Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Needs Pictures Needs Pictures:  0
Picture(s) thanks Picture(s) thanks:  0
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,094

    Default More dovetailers

    Dovetail saws seem to be topical - I see Rob has started a new batch, too.

    For the first time in a long time, I've been making a few saws for myself, and it may sound silly, but it's part of a move to do some culling and get my users down to a sensible number (preferably, what will fit in my saw till ).

    About 5 years ago, I made one of my first very thin saws, a 9 incher, with very thin (15 thou) plate. I wanted this saw to be light, & put a 3/16" x 3/4" spine on it and canted the blade. The handle wood is "Rock-oak", a species of Allocasaurina that is a bit less dense than other members of the genus: Rock oak 225mm 16tpi.jpg
    I immediately 'took' to this saw, and it became my go-to dovetailing saw overnight, displacing a saw I'd happily used for the previous 20 years or more. At 16tpi, it has a nice action, cuts quickly & easily, handles thin stock well, and is so intuitive to use I can follow a line almost without watching. At 314g, it feels a bit like using a scalpel.

    Just occasionally, I feel the need for something a bit bigger and toothier, when slicing wider stock, so I made myself a 10" tenon saw, using 20 thou plate and giving it 12 tpi. It's a nice saw, and I'm very happy with it, but it is a bit more of a jump from the little D/T than I was looking for.

    I've long wanted to experiment with minor tweaks on my original D/T, in any case, so I decided this was the time to try & sort hem out to my satisfaction. First, I made a slightly larger saw, of the same design as #1, with 20 thou plate and toothed at 15tpi. The blade is about 5mm deeper, the handle is a tiny bit heavier thanks to the denser wood (She-oak), but I still used 3/16" for the spine: D-T Sheoak 235mm 15tpi.jpg It turned out nicely, and has bit more heft than its sibling, but not that much more (381g). It will make a very fine saw for cabinet-scale work, but really, there wasn't as much difference from #1 as I wanted.

    So I tried again today, with a slightly larger saw (250mm long, a bit wider, and toothed to 14tpi). The handle is Buloke, yet another Allocasaurina, and the densest & hardest of the clan. This time, I used 1/4" for the spine, and now we're getting somewhere, it came in at 473g, so you certainly notice the difference: D-T Buloke 250mm 14tpi.jpg

    Now I just have to decide which is the keeper. After a couple of quick test-cuts with the new saws, I'm pretty sure the larger one is what I was after, but I need to give them both a decent workout before making a final decision. I certainly won't be parting with the original thin-plate saw, so it's between the two new saws to convince me who goes & who stays. Lined up beside each other, they look more similar than they feel in the hand, but do I really need either of the larger ones? :D_T saws2.jpg

    I really want to cut back on my saws, so gotta make some tough decisions.....
    Cheers,
    IW

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Hi Ian, I will gladly take any you are culling haha, Cheers Richie

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Imbil
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    I think there would soon be a que to help with that richie.
    You have a difficult decision to make Ian but I am sure you will enjoy the process.
    Regards Rod

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Hi Ian,

    Interesting how tiny changes in configuration can make for large differences in feel isn't it? In the batch I'm currently working on two of the saws have blades that differ in depth of cut by only a few millimeters yet the usability of the saws couldn't be more different with the deeper bladed saw being much less pleasant to use. I'm going to start keeping track of the measurable features of my saws and see if I can pick out a pattern.

    Cheers,
    Rob
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,357

    Default

    Hi Rob. A few centimeters makes a bit more sense.

    Stewie;

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, USA
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by planemaker View Post
    Hi Rob. A few centimeters makes a bit more sense.

    Stewie;
    They're only different by about 5 mm. Handle is the same type and is mounted at the same angle. Blade thickness, pitch, set and rake all the same. I was surprised too.
    Innovations are those useful things that, by dint of chance, manage to survive the stupidity and destructive tendencies inherent in human nature.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,857

    Default

    Ian,

    Seems to me that a longer saw (Buloke handle) would be better as the dedicated saw for thick stock joinery. Do you expect it will get much use in other venues where the shorter saw (standard SheOak handle) would in any way have an advantage?

