Thread: Hardening of sawplates

I haven't. Your mention of it is the first time I've seen it.

http://www.diybanter.com/woodworking...s-2-print.html discusses HRC 48-50

In 1987 http://www.google.com/patents/US4856193 discusses HRC 40

For hard tooth blades the back through the tooth excepting the tip is specified at HRC51 here: http://www.google.com/patents/US2829684

Most of the internet references I have found refer to the properties of machine saw blades for cutting wood. The only citation for handsaw blades is the discussion with MikeW on diybanter.com.

I have some older reference books going back to the early part of the 20th century and none of them discuss saw blade hardness with the exception of one table that correlates color and temper.

I'm beginning to think that the selection of 1095 for botique saw making was done in an ad hoc fashion. Somebody 'knew' that Disston saws were around 50 HRC, they got out a steel catalog and found that 1095 had about the right hardness plus it was easily available and relatively cheap.

Does anybody else have any older references?

Originally Posted by rob streeper

I'm beginning to think that the selection of 1095 for botique saw making was done in an ad hoc fashion. Somebody 'knew' that Disston saws were around 50 HRC, they got out a steel catalog and found that 1095 had about the right hardness plus it was easily available and relatively cheap.

Hi Rob,

I think it was Pete Taran and Patrick Leach ( Independence Tools ) who started the ball rolling on modern saw making back in 1996, I'm pretty sure they used 1095, which would have then been continued by Lie Nielsen when they took over Independence Tools..

Since they are both still about, it would be worth asking them why they chose it... ( assuming they in fact did? )

Ray

PS.. I can't help with the Disston 52 Rc question, I think I first heard it here..

Originally Posted by rob streeper

http://www.diybanter.com/woodworking...s-2-print.html discusses HRC 48-50

In 1987 http://www.google.com/patents/US4856193 discusses HRC 40

For hard tooth blades the back through the tooth excepting the tip is specified at HRC51 here: http://www.google.com/patents/US2829684

Most of the internet references I have found refer to the properties of machine saw blades for cutting wood. The only citation for handsaw blades is the discussion with MikeW on diybanter.com.

I have some older reference books going back to the early part of the 20th century and none of them discuss saw blade hardness with the exception of one table that correlates color and temper.

I'm beginning to think that the selection of 1095 for botique saw making was done in an ad hoc fashion. Somebody 'knew' that Disston saws were around 50 HRC, they got out a steel catalog and found that 1095 had about the right hardness plus it was easily available and relatively cheap.

Does anybody else have any older references?

Aside from the fact that it's not a difficult thing to source (backsaw steel), you just need something reasonable hardness and that still has spring, I'd say 1095 is pretty ideal. I doubt the choice was flippantly made. i've got half a dozen saws that I've made out of kits or replated old saws with 1095, and they are without a doubt better than any of the dozen vintage backsaws I have (that date from the early 1800s to the early 1900s).

I think they probably chose it because it makes a very good saw, and I'd be willing to bet they found that out via making and using a saw rather than pontificating.

Originally Posted by D.W.

I think they probably chose it because it makes a very good saw, and I'd be willing to bet they found that out via making and using a saw rather than pontificating.

I agree that 1095 makes 'good' saws. I have a lot of modern saws and I like how they work, despite the fact that only one of the custom makers represented in my collection is using steel that is statistically comparable to 1095. I also have a few older saws and I like how they work too.
However, it seems that there has been very little investigation in the modern era as to the factors that contribute to 'good'. Since I'm making saws and since I have an inclination to inquiry I want to see if I can find out what factors make for a good saw.

Okay,

A few observations about the data to date.

1) The Disston golden era saws (1897-1917) tested are around HRC 46-48 or so, a little softer than 1095 I've tested.

2) The Disston golden era saws tested are softer toward the back and the toe. Is this the effect of the hammer hardening, a loss of hardness due to the relatively low thermal mass of the tips, or both?

3) The Disston golden era saws tested appear to have stripes of hammer blows where the steel is harder.

4) The Disston golden era saws tested appear to be harder under the handles than they are in the areas not covered by the handles. Is this a real difference in hardness or is it due to the effect of increased roughness outside the areas covered by the handles?

5) The later Disston (mine) saws tested earlier in this thread, albeit in a much more limited sampling, appear significantly harder than the Disston golden era saws tested most recently. The surface roughness is comparable, at least by eyeball comparison.

6) Hammering new 1095 appears to produce a pattern of hardness variations that mimics those observed in the Disston saws no matter the era.

7) The hardness testers work properly within their limitations.

Originally Posted by rob streeper

I agree that 1095 makes 'good' saws. I have a lot of modern saws and I like how they work, despite the fact that only one of the custom makers represented in my collection is using steel that is statistically comparable to 1095. I also have a few older saws and I like how they work too.
However, it seems that there has been very little investigation in the modern era as to the factors that contribute to 'good'. Since I'm making saws and since I have an inclination to inquiry I want to see if I can find out what factors make for a good saw.

All of that stuff is fine except for the part where you fling accusations at makers as if they have just chosen components at random. I guarantee they have not.

In my experience, the 1095 saws are better backsaws than vintage, mostly because we can choose plate thicknesses that are in my opinion a little bit more suitable (though you can find those thinner plates in older english saws), and the 1095 is a lot more consistent than what is in old backsaws.

I have never bought a 1095 long saw because I don't see how it could functionally be better than an old saw that is hammered and tensioned, and it's not hard to find good old saws.

What I just stated there is pretty much how I understand most experienced users to feel about saws, too.

If I were you, just out of tact, I would refrain from supposing negative things about what people who have a lot more experience making saws have done.

Originally Posted by D.W.

All of that stuff is fine except for the part where you fling accusations at makers as if they have just chosen components at random. I guarantee they have not.

In my experience, the 1095 saws are better backsaws than vintage, mostly because we can choose plate thicknesses that are in my opinion a little bit more suitable (though you can find those thinner plates in older english saws), and the 1095 is a lot more consistent than what is in old backsaws.

I have never bought a 1095 long saw because I don't see how it could functionally be better than an old saw that is hammered and tensioned, and it's not hard to find good old saws.

What I just stated there is pretty much how I understand most experienced users to feel about saws, too.

If I were you, just out of tact, I would refrain from supposing negative things about what people who have a lot more experience making saws have done.

Don't be so reactionary, I'm not flinging accusations. Since it is apparent that nobody has empirically shown, at least publicly, what makes a good (or better) handsaw blade, I hardly think it inappropriate of me to point that fact out. I said that one maker is using steel for blades that is, statistically speaking, the same as 1095. The others appear to be different. Since we don't know for sure whether or not 1095 is the best choice and since all of my custom saws but one work just fine for me I think it's unreasonable of you to be accusing me of casting aspersions. Maybe the other makers have done their research in secret and found that other alloys are in fact better. Unfortunately they're not talking at this point.
The fact that some get so hot tempered about this subject is puzzling to me. Why is this such a touchy issue?

Calm down guys!

I still stand by my offer to send 20 dollar when you decide to try your luck to buy some more junker saws.

This line, Rob:

I'm beginning to think that the selection of 1095 for botique saw making was done in an ad hoc fashion.

Saying things like that when you really haven't got much experience (and have no idea why the good makers chose what they chose) is tactless at best. That includes Mike Wenzloff and I guarantee you don't know a tenth of what Mike knows.

I don't know how much woodworking you have done with saws (not test cuts, woodworking, there's a difference), and I don't know how many times you have used a saw in use from sharp to dull, sharpened it again, and repeated the cycle. The reason that nobody is running to test saws with hardness testers all the time instead of actually using them is because it doesn't matter what the hardness tester says if a saw files nicely, is made well (including aesthetics) and goes for a good cycle before needing to be filed again.

It makes no difference what the other aspects of the saw are if it works well and is proper when it comes time to maintain it.

You can put as many dents in saw plates as you want to and suppose as many things as you want to, but you are not going to be on point unless you have experienced woodworkers using saws and making opinions that aren't based on empirical data (which is telling you one single aspect, and not nearly as valuable as the opinion of someone who uses saws as a matter of professional or learned amateur course).

You seem to be offended when people suggest that you might not know what you don't know (in terms of what's important for a saw in actual use, not test cuts...use), and maybe at some point you will give the proper credit people who have made saws before you and thought a lot more about them up to this point than you have (with a lot of that thought being in the context of use) and learn from them rather than trying the contrarian line as a starting point before you've really got the real world experience with the saws to have leverage to do it.

You've had one soft saw that you've told us about, you won't mention the maker, but I (and george) have offered that many of the sheffield and continental saws have soft steel, and we have named the makers. I have never seen or heard of a saw that was made of 1095 steel that was described as soft or unacceptable (and would assume the steel used was defective or labeled incorrectly if such a thing happened), but I sure have used saws that were not 1095 that I thought were soft and unimpressive. I think if you had not posted information that was either out of context or outright incorrect initially, and made accusations, that you wouldn't have gotten many responses at all, because you're not telling most people anything about the numbers in the context of a usable good saw.

That is what everyone was telling you on SMC, that bad data or ill informed use of it (and false conclusions, like that 1095 is softer than the average disston saw) is less useful than nothing at all, and until you can put numbers in context and tell someone about why they are beneficial from practical use, the crickets that you're hearing in a lot of places will continue. But you should have some respect for other makers while you're learning what you need to learn, because thus far you have painted boutique makers as ill informed and foolish, and in one case (without mentioning who), as folks making unusable tools. That is tactless at best.

Originally Posted by D.W.

This line, Rob:



Saying things like that when you really haven't got much experience (and have no idea why the good makers chose what they chose) is tactless at best. That includes Mike Wenzloff and I guarantee you don't know a tenth of what Mike knows.

I don't know how much woodworking you have done with saws (not test cuts, woodworking, there's a difference), and I don't know how many times you have used a saw in use from sharp to dull, sharpened it again, and repeated the cycle. The reason that nobody is running to test saws with hardness testers all the time instead of actually using them is because it doesn't matter what the hardness tester says if a saw files nicely, is made well (including aesthetics) and goes for a good cycle before needing to be filed again.

It makes no difference what the other aspects of the saw are if it works well and is proper when it comes time to maintain it.

You can put as many dents in saw plates as you want to and suppose as many things as you want to, but you are not going to be on point unless you have experienced woodworkers using saws and making opinions that aren't based on empirical data (which is telling you one single aspect, and not nearly as valuable as the opinion of someone who uses saws as a matter of professional or learned amateur course).

You seem to be offended when people suggest that you might not know what you don't know (in terms of what's important for a saw in actual use, not test cuts...use), and maybe at some point you will give the proper credit people who have made saws before you and thought a lot more about them up to this point than you have (with a lot of that thought being in the context of use) and learn from them rather than trying the contrarian line as a starting point before you've really got the real world experience with the saws to have leverage to do it.

You've had one soft saw that you've told us about, you won't mention the maker, but I (and george) have offered that many of the sheffield and continental saws have soft steel, and we have named the makers. I have never seen or heard of a saw that was made of 1095 steel that was described as soft or unacceptable (and would assume the steel used was defective or labeled incorrectly if such a thing happened), but I sure have used saws that were not 1095 that I thought were soft and unimpressive. I think if you had not posted information that was either out of context or outright incorrect initially, and made accusations, that you wouldn't have gotten many responses at all, because you're not telling most people anything about the numbers in the context of a usable good saw.

That is what everyone was telling you on SMC, that bad data or ill informed use of it (and false conclusions, like that 1095 is softer than the average disston saw) is less useful than nothing at all, and until you can put numbers in context and tell someone about why they are beneficial from practical use, the crickets that you're hearing in a lot of places will continue. But you should have some respect for other makers while you're learning what you need to learn, because thus far you have painted boutique makers as ill informed and foolish, and in one case (without mentioning who), as folks making unusable tools. That is tactless at best.

David,

If the question of saw plate hardness was truly unimportant then the various Disston advertisements that we have would have been ridiculed in their time but apparently they were not. The earliest ads posted here (http://www.disstonianinstitute.com/ads.html) emphasize the characteristics of Disston steel and the processes used to make their saw blades.

As to your issues with experience or lack thereof, I've never discounted the value of experience. Experience however is not a substitute for data. The data that's been offered in response to my postings is really thin including only a few measurements of a few saws.
My work has only included only a few saws, but I've made a lot of measurements and have gained some insights into the methods used by Disston to process their saws. My investigations also may have provided some basis for understanding that the silicon content of Disston saws, previously dismissed as an unavoidable byproduct of manufacture, may in fact have been an intentional addition or it was at least a fortuitous accident.

Nonetheless I've acquired and made publicly available more hardness data on both Disston saws and the 1095 steel in modern saws than have all other sources combined. Why is that? Is the issue of saw blade hardness really so trivial that it doesn't merit any kind of systematic study? Disston apparently thought such matters important. It's been about a century since the time that you consider the golden age of Disston saws were produced. Doesn't the issue deserve a second look? How do we know, and I mean know in a data driven way, what is the best steel for making handsaws? Based on what I've seen and what has been presented by people responding to my posts the modern saw making community doesn't have data on that subject.

It's both interesting and distressing to me that much of the conversation responding my data has seemingly ignored the data to focus on me personally. Why is that? Why has so much effort been expended to dissuade me from pursuing my interest in this subject?

I think the words of Kieth Outten at SMC bear reproduction here:

There have been a number of people complaining to our Staff about unfriendly behavior in this Forum. The number one rule here is that you must be friendly no matter what your station in the trades. Your level of expertise will not excuse your being disrespectful to any Member of this Community.

We have spent an unacceptable amount of time editing posts and warning people of their poor attitudes and inflated egos, there will not be any more warnings. Those who cannot adhere to the Terms of Service here will have their access privileges removed without warning.

Cheers,
Rob

Why have people focused on your lack of experience? Because you opened up all of this by stating two things:
* boutique makers are making substandard saws, but I won't tell you who
* old saws were harder than new 1095, and then you provided hardness numbers for saws that were beyond those that would be reasonable to file

When you were challenged on these, you told everyone to respect your expertise, but you did not directly answer either of the requests from people much more experienced than you, which were:
* which boutique makers?
* the second point doesn't pass the smell test with people who have used and filed a lot of saws. You did not address questions directly, but instead focused on a long discussion about the use of an N tester and conversions and such (those things aren't going to interest people who already know that there are no saws that are legitimately clicking 70 under the handle or close to 60 at the tooth line. The former is beyond the max hardness of 1% water hardening steel and the latter is an unfileable saw

Opening with a blatant statement accusing people of using saw steel that is implied inferior is going to rub people the wrong way, especially when actual use shows it to be untrue.

As you have probably noticed by the crickets following your recent releases of information, the folks who have no reference are initially interested in the hardness numbers because they are novice and think there might be "a weird trick" to getting a superhuman saw while implying that everyone else who has made one is sitting on a dark secret or doing foolish and haphazard work and research. Those folks don't have any reference for what results mean, and they lose interest after the first flurry. The rest of the folks who have enough experience to know that you have presented some bad data are going to lose interest when you argue about the bad data instead of correcting it. You can't expect that most people are going to be interested in trying to figure out why you're getting bogus numbers, they're just going to wait to see if you corrected them.

Thus, crickets, until you come up with another accusation as you have done, supposing that everyone that came before you is foolish on in the dark, and just chose (as you've implied) 1095 out of laziness or a narrowly-focused haphazard knee-jerk reaction.

This forum isn't an appropriate place to debate what SMC's policy is, I hope you understand the inappropriateness of that. The level of discussion here is higher and the average reader in this thread more experienced.

Originally Posted by D.W.

Why have people focused on your lack of experience? Because you opened up all of this by stating two things:
* boutique makers are making substandard saws, but I won't tell you who
* old saws were harder than new 1095, and then you provided hardness numbers for saws that were beyond those that would be reasonable to file

When you were challenged on these, you told everyone to respect your expertise, but you did not directly answer either of the requests from people much more experienced than you, which were:
* which boutique makers?
* the second point doesn't pass the smell test with people who have used and filed a lot of saws. You did not address questions directly, but instead focused on a long discussion about the use of an N tester and conversions and such (those things aren't going to interest people who already know that there are no saws that are legitimately clicking 70 under the handle or close to 60 at the tooth line. The former is beyond the max hardness of 1% water hardening steel and the latter is an unfileable saw

Opening with a blatant statement accusing people of using saw steel that is implied inferior is going to rub people the wrong way, especially when actual use shows it to be untrue.

As you have probably noticed by the crickets following your recent releases of information, the folks who have no reference are initially interested in the hardness numbers because they are novice and think there might be "a weird trick" to getting a superhuman saw while implying that everyone else who has made one is sitting on a dark secret or doing foolish and haphazard work and research. Those folks don't have any reference for what results mean, and they lose interest after the first flurry. The rest of the folks who have enough experience to know that you have presented some bad data are going to lose interest when you argue about the bad data instead of correcting it. You can't expect that most people are going to be interested in trying to figure out why you're getting bogus numbers, they're just going to wait to see if you corrected them.

Thus, crickets, until you come up with another accusation as you have done, supposing that everyone that came before you is foolish on in the dark, and just chose (as you've implied) 1095 out of laziness or a narrowly-focused haphazard knee-jerk reaction.

This forum isn't an appropriate place to debate what SMC's policy is, I hope you understand the inappropriateness of that. The level of discussion here is higher and the average reader in this thread more experienced.

David,

You are again trying to put words in my mouth. Why? I never said that boutique saw makers are using inferior materials. I said I had a bad saw.

If you look back over the postings I have made here you will see that I first wrote about the saw hardness measurements about a year ago and I was very clear that I had a single saw from one maker that was a problem. Those statements didn't generate any real problems at the time that they were made. It has only been since I acquired the N/T tester and began posting those results that the contentious comments have come.
I don't feel that I should have to explain to everyone that a few measurements made on one saw doesn't constitute a representative sample and I shouldn't need to explicitly state that fact. If you're interested in sampling methods see ANSIIASQC Z1.4-1993. It's copyrighted material and can't be posted here.

I've thoroughly explained my reasons for not revealing the makers of the modern saws. SLAP suits are a real threat and not only in the United States. Nobody has offered to indemnify me against any suits that might be filed against me if I did publish the information. Why is that?

Why is pointing out that there is no real testing data available such a hot issue? Why is so little data available? What is wrong with publishing the data and offering interpretations? Nobody has offered any alternate interpretations of my data, why?

If my data is incorrect the only appropriate way to counter it is by presenting data that support alternative conclusions and I've seen nothing in that vein yet. This conversation should not be about me, it should be about the data I'm presenting.

Cheers,
Rob

Several other tests have been run, we've seen the data reported and all of it was in the mid 40s to low 50s in hardness. It is partly because that was done that people know numbers in the high 50s and 60s are not accurate.

(that and file hardnesses are known, as are chisel and tool hardnesses - something much easier to measure reliably).

Nobody is afraid of data, but I am afraid of conclusions that can be drawn from bad data or data taken from bad sources. That is precisely why I offered two saw plates that I have filed and know they are of typical disston hardness.

I'm not talking specifically about your statement of the one soft saw. Nobody has disagreed with that. I have gotten soft saws, but only from makers who don't specify that they use 1095, and when asked, they will provide the spring steel that they use and clearly state they know it's not in the hardness range that 1095 is.

Here's the quote of yours:

Further, modern custom saws made with raw 1095 steel are not as hard as are older Disston saws.

That's just not true. That's the issue. It suggests to people who are unknowing (those looking for saws to buy) that there is something wrong with the boutique back saws, but the reality of it on the backsaws especially is that they are made to a higher level than the manufactured saws were for various reasons, perhaps with the exception of some of the older english makers (who had great aesthetics, but the steel in those saws, at least compared to 1095, is not as good as a new saw with a 1095 plate).

Every other data set taken has supported that's not true. George's experience, and now two others that have come up from the old tools list and one that came up elsewhere.

Now, could it be that disston's saws changed after the 1930s when handsaws were in the death throes? I don't know. I don't buy those saws, their aesthetics are terrible and the golden era saws that most other folks have tested in the 40s hardness range lack nothing. Compared to the new backsaws, I find the old disston/atkins/etc. saws a bit lacking. Not because their steel is softer (though it feels so when filing), but because they have poor aesthetics but fat plates.

The average person reading your statement is going to infer that there's something about a 1095 backsaw that comes up short vs. one of those old saws, and experience says otherwise.

Had your attempt at a definitive statement been made by Mike Wenzloff, who was looking at these aspects 15 years ago, it would've been received as more credible because of Mike's exposure.

You may think that I am harsh in pushing for this discussion to land on a correct statement, but the fact that I took the time to joint the teeth of of two plates by hand and send them to you at my expense (after spending $50 in the past for those two saws also) should be enough proof that I think it's more important that people get the right answer. It's just my opinion that you should be more tactful and a little bit more respectful of the thought put into the making of saws by those who came before you and choose your words more carefully. I am not a saw maker, so my comments are those of a third party, not that of someone who has skin in the game.