planer or jointer for thicknessing

Page 1 of 2  
In general which would you use to cut a piece down to proper thickness assuming the piece is already 1) planed and shaped properly 2) only a smidgen too large
I have a table leg that is about 3/16th too large, so my first inclination would be to run it over the jointer a couple times to get it down to size. My reasoning is that the jointer has a superior table and I can control the feed much better than my benchtop planer. Also my jointer will shave 1/32 reliably whereas my planer is around 3/32. But would it be a better option to invest in a better planer and use that or is a jointer perfectly acceptable for shaving down wood?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Eigenvector" wrote in message

For 3/6", what _I_ would use:
Table saw first; planer second; jointer last, and only if I was not overly concerned with surfaces remaining paralllel to each other.

or
A jointer simply cannot guarantee that surfaces will remain parallel, as will either a well set up table saw, or planer.
YMMV ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Swingman" wrote

Obviously a typo ... make that "3/16th", NOT 3/6".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I hear what you're saying. The parallel issue is a genuine concern.
I know a few people commented on how I was misstating the precision of the planer, but I know the planer I have and it planes wood but has poor depth control. Its a borrowed tool, so I won't complain, but it just won't do what I need it to do.
However I hear what everyone is saying, a planer is the appropriate tool here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

3/16" is a pretty big smidgen.

Ar you sure? My benchtop planer has a MAXIMUM cut of 1/16 per pass. That is one full turn of the crank. I generally try to make the last pass a light one with a quater-turn (1/64th)

You know your tools better that I do, but in my shop, I'd use the planer.
_Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Totally agree with Swingman.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Each tool has it's purpose.
The planer is used to uniformly plane wood to a nominal thickness.
the jointer, straight edges wood . it also flattens on a single face , takes warp, twist, cupping, etc out of a board, so that it can
be milled to a consistent thickness with a planer. I have never been able to uniformly dress a board to a consistent thickness
with a jointer alone. I have always had both, jointer and planer.
BUT, ,,,,,,,,in your case the jointer would be your best bet, since we are shaving a small controlled amount from
an already dimensioned leg . I use a jointer for this a lot when putting a slight taper in a leg.
KK
http://home.comcast.net/~kdz.96/site/?/home /

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This thread had me baffled for a few minutes
English reader, therefore assumed that planer referred to a jointer, and jointer referred to a.. er, ummm jointer also Forgot that you chaps say planer when you mean "thicknesser", and you call a planer a "jointer." :-)
Not a big deal in _this_ case, I know, but potentially dangerous.. "just feed wood into the planer with your hand pressing down on top of the stock.." kinda thing. Not a great example, but you get the idea,
You say potato and I say tomatoe.. let's call the whole thing off.
A friend in Americaland was completely baffled by my campaign to stop parents parking - and driving - outside the local school on the "pavement." It took a few minutes for her to understand why I was so upset by this apparently correct behaviour. There are plenty of cases where we think we're talking about the same thing, make judgments and act accordingly. Wars have happened for less.
Anyhow up, any European readers - Check your definitions before assuming that what you think you understand is what was meant. "Rabbits" vs. "your money back," for example.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:39:35 +0100, Ken wrote

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bored Borg wrote:

OK, I have to ask. Are you a bored Trekistani cyborg, or are you a bored Big Orange Retail Giant, or did your parents name you "Borg", or is "borg" a Britishism that I have not heard before?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're not a tennis fan then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Borg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:50:11 +0100, Bob Martin wrote

Yes, it's none of these. Or all of them except one. Or not.
I hope that clears things up.
actually, it's driven entirely by the e-mail address which was easy to remember but caused jawdrops of disbelief when given out. Don't try it - I've discontinued it 'cos of the huge amount of spam I got
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I disagree with the consensus so far. The jointer should do the job just fine as the leg is already dimensioned with the faces parallel. 3/16 is a small enough amount that any error (10% of 3/16?) introduced would never be noticeable by eye in the finished part. It sounds like Swingman likes to play with his power tools too much. Tablesaw, planer, then jointer?? Or did I miss the sarcasm? Art

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Artemus" wrote

Nope ... but here's what you did "miss":
1. My preface: "what _I_ would use:"
2. My qualifier: " ... if you're not overly concerned with surfaces remaining parallel to each other"
3. And, most importantly, you seem to be missing a proper understanding of the proper use/capabilities of each tool listed, all "power tools" BTW, a fact which you seem to have missed as well.
Fact: A jointer is simply NOT a proper tool to dimension stock in "thickness", which is what the OP asked.
The planer is the proper tool, and the table saw can be, if set up and used properly, and the dimensioning task falls within it's cutting capability (which 3/16" appears to do in the case of a table leg).
Now you do know.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I disagree; I think what he missed is that you listed your order of preference for picking *one* tool to use -- he thought you meant to use _all_three_.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Doug Miller" wrote

I certainly didn't see it that way, but on review, you may well be right. If I indeed "missed" it, I hereby apologize, and thanks for pointing it out!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 14, 6:20pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

That's my take too.
I regularly use a jointer to thin up a board a little bit. It's just quicker for me to take a quick pass over it than to have to measure the thickness of the board, set the planer to the desired thickness and then run it through. If your jointer and jointing technique are spot on, the result will still be parallel.
JP ******************** Flawless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jay Pique" wrote

Sorry, looks like I owe Art an apology. Mea culpa, Art.

3/16th is more than a "little bit" ... AMMOF, it's 1/16th over the maximum recommended cut for many, if not most, jointers.
I know ... multiple passes, but the more passes required over the jointer, the greater likelihood of ruining the "geometry" of the workpiece, and shaving off 3/16th on the jointer is pushing the envelope, IME.
IOW, the resultant risk of trapezoidal chair legs won't necessarily make for centerline 'perpendicular to the floor' joints, which is what chairs leg designs usually require.
Now, a 1/16th or less on a jointer, I could understand ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Swingman" wrote

Make that "table" legs ... shit, the sun must be over the yardarm somewhere in the British Empire, and it's obviously past time for a cocktail on the porch and calling it a day.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Looks like I owe you one too. I should have read the whole thread before firing off a response. Art
"Swingman" wrote ...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Artemus" wrote

And a rare Wreck moment...
Dueling Apologies!!
I never thought I would see the day...
(OK Swingman, give'm hell!) :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.