Thread: Handsaw setting methods: Hammer vs. Pliers

Here's the piece of saw steel I've been testing various saw sets on, 0.015" 1095 toothed 15 PPI.

saw setting experiment.jpg


From left to right are: III - Hirsch 1.5, IV Disston Triumph, V - Somax gold, VI - Somax blue, VII - Stanley 42X, VIII - Stanley 42W, IX Atkins hammer set with 4 oz brass hammer.

Applying the method described above, here's the reflectogram. Hirsch 1.5, Stanley 42W and Atkins hammer set are the worst, Stanley 42X and Somax blue are the best.

Laser reflextion analysis of saw sets 081516a.jpg

Rob,
I take my hat of to you.
You constantly think out side of the square.
And you follow through with your endeavours.
Your a good man.
Sorry I have nothing to add scientifically speaking tho lol.

Cheers Matt

No big science here Matt. It's clear to me however that hammer setting is much less consistent than is pliers setting, both on the section of saw steel I did above and on the hammer set saw I purchased.

As I wrote here: (The importance of testing.) testing is important, especially if you're selling something on the basis of claims of superiority.

Here's another good discussion of the proper way to use the scientific method (Research protocols: A forest of hypotheses : Naturejobs). This paper goes nicely with this discussion of the perils of group-think (What Happens When Underperforming Big Ideas in Research Become Entrenched? | JAMA | JAMA Network).

Hi Rob,

Hammer setting would require a lot more skill and practice.
In my view.
In order to develop muscle memory and consistently equal results.(a lot of practice)
So in your experiment would it be proven to have two individuals with experience in both areas set a saw.
Or set half the saw only while the other half is set the other way.
Then said saw put to the light test

Cheers Matt

The saw I purchased wasn't hammer set by me, it was set by its maker. The test strip is my work.

Considering my test strip in isolation it could reasonably be said that I'm better with pliers type setting than I am with hammer setting. However, comparison of the results of my hammer set section and the results obtained for the saw I purchased shows that the degree of non-uniformity in both is similar.

These observations leave us with two possible explanations: 1) I'm as bad (or good?) at hammer setting as is the maker of the purchased saw or 2) hammer setting is an inferior method.

It's nice that what I've shown here can be easily reproduced, all you need is a couple of saws, a piece of paper, a saw vise, a line laser, I used a DeWALT laser level, and a camera. I hope somebody else decides to have a go at this.

Here's some more reflectograms taken in a dark room with a slightly different arrangement of laser, saw and paper.

First the 9 point hammer set saw. Note that it's important to compare the positions of every other reflection as the set of the saw teeth is reflected in the uniformity of the position and intensity of every other bright spot.

9 point hammer set saw reflectogram 081616a.jpg


This is the reflectogram of a new-condition 8 PPI Disston D-95 from the HK Porter era ~ 1950's.

8 point D95 reflectogram 081616a.jpg


And this is the reflectogram of an 8 PPI 1850's Disston No. 8 which despite it's dark patina still reflects a fair amount of light.

8 point Disston 1850s reflectogram 081616a.jpg

Here's a better reflectogram of the 9 PPI hammer set saw. The reflection is now projected onto a small whiteboard, gives a much clearer image.

9 point hammer set saw reflectogram 081616b.jpg

The alternating individual tooth reflections I mentioned above are marked here with green or blue dots.

I contend that if the saw setting is truly uniform all of the reflections marked with blue dots should have approximately equal intensity, size and distance between them. Likewise for the green dots. The tooth reflections within the black rectangle are particularly different from those around them.

This saw is in exactly the same state as it was when I received it, I haven't sharpened or set the saw. I've only used it for two small cuts and it's physically un-damaged.

To get a better idea of the uniformity of the 1850's No. 8 I rested the whiteboard on the lip of the saw vise for this image.

8 point Disston 1850s reflectogram 081616c.jpg


As you can see the No.8 has quite a wide and inhomogenous set. The tooth geometry is also non-uniform.

And this is the D95 manufactured five generations later.

8 point D95 reflectogram 081616b.jpg


Of course it's impossible to fairly compare the 1850 saw to the 1950 saw due to the wear and tear that have accumulated over the 166 odd years that have passed since the 1850 saw was made.

The most common hammer sets available, Akens and Atkins, both lack any means for restraining upward motion of the saw plate as the tooth being set is struck (The Saw Set Collector's Resource - Hammer Saw Set). The Shoemaker-Disston star saw set demonstrated in the Bad Axe video in the thread linked in my first post above was originally designed with a screw (d) to hold the blade down.

Shoemaker Disston star set patent_Page_1.jpgShoemaker Disston star set patent_Page_2.jpg




The produced versions however deleted the hold-down screw and arm to support it. It's also important that a couple additional parts of the original design were deleted notably the plate F and the screws b. These changes undoubtedly reduce the cost of manufacture of this set but I think that the design is significantly less likely to produce consistent setting as a result.

