Well, FWW didn’t want this so thought I would post it here.
During construction of my recently finished dining table I needed to finish the ends of the top. I wanted square edges on a top 1m wide * 40mm thick so my standard shooting board wasn’t up to the task.
The attached pretty rough photos show the aproach (before I replaced the shed lights and with a phone camera – but that’s just an excuse)
I have a piece of 50*120 box-section aluminium that I use for anything that needs a long straight edge. I also had some scrap 7mm thick pieces of resawn stuff in the bin. So I waxed the aluminium with a candle (on hand for plane soles) and clamped it under the end of the top, spaced off with the scrap to allow for the sides of the plane. I then sharpened off my usual mitre plane – an ordinary Stanley #5 with a fairly fine set mouth – and went to it.
Worked like a charm, much more controlled than freehand, and something I won’t need to reinvent next table.
dave
Replies
Yeah mite. Sweet. You could just use an ordinary board instead of the alinyumnyum, as it merely carries the plane. The board can have a rebate if it is dedicated end grain shooter.It is a good trick, and allows one to use a heavy plane like a number 6 or 7 to deal with the end grain.
Dave
Good idea!
But this is the type of situation where a fence, such as the Stanley #386, is worth having. Use in on a #5 1/2 - #7.
View Image
Regards from Perth
Derek
Dereck,
I would normally do my edge planning oriented as in your photo, except for these ends it would have bee 2.1m in the air. My real problem was that the glued-up top was a two-person lift and I was getting to the point where I was very nervours about dropping it (my other 'persons are either 11 or 13 years old old my wife, all of whom try hard but his was big).
So a horisontal solution with the tools I have was in order.
Dave
I would normally do my edge planning oriented as in your photo, except for these ends it would have bee 2.1m in the air. My real problem was that the glued-up top was a two-person lift and I was getting to the point where I was very nervours about dropping it (my other 'persons are either 11 or 13 years old old my wife, all of whom try hard but his was big).
So a horisontal solution with the tools I have was in order.
Dave
Orientation of work should not be an issue with handtools - you can use them standing on your head (literally and figuratively).
There are so many ways to do this task. I like the solution you reached (it did deserve a mention in FWW), but I am also sympathetic to Adam's believe that some edges do not require that degree of precision.
When precision is needed, however, we use jigs. That is the way it has always been for mere mortals. Shooting boards and jointer fences are examples. Also, there are a number of planes that one could turn to for assistance - speciality planes such as the Stanley/LN/LV #95 edge trimming plane (note that this will square an edge but not joint its length - it is used after jointing).
View Image
A couple of fences on jointers:
Stanley #7 with #386 ..
View Image
.. and LV BU Jointer
View Image
And then there is there an old favourite (not usually used this way), a moving fillister, here my Record #778 .. (just turn it on its side).
View Image
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
I understod the gymnastics part as soon as I tried to cut dovetails fo the top edge of a 2m bookcase - do that with a liegh jig! (or even the 1.6m high*400mm chest in my bedroom)
I just don't have the coordination to do a good job of this end grain at this scale except a couple of finishing cuts. Too much rugby etc also says there are a few strength problems at that angle with my shoulders.
I do like your tool collection - almost worth accompanying young daughter to the Irish dancing nationals in October for a visit (If my wife goes she just wouldn't appreciate the opportunity, but I cant do the makeup or hair)
I think I have just about reached the limit of tool purchase without more production, so some of these tools will have to wait. I've just bought a #10 - I think it will do a better job of raised panels than the 78, except I need to work out some form of depth stop and fence. Next priority is a rebate block plane and then I want to make a wooden panel raiser with some sort of interesting profile - is that a fielding plane?
Anyhow - please keep up the reviews.
Dave
As shooting boards go, I think your apporach was very clever.
Why did you feel this was this neccessary? If that edge was off by 5 degrees , would it have mattered? Why didn't you just do it by hand? Why was any shooting board required?
Adam
Adam,
first, I am nearly in your camp with respect to power tools - I borrowed a power saw form my neighbour to cut this top approximately to size. Most of the rest was hand tools.
A couple of years ago I tried trimming the bottom of a door with a hand held #5. It was just too heavy and awkward to get as tidy as I liked - had to have a couple of rests. So this started as a means of saving effort. The end grain is fully exposed on the finished piece - this is the finished surface. 5deg would not have mattered but having set the jig, I did it square.
Hope that answers your questions below, however, I think my approach to the long tennon for a breadboard would be to tackle it as if a piece of moulding - I would try fixing a straight edge to the work to position the shoulder rather than shoot the end. Too much meat to do with a router. (I do own one of those)
The attached photo shows the end of the table part-way through the finishing
Nice. Thanks for sharing both the tip and the pictures. Adam
Nice and simple.
I think this would be good for preparing the end of the tabletop before marking and cutting tenons for a breadboard end, where I would not want to be 5 degrees off.
Send it to some other magazines, it's a technique worth sharing (I'd rather read stuff like this than the inevitable "storage box for sandpaper" or rack for clamps.
-Andy
P.S. it is stlll done "by hand." If jigs = "not by hand", then using planes would = not by hand. Planes are jigs!!!
Edited 4/4/2007 8:27 am ET by VTAndy
Edited 4/4/2007 8:28 am ET by VTAndy
Andy,
I find its generally a bad idea to use the end trim to define a shoulder for a tenon. Maybe this is something one would do if one were using machines. Dunno.
Its a waste of time to go to the trouble perfecting a surface you are going to cut away to form a tenon. If its the shoulder one cares about (and it is), then its not oversimplifying to work to that shoulder.
I think I've done a good job putting aside my own "jig mentality". I write about this and do it. In fact, if you assembled all I've ever written on woodworking, you'd probably be left with this as a theme. Agree?
So I actually did exactly what you describe in my lastest project and it bit me! I should have known better! I was cutting tenons on both ends of a wide board, so instead of sawing to a line, guess what I did? I cleaned up the end trims and used my moving fillister. Naturally, I miscalculated the fillister's cut and wound up with shoulder too far apart (but the boards were also the wrong length- that's part of the problem with working part time- you forget where you were). Worse still, I didn't realize my mistake until the case was together. Worse still, the joints were beautiful.
So take your brother's advice and learn from his mistakes. Work to a scribe line defining what you want, not off of some unrelated datum feature like a machinist.
Adam
P.S. I hope Patto answers my questions. I think its generally a bad idea to expose end grain. So I'm wondering if he went to that trouble because he's going to attach something to that end. It might be a mating surface for him. Or maybe he's planning to use a router to make tenons. There are lkot of power tools that require "non-functional datums" and that's one problem with mixing hand and power. Hollow Chisel mortisers are another example. The opposite face is rarely a datum, yet the HCM needs that face to be perfectly square and parallel to the mortised face. It would be a smarter tool if you clamped the stock to the underside of whatever table there is.
FWIW:
re:
I find its generally a bad idea to use the end trim to define a shoulder for a tenon. Maybe this is something one would do if one were using machines. Dunno.
Its a waste of time to go to the trouble perfecting a surface you are going to cut away to form a tenon. If its the shoulder one cares about (and it is), then its not oversimplifying to work to that shoulder.
Most (all?) marking gauges would reference the end trim to scribe the shoulder, and while consistency is not imperative on tenons as it is with DTs, for example, it's an easy way to mark it. It also has the benefit of taking some measuring out of the equation if you are making multiple tenon pieces with identical lengths between the shoulders (on frame and panel doors for example), if your two boards start off the same length, and your marking gauge is well set, the end references will yield identical distances between the shoulders. If instead, you measure and mark with a square, for example, you introduce the possibility of minor measuring and marking differences compounding to yield less than identical parts.
With power tools, like a TS or SCMS, there is no extra work in squaring or prepping the ends. Gang cutting or stop blocks also yield identical length boards with no effort.
You didn't miss my point, right? The marking gauge requires a good end trim just like my fillister. It requires the sort of work our friend Patto is doing and I'm asking why he bothered. I abandoned the end trim and any requirements to have it perfect.The fix to my problem was to put both boards together and directly mark where I wanted the shoulder using my striking knife. Measurement was involved, but only one and it was somewhat arbitray. I'd like to say two more things:
1) This isn't a Spanish Inquisition. Patto may have had no functional requirement to square his end grain. That's fine. I was just curious.
