Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 117
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,093

    Default

    Matt, I'm sure some burl-wood would be strong enough for handles. I've used quite a few bits of different burls for marking-gauge stocks without any (known) problems, but I wouldn't trust most burl woods for the beams. If you can orientate the grain for maximum strength through the critical parts (especially the 'bridge' between the grip & the cheeks), you'll improve your chances, I think. However, I'd have to say it's dicey to use other than wood with a pretty predictable grain orientation. But what the heck, there is only one way to find out for sure.

    I once made a small bowsaw frame from some very pretty Red-box burlish stuff (it was off a giant root-burl dug out by a Main Roads machine). Looked very spiffy, but even though I left a bit more wood where it mattered, it busted after very little use. Bowsaw frames are subjected to more severe forces than a backsaw handle, of course, but the experience did leave me with a lasting scar. I broke out a while back and used some Budgeroo 'root burl' for a handle, though I took great care to get as much long-grain as possible through the fragile zones. So far, it's holding up well, but I don't use that particular saw a lot, having a saw with identical specs, but a much more ordinary-looking handle to do the 'dirty work'...

    Now, before I start sounding like I know all about it, I don't - shaping grips is something I learn a little bit more about every time I do it. I might be at the journeyman stage, but barely, and of course, personal preferences are paramount, so you can only talk generalities. Feel free to add your own observations/dissent!

    I've discovered a bit of a 'rule' with handle thickness (or should I say re-discovered, because when I take a critical look at old handles from the 'golden era', I reckon the makers were well aware of it). There's a strong relationship between handle thickness and the width of the grip. If you check a bunch of old saw handles, you'll find the thickness varies a bit, but the more 'comfortable' ones tend to fall somewhere between 21 & 23mm thick, i.e. a tad less to a tad more than 7/8" in old money. A few are barely 20mm and that feels a bit skimpy to my hand, unless it's compensated by a slight increase in width. This is a 'trick' that can make a skinny handle feel fatter. It doesn't take much, even a mm is enough to make a big difference to how much it 'fills' your hand, and 2mm is usually quite enough - more than that & it changes the proportions too obviously, so there's not a big range to work in. The feeling of 'fullness' is also very dependent on how much you shape the edges of the grip. I like a more oval shape, because I reckon that fits the natural shape of your closed palm, but some prefer a more simple round-over look. Other subtle changes can make a difference in the way a grip feels, one is to vary the shape, from more roundish at the bottom, to more 'oval' up at the thumb/index-finger level, which I also think reflects anatomy better. However, the thickness/width ratio of the grip is definitely one of the major things to 'get right'.

    It's worth mucking about with until you get what you think is perfect. I am quite convinced that if a saw feels just right in your hand, it will cut better & straighter for you....

    Cheers,
    IW

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Horsham Victoria
    Posts
    5,713

    Default

    Love your thought out and comprehensive replies Ian

    Dave TTC
    Turning Wood Into Art

  4. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Matt and Ian,

    Second your observations on the grip diameters Ian. Another feature of the Golden Era and earlier Disston handles I happened on accidentally is tapering the thickness of the grip from top to bottom about 0.050"-0.075" or so. Not all of the Golden Era saws bear this characteristic but a number I have do. There doesn't seem to be any pattern by model either. Some No. 7 handsaws have it and some No. 12 handsaws don't.

    This is a Golden Era two screw No. 4 with a 16" blade that I'm partway through cleaning up.

    Two screw No. 4 handle thickness 003.jpg

    At the top horn it's about 0.055"

    Two screw No. 4 handle thickness 002.jpg

    At the bottom it's about 0.050" thinner.

    Two screw No. 4 handle thickness 001.jpg

    I broke a handle I was making once and to smooth out the break I thinned the bottom. The resulting grip was much more comfortable to me than the single thickness slab style handles. Since then I make all of my handles with a bit of a taper using the milled tooth flexi-file just like that you have pictured above.
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  5. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob streeper View Post
    Not all of the Golden Era saws bear this characteristic but a number I have do. There doesn't seem to be any pattern by model either. Some No. 7 handsaws have it and some No. 12 handsaws don't....
    Rob, I've noticed a similar variation, but not only is it not consistent, it can be the reverse, in my experience i.e. thicker at the bottom than the top. This leads me to suspect that it's simply due to the orientation of the wood when the handle was laid out. The tangential shrinkage is usually higher than radial, and increases the further 'out' you go, so some taper is going to be introduced if the handle lives in a drier environment for a while. The handle you've illustrated looks to be perfectly quarter-cut, which will set it up for this kind of variation very nicely. Can you get a good enough look at the growth rings to tell if the bottom of the handle is toward the outer part of the trunk? If it is, that would support my theory, and suggest why it's an erratic and variable phenomenon....

