Thread: Usefulness of Jack Rabbet Plane

Originally Posted by Tiger

In the classic book Hand Tools and their workings, the Jack Rabbet plane is mentioned as being a very useful hand plane, do the Darksiders consider it so? I can't see a lot of value in it but maybe I'm missing something.

I read that book and the consideration for jack rabbet surprised me too.
I have got one (Stanley #10) but I have not had a real need for use it much.

Ciao
Giuliano

Hi Tiger. Many, many years ago when I was beginning my journey into hand tools in a serious way, I lusted after a #10. It seemed like the answer to quite a few problems wrapped up in a single package. I never did get my hands on one, and over time, came to realise I could live very happily without it, as I acquired other tools that did their jobs very well. A decent standard jack is likely to be much cheaper to get your hands on, and does a very good job of being a jack plane. For rebating & cleaning up tenon faces, I like my 78, and when you need to slice a fraction or two of a thou off a shoulder, nothing comes close to a good dedicated shoulder plane for that job.

I did pick up its little brother at a sale once. They are the size of a #3, so not really what you are asking about. I probably should have left it alone, because it was obvious it had had a very hard time at the hands of some tool vandal, but the price seemed reasonable & I'm a sucker for a challenge & an interesting bit of metal. I have never been able to make that thing sing, though I admit I haven't put a huge amount of time into it. After a few hours of mucking about with it, it worked, but not very well. Because I have better choices, it stays in the tool cupboard for years at a time. I should get rid of it to someone who is able to kick it into shape (or would like to try) but it intrigues me, and I keep telling myself I will haul it out & make a serious attempt to fettle it one day, just for the challenge, but I suspect it will be sitting in its place as-is when I close my tool chest for the last time.....

Cheers,

Thanks Guiliano and Ian. I already have a Jack Plane but Aldren Watson in his book praises this Jack Rabbet Plane and I was wondering just how useful it is, sounds of limited value though.

Tiger
I've always considered the Jack Rabbet to be more for carpentry than furniture.
They're very useful for making door jams and window sills, but in my mind too big for furniture where the #78, and it's ilk, and shoulder planes are more useful.

That said, my desert island tool kit would include the LN#10-1/2 because there I'd want to be able to make door jams

Originally Posted by ian

Tiger
I've always considered the Jack Rabbet to be more for carpentry than furniture.
They're very useful for making door jams and window sills, but in my mind too big for furniture where the #78, and it's ilk, and shoulder planes are more useful.

That said, my desert island tool kit would include the LN#10-1/2 because there I'd want to be able to make door jams

Never thought about it for carpentry, maybe for sliding dovetails or raised panels perhaps.

Well, whaddaya know! By a strange coincidence, my brother just gave me an old Stanley 10.5. On a quick inspection it looked to be in good nick, but it had been lying in a semi-open shed for some time, so had a good coat of rust & grime. Notice the well-shaped Rosewood tote, so probably no later than early 50's? (pic 1).

Cleaned it up this morning, and gave it a test-drive (pic 2). I haven't done much other than a clean-up, and swapped the original blade (2mm thick) for the new one (2.25mm thick) that I bought for the Record 010.5 I've had for a long time.

Initial impressions are that it's a bit better than the Record (right in pic 3). It's possible a little more fettling will improve it a fraction, but not a lot. My conviction that these little fellows are not capable of really fine performance because of those cantilevered frogs has hardened somewhat.

Still, a useful keeper - have to find a good home for the old Record, now...

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Initial impressions are that it's a bit better than the Record. It's possible a little more fettling will improve it a fraction, but not a lot. My conviction that these little fellows are not capable of really fine performance because of those cantilevered frogs has hardened somewhat.

I was wondering how the Stanley performed compared with the Record. The Stanleys have a pre-Bailey "cantilevered" frog, while the Records have a standard Bailey type frog supported a the mouth (not cantilevered, but identical to their No.03 frog AFAICT).

I thought the Record "Bailey" design might perform better, but I guess you haven't found that to be the case. Ironic isn't it, that Record copied Stanley's "Bailey" design on their Rabbets, but Stanley stuck with their earlier frog design

Cheers, Vann.

Originally Posted by Vann

I was wondering how the Stanley performed compared with the Record. The Stanleys have a pre-Bailey "cantilevered" frog, while the Records have a standard Bailey type frog supported a the mouth (not cantilevered, but identical to their No.03 frog AFAICT).

Vann, are you talking about the 10/010 or the little brother? The 10 1/2 frog is cantilevered on both the Record & the Stanley that I have. By that I mean there is only one mating surface on the sole, & the part of the frog that projects forward & supports the end of the blade stands a little proud of the sole. They seem to me to be almost identical, mechanically.

