Saw comparisons (1)

[IanW]

I swore I would quit making saws for a while, but some different material came my way, so I just had to make a couple more...

I made the first D9 copy from a 0.8mm thick Bunnies scraper blade &was pretty happy with the way it performed as a 12tpi crosscut. Since I made it, I have replaced the handle with a sheoak version. It's a solid-feeling little saw, but well-balanced in the cut.

Then Kevjed sent me a couple of tired Irwin replaceable blades - these turn out to be 0.7mm thick. Because of the large holes for the handle screws and another large hanging hole at the opposite end, I cut it into a D9 shape and gave it a Lancewood (A. shirleyi) handle. Once you cut the impulse-hardened teeth off, the plate seems just about the same hardness as the Bunnies blades, so no problem making fangs on it.

Then I found a couple of the thinner (0.6mm) scraper blades BobL mentioned, in a Bunnies store I don't normally frequent, so I just had to give them a try. Like the ones Bob described, these were slightly curved as if they have been cut from a roll. However, a bit of gentle hammering and a firm-fitting back & they came straight & true - no problems.

OK - but now what? Got to decide which is the keeper - no room in my toolbox for all of them! So I decided on a little test. I prepared two pieces 35x50mm, one pine, the other Bluegum. I made three cuts with each saw & counted how many strokes it took. Despite being very careful to make even strokes, there was a bit of variation. It took 36-40 strokes to cut through the Bluegum, and 26-30 to cut through the pine, but there was no significant difference between any of the 3 saws, all of them cut nicely & true. The thinner Bunnibob felt marginally more comfortable & balanced - but it's marginal, just a subjective feel.

Here are the 3 saws posing for their photograph. From top to bottom
0.8mm original
0.6mm Bunnibob
0.7mm reborn Irwin (& yes, it's about 20mm shorter than the other 2)

[IanW]

Well, since I was mucking about, I decided to try two ripsaws as well, just to complete the picture. These are different both in thickness & in tooth pitch, so a bit unscientific, but what the heck. The Walnut handled one is another piece of .6mm scraper, and filed to 10tpi. The Birdseye Maple handled saw is 12 tpi & made from .8mm scraper stock. I made pairs of cuts in both pine & Bluegum to 30mm depth. Again, neither saw cut any faster, but the thinner saw left a cleaner cut, as you can see. Just for fun, I tried the .6mm crosscut from the above group, & to my surprise, it cut as cleanly & as quickly as the thinner rip.

So then I tried the rips on crosscutting & at last I found some real difference, but not in the number of strokes to complete the cut - just the quality of the cut. Both crosscuts were not as happy cutting, they felt rough and left a much rougher cut. The pic doesn't show the difference as much as it really is.

As I said, hardly a proper test, but it does support what I have sort of known for a while - small saws aren't as sensitive to the way they are filed as larger tooth sizes, & you could get away with either pattern for both ripping & crosscutting, if needed. It makes the biggest difference on cross cuts - small rip teeth will cut cross-grain ok, but they don't really like it.

Here are the two protagonists & some of the cuts (2 rip cuts per saw)....

[BobL]

Nice work Ian, you seem to have these down pat!

I reprocessed your pic so the handles show up a bit better.
Hope you don't mind.

[IanW]

I reprocessed your pic so the handles show up a bit better.
Hope you don't mind.

Not at all, Bob - you've brought the grain out a lot better.
I photographed them late yesterday under poor light conditions, tried it with & without flash, but flash just doesn't work well with highly reflective surfaces, & slow shutter speeds late in the day aren't my forte. I did try to tweak it a bit with photoshop, but what looks good on the big screen doesn't always translate on the BB.

Cheers,

[Wongdai]

The cut on the left looks awesome. Very clean.

[IanW]

The cut on the left looks awesome. Very clean.

I think it's a trick of the light, Wongdai, making the left side cuts look a bit cleaner than they are. I was concentrating on keeping an even light pressure to let the saw cut at its natural rate & counting strokes, rather than watch the cut-line, which is partly why some cuts are a bit ragged. Still, it surprised me how cleanly & quickly the crosscut did cut in rip mode.

I reckon another reason for the clean cut is that I'm getting better at tooth setting as well as filing, and that particular saw is the latest off the assembly line. You would think a sawset would do an identical job on every tooth, but there is plenty of scope for slight variation caused by how hard you squeeze. Gently does it - any harder risks distorting the tooth more. Also, you need to place the set so that the hammer engages the whole tip of the tooth, & creates the exact same bend - it's very easy to hit too far forward or back, which makes a twisted bend. While you can clean up a few rogue teeth by wiping the saw across a stone afterwards, it's not as good as having them purr-fect to start with.

As I said somewhere else - this saw making has been a boon to my sharpening ability. While I'm not about to challenge the Smalsers & Wenzloffs, I'm streets ahead of where I was a year or two ago!

Cheers,

[RayG]

Hi Ian,

You beat me to it , I have had a bunnybobD9 in the works for ages now, and got sidetracked into forging and casting, I am going to go for the classic D9 handle shape with the thumb groove.

I did a 14 inch tenon saw using 0.020 plate, and that thing cuts like a laser, the thinner plate makes for a different feel on longer saws, more than I would have thought.

Agree on the light touch when setting, I have to mark the teeth with a texta so I don't get confused and start setting the wrong ones...

Nice work, they just keep getting better and better.

Regards
Ray

[IanW]

.......
Nice work, they just keep getting better and better.

Hi Ray - just practice. As I've said, it's all your fault.

.......
I did a 14 inch tenon saw using 0.020 plate, and that thing cuts like a laser, the thinner plate makes for a different feel on longer saws, more than I would have thought.

I also made a 300 x 90mm saw (rip) from the 20 thou plate, thinking the thinner the blade, the less work for me. However, I didn't like it as much as I thought I would. It seemed to me the blade was a bit too flexible, and had a tendency to wander if you didn't watch it - maybe I should have kept it a bit narrower, say around 75mm wide. Anyway, being the impulsive type, I decided it was better off as two dovetail saws, so the blade is now in two pieces & waiting for another time. Subjectively, I thought the thin saw cut really quickly, too, but didn't compare it with the others, 'cos I'd already chopped it up. Anyway, for the moment, I really like the weight & balance of the .6mm plate for this size of saw, so the two above have gone into daily use. Until someone 'finds' something else & I start to wonder what it would be like.......

.......
I have to mark the teeth with a texta so I don't get confused and start setting the wrong ones...

Yes, you mentioned that a while ago, & I thought 'what a good idea' & have been doing it ever since, too. I have to concentrate like fury when doing those tiny teeth, and marking every second one with a sharpened texta point is the bees' knees - I rarely make a mistake, now.

I'll be very interested to hear what you think of your D9 handle when it's done. At first I was attracted to that dramatic thumb groove, but I did a rough mockup & decided it didn't feel right, for me, so wimped out, thinking I can always go back & put it in later, if I choose. If you reckon it's a good thing after you give yours a good workout, maybe I'll summon the courage to go back & give it a go. It does look interesting, & after all, there's nothing to lose but a small piece of wood and a few hours of fitting, rasping & sanding!

Cheers,

[artme]

Nice rescues Ian.

As Wongdai said the left hand cut is perfect.