsen parcel is very appealing.
Jacob, I may also buy the new Veritas apron, just like their tools it's very innovative! Hefty price tag as usual.


----------



## cagenuts (24 Jan 2014)

mark w":1snm00ja said:


> I may also buy the new Veritas apron, just like their tools it's very innovative! Hefty price tag as usual.



I have that one (black) and it's pretty comfortable. Not too long that it restricts leg movement and not too heavy that you sweat like a go-go dancer.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (24 Jan 2014)

> 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


----------



## CStanford (24 Jan 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


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



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 (24 Jan 2014)

CStanford":3s9bbb7l said:


> 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 (24 Jan 2014)

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) (24 Jan 2014)

> 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


----------



## CStanford (24 Jan 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > 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...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (24 Jan 2014)

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 (24 Jan 2014)

CStanford":21shulse said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > > 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...
> ...


----------



## yetloh (24 Jan 2014)

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


----------



## CStanford (24 Jan 2014)

yetloh":vlddte75 said:


> 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 (24 Jan 2014)

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.


----------



## CStanford (24 Jan 2014)

MMUK":iihcjwxl said:


> 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 (24 Jan 2014)

CStanford":3oyezudv said:


> MMUK":3oyezudv said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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:


----------



## CStanford (24 Jan 2014)

MMUK":2nzi2q4q said:


> CStanford":2nzi2q4q said:
> 
> 
> > MMUK":2nzi2q4q said:
> ...



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


----------



## Peter Sefton (24 Jan 2014)

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 (24 Jan 2014)

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 (24 Jan 2014)

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) (25 Jan 2014)

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 (25 Jan 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> 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 (25 Jan 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> 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 (25 Jan 2014)

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


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


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


Keep it simple - no one challenges it, because it is true! There is nothing a "shooting" plane will do which can't be done with an ordinary jack plane. In fact many manage without a shooting board at all. 
If you were on a hand tool production line and having to shoot edges hour after hour, then a dedicated plane might make sense.

Nothing wrong with treating yourself to a new toy if that's what you want. But there is a big Steam Punk element to it - SP enthusiasts know that their bits of kit are useless and their tech talk is gibberish - that's not the point. With woodwork tool enthusiasts the boundaries aren't so clear cut.

Steam Punk jet pack:







Veritas motor bike:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 Jan 2014)

> 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.....?



I used a total of 4 blades in the LN #51: LN A2 with a 25 degree and a 30 degree bevel, a Smoothcut laminated Japanese blade (which is what you see in the photo, not a Stanley - the Smoothcut was far better than the LN A2), and also a LV PM-V11 blade.

Everything must get its best shot.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## David C (25 Jan 2014)

I doubt that the tool used ever shows on the outside of a finished item?

And shooting planes are advantageous to some users, who do a lot of small endgrain planing.

David


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 Jan 2014)

cagenuts":1mkm6r4j said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Hi Hilton

The reverse ramp is unnecessary with a plane that has a 20 degree downward skewed blade. The direction of the skew acts like (but even more so) as a straight blade on a reverse angle. That is, both pull the work piece down onto the surface. 

Because the reverse angle leaves very little height for boards, it is best considered for shooting veneer (sandwiched with MDF or ply). 

It's been a bloody hot day, Hilton. The cool of the evening is beginning. Time for a Windhoek.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## cagenuts (25 Jan 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> It's been a bloody hot day, Hilton. The cool of the evening is beginning. Time for a Windhoek.



Amen to that!


----------



## Peter Sefton (25 Jan 2014)

It's been wet,wet.wet here but todays job is to restock with firewood ready for a possible cold snap.
Peter


----------



## CStanford (25 Jan 2014)

Jacob":2h9pbg9n said:


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


Keep it simple - no one challenges it, because it is true! There is nothing a "shooting" plane will do which can't be done with an ordinary jack plane. In fact many manage without a shooting board at all. 
If you were on a hand tool production line and having to shoot edges hour after hour, then a dedicated plane might make sense.

"Nothing wrong with treating yourself to a new toy if that's what you want. But there is a big Steam Punk element to it - SP enthusiasts know that their bits of kit are useless and their tech talk is gibberish - that's not the point. With woodwork tool enthusiasts the boundaries aren't so clear cut."

