Thread: Neat backsaw handle.

My 2c:

First, it doesn't make sense to me to measure the angle of the grip against the spine, which is often not parrallel with the line of the teeth, for reasons both accidental & deliberate. The functional connection is between the grip & the tooth line, surely, so that is the non-variable we ought to be using. Of course spines get knocked out of whack all the time so what Pete Tarran says is perfectly true, but it doesn't negate the fact that grip angles vary if measured either way.

Ian; when I set the hang on my backsaws I reference is the index finger as a pointer along the toothline that I am wanting as the directional force. Under normal circumstances that directional force is located just forward of the mid point along the toothline. When setting the hang the working height does has some influence on the chosen hang angle, as the controlling wrist and forearm should ideally form a straight line.

it would be fair to say my views on the hang angle are not aligned with the views of Pete Taran, and as such I chose to tactfully make no further comment.

regards Stewie;

Stewie, there are several methods I've seen for determining grip angle & I guess we each find what works best for us. Your method is based on thought & practice & so long as it works for you, it's a good method. I think too many folks over-think minor technicalities that are perhaps factual, but not especially relevant to actual performance in the real world. So indeed, I think it's wise not to get into Tweedle-Dum & Tweedle-Dee arguments unless you enjoy debate for its own sake (& many do!).

Polite & reasoned debate is good, in my view, but we should accept there will always be a range of opinions and even facts can be a bit fluid (according to Mr. Trump), so it's best to keep an open, but sceptical mind, I reckon...

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

My 2c:

First, it doesn't make sense to me to measure the angle of the grip against the spine, which is often not parrallel with the line of the teeth, for reasons both accidental & deliberate. The functional connection is between the grip & the tooth line, surely, so that is the non-variable we ought to be using. Of course spines get knocked out of whack all the time so what Pete Tarran says is perfectly true, but it doesn't negate the fact that grip angles vary if measured either way.

Derek, your post supports my contention that "correct" handles and angles thereof are in the eye of the beholder. I've gone from being evangelical about hang angles when I first discovered what a difference they can make, to being completely open-minded (I wrote that article for AWR when I was still in my evangelical stage & I wish I could retract some of it now!). Changing the grip angle makes a big difference to the feel of any saw, but what that differences mean is for the individual to decide, I think. Whatever works best for you is best, there is no 'one size fits all' & never was. I think Stewie's chart demonstrates that very nicely. I'm happy to show anyone what works best for me and explain why I think they work, but if they want a handle that's substantially different on an otherwise identical saw, well, that's their choice.

Until someone can convince me otherwise, I'll argue that the way a saw performs in anyone's hands has more to do with that person's experience, the suitability of the tooth pattern for the task, and the quality of the sharpening (especialy the latter!). A nice handle that sets your wrist at a comfy angle definitely adds to the subjective pleasure of the job, without question, but as Goldilocks discovered, there is much variation in tastes, even amongst bears.....

Cheers,

Ian

I agree with you that Pete Tarran has mis-read the significance of the spine in relation to hang angle. To see this we merely have to remove the spine altogether and ask ourselves what difference does it make: None. The movement of a handle on the saw is an issue, but there the hang angle is the least of your problems!

I mentioned earlier that we should restrict ourselves to broad principles instead of the nitty gritty and I am about to embark on nitty gritty . However I am doing this partly to demonstrate why we should be wary of this particularly in remote discussion without the benefit of having the saws to hand (more . Sorry about that one).

I am a little confused about Derek's observation that the 'Kenyon" (I keep placing inverted commas around the name to emphasise it is not an original) would encourage the hand to slide up the handle implying that it is not desireable, but in the examples he is pointing to, he likes the handle being thicker towards the heel as it moves the hand naturally towards the top horn. To some extent in the comparative pix between the Beardshaw and the "Kenyon" I think he has fallen prey to my ordinary photography skills so I have taken some more pix to demonstrate the relative sizes between the two handles: This is a process I find quite difficult, primarily because of my complete lack of skills in this field (where is Ironwood when you want him).