Remarkably no mention is made of operating this type of set by whacking the plunger with a maul or hammer. The Disston implementation of this design may have been intended to accommodate hammer operation but a notable omission is the lack of set screws to control the track of the plunger in its housing as the parts wear.

Disston - Shoemaker star saw set catalog drawing.JPG

Thus, lacking any restraint other than the operators off hand these types of saw set are, IMO, liable to produce higher tooth to tooth variation in set because as each tooth is struck the saw plate can flex and or rise up off of the horizontal. Further the Shoemaker-Disston star set was designed to be operated via a foot pedal making it functionally more like a pliers type set.

The pliers type sets that have two plungers, one for holding the saw plate and one for bending the tooth appear to have a significant uniformity advantage as reflected in my results above for the Somax blue and Stanley 42X. The sets lacking plate holding plungers (Stanley 42W and Hirsch 1.5) or with tooth plungers that are too wide (Somax gold and Disston Triumph) for the teeth of the 15 PPI test strip produced inferior results.

"If all you have is a hammer..."

Since we're on the subject of hammer setting this is a Bemaco trip-hammer saw set. Driven by a small electric motor this device obviates issues of muscle memory. The machine automatically advances the saw plate as it sets every other tooth. The off-side teeth are set by turning the saw over and passing it through a second time.

Bemaco trip hammer saw setter.jpg


The machine has a very stoutly sprung plate hold-down pictured here.

Bemaco hold down closeup.jpg


As can be seen I need to clean and lubricate the mechanism and replace the power and control cords before I use it. Should be interesting.

I've worked on my technique and can now produce nicer images of what previously I could see but my iPhone camera was struggling to record. The saw is now held vertically and the vertical beam of my line laser is used to illuminate the toothline at about 45^o toward the back of the blade from perpendicular. The whiteboard is held by a second ringstand and is oriented such that it is 80^o to 85^o to the saw blade on the side facing the laser.

Here's the 9 point hammer set saw reflectogram. Now the inhomogeneity is much easier to see (I hope).

9 point saw reflectogram close up 8 17 16a.jpg


Pulling the camera back you can see the ringstand clamp thumbscrews, the saw is to the left and the laser is to the right. The very bright line is the illuminated teeth.

9 point saw reflectogram zoomed out 8 17 16a.jpg


Here are some of the homogeneities highlighted. This saw was very heavily stoned by the maker so the variation of the relfections from the outside of the teeth on the RHS of this picture is very consistent. The inconsistency here is shown in the variation in intensity and or shape of the reflections between the two rows of dots.

9 pint saw reflectogram annotated for inconsist points.jpg


A shot down the beamline.

9 point shot down beamline.jpg


And for comparison purposes this is a pliers set 12 point saw, note the lack of bright points reflecting from flats. The saw blade is on the left and the bright line is the toothline.

12 point pliers set saw reflectogram 081716a.jpg


Here's a shot of my rig from above. The laser is out of frame to the right.

laser rig.jpg


Here's some relfectograms of the 1850's Disston No. 8 that was analyzed above. The snaggle-toothline is even more apparent using the new imaging setup.

1850s Disston No 8 reflectogram 081716a.jpg


And a closeup of the reflection.

1850s Disston No 8 reflectogram closeup 081716a.jpg

Worse than the 9 PPI hammer set saw but then again the No. 8 is 163 years older.

Here's the old Disston saw held in the rig.

1850's Disston No 8 held in relfectometer rig 081816a.jpg


And a shot of the handle for the medallion geeks.

1850's Disston No 8 handle detail.jpg


This saw is interesting in that the uppermost screw has a smaller head diameter than the other screws. I have another saw with this type of medallion and all three of the screws are of the same size. Has this been seen before?

Interesting work Rob. Certainly thought provoking.
Any subjective opinion on how they compare cutting?
There are some that that prefer the slight randomness to the teeth that hand filing gives.
Many would prefer the old Disston over the new, despite improvements in steel and more regularity due to automation.
As stated in the other thread I have acquired a Seymour Smith set. It seems capable of fine work but I think these were originally designed for field work as they have a threaded post for a base.
I think they could be improved with a hold down and also a horizontal guide that lines up the tooth perfectly between the anvil and the striker.
I'm about to head out of town for a couple of weeks so any further investigation will have to be put on hold.

The hammer set saw I have is a poor tool. Comparing it to a another saw in my collection with similar specs from another maker it's clearly inferior. However, it has been very useful as an object of study but I won't be buying another.

I think that hammer setting can be done right but the manual hammer type tools I have (Akens, Atkins and Japanese hammers) lack means to restrain motion of the blade as the teeth are struck..