Hand Plane

Ptofimpact

Pete
User
Looking for a suggestion on a basic plane to use on rough sawmill wood to smooth the blade markings. Not very large pieces, some 2-3 feet long. I have a #4, but do not wish to use on the rough stuff.
 

Mike Davis

Mike
Corporate Member
Being a larger man and also not very patient, I use a #6 with the blade ground to an 8 inch crown.
It cuts deep and fast with little effort.

9DBD8EE3-D5A8-49B1-AB8C-1D3176616E66.jpeg
 

Mike Davis

Mike
Corporate Member
From Fine Woodworking L. Williams.

A "scrub plane" doesn't exist in traditional Anglo/American catalogs, literature or inventories. The plane used for what you describe is a fore plane. A fore plane is the length of a jack plane or a little longer and has a cambered iron. These make a lot of sense for dimensioning stock or "thicknessing," as it was called.

The concept of thicknessing is important. Straight, flat and true is assumed and the final critical step is to plane stock to a intended and predetermined thickness. A Stanley type scrub plane used for this is an invitation to trouble. These planes are so aggressive it's easy to foul the intended thickness and end up having to use thinner than intended stock.

You can remove stock just as fast with a fore plane as with a scrub but it's more controlled because you're working with shaving width as much as depth of cut. I used to think a scrub plane was okay for very localized work but then Don McConnell pointed out that, in furniture, he wouldn't want to use a piece of stock with the kinds of stability problems that'd make the scrub plane useful.

A Stanley type scrub plane is very useful to a carpenter for uses like backing out trim or quickly leveling misaligned framing members. There just aren't a lot of uses for a scrub plane at the bench. One might use one on the edge of a piece of stock to make it slightly narrower but then that's what Stanley's old catalogs said was the intended use of their scrub planes.
 

PeteM

Pete
Corporate Member
From Fine Woodworking L. Williams.

A "scrub plane" doesn't exist in traditional Anglo/American catalogs, literature or inventories. The plane used for what you describe is a fore plane. A fore plane is the length of a jack plane or a little longer and has a cambered iron. These make a lot of sense for dimensioning stock or "thicknessing," as it was called.

The concept of thicknessing is important. Straight, flat and true is assumed and the final critical step is to plane stock to a intended and predetermined thickness. A Stanley type scrub plane used for this is an invitation to trouble. These planes are so aggressive it's easy to foul the intended thickness and end up having to use thinner than intended stock.

You can remove stock just as fast with a fore plane as with a scrub but it's more controlled because you're working with shaving width as much as depth of cut. I used to think a scrub plane was okay for very localized work but then Don McConnell pointed out that, in furniture, he wouldn't want to use a piece of stock with the kinds of stability problems that'd make the scrub plane useful.

A Stanley type scrub plane is very useful to a carpenter for uses like backing out trim or quickly leveling misaligned framing members. There just aren't a lot of uses for a scrub plane at the bench. One might use one on the edge of a piece of stock to make it slightly narrower but then that's what Stanley's old catalogs said was the intended use of their scrub planes.

I think that is more one man's opinion rather than absolute fact.

"A "scrub plane" doesn't exist in traditional Anglo/American catalogs, literature or inventories."
Lie Nielson makes one. (OK, so it's not a traditional Anglo/American catalog)

Pretty much every traditional hand tool woodworker on TouTube refers to them. Rob Cosman, Paul Sellers, David Charlesworth, etc.
Search for "scrub plane vs fore plane" and you'll get many diverse opinions.
 

Mike Davis

Mike
Corporate Member
I think this is a big mistake and repetition of bad information over the past 20-30 years so that it is now taken as gospel. In many articles almost the exact wording is used as if it were copied and pasted over and over.
 

PeteM

Pete
Corporate Member
I think this is a big mistake and repetition of bad information over the past 20-30 years so that it is now taken as gospel. In many articles almost the exact wording is used as if it were copied and pasted over and over.
What I was getting at is that none of this should be "taken as gospel". A hand plane is just a fixture to hold a blade that may have a certain degree of camber (or not). If you call it a Scrub, a Fore, a Try, whatever varies from person to person and shop to shop. What matters is whether or not it does the job you want it to.

Here's a quote from "the man" following his appearance on Roy's show:

Christopher Schwarz says:
January 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Jeffrey,
Ah, the difference between a fore and a scrub. Always a good question.
The short answer: they both do similar jobs. The metal scrub is an American adaptation of a traditional European tool for flattening rough-sawn work. The American scrub was popular with carpenters in particular.
The fore plane is the British equivalent of the scrub plane. The British preferred a longer plane for this operation. I happen to prefer a longer plane as well because it makes it easier for me to achieve a flat surface.
With the scrub, I occasionally overshoot my mark and remove too much because of the short sole. Though I have seen scrub plane maestros do the job easily.
Chris
 

Hmerkle

Board of Directors, Development Director
Hank
Staff member
Corporate Member
I don't want to argue with Mike as I respect what he is saying - the foreplane with a cambered or radiused iron is a MUCH better tool for this "roughing job"
I think what we are getting hung-up on is terminology and Stanley might have created the terminology in 1925: The Origin of the Stanley #40 Scrub Plane: A Hypothesis

There is a link to a PWW Swartz article, but I am no longer a subscriber so I couldn't read that... (Maybe that is what Pete is quoting above) but I am going to search for that or something on the LAP blogs since I am sure there is something there...

Now to climb out of this rabbet hole and head for home...
 

Mike Davis

Mike
Corporate Member
Mr. Swartz seems to be saying the same as Mr. Williams and the same as I practice. You can plane a fireplace mantle with a number 3 smoother but that doesn’t mean you should when a bigger plane will do the job faster, easier, and with much less effort.
 

Mike Davis

Mike
Corporate Member
I don't want to argue with Mike as I respect what he is saying - the foreplane with a cambered or radiused iron is a MUCH better tool for this "roughing job"
I think what we are getting hung-up on is terminology and Stanley might have created the terminology in 1925: The Origin of the Stanley #40 Scrub Plane: A Hypothesis

There is a link to a PWW Swartz article, but I am no longer a subscriber so I couldn't read that... (Maybe that is what Pete is quoting above) but I am going to search for that or something on the LAP blogs since I am sure there is something there...

Now to climb out of this rabbet hole and head for home...
The vid you posted agrees with my statements here.

 

Premier Sponsor

Our Sponsors

Top