Posts: 850
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2006
I have a #3 Stanley in good shape that doesn't get used much. I'm considering modifying it to use as a shooting plane. So far, I'm thinking of just tapping a hole in the side for a secondary tote shaped like a rounded block of wood. If you have experience with this I'd like to hear your ideas. If you have done this, how did you do your modification and how do you like it?
I need to shoot most crosscut edges now that I have gotten rid of my table saw. I am getting a bit tired of shooting with a block plane, yet I'm not quite ready to put up the bucks for a dedicated shooting plane.
Doug
Posts: 490
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2010
It is a bit small and light for a dedicated shooter imho but I am sure it can work. You will be limited on the size of work it can do easily though...
Posts: 10,118
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: South Alabama
I really think you'd have better success with a #5 or a #6. My #6 works pretty well, even with very small workpieces. The mass of the plane makes for more inertia, which will carry it through the cut more consistently. #5s are still plentiful and relatively cheap.
That said, for very small pieces, your #3 could work okay as long as it's very sharp and the sides are square to the sole. I think you may get frustrated trying to shoot larger pieces with it.
Steve S.
------------------------------------------------------
Tradition cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour.
- T. S. Eliot
Tutorials and Build-Alongs at
The Literary Workshop
Posts: 372
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2008
+1 on the 6, it's heavy, long and wide. the little bit of extra width helps with some shooting boards you may make.
pat
Posts: 13,416
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
What Steve said, minimum #5 if you're going to modify it.
Why not try a trade even up for a #5 in the S&S, someone would be interested.
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
Posts: 124
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
#5's are cheap.... #3's, not so much so. You should be able to get 2 or 3 #5's for your #3.
Occasional musings on my blog:
bridgerberdel.wordpress.com
Posts: 4,333
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: On my own Ignore List
A #3 is too light-weight, too hard to hold, not enough side wall to keep the plane stable. I agree that the #5 is the choice of the readily available bench planes. A low angle jack plane (#5 size) would be somewhat better but you are looking at a new premium plane rather than a much cheaper antique. The ultimate choice is a dedicated shooting plane.
Posts: 10,726
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Orlando, Florida
I think it would work fine for stock 1/4" or less shooting end grain.. As others said, it really doesn't have enough mass or length for thicker stock. I've shot end grain on thin stock with a block plane. IMO, at those thicknesses, being sharp is more important than the mass or length of the plane.
Still Learning,
Allan Hill
Posts: 850
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks to all. You have persuaded me to loosen my grip on my wallet and slide a bit further down the slippery slope.
Handplanes are proof that some people will pay $50/lb or more for a lump of iron. IRONIC, I'd say.
Doug
Posts: 13,842
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2001
I agree with other's I believe the #3 is a little small and light, I use a #4 occasionally but a #6 is my go to plane.
Steve
