Thread: Anyone Actually Using a Mitre Plane?

Hi Luke

Confession time. I own two mitre planes. A L-N #9 (with hot-dog) and a small (6") metal one by Wayne Anderson.

I primarily use the L-N and shooting board to shoot 90 degree mitres -- to trim a component to final length / square and to "polish" end grain.
I also occasionally use it to shoot long grain edges. And tomorrow will use it to level off the rails/styles of frame and panel I'm building.
The small one is my go to plane for final trimming of dowel pins and small area smoothing. It's developing a very nice patina.

My experience parallels Christopher Schwarz -- these planes are as useful on difficult face grain as they are on end grain.


Do you need one?
A #6 or #7 works almost as well trimming a component to length / square. A #5 also works but is IMO a bit on the light side.
I find the #9 with the hot-dog more comfortable to use than a #6 or #7 on it's side. Especially where there is a lot of shooting required.


Purchasing a new one?
As it happens I have a copy of the 2015-16 L-N Tool catalog. On Page 31, it's advised that the L-N #9 is still available as a special order.

Originally Posted by auscab

........I regularly need to shoot 200 mm wide 30mm thick end grain mitre joints.....

.....A sharp no 6 does just as good a job but you can feel the difference with the higher angle blade.

Rob, that 'difference' occurs with just about any reasonably solid, low-angle BU plane does it not? I've often thought about why a low-angle blade has that 'solid' feel, compared with a 45 deg BD blade, even when the plane's mass & cutting angle are approximately the same. My conclusion is that it's the way the cutting force is absorbed by the tool. With the 45 degree there is more 'overhang' between the cutting edge and the rear support (end of the bed), courtesy of the sharpening bevel, whereas the BU blade is supported closer to the edge, hence more capacity for slight flexion, & for a given blade thickness that means more chance to chatter. However, that's not the whole story, because I reckon I can feel a difference between a 20 deg and a 12 deg bed block plane, with similar thickness blades and similar blade support, so my theory is that it's also to do with the moment of force being applied more directly along the blade. Whatever the reason, you can certainly feel a big difference between a #5 and a 62 style plane, which have roughly similar mass, when they travels over end-grain!

Not sure you have done me any favours putting that video up!

I've seen similar devices illustrated often enough, but never thought much about them before. However, after watching the various procedures being done, particularly the minor adjustment of the mitre angle (or am I the only person who always has to make a small adjustment to the 4th corner??). I can see they could be the bees' knees for lots of little jobs.

I've always assumed you would need to constantly re-surface the jaws to keep them true, but he seemed to be able to do the job without marking the jaws at all. Any comments on that?

I've now decided I have to have one, so yet another project goes on my 'to do' list!

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

I've always assumed you would need to constantly re-surface the jaws to keep them true, but he seemed to be able to do the job without marking the jaws at all. Any comments on that?

I'm sure I've read somewhere that in the old days the jaws were often faced with paper as a sacrificial surface.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

...I've always assumed you would need to constantly re-surface the jaws to keep them true, but he seemed to be able to do the job without marking the jaws at all. Any comments on that?

This is actually a big question of mine. How DO you avoid destroying something like that? I'm interested in cutting some mitred dovetails soon, and part of that process involves using a shoulder plane to finish the length of the mitre. Every demo/writeup I've seen uses a guide board to cut the mitre, but none of those seem to damage the board either. I did read something about putting tape on one edge of the blade, but that still seems like it wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by IanW

Rob, that 'difference' occurs with just about any reasonably solid, low-angle BU plane does it not? I've often thought about why a low-angle blade has that 'solid' feel, compared with a 45 deg BD blade, even when the plane's mass & cutting angle are approximately the same.

I've seen similar devices illustrated often enough, but never thought much about them before. However, after watching the various procedures being done, particularly the minor adjustment of the mitre angle (or am I the only person who always has to make a small adjustment to the 4th corner??). I can see they could be the bees' knees for lots of little jobs.

I've always assumed you would need to constantly re-surface the jaws to keep them true, but he seemed to be able to do the job without marking the jaws at all. Any comments on that?

I've now decided I have to have one, so yet another project goes on my 'to do' list!

Cheers,

Basically I think the Mitre is easier to push through. I'm not into trying to figure it out though Ian . I feel My Mitre cuts end grain oak beautifully but with heavy or prolonged cutting the blade doesn't stay as sharp as long as my Stanley 6. The Mitre seems better suited for very fine cutting and accurate fine adjustments . Is the 6 slightly harder because of the cap iron?


That is a nice video and shows fine work . I have an old Mitre Jack but normally grab a shooting board for a quick fix . Making one would be a nice project . If you need any pics or dimensions of an original I can take them and send them if you want . Mine is a Blackwood timber threaded one.

I think that video has some pics of paper being glued on for protection . Or did I see it somewhere else ? Not sure.

Rob

Originally Posted by auscab

...I have an old Mitre Jack but normally grab a shooting board for a quick fix . Making one would be a nice project . If you need any pics or dimensions of an original I can take them and send them if you want...

Blow that Rob . Post them in a thread so we can all find them in the future (when you've got time of course).

Happy New Year all.

Cheers, Vann.

Originally Posted by auscab

..... If you need any pics or dimensions of an original I can take them and send them if you want . Mine is a Blackwood timber threaded one......

Yes please! Or maybe better still, post them in the 'vises' thread & put a link in this one?
An overall pic with enough detail to see or figure out the construction would be plenty for me, but others may like dimensions as a start-point. With my building style, dimensions often gravitate to either the specific job I'm thinking of using it for, or perhaps more often still, what suitable material I have on hand....

The construction of the one in the video looks pretty straightforward, with the travelling jaw sliding on a dovetail key, and a solid frame that can be firmly attached to a bench. I'd probably follow that design, but am interested in any & all alternatives. After my experience with the so-called "Moxon" vises, I would spend a bit of time with the design of the base. The one in the vid won't suit me so well, but I'm sure I can come up with something that will do the trick.

That's a very fancy metal joint between wooden screw & jaw, too, and while I could easily enough make something along the same lines, I think I'd prefer to keep it all-wood and attach it using a garter system similar to what I've used for the travelling jaws on bar clamps: Bar clamp mech.jpg
As you can see, each half of the garter goes in from the sides of the main block & retained by the side-plates (the jaw on the right is shown with the side plates screwed on), but it's simple to adapt the principle to a flat surface by letting the garter into a recess and retaining it with a plate screwed to the surface.....

Cheers,

The dimensions of the Benchcrafted Mitre Jack are described in their blog.
Summary here: http://benchcrafted.blogspot.com.au/...iter-jack.html

There are a few on eBay for a fairly high amount. Not much fun in that though.

Seems to me that it would be fun to make one without plans. I think that as long as I had the means with which to thread a screw, I could pull it off...

I just have to escape house duties and sneak out to the work shack and I'll get the M Jack and get pics and dimensions . Rob


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rarely feel the need to shoot mitres down to micrometric accuracy. Nevertheless, for end grain trimming duties I've used one of those extremely short-lived English Stanley 60 1/2A blockies from the late 70's? & "High School special" Record T5 on its right side with my thumb wrapped around the base of the side handle. Both these planes offer nice extra-long & wide side wings for stability. Realistically, the T5 would probably be better off with a "stubby" wing knob rather than the elongated original, but nevertheless the additional mass provided by all those extra castings, webbing etc. provides a nice useful heft & momentum for severing tough fibres.

At least I also have at the same time a useful low angle blockie and an (albeit short & heavy) jack once the blades are advanced for a courser cut.

Anything more dedicated simply couldn't be justified for my limited needs. I'm sure the purists will scoff & sneer, but I've always felt that the exhorbitant prices commanded for good secondhand Iron mitre planes is more commensurate with their relative rarity than any perceived or real practical utility. The reason for their rarity is that..... not many customers in the past found any real practical use for them!

Originally Posted by Ratbag

The reason for their rarity is that..... not many customers in the past found any real practical use for them!

If that were the case then they just wouldn't exist, would they ?

Mitre planes were a premium product and mostly made in the UK.
As such they appear regularly on eBay.co.uk.
While not cheap they were always expensive and most are cheaper than a LN #9.
However, bargains can be had. UK tool restorer Jim Hendricks was the only bidder on a user mitre plane in late November 2016.
He replaced the infill and wedge and documented it here:
Robert Towell Mitre - The Good...The Bad... and The Ugly by Jim Hendricks

You may very well be right! However, assuming that therefore some tens, of not hundreds of millions of them have been sold it rather begs the question where are they all now?

Presumably such a useful & ubiquitous tool is simply too useful and valuable to sell. The high prices commanded are therefore more a product of demand rather than supply. Trouble is, their limited production runs lends credence to the assertion that they were traditionally never a particularly popular tool, meaning that their high prices are more a product of demand upon a real, not assumed limited supply.

Given that that most prolific of plane makers Stanley Rule & Level Co. only made extremely limited numbers of any of their variety of miter planes, and these not only for very limited production runs but also only in their USA (Connecticut?) factories rather than any other of their global production facilities where more popular plane patterns were reproduced, where is there evidence of mass production?


Stanley made literally dozens of alternative variants of popular designs in a variety of materials & configurations for most of their most popular tool patterns. Yet the small variety, production numbers and production lifetime of any of their mitre planes being extremely limited, is surely evidence made manifest of low demand. Given that Stanley made a specialist plane for just about any conceivable use, including mitering & shooting, what other possible explanation is there? They tried, & presumably failed to either create or address the limited demand for these tools.

That there WAS a demand is undisputed: the chute board setup remained on the books for some 40 yrs., & the no. 9 somewhat longer. It was probably useful to patternmakers, picture framers & the like, yet obviously not useful enough to tempt the vast majority of their customers it seems.

Even Patrick seems to agree.