Thread: Adventures with a side-rebate plane

Hi Ian

That does not look comfortable in the hand.

The Veritas is still the most comfortable of all ...

The Veritas has less registration than the Stanley but still feels stable. Of the three planes, it scores top marks for comfort. The handle is the broadest and molds right into the palm of the hand.





Reference for my review of the Veritas Side Rabbet Plane: The Veritas Side Rabbet Plane

I still like this plane, however the one that I use the most is the LN #98/99 pair. Less comfortable, but I like just grabbing one plane that is set up for the hand and does not require further adjustment. Plus it is easier to replace and set the blades.



Regards from Perth

Derek

The Veritas being rated the best. Why does that not surprise me.

Originally Posted by planemaker

The Veritas being rated the best. Why does that not surprise me.

"for comfort"

Derek, after taking better look at the Veritas parts in your review, it's hard not to suspect it was the prototype for the McJing. You could say that similar needs will lead to similar solutions, but they are a bit too close for convergent evolution, methinks! Pity they left off the handle, but I suppose that would've been an outright patent infringement. One aspect common to both are those sharp corners on the toe. I guess if you always use the depth stop, it will prevent the digging-in I experienced, but I like the distinct 'skate' profile LN put on theirs - my generic might get some more severe attention from the file before long.

Now that I have a little experience using a side rebate, I would choose differently next time, but the choice isn't easy! I like the idea of having both left & right side cuts on the one tool, so my first impulse would be to go that route. A Stanley 79 loses out on the first round. Having to retract one of the blades to reverse cuts, sucks. I found myself flipping my plane frequently, and re-setting blades on these things isn't just a matter of spinning a knob....

A Veritas would be a good option if buying new, I like that big palm-grip, but the price! You can have the LN pair for considerably less (and they doo have eye-appeal!). You say you prefer the LNs to use, and I think I can see some small advantages in having separate left & right jobs, despite the extra bench clutter.

So I looked up the prices, and that makes the choice even easier - you can have the pair of LNs for considerably less than a single Veritas - that's a big premium for a little convenience!

Fortunately, it will probably be quite a while before I need to use it again, so I'll just go on putting up with the shortcomings of what I have, I suspect. I'll expend a bit of thought on that useless little knob & see if I can't come up with something that will soften the hold a bit better. If I ever stumble on a Record 2506 at a sensible price, I will grab it, because I think it addresses my two main complaints with the generic version a bit better (i.e. comfort & blade adjustment). I do like the idea of just one tool instead of two more to clutter the toolbox, particularly for 'once a year' tools like these.

Or maybe I should drop some very big hints to that large man in the red suit & bushy beard.....?

Cheers,

Next discovery was that the very sharp points on the nose-piece liked to dig in & cause the plane to try to cartwheel, so I took a fine file to them & rounded them off.

I should have commented on this earlier.

In my excellent (ahem!) review of the Veritas version, I pointed out ...

The other honing adjustment that is recommended is to relieve the lower edge of the bevel. Veritas state:

“If the tip of the blade extends too far below the bottom of the plane (see below), you may dock or grind the tip back”.

If left in place, the sharp tip will continue to score the wood, and this will create damage as the plane exits a dado or groove. My advice is to grind this back after you have played around with blade projection/shaving thickness.

I'd rather grind the tip level than round it off. Easier and less likely to remove more than planned.

Fortunately, it will probably be quite a while before I need to use it again, so I'll just go on putting up with the shortcomings of what I have, I suspect.

Ian, here is something for you to chew on ... which may bring greater use. I converted a Stanley #79 into a dovetail plane. There is no reason why you cannot do the same with the McJing (or LN or Veritas). This assumes that the McJing has a fence similar to the Veritas (I do not know as you have not posted a photo of the back side of the plane).



The article is here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMad...Stanley79.html

Kind regards

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

...The other honing adjustment that is recommended is to relieve the lower edge of the bevel. Veritas state:

“If the tip of the blade extends too far below the bottom of the plane (see below), you may dock or grind the tip back”.

If left in place, the sharp tip will continue to score the wood, and this will create damage as the plane exits a dado or groove. My advice is to grind this back after you have played around with blade projection/shaving thickness.

I'd rather grind the tip level than round it off. Easier and less likely to remove more than planned.

Derek, I think you mis-understood my problem. I didn't have any complications with the blade, in fact one blade had a damaged tip, which I didn't notice 'til I was setting it up yesterday, so I had to grind it back a bit to re-form enough corner to reach the bottom of the sole. My trouble was caused by the corner of the toe piece digging into the soft Hoop pine. I wasn't using the depth stop, which will alleviate the problem (tried it today), but it's a nuisance having to switch it for each side, so I'd rather be able to plane without it, in this situation. When I looked at the LN and saw that exaggerated skate pattern on the toe, I thought "yep, LN know about this little problem & have devised a fix too!"

Originally Posted by derekcohen

... Ian, here is something for you to chew on ... which may bring greater use. I converted a Stanley #79 into a dovetail plane. There is no reason why you cannot do the same with the McJing (or LN or Veritas). This assumes that the McJing has a fence similar to the Veritas (I do not know as you have not posted a photo of the back side of the plane)......

Well, it does have a depth-stop, which is attached by a single thumbscrew, so I guess I could make a similar modification, but I have a feeling it would not work all that well - single-point fences a la Stanley 78 rebate plane are hardly a roaring success, are they? It's also a downright uncomfortable little beast of a thing, so I don't think I would enjoy using it to that extent. I think I'd much rather spend a coupe of hours modifying (or probably re-making) the wooden dovetail plane I made a few years ago. The thread has lost all its pics, but this is the plane: DT plane.jpg
Actually, I use that plane quite a bit. It does the job, even though it has no fence or depth stop. I pre-cut the shoulder against a guide, then leave the guide in place while I plane the DT. It's on my to-do list to either fit it with a fence & nicker, or make a new one from scratch. But you know how it is when you have something that sort-of does the job ok....

I tell you what I do enjoy using, & that's my little "DC" router (Mark II): DC router.jpg
It really is the bees' knees - wish you'd brought it to my notice years ago!

I liked my simple no-frills prototype well enough: Done.jpg but must admit, the Maddux-inspired version with screw adjuster is even better. And especially since I got around to fitting the spring in the blade-retaining thumbscrew: spring.jpg
Luke, if you're reading this, you're a genius, my lad! 'Twas he who decided it was required, and did the leg-work to find some springs that suited the job. It was then a simple matter of boring out the base of the thumbscrew to fit the spring. A very simple modification, which took about 5 minutes, but it makes a huge difference, holding the blade in place when you loosen the thumbscrew, so you can screw it down a half-turn under full control.

Cheers,

Sorry, I misunderstood the blade issue. Still, good info for others.

And especially since I got around to fitting the spring in the blade-retaining thumbscrew: Luke, if you're reading this, you're a genius, my lad! 'Twas he who decided it was required, and did the leg-work to find some springs that suited the job. It was then a simple matter of boring out the base of the thumbscrew to fit the spring. A very simple modification, which took about 5 minutes, but it makes a huge difference, holding the blade in place when you loosen the thumbscrew, so you can screw it down a half-turn under full control.

Ian, that why I used a wavy washer in mine (much simpler than a spring) - the credit goes to Lee Valley. They use them in most of their planes. I found them on eBay.



Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMad...uterPlane.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

.....I used a wavy washer in mine (much simpler than a spring) - the credit goes to Lee Valley. They use them in most of their planes.....

Certainly simpler, Derek. I did try a spring washer, but the thing I had was far too thin, and didn't apply enough pressure to do the job. The yoke is a snug fit in the body, & a bit stiff, so my guess is it possibly needs a bit more than on yours. Fortunately, it was no sweat fitting the spring, and it works well. However, if I ever lose it, I'll be in trouble, it took Luke a deal of searching to find just the right size, & I have no idea where he got them, in the end, so if anything happens to mine I'll have to go on a hunt of my own. Various places like Repco sell boxes of assorted springs, but have you ever noticed, the one you need always seems to be the one size not included?!

There is one last small modification called for: I find my plane works best for me when pushed, that way, it keeps the tool nicely flat on the job, and the blade evenly engaged. Pulling is ok, too, but the push stroke is easier & feels more natural (I find the same with spokeshaves). Using it for long sessions like I did the other day, I discovered I need to round off the back a bit more to make it more comfortable for my thumbs. A few minutes work with rasp & paper will attend to that.

It really is a simple but highly effective little tool. Don't really know why I had so much trouble getting any joy out of the Stanley 71 I had, but I suspect it was a combination of bad set-up and poorly-sharpened cutter. I could probably get it humming easily enough now, after my experience with the 'DC' version, but I'll never know 'cos it has long since gone to a new home. Apart from mild curiosity, I have no burning desire to own a metal version, anyway, when they work as well as this does, there's more satisfaction using tools you've made yourself!

Cheers,

IanW; your post was a friendly reminder to clean up and resharpen my Stanley #79. Pulled it apart and its now soaking in Evapo-Rust.

Stewie;

One of the design features that has intrigued me about these planes is their use of a skewed blade that is set at the same angle as the skew - so the cutting edge ends up being square to the cut.
You would have thought that if they were going to skew the blade, they could have left the end square and taken advantage of the skew and also be easier to sharpen.
Lie Nielsen even state in their description that they feature a skewed blade. But it's not really.
https://www.lie-nielsen.com/product/...pair?node=4063

Edit: I concede that renoving the nose allows a bullnose version that could clean out a stopped cut.
I wonder how often that gets used?

I have an original Stanley 98/99 pair; they don't get used super often, but, like many of these specialised planes, there's really not much else that will do the job

Originally Posted by hiroller

.....You would have thought that if they were going to skew the blade, they could have left the end square and taken advantage of the skew and also be easier to sharpen.

Edit: I concede that renoving the nose allows a bullnose version that could clean out a stopped cut....

Gavin, to put a genuine skew on the blade would be rather tricky. You would have to have a bed that was angled wrt the face. You'd need a bit of extra thickness of the body to machine the angled bed on, but given these planes need to be skinny to fit into narrow rebates, I guess the makers decided it wasn't worth it. I think the ultra low-angle of the blades makes for an easy-enough cut. Mind you, I was shaving Hoop pine, which isn't the toughest of woods, but it did slice the wood very nicely. Just as well, too, because the thing I have has sharpish edges and is not nice to push!

The bullnose ability could be mighty handy in stopped trenches. However, I always chisel a hole out at the blind end to allow me to saw the sides to full depth, and since the toe of the plane is shorter than the hole I made (right to the lines) I didn't need to plane into the corners on this trip. I will give it a go sometime, but I strongly suspect that as with all bull-nosed planes I've used, it will not be easy to control without the toe - its propensity for digging-in will be somewhat enhanced....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by planemaker

... your post was a friendly reminder to clean up and resharpen my Stanley #79. Pulled it apart and its now soaking in Evapo-Rust. ....

Looks in pretty good nick, Stewie.
I was wondering - do you really need to retract the trailing blade when you are planing with the 79? I would have thought you could just leave it set?

Cheers,

IanW; my personal preference is to retract the trailing blade. There are times when you need work the plane back and forth against a localized area of the rebate wall.

Stewie;