2) Tho I've probably said too much already, I don't find that the sorts of pre-industrial methods I've discussed here come easy to any of us. Its like the industrial revolution changed the way we think about manufacturing collectively.Adam
Maybe I missed your point. I thought you were suggesting that referencing off the end was somehow indirect and more work than marking the shoulder line directly.
You ended with a "dunno" so I was just thinking out loud about why referencing off the end might be natural even when using hand tools - i.e., you might be scribing the shoulder line with a marking gauge instead of marking knife and square from a point arrived at through marking two boards simultaneously or holding a single board up to the parts it mates to etc.
You also speculated about why it might make sense with power tools, so I was simply confirming the obvious that if you cross cut with a well tuned TS or SCMS it is no extra work to arrive at an end suitable for reference (no shooting as the end comes off the saw clean and square).
I thought you were suggesting that referencing off the end was somehow indirect and more work than marking the shoulder line directly. My mistake. You've got it 100% right. That's exactly what I was saying. I see your logic now. Thanks for being patient with me.Adam
Adam,
I saw my tenons, to scribed lines made by marking gauges. The gauges require that I get the end of the board as "perfect" as possible. This is actually easy to do with good handplane techniques, a shooting board, and a good gauge. The sawing is the most difficult part, mostly because I don't yet do it often enough. The shoulders of the tenons are referenced off of the ends of the boards. The boards' lengths themselves are simply matched to whatever other board is parallel in the project, i.e. a long side apron of a table is matched to the parallel long apron, the short apron to the short apron. Measurements are only taken as approximates in my work, and critical dimensions are based on comparisons. Close enough for me is when my eyes and fingers tell me the boards are, well, ahem, close enough for me. I just finished a table base done in this way. Assembled and glued, no process of "squaring up" -- checked it out of curiosity against a 90 degree angle (piece of paper) and voila, everything is as square as my eye can tell. I've spent very little time working wood with machinery, and studied literature, languages, and philosophy, not engineering, so I don't have any "machinist mentality" to shed. I live in an old house that has settled in so the floors, walls, and so on are not perfect measurements. It's comfortable that way! I don't think that shooting boards are symbols of "machinist mentality," either. They are a nice, quiet method to creep up to a desired dimension. I like techniques like that. It is one of the appeals that planing has for me in general, getting toward a goal (that sometimes changes during the course of work) in increasingly small increments (no, I don't measure them), starting with chunky cuts with heavily cambered blades and moving gradually toward flatter blades and thinner shavings..Regarding working without jigs: you wrote on your blog about the English method. I'm glad to hear that somebody has given this a name, because I spent months doing it before drilling more holes for holdfasts and using battens to stabilize boards on my bench. I still "go English" on occasion, usually with shorter boards. I always plane edges with the board balanced on the bench, pushed against a small stop, no end vise or whatever. It has helped me develop some techniques nicely. However, this is all being done due to the bench being incomplete!
-Andy
Hmm,
I see both methods--and Patto's is a neat adaptation to overcome a problem--as valid means to an end [sorry for the pun].
I think that if moving fillisters are "valid" tools for creating cross-grained rebates--and by extension a tongue equals cross-grained rebates on opposite sides of a board--then one "needs" to square the end to use the tool for a ready-for-prime-time shoulder.
I personally think there isn't a trade-off in time. Both methods described in this thread are valid. I think the time "lost" in squaring/shooting the end is made up in work handling and using a MF plane. Other methods of forming a tongue on a wide and long top involve a sort of gymnastics.
And to throw yet my favorite method into the mix...I usually have sawn as well to the line as possible. Use the MF plane to create the rebate[s] fairly close to the line and shoot the rebates themselves to the line. When I don't do that method, I do shoot the end and use the MF.
As regards jigs--you know, shooting boards, donkey's ears and miter jacks? Well, they've been around for a bit before my time. I'll keep using them. But out of curiosity, does anyone know when something like a shooting board was first documented? Or a miter jack?
Take care, Mike
Mike,
I'm also curious how long shooting boards have been around. I believe that a long board under an edge, used to hold a plane on its side as it joints the edge, is a traditional Japanese technique.
Whether or not it is pre-industrial won't, however, effect my future use of it, and I believe that it is odd to assume that industrial/pre-industrial is the crucial distinction for handtool work, unless the OP says that is his goal, to "go pre-industrial"! I also find the notion of giving up jigs for Lent, to be problematic. Most of the tools we use are, after all, jigs. All forms of planes are jigs for chisel-type blades. Marking gages are jigs. Even a try square is a kind of jig. The handle on a saw is in some ways a jig. The axel on Adam's whetstone. Where do you draw the line? Perhaps I'll take up ancient Greek woodworking and write up a tsk tsk tsk every time someone writes an article or internet post about anything using tools from after 500 b.c. Especially if they are wearing clothing with buttons and zippers! "Well, I'm doing ancient Greek woodworking and will comment in a moralizing tone about the backwardness and over-emphasis on precision of everybody else."
I appreciate that Adam is just adding some perspective when he posts as he did in this thread, but I also believe that some perspective has to be put on his comments as well.
-Andy, ironing his toga with a hot brick.
P.S. what about bringing back an 18th c. perspective on opinion-writing? Sometimes I wonder whether the hand-tool readership is too protective toward Adam, disallowing, even if subtly, any critique of his work. I think the biggest compliment we can give him is to take his work seriously enough to criticize it.Edited 4/5/2007 7:51 am ET by VTAndy
Edited 4/5/2007 10:34 am ET by VTAndy
Hi Andy,
In general, what we all write should be questioned/challenged. I think this thread is an example of that between Samson and Adam. It can bring clarity to the discussion. Just not always agreement. The former [clarity] is wonderful while the latter [agreement] is not a necessity. But like being able to sit around a pub table hashing things out, understanding of the other's point of view can be accomplished.
Take care, Miketyping along on a decidedly 20th century device...
Mike,Some of us are novices and sometimes post on internet forums.
Some are relative novices, in both "research" and woodworking, and publish in magazines. I guess this carries weight when they post on forums?
Some have considerable expertise in furniture and tool building techniques and could be more widely published but aren't. (nudge nudge, Mike W., Larry W., and others...)Yes, critique of all of the above is helpful. But I found that Adam's implicit critique of the original poster was not very helpful; it was on par with going onto a power tool forum and asking why they find it necessary to use electricy. I found Adam's later post in this thread to be revealing of the basis for many of his conclusions. He referenced off of the board end and why didn't it work? Because of his own (admitted) mistakes, not because the technique was flawed. He suggests that others should learn from his mistake. But the mistake wasn't the use of the technique, it was the poor execution of it. It's like if I can't saw to a line and suggest that others give up hand-sawing because I have not always managed to do it successfully. "Experts" can be great help, but not when they insist on projecting their shortcomings, or lowered standards, on everyone else. Following the advice of that kind of expert is like avoiding reading a book because someone said that they didn't make it past the first 10 pages, as opposed to reading it because someone completed it and found it to be amazing. I appreciate when Adam's articles or internet posts encourage people to give a technique a try, but his approach of denigrating techniques that he has abandoned after giving them a few tries in a part-time shop without instruction from a master: that's a common thread that I see in his articles. What also strikes me is that we live in a world in which, among woodworkers, those who use a technique like the shooting board, or hand-sawing tenons, are certainly in the minority. The repeated chastising of hand-tool users for not simplifying (according to the critic's standards) reminds me of someone who goes into a Unitarian church, hears the minister mention God, and accuses the congregation of being full of religious zealots who need to ease up on their rigid beliefs.
Sorry if this has gone on too long, or if it seems directed at one person. I'm not criticizing a person, but rather, the _content_ of a voice that has perhaps become too loud.
-Andy
Hi Andy--I agree in the main and would like to reemphasis the issue of continued communication and the experience of trying.
His experience is what gives Adam's answer a context. Without further communication perhaps we wouldn't have understood his first responses nor his experience.
So too with Patto's solution to his problem. We need to both understand the problem and solution, but to see if it works, we need to apply it to our situations. I personally like Patto's solution. Because I have rarely built something with a top wider than my 30" wide benchtop, I have merely used my bench as the support for shooting. Whether I would have thought to use a clamped on board all by myself is now never to be known because Patto has provided me an illustrated post which I will remember and try.
One thing I have enjoyed about reading about and working wood is there are so many options. Many authors are single-solution oriented even when other options are communicated. This is especially true of older books. I take no offense when reading the books, I try not to when reading a forum [sometimes it is hard, especially when directed at me].
Well, gotta get back to long over due correspondence.
Take care, Mike
Mike,
Thanks for responding; I realize that by addressing my posts to you, I inadvertently directed criticism toward you, which I didn't intend; it was just dialogue, so please accept my apologies. I have learned a LOT from past posts and correspondence with you, and feel that you have always pointed toward alternative methods without disparaging other methods or perspectives. Case in point -- shoulder planes -- where you have consistently recommended that people try to trim tenon cheeks with rasps (or chisels) rather than shoulder planes. You did so with the gesture: "This works for me, have you tried it?" rather than: "Why do you feel that the cheeks need to be trimmed at all?" Your recent post (on other forums), in which you depicted building a trivet with handtool methods, was a very useful and inspiring supplement to an article published in a magazine. There is a difference between showing: Here is one way to do Z and asking Why are you doing Y by Z, I tried it and can't pull it off, and now I don't think anyone needs to do it at all. If I had taken up that attitude, I'd have given up sawing by hand, for instance. Maybe given up woodworking, period. You won't catch me writing: "Learn from your brother's mistakes: if you try to make a table, it might not turn out. Go to IKEA and you'll get simple results without all the hubbub." ;)
-Andy
Mike, Andy et al,Mike asked:"As regards jigs--you know, shooting boards, donkey's ears and miter jacks? Well, they've been around for a bit before my time. I'll keep using them. But out of curiosity, does anyone know when something like a shooting board was first documented? Or a miter jack?"The earliest mention of the shooting board and the donkey's ear that I've found is Holtzapffel's _Turning & Mechanical Manipulation_, Volume 2, "The Principles of Cutting Tools," c. 1846, page 502. He briefly discusses using the shooting board to shoot the edges of thin stuff, as well as to shoot ends and miters (with an auxiliary miter stop). He describes the shooting board as being "very much used," and emphasizes that shot edges and ends still need to be checked for accuracy with a try square. However, I found an earlier reference to "The Shooting Block" in Peter Nicholson's _The Mechanic's Companion_, c. 1831, page 123. His brief description parallels the uses outlined by Holtzapffel closely enough that I'm confident he's describing a shooting board nearly identical to that discussed and shown by the latter author.Since appliances such as these were typically shop-made and held little intrinsic value to anyone other than the tradesmen who made/used them, it should be no surprise that they don't show up in period bills of sale, advertisements or estate inventories. Also, why they wouldn't have survived as artifacts. Since sources such as these are our best evidence regarding tools being used in earlier times, I'm not sure it means all that much that we don't have much information about the earliest introduction of such appliances.It seems that one of the critiques of the use of such appliances is that they represent a "jig" mentality more often associated with machine work. Unlike machine-related jigs, which often are geared toward a specific, possibly one-time, production (repetitive) operation, these appliances allow for predictable use of hand tools in a wide variety of situations. I found that once I had them on hand, they came into use over and over again. I could achieve the same results in other ways, but the use of these appliances proved expeditious.The second critique seems to assume that early cabinetmakers would not have been concerned enough with the accuracy afforded by these appliances to have bothered with them. Well, if one is contemplating making furniture of any refinement, I think this assumption belies an ignorance of tested trade practices. If nothing else, some knowledge of when and where accuracy really pays can help one avoid wasting time and frustration when it comes to fitting drawers, making and fitting cabinet doors, etc. In other words, a lack of accuracy at critical points actually wastes time and effort, and could well jeapordize the final results. Period tradesmen couldn't afford to take such unnecessary gambles.Much has been made, in the recent past, of the "arts and mysteries" of the cabinetmaking trade. Most of this has completely missed the mark. On the one hand, some seem to assume that knowledge of traditional trade practices all but disappeared with the advent of machinery. The evidence shows this to be completely untrue. While the apprentice system here in the U.S. slowly broke down during the course of the nineteenth century, much of the knowledge of the trade carried into the early days of industrial arts education and many tradespeople contined using hand tools well into the twentieth century. Additionally, the apprentice system and traditional trade practices remained relatively intact, in the UK, into the twentieth century. And some of those people wrote a good deal of that knowledge down. So, in brief, the knowledge hasn't been lost only to be (mis)reconstructed by self-appointed "gurus."Secondly, the idea of the "arts and mysteries" of the trades, or the "mechanical arts," had to do with more than day-to-day manual techniques. They also had much to do with the underlying math, including geometry, by which the "mechanics" of the mechanical arts were able to achieve plumb, level, square, critical angles, circles, ellipses, etc. Keeping things square may be "arbitrary" to people today, but knowledgeable traditional cabinetmakers cared about such things. To declare otherwise amounts, I suspect, to excusing incompetent work practices.Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
Hi Don--thank you! As always your post was informative.
Funny thing. Last night I was reading through part of the book written about the Dominy family. Ran across a miter box. Authors conclude that it was most likely made post 1800. Wonder if he invented the idea or perhaps learned from his family how to make one. Afterall, one should be able to merely mark the cut, cut and tweak free-hand if necessary.
So too I was perusing Tools: Working Wood in Eighteenth-Century America. I was looking once again at the Phyfe chest and saw one of them expensive infill miter planes. And I wondered whether Phyfe ever justified making one of those neophyte shooting boards because of that extravagant purchase?
The above was written slightly tongue in cheek, of course. But only slightly.
I think that this discussion has had a few good points made in it. And I think there are often times I use the various methods contained herein. I do, sometimes, merely mark a line cut and trim/smooth it for something I don't care is as accurate as possible. And a plain-end table top is one of those. I don't know how many Shaker end tables I have made where no shooting board was used for either final smoothing of my end- and long-grain cuts nor for the beveled portion of the top. As well, I have made many a tall wall-mounted piece that never saw a shooting board. Mark it and go is all.
But there have been many more pieces that on one aspect or another a shooting board ensures quick accuracy. I tend to saw my tenons--and I have even been known to use a guide block to trim the shoulders with a chisel. I have mitered many a beaded rail and stile on the panel side using a miter template. I guess with more experience I could forego using one of those brass doo-hickies [which have been made for eons].
All the funnin' aside, learning from even those I disagree with is invaluable to me. Even when some of the arguments contain a bit of absurdity to make a point.
Take care, Mike
mike,
I posted an answer to FG's question about cleaning up miters that apparently disappeared into the ether. Your post says just about what I did. Sometimes it's easier to set up a jig for repeatable, accurate cuts, sometimes it's easier to pare with plane or chisel and "offer up" one piece to its mate til it fits. Knowing the difference is, to me, part of the "art and mystery" earlier referred to: knowing when to set up a dedicated jig, and when to fuss and fiddle.
Regards,
Ray
Hi Ray--thanks for the response.
I too had my first post vaporize. If it hadn't it would have read, how would I say, a bit more cheeky. So probably a good thing.
I look at jigs for repetitive results much like fences and depth stops on planes. I mean, if I took the mark it and cut it to an extreme I would not use a moving fillister. Instead I would simply gauge lines and use the less expensive skewed rebate plane after cutting to the gauged lines. I mean, why bother setting a fence on the MF or taking the time to set a depth stop when I have those wonderful lines?
Or, instead of using a dado plane with the depth stops I would merely gauge the depth and not bother with the time consuming task of setting a stop.
So many wonderful methods. All perfectly valid. And like you said, it's about knowing--and learning--when to use what method.