The fact that these things have found a market, from two separate manufacturers no less, and with sales presumably beyond the break-even point pretty much says it all I guess. Well, it says something doesn't it? Not sure what, but something.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 Jan 2014)

There appears to long have been a market for shooting planes. How else do we account for the many Slater, Matherson, Spier and Norris mitre planes, the Stanley #51/52, and wooden strike block planes? This does not appear, then, a new phenomenon, one that may be seen to be associated with the amateur and the influence of the Internet. Or can you explain the presence of these planes over the past 150 years?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Peter Sefton (25 Jan 2014)

It's good for students to use a shooting board, but I like them to learn how to control a plane without the use of shooting boards and jigs. 
They are in the process of making a table and will be hand fitting and making a dovetailed drawer for it next, the shooting board is great if every thing is square and true but that is not aways the way life is and mastering how to plane end grain needs to be accomplished before you have to make a drawer fit like a glove.
Peter


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> There appears to long have been a market for shooting planes. How else do we account for the many Slater, Matherson, Spier and Norris mitre planes, the Stanley #51/52, and wooden strike block planes? This does not appear, then, a new phenomenon, one that may be seen to be associated with the amateur and the influence of the Internet. Or can you explain the presence of these planes over the past 150 years?
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek


They could be very marginally useful depending on what you are doing, but aren't essential, which is why they are so uncommon/rare.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Stanley-No-51 ... 0837371531
The boards are common of course, but nearly always used with a 5 1/2 or otherwise normal plane.


----------



## MMUK (25 Jan 2014)

Jacob":2b8741zs said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > There appears to long have been a market for shooting planes. How else do we account for the many Slater, Matherson, Spier and Norris mitre planes, the Stanley #51/52, and wooden strike block planes? This does not appear, then, a new phenomenon, one that may be seen to be associated with the amateur and the influence of the Internet. Or can you explain the presence of these planes over the past 150 years?
> ...




So you keep saying Jacob. We get the point. Play time is over now :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2014)

MMUK":x31ni99b said:


> Jacob":x31ni99b said:
> 
> 
> > Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> ...


Just answering Derek's question.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 Jan 2014)

Hi Jacob

I can add to the list the Stanley #9. 

Answer this then: Who purchased these mitre planes? There must have been a market - they were made in plentiful quantities - these are not rare planes.

Now please do not repeat that they were not essential. I said so myself on at least two occasions. The fact is that some did find them useful, and useful enough that they wanted to include them in their tool collection. The question is who are these people?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Jan 2014)

I can't understand why you are so dismissive of shooting boards and purpose-made planes, Jacob. Shooting boards are so easy to make and a joy to use. 





I use the LN #9 with the hot dog handle, which is so much nicer to use for shooting than a standard bench plane





Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## CStanford (25 Jan 2014)

Peter Sefton":3teygcks said:


> It's good for students to use a shooting board, but I like them to learn how to control a plane without the use of shooting boards and jigs.
> They are in the process of making a table and will be hand fitting and making a dovetailed drawer for it next, the shooting board is great if every thing is square and true but that is not aways the way life is and mastering how to plane end grain needs to be accomplished before you have to make a drawer fit like a glove.
> Peter



Good points. Using board and plane subordinates, for the most part, "square" to the accuracy of the board and plane. With a reasonably accurate try square and simple marking knife/utility knife a student can make a square end with the most marginal of handplanes. When a student incises square lines around a workpiece they are quite simply looking at square. The square end is right in front of their eyes in the form of the incised set of lines. The remaining task is simply to saw away the bulk of the waste and then block in where practically any sharp plane will do (depends on the size of the workpiece). Skill in the hand. Does them little if any good to be lent an expertly made shooting board and premium hand plane and shown how to run it over the board with the workpiece end in the way. Ditto short miters as well. Easy if not fun to do with knife, combo square, and block plane. Bevel gauge too if something other than a 45* miter is wanted.

Even the most basic kit includes a knife, a square, and one or two hand planes. That's all that is really needed.


