Thread: Stanley #42 saw set

MA

So a little bit of information. It looks as though the patent date you have identified is the earliest example of a No.42

This is what they looked like in the catalogues:

Stanley saw set No.42 early.jpg

and in the flesh:

P1060124 (Medium).JPG

This is a later version, the No.42W. it has an adjustable bar that holds against the saw

P1060125 (Medium).JPG

and finally the most advanced of the bunch, the No.42X, which had a piston that activated to hold the saw before the tooth was struck by the plunger.

P1060126 (Medium).JPG

However they all work pretty well. All are described as a pistol grip and can be used just by squeezing the fingers. The last set was in part copied by the likes of Eclipse and later again by Somax in that they both had the piston to grip the saw before the plunger bent the tooth. However they were held at a very different angle and the top lever of the set was the moveable part. This inevitably means the set moves each time it is operated. I prefer the pistol grip style for this reason, but nothing in life is perfect: When setting teeth at the heel of the saw unless the handle has been removed, the handle will foul the operation of the set.

These Stanley sets are suitable for all hand saws as in their literature they speak of 18 gauge or less despite mentioning specifically panel saws, back saws and small circular saws. The thickest handsaw you are likely to encounter is probably a 28" rip saw at .039" or .042" and both these are less than 18 gauge. However, there is one qualification to that statement and in fact it is not at the handsaw end but the other. Once you get to,say, more than 13ppi the plunger needs to be quite narrow or it will tend to contact more than one tooth at a time or just be plain fiddly. Some people have two sets: one with a standard plunger and one with a narrow plunger. The narrow version may be from the factory or it could be a standard that is carefully filed down.

For larger saws such as one and two man crosscut logging saws and larger circular saws (thicker plate) Stanley made the No.43.


Stanley family.jpg


I hope this helps a little.

Regards
Paul

These copies of old catalogues are a great resource. Well done for sourcing them and thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

These copies of old catalogues are a great resource. Well done for sourcing them and thanks for sharing.

MA

That's quite OK and you are welcome. I in fact quite enjoy the research and it helps a latent Luddite come to terms with the modern IT world.

A couple of things I should add is that the last catalogue pic confused me a little. I had thought because it says "No.42" It was different to the one I showed in the pic "No.42X," but I cannot see a difference. So there may be some subtle change that eludes me, but I can't see it. In principle they are the same model. The model pictured in the catalogue is from 1949. I think my own set is quite a bit later. I would guess at 1960s, but I have not researched that.

There was another model, the No.42SS, but I have not tracked down a year or catalogue for that.

There was another variation on the earlier model, a nickel plated version, the No.42N.

Stanley saw sets 1926.jpg

Regards
Paul

As we are talking saw sets , a few moments ago I saw this link to Banggood. It looks like a knock off of the Eclipse/Somax sets. I can't answer as to how well it has been knocked off.

Eclipse knock off.jpg

Regards
Paul

A quick question Paul, what is your prefferred sawset?

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

A quick question Paul, what is your prefferred sawset?

MA

The short answer is the Stanley No.42X.

I have looked at quite a few sets and I definitely prefer the lower lever to be the one that moves. As I mentioned before, with a pistol grip the setting of teeth under the handle can be problematic if the handle is not removed. However, unless you are setting many saws this is not a real problem.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

MA

The short answer is the Stanley No.42X.

I have looked at quite a few sets and I definitely prefer the lower lever to be the one that moves. As I mentioned before, with a pistol grip the setting of teeth under the handle can be problematic if the handle is not removed. However, unless you are setting many saws this is not a real problem.

Regards
Paul

Just to put in a dissenting opinion, I prefer the Eclipse style for small teeth.
I find it easier to see what I'm doing with those. They have another advantage, they are extremely common & can be had for very little, which is handy because you can have a couple of them & modify the plunger of one to fit small teeth. The older (1950s or earlier) are the best, their anvils seem to be better-machined, with bevels that taper neatly to almost nothing, which is what you need for very fine teeth. On some later models, & knock-offs, the narrow end of the bevel can be very rough, so check that before parting with your $$s. The Japanese "Somax" brand seem to be ok, I have one & it's as good as the two Eclipse models I own. They make one (with blue handles) specifically for small saws. The difference is only in the plunger, as far as I can see.

