Real need / necessity for a block plane

[woodbloke66]

I completed some extensive testing shooting hard wood end grain with 25 degree A2 bevels on 12 degree beds.

Edges lasts significantly longer on 12 degree beds than 30 degree bevels on 45 degree beds. A2 is very comfortable with a 25 degree bevel with a low angle bed.

I prefer O1 and PM-V11 steel for BD planing, but A2 is perfectly fine on low bed block planes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks for that Derek, much appreciated. The block plane as I recollect was new at the time and perhaps the initial blade honing at 30deg was in 'soft' steel as it's sometimes prone to be? I'll have a go at honing the A2 blade (which has now had couple of re-grinds) on my current low angle block at 25deg and see how I get on - Rob

 

[D_W]

While A2 works OK in a block plane, fully hardened O1 would do just as well (recognizing the fact that the reason A2 is preferred by manufacturers is that it warps far less and probably costs less overall to use due to less post-hardening machining).

David, I agree. What I want to add is that I prefer O1 and PM-V11 to A2 by miles, because these steels take a much finer edge and hold it well enough. However, should one have a low angle block plane with A2 steel, or be offered one at a good price, then the A2 blade is worth holding onto. There is no need to get paranoid about its performance, because it will do well, and will most certainly outperform anything (including PM-V11) that is used bevel down when shooting end grain.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Agree with that, too. Not suggesting people with A2 already should go out and buy others, but usually (hopefully) the folks looking for buying advice are those with something like the bunnings plane you mentioned in your reviews, or nothing at all.

 

[bp122]

After reading all your comments I found that cheapo plane I had at the bottom of a box in the garage. Decided to see how bad the plane is, I held a square on the sides, it is about 8 degrees off square on one side and 9 degrees on the other. The sole of the plane was concave from front to back and from side to side. After looking at this, I have decided it is not worth my time to try and fix this or make it work. Only thing I might keep is the iron, as it has a decent edge and thickness to it!!

 

[MikeG.]

The sides of a block plane are irrelevant. The sole doesn't have to be great, but a little flattening will help. Send it to me, I'll fix it and send it back. If the blade is any good you'll have a useful little plane out of it. I've never come across a block plane which couldn't be made to work well with only a little effort.

 

[bp122]

The sides of a block plane are irrelevant. The sole doesn't have to be great, but a little flattening will help. Send it to me, I'll fix it and send it back. If the blade is any good you'll have a useful little plane out of it. I've never come across a block plane which couldn't be made to work well with only a little effort.

That is an offer and a half!
Thank you, Mike. I really appreciate this. I'll send you a PM.

 

[ED65]

But you now know how to fix anything you find courtesy of a post way back on page 2 ;-)

The cheeks don't matter unless you're planning on shooting with it (in which case only one needs to be addressed, he says while remembering many opportunities for laughter watching people on YT wasting time squaring both cheeks on planes of all sizes up to jointers).

Seriously, a block plane is a great place to start learning how to do this type of thing since it's such a small canvas. Much preferable to learning on a no. 4 you care about. Plus a sole concave in both directly is the easiest out-of-flat to address... bearing in mind my previous comment from the same post, much (possibly all) of that hollow doesn't even need to come out.

 

[D_W]

The first two infills that I made didn't have ideally square cheeks. Close, but not ideal. When I made them (back at the time), the push for all planes to be geometrically perfect was on, but I couldn't imagine why it would be important in a smoother. So, on subsequent planes, I learned to joint off excess metal with a vixen body float (they will do brass or steel as long as the steel isn't hardened), file and then lap and made the sides precisely square. I can guarantee that other than the shooting plane, it hasn't mattered a bit for the rest of them.

I'd wait on block planes, etc, until I had to use one of them to square a tiny piece before I'd go to the trouble.

The other thing that people do that's a little strange is that they immediately (here in the states) do something to make a plane square and then test it. Wise to know, even if you're shooting, that you have to go to the trouble to square the plane in the first place. Try shooting something with the plane, and check the squareness of the piece shot before going to the trouble of addressing the plane rather than its work.

 

[bp122]

But you now know how to fix anything you find courtesy of a post way back on page 2 ;-)

The cheeks don't matter unless you're planning on shooting with it (in which case only one needs to be addressed, he says while remembering many opportunities for laughter watching people on YT wasting time squaring both cheeks on planes of all sizes up to jointers).

Seriously, a block plane is a great place to start learning how to do this type of thing since it's such a small canvas. Much preferable to learning on a no. 4 you care about. Plus a sole concave in both directly is the easiest out-of-flat to address... bearing in mind my previous comment from the same post, much (possibly all) of that hollow doesn't even need to come out.

And here I was, looking for an easy way out

To be honest, I had forgotten about that post and its contents temporarily. As you mentioned, I don't need to square the edges of the plane to the sole as I am not going to shoot with this, I shall give it a go at making this one work. Besides, the postage to Mike's and back will pretty much cover 2/3rds of what I paid for it anyway

And if I still fail and run out of skill, I shall take Mike up on his offer, if it still stands then. By the looks of it, it will be in late March before I make a scratch on the plane now, as my dear wife is 36 weeks pregnant and the little Silly person may arrive any day now!

P.S - I had posted this reply in the other thread about my No. 4 - dad brain already kicking in!

 

[Andy Kev.]

This evening my block plane was the ideal tool for a task and I thought of this thread.

As many have pointed out, you can get by without one but in my opinion for some things they are optimal. Today I needed to trim an edge which was a bit more than 3/8" wide and about 18" long. The block plane was ideal because I find it is much easier to keep it flat and true on a narrow surface than a larger plane, which I would tend to end up tipping under such circumstances. I could have done it with a No 4 (if I had one) but I think it would have got messy and there was no way on earth I would have wanted to use my LAJ.

So I reckon it's a good bit of kit to have in the tool box.

 

[Bm101]

Good luck with the the important things. \/
Don't forget. It's important to protect your tools from inconsiderate baby hands. No one wants a an old plane being damaged by a baby. Take care to keep your baby segregated from your work areas.
If its your first! Good luck fella. Best wishes. Love a baby me. Gosh! Exciting times without doubt!
If it's your second plus, Yeh mate. We know. :|

:wink:

 

[bp122]

Good luck with the the important things. \/
Don't forget. It's important to protect your tools from inconsiderate baby hands. No one wants a an old plane being damaged by a baby. Take care to keep your baby segregated from your work areas.
If its your first! Good luck fella. Best wishes. Love a baby me. Gosh! Exciting times without doubt!
If it's your second plus, Yeh mate. We know. :|

:wink:

Good point about the tools and the baby! The little man is not coming in the garage until he is quite old
It takes me longer to sharpen a chisel than for my wife to bear this child! _ And I can still argue that latter is easier (homer) (hammer) (homer) (hammer) (homer)

Cheers for the wishes, mate. It is indeed my first "project".

 

[woodbloke66]

I've never come across a block plane which couldn't be made to work well with only a little effort.

Some time ago I found a brand spanking new, boxed block plane in my local (and very good) discount store for the wallet breaking price of £1.00. I should have bought one at the time and sent it to you Mike :lol: :lol: - Rob

 

[bp122]

I've never come across a block plane which couldn't be made to work well with only a little effort.

Some time ago I found a brand spanking new, boxed block plane in my local (and very good) discount store for the wallet breaking price of £1.00. I should have bought one at the time and sent it to you Mike :lol: :lol: - Rob

Would have been the easiest Christmas present!

 

[Bodgers]

My most used plane is my ECE block plane.

York pitch - so it is great with end grain.

It's also the easiest to setup and quick to grab to do small jobs like bevels etc.

 

[richarddownunder]

Well, slow off the mark as usual, but may as well add my tuppence worth. It depends what you are making. I find a block plane comes into its own on delicate, thin, small jobs. The obvious one that springs to mind is lutherie. A very specific example might be one-handed planing the edges of a guitar sides before using a radius dish to set up the final fit of the back or soundboard. Another example recently was adjusting (very, very slightly) the fit of the ends of 12 segments to form a clock dial. That would be difficult with a bench plane as they were only 30 mm wide (of course, I could have used a sanding board instead). If you don't make fiddly things, don't get one. I have a 60 1/2 and a low angle Clifton. The Clifton is lovely, but a bit big for may hand. If they made a smaller one I'd get that too.

Cheers
Richard

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I freely admit that I am out of my depth on this thread, but talking of squaring the plane cheek for shooting (look at me using the jargon like I know what I'm talking about!), wouldn't it be easier, and less expensive, to adjust the shooting board rather than the plane? Assuming it is out of true to such an extent that it affects your work, planing/sanding the wood the plane runs on seems easier than removing metal. If you get it wrong, throwing away a scrap of shooting board seems cheaper than throwing away the plane. I appreciate that everything 90° and true would be best, but if my plane falls short of perfection, I know I can happily make more mistakes on cheap wood than I can on expensive planes.

Have I just commited a heresy, or is there a sensible reason that the plane MUST be square, as opposed to having the shooting board specific to a particular plane?

 

[MikeG.]

Unless you're doing real specialist work, TN, you don't shoot with a block plane. Bigger planes don't seem to suffer so much from the out-of-square-sides disease. I'd be very cautious of producing an out-of-planar shooting board to compensate for a dodgy plane body. Most people only use one plane for shooting, I reckon, and you just need to pick one that is somewhere near square (they don't have to be perfect as you can compensate with the lateral adjustment lever).

 

[bp122]

I freely admit that I am out of my depth on this thread, but talking of squaring the plane cheek for shooting (look at me using the jargon like I know what I'm talking about!), wouldn't it be easier, and less expensive, to adjust the shooting board rather than the plane? Assuming it is out of true to such an extent that it affects your work, planing/sanding the wood the plane runs on seems easier than removing metal. If you get it wrong, throwing away a scrap of shooting board seems cheaper than throwing away the plane. I appreciate that everything 90° and true would be best, but if my plane falls short of perfection, I know I can happily make more mistakes on cheap wood than I can on expensive planes.

Have I just commited a heresy, or is there a sensible reason that the plane MUST be square, as opposed to having the shooting board specific to a particular plane?

Being a novice here as well, I see the point you are making, but I would have to disagree here. I would like to have my tools as close to workable perfection as possible, of course within reason. But more importantly, once altered, I believe there is no guarantee that the shooting board wouldn't change under moisture, fatigue or mishandling - This raises an issue that you have to keep the board married to the plane in terms of built-in-error very frequently. Whereas altering a plane itself, if need be, may be a more stable option to bank on. - I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

Besides, for someone like me who loses tools in the 2 square feet of space I work in, if I lose a plane that my shooting board is married to, I am stuffed (homer)

But as Mike mentioned, seldom people use block planes for shooting. So this may be immaterial.

 

[Just4Fun]

My choice of plane to use on a shooting board is not exactly random but is not consistent either. No good reason for that, it is just the way I work. Making the board match an out-of-square plane would not work for me.
None of the planes I have used on a shooting board have needed work to make them square and I would not know how to do that anyway. If any plane did need work like that I would rather reach for another plane.

 

[ED65]

I freely admit that I am out of my depth on this thread, but talking of squaring the plane cheek for shooting (look at me using the jargon like I know what I'm talking about!), wouldn't it be easier, and less expensive, to adjust the shooting board rather than the plane?
...
Have I just commited a heresy, or is there a sensible reason that the plane MUST be square, as opposed to having the shooting board specific to a particular plane?

Actually you're right on the money here, other people have had the very same thought and built their shooting boards accordingly.

The lateral adjuster can of course compensate for quite an amount of out-of-square but where the situation exceeds the adjustment range of the lateral then this is a reasonable solution (if squaring the iron won't resolve it). You might choose to do this for example if your plane has fairly thin cheeks to begin with; while one wouldn't see this on a typical Record it's not that uncommon on older Stanley castings, and they can be irregular one side to the other too, further increasing the chance this might be found.

But even if it's the case that you simply CBA lapping/scraping/filing the relevant cheek that's fine too! Given that many users already dedicate a plane to use on a shooting board I can't see that there's any real objection to building the latter to suit the former.