# stanley no. 92 any better than stanley no. 78?



## GISer3546 (Jan 30, 2013)

I have a stanley no. 78 and have never been able to get good use out of it. Are all rabbet planes similar or is something like the no. 92 any better?


----------



## Joeb41 (Jun 23, 2012)

I have both and very rarely use the 78. I use the 92 often. I bought the 92 over 20 years ago and I hear the newer versions are not so good. I have no complaints on mine.


----------



## railaw (Nov 15, 2011)

There's a review of the newer 92 on here from the last year or so. Am on phone so it's hard to locate but a google search of this site should turn it up.


----------



## amckenzie4 (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm curious: what problems have you had with the 78?


----------



## GISer3546 (Jan 30, 2013)

I flattened and sharpened the iron to 8,000 girt mirror finish and it still didn't cut as smoothly or get me the clean results as I expected. I just wasn't sure if this was because of the plane or if I just wasn't used to rabbet planes.

I have heard that front of the newer no 92s come out of true with the back portion. Has anyone had this problem... if so is it fixable?


----------



## amckenzie4 (Apr 29, 2010)

GISer3546 said:


> I flattened and sharpened the iron to 8,000 girt mirror finish and it still didn't cut as smoothly or get me the clean results as I expected. I just wasn't sure if this was because of the plane or if I just wasn't used to rabbet planes.


I tend to get pretty decent results if I'm going with the grain, but it's never the mirror finish I get from a smoothing plane; the mouth is wide, and it's not really designed to give a perfect finish, as far as I can tell. Across the grain, the finish is a little worse, but not terrible.

I've used both a Millers Falls No.85 and a Stanley #78, and they seemed about the same. I sort of assumed it was just a characteristic of rabbet planes being stock removal tools rather than finishing tools. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who knows for sure one way or the other, though...


----------



## Gilgaron (Mar 16, 2012)

A 78 and a 92 aren't really for the same sorts of things... are you looking to do rabbets or shoulders?


----------



## tc65 (Jan 9, 2012)

GISer3546 said:


> I flattened and sharpened the iron to 8,000 girt mirror finish and it still didn't cut as smoothly or get me the clean results as I expected. I just wasn't sure if this was because of the plane or if I just wasn't used to rabbet planes.
> 
> I have heard that front of the newer no 92s come out of true with the back portion. Has anyone had this problem... if so is it fixable?



I've not had that problem with the newer #92 that I bought a while ago. I've been very happy with mine. 

Here is a link to a thread on the newer #92 planes that was initiated in 2011 and then reopened and continued in 2013.

http://www.woodworkingtalk.com/f11/shoulder-plane-26503/


----------



## GISer3546 (Jan 30, 2013)

Had only done rabbets so far... didn't have much luck with it so never tried it on any end grain work. I was hoping that could be an option with the 92.


----------



## Gilgaron (Mar 16, 2012)

Yeah, the 92 is for end grain, although it can do ok with long grain when I've played around with mine. It doesn't have a fence so you'd need to use a batten to do rabbets with it. The 92 is nice for detail work and the 78 is great for running a rabbet quickly. I rabbeted some picture frame parts for the glass in less time than it'd take to get the router out and set it up. It is really good at hogging off some thick shavings.


----------

