Lie Nielsen Shoot Board

[john brenton]

The olde-timey and twangy "You can make that so easy" song is old. I think that shooting board is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

[David Weaver]

When I'd read they were going to be making a board I'd assumed it'd be 12"x16" or larger, although expandable would be nice too.

Jim

I think few cabinetmakers and joiners in the past shot edges on anything larger than very small pieces. If the wood is big enough to support a block plane, you can more quickly mark it, saw just shy of the mark and plane to it. Doing that would present a bigger problem on tiny work, where the shoot board is more handy.

But I don't know for sure what cabinetmakers did, I know it's easier for me to put a piece in a vise if it's not very small, and just clean it up to the mark with a block plane.

[Mike Henderson]

The olde-timey and twangy "You can make that so easy" song is old. I think that shooting board is sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

It all depends on whether you have more time or more money. But of all the tools in a shop, a shooting board is one of the easiest to make.

Mike

[Jim Matthews]

Isn't this a reproduction of a Stanley tool?

I bought Tico's version and love it.
I wouldn't want to lug around a casting this large...

[george wilson]

Aren't all LN tools copies of Stanleys,basically?

[Jack Curtis]

Aren't all LN tools copes of Stanleys,basically?

More like "in the style of" than copies.

[Derek Cohen]

I have long wondered whom the original target was for the Stanley #51/52? My feeling is that it was the gentleman woodworker originally, or the "technically orientated" professional owing to its cost. The same target remains so for present times - fancy shmancy shooting boards, whether the cast iron model or the furniture I build, are not necessary ... but they are oh so nice to use!

For those interested, I did review the LN #51 here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...tingPlane.html



One of the best upgrades to make on any shooting board is (what I termed) a running fence, which comes off the #52 ...



Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMad...tingBoard.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

on dovetailed pieces, I've been experimenting with not shooting the end at all - since I'm going to plane the tails to flush everything up twice, why do it twice? It's worked better than I expected. I mark the baselines with a square and knife, referencing the edge, rather than a marking gauge.

Sometimes I think the traditional way was just to be better at sawing rather than shooting every edge.

[Joe Cunningham]

Sometimes I think the traditional way was just to be better at sawing rather than shooting every edge.

I'd guess so too. When you saw all day, every day, you'd probably get darn good at it. I saw a lot on individual projects, but then tend to have a lot of time when I can't get in the shop, so my saw skills get a bit rusty.

Interesting idea on the DT's, that actually occurred to me when reading this thread, but I've never done it. Maybe I'll try it on my next drawer project.

[Derek Cohen]

on dovetailed pieces, I've been experimenting with not shooting the end at all - since I'm going to plane the tails to flush everything up twice, why do it twice? It's worked better than I expected. I mark the baselines with a square and knife, referencing the edge, rather than a marking gauge.

Sometimes I think the traditional way was just to be better at sawing rather than shooting every edge.

I don't follow this. If you working to a reference, such as a drawer opening, the pin board (which fill the opening) must not change size. You are more likely to flush down sides (with the tails). The pins and tails are dimensioned against one another, depending on which is made first.

With joints that do not meet a reference, that is, do not have a specific dimension such as a box, then go ahead and plane them to fit. All you are doing is referencing off a side rather than the length.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sean Richards]

I have long wondered whom the original target was for the Stanley #51/52? My feeling is that it was the gentleman woodworker originally, or the "technically orientated" professional owing to its cost.
Derek

I think the intended target was more likely patternmakers and joinery shops - we didn't have one in the pattern shop where I worked for a while but it would have been useful. Patrick Leach also suggests they were used in the printing trade

[Jim Matthews]

Patrick Leach also suggests they were used in the printing trade

That's interesting.... what's the application in a print shop?
I'm appalled that these methods were not well known, or easily researched.

I feel as if we've thrown out years of ingenuity, and feel needlessly ignorant as a result.
(That, and I'm paying big money to learn the simple skills I would have acquired in shop class, had I only paid attention.)

[Chris Griggs]

I don't follow this. If you working to a reference, such as a drawer opening, the pin board (which fill the opening) must not change size. You are more likely to flush down sides (with the tails). The pins and tails are dimensioned against one another, depending on which is made first.

With joints that do not meet a reference, that is, do not have a specific dimension such as a box, then go ahead and plane them to fit. All you are doing is referencing off a side rather than the length.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I think he's just saying that instead of marking the the baseline from the end of the board he strikes a square line. My guess is he he paying attention to the spacing between the shoulders/baseline. My impression is that he is still dimensioning to consistent sizes just not bothering to shoot end grain for cleanup purposes alone since you go back and flush up the endgrain of the pins and tails after the box is assembled.


EDIT: Oh!!! I just reread your post, i see what your getting at...flushing down the long gain on the sides not end grain. Ignore my above explanation... I misunderstood your query.... that would pose a problem for me as well (with drawers anyway)

[ian maybury]

Performance of the plane aside (and it seems likely per Derek's review that an angled blade in a well made tool contributes a lot to the performance of a shooting board) cast iron seems an expensive way of making a shooting board unless it adds something to its functionality.

It'd seem a pity to go that far without maximising the use of what is an expensive material. Fully exploited it should open up some additional possibilities, but it's not too clear which the LN unit delivers:

(a) Dimensional stability - presumably a given?

(b) Guidance of the plane - the adjustable outer rail on the LN unit that retains the plane looks useful.

(c) Low wear of the plane sole and the rubbing surface of the inner rail - is the LN set up metal to metal?

(d) Ability to maintain the vertical orientation of the sole of the plane - some ability to shim or pack the rails (rather than depending on the side of the plane being precisely square) might add something since all planes are not precisely square. Maybe even an adjustable angle set up if it could be made solid and reliable enough?

(e) Ability to accurately set and maintain the angle (in the horizontal plane) of the stop/cross fence - it'd help a lot if this was both finely adjustable, and if it could be accurately returned to a previous setting.

(f) Not sure how it would work out, but would an extended fence with the ability to clamp work to it while using a distance stop be useful?

(g) Supporting the downstream edge of the work to prevent blow out is an important part of the function of a traditional shooting board. This presumably requires the end face of the fence being set very close to the blade, but since it's metal it clearly can't touch it - wonder if the LN has a smart way to get around this issue?

There are no doubt more possibilities, perhaps (not sure how practical it might be) LH and RH flip over capability for example???

ian

[Harlan Barnhart]

That's interesting.... what's the application in a print shop?
I'm appalled that these methods were not well known, or easily researched.

I feel as if we've thrown out years of ingenuity, and feel needlessly ignorant as a result.
(That, and I'm paying big money to learn the simple skills I would have acquired in shop class, had I only paid attention.)

I think they were used to square up/prep lead blocks. I have seen planes of a similar design on ebay that were purpose made for shearing lead.