778

[Admiral]

Got a Grizzly flyer, and they have a knockoff of the Record 778 rabbet plane for $50. This is a rough work plane, as was the 778. Dual fence posts. Worth your consideration if you are in the market for one. Google Grizzly H 7567.

[Bibliophile 13]

That's tempting, though part of me is skeptical because there are quite a few ways to ruin a tool like that. I'd like to see the other side of it. And is there a depth stop?

[GNP]

Flyer mentions a depth stop.

[Tony Z]

Give Grizz credit for this picture: several years ago, when this plane first came out, they had it pictured with the fence on upside down!

[Cian]

Tony Z said:

---

Give Grizz credit for this picture: several years ago, when this plane first came out, they had it pictured with the fence on upside down!

---

Hehe. I believe that's how they get delivered in the box.

[Tony Z]

I have a new in box Record 778. Too nice to use! Whatever is closer at hand, I use my LV or my Montgomery Ward tagged Stanley 78. These are crude tools, so I imigine the Grizz tool could be servicable.

I do need a Stanley A78, to add to my accumulations of all Stanley aluminum tools.

[Admiral]

Has depth stop. I have a Record 778 and it's great, but really, a 78 is not a its not a precision tool, it is for roughing out, and this may do the job admirably.

[MKepke]

Err..why are we calling a #78 a roughing plane?

It isn't a terribly sophisticated tool but is capable of sending work directly to finishing.

Assuming the plane itself was made and adjusted properly.

-Mark

[Admiral]

It is not designed as a fine woodworking tool, but designed for fast stock removal by carpenters, with the fine tuning to be done with a rabbet or shoulder plane, the "90" series by Stanley. That being said, you can do precise work with it, but it takes some adjustment and fiddling. One of the reasons a 778 is better is the dual rod fence is more stout, as the 78 fence can have some slop or inaccuracy in it; hence the use for roughing out with the fine tuning being done with other planes.

Stanley made a higher end 78, the 278, check it out in Blood and Gore; then there was the skewed 289, which is pretty much like a 78 but the skewed iron makes for a real nice cutting plane; but the 278 and 289 have fences distinct from the 78 which that are more robust and the hole for the rod is centered, which makes the fence more effective and more capable in my book; I had a 289, but sold it (its not all that common, and collectors love them, they like the 278 even more because of its design and relative scarcity) and bought the Veritas version when it first came out, which as the dual rod fence, is much more user friendly and is a real cadillac of rabbeting planes that IS capable of doing quite fine work.

Now, this is only my experience from using them, others may differ, but that's it in a nutshell. All this being said, I still have a 78 in my user traveling toolbox, and a Record 778, with is superior to the 78 IMHO, principally because of the fence. What I wish it had was the little thumb hold that the Sargent version of the 78 had, some of the Craftsman versions made by Sargent have them too. Anant makes an A78, basically a knockoff of the Record 778, that actually has a front knob affixed to the bullnose section, which I'm thinking of fabricating for my Record. Here's a pic of that below. Highland Hardware used to sell it, but haven't for a while now, don't know if its imported at all to the US.

I'll shut up now, I'm starting to ramble.......

[MKepke]

Admiral said:

---

It is not designed as a fine woodworking tool, but designed for fast stock removal by carpenters, with the fine tuning to be done with a rabbet or shoulder plane, the "90" series by Stanley. That being said, you can do precise work with it, but it takes some adjustment and fiddling. One of the reasons a 778 is better is the dual rod fence is more stout, as the 78 fence can have some slop or inaccuracy in it; hence the use for roughing out with the fine tuning being done with other planes.
<snip>

---

OK, I can't disagree much with that assessment..it works for furniture-making, but its fiddly for precise work.

And not for fine work across the grain, i.e. where someone will see the results.

-Mark