Woodworking Forum > Woodworking Forum
Hand Planes
Jim C.:
Navaja,
Thanks for sharing a couple of your planes with us. I hope you get them back in good working order and start using them again. Looking back in the thread, we covered a lot of ground and I can’t say enough about those who have stuck with the thread all these years, and contributed content along the way. I’m impressed that you read through the entire thread in such a short amount of time. I’ve gone back and read more than a few of the topics and have fallen asleep. I’ve always wondered who’s reading this thing, and more than once thought it might be those who need a sleep aid. :smiley: Anyway, welcome aboard, and many thanks for your interest in the Hand Plane thread. I hope you’ll keep checking in and keep posting hand plane related content.
Jim C.
Bill Houghton:
I'm left-handed, and have held a few right-handed "horned" planes. The horn is just not comfortable at all in the wrong hand. It's interesting, because, on newer planes, the asymmetry is very subtle; but just enough that it won't work well in the wrong hand.
Navaja:
--- Quote from: Jim C. on February 25, 2024, 05:18:23 AM ---Navaja,
I’m impressed that you read through the entire thread in such a short amount of time. I’ve gone back and read more than a few of the topics and have fallen asleep. I’ve always wondered who’s reading this thing, and more than once thought it might be those who need a sleep aid.
Jim C.
--- End quote ---
Well I can't tell a lie, I didn't read e-v-e-r-y word... 😉 but I did read the majority of it, & yes it was sometimes very late night (or early morning) reading for me due to strange work commitments right now.
--- Quote from: Bill Houghton on February 25, 2024, 11:24:00 AM ---I'm left-handed, and have held a few right-handed "horned" planes. The horn is just not comfortable at all in the wrong hand. It's interesting, because, on newer planes, the asymmetry is very subtle; but just enough that it won't work well in the wrong hand.
--- End quote ---
It's quite something that it's so noticeable to you & just goes to demonstrate how ergonomic these planes are, I'd like to try a left handed plane to experience it for myself as it's not the same pretending to be left handed, it just doesn't work.
Right back somewhere in the middle :smiley: Jim (P49 #734) you wrote of the lowly 220, and yes it's not exactly anything to get excited about but something I noticed that differs from my Record 220 is the size of the mouth.
I only have a Stanley 110 to compare to which isn't necessarily the same as the 220 but it's mouth is about 4.5mm (11/64"?) whereas the Record 220's mouth is about 2.5mm (3/32"?). I just thought it strange it's a big difference & the image of your Stanley 220 looks similar to my 110's mouth. Maybe goes some way to explaining it's low expectations?
As you can see in the images my 220's a worker!
My Record 220s mouth.
Jim's Stanley's 220 mouth (with some iron showing).
Record 220 & Stanley 110.
Jim C.:
“Well I can't tell a lie, I didn't read e-v-e-r-y word... 😉 but I did read the majority of it, & yes it was sometimes very late night (or early morning) reading for me due to strange work commitments right now.”
Navaja,
I won’t hold it against you. There have been plenty of times when I’d write this stuff and wonder if anyone would be able to read it without dozing off. I’ll admit that I’ve gone back to read various posts and got sleepy doing so. Some of them are really long winded. I’ll have to pull out an old plane and write another tome if you’re up for it.
If you’re comparing the differences in the throat openings between a #220 and a #110, well, it could have something to do with the bedded angles of cutting irons. I think both planes will perform well if not asked to do things they weren’t designed to do. Both were basic utility planes made for basic work. Set them for a light pass and make sure the irons are SUPER SHARP! When used mostly on long grain versus end grain, they’ll do an acceptable job. If you’re making high end cabinetry or furniture, I’d probably opt for something with an iron bedded at a low angle and with an adjustable throat. Any model from the Stanley “60” series of block planes would likely be a better choice.
Jim C.
Navaja:
Hello Jim.
I have re-read my post (deleted some slightly irrelevant ramblings 😄) & realise it isn't that clear what I was saying...... or even why!
The second image down is my Record 220, the third your Stanley 220 (edited) from your post 734.
I was just surprised at the two different 220's having such a difference in mouth size. I understand the cheap basic utility of this model, but imagine those two don't perform the same, if it matters.....
The only decent block plane I have is the as yet not properly used Lie Nielson 9 1/2 I've (hopefully) salvaged. As I don't posses a truly low angle plane it's something that's on my list.
Any fine finishes in the past I've achieved with a Card Scraper, thought I wouldn't want to have to scrape a very large area it's something I actually enjoy the process of. The wooden scraper you made is also inspiration, I intend to make a scraper, it's just a case of organising a suitable blade before I can start......
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version