My tone might have sounded a bit too critical - both these planes work ok, and would satisfy most, depending on what they expect them to be able to do. They are useful multi-purpose tools, but I can't see either of mine doing as good a job as single-purpose planes like a dedicated smoother, for example. They are quite good at trimming large tenons or cleaning up rebates, which is what I use mine for. I wouldn't reach for it to smooth a bit of cranky grain, for example!

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Vann, are you talking about the 10/010 or the little brother? The 10 1/2 frog is cantilevered on both the Record & the Stanley that I have.

Hmmm... I was looking at the big brother (I have both Stanley & Record - both untouched and unused since I acquired them recently ). I do have little brother (the Record 10 1/2). I'll have to have a look at it tonight - I just assumed it too would have the "Bailey" type frog (i.e. front supported low down by the mouth; rear supported higher up, above the frog adjuster screw).

I'll get back to you.

Cheers, Vann.

Originally Posted by IanW

Vann, are you talking about the 10/010 or the little brother? The 10 1/2 frog is cantilevered on both the Record & the Stanley that I have. By that I mean there is only one mating surface on the sole, & the part of the frog that projects forward & supports the end of the blade stands a little proud of the sole. They seem to me to be almost identical, mechanically.

I finally got around to taking out the frogs in both my Record #010 1/2 and my Stanley #10.

The Stanley certainly has the "cantilevered" frog, or what Blood & Gore refers to as Stanley's "second major design".

My Record however has the "Bailey" type frog seat, identical to a Record No.3, and the same as Blood & Gore calls Stanley's "third design" with the stepped frog base (the lower step of which beds just behind the mouth), just like your average common-or-garden Stanley-Bailey.

I would have thought this design (supported at the mouth) would have resulted in less chatter and therefore better results (even if the frog adjusting screw is superfluous).

I'm also very surprised that you say your Record #010 1/2 has the previous cantilevered design. That can't be right, can it? AFAIK Record never made planes with that design of frog/base.

Neither of my rabbets are up and running (both are summer, or even retirement projects) as both need new handles, so I'm very interested in your comments.

Cheers, Vann.

,,

Oh dear! It pays to double-check before shooting my mouth off. It's been a very long time since I last dismantled the Record, and in that time, someone has gone & changed the frog mounting!

Vann you are absolutely & utterly 100 percent correct. As the pics clearly show, the Record DOES have the machined mating surfaces behind the mouth for the toe of the frog to sit on, while the Stanley has the uniplanar mount with a cantilevered toe. I plead advancing age & degenerating memory, m'lord.

It's interesting that despite my fiddling with the Record a few times after I got it, it does not work as well as the Stanley. I would have intuited that the frog of the Record would sit more solidly & give a better performance. I do notice that during the time since the Record frog was last dismantled, quite a bit of rust has formed on the machined bits of the toe of the frog and where they should have been sitting firmly on the sole. This indicates they are NOT mating. Looks like a job for a scraper & some layout dye, to see if I can get it to seat a bit more securely. Maybe it will come up a winner after all.....

Cheers,

If it's any consolation Ian, I didn't even notice that the frog on my Stanley 10 1/2 was cantilevered when I tuned it up, or perhaps I have forgotten that. It works very well though but can't see why the Record shouldn't be at least as good either.

Originally Posted by IanW

Looks like a job for a scraper & some layout dye, to see if I can get it to seat a bit more securely. Maybe it will come up a winner after all.....

And if that doesn't work we'll just have to trade them all in on new No.10s from Lie-Nielsen - Bedrock frogs, side knickers, tilting handles and thick irons.


Maybe a forum bulk order (I wonder what TS is up to....)

Cheers, Vann.

Originally Posted by Vann

And if that doesn't work we'll just have to trade them all in on new No.10s from Lie-Nielsen - Bedrock frogs, side knickers, tilting handles and thick irons.

I guess it could replace a few tools & cut the clutter in my tool cupboard a little! Nah, Vann - if I repeat the mantra "I have all the tools I need" often enough, I WILL eventually convince myself........

mic-d - thanks for the understanding, but I am at the age where I ought to know well enough that memory plays tricks, and to check my facts! In this case, I think my brain was confusing the Record 010.5 with a #3 Stanley I once had. It was an el-cheapo model and pained blue (how's that for a bit of reverse-flattery - or were they just too ashamed to paint it black??). This thing most definitely had a cantilevered frog, but worse, the bed was not even machined where the frog was supposed to seat. I mucked about with that thing endlessly, including milling the frog seat, but nothing I could do eliminated the chatter at what I thought was pretty mild provocation. I gave it to my then 8 year-old son, who teated with the contempt it deserved. When last seen, it was rusting quietly in some far corner of the yard......

Anyway, all's well & all that. I'm reasonably happy with the performance of the Stanley 10.5, which is working well enough to earn its place in the tool chest, and now I have re-examined the Record, I can see it might just respond to a bit of tweaking of those contact points. So I have something to muck about with next time I feel like tackling metal instead of wood.

Cheers,