So here goes:

The first pix are to try and demonstrate the relative size difference between the two handles. The Beardshaw is longer from top horn to lower horn and slightly wider. The top horn is actually about the same length as the Kenyon or would have been if there was no damage. The very end is both chipped and of reduced length. Again, this may not have been obvious from my earlier pix.

P1070621 (Medium).JPGP1070622 (Medium).JPG P1070623 (Medium).JPGP1070624 (Medium).JPG

Now this is as close I have ever been to a selfie. First up with the Kenyon

P1070627 (Medium).JPGP1070628 (Medium).JPGP1070629 (Medium).JPG

More selfies with the Beardshaw (you can see the damaged top horn)

P1070630 (Medium).JPGP1070631 (Medium).JPGP1070632 (Medium).JPG

The "Kenyon", for me, is snug and a perfect fit for my hand. There is no room for movement up or down the handle. The Beardshaw is slightly "loose." Loose can have it's attractions in some fields, but not handles to my mind. I measured the grip and the "Kenyon" went from 32mm at the heel to 30mm under the top horn. The Beardshaw from 34mm to 33mm with a more pronounced hump in the middle. Hump and loose in this context are not the best combination. The "Kenyon" is 24.5mm thick and the Beardsaw 24mm thick. I should add that the fit of the Kenyon is absolute luck and certainly not played for, but I will happily take it.

What do I take from all this? A saw handle is not a pair of lady's tights and one size certainly does not fit all. The only way to get a perfect fit, other than luck, is to go bespoke, which is not an option for most of us. Handle comfort is most important if we are doing a lot of work. The hang angle is influenced by several factors (but not the comfort of the handle) including the height at which you are working and the weight of the saw. This latter aspect is down to whether you need to exert vertical pressure on the saw. The former aspect more to do with the work you are undertaking. If you are cutting dovetails, ideally you tend to look down on the top. If you are sawing with a bench hook you may be looking more from the side.

I can see a case for ten to twenty saws, each designed for different applications. In practice most of us have a couple and as such everything is a compromise .

Regards
Paul

Subjective as individual taste can vary, I am not overly impressed with the shaping and hang of the Gramercy Dovetail Saw. Starting with the hang its far too seep for my personal taste. The general shaping of the handle also screams machine shaped. The grip is way too narrow for my taste, and as Derek rightly points out the top horn will would promote an abnormally higher position with the controlling hand.

regards Stewie;

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

....I can see a case for ten to twenty saws, each designed for different applications. In practice most of us have a couple and as such everything is a compromise ....

Yes indeed, if you were to optimise a saw for every conceivable wood you wish to work with & every conceivable operation, I think you'd end up with way more than 20 saws. And given my not-so-good memory, I'd have an awful time trying to remember which was for what!

Compromise is good - it keeps the tool chest from overflowing......

Cheers,

Started work on reducing the height of the brass hardbacks from 3/4" to 1/2".

Not the most enjoyable part of this project.

Stewie;

Wow! That is hell of work. doesn't the brass bow to both sides of the saw cut? Mine does. One of the reasons, we never offered tapered spines.

Cheers
Pedder

Originally Posted by IanW

The Gramercy D/T saw not only has a similarly thin grip, it's set at way too high an angle to suit my style of cutting dovetails. However, they have lots of dedicated fans who say they're the bees knees.

Ian, the Gramercy is for sawyer with a low bench. The spine of that saw is so tinym, that it needs the presssure of a high handle. I think it was Adam Cherubini, who pointed, that theese kind of saws are good for sawing half blind dovetails with the board clamped vertical in the fron vise.

TLT saws look different, but they are the result of long process, when Klaus wanted a saw as a mix of Gramercy and Kenyon and me wanted a Spear & Jackson type.

Originally Posted by pedder

Wow! That is hell of work. doesn't the brass bow to both sides of the saw cut? Mine does. One of the reasons, we never offered tapered spines.

Cheers
Pedder

Hi Pedder; yes their was a very slight bow to the saw cut side. Will correct that at a later stage using the hydraulic press.

