The Veritas Shooting Plane

[Malcolm Schweizer]

If it didn't cut squarely then I would blame the shooting board, not the plane.

[paul cottingham]

Btw, great review, Derek.

[Charlie Stanford]

Btw, great review, Derek.

Three reasons it wouldn't plane square: 1) shooting board itself; 2) plane; 3) user.

Not necessarily in that order.

If you're reading a review about a shooting board plane I think it's reasonable to see something included in the review referring to the plane's ability to do what it was designed to do -- produce a square end on a board (or a prescribed angle), and not withstand a patently absurd test of edge longevity on species less than 1% of the people who will ever buy the plane will actually ever use. That's my take on it. Sorry if that rankles you Paul.

[Harold Burrell]

Gary, I'd be tickled to death to review one and will promptly do so when I receive one free like Derek did. But actually he reviewed his own work since he was involved in design and prototyping. If he panned the plane then he would have been panning his own work. Objective? Not really.

Sounds like his wasn't so "free" after all. I mean, if he was involved in the making of it, it then stands to reason that he would get one in return.

[David Weaver]

I think we got the point about PM steel from other reviews of yours. I don't see anything in this review of the new Lee Valley shooting plane that mentions whether or not the plane produced squared boards --

Plenty of people must've thought this was one of the most hilarious "questions" they've seen so far.

"Questions" is in quotes, because it has to be revised to include throwing shiny hooks. I can't believe anyone would actually ask that out loud and not delete it after they thought about it for a second. Really, I can't.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I really am tired of the snarky, sophomoric, baiting responses to this thread. A lot of this is not the level of civility expected at SawMillCreek.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

If someone feels that a post or poster is out of line or violating the TOSs. Report the post. Reported posts create a thread in the Moderator's Forum and all Moderators can see it.

When an individuals posts are reported often enough, there is evidence that all the Moderators can see. Then it's easy to justify removing someone's posting privileges.

[Pedro Reyes]

Three reasons it wouldn't plane square: 1) shooting board itself; 2) plane; 3) user.

Of these you can't expect anyone to review 1 much less 3, and I think it has been demonstrated enough that a company like Lee Valley can hit 90 degrees pretty consistently... I found the review useful.


On the other debate...

Skewing the blade (to direction of travel) lowers the angle, in This case by about 2 degrees. Angling the board does two things (assuming the blade is not skewed), it spreads the wear along more of the blade width, and it reduces the initial shock of meeting at the full board thickness.

In an angled board with a skewed blade, you still get the lowered angle benefit from the skew, you also spread the wear, but if you angle the board at the same angle of skew you lose the benefit of starting at a corner and instead shock at that full board width.

I also believe that while the initial shock is reduced on angled boards, throughout the majority of the cut you need more force to cut since you are cutting wider than the board's width, this may be unnoticeable since less momentum is lost from starting at the corner and not full width.

/p

[Hilton Ralphs]

Soooo, who has ordered one?

From what Rob has told us about the accessories coming in the not too distant future, overall this sounds like a decent investment.

Those retail shooting boards that rob mentioned are very nice but "very" expensive. I don't doubt they are mad extremely well but I can't see myself forking our $300 for some plywood. I'm not knocking the product, just saying it's something I'd rather make myself.

Each to their own of course.

[Mark AJ Allen]

I would like to think that if the plane wasn't capable of producing a squared corner, it wouldn't even be worth the time to review, nor would it be worth LV's reputation to sell it. I'm certain if it didn't make square corners, it would have been evident and reported. What I found most interesting is the quantitative evaluation of how long the blades lasted for the shooting tests.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Soooo, who has ordered one?

From what Rob has told us about the accessories coming in the not too distant future, overall this sounds like a decent investment.

Those retail shooting boards that rob mentioned are very nice but "very" expensive. I don't doubt they are mad extremely well but I can't see myself forking our $300 for some plywood. I'm not knocking the product, just saying it's something I'd rather make myself.

Each to their own of course.

I ordered one. It has not shipped yet but I figure today it should ship and I should have it next week. I love the idea of being able to add a track to it. Also I will add a rail to the edge of my shooting board now that I have a proper shooter with a straight edge on both sides.

I missed the post about the $300 shooting board you are referring to, but I certainly agree- that is a lot for a jig. Heck, that's almost what the plane costs.

[Derek Cohen]

I have no idea what the costs will be, if they are value-for-money or not, but I have seen the a rendering of the fence and track, and both are really terrific designs. There will be no disappointment in regard to their design.

The shooting boards of both Rob Hansen (Evenfall) and Tico are both excellent from their pictures (again I have only seen pictures). I have built my own boards (no, not for sale) and this is what I recommend that others do first, if they have the time and inclination. Lots of articles on my website.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Adam Cruea]

Plenty of people must've thought this was one of the most hilarious "questions" they've seen so far.

"Questions" is in quotes, because it has to be revised to include throwing shiny hooks. I can't believe anyone would actually ask that out loud and not delete it after they thought about it for a second. Really, I can't.

Honestly, and I'm not defending anyone. . .it's one of those things that probably *should* be included.

I mean, come on. . .we have warnings on hair dryers and toasters these days to warn people that they aren't to be used in the shower. While it's obvious to us here, I can see someone seriously asking "but does it cut a 90* angle??" (probably while shoving his finger up his nose far enough to tickle his brain). I guess Charlie, oddly, brings up a good point; point out the obvious. Probably not in the best way, but again. . .people have to be told not to take electrical appliances into water-filled containers. Intelligent and deductive is not what I would call a large portion of the human race.

Now, on the vein of the PM-V11. . .I'd like to see a review of the PM-V11 blade vs. LN A2 blade. Not that there's a personal interest there or anything.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

image.jpg Here is the one I just built. There is going to be a 45 degree attachment that clamps in with the hold-downs. Now that I have this plane I will add a miter slot and put a miter slider on the plane. Not sure why the picture is loading upside-down.

[Rob Lee]

Gary, I'd be tickled to death to review one and will promptly do so when I receive one free like Derek did. But actually he reviewed his own work since he was involved in design and prototyping. If he panned the plane then he would have been panning his own work. Objective? Not really.

Charles -

Let's play fair here - Derek does not design tools for us.. he offers his feedback, and impressions. And he's one of many people that do the same. Yes he makes good observations - as he actually does a lot of woodworking. Design here is 80% consensus, and 20% dictatorship.

Cheers -

Rob (the dictator)