    Interesting that you like to taper the grip top to bottom - my preference is for the reverse. It's not really a taper, as such, more of a depression worked into where the index finger & thumb sit, and partly achieved by blending from a more circular shape where the grip fits into the back of the palm & the ball of the thumb, to a flatter oval, which I then fair into the top of the horn. Apart from comfort, it's my way of making the horn look thinner and a bit more graceful without getting it too thin & fragile.

    The shape of grip I use now is also largely inspired by an oldie, a Disston that belonged to a friend. At the time I traced that handle (at least 30 years ago) I knew exceedingly little about backsaws, so can't even tell you what model it was but I knew that handle felt 'right' to me, the instant I picked it up. By the time I came to take making saw handles seriously, I'd moved much too far away to check the details of the 'original', so worked from memory. It took me quite a few tries to get something that I reckoned felt like the one I was trying to copy & of course, it's probably not, if I could put them side by side, memory being what it is. And having had many more backsaw handles in my hand since then, I'm pretty sure the one that inspired me had been owner-modified early in its life. It was far more nicely shaped & finished than any I've seen since.

    Dave - I'm taking my time doing my 'Forum duties' & mucking about inside this morning, because it's just too unpleasant to be in the shed today, even with the big wall-fan going full blast! I don't think I'd have any problem convincing the most ardent sceptic the world is getting warmer if they'd spent the last few days with me in my shed.

    The sun will have gone over the trees on the western side in a couple more hours, so I'll see how it is then....

    Cheers,
    IW

  6. #95
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Ian,

    Here it is from a different angle.

    Two screw No. 4 handle thickness 005.jpg

    Not quartered, or about half quartered maybe.

    I haven't tried tapering the handle reversely, I will though to see how it feels. I've been a bit hindered lately by weather and a work injury so it is likely to take me a while.

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    Wow.
    If I had know I was going to get such great feed back.
    I would have chucked a sicky today [emoji3]
    Then sneaked off, once I felt better to the creative zone, and done some more work on the handle.

    Does anyone know if saw handles were ever tapered ?
    In what I'm going to call east west
    Or even in both planes ?
    Ie :east ,west and north ,south on a large scale ie a manufacturer ?
    I'm sure some boutique saw makers may have done it .

    The reason I'm asking, I may try and blend the flat land in on the handle to the side cheeks as well .

    Hence why this time I've left the blank a little on the fat side for now.

    Cheers Matt

  8. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Matt

    I am not sure about the East/West tapering, but one of the noticeable differences in saws from the earlier years and those from the latter years (leading up to WW2 and most definitely after) is that there was a more gradual transition from the round part of the grip to the flat. The later saws were not much more refined than your blank!

    To illustrate this have a look at these two Disston D15 Victory saws. In principle they are the same saw, but the pre-1928 model has a much softer look to the handle because of the way the grip blends into the flat faces. It is better to hold too:

    Disston D15 pre 1928.jpg

    Now compare to the post 1928 model (probably post WW2, but I didn't really look closely)

    Disston d15 post 1928.jpg

    In a way I chose a poor example because they also changed the stud pattern (not much different to the D-23).

    However, I think you can see the lack of refinement. The router or spindle moulder put a curve on the grip after it was cut out and that was pretty much it. The amount of rounding of the grip can radically change the feel and apparent size of the handle. This is both a perception and a reality.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  9. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushmiller View Post
    Matt

    I am not sure about the East/West tapering, but one of the noticeable differences in saws from the earlier years and those from the latter years (leading up to WW2 and most definitely after) is that there was a more gradual transition from the round part of the grip to the flat. The later saws were not much more refined than your blank!

    To illustrate this have a look at these two Disston D15 Victory saws. In principle they are the same saw, but the pre-1928 model has a much softer look to the handle because of the way the grip blends into the flat faces. It is better to hold too:

    Disston D15 pre 1928.jpg

    Now compare to the post 1928 model (probably post WW2, but I didn't really look closely)

    Disston d15 post 1928.jpg

    In a way I chose a poor example because they also changed the stud pattern (not much different to the D-23).

    However, I think you can see the lack of refinement. The router or spindle moulder put a curve on the grip after it was cut out and that was pretty much it. The amount of rounding of the grip can radically change the feel and apparent size of the handle. This is both a perception and a reality.

    Regards
    Paul
    That's a huge difference Paul.
    Yes, we certainly in my mind started going down hill after the Second World War with regard to quality of goods.
    Interesting you say you haven't seen tapering east ,west.
    Tho from a manufacturing point of view ,this may be harder to do .
    Especially when I imagine the average handle coming out of the Distion factory would have been start to finish maybe ten minutes in total production time (I'm guessing here)

    Cheers Matt

  10. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,093

    Default

    Matt, I'm guessing too, but I'd suggest that the 'deterioration' in handles was largely a result of the use of rotary cutters to do most or all of the shaping, and rapid phasing out of any hand-tool work. I think there must've been different grades of handles, too, with a bit more care taken on the up-market lines compared with the basic lines.

    What surprises me most is that there must not have been much of a customer backlash. It's not as if saws were not still in heavy use, powered saws didn't start to make significant contributions to on-site house construction 'til the 1950s. I've seen reasonably well-made handles on saws produced post-WW2, though they are not up to the better prewar examples, imo, and made of Beech, not Apple wood. I don't think Apple was used by anyone much, if at all, after the late 1930s, was it?

    Up til the late 1800s, I would imagine only preparation of the blanks would have been mechanised, cutting out & shaping a handle would have been a hand tool job. The bandsaw wasn't in use until the latter half of the 19th C, so even cutting out would've been a bowsaw job until at least the last quarter of the century. The blokes doing them would probably have been on piece-work, getting some princely sum per handle (like a couple of pence!), so they would've gotten mighty slick at churning them out. When I look at old handles critically, I usually see evidence of haste - saw-marks nearly always still visible on the flat cuts that form the 'beak' at the bottom of the grip, for e.g. I'm not denigrating their work, I am in awe of how well they are shaped, given, as you suggest, they were probably dropping into the 'done' tub every 10 minutes or so!

    I would love to know what tools they used, and just how long it did take - if they'd only had U-tube back in 1900, eh? As you know, when you go to the silly lengths we do to make a handle, it takes a good deal more than 10 minutes! But we are going well beyond what was done in the past. I can cut out, tooth, & sharpen a blade in about 1/2 an hour or so (if I'm having a good day, and depending on size & tpi), but it takes me at least half a day to make & fit the handle. Sawing it out of the blank & rough shaping takes about 30 minutes to an hour or more (depending on if it's a closed or open grip); slotting and cutting out the recess for the spine anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes, depending on the wood; & drilling the bolt-holes & counter-sinks & fitting maybe 10 minutes or less. So I can have something that looks quite like a saw before lunch time, but refining the rough hndle, finishing, & testing the saw usually takes up most of what's left in the working day! Some woods in particular need a ridiculous amount of work to get the sort of finish I want. 'Tiger Myrtle' is one of the worst, it's easy to cut & rough-shape, but a cow to get perfect. My 'preferred' handle woods like the Casaurinas & Acacias are usually far easier to finish, but with such a complex shape, it still takes time & a lot of care to keep things symmetrical, the bits that should be flat, flat, and the blending of the profiles seamless. I've used Apple wood a bit, and I reckon it's up there with the best, easy to work & easy to get a good finish on, which surely was one of the reasons it was popular.

    I think, though, if I had to make saw handles for a crust, I'd starve long before I was quick enough to scratch out a living wage.....
    Cheers,
    IW

  11. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Alabama usa
    Posts
    951

    Default

    Great tread !!!
    May I add the thought that making one handle takes all day but once the tool is set up making 10 or 20 wouldn't take that much more time.
    It's the setup that takes time.
    Another thought I know you've noticed it, Make something one day and then lets say a week later you need another, it will take you what half as long to build it, you know what you want and what you need to get it done.
    Hope this makes sense?

  12. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    Well Boxing Day was very eventful.
    So I was able to make some in roads(dust chips and a bit of sweat).
    All in controlled manner drinking gin(it was after midday)
    Still a lot To go in my option ,but getting there now.
    Quite a bit of the shaping is now all most done.
    Feels very comfortable too.
    I proberly still take a little bit from here and there as it evoles.
    Playing with some ideas in my head at present ,regarding the saw slot and saw bolt configuration to.
    But I'm keeping that to myself , incase I can't pull it off[emoji854].
    Thanks for all the comments!





    Cheers Matt

  13. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Matt

    That is such a striking piece of burl you have there. I hope it has the strength and holds up, because it will be spectacular. I like the look of the overlaping bottom guard despite being an open handle. While the grip profile greatly appeals (I think it is the male appreciation of curves ) I wonder if the bulbous portion will tend to dig into the palm of the hand a little. Only sawing will tell is this is an issue. It can always have a surgical reduction of course.

    I have made a habit of cutting the slot and drilling the bolt holes first as these are the most likely operations to go pear shaped, before shaping. Having said that, with only two holes and a relatively simple saw slot (as long as you ignore shaping for the back) there may not be so much to fall in a pile.

    Watching with interest.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

  14. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,973

    Default

    I'm not meant to be here tonight.
    So don't tell any one, but I've been busy and loving it.
    Back into some heavy metal work[emoji1008]
    I write more tommorow maybe

    Paul,
    This is why I haven't made comment yet on your last reply.
    Regarding the saw slot [emoji849].
    I think I went overboard!!!!

    And happy new year folks.
    Best wishes for the new year.

    Cheers Matt.

  15. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Matt,

    Looks like you've made an innovation, if you will please post some details if you can do so without inviting the wrath of other bosses.

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  16. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Millmerran,QLD
    Age
    73
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Matt

    I agree with Rob in that this is looking suspiciously like a departure from tradition.

    Watching closely.

    All the best (saw building) for 2017.

    Regards
    Paul
    Bushmiller;

    "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •