No. 6 vs No. 7? QS vs ****?

[J_SAMa]

Nothing to do with Quansheng, but I do have personal experience to indicate thet the Chinese will always build to a price.

In 1987/88, I was visiting the Shanghai Pump Works and saw some pumps for a Government funded irrigation project that, given a lathe and mill, together with basic sand-casting facilities, I could have built in my back yard! In the next workshop I was shown some very sophisticated boiler feed pumps for their latest 600MW super-critical power station that were as good as anything my company could have turned out in the U.S. or Italy - draw your own conclusions!

Hi Tony,
Well, what you saw was from 25 years ago, so I assume it's not going to apply now :wink: .
Sam

 

[MIGNAL]

Well if you are in the market for a Block plane I think I would advise an old Stanley/Record rather than the QS version. I have both and the whilst the QS is better made it's also a lot more uncomfortable to hold! I've have just been using both and the QS went back on the shelf and I used my 1980's :shock: Stanley. Worked just as well and it feels a lot nicer in the hand.
Now I'll dive for cover.

 

[Klaus Kretschmar]

I'm unable to judge the quality differences of Quiangsheng planes from different retailers. But it's obvious that QS produces different visual qualities depending on the retailers specifications. If that will make a difference in the performance as well is something that I don't know.

But coming back to your basic question concerning a #6 or a #7 while looking for a jointer, I'd always go with a #7. My question rather would be #7 or #8. The #6 isn't a dedicated jointer since it's too short. It's not as versatile as a jack plane (#5) since it's a little bit too long. In my opinion you don't need a #6 at all if you have a #5 and a #7 or #8.

Klaus

 

[matthewwh]

Well if you are in the market for a Block plane I think I would advise an old Stanley/Record rather than the QS version. I have both and the whilst the QS is better made it's also a lot more uncomfortable to hold! I've have just been using both and the QS went back on the shelf and I used my 1980's :shock: Stanley. Worked just as well and it feels a lot nicer in the hand.
Now I'll dive for cover.

Do you have one of the ones with a stainless cap that rests on the heel of the hand rather than the centre of the palm? If so then you'll understand why we opted to stick with the earlier brass caps, if you drop me a PM I'll see what I can do.

 

[marcus]

I'd go for the #7. Mine is my most used plane. It seems fashionable to quote the way Paul Sellers does things but I'm not impressed with his methods. I wouldn't use a #4 to flatten a bench top.

Agree with much of this. Love my no 7. I never owned a 6 and can't quite work out what their function in life is! I use 4 for small scale work and smoothing, 5 for general purpose use — it's the plane I pick up most often; and the 7 for bigger stuff. If you can afford a 7 and see yourself doing larger scale projects in the future then I'd say treat yourself. It makes life easier and quicker. If you can't then, yes, you can do most things with a 4. Glad I no longer have to!

 

[Mike Wingate]

I have a few Record/Stanley planes that I have had over the last 43 years. Quangsheng blades and chipbreakers have transformed them (along with some fettling) into super planes. If I was to start again with planes, I would just buy QS ones. I have a 62, a low angle block and a large chisel plane. I set up a friends QS no.5 and it is a great plane.

 

[Fromey]

The only reason I bought a Lie Neilsen low angle block plane was because it was second hand (but in very good condition) and cheaper than a new QS. Otherwise I'd also go QS all the way except for things they don't do (when will they produce a Stanley 66 clone?)

 

[MIGNAL]

Well if you are in the market for a Block plane I think I would advise an old Stanley/Record rather than the QS version. I have both and the whilst the QS is better made it's also a lot more uncomfortable to hold! I've have just been using both and the QS went back on the shelf and I used my 1980's :shock: Stanley. Worked just as well and it feels a lot nicer in the hand.
Now I'll dive for cover.

Do you have one of the ones with a stainless cap that rests on the heel of the hand rather than the centre of the palm? If so then you'll understand why we opted to stick with the earlier brass caps, if you drop me a PM I'll see what I can do.

Hello Matthew. Thanks for the reply. It's not really the cap that is the problem but the blade and front shoe adjusters. If you look at a Stanley the adjusters have rather rounded edges, much more comfortable than the rather hard edged adjusters on the QS - or at least my QS. Perhaps a minor quibble to some but my Stanley is much more comfortable to use, even if it isn't as well engineered as the QS.

 

[matthewwh]

Some of the really old Stanleys had fully convex edges, lovely, especially as they get a bit worn.