----------



## CStanford (25 Jan 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> There appears to long have been a market for shooting planes. How else do we account for the many Slater, Matherson, Spier and Norris mitre planes, the Stanley #51/52, and wooden strike block planes? This does not appear, then, a new phenomenon, one that may be seen to be associated with the amateur and the influence of the Internet. Or can you explain the presence of these planes over the past 150 years?
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



The prices of the planes you mention, in the vintage plane market, suggests that they were far from ubiquitous. It would be my guess they were made in limited numbers and fetched high prices in their day, much like their contemporaries from Lie-Nielsen and Lee Valley. They had limited appeal for lots of reasons the most obvious one being their lack of necessity. Nice to have, sure. Necessary, far from it.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Jan 2014)

CStanford":10wqtff7 said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > There appears to long have been a market for shooting planes. How else do we account for the many Slater, Matherson, Spier and Norris mitre planes, the Stanley #51/52, and wooden strike block planes? This does not appear, then, a new phenomenon, one that may be seen to be associated with the amateur and the influence of the Internet. Or can you explain the presence of these planes over the past 150 years?
> ...



I suppose it depends on how you define 'ubiquitous'.

Norris, Spiers, Mathieson et. al. smoothing planes are not rare, but even in beaten-up condition they often seem to fetch far more than a decent vintage Stanley or Record. Mitre planes do seem to crop up quite a lot, and whilst they may not originally have been intended solely for use on a shooting board, they do work well with them.

It's worth bearing in mind that most carpentry and joinery doesn't need much end-grain shooting, but cabinetmaking and some of the specialist trades such as patternmaking do. Since in the hayday of hand woodworking (pre WW2, roughly speaking) the majority of paid wood tradesmen were working in carpentry and joinery, it follows that a minority of tradesmen needed the specialist shooting planes. Hence there are far more Bailey planes about than infill mitre planes. That doesn't really mean that infills are rare - look on any Ebay auction, and you'll probably find at least one, sometimes several.


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Hi Jacob
> 
> I can add to the list the Stanley #9.
> 
> Answer this then: Who purchased these mitre planes? There must have been a market - they were made in plentiful quantities - these are not rare planes.


Hens teeth!


> .... The fact is that some did find them useful, and useful enough that they wanted to include them in their tool collection. The question is who are these people?....


A very small number of specialist cabinet makers - piano makers have been suggested.


----------



## MMUK (25 Jan 2014)

Oh for pineapple sake Jacob, give it up will you!


----------



## Jacob (25 Jan 2014)

MMUK":3dsrynsz said:


> Oh for pineapple sake Jacob, give it up will you!


Why?
I'm interested in these things and want to know how useful they are. I'm also interested in how much can be done with only a few simple tools. It was an eye opener for me when I was taught how much can be done with a fairly basic tool collection.


----------



## David C (25 Jan 2014)

And other people may be interested in a wider spectrum of subjects.

The Stanley no 9 is frequently referred to as a piano makers plane.

David


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Jan 2014)

For trimming end grain, a mitre trimmer (such as this - http://www.axminster.co.uk/axcaliber-mt1-mitre-trimmer ) would be another option. This one isn't as posh as those from Morso or Ortoguil, and is strictly speaking intended for trimming picture frame mitres, so will not have quite the length capacity of the shooting board and plane, but should do a pretty fair job.

There are more ways than one to skin a cat, and whilst doing it all with a limited kit may be an absolute necessity for some (or a conscious choice for others), most professionals and serious amateurs, now and in the past, prefer to have tools that make the job quicker or do the job to a better standard; or even just have a few tools that are a pleasure to own and use.


----------



## MMUK (25 Jan 2014)

Jacob":2hlkk5wg said:


> MMUK":2hlkk5wg said:
> 
> 
> > Oh for pineapple sake Jacob, give it up will you!
> ...




Why? Because all you are doing is repeating yourself and trying to stir up trouble - AGAIN!

You've made you case several times. Once is enough.


I'm sure I am not the only one sick of it.......


----------



## Peter Sefton (25 Jan 2014)

I have the axcaliber-mt1-mitre-trimmer in the workshop and for the money it's a good bit of kit, when we run short courses we work end grain by hand and eye, using the shooting board and the trimmer, it gives guys the experience of three methods and they can buy whichever kit suits their skill level and needs, or commercially we finish it straight of the table saw if appropriate. 
Cheers Peter


----------



## cagenuts (25 Jan 2014)

CStanford":2fkbn3cl said:


> Even the most basic kit includes a knife, a square, and one or two hand planes. That's all that is really needed.