Its around the 1hr mark to complete each cut down, ready for use.

Its a pain, but not so bad with the radio turned on.

with regards Stewie;

Originally Posted by pedder

Ian, the Gramercy is for sawyer with a low bench. The spine of that saw is so tinym, that it needs the presssure of a high handle.......

Hi Pedder, yes, for me the Gramercy grip angle would only work with any comfort at bench-top height (& a relatively low bench like mine. For reasons mostly to do with age-challenged eyes, I saw dovetails & tenons much higher up, with the cutting point about level with my elbow. So to keep my wrist neutral it requires a hang-angle that is about 10 degrees off vertical: D-T cutting.jpg

The vise in this picture is about 150mm higher than my regular bench.

But I emphasise again that grip angles are a very personal matter, as you well know, so I don't expect what suits me to suit everyone!

The suggestion that the handle compensates for low spine weight is worth some thought, but a sharp saw needs so little "weight" to cut quickly - most people apply too much rather than too little. My preference is for lighter rather than heavier spines on a dovetail saw because as I said above (or maybe it was in another thread?), it makes it easier to tilt the saw left & right as I work across a set of tails. The more vertical grip also helps strike the correct angles intuitively as I switch from one side of each tail to the opposite.

Originally Posted by pedder

.... TLT saws look different, but they are the result of long process, when Klaus wanted a saw as a mix of Gramercy and Kenyon and me wanted a Spear & Jackson type.....

The grip angles I've settled on have also been arrived at by trial, but not very formal trials. Way back, I had quite a few small saws and I noticed over the years that I would reach for a couple of them repeatedly, even preferring them when they weren't as sharp as they should be. When I started making saws, I took a more critical look at my saws to determine what it was about them that made me like them. The biggest single factor turned out to be the grip angle, and to a slightly lesser extent, the position of the handle with respect to the tooth line or the "line of thrust" as some would have it.

I was very enthusiastic about this at first, I thought I had discovered the fundamental principles of a saw & would be able to make saws that were perfect for everybody. It didn't take very long to discover that we are a disparate lot, & the "fundamental principles" that work so well for me didn't seem to apply to everyone else! There is no doubt you can saw quite well with a saw whose handle is nowhere near as comfortable as it may be, but you will struggle to saw well with a saw that is dull & poorly set, so that's where I put my evangelical efforts nowadays.

Keep yer saws sharp, fellas...
Cheers,

I am a little confused about Derek's observation that the 'Kenyon"

Paul, my apology - I mixed up the Kenyon with the Beardshaw. They should be the other way around.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by pedder

Ian, the Gramercy is for sawyer with a low bench. The spine of that saw is so tinym, that it needs the presssure of a high handle. I think it was Adam Cherubini, who pointed, that theese kind of saws are good for sawing half blind dovetails with the board clamped vertical in the fron vise.

TLT saws look different, but they are the result of long process, when Klaus wanted a saw as a mix of Gramercy and Kenyon and me wanted a Spear & Jackson type.

The Gramercy is a far more aggressive saw than one expects for a 19 tpi plate. It will chew through hard Jarrah with ease. However, the aggressiveness makes the saw start with more difficulty than most, and this certainly is eased when sawing half-blinds in a Moxon (= high angle). The aggressiveness may well be due to the high hang angle.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

The Gramercy is a far more aggressive saw than one expects for a 19 tpi plate. It will chew through hard Jarrah with ease. However, the aggressiveness makes the saw start with more difficulty than most, and this certainly is eased when sawing half-blinds in a Moxon (= high angle). The aggressiveness may well be due to the high hang angle.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek; it may also be partly due to the zero rake angle.

regards Stewie;

Stewie, I did consider that. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall the rake angle, and you may be right. Even so, the teeth are smaller than, say, a 15tpi, such as the LN, and the Gramercy is similar when starting a cut. A light hand is needed. Once going, it is wonderful.

The review I wrote 8 years ago: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...vetailSaw.html

Regards from Perth

Derek