Thread: Backsaws: Brass or Steel. Which is better?

Hi Tomneby, I have both steel and brass and they both work fine, it's more the teath and blade that matter I think. The back just keeps the blade ridged. Get a saw that has a nice clean cut and doesn't leave fury edges.

Hi Tom,

IMHO if you buy old saws steel is better. Most brass is soft wich causes more bending. Only problem of steel: rust!

Cheers Pedder

Brass looks nicer and is easier to bend, therefore preferred I suspect by the new boutique saw makers. Otherwise no gain in performance.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Brass does look nicer and doesn't rust, but if the top of the saw is rusting then the blade probably is also - it's a matter of caring for your tools.
One of the issues in backsaws that is often not mentioned is the extra weight of the brass or steel at the top. For me thicker is better.
I have found that this helps to not only give the saw some heft and authority in the cut, but allows your cutting hand to concentrate on the cutting task, allowing the saw itself to do most of the work. Combine this with a correct set and sharp teeth and it is a pleasure to use.
SG

Hi

Thanks for your comments. It has cleared the issue up for me.

Tom

I agree with Scribbly in that the 'heft' of the saw makes a difference. It doesn't take a lot of steel or brass to stiffen the saw, so most of the cheapie saws have a very thin & narrow bit of steel squeezed onto them, which satisfies that requirement, but gives them no heft at all.

I have two decent old backsaws, one of which has a fairly sustantial steel back, and it is as good a saw to use in every way as the brass backed one of similar vintage (both have beautifully shaped handles). So I also agree with Derek - there is no substantial difference if all other aspects are equal. But I shamefully confess to being attracted to the brass backs simply because they look nicer.

I aslo have a new brass-back (well, it was new 20 years ago!) which was a dog when I bought it. It had an ugly, crudely-shaped handle that was as disgusting to hold as it was to view, and was so poorly sharpened & set, I could only cut arcs with it (& only in soft wood). That was what prompted me to start leaning to sharpen small saws. I've since rehandled it, recut its teeth to about 15 tpi (rip) & it is my very best dovetailer (picture). Recently, I 'made' a small saw with the blade from an el-cheapo. A friend slit a 20 thou groove in a piece of 6 X 18mm brass for me, and I made a pistol-grip handle for it. By sheer accident, since I was just mucking around, it turned out to have a perfect balance & heft, for me, and is destined to be my small general-purpose crosscut for mitreing mouldings and such like tasks for the rest of the natural.

Funny thing about saws is that the metal in quite cheap ones seems to be just as good as in expensive ones - least that's my experience. I'm not including those impulse-hardened things, and since I haven't bought a new saw for more than 15 years, this may no longer be true, either.

My 2c,
Cheers,

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Brass looks nicer and is easier to bend, therefore preferred I suspect by the new boutique saw makers. Otherwise no gain in performance.

Regards from Perth, Derek

Actually it takes more pressure to bend alloy 260 navel brass than it does an equivilent thickness of the steel traditionally used for back saws. Brass is also a good bit heavier than steel of comparable thicknesses.

That said, us modern makers generally use alloy 360 free machining brass for the saws using the slotted construction method. We also do make saws using folded backs from alloy 260, however.

Main reason is the back is simply a means to hold a thin piece of steel. Whether it is slotted or folded doesn't matter. There are trade-offs from a construction standpoint, as well as minor practical issues for the end user.

As regards steel, most of the steel used in lesser cost saws, but still close in cost to us, LN, Adria is not as hard of steel. RC is quite a bit less. They will dull quicker. Same issue applies to other tools--plane blades and chisels. The steel used today by most of us so-called boutique (I hate that term) makers is better than that used by Disston et al. The only saw making tradition that comes close are the better Eastern saws from the late 1800s forward. They too used harder Swedish strip steel as the basis for the blades.

Take care, Mike

Originally Posted by MikeW

As regards steel, most of the steel used in lesser cost saws, but still close in cost to us, LN, Adria is not as hard of steel. RC is quite a bit less. They will dull quicker. Same issue applies to other tools--plane blades and chisels. The steel used today by most of us so-called boutique (I hate that term) makers is better than that used by Disston et al. The only saw making tradition that comes close are the better Eastern saws from the late 1800s forward. They too used harder Swedish strip steel as the basis for the blades.
Take care, Mike

Hmm, that's an intersting bit of information, Mike. By 'lesser cost but still close' I take it you mean ones like in my pic above? (It certainly wasn't cheap by the prices of the day - probably at least as much as a "big W" or Adria in today's prices). I guess that vindicates my observation that the steel in it is no better than the el-cheapos. I thought the steel must have come out of the same bin for all the saws made in the world!
That said, premature dulling hasn't been a big issue, though - given the amount of handsawing even a keen weekender like myself does, I get a long time between sharpenings - if I had saws like yours, I would get so out of practice I would make a worse job of it than I do now!

On the other hand, now I'm curious............

Damn!
I DO NOT NEED ANY MORE TOOLS..
I do not need ANY MORE tools..
I do not...
..
.

Hi Ian--no, the Tyzack of at least that vintage and older is decent steel. Way better than say the Flinn saws available for about the same or a little less than current makers' better saws. When the US/Pound rate was closer, the current English saws had a bigger cost disparity. Now they are on par or higher cost than the better US makers' saws.

But the steel is available in basically two hardness ranges. The newer English--and even the older ones and the Disstons--are of the softer range. It is still good steel, don't get me wrong. But it is softer. Hardness/softness in a hand saw that one can sharpen oneself isn't that big an issue, though. Especially in DT up through small tenon saws. Where it becomes a greater issue are the coarser panel and hand saws.

A practical difference shows up right away in how quickly I go through files on the harder steel versus a softer Disston, et al. It does translate out to longer tooth life. It does apply to lighter saws, though.

Well, I've babbled enough. Better get back to work before the boss throws a fit...Mike

Hi Mike

Good to see you surface for a chat How have you settled into the new premises?

I stand corrected about the reasons for using brass over steel. Clearly I am not a metalurgist!

Incidentally, I would not include Wenzloff & Sons as a "boutique" manufacturer. I use this term as it is applied to small scale tool makers. The emphasis is on company size, not on the design approach or build quality. There are a couple who fit this bill. You do not.

Regards from Perth (actually Cape Town as I write this)

Derek

Originally Posted by MikeW

The only saw making tradition that comes close are the better Eastern saws from the late 1800s forward. They too used harder Swedish strip steel as the basis for the blades.

Take care, Mike

Thanks for the input here Mike.
Please pardon my ignorance of saw lore, but what are the better Eastern saws from the late 1800s forward?
Are you referring to manufacturers in eastern USA, or Asian saws from Japan et al?
Mucho Gratias
SG

Originally Posted by MikeW

Well, I've babbled enough..........Mike

No, Mike, not babble at all, quite lucid & informative! I think you have cleared up a few issues for me. I have noticed a bit of difference between my saws in that some are a bit easier to file than others, but that seemed to be more a function of tooth size than anything - I just don't file enough similar saws to get any feel for it. However, you would be in a very good position to notice!
I had never equated any particular tooth hardness with wear resistance, mostly because of aforesaid long intervals between sharpenings. I guess it is fairly obvious that it should, though it's not always a straightforward & linear relationship as any Hock plane blade user knows!

At least I can remain happy with the performance of my current saws for the time being.

Maybe..............

Well I certainly didn't expect to get an answer from the horses mouth so to speak! Thanks Mike.

So from the responses above I have gleaned the following:

1. Regarding the "back" of the saw... brass v steel isnt such a big deal for final performance, but is a consideration when constructing a saw or for pure aesthetics.

2. Blade steel is can vary alot in quality, with softer steel becoming dull quicker. Earlier model western saws typically have better steel than current mass produced models. Modern "high-end" saws use a better quality steel than teh mass produced also.

Please feel free to correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Cheers
Tom

oh... and thank you to all contributors. Your knowledge is very helpful to a beginner like me.

I've spotted a nice old Spear & Jackson 20" and a Spear & Jackson 10" steel backed backsaw that i'm keen on. Doesn't sound like I can go too wrong. Once I master them I think I'll look at one of Mike's beautiful saws... so Mike I'll call you in about uummmm........ 10 ah...... years?!