Take care, Mike
Edited 4/6/2007 2:02 pm by mwenz
Ahhhh, mystery solved. I knew someone had posted to me, and then the post was deleted. Stealth editing critters or sumpthin'!forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
FG,
I was describing how you might cut your miters with a hand miterbox, then clean them up with a blockplane. Clamp the piece in the vice and take a shaving off where you need to, after putting the mating pieces together. Try and fit til it's satisfactory, for all 4 corners, try clamping it up dry, adjust as needed. Sometimes, I'll just hold the plane sideways, arm and wrist braced against my rock-hard abs (hah!), and draw the molding across the plane, removing a partial shaving where needed to get a goos fit. Now this is fine and will suit Formerly up and down. If I have a dozen frames to join, then I'll want a miterblock, or better, a mitersled and stopblocks for the tablesaw. All in what one thinks is the most efficient way to go about the job.
Regards,
Ray
p.s. last post to you disappeared betw "post" and "return to discussion" buttons.
"or better, a mitersled and stopblocks for the tablesaw" Ahhhh, yes. That's where, in my noviceness, I prefer to go. In all my reading about using a small plane to "tune" a miter joint, I've always been haunted by the thought that using that process, it might be impossible to guarantee that all long sides were the same length (exactly) and all short sides the same length (exactly). I've made a few shadow-box style frames for display purposes, and when something is 32" long, any deviation from 45° or from being the same length in the right places really shows up!
So far, I've preferred to make my machine set-up repeatable, make one cut and be done with it.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
What exactly makes a shooting board more accurate than planing to a simple, knifed line?
I think the Asian woodworking tradition will bear me out on this.
One still must plane to a finishing point. The wood is still being planed and the finishing point is as tangible under both methods.
Enlighten me.
Edited 4/6/2007 1:56 pm ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
Hi Charles,
I don't think it is just about accurately, but also accurately combined with efficiency. At least if one has a shooting board, a miter jack and or a donley's ear.
But as regards accuracy...let's say I am making a mitered corner box. For what ever reason. I in fact do make a bunch of keepsake boxes using mitered corners.
Often these are 3"-4" tall. A mitered box will need to have the edges shot with or without using my miter jack if I hand saw them. But by using that miter jack I can saw as closely as I can to the layout lines and chuck them in the miter jack and shoot the remainder of the way and simply know that without anymore fussing around the box will come together.
The idea of sawing to the lines and fussing with shooting those edges without a guide like a miter jack is simply inefficient use of time. At least for me. You may well be accurate enough in your sawing and shooting a really square box with mitered corners would be an issue.
More in keeping with the OP's post, if I wanted really square ends on a table, I would do exactly what I have written already. For the reasons given. A shooting board is an accurate means to maintain square in both the horizontal and vertical planes.
The question really is, does it need to be that accurate? If the answer is yes, both dimensions need to be that accurate, them a shooting board is faster than watching lines on top and bottom and along the length.
No one is attempting to convince you that your practice is wrong or somehow innaccurate. It obviously works for you else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I do know for myself that if I were to use a moving fillister to cut in a tongue on the end of a large top, I would need to have what becomes the tongue's end very accurate. A shooting board would assure near perfect results without the fussing around of checking lines and the results with long straight edges.
Take care, Mike
A shooting board would assure near perfect results without the fussing around of checking lines and the results with long straight edges.
If you were building your first shooting board (presumably by hand), describe how you'd do it. Would you have to mark lines and cut to them? If you don't, how do you get around this? You assert 'near perfect' results with a shooting board that was built, presumably, by sawing, paring, and or planing to a marked line of some sort, or not?
One can build an accurate shooting board. That's a true statement. But one will have to do so by cutting to accurately marked lines.
It all starts, you see, with working to accurately marked lines.
Edited 4/6/2007 3:39 pm ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
It was written:
"One can build an accurate shooting board. That's a true statement. But one will have to do so by cutting to accurately marked lines."OR one can borrow a friend or teacher's shooting board in order to make it. Who made the first shooting board? (Who wrote the first law?) I think the question of origin is not so useful when it comes to contemporary use of handtools. For instance, if one uses handtools to avoid using machinery, what about the machinery that was used to make the metal planes? It's not very relevant to me. What is relevant, and fun, is to make and use shooting boards, and to make and use planes. I used a friend's machinery to build my first wooden plane; a few hours of noise and now a lifetime of quiet enjoyment.
-Andy
Well yes Andy, you could borrow one. Or, you could use the built in accuracy of a well-tuned tablesaw, jointer, and planer. You certainly could do that.
Edited 4/6/2007 3:40 pm ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
You wrote:
"Or, you could use the built in accuracy of a well-tuned tablesaw, jointer, and planer."Errr, perhaps that is the fundamental difference between us --- I see the difference between using those power tools and a shooting board, and you don't? Is that accurate?
-Andy
VT, and Formerly,
If you have not read David Pye's book The Nature and Art of Workmanship, then I recommend that you do. His discussion of the workmanship of certainty vs the workmanship of risk is right on point with your differences. There is a whole chapter about the different means of achieving accuracy, and the (to his way of thinking) meaninglessness of differentiating between hand and power tool workmanship that is very thought provoking. Unlike some posters on this forum, who are just provoking ;-))
Ray
My point exactly. If a metal shooting board has to be constructed just so a hand plane could be used on a wide tabletop then what is the real point? Insinuating some angle-iron contraption into the mix is certainly not maintaining any sort of hand tool purity. Ersatz, comes to mind. Or is it? Seems like a stretch to me.
Fire up a Skilsaw and be done with it. After all, it's just a square crosscut. If one can manage to clamp a guide board at 90* to the side of the tabletop, then what the hell, eh?
Or, you can always mark a line and plane.
Edited 4/6/2007 8:18 pm ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
Andy, you put the "T" in Tool.
TPFKA wrote: What exactly makes a shooting board more accurate than planing to a simple, knifed line?
Actually, the end result should be identical, so it is not a matter of which is more accurate. The question should read, " which procedure is more efficient?".
I have no beef with your earlier statement about planing to a line. As far as I am concerned, this is a fundamental given for accurate work and one must do this regardless of whether a jig is used. The process of planing to a line involves maintaining accuracy in two dimensions - firstly to the line knifed the width of the tabletop (call this the vertical dimension) - and secondly to plane square to the line (call this the horizontal dimension). Plane ... check with square ... plane some more ... check squareness again ... With practice this is not a difficult skill to develop.
With a shooting board, one of the dimensions is taken care off. In Dave's use of his aluminium guide he made it possible to simply concentrate his efforts on planing to the line. A traditional shooting board or a jointer-plus-fence does the same thing. At the end of the day both shooting board and freehand planing to a knife can be as accurate as each other, but the shooting board is less effort and introduces less opportunity for error.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Mike
It looks like we wrote very similar replies at the same time, with yours posted while I was still composing mine. Says something about consistency of arguments.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Thanks. I agree.
I would have thought a sacrificial board clamped to the far end to prevent break out as the blade passed the far corner would have been necessary? Was it just very fine cuts or the type of wood or perhaps planing from both ends towards the middle that allowed you to omit this? Thanks for sharing the concept by the way.
samson,
I did the ends before i did the edges for that reason. I also used a block plane to take a small relief (taper) from each corner so that most of the shooting only touched the table up to about the last 1"
dave
I would have just knifed a line all the way around and planed to it with a No. 6 or 7.
Never have understood the allure of a shooting board over a knifed line and a sharp eye. I have never shot a board in a my life. Get close with your saw, lay your best straightedge or other measuring device just off the edge, knife a line, pick up a plane and finish it off.
Limitless capacity is what handtools offer you. Shooting boards are capacity limiting devices. They allow a relative neophyte to plane endgrain reasonably well but beyond that I cannot think of anything they offer somebody who is reasonably adept with a marking knife and a kit of planes.
Freehand is what it's all about, IMO, or why not just mount a fine finish blade in a sawcat and run it against a straightedge?
