Just a guess but those idiosyncrasies might be related to the adjuster. I know it's a little different to the usual Norris affair. The Norris adjuster on my Stanley SW has a fair amount of backlash but then again it's something that you can get accustomed to. It's not really a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned. For everyday use the Stanley SW is just a bit heavy and cumbersome, especially on smaller timbers. The Kunz or any No.3 might suit my use a little better. Then again I could just be searching for an excuse to buy a new plane. :roll:
No. 3 Plane
- Thread starter MIGNAL
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
knockknock
Established Member
Yes, it has 360 degrees of backlash, the lateral works in reverse of the Veritas, and there is a small window on the hold down screw between being able to remove the lever cap and being able to tighten it. They are mainly a result of how the blade, chip breaker and lever cap move/fit as a unit.MIGNAL":8j16qjxz said:
Plus it is like they saved expense by not giving the plane the final finishing touches. The handle and knob were fuzzy (which was fixed when I waxed them), some of the edges on the casting were a little sharp so I eased them with some sand paper. Also there was a very slight hollow in the sole (where the inside was ground / channeled to fit the frog), I flattened the sole with sand paper, but I don't think it was really necessary.
I think it is well machined and things fit together right. The frog fits in a ground channel, there is a post in the casting that goes into the toe of the handle to keep it from turning, and I like the retro 1950's modern look.
I don't know what the blade is made of, it does sharpen on my water stones. One final thing, because the knob is close to the mouth, if I put my palm over the knob when planing I only get so many strokes before the mouth clogs.
Attachments
360 degrees of backlash might be a little much on a 'premium' plane. My veritas apron plane has a quarter of a turn and my Stanley SW is up to one and a half turns. Neither bothers me though. As long as you know it's there it's easy to take it into account and it can only delay things by a matter of a second or two. I'm a very busy man but even I can spare that amount of time every now and then.
I think I might prefer the lateral adjuster on the Kunz. It's probably less confusing but if you are accustomed to the usual Norris direction I can see how people might be a little baffled. The Kunz might be the more natural or logical though.
If the hollow on the sole was behind the blade (ie. beneath the frog) it wouldn't make for the slightest difference. Who knows, that hollow may even have been intentional.
The slight lack of finishing details is perhaps understandable. If they are made in Germany you would probably need to compare the price to a Clifton, Veritas or LN, not a Quangsheng or even my Stanley SW. They spend another hour on the plane and those finishing touches would be up to standard. It might put an extra £20 or £30 on the price though.
I do like the more open look of the Kunz. I think that might be an advantage on a No.3, a bit more room for the hand.
I think I might prefer the lateral adjuster on the Kunz. It's probably less confusing but if you are accustomed to the usual Norris direction I can see how people might be a little baffled. The Kunz might be the more natural or logical though.
If the hollow on the sole was behind the blade (ie. beneath the frog) it wouldn't make for the slightest difference. Who knows, that hollow may even have been intentional.
The slight lack of finishing details is perhaps understandable. If they are made in Germany you would probably need to compare the price to a Clifton, Veritas or LN, not a Quangsheng or even my Stanley SW. They spend another hour on the plane and those finishing touches would be up to standard. It might put an extra £20 or £30 on the price though.
I do like the more open look of the Kunz. I think that might be an advantage on a No.3, a bit more room for the hand.
Dan j
Established Member
Pretty much the same uses as a no 4. I pick up my number 3 more often though. Almost always have one in my toolbox.
I've got pretty big hands but never found that to be a problem. Can even use one handed if needs be.
I've got pretty big hands but never found that to be a problem. Can even use one handed if needs be.
matthewwh
Established Member
I totally adore my No.3, I've got a lovely 4 sitting right next to it, but my instinctive choice for smoothing and finishing work is the 3.
It's small and light, yet planted on the workpiece, I grab it overhand from the front like an oriental plane, in the traditional way with 3 fingers or sometimes just grab the wole ar53 end as you would a Krenov. One hand, two hands, whatever feels right for that piece of grain. It's a much more fluid relationship, more like man and dog than man and wife, we go hunting high spots together with a hissingly sharp iron and an ultra fine set.
It's small and light, yet planted on the workpiece, I grab it overhand from the front like an oriental plane, in the traditional way with 3 fingers or sometimes just grab the wole ar53 end as you would a Krenov. One hand, two hands, whatever feels right for that piece of grain. It's a much more fluid relationship, more like man and dog than man and wife, we go hunting high spots together with a hissingly sharp iron and an ultra fine set.
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
Here's another 
One of my favourite smoothers, a LN #3 with Clifton blade (standard frog - better than a high angle when using chipbreaker). Mine has a #4 handle (slightly modified) to fit my paws.
Regards from Perth
Derek
One of my favourite smoothers, a LN #3 with Clifton blade (standard frog - better than a high angle when using chipbreaker). Mine has a #4 handle (slightly modified) to fit my paws.
Regards from Perth
Derek
memzey
Established Member
While we're having a No. 3 love in I thought I'd throw in a picture of mine, which I also think is great by the way as you can work on very localised areas like reversing grain or high spots more precisely than with a 4:
Some pics of it next to a jointer to give those that have never handled one a sense of its didiness:
Yes I know they aren't all shiny brass and snazzy wotsists like some others but they work beautifully. Anyway there's nothing wrong with tools that are a century old or more and patinated - that's part of the appeal to me!
Some pics of it next to a jointer to give those that have never handled one a sense of its didiness:
Yes I know they aren't all shiny brass and snazzy wotsists like some others but they work beautifully. Anyway there's nothing wrong with tools that are a century old or more and patinated - that's part of the appeal to me!
Carl P
Established Member
Is that WS the renowned Birmingham planemaker?
