Stanley Sweetheart Rabbet Plane (SW12978)

[stillgotten]

Lie Nielsen would have done better copying Stanley planes than making fake improvements. He made the planes heavier because he thought that extra weight was helpful. It is not. If more weight were better, 18th century craftsmen would have added weight to their wooden planes.

He made the irons thicker because he thought they would work better. They are more work to sharpen and offer no advantage. 18th century irons are rather thin. He used A2 steel for the irons, a downgrade from what Stanley used. And he redesigned the cap iron to make it ineffective because he had no idea how to use a double iron plane. High angle frog? Useless to those who know how to use a plane. 

There are certainly a lot of faults to the Stanley rabbet planes. They are not very comfortable to use in a production situation. 

However, a fillister plane (fenced rabbet) is very helpful. That is why we have been using both common fillisters and moving fillisters for centuries. Fast and repeatable. And we sometimes make rabbets wider than one inch. And a square mouth rabbet is helpful when we clean up a rabbet in the left handed direction. A skew rabbet will only work in one direction. That is why both kinds are historic. And we sometimes have rabbets on show surfaces. On mouldings as an example.

Interesting take on LN tools. I've only read the positives here and elsewhere on his planes, I have a few and have nothing bad to say of their usefulness.

You state that the weight of his planes is of no use but what of the argument that moving more mass through the workpiece ultimately results in less work for the user. You only state that if it were better to do so then the craftsmen of the 18th century would have done it, hardly a factual argument but there may be some merit to it 

Also, it's been said the thicker iron helps reduce chatter, I take it you disagree. 
If we are to say that plane chatter is caused by a flexing iron(among other factors) under load then wouldn't a thicker iron help in that regard

I'm far from a woodworking hand tool expert, just regurgitating what I have read and talking from my limited experience with them. But like I said your's is an interesting take, one I haven't read before, That doesn't mean it isn't true just that I haven't run across your view of it.

Not here to be a LN fanboy just discussing differing views, maybe I can learn something from it.

[adamcherubini]

Interesting take on LN tools. I've only read the positives here and elsewhere on his planes, I have a few and have nothing bad to say of their usefulness.

You state that the weight of his planes is of no use but what of the argument that moving more mass through the workpiece ultimately results in less work for the user. You only state that if it were better to do so then the craftsmen of the 18th century would have done it, hardly a factual argument but there may be some merit to it 

Also, it's been said the thicker iron helps reduce chatter, I take it you disagree. 
If we are to say that plane chatter is caused by a flexing iron(among other factors) under load then wouldn't a thicker iron help in that regard

I'm far from a woodworking hand tool expert, just regurgitating what I have read and talking from my limited experience with them. But like I said your's is an interesting take, one I haven't read before, That doesn't mean it isn't true just that I haven't run across your view of it.

Not here to be a LN fanboy just discussing differing views, maybe I can learn something from it.

I have no LN tools, tho I have used them. I think they are finer versions of the original Stanleys in terms of build quality. Especially the little 103. That thing is a jewel compared to the Stanley.  And I don't mind the thick irons on tools, but I sharpen funny.

I recall hearing Deneb once saying that mass was helpful. I think he's right.  When your bench is too high and you hold the back of the plane, you have no other practical way of producing down force.  So a heavier plane probably works better for LOTS of woodworkers.

For me (and Warren) hand planes replace machines. I want the lightest plane I can get, because I go at it pretty hard, and lift it up and down and back and forth pretty fast. Metal planes tire me out. Also, my bench is 2" under palm height.  I lean over my workbench to control the plane and the wood beneath it. But I think I'm in the distinct minority of woodworkers.

For the record, I don't think I can tell the difference between an A2 iron and an O1 iron when I use it.  I'm sure my friend Warren will say he can (gonna miss you at Wmsburg this year, BTW). But when I go to sharpen A2, I hate it.  Feels gummy to me.  Boogers up my stones too.  Doesn't hone crisply. But it could be the stones I used (arks). I could try it again on my diamonds. At least that's my impression.

[CStan]

This rather talented fellow seems to coax pretty good performance out of his L-N planes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIRTAPxG...ilU8Kko9Za

Pay attention at about 1:30 in.

Indian and not the arrow?

[bandit571]

Bench planes:   I usually grab one of my Millers Falls planes...because...I have never had one of their planes chatter.   All the irons in my shop came with the plane they reside in.  

I'll use the 78 both with the grain and across the grain.   I'd use the #45...but...sometimes I just don't feel like changing out the spurs between tasks....I may leave the 45 without  the spurs, to go with the grain, and leave the spur in the 78, and do the end grain....usually when I add a rebate all the way around a raised panel, on the inside.   And that is after raising the panel with a No.4 hand plane....

YMMV...

[stillgotten]

Yes, I absolutely can see where it being a light plane can be much more helpful if you're picking it up and down each stroke, I do not go that route...to each their own.

[wmickley]

Interesting take on LN tools. I've only read the positives here and elsewhere on his planes, I have a few and have nothing bad to say of their usefulness.

You state that the weight of his planes is of no use but what of the argument that moving more mass through the workpiece ultimately results in less work for the user. You only state that if it were better to do so then the craftsmen of the 18th century would have done it, hardly a factual argument but there may be some merit to it 

Also, it's been said the thicker iron helps reduce chatter, I take it you disagree. 
If we are to say that plane chatter is caused by a flexing iron(among other factors) under load then wouldn't a thicker iron help in that regard

I'm far from a woodworking hand tool expert, just regurgitating what I have read and talking from my limited experience with them. But like I said your's is an interesting take, one I haven't read before, That doesn't mean it isn't true just that I haven't run across your view of it.

Not here to be a LN fanboy just discussing differing views, maybe I can learn something from it.

[wmickley]

I think that if extra momentum is needed to keep the plane going it is a sign that control is lacking. Better to take a smaller bite and maintain control. And extra momentum comes at a cost: The worker uses energy to get the momentum going and to stop the momentum at the end of the cut. 

Chatter is caused by poor bedding of the iron. An iron that chatters leaves a corduroy surface because of vibration. This is very different from tear out. A plane bed has to be pretty bad for chatter to occur, especially with a Bailey type plane where the lever cap puts pressure rather near the edge.

The Stanley 78 planes could use improvement. However they are adequate for high quality professional work. I have used one for over forty years, thousands of rabbets. Maybe some of the newer planes are an improvement.