Edited 4/5/2007 2:37 pm ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
Dearest Posterformerlyknownas,As for your neophyte comment, why don't you write to Toby Winteringham, who wrote an article on the miter-jack in the most recent FWW -- it's basically a variety of shooting board. I guess that you consider him to be a neophyte? It's hard for anyone to know what vantage point you write from, since you hide behind a pseudonym.Since your eye is so sharp, I don't understand why you use a 6 or a 7, instead of a shorter plane or a spokeshave. With a good eye, and your awesome skill, you shouldn't need such a long plane to get a straight, flat end on a board. In fact, I don't understand the appeal of using a plane at all. Why not just use a chisel, or a freehand scraper. Actually, a dull chisel, lapped on the sidewalk. Or a relatively flat rock from the neighbor's field. If you're using a 6 or 7, I think that you might as well fire up a Festool 75 with cutting guide.
-Andy, tongue firmly in cheek.
P.S. while we're on the subject, while knifing the line, what is guiding the knife? A precision straightedge? If so, did you forge it yourself, and true it up? A chalk line? If so, did you spin the thread yourself, by the light of the full moon? Did you mine the chalk? It seems to me, if you have to knife lines at all, you might as well just buy furniture that someone else makes.
-A., tongue still firmly in cheek, back to using his shooting board, happy to be a neophyte, still capable of learning.Edited 4/5/2007 2:46 pm ET by VTAndy
Edited 4/5/2007 3:00 pm ET by VTAndy
If I owned an $800 miter jack plane I'd probably build a shooting board to justify the purchase. It would be kind of silly to spend the extra money on the fine machining to turn around and use the thing freehand, wouldn't it? Toby, himself, may not be a neophyte, but he is using a 'jig' conceived of to allow a neophyte to accomplish a task. Of that, I'm sure.
As a matter of fact, I would use a shorter plane on a narrower, thinner tabletop.
As I mentioned in my post, I'd use a handheld circular saw (a 'sawcat') run against a straightedge before I'd go to the trouble of building a silly shooting board out of angle-iron. Why not? There's little difference. The swirls would knock out with a block plane.
Shooting boards (chute boards) allowed the old timers to put an eleven year old to work on end grain.
Yes, you would use a straightedge to run the knife (or chisel held on edge) against. Straightedges, in one form or another, have been in every woodworking shop since the dawn of woodworking. Not so for shooting boards. FWIW, you're marking a line, it's not necessary to dig halfway to China. Just enough to prevent splintering.
It must be hard to speak with your tongue in constant contortion, planting it here and there.
It's actually easier to just knife a line than build a shooting board, so pat yourself on the back - you've achieved something in building one. Hat's off to Toby, too.
However, the end result of knifing and planing to a line is indistinguishable from stock worked on a chute board. Virtually indistinguishable. I promise. Do what you want, but if you want to keep the jig and gadget overhead down you can use your chute board as kindling (unless of course it's made of angle-iron), or one of those antique Stanleys that sells on EBay for a gazillion dollars.
Edited 4/5/2007 3:33 pm ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
Dear PosterFormerlyKnownAs,I understand now: from your perspective, there is little difference between using a shooting board and using a power tool. From my perspective, there is a big difference. And from my perspective, there is little difference between using a shooting board and using a plane. Neither have "been around since the dawn of woodworking," nor is "being around since the dawn of woodworking" the criterion I use for tools or techniques in my shop. Do you do all your work with hand tools? Do you do it for a living? It would help to hear more and understand where you are coming from, particularly since you found it appropriate to imply that some of us are neophytes, or comparable to 11-year-olds.
-Andy
Trying to illustrate a point... I don't cut tabletops off with a sawcat, but it is about the equivalent of cobbling together something out of angle iron when a more direct approach is a line well struck and planed to.
That's all.
Nobody said you are equivalent to anything. I have no idea who you are and am not particularly interested in finding out. I'm not taking a tally of who knows $hit from Shinola so you're safe. I'm commenting on a woodworking procedure. I'd disagree with you if you were James Krenov himself.
That said, again, a shooting board was conceived of to allow a relative beginner to finish the job he started - crosscutting or mitering a board. They are not a necessity.
I use a neophyte method (and freely admit it) of turning beads for center work. I use a gouge instead of rolling them with a skew. And, gasp, touch them up with a fine rasp. Good Gawd. But most people would not classify me as a beginner. I've been known to scratch out a meager living making things out of wood. But so what? Hobbyists with unlimited time and no financial pressures are well-positioned to pull off much more impressive work than a lot of pros.
Edited 4/5/2007 3:34 pm ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
Actually, I think Dave's approach much more represents traditional trade practices and an understanding of basic hand tools than wrestling a big table top to whack away at end grain free hand. Shooting boards, bench hooks and sticking boards are traditional bench appliances. Rather than "cobbled together," Dave's approach appears to show a comfortable workman like approach consistent with traditional practice.The question was asked, would 5º make any difference. Yes, it would. A 5º back cut would make the top appear significantly thinner. The way to manipulate apparent thickness of something like a table top is to angle the edges and ends. I wouldn't try to create a tenon with a plane like a moving fillister. These planes have several variable settings, depth stop, depth of cut, fence adjustment, lateral setting of the iron and nicker setting. I don't think there's a way to set a repeatable accurate cut with a moving fillister. Trade practice would be to shoot the ends square, layout with a marking gage, perhaps rough with a moving fillister and plane to the gage lines with a rabbet plane. A moving fillister can be a very useful tool, the variables eliminate it being accurate enough for joinery. I would think minimal experience with a moving fillister would make reveal that in a hurry.Larry Williams
who needs to get himself a sock puppet too
I think square and plumb lines can be knifed and planed to.
Not sure what you mean by 'wrestling' a big tabletop and 'whacking away' at end grain. I would just leave it lying clamped to the workbench with the end being worked hanging off. I would stand at said end and do my thing. No wrestling. A chute board doesn't make the iron take a better cut. A lousy plane will still cut lousy if it's running on a board. I assume if I was using one of your fine planes that I wouldn't be 'whacking' away at anything.
I've never had any trouble planing a top square (gap-free fit on breadboard ends, etc.) I just follow the lines. It's a more elementary approach and frankly much less of an accomplishment than building an accurate chute board.
I didn't pick up on the question asked about 5* this or that. You appear to have answered it.
Just commenting on chute boards, generally. They aren't necessary.
I think Dave's approach is great for him and shows some ingenuity. A woodworker comfortable with his tools might just "whack away" freehand however. Isn't that what we do when we joint a board with our try planes?
I agree with you that there are a lot of variables in setting up a moving fillister and some pit falls to do accurate work. I found it to be a natural for some wide tenons on a desk I recently made. Some of those variables are just normal tuning of the plane such as aligning the nicker and properly sharpening and adjusting the blade. The fence can easily be set by aligning to knifed shoulder lines and you can eliminate the depth stop by working to lines scribed by a marking gauge. Another place I can think of where a fillister does accurate work is sashmaking. In the British tradition I believe, a sash fillister is used to cut the glazing rabbets. As you know the sash fillister has all the adjustments and variables of a moving fillister but does repeatable accurate work.
I am always interested in what was traditional and what is trade practice. I love to hear and value the opinions and information from all who post but hate when it gets personal. In the end we do what is comfortable and works for us.
Paul Dzioba
The key to all handmade joints is marking out. Never rely on the fence of a rebate plane or anything else. Mark and/or incise lines accurately and cut to them. This is the beauty of hand tool work. It needn't be much more complicated than that.
When an operation is accurately marked out on the stock the actual usage of the tool can feel almost like an afterthought. When I get my joinery marked out, incised lines made indicating a square end, etc. I know I'm there. There is precious little that can get in the way of success - usually only unruly stock but that's a conversation for another thread. One can even enjoy great success with less than perfectly prepared tools as long as attention is paid to your marked lines. The only attention that needs to be paid to perfect is in the marking out. Layout is where it's at. I could hand a well marked board or a panel to a relative neophyte, show them the tools in the shop available to accomplish the task and more or less walk away. Most reasonably intelligent people can figure out a way to remove wood up to a line. A brief introduction to sawing and planing and let them have fun.
Edited 4/6/2007 11:05 am ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
The key to all handmade joints is marking out.
