Thread: Accuracy of new No. 62 low angle Jack.

Firstly you should really measure for square with an engineers square; combination squares are good enough for carpentry but I’d never trust one unless I calibrated it myself.

Secondly, but more relevant; for a shooting board having the sole square to the sides isn’t important. It’s the blade that needs to be square. I have a very nasty Aus Stanley 4C and a shooting board made from 2 bits of MDF with a hardwood fence screwed on that I use to demonstrate shooting, showing that you don’t need an expensive setup to achieve perfect squareness. Do a test cut; measure for square and adjust via the lateral adjuster as required.

What brand of LA jack are you using? I have the Luban version that I bought predominantly as a shooting plane just before I was gifted a Stanley 51. I still use it for shooting wide boards freehand to a knife line.

who is the maker?

A couple of years ago, i bought an LN 62 that was right at their spec (or may have been just outside of it). it was hollow in its length and could not plane a flat board. I corrected it and made it flat, and then sold it later.

Around the same time, someone on one of the other forums reported having an LV shooting plane that was well out of square. I don't remember the resolution - I think it was returned. the incidence of tools out of spec seems to have increased some in the covid chaos and as far as I know, but LN and LV have been adding tooling or replacing tooling.

I would be surprised if suddenly this went away, and wouldn't be surprised to see incompletely finished chinese copies of the LN tools (luban, WR, etc) as even Rob Cosman on a video that someone posted here described going over WR planes before sending them out with a few nits not complete.

Not sure what you have for fixed tools that are known accurate. My comments about the LN 62 are based on using fixed machinist tools, but to be fair, none of my better quality combination squares are out of straight on the rule or out of square enough that they would make an error on the order of 2 thousandths. .15mm is about 6 thousandths in our yo yo measurement system here. if you have something that far out of square, any square good enough for use should not lead you astray.

I'd measure from the sole onto the sides, though. It'd be pretty easy to be off 2 thousandths at the cheek and not think too much about it.

The discussion of tolerances reminds me of two cherries chisels. In the distant past, I had a set of hirsch chisels (another sticker on the same chisels from the same maker - kiirschen or something). The spec said 61 hardness, and there was a dent in the tools.

The dent showed that each had been hardness tested, but they seemed a bit soft. I thought maybe it was "just the steel" and sold them at some point in general clean out.

the only versitron results I've seen from those chisels is a hardness around 58 or 59. The spec is 61, the tools are tested ...what happens when the spec is known and the tools are tested and they're sent not matching the listing, anyway. Probably not much usually - a lot of beginners and acquirers assuming it's them. Sometimes it is the user, sometimes it isn't.

seeing that a tool claims to be checked in 400 places doesn't help much - you want the plane to be flat and square if that's what's described, not just measured.

someone at kirschen denting the chisels with a diamond cone tester would've seen that the chisels were softer than the listing spec - the error of a hardness tester like that is a fraction of a point on flat items, and not hard to achieve. The decision to make probably a whole lot of them soft intentionally or unintentionally could've been on purpose, or could've been because the spec didn't have a guarantee and 58 or 59 was close enough.

It's not that much work to hardness test something (I generally do it on every chisel - as a matter of making sure something isn't wrong) and the further answer from that is not "what good is the test", but rather "it's important if the heat treatment is a splash system and chrome manganese steel because some chisels may be 40 or 32 and not just 3 points off".

Also, a follow up question about average variance is incomplete. is the variance between points measured an inch apart? the trend diamond plates claimed to be 0.0005" flatness, which sounds great. It was a spec per inch, though, and when they came out, its' my belief they are a $10 hone made in china with a lot of creative marketing. I've not gotten any of those hones directly out of china that were substantially unflat.

On the razor forums - flatness of a coarse hone is very very important, and people will try anything. if ezelap is less and works fine, or did, or DMT or whatever, someone will buy the trend hone anyway, to see if it's better. there was a fair amount of grumbling that the trend plates were not flat enough for razors and troublesome in a sharpening rotation. But they may have met their .0005 flatness per inch spec and been several thousandths hollow or undulating in their length.

the web site's average variances don't do you any good, anyway - they describe something that isn't specifically your tool. The 12 micron thing sounds impossibly small in measurement, but a good machinist shop in the US with someone who knows that planes flex and need light finish cuts would get that as a maximum error anywhere in the length of a sole if machining a plane with some patience.

I second what the Chief said - a plane doesn't have to have perfectly square sides to shoot a square end on a board. Lateral adjustment can compensate for some out-of-square, but you can also bias each stroke to achieve what you need. We were taught to shoot with very ordinary bench planes (whose squareness was never checked by anyone afaik) by "leaning" on the plane according to where you want it to remove most wood.

For a supposedly fine-tolerance plane to be out by 0.15mm (6 thou") is a bit surprising, but not a killer, that can be compensated by technique, but I could not use a plane that had a concavity in the sole of that magnitude, that would be a fatal flaw. Technique is just as important, if not more so when shooting, you can easily make a mess with a perfectly square, perfectly set, plane if you don't pay attention to what you are doing - damhik!

Cheers,

there is a two part answer to this question:
* if the plane advertises that it's square and it's very far from that, is that acceptable - absolutely not. It's priced as if it's square.

* can you shoot edges or ends with it even if it's not perfectly square. Usually, yes.

I got carried away a little bit talking about what seems to be ever increasing lack of adherence to tolerance. Or maybe we're all just checking it. I'd love to dent the hirsch chisels now that I have a hardness tester, but they're long gone.

I had some other duds that weren't hard - sometimes very far off - and those would be interesting, too.

Thanks to Chief Tiff, Ian and Dw for your replies. Your answers put the problem into perspective. I was originally thinking that as the plane was just short of $500 and advertised as being flat and square that is what I was expecting.

I'm a bit reluctant to name the brand because my plane's problems might a very rare occurrence. Unfortunately it does not have a lateral adjustment feature which would make things a lot easier. I can adjust the cut by placing a couple of strips of blue tape on the base of the shooting board to slightly raise the piece and get accurate cuts.

It's a relatively minor(although disappointing problem) so I think I will leave it there and get back to woodworking.

Thanks everyone.
Safari

Chief and Ian are spot on: blade angle in the plane body ('left to right', so to speak), negates out of squareness, and is much more variable (not that this absolves the manufacturer from honouring their promises...). You may wish to have a 'shooting specific' blade that is honed dead straight, without a camber.
In addition, I have in the past taken a tip from the late, great David Charlesworth, and made use of paper shims of repeatable thickness: a piece of (say) copy paper, or a post-it note, at a known position along the fence, will subtly alter the angle of the piece being shot - which is another way of adjusting, repeatably, to very precise tolerance. This can be in either the vertical or horizontal plane, wherever the 'problem' angle is. (just like the blue tape solution you mention...)

Originally Posted by safari

I was originally thinking that as the plane was just short of $500 and advertised as being flat and square that is what I was expecting.

I'm a bit reluctant to name the brand because my plane's problems might a very rare occurrence.

I agree it is unfair to a business or brand to cop flak without having an opportunity to address the matters raised.

I believe you have a reasonable expectation for the product to meet their stated tolerances, given their claim "We believe it is the highest performing production Low Angle Jack available." and that they make such a fuss about their quality control and use of industrial metrology. The product is marketed as a premium tool, so it should be!

Contact the business who sold you the plane, not the manufacturer, to discuss the perceived issues (how accurate are your squares???). They may be able to resolve them for you or offer an exchange / replacement / refund and / or escalate the matter to the manufacturer..

Under Australian Consumer Law you have rights as a consumer and the selling business must address your concerns about the products quality not meeting advertised specifications.

Repair, replace, refund, cancel | ACCC

Originally Posted by safari

I'm a bit reluctant to name the brand because my plane's problems might a very rare occurrence. Unfortunately it does not have a lateral adjustment feature which would make things a lot easier.

No lateral adjustment; are you sure? The Luban/Woodriver/Quengshin, Melbourne Tool Company, Stanley SW and Veritas models use a Norris style adjuster; in fact as far as I'm aware only the Lie Nielson may omit an adjuster (never seen one in the flesh). Otherwise though; go old school like the original Stanley 62 and simply tap the end of the blade left to right as required.

Originally Posted by Chief Tiff

No lateral adjustment; are you sure? The Luban/Woodriver/Quengshin, Melbourne Tool Company, Stanley SW and Veritas models use a Norris style adjuster; in fact as far as I'm aware only the Lie Nielson may omit an adjuster (never seen one in the flesh). Otherwise though; go old school like the original Stanley 62 and simply tap the end of the blade left to right as required.

From their website:

Our first design change was to add more weight to the sole of the plane, lower the centre of gravity, to get the advantage we had enjoyed with the No 5. We looked at lateral adjustment of the blade but decided we would keep the plane simple, a snug fit for the blade with some lateral adjustment room. A Norris adjuster would give lateral movement but the design of a low angle plane blade height from the base and the positioning of the handle would have required a very short Norris adjuster which would be far too sensitive due to the lever physics when lateral adjustment was attempted.

Thanks Picko - now I understand what we are dealing with..

Their ad copy does say there is room for lateral adjustment in your plane, safari. If you find it awkward to tap the end of the blade with a small hammer, the method I use may do the trick - insert a screwdriver between blade I side & twist to move the blade in the desired direction. There is probably limited room for adjustment and with low-angle planes this is a bit of a nuisance because the blade has to move through a larger arc to get the same alteration in cutting depth compared with a blade bedded at 45*. So you'll need to be very accurate when regrinding your blade.

Tbh, I would be a bit peeved if I'd shelled out half a grand for a plane that makes such bold claims to super-accuracy if it transpired it was out by as much as yours seems to be, notwithstanding that I could learn to live with it. I paid far less for my Chinese 62 clone, and would have accepted it being a little out of true, but it's spot-on, & after dealing with a very minor teething problem (a couple of dags of metal not properly removed from the blade bed preventing full lateral adjustment), it's a very good plane.
Cheers,

at that price, if it's advertised square, I'd return it and get one that's square.

Goes back to my original post - we have been fed the line that all CNC manufacturing is better for accuracy, and it's probably better on average. We should not need to settle for duds that aren't any better than an older plane that never was intended to be used on its side in the first place.

I'd like to see someone do a stroke test on the 10V iron, too. I have one here, but from a small production shop in the US. On paper, the numbers are promising. It's as tough as XHP(V11) but with much more wear resistance and double that of A2 (XHP is double O1).

But in my use, both at 60 hardness and after rehardening to 64, something about a volume of vanadium carbides in an edge equals not picking up a shaving as easily when it dulls, so the promise is lost.

There are other steels like that - 52100 wears the same length in a machine test as O1 and it's tougher, but it doesn't pick up a shaving as easily while it's dulling.

For what's probably about $350 USD, you should have a square plane. you can live with the iron if it's 10V - I think it was a good try choosing it, but would rather have a higher hardness plane steel iron personally - too, vs. V11.

Sort of went outside of the venn diagram of subject material at hand here, but if someone really advertises hard on greatness, make sure you get that and not something you may get cold on later and want to sell, but can't because it's out of square.

If there's room for lateral adjustment, then the iron will not by default cut even thickness shavings unless adjusted. If your plane doesn't have a Norris adjuster, then it's done by tapping the sides.

Adjusting a plane to cut even shavings and then rely on perfectly square sides to shoot square is no more advantageous than just adjusting the plane until it shoots square, regardless of how square the sides are. In fact it is more limiting.

There's a caveat there - if the wood is supported ahead of and behind the iron in hardwoods, the function will be better. At some point when the iron is projecting unevenly, there is less support. When that becomes critical, I don't know.

The one easy thing to say in terms of what's true or not is if you can see the iron projection on a plane and set it so that it looks visually identical when looking straight down the plane, the wood you plane will also be square to the point that it's visually closed.

But I don't think even when something works "well enough" and not perfect, it's a big deal - there's a whole lot more in the finished piece that comes from thinking and doing and feeling rather than relying on everything to be just right. The idea that everything is shot really has no historical precedent unless one is talking about long edges - that's explicitly mentioned in nicholson, and perhaps musical instrument soundboards (and thin things).

The discussion of shooting ends on everything starts who knows when - 1975?

it's worth a serious discussion with oneself to ask if cutting and fitting to the mark (even if the cut has to be done by hand) is a lot better than trying to deal with a bunch of power tool cuts and then shoot everything - it's really limiting at some point beyond just enjoyment and tedium being a problem.