About me. I use hand tools to supplement power tools in my shop. I am not “full Neander” and I’m only about 15 months into hand tools. So I may have different needs/expectations than some more experienced users. I have no affiliation with any of the companies mentioned in this review.
Bottom Line: I bought a Woodriver #3 at one of Woodcraft’s 20% off sales, paying just over $100 for it. For my needs, I found this to be a surprisingly well-made tool that performed very well in the few days I’ve had it. Aside from prepping the blade, it really did require only a minimum of tuning. (The back of the blade needed a fair bit of flattening.) I feel confident and satisfied using it and I recommend the Woodriver #3 to anyone who doesn’t feel that their application warrants the additional cost of a high-end brand.
First impressions.
- I pulled it out of the box, wiped off the light coating of oil, and looked it over. The plane is nicely machined and it looks like care was taken in doing so. The black paint looks nicely applied without overspray or drips. The plane is heavy and feels rock solid in my hand. The knob and tote are nicely-finished Bubinga. The tote feels a little small for my hand, but I can live with that.
- Without honing, I made a few passes on pine. My dial caliper says the shavings are 0.003” thick. Not a bad start.
Detailed examination.
- I HATE lapping planes so I started by checking the flatness of the sole, hoping that I wouldn’t have to lap it. I laid a quality straight edge down the center of the sole, lengthwise. I didn’t see any light coming underneath. To be thorough, I checked with a 0.002” feeler gauge – I’d have preferred a 0.001 but this is the thinnest I have. Again, I couldn’t detect a gap anywhere along the centerline. I tried again on either side of the centerline and got the same results. So, any gap that might be there is less than 0.002” (and remember – I could see no light under the straightedge). Then, I turned the straight edge 90 degrees and checked flatness across the width at several places. Again, no light and less than 0.002" gap.
- Next I checked the sides for square with the sole using said feeler gauges and a good engineering square. I checked at multiple points all down the length of the tool. Here I found some variance – the sides were as much as 0.003” out of square with the sole. Will this matter? Maybe, if I’m going to use it on a shooting board. But it’s something to be aware of.
- Next, I measured the length and width of the mouth. The front and back were square, consistent and parallel all the way across. I used a mill file to gently remove some very slight burrs. While I had the file out, I broke the sharp edges where the sides meet the sole because I noticed a small burr on the front right corner.
- The knob was rock solid but I’d noticed that the tote moved slightly when I tried planing that pine right out of the box. Tightening the screws did not solve it. I had to shim it slightly.
- The blade and cap iron are thick – 1/8” each. The cap iron met the blade cleanly, but its front edge wasn’t polished. As part of my tuning process, I polished that to 1200 grit and did the underside as well. (The bottom side came underlapped as Hack’s book suggests – which was nice – all it needed was some polishing.)
- I took out the frog. I found it hard to access the adjusting screw and frog pin-securing screws. The elevated tote and large brass adjusting knob are definitely in the way. But I got the frog off and confirmed that the mating surfaces were nicely machined and very flat. I’d like to point out two things about this frog that may matter to some of you. First, the mating surfaces are flat; i.e., there are no grooves or tracks like I’ve heard described for Stanley Bedrocks. The two surfaces mate fully flush, but there’s nothing to prevent the frog from twisting. Second, the frog stops about 1/16” from the sole. Neither of these impacted me – it was like a hybrid version of a normal Bailey frog in this sense, but it isn’t a full-up Bedrock frog as I understand those to be.
Sharpening.
- The blade has no name on it. I was rather expecting it to say Rob Cosman or Pinnacle.
- The blade's backside was not as flat as I’m used to with a Veritas or LN blade. But it was comparable to what I’ve seen on old Stanleys and the like. It took a while, but it polished-up nicely.
- The bevel measured 25 degrees. I added a 5 degree secondary bevel and polished to 6000 grit. They advertise the blade as A2 steel. But the edge seemed brittle and very tiny chips kept appearing. I had to sharpen it several times to get rid of those completely. For now, I’ll attribute that to my Journeyman sharpening skills but if it continues I’ll buy a harder steel replacement blade from another manufacturer.
Using it.
- When I re-installed the blade, I noticed that the lateral adjusting lever was hard to move. This is my first brand new plane, so I don’t know if that’s normal. (All my other bench planes are used.) This stiffness made it harder to get a shaving that was the same thickness all the way across, so I may try to loosen it somehow. We’ll see.
- I took (lots) more pine shavings, constantly adjusting the depth of cut and blade angle. This time, most of the shavings were 0.0015 (about half the thickness of the “right out-of-the box” shavings), with some as low as 0.001”. I suspect that a more experienced hand tool guy can do better.
Observations and opinions
- I like the feel of this tool. It seems well made. The sale price ($104) makes it a clear bargain compared to its LN counterpart ($265) for the kind of hobbyist work that I do. (Veritas doesn’t sell a #3.) I speculate/assume that the rest of the V3 planes from Woodriver are equally well-made but have not checked them out.
- But most of the rest of the Woodriver family of planes aren’t this cheap, relative to established brands. Here’s a comparison against their Veritas counterparts: WR #4 - $140 (regular) and $112 (on sale), Veritas #4 - $199; WR #4 ½ - $170 (regular), Veritas #4 ½ - $230; WR #6 - $190 (regular) and $152 (sale), Veritas #6 - $265. So, if I could afford the Veritas, I’d probably buy them. Personally, I like the engineering that goes into Veritas products. But if I was tight on funds or was buying something I’d only use occasionally, I think the Woodriver will serve just fine. Heck, I might be acting like a tool snob here – chances are the Woodriver will serve all but the most demanding users just fine. Try one out and see what you think. But definitely try one out. These are nice tools.
Fred
Reply With Quote