This is my experience too. And as you say, once marked well (best with a knife), it's just a matter of what tools and methods you are most comfortable with in arriving at the line. As long as you're using hand tools, that in Glenn-Drake parlance produce "softer edges" than machines, the differences in tools or methods are merely choices about efficiency, time, and skill/comfort with a given tool or method. There are so many ways to skin woodworking cats, and they are all valid. It is only when efficiency comes into the equation (a production shop, for example, needs to do things quick, as opposed to hobbiest) that some methods become "better" than others. And always, it's the results that count, not how you get there.
Dear PosterFormerlyKnownAs {?},You wrote: "I could hand a well marked board or a panel to a relative neophyte, show them the tools in the shop available to accomplish the task and more or less walk away. Most reasonably intelligent people can figure out a way to remove wood up to a line. A brief introduction to sawing and planing and let them have fun."Wow, this is the kind of handtool instruction that us newbies could use more of. Have you taught someone in this way or is this hypothetical? What I'd like to do is follow your marking-out process. I mean this sincerely. However, it's hard to tell what you mean, or whether you are sincere, because I have no idea who you are -- other than lots of posts about power tools.At any rate, after reading what Larry and Don wrote about using shooting boards, I guess I don't have to feel like a child laborer when using them. And their posts sure put some perspective on the strong and dismissive opinions about shooting board use.
-Andy, learning from the _real content_ that has emerged in this thread.
Have you ever laid a square on some stock and knifed a line?
And then subsequently sawed just shy of the line and cleaned up to the line with a hand plane?
Is this some sort of joke?
Have you ever stuck a chisel in a cutting gauge line/dovetail baseline?
Edited 4/6/2007 12:55 pm ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
Hi Paul,
You asked, "...A woodworker comfortable with his tools might just "whack away" freehand however. Isn't that what we do when we joint a board with our try planes?"
I suppose some do just whack away, but I tend to have a specific goal in mind when I put a plane to wood. A few months ago someone posted a bit on hand planing attributed to Charles Hayward that said one should have a reason to take each shaving they take. I guess I subscribe to that and definitely prefer it to the "lets see where this ends up" approach. There are a couple popular videos out there on preparing stock with hand planes that illustrate whacking away. In both cases, the person starts out by attacking the whole first face with a heavily cambered scrub plane with no stated purpose. All I can figure is their purpose was to limit the maximum thickness they could get from their board. It seems a waste of time and material to me. I sure can't see anything positive achieved by the exercise.
The moving fillister, I think, is most useful to quickly rough out a uniform rabbet close to final gage lines leaving the final fitting to a rabbet plane. Don't forget something like a centered tongue requires two opposing rabbets which will double any error in setting up of a moving fillister. To me final fitting to gage lines with a few rabbet plane passes is a lot quicker and more efficient than tinkering with and testing the multiple settings of a moving fillister.
My preferred design of a sash fillister doesn't include a nicker. I don't know of a cross-grain use for a sash fillister and many of the old sash fillisters originally fitted with nickers don't have them any more. I'm also not sure of what British trade practice actually was in making sash. I've read a lot of old information on sash making looking for documentation of the reason for pairs of sash planes but haven't found anything about that or working to gaged layout lines. If you know of a source I've missed, I'd like to know about it.
Larry,
You are right about the nicker, my sash fillister never had one and I don't see the need for one either. I'm pretty sure my information about sash planes came from John Whelan's book 'The Wooden Plane'. He has a nice section on planes and methods of the sash maker. If I recall correctly he states the sash fillister was never popular in America where the preferred method was to use a plane that cut the molding and the rabbet at the same time. I think he speculates that pairs of sash planes were used one for a coarse cut and one for a finer cut. I have a nice pair of matched planes by Turner of Sheffield that are marked 1 and 2. There is no discernable difference in the size of the mouth, both seem to have been equally used.
Paul Dzioba
Paul,
"...I'm pretty sure my information about sash planes came from John Whelan's book 'The Wooden Plane'. He has a nice section on planes and methods of the sash maker....I think he speculates that pairs of sash planes were used one for a coarse cut and one for a finer cut..."
I'm sure the number 1 sash plane was used to rough the profile and the number 2 was the finishing plane. The depth stop of the number 1 was a couple thousandths shy of profile finish depth. I just can't find old documentation on this. It does, however, show early woodworkers weren't oblivious to small dimension differences. Some would have us believe differently.
I've never used a shooting board either, 'cause I'm just getting into hand planes, but I do read, occasionally, and have a hard time conceiving of anyone, even TPKFA, planing a miter for a picture frame freehand. Am I missing something here???forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Dear PFKA, I wonder how many thick edges made from really hard wood you have planed like that....The main idea of that board or length of aluminium is to carry the weight of the plane, allowing concentration on getting a clean straight square edge on that end grain.Not everyone is 25years old and equipped with arms like a gorilla (or the lack of grey matter)
I'm not a great user of shooting boards either, but will not hesitate to use them when called for- Patto came up with a good example.Who are these neophytes you refer to anyway?Philip Marcou
Well, you're right. The physical exertion of holding and running a plane has not been a problem. I am able to work with on a top as it lies on the bench. I have seen people stand on their bench and plane an edge with the top being held upright in the vise. My method must be what Larry meant when he made the comment about 'wrestling.' I could see a day coming where I would stand on the bench and work it that way. I'm still pretty nimble and flexible although now in my mid-40s.
The day I couldn't do it that way will probably be the day I drag out a Skilsaw. Not really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. After all, we're just talking about squaring up an end, right? This isn't about fudging by stealing a design feature or some other feat of intellectual dishonesty, is it?
Charles, this is a tea cup storm, special brew by you, I take mine with lots of sugar.
All I am saying is that most of us can hold a plane to an edge of a horizontal top or whatever but it is a whole lotmore convenient/enjoyable if something like Patto has mentioned carries the weight of the plane.Lines will have been marked one way or the other in most cases too.
The key to handmade joints may well be marking out, as you say, but if one has trouble sawing planing or chiselling to that line for whatever reason one is not progressing.Philip Marcou
Edited 4/6/2007 4:37 pm by philip
Maybe a wooden plane would go a long way in solving the apparent problem of the weight of the plane. I guess we've been assuming all along that a cast iron plane is being used.
This one's for you, Larry.
FWIW, my interest is less in whether shooting boards existed in the 18th c* and more in understanding specifically where and when they were used. If an edge of a table were 5 degrees out of square, and one inch thick, the bust top to bottom would be approx .08". Let's call it 1/8". Larry Williams probably can see a 1/16", but my customers can't. I've lost customers becaue my furniture is too expensive, but I've never lost one because my edges aren't square enough. When an 18th c Master like John Head doesn't bother make 4 turned legs similar, I have to wonder how much he'd care about the .080". I have no doubt these appliances have their uses. I just haven't come across one yet. So I think its an innocent enough question to ask guys why they use them. If you are trying to make money selling hand made furniture as I am, it seems to make sense to skip this operation whenever possible.That's my 2 cents.Adam
* Roubo shows things that look like shooting boards and miter boards. He wrote in the 1760's as memory serves.
my interest is less in whether shooting boards existed in the 18th c* and more in understanding specifically where and when they were used.
Is there reason to believe that 18th c* woodworkers were monolithic in their techniques? Seriously.
In short, have you considered that there may not be definitive answers to questions about woodworking techniques from bygone eras because different woodworkers in those eras had their own preferences and methods, just like today?
I say this in all earnestness and sincerity. In other words, please don't read a smart #### tone into these written words. No such thing was intened.
Were 18th c woodworkers' techniques monolithic? To some extent they were and to some they weren't. The guild system did standardize things we dicker about here. So depending on where, when, and who, you could probably go from shop to shop and see similar things going on with similar tools. The problem is, we don't know what those techniques were, and we may never know. Thus the debates. Adam
When you talk about 18th century woodworkers exactly what type of work, what region, and what year or at least decade are you refering to? A frequent error of those trying to understand old ways of doing things is to presume that "they" did everything the same. Unfortunately the distance of several centuries of time can blur the details and make it difficult to appreciate the considerable variation which existed.
Another mistake is to assume the available documentation is representative of the entire spectrum.
David,You're right. Here's the answer to your questions:Cabinetry, London and Philadelphia, 1720-1770There's no "smoking gun" documentation about shooting boards or some such from this period. If I could only finish that time machine I've been working on MWA HA HAH HAA! (deranged laughing)Adam
So, I hope everyone can appreciate the beginner's dilemma that I am facing. Allow me to summarize:I start out by enjoying a post by Patto, who has come up with a quick and easy solution to making the end of his tabletop into what he hoped it would be. I'm making a table top that is too big for my shooting board, and this piques my interest.Then we hear doubt from the peanut gallery. Adam Cherubini notes that this goes against a theme that recurs in his work: reduction of jigs. After all, and end that is 5 degrees off square wouldn't make a difference to him.Some guy going by the name of ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs, whom others seem to know as Charles, and whose posts on Knots largely refer to power tools, indicates that this job would be done freehand by anyone except "neophytes." And that using a shooting board is pretty much interchangeable with using some kind of power saw that I've never heard of. Mike Wenzloff, Larry Williams, and Don McConnell chime in about shooting boards. Philip Marcou also notes some advantages. Mike uses them, and Larry and Don reaffirm their use as a good trade practice.ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs argues that there must be something wrong with shooting boards because other techniques, or previously made shooting boards, must be used in order to make a shooting board. (What made his #6 or 7 that he referred to in his first post?) Adam Cherubini takes a new anti-shooting board angle, noting that although they are depicted in Roubo, he has not yet seen a good use for shooting boards, and this is reinforced by the fact that he hasn't lost any clients yet due to inaccurately shot board ends. (I still wonder: what about the "clients" who never become clients -- and how do you track that number? Also, since having clients seems to be used to reinforce his point, how many clients are we talking about?)Then I do a web search and find a whole page of resources on shooting boards on Alf's pages:
http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/shootingboards.html
and also, on Lie-Nielsen's site, a free pdf of David Charlesworth's shooting board plans:
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/pdf/shootingboard.pdfI just don't know, should I pursue my previous course, which happens to be reinforced by the practices of David Charlesworth and Mike Wenzloff, and the research and experience of Larry Williams and Don McConnell, or should I go with ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs, who would just as soon use a Skilsaw, and Adam, who openly stated that he doesn't care whether his board ends are precisely square, as long as his clients continue to buy his work? Man, I am really having trouble making up my mind. Perhaps I should sit down to these Rob Cosman DVDs... oh my goodness, why is he bothering to use shooting boards while making drawers so tight. Looking at the furniture at the local Unfinished Furniture place, I notice that all the dressers they sell have drawers that are loose and wobble. Doesn't Rob Cosman realize that drawers don't need to be "piston fit"? Why doesn't he tell Alan Peters that it would OK to ease up the work standards now, the clients are willing to buy furniture that is more casually assembled? This really is one of those dilemmas that may haunt us for decades, like pins first vs. tails first.I do hope that everyone can understand my dilemma. This is going to be a really really hard decision. I wish I had some kind of jig to help me make it! What do you say, Patto?
-Andy
Edited 4/6/2007 7:52 pm ET by VTAndy
In your case it's a crutch mate. For others, it's an aid to efficiency, perhaps, if they have a lot of edges or ends to run.
You'd be well served to learn to plane to knifed lines. If you choose not to, that's your business. Planing up to a line is a skill that will never let you down. Learning how to plane and maintain square to a face is a skill that will never let you down.
I sense that somehow a shooting board opened the gates of heaven for you and I guess that's wonderful. But, it leads me to believe you were or are having trouble with a skill that I can assure you Messrs. Charlesworth, Wenzloff, Cherubini, et al. have at their disposal.
It's like being able to hitting an easy seven iron in low to a pin or a very full, high flying nine depending on conditions. You seem to be assuming that all your heroes know how to do is hit the seven. I promise they can spank a nine when they need to.
Capece?
Charles, (?)You seem to assume that I can't plane to a line. Is it intended as a taunt, or a personal attack perhaps? I can plane to a line just fine. I just think that the opposition to using shooting boards is unfounded, especially when it's based on opposing the use of a jig. Dude, planes are jigs. So until you can use a chisel rather than a plane to square up an edge or end of a board, I doubt that your skill is so much greater than mine that your patronizing tone is called for.Thanks for sharing your expertise.
-Andy
Edited 4/6/2007 8:16 pm ET by VTAndy
Do with it what you will Andy.
Enjoy your woodworking.
Good grief!
What's wrong with accepted practices?
If platto found a solution that works for him, what's your problem? Great if you have a solution that works for you. Is your application pertinant to plattos? I don't think so.
Do you mean to say that everyone must adapt their work habits to your way of doing things? Enjoy the contributions of another way of doing a task at hand.
May not fit your agenda but it worked for him. As a neophyte I can plane to a line, and?
Shades of RiverProf?
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 4/6/2007 10:49 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Ha--loved the post, Andy!
Sorry I left the discussion. I had work to do...but seeing how we have worked non-stop for a few weeks and seeing how the sun was in all its glory today, at noon we chucked it and went golfing [truly we did].
Try as I might--it has been a few years since I golfed--I could neither hit that nice floating 9 iron, nor drill it 140 yards. Too much time has passed and I am not only out of shape but the golf game is going to take a bit more practice before it is back.
How that relates to this thread, Patto's solution to a problem, Andy's posts and Charles' post referencing golf, I leave it to y'all.
But it does.
Take care, Mike
Mike,When you said: "How that relates to this thread, Patto's solution to a problem, Andy's posts and Charles' post referencing golf, I leave it to y'all.
But it does." ...... I was thinking: yes, indeed.
;)
Glad you had nice weather -- we had a day of clouds and drizzle, after the snow and sleet yesterday. The perennials are starting to sprout in the garden just two weeks after we had nearly 2 feet of snow. But the maple sap has been flowing and we will be enjoying sweet fresh syrup at Easter brunch, rain or shine. Happy holiday to you, Mike.
-Andy
Andy, it seems to me that a certain gentleman in particular who should know better is just failing to understand what the purpose of Pattos's so called contraption. It is not a flaming shooting board- I'm sure you understand. It simply makes it easy to plane to the mark without having to hold the plane, wooden or metal, in a position that is inconvenient for the back and wrists-even for 40year old rambos. So we repeat-it is not a shooting board-no need to set it square or whatever.
And here is an example where I would spend an extra 5minutes in order to do the job easily and probably gain time at the same time:
You have joined up a top 5 ft wide by 2 inches thick, made from Jatoba or similar Australian or African wild and nasty wood. The edge needed cleaning and squareing up on length plus not all the boards were flush- and no meat to use a saw, hand or power. Obviously Rambo will have at it with number 8 held in one hand, but I believe you, me and most others would prefer to clamp on that carrier board (the name I know for it) and most likely do the job quicker in the end, without having a crick in the back either....
I don't see anything neophytic, unprofessional, out of period or unfashionable in using any means that combines efficiency with enjoyment of the work or hobby.
But then again, if you are using easy woods such as Cherry or Kauri, these woods basically work themselves-you just point the tools at them (;)Philip Marcou
"You have joined up a top 5 ft wide by 2 inches thick, made from Jatoba or similar Australian or African wild and nasty wood. The edge needed cleaning and squareing up on length plus not all the boards were flush- and no meat to use a saw, hand or power. "
What an unusual situation for an experienced woodworker to have put himself or herself in.
Philip, I would assert that gluing up a panel and not leaving enough trim room to put a saw on it (hand or power) is a fundamental error. That would be an example of something that is far from an accepted practice, orthodoxy, or whatever you want to call it. Maybe once in a blue moon and with rare stock you might have that sort of knife at your throat, but to regularly put yourself in that situation is a little sadistic, I'm afraid.
And really, if the sawing is effective - it followed the knifed line and the cut edge was maintained at 90* to the faces - how much hand plane cleanup do you really need? Not much. I would urge anybody who cannot crosscut and follow a line and keep the cut very close or dead on a 90* orientation to the faces ought to practice their sawing instead of jig-making. This is a basic skill in any shop and ought to be rote. One has to be able to make rip and crosscuts that follow a line and don't result in an unwanted bevel.