The components on your QS should all be eased with a nice chamfer (as shown above) again these will soften further with time but they certainly shouldn't be uncomfortable.

 

[Sawyer]

I'd go for the #7. Mine is my most used plane. It seems fashionable to quote the way Paul Sellers does things but I'm not impressed with his methods. I wouldn't use a #4 to flatten a bench top.

Agree with much of this. Love my no 7. I never owned a 6 and can't quite work out what their function in life is! I use 4 for small scale work and smoothing, 5 for general purpose use — it's the plane I pick up most often; and the 7 for bigger stuff. If you can afford a 7 and see yourself doing larger scale projects in the future then I'd say treat yourself. It makes life easier and quicker. If you can't then, yes, you can do most things with a 4. Glad I no longer have to!

My collection includes a 5, a 6 and a 7; and I use the 6 a lot. Remember, it's not just the size of the plane, but the way it is set up.
In my case:
5 coarsely set for rapid stock removal.
6 Finer, but not as fine as a smoother - refines the work of the no. 5. Does a good job of making things flat and straight.
7 Fairly fine setting, used mostly for edge jointing, at which it excels.

I like the no. 6 for its weight and accuracy, whereas the no. 7 I find a bit unwieldy and too cumbersome for most things. Especially if you are using hand planes for hours on end, which I often am.

No. 5 is still fairly nimble and very versatile. It's the one which comes out on jobs with me, whilst the others rarely leave the workshop.

One day, perhaps I'll add a 5.1/2 too, set a little finer than the 5....

 

[Kalimna]

To add a not-particularly useful note, I have a 5 1/2 (LN), 6 (Cliffie), 7 (Stanley w/Hock blade) and 7 (QS). They all get used, probably the Cliffie most, but it frequently happens that whichever has the sharpest blade at the time gets picked up. I also have 5 1/2 set up with a non-cambered blade which I sometimes find more useful for squaring up edges, bizarrely.
Having said that, I have biggish hands, and prefer the heft and size of the larger planes. I also have a Stanley 4 which never gets used, a couple of 4 1/2's which I find a little cramped in my hand but do work nicely.
A contentious point, but for rapid stock removal, I use a scrub plane by Veritas (and not a converted old jack).

Cheers,
Adam

 

[J_SAMa]

Despite the popularity of the No. 7, I've decided to buy a No. 6... I will barely do any large-scale work after I finish my bench. Using a No. 7 just seems cumbersome for cabinetry (imagine planing workpieces smaller than the plane...). I know a lot of woodworkers out there who say the No. 6 is a piece of junk, but hey, I like to go against the grain (um... not literally though).

Sam

Yeah, F**k what Patrick Leach says

 

[Racers]

Hi, Sam

Some times you have to carve your own path.


I am a No8 guy, 24" of cast iron.

I also have 2 No7s and a No6.

Pete

 

[Peter Sefton]

Took the guys out to see some workshops today, caught up with a mate I shared a workshop with some years ago making commissioned furniture his plane of choice was always his no 3 mine was my no 7.
Plane of choice being the operative word we all know the reasons for longer or shorter planes but in a busy workshop it often comes down to the sharpest tool on the bench at any given time or the one that just feels right to the maker.
Sam be interested to see which no 6 you went for.
Cheers Peter

 

[Kalimna]

Pete - How do you find the 8 over a 7? I know it's a bit longer and heftier, but is the blade not a little bit wider also? Given that the 1/2 sizes, 6&7 all seem to have (I think) the same blade width, do you feel that the 8 benefits from this?

Adam

 

[Racers]

Hi, Adam

The extra mass of the No8 just seems to make it easer to control, I think it harder to have a negative influence on it.
Once you get it moving it just seems to carry on regardless.

I camber the blade and use it for edge jointing and surface plaining, I was plaining down a very thin piece of rosewood (bandsaw kerf thick) it was springing up over the bench stop, so I got out the No8 and the toe was long enough to completely cover it and hold it flat.

Pete

 

[GazPal]

Hi, Adam

The extra mass of the No8 just seems to make it easer to control, I think it harder to have a negative influence on it.
Once you get it moving it just seems to carry on regardless.

I camber the blade and use it for edge jointing and surface plaining, I was plaining down a very thin piece of rosewood (bandsaw kerf thick) it was springing up over the bench stop, so I got out the No8 and the toe was long enough to completely cover it and hold it flat.

Pete

Very well explained Pete