It is very easy to modify the plungers yourself, the metal is soft enough to file on any I've come across. In one of the Stanley blurbs Paul posted above, they boast that their plungers are "specially hardened & tempered", which may be advertising codswallop - I don't think they need to be very hard, or they would be more likely to damage the teeth, which are only hardened to Rc52-4 or thereabouts. As it is, it's all too easy to hit the side of a very small tooth & distort it, if you lose concentration.

However, they are not so hot for hand-saws with lots of big teeth, which require a harder squeeze. The way the Eclipse is set up, it's more tiring on your arm muscles squeezing the handles than it is with the 42. I can no longer set two full-size saws in a row with my Eclipse or my arm falls off. The 42 style seems to be less tiring.

With any of these pliers-type sets, the trick is to set the anvil correctly. You are supposed to bend the tooth at the top 1/3rd, any lower than this tends to put too much strain on the roots and is liable to promote cracking & tooth loss. With fine teeth (15tpi & smaller), it's almost impossible to do that, so accept that the bend will start about halfway up - that's ok. But do avoid bending them at or near the root, not only are you risking tooth damage, you will be grossly over-setting the saw, unless you intend using the saw for green wood....

Cheers,

Ian

I think the style of saw set is very much a matter of preference, I suspect that one of your reasons for preferring the Eclipse is that it needs to have the saw clamped at a lower height and this aids your visibility of the teeth. I have no problem with that aspect at all. In fact even we younger folks, are plagued with deteriorating eyesight, and this becomes a very big issue. The thing I find strange is that Eclipse and Somax made the lower handle the moveable part. There are many instances of the same style of set incorporating the lower handle as the moving component.

A little while back I started to prepare a thread on saw sets, but I became either distracted, tired or just plain lethargic and I did not pursue it. I did take a few pix so here are a some to demonstrate (while socially distancing) and also to show a couple more styles that were trend setters from the early years:

These are the early sets with a moveable top lever. They were generally cheaper than those with the moveable lower handle. I don't know why:

P1050903 (1).jpg

Moveable lower handle examples:

P1050902 (Medium).JPGP1050897 (Medium).JPG

Two Eclipse sets and the blue Somax The middle Eclipse is made of aluminium and with the broken handle demonstrates another reason why the early examples made of brass are superior (the Somax is aluminium too I think.)

P1050904 (Medium).JPG

The brass Eclipse has been modified with extended wings (braised on) so that it could be used to set a bandsaw blade with a one inch pitch or more.

P1050692.jpg

The Taintor was the first, to my mind, of the modern saw sets, which actually dates back to before 1900. It worked well but is a trifle flimsy in it's feel. In fact the pic makes it look more robust than it is.

P1050895 (Medium).JPG

The Taintor had several versions:

Taintor saw sets.jpg

The Triumph was Disston's premium saw set and may have been the first set to incorporate a piston to grip the saw plate. Both handles move!

P1050898 (Medium).JPG

The Triumph was made in three sizes:

Disston Triumph Saw Set 1912.jpg

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

...... I suspect that one of your reasons for preferring the Eclipse is that it needs to have the saw clamped at a lower height and this aids your visibility of the teeth....

Indeed, that's what I was implying, Paul. You hold the saw under your left arm & look directly down at where the rubber is meeting road. It helps even more if I sit on a comfy stool at the door of the shed where the light is strong.

However, there's another reason I like them, it could even be the main reason - it's the one I starred with & used for years before I even knew there was a veritable plague of other types out there....

Cheers,

Hi Ian and Paul. The one difference that was immediately obvious when I got my somewhat modified #42 recently was that it was really nice to use in the hand (compared to the Somax I also have)