I never understood this concept...

[Brian Sommers]

I have heard both on YouTube:

1. it doesn't matter if the sides of your plane are not 100% perpendicular to the sole when using it on a shooting board.

2. just the opposite. It's very important that they are.

#2 makes sense to me, why do people say #1 and I think I heard Paul Sellers say something to that effect. All that matters is the shooting board is true. If your plane isn't true wouldn't you end up duplicating that on your stock?

[Rob Lee]

I have heard both on YouTube:

1. it doesn't matter if the sides of your plane are not 100% perpendicular to the sole when using it on a shooting board.

2. just the opposite. It's very important that they are.

#2 makes sense to me, why do people say #1 and I think I heard Paul Sellers say something to that effect. All that matters is the shooting board is true. If your plane isn't true wouldn't you end up duplicating that on your stock?

Hi Brian -

It's important that the board is true. Any variation in the geometry of the plane can be compensated for by skewing the blade slightly...

Cheers -

Rob

[Patrick Chase]

It's important that the board is true. Any variation in the geometry of the plane can be compensated for by skewing the blade slightly...

...provided you weren't relying on the mouth for tearout control or anything like that.

I agree that side-to-sole angle of the plane is less important than the board geometry, though I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "doesn't matter" (and I realize you didn't say that Rob :-).

[george wilson]

If I had a plane that was a bit off when the blade is in place and truly parallel to the sole,I think the quickest thing to do is shim the shooting board till the plane's out of square is compensated. Then,ONLY use that plane with the shooting board.

That is the lazy way out,of course,but it'l do in a pinch till you can get time to dress the sides square.

It is too much trouble to have to fool around trying to skew the blade every time. And,not the way to guarantee accuracy.

[Mike Brady]

Don't measure the plane, or the blade, or the shooting board: at least at first. Check the edge of the work piece for square after you have taken a few shooting strokes, and then change the blade protrusion to compensate. If that doesn't correct the squareness to your satisfaction, I would look to the shooting board for a correction, since it is probably wood. Altering the plane would probably be a non-starter for me. I'd find another plane to use.

[Mike Cherry]

If you think about it, a perfectly square plane body and perfectly square shooting board are only 2/3 of the equation. If you foul up the setting of the blade it won't cut square. Admittedly, this is pretty hard to do because your only cutting a 4/4 board or smaller usually.

[John Crawford]

I find it very difficult to angle the a blade accurately. As a novice, I find it perfectly easy to get the blade dead flat. Adjusting it to an accurate one-degree-skew to compensate for a plane is another matter!

I really think a square plane is ideal. My only square one is a #8. Too big? Yes it is, but works great!

As a hobbyist who only recently took the time to build a shooting board, I now can't imagine not having one.... Saw cut just out of square? Thirty seconds later I've got it more accurate than I could do with a fancy table saw.

[Patrick Chase]

I find it very difficult to angle the a blade accurately. As a novice, I find it perfectly easy to get the blade dead flat. Adjusting it to an accurate one-degree-skew to compensate for a plane is another matter!

I really think a square plane is ideal. My only square one is a #8. Too big? Yes it is, but works great!

As a hobbyist who only recently took the time to build a shooting board, I now can't imagine not having one.... Saw cut just out of square? Thirty seconds later I've got it more accurate than I could do with a fancy table saw.

They're useful, but with experience (and I don't have that much compared to some here) you'll find that you can square boards with almost any plane. I use my shooting boards (standard with swappable 90, 45, 135 fences, donkey's ear) when I need precision or when I have a lot of parts to do. For routine end-squaring I just reach for the edge trimming plane and a machinist's square...

[Simon MacGowen]

Another approach, of course, at least for some box and carcase work that many furniture makers use is to start with stock that is square "enough" and then plane the assembly square after gluing up. A dead square piece is not often required; I have built cabinets, drawers and doors out of less-then-perfectly square pieces and they look all square (or with even reveals) after some planing and fine-fitting. Human eyes can't tell whether it's 90* or 89.75*.

Don't believe in what you read in magazines that you need to start with stock that is perfectly dimensioned on the jointer, thickness planer, etc. I have known no cabinetmakers who do woodworking for a living and follow that myth. Every machine (including your hands) comes with some tolerance and unless you are building a spaceship, you don't need everything dead flat and square...and how square is square? Even if you could get your pieces flat, straight and square, wood movement may spoil your "perfect" preparation.

I don't get obsessed with testing whether each plane is dead square on its bottom and sides. And as Rob points out here, a little tweak with the blade -- that's, if you know how to do it -- will quickly solve an out-of-square issue. Want something really dead accurate? Go with CNC, manufactured boards and what not....not my cup of tea, though.

Simon