Smoothing and scrub recommendations please

[EdK]

Hi - am keen to get a smoothing plane and a scrub plane. So far have a LAJ from Veritas and a #7 from LN.

The money is from overtime/odd jobs and I've been looking at either a #3 or a #4 from LN in bronze (live v. close to sea and rust is a problem - at least that's my excuse - oh and vat free over here )

Which is a better one to start with ? Don't have the luxury of trying as not sold over here - the #7 fits well and I'm reasonably tall (6'2") so thought I'd go for the #4 ? Good choice or would the #3 be more suitable ? (ie is #4 too similar to the LAJ ?)

Anyway, also a toss up between Veritas and LN for the scrub... (LN is 146 (125 exvat) and the V is 90 (78 exvat)). Is the LN scrub worth the extra ? Prefer the aesthetics but kind of think it's only a scrub plane ...

Or are there other options in that sort of price range for smoothers ?

Thanks
Ed

 

[Paul Chapman]

Alf did one of her excellent reviews on the Veritas scrub here https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5336

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

Anyway, also a toss up between Veritas and LN for the scrub... (LN is 146 (125 exvat) and the V is 90 (78 exvat)). Is the LN scrub worth the extra ? Prefer the aesthetics but kind of think it's only a scrub plane ...

Since a scrub is so majestically uncritical as to fit 'n' finish, there are cheaper ways.

Either convert a woodie jack into a pseudo-scrub:

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/scrub.html

make you own "Krenovian" scrub, or buy a European scrub:

http://www.fine-tools.com/schrup.htm

BugBear

 

[Anonymous]

Ed

I have the bronze LN 4.5 (anniversary) and the bronze #3. I would take the #4 as your first smoother as the #3 is rather small and I tend to only use it to smooth face frames and picture frames.

They really are awesome planes!!!

 

[marcus]

In my experience both the LV and the LN scrub planes are a waste of money because they lack the most important feature of a scrub plane - size and weight. If it was me I would buy an old Stanley or record no 7, open the mouth wide, and put in a hock Iron ground with a very big camber. You will find this (quite literally) three or four times faster at removing material and far less hard work.

You already have a very good plane for most smoothing jobs in the Veritas LAJ, so why not get a decent low angle block plane and grind an iron for it to a high angle. You could then use that for smoothing smaller pieces, and "spot smoothing", and would have a nice plane for working end grain into the bargain.

Marcus

 

[Paul Chapman]

In my experience both the LV and the LN scrub planes are a waste of money because they lack the most important feature of a scrub plane - size and weight. If it was me I would buy an old Stanley or record no 7, open the mouth wide, and put in a hock Iron ground with a very big camber. You will find this (quite literally) three or four times faster at removing material and far less hard work.

I agree - I use my old Record #7 like that. You could also invest in a toothed blade for it to deal with the tear-out after scrubbing and before finishing with a normal blade

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[matthewwh]

The Veritas scrub is an awesome piece of kit, but as others have said scrubbing is a rough, brutish operation and calls for a low finesse, high aggression approach.

If t'were me I'd go for a cheap and nasty jack and get a 1/4" thick blade made for it from something like D2 or A2 that takes a crap edge and holds it forever. Hone a mental camber on it and only use it when you're angry.

 

[bugbear]

In my experience both the LV and the LN scrub planes are a waste of money because they lack the most important feature of a scrub plane - size and weight. If it was me I would buy an old Stanley or record no 7, open the mouth wide, and put in a hock Iron ground with a very big camber. You will find this (quite literally) three or four times faster at removing material and far less hard work.

Curious - when scrubbing, I use a flurry of short, diagonal strokes.

I find the low weight of my (razee) jack ideal for this, and all commercial scrubs have been quite small - just big enough to allow a decent grip in fact.

I can't see the size or weight of a #7 being at all conducive to scrubbing - at least the scrubbing technique I employ.

If a modified #7 can remove wood 3-4 times faster than a conventioanl scrub (e.g. mine, which Paul Chapman has seen (and used, I think)), that's a HELL of a rate.

BugBear

 

[AndyT]

Bugbear wrote:

I find the low weight of my (razee) jack ideal for this, and all commercial scrubs have been quite small

I'd second that. Ducking quickly to avoid the hail of tales of woe with Rutlands, I bought one of their anonymous wooden scrubs,

and found that it works really well, despite being light and small.

Andy

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

If a modified #7 can remove wood 3-4 times faster than a conventioanl scrub (e.g. mine, which Paul Chapman has seen (and used, I think)), that's a HELL of a rate.

BB

I am bit concerned about you, my friend. Have you been eating your Weetbix every morning as you should? Do you need to increase the cardiovascular exercises .. build up a little stamina? Are you waking up fatigued after a night of debauchery ...

A scrub needs a little heft when you are working hard woods. The Veritas scrub plane is an excellent plane, but I tend to want my Stanley #5 1/2 (with heavily radiused blade).

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Paul Chapman]

If a modified #7 can remove wood 3-4 times faster than a conventioanl scrub (e.g. mine, which Paul Chapman has seen (and used, I think)), that's a HELL of a rate.

Yes, I did try yours, BB (at Dave's last bash). Probably one of the best scrub planes I've ever used - worked really well. I still prefer my #7, however - it just seems to suit the way I work.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Karl]

Probably one of the best scrub planes I've ever used - worked really well.

Well I think that deserves a pick - come on BB, let us see it.

Cheers

Karl

 

[Paul Chapman]

Here it is , Karl http://www.geocities.com/plybench/scrub.html

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Karl]

Cheers Paul.

That is very similair to the Philly Jack I use. I think I have ground too much of a radius on my blade though - it doesn't work as well as when I received it off Philly Think i'll have to re-grind the blade.

Cheers

Karl

 

[Paul Chapman]

When I tried BB's, I seem to remember being particularly impressed with the way he'd done the blade - it cut effortlessly.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

Are you waking up fatigued after a night of debauchery ...

Derek

...I wish - Rob

 

[bugbear]

If a modified #7 can remove wood 3-4 times faster than a conventioanl scrub (e.g. mine, which Paul Chapman has seen (and used, I think)), that's a HELL of a rate.

Yes, I did try yours, BB (at Dave's last bash). Probably one of the best scrub planes I've ever used - worked really well. I still prefer my #7, however - it just seems to suit the way I work.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

This may (I suspect) come down to a concept that emerged the last time scrubbing was discussed; that there is a continuous spectrum from MASSIVELY brutal scrubbing to almost-accurate panel planing.

This is why I was careful to describe what I was doing, as well as the tool I was doing it with.

I suspect that your use is more accurate than mine, and thus a different (or differently configured) tool is more appropriate to your usage.

BugBear

 

[marcus]

Hi BB

Curious - when scrubbing, I use a flurry of short, diagonal strokes.

I don't! Unless I'm working with a really crazy timber I find it works fine going with the grain. Of course it tears out a bit, but that all gets removed later on. I'm convinced that a long, heavy plane takes cleaner shavings when taking a heavy cut than a light plane does. I don't understand exactly why, but that's my experience!

If you go diagonally you minimise tearout, but you have to do an awful lot more strokes to cover a board - albeit short ones. All that backwards and forwards takes energy.

Going lengthwise you can use a longer, and therefore heavier plane - and the weight of the plane carries it through the stroke and you can take bigger shavings with less effort - more so if you skew the plane a bit. Again I don't understand the science behind that but experience tells me its true. Also if you go straight rather than diagonally it takes a lot less energy to take each shaving because you shear the wood off rather than cutting across fibers.

Personally I don't want to be doing a flurry of anything - sounds too much like hard work . I don't think scrubbing needs to be hugely strenuous. Sure you work up a sweat, but it shouldn't be exhausting or anything. A heavily cambered blade, set to remove a shaving you can push without undue effort, taking long strokes with the grain is not only quick but enjoyable - within reason....

If a modified #7 can remove wood 3-4 times faster than a conventioanl scrub (e.g. mine, which Paul Chapman has seen (and used, I think)), that's a HELL of a rate.

In a short burst perhaps the speeds would be about the same. But working for long periods of time, I'm convinced that a heavy scrub going with the grain is that much faster - at least I know that I have achieved that sort of difference working as I do now, as compared with when I had a veritas scrub which i worked across the grain. And yes I did find myself very suprised that I was taking off timber at such a "hell of a rate" with the new method! The difference was astounding.

Another way of putting it is that I remove three or four times much wood per calorie expended than I did they old way! And because I am not particularly matcho, and had to take frequent breaks working the old way because I ended up worn out so quickly, I am much more efficient and faster working the low energy way! I simply can't keep up diagonal scrubbing with a light plane for more than a fairly short period before my speed drops off dramatically through fatigue.

Cheers

Marcus

 

[Paul Chapman]

I suspect that your use is more accurate than mine, and thus a different (or differently configured) tool is more appropriate to your usage.

Yes, I think that's right. I found the description by Marcus interesting and not dissimilar from the way I work. I tend to use a combination of heavily cambered or toothed blades depending on what I'm doing and the piece of wood involved. Marcus' point about not expending too much energy is an important one. If, like me, you don't have a planer/thicknesser, it wouldn't be too difficult to become completely knackered and, out of necessity, I (and I suspect Marcus) have developed ways of working which get the work done quickly and efficiently. For example, by using a longer plane, you can remove heavy amounts of material while squaring up and flattening the workpiece, rather than having to use a short plane, then a long one, to achieve the desired result.

Sometimes it helps not to have too much equipment - it forces you to develop better ways of working :wink:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[EdK]

Thanks for all the info - much appreciated.

Scrubs
-------------
Hmmm, been reading around a bit on this subject And am still confused !
Basically it came about cos i don't have a thicknesser/planer and won't be getting one in the future. I need something quiet (working from home).

Read some articles that state that in the UK people used fore planes for this work (#5 or #6 ?) and in europe they used scrub planes. probably... but then Schwartz reckons they were used (also) for reducing stock width - like a ripping plane so to speak.

It seems like a high mass, narrow plane (length seems to vary with preference) with a radiused blade (between 3" and 2.25" by some accounts) will do the job. The Veritas scrub might suit my needs but I'm guessing that like with so many things it's down to trying stuff out. Might start with a cheap eBay #5 or something like that. I worry that this will be too wide though ?

Smoothers
--------------
So is the LN #4 in bronze the one to go for ?

A mate has a metal shop/business milling and CNC'ing stuff. I was toying with the idea of getting him to machine up some metal parts and have a go at making a smoother (prob buy the LN #4 anyway).

Was thinking of 'being inspired' by the small smoother from holtey (11SA) or the one that Derek had from Brese.

If he took a block of steel and machined out the centre would this still work ? Bit wasteful on metal but would solve me the problem of trying to construct the 'box' with peining etc... Crazy idea or not ?

Thanks,
Ed