I’m not entirely sure anyone will really understand what was going on at Stanley when new planes were being designed, or considerations being made in terms of what models to add to the product lineup, delete from the product lineup, improve, etc. When talking about hand planes, you’ve heard me say more than once that Stanley had a habit of attempting to fill every plane niche that existed, real or perceived. That trend seemed particularly true of block planes. I was thinking that I’d feature a block plane this time and started looking for the right one. Nothing jumped out at me, but while in the process of carefully sorting through some planes (which are stored in VERY close, but not touching proximity to each other), I pulled out a few weather stripping planes. I got to thinking that I had a few different models in my collection, and kind of muttered, “Man, Stanley made a lot of weather stripping planes over the years.” At that moment I happened to have a #238 in my left hand and a #248 in my right hand. I held them up a little, side-by-side, then suddenly realized, “Hey, these two planes are practically the same.”
From a quick glance, the #238 and #248 look almost entirely different. I guess that’s why I never really connected the dots. Although their respective main body castings look almost nothing alike, particularly around the handles, the actual working aspects of the plane are 100% identical in every way! All the hardware, removable parts, cutters, etc. are interchangeable with each other. The screw bosses, threaded holes, cutter attachment/securing mechanisms, depth stops, fence configurations, etc. all line up and function in exactly the same way. If you go back in the thread to page 34, reply 506, you might recall that I featured the #238. In terms of function, I think the plane does a nice job of doing precisely what it was designed to do. Without going into another demonstration, and because the #248 is identical to the #238 from a mechanical perspective, I’d say the #248 will also produce the same nice results. So what was the point of making another plane (the #248) that incorporates the exact same mechanical features as its predecessor (the #238)?
Here’s my theory. When comparing these two seemingly identical functioning planes, I believe the engineers/designers at Stanley were possibly aiming for improved ergonomics and comfort. When looking at the #238, notice the index finger hole forward of the handle. When I grasp the plane, that hole is slightly too far away from the handle for me to hold the plane comfortably. If I avoid trying to put my index finger through that hole and attempt to wrap all four fingers around the handle, that’s also uncomfortable because the handle opening really isn’t big enough to accommodate my average sized hand. The handle is also a little thin. A more rounded, fatter handle would be more comfortable to hold and use. Perhaps someone at Stanley realized that. When looking at the #248, one will notice that it incorporates a more traditional, comfortable, handle. The #248 is also two inches longer than the #238 (9.5” versus 7.5” respectively), and was supplied with two cutters (1/8” and 5/32” wide) as compared to seven that were included with the #238. I suppose that providing five less cutters was a cost savings measure taken by Stanley. Maybe the accountants asked, "Why are we giving away a set of cutters with our weather stripping planes, when we can provide one or two and then sell the rest individually for more money?" Okay, maybe I'm overthinking that. (Eventually Stanley came up with a better idea. See "Edit" paragraph below.)
Besides the obvious changes to ergonomics and styling, the only functional parts of the two planes that varied slightly between both of them were the pre-set rods connected to the fence, which allow the user to make repeatable cuts. By setting those rods in a desired position on the fence itself, a secondary, repeatable fence location could be achieved quickly even if the fence had been removed from the plane and then later reattached. The feature to notice is how the rods were manufactured so they would not accidentally slide out of the fence. The #238 rods incorporated a thin wire recessed into a shallow groove to keep them from sliding, while the correct rods for the #248 incorporated two burrs set at 180 degrees from each other to keep the rods from sliding. Again, those little rods, like ALL the other parts on both planes are interchangeable. I suspect that adding little burrs was easier (and cheaper) to do than wrapping wire into those little milled grooves. Only collectors care about that stuff, but I thought I had better at least mention it.
Stanley #248:
This plane was manufactured by Stanley between 1936 and 1943. Recall that the #238 was manufactured between 1928 and 1938. Except for the two year over lap between 1936 and 1938, the #248 appears to have been manufactured specifically for purposes of replacing the #238 in the Stanley product line. The #248, like #238, has several little parts that can get lost. Before buying either one of these guys, make sure all the parts are present and accounted for. Do your homework.
Edit: The day after adding this post to the thread, I started thinking that Stanley made another weather stripping plane that was a variation of the #238 and/or the #248. I checked, and sure enough, Stanley did offer a #248A. The #248A was produced between 1939 and 1958. The #248A and its associated parts are IDENTICAL to the #248. The ONLY difference is the re-inclusion of the five cutters that were dropped from the #248 but were initially offered with the #238. Basically, the #248A combined the best features of the #238 (7 cutters) and the #248 (better ergonomics). The main body casting of the #248A is marked "248" not "248A". Again, the cutters included with the #248 were 1/8" and 5/32" wide. The cutters included with the #238 and #248A were 1/8", 5/32", 3/16", 7/32", 1/4", 5/16" and 3/8" wide.
Jim C.
