Thread: Saw set types

Originally Posted by macg

Hi Matt,

I have quite a few sets from different makers and one of the things I found is that the more mechanical they are in their design the more wear to parts occurred causing them to no longing work accurately.

With regard to both the Stanley 42X and the Eclipse 77, the major fault I found with them is the groove worn where the teeth of the saw rest against the body of the set. This is pronounced on well used sets.

Below are a couple of hammer sets that I have, one is the Disston Star which can be operated with a foot pedal via a chain.

The other is an Aiken type made by W & C Wynn.

In use, both would need to be fixed to a dedicated saw set bench with extra support for the saw blade. But I feel they would be a lot quicker and easier to use than the plier types of sets.

Graham.

Graham,

Don’t be shy then let’s see more off the Saw sets,

Yes agree with grove being worn into the sets is a problem, the Atlas, I showed above has that issue unfortunately, also the Stanley 42x but too some what lesser amount.

Love the Hammer sets, I’m starting too develop a unhealthy want too try hammer setting a saw now [emoji3061].

Cheers Matt.

As promised the Stanley 42x in all its naked glory.

An a hammer that is just under 2mm,
Apologies for pics, I’m having F IT problems.

Cheers Matt.

Originally Posted by Simplicity

....
Yes agree with grove being worn into the sets is a problem, the Atlas, I showed above has that issue unfortunately, also the Stanley 42x but too some what lesser amount.....

It's a problem with no obvious solution on the Eclipse other than making the anvil adjustable for height (as the 42X obviously is), but that would bring its own set of problems, e.g. making it a bit more faffing about to adjust for different sized teeth, instead of just rotating the anvil as you do on the Eclipse. The material the teeth contact needs to be soft enough that it doesn't damage them (especially for those who like to set after sharpening), so it's inevitable it will wear relatively quickly as they are dragged across sharp edges. It wouldn't take much wear to make them pretty useless for small teeth.

I suppose they are cheap enough that the best solution is to just buy a new one, but is there a welding technique applicable to brass? If you could just fill the groove with some brass or bronze & file it back to original height, that would be the perfect fix. As I discovered with my 'dud' Eclipse, it's easy to make small adjustments with a file. Filling the worn groove with silver solder would easy enough, but I think it would be too soft to be practical (& lead solder easier still, but definitely too soft). Another approach might be to file out a distinct channel & solder in a piece of brass to bring it back to the correct height. Any other suggestions?

A more rough & ready "fix" might be to file the hole for the screw that holds the anvil so you can move it up a touch to compensate for the teeth sitting higher as the groove wears. But the more I think about it, the less I think of that idea, so delete that one.....

Any bright ideas??
Chers,

Ian,

You have beaten me to the punch,

I have thought weather you could actually Braze the area that gets worn.



Immmm maybe I should have a go.

Cheers Matt.

Matt, if you are a dab-hand with a torch, you could probably get away with it, the melting point of bronze is ~890 deg C while brass is ~900, but the actual difference would depend on the relative amounts of tin in the bronze & zinc in the brass. With a very tight flame & a steady hand you should get away with it. I haven't brazed anything for a very long time & would need to practice some before attempting anything as delicate as filling the groove in a saw-set. I would also need a decent torch!

Cheers,
Ian

Hi all,

Matt asked to see some more of my saw sets,

Below is the Eclipse #79 used for small to medium sized circular saw blades.

Graham.

Hi all,

Below is the Eclipse #78 saw set used for setting the teeth on one and two man cross cut saws.

It is very similar to the #79 but, it has an extra fence to register it's position along the tooth edge.

This and the #79 are about nearly twice the size of the #77.

Graham.

Here are another couple of saw sets to add to the collective wisdom of us all

Apex Morrill (or Morrill Apex?)

The casting inside the handle is lovely
20220807_145256.jpg

Or really special, depending on how you look at it
20220807_145306.jpg

Instructions are clear
20220807_145321.jpg

Nice trade mark
20220807_145332.jpg

Stanley 43 (for Crosscut saws)

This one is a lot bigger
20220807_145411.jpg

The piece of paper is A4
20220807_145422.jpg

Just in case you need reminding
20220807_145449.jpg

The blade thickness setting wheel has 3 patent dates stamped in it
20220807_145439.jpg

Hi all,

Just to help M.A. with the size of his Stanley #43, here it is with a #42X

Also the #43 next to the Eclipse #78.

For those that have circular saws to set teeth on here is another type,

which has a lot of adjustment for various sizes of blades.

Graham.

Originally Posted by macg

Hi Matt,

I have quite a few sets from different makers and one of the things I found is that the more mechanical they are in their design the more wear to parts occurred causing them to no longing work accurately.

With regard to both the Stanley 42X and the Eclipse 77, the major fault I found with them is the groove worn where the teeth of the saw rest against the body of the set. This is pronounced on well used sets.

Below are a couple of hammer sets that I have, one is the Disston Star which can be operated with a foot pedal via a chain.

The other is an Aiken type made by W & C Wynn.

In use, both would need to be fixed to a dedicated saw set bench with extra support for the saw blade. But I feel they would be a lot quicker and easier to use than the plier types of sets.

Graham.

Graham

I think the Disston Star set is the one most people aspire to when considering "hammer" sets. They are usually expensive to purchase on the second hand market. When considering speed comparissons between plier and hammer sets, I think the plier set would be quicker until you master a foot operated Disston Star and then it would romp away and be less fatiguing as an added, but essential, bonus if you were performing this task all day long. I think that method would have been used to set saws back in the halcyon days.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by IanW

My father preferred a Stanley 42 & so does Bushmiller whom I recall saying he finds less tiring (which would be important when you have a couple of containers full of saws to set! ).

Ian

I have long wondered why you prefer the Eclipse style plier set with the moving upper handle and just a few days ago the reason dawned on me from a comment you made in another thread. You mentioned that you take the saw into good sunlight at the end of your shed and I realised that you hold the saw in your hand while setting and I think this technique probably lends itself well to the Eclipse. I, on the other hand, always have the saw in my saw vice, which is why I prefer the pistol grip style.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bill Houghton

This page might be a helpful contribution here: The Saw Set Collector's Resource

It is well worth looking up Bill's link to view the vast array of sets that are available.

Regards
Paul

Here's one that I haven't seen mentioned yet. It's a 'Somax No 250' made in Japan, purchased in the early 70's.

P1010012 (1).jpg

P1010016.jpg

P1010018.jpg

I've got a realy old one somewhere but haven't looked for it yet.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

..... You mentioned that you take the saw into good sunlight at the end of your shed and I realised that you hold the saw in your hand while setting and I think this technique probably lends itself well to the Eclipse. I, on the other hand, always have the saw in my saw vice, which is why I prefer the pistol grip style....

Paul, yes, I was meaning to ask you if you set your saws while it was in the vise. I recall that that's how my dad used to set his handsaws too, so that does do a lot to explain your and his weird preferences.

But it's pretty easy to see why we have our preferences - the 77 would be very awkward to use with the saw in a vise, unless it was a very low vise, and vice versa, the 42X is probably equally awkward to use with the teeth at about waist level, which is where I hold the saw whilst setting the teeth.

One reason I like to hold the saw so is that I'm looking down on the teeth and I can see the tooth either side of the one being crimped, and which way they are pointing. Looking from the side of the saw, the set will be obscuring the teeth more, & I find it harder to place the set accurately & to see if I'm punching it the right way. I freely concede that having the top handle move the plunger on the 77 is not as easy on the wrist/finger as handle arrangement on the 42. So setting more than two handsaws in a row wit a 77 is about as much as my ageing arm will tolerate without a good break.

And yes, I reckon one of those foot-operated hammer sets would be about 10 times faster than a pliers type with a practised operator!

Ian