Thread: #40, heavy backed dovetail saw

Hi Rob. How did you go with that new rosewood handle.

Stewie;

It goes but slowly.

Hi Rob. The handle should look a treat when completed.

Stewie;

Made some good progress today on this one. I fitted both blades, inletted the handle, set the screws and started profiling. The shorter blade is 9.75" at the toothline with a 2.125" depth of cut at the toe and is 0.015" 1095. The longer blade is 12" at the toothline, 1.5" depth of cut and is 0.012" 1095. Both blades are wearing heavy brass backs and they have been set up to use the same rosewood handle with stainless bushings as usual. I'm thinking of toothing them 15 ppi for the shorter, deeper cutting thicker blade and 17 ppi for the longer, shallower cutting thin blade, or maybe 14/16. I'm also going to include a combo bushing remover/inserter - split nut driver for the customer because he has been so patient.


long blade fitted.jpg


short blade fitted.jpg

Hi Rob. Looks like your making some excellent progress.

Stewie;

Here's a comparison of the model handle and my product. Curves are pretty much perfected and the majority of marks have been addressed.

handles.jpg

I chose to make the horns heavier in cross section due to the friability of the rosewood provided. The total length of the grip is slightly longer but the hand contact area is the same as the pattern handle. The bevels on the cheeks are much less pronounced to accommodate the medallion.

And with the blades. The longer will be 16 ppi and the shorter 15 ppi.

long and thin.jpghort and thick.jpg

Hi Rob. Having limited knowledge on Foley saw plate retoothers. Will the folded hardbacks on these 2 saws have to be removed before you can use the Foley machine. Is there time benefits in toothing the saw plates 1st, then fitting the folded hardbacks.

You may have mentioned this previously, what gauge brass are you using for your folded backs. How deep is the fold on these 2 saws.

regards Stewie;

Hi Stewie,

There's no need to remove the backs for toothing. I've modified my setup and techniques somewhat so that I can use the Foley toother for blades as narrow as 20 mm.

These backs are made from 1/8" thick brass. The width of the folded backs from top to bottom is 27mm and the slots are 17mm deep.
I've found that there are people who prefer heavy saws, similar to the people who prefer the relatively heavy Lie Nielsen planes to the lighter Stanley planes. Equipped with the longer blade this saw goes 618 gm., and with the shorter it is 571 gm.

Cheers,
Rob

Thanks Rob. Sounds an interesting set up you have adopted with the Foley. The extra weight within the hardbacks makes perfect sense to me, and would explain why you have a preference to set the hang angle on your backsaws as such that the directional force is pointed more towards the toe of the tooth line. The slotted brass backs I use are lighter than yours at a common size 1/4 x 3/4". As a result, I tend to favor the directional force more towards the center of the tooth line.

You mention the friability of the Rosewood supplied by the buyer. Does that suggest the Rosewood showed some signs of brittleness during shaping.

regards Stewie;

Stewie,

This piece has particularly confused grain and it is extremely hard. While roughing it out on my bandsaw I had several stoppages, despite the fact that the saw has a 1 hp motor, I had a 4 tpi carbide toothed blade (new) mounted it was running at 80hz and it has a 1:23 jack-shaft reduction system. There were a number of blow outs using rasps so I did a lot of the shaping with files. The handle rings a bit when tapped - I hope the customer doesn't knock it around.

Cheers,
Rob

It's all over but for shipping. Hopefully it arrives un-damaged.

Saw Pictures 103115 001.jpg

Saw Pictures 103115 003.jpg

Saw Pictures 103115 004.jpg

Saw Pictures 103115 017.jpg

Saw Pictures 103115 013.jpg

The particulars:

Saw with blade 41-1, Mass = 572.0 gm, OAL = 389 mm, toothline = 248 mm, 15 ppi, rake 12^o filed rip , set 0.002", blade 0.015" thick 1095, depth of cut 53 mm, back 0.0125 folded brass.

Saw with blade 41-2, Mass = 617.6 gm, OAL = 443 mm, toothline = 305 mm, 16 ppi, rake 12^o filed rip, set 0.002", blade 0.012" thick 1095, depth of cut 40 mm, back 0.0125 folded brass.

Handle finish: BLO under satin rubbed amber varnish, see https://www.woodworkforums.com/f9/amber-varnish-198407 for my preparation.

Both blades use stainless steel bushings to secure them to the handle.

Takedown tool made from the same block of wood that was used to make the handle.

Originally Posted by rob streeper

No idea. The customer said it was an antique. If you look closely at the photo you can see impressions of star style lock washers in the recesses. The blade slot is distorted (not shown) but overall the handle is in very good to new condition, other than being a bit dirty.

Looks like a self made Gramercy.

Nice pair of saws

sorry to read about USPS problems - looks like it might have been run over by a delivery truck
and I think it's poor that they didn't refund the shipping costs

but it does remind me of a story regarding the transport industry in Australia
Apparently a firm in Adelaide purchased a 2nd hand printing press form a firm in either Sydney or Brisbane and contracted with a certain national carrier to deliver it
Anyway the truck it was on got hit by a train at a level crossing somewhere in NSW. The printing press was destroyed and the firm received it's insurance money.
Months and months later a truck stops at the firm in Adelaide and drops off a pile of twisted scrap metal - the wrecked printing press. The national carrier claims the cost of delivery and points to a clause in small writing on the back of the contract which states that the consignee/consignor is liable for the shipping charges as long as the item shipped is delivered in any state (damaged or otherwise)

Originally Posted by Sawdust Maker

The national carrier claims the cost of delivery and points to a clause in small writing on the back of the contract which states that the consignee/consignor is liable for the shipping charges as long as the item shipped is delivered in any state (damaged or otherwise)

The question is of course did this national carrier get away with that? My thinking is that aforementioned, unnamed carrier has an obligation to deliver a consignment in good order. If that does not happen because their driver had a little disagreement with a train he didn't see that would have been the carrier's fault and he would be liable because he didn't fulfill the contract.

If it wasn't the drivers fault and the train crossed three paddocks to get to the truck tootling along at a steady 100 clicks, the carrier has still failed in his contract, but would have rights of recourse against the rasacally train driver or the train driver's company.

I am sure you would be able to tells us that just because a company inserts a clause in small print, it does not allow them to break the law. Surely they failed the fundamental test of delivering the consignment in good order or at the very least in the condition it began the journey.

Having digressed on the postal services, Rob that is a very nice job on those saws. Hats off.

Regards
Paul