# Hand saws



## Sheffield Tony (8 Jul 2014)

So, whilst thinking about saws - I see quite a few good options for backsaws, and discussion of their relative merits. But what of handsaws, rip and crosscut ?

I have a Thomas Flinn rip saw, boight because I wanted a proper rip saw, and modern hard point saws rarely come in rip variants, and old rip saws seem less common than crosscut. I bought the cheaper Lynx branded saw, but wonder if I might have been better going upmarket ( e.g the Pax) to avoid the fettling the Lynx needed.

Now I still use hardpoint saws for crosscutting. This gives a good supply of scrap saws for scrapers ... but is it worth changing ? Do I buy another cheap Irwin, Bacho, etc. Or a Flinn saw - and if so, any thoughts on the bewildering choice of brands ? Or I could possibly acquire and sharpen an old S&J Sperior 88. (I am happy sharpening saws. I think.) What do you use ?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (8 Jul 2014)

Way back in the 1980s, when I knew even less about woodworking than I do now, I invested some hard-earned in a 26" 6tpi Tyzack Sons and Turner Nonpariel, which at the time were still being made. A couple of years later, I bought a Roberts and Lee Dorchester 22" 10tpi panel saw to keep it company. Apart from the handles, which might be better shaped to the hand, both saws have done sterling work. If I were allowed to keep only one, it would be the 22" panel saw. Most of my work is in dry hardwoods of about 1" thickness, which it eats with no bother, and it cuts thicker stuff quite happily, just not quite as fast as the 26". Another plus for the 22" is that it's lighter to use.

One big advantage of buying new is that there's no bother with cockled blades. I've had quite a few older saws of late, a couple from dealers and several from Ebay, and most were not straight. Dirt cheap, but bent. They can be knocked straight(ish), but it's not an easy job. Finding 26" handsaws is a doddle on the 'bay (carpenter's and joiner's first choice size, I suppose), but panel saws with finer teeth seem rather scarcer. That said, if you're prepared to buy two or three to get one good one, and maybe re-handle it, you could end up with a really first-class saw for not too many pennies.

P.S. I still keep a hardpoint handy for 'rough' jobs, though.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (10 Jul 2014)

Thanks to CC for sharing your experience. Interesting, the preference for the 10tpi panel saw - it is probably better suited to what I want to do, good thought. I will definitely keep a hardpoint about for rough jobs !

Obviously hand saws are not as exciting a topic as back saws, planes or random argument - I'm a tad disappointed that of 150 views or so only one had something to say. Even "don't bother - I just use a hardoint saw" would have been useful info.

If anyone is interested interested I asked Katie Flinn, and the summary of the Flinn models is this, I think in roughly decreasing order of price:

Pax - two tone beech handle, solid brass screws/caps and medallion. Taper ground and breasted tooth line and handsharpened
Dorchester - Danish oiled walnut handle, solid brass screws/caps. Taper ground and breasted tooth line and handsharpened
Lynx - Walnut handle option, solid brass screws/caps. Taper ground blade with straight tooth line and handsharpened
Lynx - beech handle option, brass plated screws/caps. Taper ground blade with straight tooth line. 
William Greaves - beech handle, brass plated screws/caps. Flat ground blade with straight tooth line.

The steel is all the same steel but mainly the finish is different. 

I will probably plan to try one next time I buy - I've had very nice response from Flinn whenever I've dealt with them.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Jul 2014)

At one time I had the Pax taper ground, breasted tooth line. It cut extremely well. Unfortunately someone stole it when I carelessly left it unattended. Some of those thieves are quick. 
I doubt you will notice much difference with the straight line lower models. It's pretty much all in the sharpening. The handles aren't the most elegant but they can be reshaped.


----------



## GLFaria (10 Jul 2014)

Sheffield Tony":2918are5 said:


> Thanks to CC for sharing your experience. Interesting, the preference for the 10tpi panel saw - it is probably better suited to what I want to do, good thought. I will definitely keep a hardpoint about for rough jobs !
> 
> Obviously hand saws are not as exciting a topic as back saws, planes or random argument - I'm a tad disappointed that of 150 views or so only one had something to say. Even "don't bother - I just use a hardoint saw" would have been useful info.
> 
> ...


ok, ok, I felt I had nothing useful to say, but since you ask for "any" reply...  

I don't much use a handsaw, as the kinds of works I do are all in a very small scale and those now ubiquitous crosscut, hardened teeth saws suit me well enough.

However, I lately needed to rip cut a couple of very soft wood pine planks, and those saws didn't work so well, so I pulled out my oldish Sandvik panel saw, about 40 years old, grey plastic handle and steel scews with hexagon nuts. I hadn't used this saw for a good number of years.

It was crosscut sharpened, and I really wanted it rip, so proceeded to re-sharpen it. I shouldn't have been surprised, the plate is a very fine Sandvik swedish steel, quite hard, and once filed and sharpened it cuts very well. As far as I could find, Sandvik/Bahco has done some organisational shufling along the years and now Bahco carries the saw business. I don't know if they still use the same kind of steel. If they don't, they should.

So, I decided to refurbish this saw completely, get rid of the horrible grey plastic thing that passes for a handle and make a proper handle of nice wood, and secure it with proper brass screws. I ordered the screws and nuts from Flinn (BTW, I agree Katie is very helpfull), but I still like better the flush, flat type screws, so I may even end up making them myself, if my very old and battered Emco mini-lathe so agrees to. I already started on the plate, but now being Summer and my being a slow worker - and not having the accomodations required to work on more than one project at a time - the completion of the work may take some time. I will post some photos when it is finished.

And I will be on the lookout for a couple more of those old Sandvik plates, with or without the awful plastic handles.


----------



## Corneel (10 Jul 2014)

What I have in crosscut:
Diston d8 26" 7tpi. Only for knocking down big timbers. 
Diston d8 26" 9tpi. Use it a lot more. Leaves a pretty smooth cut. 
Unknown(?) 22" 10 tpi. Very usefull too allthough it ain't pretty. 
A modern hardtooth model for all rough work, plywood etc. It is now finally worn out after cutting some window frames in the wall. Touching the stone with the teeth isn't good for them either. 

Overall I like to use handsaws a lot. on a sawbench with the large ones and the small one at a bench. You have to learn how to sharpen them tough otherwise they are useless.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2014)

They last a lot longer and are always sharp if you sharpen them yourself. Saw doctors tend to re-cut the teeth if they are a bit rough and left too long.


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Jul 2014)

S&J secondhand are very good value. Not cool but get the job done.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jul 2014)

G S Haydon":3sp4xows said:


> S&J secondhand are very good value. Not cool but get the job done.



How dare you!

post807213.html?hilit=spearior#p807213

I think that's pretty cool. Cuts fast too.

BugBear


----------



## Steve1066 (10 Jul 2014)

S&J skew back 7tpi 
Just put it in to service after 22 years in the cupboard. Hard point were king when I started


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jul 2014)

Whilst we're on the subject of handsaws, the first saw I ever bought was a Spear and Jackson Workhorse - their DIY range. Beech handle (horrible shape, awful finish) with a non-taper ground blade. (At the time, I knew no better.) Apart from being a blister-raiser, it cut fine.

I know taper grinding is expected on 'posh' saws, but is it really necessary?

Edit to add - I've just checked the blade of my current hardpoint saw (Stanley). That's not taper ground, either. I think I've probably just answered my own question...

Which raises another. Given that taper grinding is a faff, and a significant addition to manufacturing costs, why did the manufacturers of old and today's top-end makers go to so much trouble to include it?


----------



## Lons (10 Jul 2014)

*WOW*
That abusive post was very quickly removed. I was just about to complain #-o


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Jul 2014)

bugbear":34geonah said:


> G S Haydon":34geonah said:
> 
> 
> > S&J secondhand are very good value. Not cool but get the job done.
> ...



:lol: The kids today aint gonna rock the S&J vibe BB, they are perhaps the corduroy slacks of saws. Not that it bothers me at all, I've never been that cool. Also, take better care of your saws, looks like it has a few rust spots :? :lol:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jul 2014)

Judging by the amount of shavings, the iron on that plane must be ground almost semi circular!


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Jul 2014)

Let's not get into that Philip! That leads to the dark side


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jul 2014)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2i89fvf5 said:


> .........Given that taper grinding is a faff, and a significant addition to manufacturing costs, why did the manufacturers of old and today's top-end makers go to so much trouble to include it?


Because it sells. People like innovations and the illusion of added value. The skew back is another pointless innovation.

I use this old Sorby quite a lot. it was very rusty when I got it but now has a shine, albeit black to dark brown in colour.


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Jul 2014)

I loved that saw the first time I saw this photo, still looks badass!


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2014)

It's a nice saw to use and seems to stay sharp. I'm not sure quite what it is that makes it a good saw but it certainly is a goodun.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jul 2014)

Taper grinding isn't really an 'innovation', though, is it? Benjamin Seaton's handsaws (1797) were taper ground (by hand and eye, and surprisingly accurately). Your old Sorby will be taper ground.

It may be that in the days when saw blades were finish ground by hand, grinding a taper was easier than grinding parallel. The habit stuck in more mechanised days because that's what craftsmen had come to expect.

Anybody else got any thoughts on the matter?


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Jul 2014)

I'm not sure if my Sandvic 244 is taper ground, I'll take a look . It seem's like a logical thing to do and as you menton CC it's not a recent idea. I have some of the bog standard S&J already mentioned and they seem just fine for most things.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jul 2014)

I always understood (was taught, years ago) that the reason for the taper ground back was to minimise the amount of set needed, thus lessening the effort needed to push the saw. Seems a fair one to me.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":bjc8drq3 said:


> ... Your old Sorby will be taper ground....


Actually it isn't. I just checked it - consistently 0.9mm all over as far as I could tell.
Maybe the value of the taper is that it plays safe when the technology wasn't so controllable and puts a bias in the right direction - easier to achieve than perfectly parallel faces


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jul 2014)

Jacob":oojwrnku said:


> Cheshirechappie":oojwrnku said:
> 
> 
> > ... Your old Sorby will be taper ground....
> ...



Check it again, with a micrometer or a pair of outside calipers. All saws of that type and age are taper ground. In the case of that one, it'll be about 6 thou difference between the blade thickness at the toothline and the back handle end, and at the back toe end.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jul 2014)

phil.p":2vw4o5li said:


> I always understood (was taught, years ago) that the reason for the taper ground back was to minimise the amount of set needed, thus lessening the effort needed to push the saw. Seems a fair one to me.



Yes - I've heard that one, too. The only thing that slightly jars is that the heel end on the back, up by the handle, is always full thickness, so no relief there.

On the other hand, Disston (and possibly others) did make a saw for use by cabinetmakers using very dry hardwoods that was taper ground, but supplied with no set to the teeth, which rather confirms the idea. I think the Disston one was called the 'Acme' saw - can't remember the number, though.

Edit to add - Disston 120 'Acme' saw, details courtesy of the Disstonian Institute - http://www.disstonianinstitute.com/acmepage.html


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2014)

Checked again. 0.9mm everywhere I can reach top and bottom at handle and toe. Seems to be same between the teeth. Any variation nowhere near 6 thou, which would be very apparent.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jul 2014)

Jacob":3n500pop said:


> Checked again. 0.9mm everywhere I can reach top and bottom at handle and toe. Seems to be same between the teeth. Any variation nowhere near 6 thou, which would be very apparent.




The vast majority of 19th century and early 20th century handsaws were taper ground. I think you may have one of the very few exceptions.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Jul 2014)

The greatest amount of taper (or the thinnest section) usually occurs at the toe end of the saw, opposite the tooth line - the back. As you move towards the handle it progressively becomes thicker. In fact half way along the saw and you start to see very little tapering. 
With that in mind it makes very little sense that it's there to prevent the saw binding in the cut. The 'set' on the teeth is going to prevent that anyway, at least it is in the vast majority of saws. But why taper grind in that progressive manner? Obviously the greatest amount of grinding coincides with the shallowest part of the saw, whereas deepest part of the saw shows no sign of taper. That would suggest that they were deliberately maintaining the full saw gauge at the deepest section of the saw. To maintain it's strength? That doesn't seem that likely to me. Just seems a mystery.
BTW. My very modern and fairly cheap Spear & Jackson is taper ground.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2014)

Cheshirechappie":dfzwwqdw said:


> Jacob":dfzwwqdw said:
> 
> 
> > Checked again. 0.9mm everywhere I can reach top and bottom at handle and toe. Seems to be same between the teeth. Any variation nowhere near 6 thou, which would be very apparent.
> ...


On the other hand you may be wrong. I'll check a few more tomorrow.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jul 2014)

Jacob":3qjpdq67 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3qjpdq67 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3qjpdq67 said:
> ...



In this instance, I'm sticking with what I've said so far!


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2014)

MIGNAL":5irpi414 said:


> The greatest amount of taper (or the thinnest section) usually occurs at the toe end of the saw, opposite the tooth line - the back. As you move towards the handle it progressively becomes thicker. In fact half way along the saw and you start to see very little tapering.
> With that in mind it makes very little sense that it's there to prevent the saw binding in the cut. The 'set' on the teeth is going to prevent that anyway, at least it is in the vast majority of saws. But why taper grind in that progressive manner? Obviously the greatest amount of grinding coincides with the shallowest part of the saw, whereas deepest part of the saw shows no sign of taper. That would suggest that they were deliberately maintaining the full saw gauge at the deepest section of the saw. To maintain it's strength? That doesn't seem that likely to me. Just seems a mystery.
> BTW. My very modern and fairly cheap Spear & Jackson is taper ground.


My guess is that old saws when largely hand made would be made to a single thickness as far as possible. 
Then any final process of fettling and polishing would stop well short of the handle or the teeth for obvious reasons, resulting in an arbitrary taper, to a greater or lesser extent.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Jul 2014)

I've just measured an old saw I have, split nuts. The greatest difference is just short of 0.3 mm's. A bit more than I thought. 
That probably is enough to give a difference in the amount of set required but of course that would only really apply if you were seeking minimal set in the first place.


----------



## carpenteire2009 (11 Jul 2014)

I've a small collection of handsaws so I thought I'd chime in with my opinions, as follows:

I've two new saws by the Thomas Flinn company, one a 10pt crosscut Pax, with beech handle, breasted toothline, taper ground etc. Cuts well and made with quality materials BUT the handle is awful- a chunky and badly shaped handle that is uncomfortable to use. For this reason alone I would suggest trying to pick up a good quality vintage model if you can. I bought the Pax saw only because I managed to get it for a good price (think I paid €60) from a tool dealer as it was a clearance item. Flinn should be fitting a better handle to their saws considering how expensive they are. I also own a rip saw made by them for Axminster, branded "Styles and Brown". Similar quality but I did reshape the handle and I couldn't really complain as it was good value for money. If Flinn put a better handle on their saws I think they'd sell a lot more of them as not everyone wants to go the vintage route and yet that's where I'd look first for reason of the handle alone.

I have another new Spear & Jackson handsaw, produced in the UK, stained beech handle, taper ground, "universal" cut. Nice panel saw and again picked up for small money as clearance item in a tool dealers. This saw is no longer available or being manufactured AFAIK.

My other saws are vintage- the cheapest being a Spear and Jackson "Workhorse", bought for €2 in a car boot sale. Beech handle (better than that on the Pax!), not taper ground or breasted but when sharpened it cuts just fine and is as the name suggests perfectly good for basic carpentry use.

My favourite saw is a vintage Tyzack Non Pareil, crosscut 10pt. Bought from a second hand tool dealer and was in immaculate condition. This is a great saw, comfy handle, cuts well and a joy to use. Can't remember what I paid but it was very good value when you consider that they don't make these any more.

I have a Diston panel saw 10pt, belonged to a relative of mine, very worn now with maybe only 1 or 2 more light sharpenings left in it, but nice to have and use.

My last saw purchase was a an old S & J Spearior handsaw, small money but some work required to get it in working order. Well worth the effort (think I paid €12 for it).

I have another Diston rip saw which was a purchased from a second hand tool dealer- can't remember the model number but it is a fine handsaw although it doesn't get much use.

I've not had much luck with finding good usable saws at car boot sales- most are rusty and pitted, with dents, buckles and a rotten or broken handle to boot. Just not worth the effort when you can still pick up a good user for reasonable money from some of the excellent delaers you seem to have in the UK.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jul 2014)

Jacob":1fibt54e said:


> ....My guess is that old saws when largely hand made would be made to a single thickness as far as possible.
> Then any final process of fettling and polishing would stop well short of the handle or the teeth for obvious reasons, resulting in an arbitrary taper, to a greater or lesser extent.


Have an old Ibbertson rip saw similar to the Sorby above and it has no taper. Various other saws - found only one with an obvious taper - S&J "Spearior"


----------



## Corneel (11 Jul 2014)

My Disston D8 saws are definitely tapered. I have a 19th century Tyzack, with taper. An S&J with taper. And another ancient British saw (forgot the brand name) with a considerable amount of taper too. Only one nameless Waranted from that period doesn't have any measurable amount of taper. Newer saws, like a Sandvik from the 70ties don't have taper either.

Just some more datapoints.


----------



## bugbear (11 Jul 2014)

I've measured some saws, using a M&W micrometer. The oldest is either the Anon (which has a truly fancy handle, but no brand name) or the Kenyon, which is around 1870 from research I did on the maker.

For each saw I list name and length in inches, then the plate measurements.

The measurement (in tenths) are spine (heel, middle and toe) then edge (heel middle toe).


```
Kenyon, Norwich   26                380               320               260
-                 -                 380               390               350
S&J Spearior 88   26                350               250               180
-                 -                 330               350               340
Tyzack 103/5      21.5              350               295               255
-                 -                 325               340               330
Anon              22                415               415               400
-                 -                 395               405               400
Tyzack NP 118     26                375               320               275
-                 -                 345               370               340
```

I was surprised to see a slight swelling from heel to middle along the tooth line on some of the saws. The big Tyzack has a breasted edge.

Only the old anon is flat, and it's also very thick, I have wondered if it was for some special purpose. The plate is noticeably heavy and rigid.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2014)

Breasted, taper-ground, skew back, etc. all things that sound better in theory and on paper than they turn out to be in actual use. 

I had a probably 1970's era Stanley Handyman 26" crosscut saw (as cheap as it gets for a resharpenable saw) that cut like a dream and it of course had none of the above features.

People who claim to be able to tell the difference likely could not do so if blindfolded and helped to get a start sawing. 

It's like the vast majority of the frou-frou _en vogue_ these days: differences, if any, are extraordinarily subtle and well at the margins.

Regardless of the sawing task, all you really need is a sharp, straight saw with clean and even teeth. I'm always amazed when somebody comes onto a board justifying pitting at the toothline for some saw that has all the bells and whistles in the form of breasting, tapering and the rest. I draw the line at woodworking with corroded metal (past or present), regardless of what the tool was in its glory days. I've had my share of it. It isn't worth the trouble.


----------



## AndyT (11 Jul 2014)

There have always been some features of a saw which enhance its performance or make it efficient to use. Some people will pay for them, others won't, so saws get made which vary from the cheap and basic "household" model up to something a discerning tradesman would use all day long. Some old catalogues list "miner's" and "farmer's" saws which were presumably more robust than something meant for bench work.

But alongside the necessary design features there have long been other enhancements which were not strictly functional, but served to mark out a tool as an expensive one, worth treating with respect.
I'm thinking of elaborately decorative etches, medallions and silver plated screw heads.

It's not surprising that a random selection of survivors shows examples of all types.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (11 Jul 2014)

Sometimes I think we'd all be better off not paying attention to the internet or woodworking magazines, etc. I know in my past (when I worked wood for a living) it was get the job done, without worrying about whether or not a saw was taperground (or even if it was hand-sharpened by the latest, greatest most revered saw guru of the moment!).

It was get the job done correctly, with the least amount of waste in the quickest time.

As an aside, I do recall seeing sometime ago, a schematic of a typical Disston saw showing where tapergrinding occurs and it was not equal from teeth to top, but thicker at toothline and areas towards the handle.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (11 Aug 2014)

After some contemplation, and bearing in mind CC'c comment that a 10tpi 22" panel saw was good for most purposes, I have bought one of these, on price drop at Axi:

http://www.axminster.co.uk/victor-hand-saws

I have the 22" version, and it has just arrived. It is obviously a Thomas Flinn saw, it has the Garlick branding. and "Styles and Brown", whoever they are. It came in a Lynx branded box (why do Flinn need to make things so confusing ?). It is taper ground, breasted, stained beech handle, solid brass screws and medallion, and the etch claims it is hand set and sharpened - and it feels like it is. So comparing the Flinn range, it has quite a high spec, comparable to the Pax.

The reviews on Axi seem to be split - a lot of the negatives seem to focus on the uncomfortable handle. Holding it it does feel like it could be a bit more rounded and comfy. It also _looks_ a bit basic -strangely my Lynx rip saw has a nicer handle, and that's a basic verson. Poor handle shape seems a recurring criticism of Flinn saws. I'll try it out and see what I think.


----------



## AndyT (11 Aug 2014)

Sheffield Tony":sxdd6vm8 said:


> It is obviously a Thomas Flinn saw, it has the Garlick branding. and "Styles and Brown", whoever they are. It came in a Lynx branded box



It's enough to make you think that the last remaining Sheffield toolmaker has such a big choice of brands that they use as many as possible on each saw!

Seriously though, I think Styles and Brown are the proprietors of Axminster tools, aren't they?


----------



## Sheffield Tony (12 Aug 2014)

Ahh, Ok. I forgot to mention it also of course has Axi's "Victor" branding on the etch too ..

I'm not entirely convinced that maintaining so many brands is a great idea for Thomas Flinn - rather than wading through the 5 or so brands and trying to sort out the key features, I'd prefer a table or checkboxes for features like straight/breasted, taper/flat ground, handle material etc.

I know you really meant Sheffield's "last sawmaker" not "last toolmaker" Andy - not to forget Clico/Clifton, Henry Taylor/Hamlet Craft tools, and Joseph Marples. Then there's Crown and Footprint - not sure how much of their stuff is their own and how much is rebranded; their saws look distinctly similar to Thomas Flinn products ...


----------



## AndyT (12 Aug 2014)

Oops, yes, last sawmaker not last toolmaker!


----------

