Rexon - Any comments ?

[Dog]

I don't come across much about tools made by Rexon. I use a Rexon DE-1000F Dust Extractor and although being a bit bulky for my limited workshop space it does a good job with all but the finest dust and it is great for hoovering up sawdust and chips after using my Erbauer mitre saw which has a tendancy to throw out more sawdust onto the bench than gets extracted but that's a minor problem. Something I will need to buy, and something that Santa isn't willing to think about (I love my Mrs.) is a bench jointer. I've been thinking about the Rexon 155mm J-1560A from Screwfix (16911) but if anyone has an alternative make/model within this price range (£200) suggest away ? :wink:

 

[sawdustalley]

How about this one:
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/review/review.php?id=10

Or this one:
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/review/review.php?id=19

 

[Dog]

That'll teach me

Cheers

 

[frank]

dog the rexon and the preform are both the same its just the colour thats different now what colour will match your w/shop .






woof woof

 

[Dog]

That's a good point, I hadn't thought about colour matching tools to my workshop decor. The walls are purple, the wife's idea, OMG, I'll have to get rid of everything that's not purple :lol:

 

[Midnight]

Dog...

I've owned the Rexon jointer for a little over 18 months now... for it's price I reckoned it to be a nice piece of kit... built like a brick chithouse, easy bed height adjustment, damn good dust extraction...

On the down side, the fence isn't the most user friendly of things, especially if you're trying to mitre an edge. Blade changing leaves a lot to be desired too; the button head cap screws retaining the blades are a real soft steel, easily rounding out rather than let go the factory set torque.

It has it's limitations though. Trying to mill long stock on it, even with in / out feed rollers is a royal pain. The lack of bed length has seen more than one board that I've tied to edge joint come out with a large radiused edge rather than straight. That said, the boards were in excess of 7ft long. Thesedays I don't use it much, I've found the limitations of having to rip stock to a max size of 150mm to be more hinderance than help. Thesedays I do my jointing with hand planes. Easier on the ears, and I need the exercise.

If you work predominantly with short stock, you could do a hellova lot worse than buy the Rexon. Personally though, if I'd to do it over, I'd go with hand planes.

 

[Dog]

Thanks for the advice Mike. I generally replace all screws etc with high tensile stainless steel which makes everything easier to undo when the time comes to take something apart but I replace all the originals if the machine has to go back within the warranty period :wink:

 

[sawdustalley]

getting a 7ft bit of wood prefectly straight would be hard even on a 4ft bed :x

EDIT:
Were you making a large raft to get the Uni-Saw back from america ?

 

[Midnight]

getting a 7ft bit of wood prefectly straight would be hard even on a 4ft bed :x

EDIT:
Were you making a large raft to get the Uni-Saw back from america ?

Actually James..... it was easier than you'd think....
To get the banana shape out I used a builders level (1.8m) and a Stanley#7.. Got that edge straight but far from square...
Built a shooting board to let me plane down to a set board width and set at the opposite edge with a Lie Nielson #9, flipping the board back over again to square the origonal edge. End result... perfectly parallel....perfectly square and straight to within the thickness of a cigarette paper. Not bad for a rookie..... even though I say so myself....
Just to prove it wasn't a fluke, I ended up jointing damn near 70 board feet with the same method..

Uni-saw...???

<shudders.>..... nasty things... wouldn't touch em.....
If I HAD to pick an American spec saw... gimme a Powermatic 66 with a 50" Biesmeir.....

Does a blanket chest count as a raft...???

 

[Midnight]

getting a 7ft bit of wood prefectly straight would be hard even on a 4ft bed :x

EDIT:
Were you making a large raft to get the Uni-Saw back from america ?