Way overkill!

You just need an axe.


----------



## Peter Sefton (25 Jan 2014)

cagenuts":cl2tixio said:


> CStanford":cl2tixio said:
> 
> 
> > Even the most basic kit includes a knife, a square, and one or two hand planes. That's all that is really needed.
> ...



Yeah but how would you sharpen it


----------



## CStanford (25 Jan 2014)

Cheshirechappie":38r3su5z said:


> For trimming end grain, a mitre trimmer (such as this - http://www.axminster.co.uk/axcaliber-mt1-mitre-trimmer ) would be another option. This one isn't as posh as those from Morso or Ortoguil, and is strictly speaking intended for trimming picture frame mitres, so will not have quite the length capacity of the shooting board and plane, but should do a pretty fair job.
> 
> There are more ways than one to skin a cat, and whilst doing it all with a limited kit may be an absolute necessity for some (or a conscious choice for others), most professionals and serious amateurs, now and in the past, prefer to have tools that make the job quicker or do the job to a better standard; or even just have a few tools that are a pleasure to own and use.



Without doubt the best tool especially for treating endgrain on mouldings.


----------



## yetloh (25 Jan 2014)

MMUK":izp57oc2 said:


> I'm sure I am not the only one sick of it.......



Amen.

Jim


----------



## Corneel (26 Jan 2014)

From old German texts, even way before all these English mitre planes, I understand that endgrain planes were used mostly for miters. And that is no wonder, the mitre is about the only joint which needs painstakingly accurate endgrain work. And there were loads of mitre joints, with all the mouldings running around corners, in period furniture. The rest of the joints have the endgrain hidden or it is planed after assembly like the dovetail joint. Fitting a drawer, while needing attention of course, is more forgiving then a mitre joint.


----------



## CStanford (26 Jan 2014)

Corneel":3fold27e said:


> From old German texts, even way before all these English mitre planes, I understand that endgrain planes were used mostly for miters. And that is no wonder, the mitre is about the only joint which needs painstakingly accurate endgrain work. And there were loads of mitre joints, with all the mouldings running around corners, in period furniture. The rest of the joints have the endgrain hidden or it is planed after assembly like the dovetail joint. Fitting a drawer, while needing attention of course, is more forgiving then a mitre joint.



Good points all. And as CheshireChappie has pointed out the guillotine-style miter trimmer probably represents the highest form of non-electric tool for such tasks. This isn't a tool with a very high "drool factor" it would seem. No gloats. Robust. Totally self contained. No need to build anything to go with. Shearing cut is built-in. Drag it out, slice your workpieces, put it back on a shelf until next time. My wife worked in a frame shop when she was in college. They had four of them, she recalls.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Jan 2014)

CStanford":355cm7d3 said:


> Good points all. And as CheshireChappie has pointed out the guillotine-style miter trimmer probably represents the highest form of non-electric tool for such tasks. This isn't a tool with a very high "drool factor" it would seem. No gloats. Robust. Totally self contained. No need to build anything to go with. Shearing cut is built-in. Drag it out, slice your workpieces, put it back on a shelf until next time. My wife worked in a frame shop when she was in college. They had four of them, she recalls.



Just for the record, I suggested that the mitre trimmer was 'another option' for the working of endgrain. I didn't state that it was the highest form of non-electric tool for such a task.

Also just for the record, I'm very glad that Derek undertook his review of the LV shooting plane, and I'm glad he posted his findings, because I now know more about the available options for working end-grain than I did before. It's clearly a very capable tool. In common with anything carefully designed and well made, it comes at a price, and it's for each to decide whether that price is one they are able or willing to pay. There are other options available for working end-grain, such as a bench-plane on a shooting board, a mitre plane (Stanley type or infill), a picture-framer's mitre trimmer, and the unguided use of a block plane or similar. The appropriate option will depend on circumstance, inclination and available finance; but they all work, some better than others in various situations.

If the Mods will permit, I'd like to add my voice to those calling for an end to the veiled sniping and back-biting. It helps nobody.


----------



## Billy Flitch (26 Jan 2014)

Long time ago now but worked in a shop fitters shop that had one of those miter guillotines a lot bigger than the one shown in the thread. JMHO but I found it too slow you had to creep up on the miter bit by bit.


