Stanley #78 as a shoulder plane.

[keith micinski]

There is a cheap Stanley #78 plane in the classifieds and I was wondering what you guys thought about this as a cheap shoulder plane. I don't know that I would use one much but it looks like to clean up the odd tenon or two this would get the job done.

[Jim Koepke]

The shoulder plane has a lower blade angle. It is also easier to handle on the shoulders of tenons.

In my experience it is also easier to get a shoulder plane to take a very thin shaving. I have not yet had this ability with my Record #78 equivalent.

The #78 is a good tool to have in the shop for certain jobs, but it is not really well suited for trimming shoulders.

jtk

[Andrew Gibson]

I use my 78 more then I thought I would when I bought it. I use it mostly for fine tunning groves for fitting drawer bottoms and the like.
I really don't think it would work well for adjusting tenon cheeks or other end grain type work where you would use a shoulder plane.

Edit... oops I was thinking 79. I have used my 78 to make cross grain rabbets, however you do have to make sure you score the work and take light cuts, even still you may get tearout.

[keith micinski]

OK thanks, it still seems like I might have a use for it so I might have to keep an eye on it.

[Dan Andrews]

I got a #78 thrown in with a #7 I was buying at a rummage sale. The front overhanging part of the frame was broken off and the fence was missing. I figured it would be good for a spare iron or other parts for my good 78. I don't have a shoulder plane but needed one so I gave the broken 78 a try. It was OK for light cuts on the cheeks and usable for the end grain of the shoulder by taking very light cuts. Overall it was usable until I get a shoulder plane, but certainly not a great substitute for one.

[Frank Drew]

I really like my Redcord 778 and if the iron is really keen it will trim a shoulder nicely, almost as well as a true shoulder plane. Of course, it works best as a rabbet plane and I prefer it to the Stanley 78 (two fence rods on the Record is reason enough.)

[Frank Drew]

Unable to correct my typo above -- that should read Record 778.