Actually James..... it was easier than you'd think....
To get the banana shape out I used a builders level (1.8m) and a Stanley#7.. Got that edge straight but far from square...
Built a shooting board to let me plane down to a set board width and set at the opposite edge with a Lie Nielson #9, flipping the board back over again to square the origonal edge. End result... perfectly parallel....perfectly square and straight to within the thickness of a cigarette paper. Not bad for a rookie..... even though I say so myself....
Just to prove it wasn't a fluke, I ended up jointing damn near 70 board feet with the same method..

Uni-saw...???

<shudders.>..... nasty things... wouldn't touch em.....
If I HAD to pick an American spec saw... gimme a Powermatic 66 with a 50" Biesmeir.....

Does a blanket chest count as a raft...???

 

[CYC]

Shooting board, I haven't heard of this, do you know where I can see pictures and explaination of it ?

 

[Alf]

Shooting board, I haven't heard of this, do you know where I can see pictures and explaination of it ?

Jeff Gorman's Wonderous Site which everyone should have in their bookmarks (but hey, no pressure :wink If that's not enough, a search on Wood Central's hand tool message board will bring up plenty of discussion.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Midnight]

Shooting board, I haven't heard of this, do you know where I can see pictures and explaination of it ?

CYC....

I don't wanna pour scorn on Alfy's link........but..... I tried that working ass backwards mess.... didn't work for me....

I found illustrations I could base mine on in a book...
Making Woodworking Aids & Devices.... by Robert Wearing

not plans... but sketches that you can adapt to suit your own needs. Obviously the size of board will vary according to the size of stock you're working with.

As for the orientation, I built mine so that the stock faces towards me... that way I can put my body weight behind the plane... really make light work of the job. I've found that the secret to them is good work retention, the best board on the planet's no damn good if you can't hold the work perfectly.
The other aspect I differ with Alf's link...... is the type of plane used. Try as I might...... I just couldn't work with a conventional hand plane laid on it's side. Lost too much skin from my knuckles... not to mention neglagable control over the tool 'cos I just couldn't hold it properly. So I bit the bullet..... spent about 6 weeks lusting after a Lie Nielson #9 Iron mitre plane.... then bought one..... never looked back.

At the time I built these, the only info I had was the occasional reference to them in Charlesworth's books.... and the sketches in the book above... had to teach myself how to get the best (for me) out of them...

 

[Alf]

I don't wanna pour scorn on Alfy's link........

Ahh, go on, you do really. :lol:

but..... I tried that working ass backwards mess.... didn't work for me....

Okay, I give up. Working ass backwards? Presumably you mean with the board on the skew? I agree, it's not always the best way but Jeff's page is about the only one that explains shooting boards at all, so that's why I picked it. I use both a skewed board and one that's just a glorified bench hook; both work so I don't bother to analyse them much.

I found illustrations I could base mine on in a book...
Making Woodworking Aids & Devices.... by Robert Wearing

<hard sell> Currently available at a low, low price in my tool sale incidentally. :wink: </hard sell>

I've found that the secret to them is good work retention, the best board on the planet's no damn good if you can't hold the work perfectly.

Ah, how true. A tiny tip here is to put some fine-ish abrasive on the fence to give a little grip on the work. Make sure you do this before you fix the fence at 90 degrees, as any irregularities in the abrasive/glue could effect the accuracy otherwise. Don't get too worried about it though; as David Charlesworth shows in one of his books, it's but the work of 10 or 11 hours to shim the work with paper and card for a perfect angle... :wink:

The other aspect I differ with Alf's link...... is the type of plane used. Try as I might...... I just couldn't work with a conventional hand plane laid on it's side. Lost too much skin from my knuckles... not to mention neglagable control over the tool 'cos I just couldn't hold it properly. So I bit the bullet..... spent about 6 weeks lusting after a Lie Nielson #9 Iron mitre plane.... then bought one..... never looked back.

Well I was trying to ignore this shameless drive-by, but as you've now parked it on my foot... :lol: Nice gloat, and I loathe you with a passion. I make do with an Lie Nielsen #164 low angle smoother on my shooting boards, and it does a luvverly job. 'Course I wouldn't actually say no to a #9, but I don't really need it. Everyone's experience differs when it comes to holding planes for shooting, which is why such beauties as the Record T5 were produced to make it easier. I think perhaps the low angle of the #164 makes it that much easier to hold than a conventional bench plane.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Scrit]

Well I was trying to ignore this shameless drive-by, but as you've now parked it on my foot... Nice gloat, and I loathe you with a passion.

and then you drop in...

I make do with an Lie Nielsen #164 low angle smoother on my shooting boards

Hmm.... :wink:

Personally, the most comfortable shooting plane I've used is the old Stanley #52, simply because it has its handle canted over at about 45 degrees. Despite that I still use a Record #07 jointer (tried the #08 but the extra weight and drag become tiring after a while) - old habits die hard - that and I'm scared witless of dropping even the #07 let alone something rarer.

I have seen a couple of other good approaches to shooting boards. I have recently acquired a patternmaker's shooting plane which came with an 1876/88/94 patent frog (granted it's been repaired, but what the heck), 1867 patent back iron and 1892 patent cutter, 2in wide. It has an 18 in long rigid webbed cast-iron L-section body and seems to have been used in a shooting board where it an on two metal wear strips. I suspect that it is not a one off, having as it does a very-comfortable shaped grip, but there are no maker's marks. It has yet to see a shooting board in my ownership, but have you any thoughts on this one, Alf, especially as to what the original shooting board looked like?

Midnight

I'd like to exchange views on the LN #9. I just wondered how they compare with the original Stanley #9. The #9 is especially interesting as it has a bevel-up blade bedded at 25 degrees which makes it possible to grind a variety of angles on the cutter - hey presto! instant York-pitch (50 degrees) or whatever. Anyone here tried a higher pitch on a shooting board? I find the Stanley original suffers from having a thin blade which is relatively unsupported over a good deal of it length and I suspect that this induces chatter. Could explain why some I've seen have user-added infills. Also the mouths on the Stanley don't close up anywhere near as tight as the old Spiers infills, how tight a mouth does the LN have?

Scrit

 

[Alf]

Personally, the most comfortable shooting plane I've used is the old Stanley #52

Vrooooooooommmmmm. Meep meep etc etc :lol:

Glad to hear I'm not the only one paranoid about dropping planes btw. One of the reasons I can attempt to justify the L-N planes is the ductile iron which might have a better chance of survival in a plane meets concrete floor situation. Not that I've tried... <shudder>:shock:

I have seen a couple of other good approaches to shooting boards. I have recently acquired a patternmaker's shooting plane which came with an 1876/88/94 patent frog (granted it's been repaired, but what the heck), 1867 patent back iron and 1892 patent cutter, 2in wide. It has an 18 in long rigid webbed cast-iron L-section body and seems to have been used in a shooting board where it an on two metal wear strips. I suspect that it is not a one off, having as it does a very-comfortable shaped grip, but there are no maker's marks. It has yet to see a shooting board in my ownership, but have you any thoughts on this one, Alf, especially as to what the original shooting board looked like?

Oooo, I dunno. Sounds interesting though. Presumably there are grooves/indentations/wear in the side of the plane then? No chance they could have been guide strips i.e. with grooves deliberately machined? (probably not, or you'd have said!) That'd be a novel way of guiding the plane though; I wonder if it'd work... Have you tried having a dig around the DATAMP? A query about a shooting plane and board came up a month or so ago on The Porch, and it seems they were made for trimming books for binding, and printing blocks too (which was news to me), so there must have been quite a few designs about I think. My absolute favourite manufactured one is the "push me-pull you" Rogers Mitre planer. Somehow I don't think I'll be falling over one in the near future though. Thinking about it, maybe it doesn't really count as a shooting board anyway. :?:

Cheers, Alf

Now how on earth did we get here from Rexon tools?! What the heck, it's interesting

 

[Scrit]

Sorry Alf, just couldn't resist it..... :lol:

The paranoia about dropping planes is very real, having destroyed a perfectly good 04-1/2 (dropped out of the van) AND a 5-1/2 (knocked off bench by visitor) in the last 6 weeks There are some days....

I did used to have a Hutcheons Patent (that was the mis-spelling on the brass plate) mitre plane a long time ago which was not dissimilar to the Rogers in your link, the main differences were that the mouths were not skewed and that operation was by a long handle operating through a quadrant piece. I believe it was made in your part of the world, too (Cornwall, that is), but it eventually got the bullet in favour of a second-hand Morso which always commands respect simply because it looks as though it will remove digits with the greatest of ease (and it could, too).

BTW, what is DATAMP? I am curious but the link seems to be busted

Scrit

 

[Alf]

The paranoia about dropping planes is very real, having destroyed a perfectly good 04-1/2 (dropped out of the van) AND a 5-1/2 (knocked off bench by visitor) in the last 6 weeks There are some days....

YIKES! :shock: I think you'll have to put warnings on horror stories like that in future... Naturally it had to be the marginally less common sizes. :?

I did used to have a Hutcheons Patent mitre plane... I believe it was made in your part of the world, too (Cornwall, that is)

Gosh, really? I didn't think anything interesting got made in Cornwall since Trevithick's Steam Carriage! :lol: I'm always on the look out for local tools, but the best I've come up with so far is a chisel possibly sold by a dealer in Truro. Ah well, it's a cheap hobby if you can't actually find any examples to buy I s'pose! I briefly had one of those Chiwanese mitre trimmers and that was scary enough for the digits... :shock:

DATAMP is the Directory of American Tools and Machinery Patents. Easy to lose track of time browsing through it (DAMHIKT). Dunno why the link isn't working; it's okay this end. Anyway, the url if it helps: http://www.datamp.org/

Cheers, Alf

 

[Midnight]

Midnight

I'd like to exchange views on the LN #9. I just wondered how they compare with the original Stanley #9. The #9 is especially interesting as it has a bevel-up blade bedded at 25 degrees which makes it possible to grind a variety of angles on the cutter - hey presto! instant York-pitch (50 degrees) or whatever. Anyone here tried a higher pitch on a shooting board? I find the Stanley original suffers from having a thin blade which is relatively unsupported over a good deal of it length and I suspect that this induces chatter. Could explain why some I've seen have user-added infills. Also the mouths on the Stanley don't close up anywhere near as tight as the old Spires infills, how tight a mouth does the LN have?

Scrit


Scrit....

the L-N's blade is 4.8mm A2 grade cryogenically hardened fightin steel....... an it KICKS BUTT let me tell ya....
Straight outa the box.... a minute on the honing stone to give it a 30 degree lead edge and within 3 minutes I was taking shavings I could read through from inch thick sycamore..... across the grain. Absolutely zero chatter.
Felt effortless till I turned the stock around.... shooting down the grain.... results THERE were spooky... I mean...... I'm a rookie.... right..??... I'm not SUPPOSED to get an edge that smooth...... or am I...??

The mouth's adjustable.... how tight do you want it....??
From use..... the only way I'd improve it would be to add the "hot dog" handle that the origonal Stanley had... 30 hours over 3 days had my tendons protesting about chaffing the upper edges of the body with whichever hand was on the fore grip.

 

[Midnight]

Ah, how true. A tiny tip here is to put some fine-ish abrasive on the fence to give a little grip on the work. Make sure you do this before you fix the fence at 90 degrees, as any irregularities in the abrasive/glue could effect the accuracy otherwise. Don't get too worried about it though; as David Charlesworth shows in one of his books, it's but the work of 10 or 11 hours to shim the work with paper and card for a perfect angle...

Alf......

easier way.... clamp it...
<shrugs..
saves alla that calibration mess..... leaves me both hands free for the tool... saves all the worry about the piece moving......