Edited 4/7/2007 6:30 am ET by ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs
Charles, not unusual at all. Many times I have found myself scratching for length. We don't all have the luxury of unlimited choice of timbers.You need to remember that folk from many different work environments meet up on this forum, and try to see things from more than one point of view.
If you have sawn the type of edge I mentioned with a Diston or similar there will be sufficient work involved to merit some help with a carrier board for most of us, and I am not just referring to maintaining the edge at 90 degrees to the face.
I am done with this topic now,before I begin to wonder just how much of this type of work you have actually done.Or before I mention that the portable power planer is a mighty fine machine (;)Philip Marcou
Well, call me a hack but I try to make a habit of gluing up panels with enough trim room.
I'd love to know the odds of stock rising to the top of the pile that is consistently just at the same length you need for a particular project on the drawing board. You either ought to spend a lot of time in the casinos or damn well never set foot in one. I'm not sure which. Strangest luck I've ever heard of.
TPFKA,
I have to ask... Is all of this because you don't think that one should use any kind of jig?
Rob
Rob,I agree with a lot of what has been written here. I think Philip has a good point, but so does whatever his name is. I think all of us would agree its not easy to plane end grain by hand and if the practice can be avoided, productivity will be the result.My sense is that while it may be necessary in some instances, its slower to plane your end grain for the sole purpose of using it as a datum surface from which to mark a tenon shoulder for example. My guess is this is what one might do with power tools. From my perspective, I see folks trying to squeeze their hand tools in to machine paradigms. This fits for the example I just gave. Otherwise, I think its wrong to think of this discussion as some "must do" v. "must not do" sort of thing. And I didn't read anyone saying that. The question is when its appropriate. If i felt it was necessary, I think Patto's set-up would be great. In regards to basic setups, I think this along with other similarly clever tricks is appropriate for a ww magazine.That's my 2 cents,Adam
Adam, if I may tweak a little bit here: your observation would be re-enforced if you had said that the carrier board made it easier to plane end grain when one is Forced To Do It In An Inconvenient Position, especially with hard and dense timbers-that is the point I was making . Despite what the person at drawing board may think, it is not a perfect world, so the necessity can arise.
I just cannot understand the disdain over using methods which make the work or hobby more enjoyable or less tiring- or should we all just hold the work between our toes and just "have at it"?Philip Marcou
Yeah, Philip that makes perfect sense. And i also agree with you that I sometimes don't have the length to saw. It happens. That's why I asked the question. Is it a mating surface? Why do it? What you say makes perfect sense.But I also agree with the other guy. I think guys just shoot stuff because they think they have to. But whatever. Frankly, I don't get the passion on this issue. Its not like people who refuse to saw their tails first.Adam
Edited 4/7/2007 8:48 pm ET by AdamCherubini
No, it's because people think these jigs give an advantage in terms of accuracy.
They don't.
Actually, on anything that will sit vertically in a vice at a comfortable height I plane to a scribed line, just like Charles. It is quick and easy and I can see al of the lines at once. My original response to Adam was true, it started out being a means of physically supporting a metal plane, but also because I am not as adept with planing a vertical surface freehand to that accuracy. Having set up the board, it didnt make sense not to have a 90* result.
I think the whole shebang took less than 2 minutes to pick up the components and assemble - the table top was already on the saw horses. The aliminium was on hand because I use that piece for anything needing to be straight longer than 1 meter. It is also a good straight edge fo a router etc. So while it might be derided as 'cobbled together bit of angle iron'; I simply took that as a disphamism. Unless we spend more time working on our sheds than on furniture, I am pretty sure that most of us do not have perfectly graduated clamping pads for all glueups or prepared stock in several thicknesses for scarificail blocks when planing end grain?
I suspect that Charles must be much stronger than I - this table top weighs in at better than 60kg (guess because I can lift 40kg grain sacks without much effort and this top fealt heavy, but it has been a while since I had to shoe two horses in the same day). At more than 2 meters long it was awkward, and I was trying to minimise the risk of damage from moving it about.
In my days in academia there were two measures of success - publication paid the bills and I didnt get there with this suggestion. But.. the real rewards came from vigorous discussion from respected peers, (vigorous means that they express different points of view and ask why a lot) so I am well ahead.
Thanks for all the comment and discussion.
Dave
Patto,
You wrote: "In my days in academia there were two measures of success - publication paid the bills and I didnt get there with this suggestion. But.. the real rewards came from vigorous discussion from respected peers, (vigorous means that they express different points of view and ask why a lot) so I am well ahead."Hear hear. Again, if FWW rejected it, send it on to some other mags as well, it's worth a shot. I thought that it was a simple and effective solution.
For what it's worth, I also plane endgrain freehand on anything wider than 5 or 6 inches but in the case of something as large as your tabletop, I will give your trick a shot (except with a board instead of aluminum).
-Andy
Adam,
You wrote, "...If an edge of a table were 5 degrees out of square, and one inch thick, the bust top to bottom would be approx .08". Let's call it 1/8". Larry Williams probably can see a 1/16", but my customers can't. I've lost customers becaue my furniture is too expensive, but I've never lost one because my edges aren't square enough. When an 18th c Master like John Head doesn't bother make 4 turned legs similar, I have to wonder how much he'd care about the .080"."
Let me illustrate it. I just took a 7/8" thick piece of poplar and cut it in half at 5º. I set these in opposite orientation on our dining table and stood half way between the wall and table for this photo.
View Image
I'll bet everyone can see the change in visual weight. This is just one of the real techniques available to woodworkers that allow manipulating visual weight and balance. I think techniques like this are what the visual aspect of woodworking design is all about.
Larry,I don't disgaree. A slightly beveled edge will catch light differently, and you've shown that. I don't mean to sound stubborn, but I think it wouldn't be so apparent from across the room and where the entire edge is one angle. But your point is a good one and well made. Adam
Hi Larry,
That's a good illustration...and I don't mean to offend. I think that is a bit of a parlor trick. At least insofar as the thread is concerned.
That is, if the entire end of a 30" wide table top was incidentally beveled at 5 degrees, there wouldn't be a piece next to it which would reveal the difference as dramatically. It would, however, subtlety change the visual weight as you wrote.
So in that sense I agree with the couple people who practice a "close enough" strategy--I too do it at times as I mentioned earlier.
Further thoughts and not directed to any one person...
But when don't I practice "close enough"? And when do I care that ends are square to the long sides and square vertically...and care enough to use a shoot board to ensure an end is square across its thickness [or beveled to a specified degree]? On any surface or mating surfaces that need to finish a spec'd size when said shooting is accomplished.
And lest people think I willy-nilly create my tongues and grooves always via a MF--sorry. I don't. That's why I have wooden T&G planes and metal plows with T&G cutters.
I have, however, created several breadboard ends with a MF. The tongue must only be visually centered and of the same depth. The plow is gauged off the tongue and as long as one uses the same face orientation to plow as they did when gauging the plow...it all works quickly and accurately. See...close enough. <g>
Take care, Mike
Mike,You may think it's a parlor trick but it's a fundamental design tool. It is the difference between an element appearing light, uniform with other parts, or robust. It is actually the fundamental basis for effectively using moldings to manipulate visual appearance in a design. I've found it much more useful in my work than other nonsense like the golden meaningless, the latter being even more useless than a parlor trick.
I knew I probably didn't properly write what I was thinking. So I apologize for any misunderstanding.
I simply mean the difference is more apparent with either a board immediately adjacent that is 5 degrees off the other direction or even with one which is square across its thickness immediately adjacent. If it were across an entire top's width without a truly square reference it would be less noticable.
And I am fairly positive that in the flesh and 10 feet from a top intended to have a square edge that if it was off 5 degrees I could see it. Certainly from most viewing angles even without "ideal" light to highlight it. And I would care.
If it had at least 10 or 15 degrees of "bevel" equally around it, it begins to look intentional. Below that I would contend it looks sloppy or accidental. And that's one issue of design. Too subtle and things begin to look ill designed or not enough thought put into it. Too much highlighting that which should be subtle and it looks amateurish or equally thoughtless.
Which brings me back to the thread. Patto's solution. For a top wider than my bench I will gladly use it to help ensure a square edge which ought to be.
Take care, Mike
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled