And here is what I came up with. It's ok if I don't know what I'm talking about, its for my own false edification.
I know about handplanes, antique and otherwise. You know, the metal things that smooth wood boards by taking off a paper thin shaving at a time.
There are modern imports from India, like Anant. Cheaply made, the bottom are flattened by riding a belt sander, and you need a flat bottom to better flatten a board by shaving curls of wood off of it. A belt sander is not the best way but it is the fastest and cheapest. These plane types need major tuning to even function minimally, and then it might not function at all.
Fulton was cheap knockoff from 70 years ago, and they made Montgomery Wards or Sears brands. Minimal machining done to get by for hobbiest grade tools. Decent enough, though. Works fine. Especially for an occasional flattener of boards. Cheaper in price than the higher ups but not as cheap as the modern imports. Only available used, naturally.
Stanley Bailey, is the standard. Again, old ones. New ones are just Anants. A prewar one is better than you deserve to own, quality wise. The handle is Brazilian rosewood and feels like it is sculpted to fit your hand. The bottom of the casting is machined flat after being allowed to season for weeks after casting, the molten iron cooled to be sure there are no stresses left. It was a professional tool made for professionals, and cost as much then, relatively, as pro-quality tools cost today. You can buy an electric drill today for $35. Or one for $185. There is a difference, and if you use that $35 one 8 hours a day you will soon see it.
Stanley Bedrock the Cadillac of planes. It is essentially the same as the Bailey but with more refinements, more machining, more bearing surfaces to seat the blade to to make it steadier and perform better. You have to be very good at planing boards flat to notice much difference between the Bailey and the Bedrock.
If the Bedrock is a Cadillac, British Infills from a company like Norris, are the Rolls Royce's. Truly finely made tools that are works of art. Art designed to be used in the most extreme circumstances on the gnarliest wood grain on the hardest of woods, and performing wonderfully. Super-expensive, even when still made for the trades, and a joy to use. It’s probably a better tool than I deserve to own. And I have a couple.
None of these planes are any good if you don’t know how to use them and you don’t do the initial tuning and, when needed, sharpen the blade. It's not hard, but you have to do it. The more you do it the better you are.
Guns appear to be the same way. You can get the import knock-off guns like a Philippine 1911 and it may do the job like an Anant jackplane because you are lucky (if it does work adequately, congratulations, but you are missing out on some refinements even an amateur will notice.) Similarly, you can get the cheap service gun (like the composites?), and it will work fine like a Fulton. You can get a classic MilSpec from Colt and Springfield like you can get a classic Stanley Bailey, or go for a Loaded 1911 version of same and pay a bit more ala the better Bedrock. Or you damn all costs and get a super-custom gun, just like a Norris Infill. It might take a lot of practice for a new shooter to notice the difference between the 'Fulton' and the 'Norris,' but if you are really good you will accept no substitute to the Norris for special occasions. Same is true for the rifles, I suspect.
Did any of you follow that?
6 comments:
Umm... you lost me at thoughts. Were we talking about handplanes for carpentry or for woodworking?
What's the difference? Carpentry IS woodworking.
Your analogy works for me. Can I trouble your for your opinion of Groz?
Woodcraft sometimes has them reasonably priced.
I think your analogy is valid, but there's a little more to the 1911 story.
The 1911's I was exposed to in the military were purpose-built machines. They have relatively loose tolerances and were not incredibly accurate. If you shook a government model 1911, it rattled like it was just loosely assembled.
This is actually an advantage in a military arm that is designed to be used under horrifically adverse conditions.
Granted, the Glocks have been demonstrated to be very rugged and will shoot under very adverse conditions...but keep in mind that the 1911 was put into production in...1911. They didn't have CNC machines and exotic composite materials back then. Henry Ford didn't even begin using the assembly line in mass production of automobiles until 1913.
Browning's design was innovative and ahead of its time, but was specifically created to overcome the challenges involved in mass production, parts interchangeability and available technology of the time.
In regard to the purpose for which they were designed, I believe that Mr. Browning's innovation was absolutely the pinnacle of firearms achievement. Many of the features of his design, although greatly improved and built upon using modern techniques and materials, have become the standard in pistol design.
The fact that a firearm as complicated as an autoloading pistol designed almost 100 years ago can be even MADE to be as reliable, accurate and dependable as modern designs and with modern ammo speaks volumes to the brilliance of the design and its designer...even though it was designed with a completely different purpose.
Is the 1911 design the "best?" It depends on what you're using it for. Are Eastwiong hammers the best? What if you're driving screws? The best hammer in the world sucks when it's being asked to do something for which it wasn't designed.
The 1911 wasn't designed to feed hollow points, wad cutters or other defensive/target rounds. It wasn't designed to have super-tight tolerances and have sub MOA accuracy. It was designed to reliably feed military ball ammunition. It was designed to survive under terribly adverse conditions and go "bang" reliably even after having been abused by soldiers in battle for months or years. It was designed to be mass produced with archaic equipment out of basic materials and still have reliably interchangeable parts. For that...it is awesome.
Fitting it to make it suitable for anything else requires some time, money and effort. The fact that it is even possible to "build" a 1911 to the point that it is competitive against designs 90 years its junior is a testament to the design, and its designer. IMHO
I have no experience or opinions of people I trust about Groz. I hear good things about the Veritas planes, but if I were to buy a new plane it'd be a Lie Nielson.
GI 1911's were tighter than most people think.
Any time someone says "Oh, yeah, I had a 1911 in the service and it rattled like a bucket of bolts" ask them when they were in.
SailorCurt is about my age, so I'll guess his period of service commenced in the mid '80s, about the time as the Beretta 92 was getting ready to replace the 1911.
The newest 1911 he could have used in the service would have been 40 years old, as production ceased in 1945. Lord knows how many round the frame had on it.
I've handled a few very low-mileage original military Colts, and they're as tight as your standard modern commercial Series 80 1991A1.
Post a Comment