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2014)

Billy Flitch":3ksh2jsr said:


> Long time ago now but worked in a shop fitters shop that had one of those miter guillotines a lot bigger than the one shown in the thread. JMHO but I found it too slow you had to creep up on the miter bit by bit.


I've had one on site once but found it too precise (architraves and other mouldings) in that a lot of stuff wasn't square to start with. So back to basics - mark and saw as close as you can, offer up several times, block plane, undercut, etc. No scope for a shooting board either.


----------



## Peter Sefton (26 Jan 2014)

The Guillotine is a great bit of kit but I agree probably not for site work, if the joint can be cut of the saw it should be, powered or hand cut with a bit of trimming after. The guillotine does give a very clean cut when sharp but it does have it's limitations, you usually need to pre cut with the saw, creeping up to the line can be a pain and if you don't judge it right and only try to make a very fine trimming cut you get a curved finish. This is where the shooting board is better you can plane to fit with very fine cuts.
Peter


----------



## David C (28 Jan 2014)

I have been thinking!

In a small cabinetmaking workshop like mine, large mitres are marked out sawn and planed and tested, with no great difficulty, but it is a time consuming business. (No guillotine).

Small drawer front ends, I used to work with a block plane, testing and adjusting as before. 7/8" stuff being a bit difficult to shoot with a conventional plane.

Drawer sides, on the other hand are getting a bit thin to balance a block plane on, 8 mm, so shooting is the perfect solution, as the ends of the sides can be identical pairs.

Thin panel joints respond well to match shooting, with a straight blade.

Extra thin stuff, i.e. linings for boxes, 2.5 mm thick are easily mitred if one builds a double sided ramp for the shooting board. Small frames and mouldings are equally perfectly done with another 45 degree aid.

Veneer joints can be superbly prepared by shooting with a different set up. 0.7 mm thick if you are lucky.

The only thing I have noticed since buying the L-N 51, is that I can now shoot those 7/8" drawer fronts, with ease, saving considerable time.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## bugbear (28 Jan 2014)

David C":1utikqjv said:


> ...7/8" stuff being a bit difficult to shoot with a conventional plane.
> 
> The only thing I have noticed since buying the L-N 51, is that I can now shoot those 7/8" drawer fronts, with ease, saving considerable time.



What's the difficulty with a conventional plane, and how does the #51 overcome it? Is it just the force required, or something more subtle?

BugBear


----------



## David C (28 Jan 2014)

I was shooting with a 5 1/2 and think that it is either the shock at the start of a shaving or possibly lack of momentum which made thick stuff difficult.

The greater mass and skewed blade seem to be a great help, so one wonders how a 5 1/2 on a ramped board would fare?

Omitted my conclusion in the above. Simple shooting boards are fantastically useful in the small cabinetmaking shop.

David


----------



## Racers (29 Jan 2014)

That's what I found when I had a play with the Veritas, no thump at the start of the cut it just seems to slide through the cut.

Pete


----------



## cagenuts (29 Jan 2014)

For the very thin stuff like veneers, there's always the option of the new Veritas Sanding Shooter.


----------



## carlb40 (29 Jan 2014)

cagenuts":i5p2nghf said:


> For the very thin stuff like veneers, there's always the option of the new Veritas Sanding Shooter.


Pity it isn't a bit longer


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Jan 2014)

Hi Carl

It does not need to be longer as it is intended to be guided by a rail as per the #51 style plane.

Regards drom Perth

Derek


----------



## carlb40 (30 Jan 2014)

Ahh, i just assumed that like with jointing with a plane - the longer the sole the straighter the edge.


----------



## bugbear (30 Jan 2014)

carlb40":r7elngck said:


> Ahh, i just assumed that like with jointing with a plane - the longer the sole the straighter the edge.



When shooting end grain, the plane runs on the runner, not the workpiece, so the straightness comes from the runner.

BugBear


----------



## carlb40 (30 Jan 2014)

I think the veritas sanding shooter is for long grain and that was why i wondered if longer was better. But i assume the track becomes the straight edge.


----------



## CStanford (30 Jan 2014)

One gets the impression from this thread that a lot of material is being removed in end-grain shooting. Really, isn't it just supposed to be cleaning up the saw marks from having sawn very close, and accurately, in the first place? I heard it said once that the shooting subsequent to effective sawing shouldn't remove a perceptible or measurable amount of length from the workpiece, just clean up saw marks and ever-so-slightly adjust the workpiece to square (or miter angle) where applicable. A few passes. It shouldn't take much unless the sawing out was very poor.

I think folks are shooting really rough ends (many passes) when they should incise lines, saw, then shoot. And of course depending on how the workpiece is being used, shooting (with a board or not) might be totally unnecessary if the marking and sawing were competently done.

Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding of end-grain shooting with board and plane.


----------



## David C (30 Jan 2014)

Well, I hope I have not given that impression!

David


----------



## Peter Sefton (30 Jan 2014)

CStanford":3oxvg5nb said:


> One gets the impression from this thread that a lot of material is being removed in end-grain shooting. Really, isn't it just supposed to be cleaning up the saw marks from having sawn very close, and accurately, in the first place? I heard it said once that the shooting subsequent to effective sawing shouldn't remove a perceptible or measurable amount of length from the workpiece, just clean up saw marks and ever-so-slightly adjust the workpiece to square (or miter angle) where applicable. A few passes. It shouldn't take much unless the sawing out was very poor.
> 
> I think folks are shooting really rough ends (many passes) when they should incise lines, saw, then shoot. And of course depending on how the workpiece is being used, shooting (with a board or not) might be totally unnecessary if the marking and sawing were competently done.
> 
> Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding of end-grain shooting with board and plane.




I agree that the shooting board should be used just for final fitting from the saw, but this does mean the user has to have good sawing skills which comes with practice or shear natural skill.
Peter


----------



## JonnyD (30 Jan 2014)

Having used the veritas plane at cressing I was very impressed. I've had a LN 51 for a while now and it gets used a lot in my busy shop and I find it great to have a dedicated shooter to hand and easily copes with 30mm plus thick stock if required. To say whether its worth it is hard and subjective but I don't regret buying it.

I've just bought a new shooting plane called a rogers patent mitre plane and will start cleaning it up soon will do a thread if anyone is interested? This thing is amazingly engineered for something from the 1880's 







Cheers

Jon


----------



## Jacob (30 Jan 2014)

I see it as a technique for small items - a convenient way to square edges (along or across the grain) and reduce them to size or to fit, after they have been cut nearly to size. The obvious small items would be drawers and boxes. I used to do it years ago when I made a lot of boxes - just a crude shooting board and a jack plane, but haven't felt the need latterly - it's easy to manage without, and long or thick boards can't be done so easily.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (30 Jan 2014)

Nice piece of kit Jonny - I'd certainly like to see a thread on the cleanup and an assessment of it's capabilities and usability, if only for historical interest.


----------



## Peter Sefton (30 Jan 2014)

Cheshirechappie":ybkqgrp2 said:


> Nice piece of kit Jonny - I'd certainly like to see a thread on the cleanup and an assessment of it's capabilities and usability, if only for historical interest.



Me too, nice looking bit of engineering.
Peter


----------



## CStanford (30 Jan 2014)

They don't make them like that anymore Jonny. Nice to have that as a comparison. Solid would be an understatement.


----------



## yetloh (31 Jan 2014)

David C":3iqj27f3 said:


> I was shooting with a 5 1/2 and think that it is either the shock at the start of a shaving or possibly lack of momentum which made thick stuff difficult.
> 
> The greater mass and skewed blade seem to be a great help, so one wonders how a 5 1/2 on a ramped board would fare?
> 
> David



Interesting that you use your 5 1/2, which i don't have, for something that chunky I use my very heavy A1 jointer and seem to avoid the problem.

Jim


----------



## David C (31 Jan 2014)

Jim,

For about 25 years, my 5 1/2 was the only bench plane I had which worked well !

My seven had been surface ground by an engineer who did not tell me that the travel on his grinder was half the length of the plane..... He put in a huge twist which took about 25 years to lap out.

best wishes,
David


----------



## bugbear (31 Jan 2014)

David C":2lut8b5d said:


> My seven had been surface ground by an engineer who did not tell me that the travel on his grinder was half the length of the plane..... He put in a huge twist which took about 25 years to lap out.



So much for the notion that engineers work to closer tolerances than woodworkers!

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 Jan 2014)

JonnyD":3b6xtvwl said:


> I've just bought a new shooting plane called a rogers patent mitre plane and will start cleaning it up soon will do a thread if anyone is interested?



Yes please, Jon 8) 

Already looks a lot cleaner since the last time I saw it





Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## yetloh (31 Jan 2014)

David C":8xsuyiip said:


> Jim,
> 
> For about 25 years, my 5 1/2 was the only bench plane I had which worked well !
> 
> ...



Oh dear. Presumably you don't use him any more.

Jim


----------



## Peter Sefton (1 Feb 2014)

bugbear":3pb9st5v said:


> David C":3pb9st5v said:
> 
> 
> > My seven had been surface ground by an engineer who did not tell me that the travel on his grinder was half the length of the plane..... He put in a huge twist which took about 25 years to lap out.
> ...



A few years ago I took a students No6 to a local engineer for him to resurface, the plane slipped in the machine and was ruined  
We just keep it in-house now :!: 80 micron PSA Scary Sharp on 10mm float glass and check it on a granite inspection plate, it can take some time if the sole is in a bad shape but it is controllable. You can go for a finer micron if required, it depends on how much your arms are feeling  
Engineers do work to closer tolerances than furniture makers or so they tell us :wink: 
Cheers Peter


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2014)

Easy mistake to make, but on a plane sole, fine grit and polished appearance aren't essential for greater precision or lower friction:
Coarse P80 is OK for flattening (about 200 micron according to http://www.fine-tools.com/G10019.htm). Best done along the length as it will leave scratches coarse enough to snatch.
To reduce friction this will then need a quick 5 second pass over a finer grit to take off the sharpness, but without removing the scratches. Saves a lot of unnecessary effort - it will slide nicely but won't look polished. 
This is true of other machine marks such as chisel faces - to reduce friction you just need to take off the tops of the scratches, without polishing them right off, which is a waste of time.


----------



## 4ndrew (11 Feb 2014)

This product has been unavailable in the UK for the past two months. There was a back order situation at the end of last year with Veritas. However, my order with Lee Valley on December 31st. resulted in despatch from Ottawa on Jan 2nd. and delivery on Jan 6 with customs payment on the doorstep. Lee Valley has all variants in stock this morning. Fast delivery appears to be expensive...but factor in a lower US/Canadian price and I still saved around £60 on the UK price! Could have saved a little more with much longer delivery time...


----------



## Newbie_Neil (11 Feb 2014)

Hi Jon,



JonnyD":2q7lmqz6 said:


> I've just bought a new shooting plane called a rogers patent mitre plane and will start cleaning it up soon will do a thread if anyone is interested?



Yes, please.

Thanks,
Neil


----------



## Newbie_Neil (12 Feb 2014)

Hi Andrew,



4ndrew":ubbo905b said:


> This product has been unavailable in the UK for the past two months. There was a back order situation at the end of last year with Veritas. However, my order with Lee Valley on December 31st. resulted in despatch from Ottawa on Jan 2nd. and delivery on Jan 6 with customs payment on the doorstep. Lee Valley has all variants in stock this morning. Fast delivery appears to be expensive...but factor in a lower US/Canadian price and I still saved around £60 on the UK price! Could have saved a little more with much longer delivery time...



Congratulations. How have you found the Veritas?

Thanks,
Neil

PS I've found that if you order surface mail from Lee Valley, that you will tend to be very unlucky if you have to pay anything to customs. The down side is that it can take 6-8 weeks.


----------



## cagenuts (13 Feb 2014)

The latest issue of ShopNotes magazine has a micro-adjustable shooting board plan that uses the Veritas plane.


----------



## MMUK (13 Feb 2014)

Jacob":3w281395 said:


> To reduce friction this will then need a quick 5 second pass over a finer grit to take off the sharpness, but without removing the scratches. Saves a lot of unnecessary effort - it will slide nicely but won't look polished.
> This is true of other machine marks such as chisel faces - to reduce friction you just need to take off the tops of the scratches, without polishing them right off, which is a waste of time.




I wouldn't say polishing is a waste of time. I find it very theraputic and I like the satisfaction of seeing my face in the reflection when I'm done with the P1200/P2400 wet & dry paper :mrgreen: 

Plus it's the ideal pastime to keep you warm on a cold winter's eve :wink: It doesn't result in a population boom :lol:


----------



## yetloh (13 Feb 2014)

Whatever turns you on! :lol:


----------



## MMUK (13 Feb 2014)

yetloh":36ucjv79 said:


> Whatever turns you on! :lol:




What's the old saying?

If a job's worth doing.........


----------



## Peter Sefton (4 Mar 2014)

They are here  it took some time after seeing them back last September when big Vic from Veritas was at our workshops showing it off. 
We have had a few delivered this morning and some have already gone out to pre orders. We have not put them on the website as the sourcing of them has been an issues due to demand, but if ant one is interested give us a call or email to check the situation. They are currently available with A2 blades. 
Cheers Peter


----------



## carlb40 (4 Mar 2014)

Peter Sefton":2gzjeibh said:


> They are here  it took some time after seeing them back last September when big Vic from Veritas was at our workshops showing it off.
> We have had a few delivered this morning and some have already gone out to pre orders. We have not put them on the website as the sourcing of them has been an issues due to demand, but if ant one is interested give us a call or email to check the situation. They are currently available with A2 blades.
> Cheers Peter


Yeah i spotted axi had them in stock the other day. 

I have added one to my shopping list over the LN version :shock:


----------



## mark w (4 Mar 2014)

I bought mine from this website http://www.canadiantools.co.uk/tools/Ve ... Plane.html £36.00 cheaper than Axminster with free delivery.


----------



## ali27 (4 Aug 2014)

Peter Sefton":2e2rtmu0 said:


> bugbear":2e2rtmu0 said:
> 
> 
> > David C":2e2rtmu0 said:
> ...



Flattening planes on float glass does not work well IMHO. The larger the plane, the less accurate it becomes. It leads
to convexity, both in length and width. What it can do is reduce small irregularities in the sole and around the mouth which
can improve the performance quite a bit. 

Flatness of float glass is assumed. Floatglass deflects because it is thin, even the thicker 3/4 glass. This leads to tiny
rocking action which causes the convexity. How flat is sandpaper?

Obviously if the plane is really unflat, then lapping can correct it quite a bit. However for high precision lapping is 
not really a good method. Some of the infill makers still use this method successfully, but they use certain techniques
and a lot of checking.

Better is to use some engineers blue on a granite surface plate. Move the plane on the blue and turn over to check
which spots are touching the sole. Remove those spots by scraping or filing. Don't use sandpaper to remove these
spots as the grit can embed in the sole and then damage your surface plate!!

Ali


----------



## Bedrock (4 Aug 2014)

FWIW I agree wirh ali27 re flattening. If the plane is convex in cross section, I file/scrape the centre of the sole so that it is slightly concave, then use abrasive on a flat surface until you have a flat cross section. This obviates any rocking. I think that trying to hold an already convex sole flat on an abrasive sheet is nigh on impossible. All I ever acheived was a more convex sole.
By the way, Axminster sell an abrasive, 4" wide, in rolls, with a peel off film so that you can stick it on glass, stone or whatever. Grades range is limited to 3, with the finest 2500, of whatever measuring base they use. I have been using it for sharpening for the last 3 months on a piece of glass 4" by about 10", 800 one side and 2500 on the other, and it seems to work and last quite well. The trade name is "Hermes" at £6.95/roll.
Lowest grade is 100, but I have not needed to flatten a plane sole since I discovered this product.
If I need to go finer, I can then go to waterstone/ceramic or whatever is your preference.
Seems a fairly cheap effective way and you don't have to worry about hollowing the stone, but interested if anyone else has used it.
Only interested in comments on this material. Please, please not the never ending sharpening battle.
Mike


----------



## Harbo (4 Aug 2014)

Ray Isle has one of the original Record Planes milling machines for grinding plane soles.

Rod


----------



## jimi43 (4 Aug 2014)

Newbie_Neil":1xcsuo66 said:


> Hi Jon,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Me too!

I don't "do" mitres..only mitre planes but I do love a bit of old Victorian engineering...looking forward to this! 

It *IS* about the tools after all (for some people!)....not everyone makes furniture! :wink: 

Jimi


----------



## JonnyD (4 Aug 2014)

I still haven't had time to start on this but hopefully will be on it soon.

Cheers

Jon


----------