    I'm curious also... We've talked about saws quite a bit, but the topic of balance has never really come up. Is there any kind of "golden ratio" to shoot for when it comes to the plate/back to handle weights? Do you want the fulcrum point in the overall length of the saw to be located at a certain point along the saw's length? Or is it totally arbitrary and, like most other stuff, just whatever feels right to the user?

    The saws look great, by the way.

    Cheers,
    Luke

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob streeper View Post
    They're only different by about 5 mm. Handle is the same type and is mounted at the same angle. Blade thickness, pitch, set and rake all the same. I was surprised too.
    Yep, I agree, it takes very little difference in blade sze & width to notice it, but handle placement is probably the most noticeable variable. One of the reasons I made these saws so close was to test how much I could detect small differences in weight and balance and so forth. Which factors matter, or if any matter at all, is something I want to decide for myself by using them for a bit.

    I also tend to prefer narrow blades for precision cutting. I find them more intuitive to place on the work to start the cut in the right direction, and generally easier to manipulate. I only reach for deep saws when I need to make deep cuts. Perhaps if I only had deeper saws I would adapt soon enough, but I have the luxury of choosing what I like best for any given job. However, mileages vary, I've read at least one of the woodworking gurus expounding on the virtues of a wide blade when it comes to accurate sawing. You pays your money and you takes your choice, I guess.

    Cheers,
    IW

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Maddux View Post
    ....Seems to me that a longer saw (Buloke handle) would be better as the dedicated saw for thick stock joinery. Do you expect it will get much use in other venues where the shorter saw (standard SheOak handle) would in any way have an advantage? ...
    Luke, these saws are pretty close, and I made them so deliberately. The saw I've been using for the last few years is very good for cutting dovetails in anything from say 6mmm to 18mm thick, which covers most conventional cabinetry requirements, I would think. However, there are occasions when I wish it were just a little deeper, and had a slightly coarser pitch. I'm trying these saws out to see if any of the three will turn out a slightly better all-rounder. Initial impressions are that it's six of one & half a dozen of the other. They all perform well, and I may decide to just use the bigger saw as my main dovetailer, because it covers the upper range better. I have a small 'box-making' saw that easily handles fine stuff, so it would make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Maddux View Post
    ......I'm curious also... We've talked about saws quite a bit, but the topic of balance has never really come up. Is there any kind of "golden ratio" to shoot for when it comes to the plate/back to handle weights? Do you want the fulcrum point in the overall length of the saw to be located at a certain point along the saw's length? Or is it totally arbitrary and, like most other stuff, just whatever feels right to the user?......
    The short answer is, your last sentence.....

    This idea of 'balance' is often mooted, but I've yet to see any agreed definition of what 'balance' is on a saw. Something you hold by one end is inherently unbalanced, in my view. However, there is certainly something about the feel of a saw in your hand, and you can call it 'balance' for want of a better word, I guess. My thinking is that it's the ratio of total weight to length, but I certainly haven't evolved any 'golden rules' - what feels right to an individual depends on a few factors, not the least of which is their physical strength. It is influenced a bit by the weight of the handle, perhaps, but I've tried various densities of wood, and found the effect of handle weight on the feel of the saw is much less than you might expect. Perhaps heavier handles do 'balance' a saw a little bit by putting more weight at the hand end, but it's relatively minor factor. Hang angles, foe example, have a far more noticeable effect.

    The cutting length of a saw is definitely personal preference, possibly influenced by the length of your arm, but not necessarily so. For me, about 200mm is the comfort minimum for a dovetail saw, while anything over 250 would be superfluous, but I know several competent woodworkers who like much longer dovetailing saws.

    I've given much thought to how weight should be distributed, ever since I've been making saws. As I've often said, I reckon the number of sizes of any given type of saw that was made back when hand saws were major tools attests to how much personal preference plays a part. What I aim for in any size of saw is that it feels comfortable when held at the level it will be most used at, and has enough weight to give it the right 'heft'. To me, that means it cuts with little added pressure. There is always some extra pressure applied, but the idea is to let the saw do most of the cutting, while I concentrate on steering it. So I have arrived at a few combinations of saw-plate gauges and spine weights that work for me - now I'm trying to figure out what suits others. That may take some time!

    Cheers,
    IW

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •