Thread: Disston crosscut saw

Your auxilary handle is definitely not original, MA. All of the half-dozen or so I've seen had a turned wooden handle, gently tapered top to bottom. The wooden part is attached to a threaded ferrule arrangement, which accepts a screw with a clip on the end. The clip fits in the hole & the handle is locked on by twisting the wooden part to pull it up against the top of the hole. Probably not a very clear description, but if you look at this page you'll get the idea - there is some variation in the metal fitting, but they all work on the same principle, as far as I can tell.

One of the old saws I grew up with was 60", iirc, but looked very similar to the one in your pic. I've not seen one as small as yours before, and though it wouldn't handle a big log, it would be easier for one person to use than the bigger variety, I reckon. It takes a bit of practice to be able to handle a 5-footer on your own, particularly felling. They are a bit easier when "bucking" once the log is on the ground, & always easier with someone on the other end - even a not-so-skilled someone like a 12 yr old me, once they get the idea you don't push!...

Cheers,

Hi MA,

I have found your saw in an early Disston catalogue.

Which describes it as a No. 261 Lumberman,

Your saw is a 3 1/2' one man cross cut saw with M tooth pattern teeth.

A rather plain tooth pattern probably marketed to the average back yard fire wood cutter bloke,

as it was a lot easier to maintain than a lot of the more complex geometry tooth patterns.

The supplementary handle does come up in sales at times.

Have fun.

Graham.

MA

Your saw, from the medallion, dates from 1896 to 1917 and is certainly at the shorter end of the one man crosscut (logging) saws. In those days you could request almost anything you wanted regarding size. As you can see from the pix below they were made in stock sizes from 3' to 6'. The "helper" handle could be used in either of the two positions: Near the handle for one man use or at the toe with two people. The pix below are from 1919 and your saw is earlier, but likely very similar. I have other earlier catalogues somewhere and will track that down and post it later. It looks as though the model is the Lumberman with the conventional teeth at the toe before transitioning into the "M" pattern.

Disston Crosscut Saws lumberman.jpgDisston Crosscut Saw handles.jpg

On your saw it looks as though an extra saw screw has been added. I think I would look at a new handle.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

......On your saw it looks as though an extra saw screw has been added. I think I would look at a new handle.....l

I think the bolt is probably holding part of the handle together, Paul, it doesn't appear to go through the plate...

And yairs, I think a new handle might be the easiest way to repair the current one....

Cheers,

Ian

I agree. (Couldn't get the site to reply with quote. It just sat there )

I see that I doubled up on Graham's post. I must type quicker and research faster!

Regards
Paul

MA

Some more information as promised: This time from a 1914 catalogue. In this catalogue the Lumberman is not given a number and neither does it show a hole for the supplementary handle just forward of the handle. This could be an omission by the artist (none of the models showed a hole at the handle) or it could date your saw between 1915 and 1917. There were ten one man saws listed in the 1914 catalogue and the most expensive was $3.30 in the 3½' length compared to $2.85 for your saw. The top of the line had a perforated lance tooth pattern and nickel plated saw screws.

Disston Lumberman 1914 catalogue.jpg

If you are looking to make a more representative supplementary handle the pic below (No.118) might help with the dimensions also given. The metal component would have had a threaded rod and an internal thread in the handle so it could be pulled down tight and flat against the back edge of the blade.

Disston supplementary handle.jpg

While we are on the subject of crosscut handles I thought this pic (same 1914 catalogue) might be of interest to show how the upmarket handles were fastened on the two man saws.

Disston crosscut two man handles.jpg

I hope this helps. It looks as though your saw will clean up quite well and new handles would enhance it. Because of the extra thickness in gauge those types of saws often survive well without kinks or bends in them.

Regards
Paul

MA,

I think with a bit(S, load) of love the handle could be revived, ok no it can’t.

But I did notice all the Teeth are in tact, so that’s means one, the saw probably never followed AFL especially Collingwood.
Secondly it should come up looking fantastic,an when your finished I have one ready to be done,

Cheers Matt.

Hi there Ian, Graham, Paul and Matt. Thank you all for your responses and great info. Let me repeat that this is why I love this forum. I would like to replace the handle (I'm sure things will only be worse under the duct tape) and definitely appreciate the measurements for the proper auxiliary handle. I have not had a good look at it yet (only got it yesterday afternoon when I dropped in for a quote) but the handle does not look like apple or beech. Anyone know what else Disston used? Those old catalogues are wonderful. Blade is very straight and most of the teeth follow the bresting nicely (some just before the standard shaped ones seem a little low). I didn't think I would use this much but it might just come in handy for the branches that regularly drop on our roads. The extra bolt in the handle is holding some sort of home made handle guard.

MA

The handle looks very much like the American Beech from the pix, but it is always hard to tell from pix so it could well be something else. American Beech does not have the characteristic fleck that is seen in English Beech, but when you take of that duct tape, which looks as though it is hiding another metal repair, you should be able to see the medullary rays on the grip if it is Beech.

Disston did use Brazilian Rosewood, but only for their Victory saws (D115 and D15). They occasionally used Mahogany on the D8 range I think and the only other timber in that era would have been Cherry. Jump forward to the 1950s and they used any hardwood in conjunction with stained varnish or lacquer to make them look like something more appealing.

My focus has always been on the carpentry saws where the timber was usually enthusiastically identified and I have never paid much attention to the logging saws. Out of interest I checked Disston, Simonds and Atkins catalogues and none of them seemed keen to say the type of timber they used on these one man logging saws. I guess it could be almost any hardwood.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

....... Out of interest I checked Disston, Simonds and Atkins catalogues and none of them seemed keen to say the type of timber they used on these one man logging saws. I guess it could be almost any hardwood..

Paul, if the handle is original, I think you could safely bet half a stubby that it will be beech - it was plentiful & cheap back in the day. American beech does tend to have finer rays than its European cousin on average (at least what I've seen of both), but there is much overlap, and the rays can be hard to see on either depending on the orientation of the wood. I don't think Disston or any other maker fussed too much about having perfectly quarter-cut pieces for utility tools...
Cheers,
Ian

I have one with the lumberman type death. My handle is hole and in good condition. The blade has two holes one near the tip and one near the handle. The second handle is a piece of copper pipe.

Originally Posted by IanW

Paul, if the handle is original, I think you could safely bet half a stubby that it will be beech - it was plentiful & cheap back in the day. American beech does tend to have finer rays than its European cousin on average (at least what I've seen of both), but there is much overlap, and the rays can be hard to see on either depending on the orientation of the wood. I don't think Disston or any other maker fussed too much about having perfectly quarter-cut pieces for utility tools...
Cheers,
Ian

Ian

You have picked my level of gambling in one. We now need to find somebody who is prepared to raise us half a stubby that it is not Beech.

Regards
Paul

Plenty of great information here. When I'm curious about a Disston saw, this is always my first s Disstonian Institute.com -- Online Reference of Disston Saws

The handle at the toe is useful when you've got two people working the saw; saws that length can also be used solo, in which case, the handle at the toe's not needed, unless you've got really long arms.

Originally Posted by Bill Houghton

Plenty of great information here. When I'm curious about a Disston saw, this is always my first s Disstonian Institute.com -- Online Reference of Disston Saws

The handle at the toe is useful when you've got two people working the saw; saws that length can also be used solo, in which case, the handle at the toe's not needed, unless you've got really long arms.

Bill

I agree about the Disstonian Institute. It is a fabulous resource, but unfortunately (sounds like I am being critical, but I am not) it only covers handsaws used for carpentry. Logging style saws are not included. However, one can use it to date any Disston saw where a medallion is featured and I did just that with Mountain Ash's medallion which featured "Philada." According to the Institute that places it between 1896 and 1917.

It is a pity there is not the same facility for all the other saw manufacturers. As it is we have to do a little more research ourselves.

Regards
Paul