# New square required!



## ScottGoddard (29 Dec 2017)

As I spend more and more time woodworking then I have come to realise that I need more accurate tools...Therefore what are the most recommend squares that people recommend/use. I am a hobbyist, not a pro,


----------



## AndyT (29 Dec 2017)

topic109389.html


----------



## El Barto (29 Dec 2017)

Starrett. 

However, I have one of these and it's my most used square.


----------



## MattRoberts (29 Dec 2017)

+1 for a starrett - it's lovely to work with a combination square that you can feel confident is bang on every time


----------



## swb58 (29 Dec 2017)

ScottGoddard":2mapwse3 said:


> As I spend more and more time woodworking then I have come to realise that I need more accurate tools...Therefore what are the most recommend squares that people recommend/use. I am a hobbyist, not a pro,


Whether you're hobbyist or pro it doesn't matter, if you're going to have a square it has to exactly that . . . .square.
If it's not square then it's not worth having. The more you do the more realise that things have to be straight, flat and square to have a chance of a project turning out half decent.


----------



## sunnybob (30 Dec 2017)

Squares can be "in" or "out" of square regardless of price.
I tried to buy a "certified" square a while back. The company advertised their stuff to whatever the BS or En number is (I cant remember it off hand). When I asked for a certificate with it the price doubled.

I bought a standard square and easily tested it by drawing a line and flipping the square to check it from the other way, and this bog standard square was more accurate than my eye could tell.
I would just say stay away from REALLY cheap, like silverline and rolson. I bought a rolson square and found the bar to be bent in both planes.


----------



## Eric The Viking (30 Dec 2017)

The British Standard for a machinist's square is BS 939 (German/European is DIN 875-1).

Some cheeky manufacturers do have the nerve, etc., to put the mark on rubbish, in the confidence that the wholesale price is unbeatable and user feedback will never get back to them ("Oh, well it's either been damaged in transit... or possibly dropped sir?"), but generally speaking I think it's worth a punt if it actually has the standard marked on the tool. 

The Fischer one (German made) I have is marked with both BS and DIN references, and it's bang on, but I have a set of "Soba" (actually Shoba Industries, of India) squares, which look pretty, _and aren't actually very square_. To be fair, these are not BS 939 marked, but frustratingly they are well finished, were bought from a reputable dealer, and look like they ought to be good!

OK, we are talking about "good enough" or not, but the thing about small squares is they get a lot of use standing up on machine tables, etc., and small errors in setup can be exaggerated, depending on the machining operation being done. Drilling square is but one good example - I have to check the table on my drill press often, as it can twist (when I need it to stay square!). Then of course there's setting the table saw and bandsaw, and router table, and so on.

The traditional test for squareness* is very fast and easy. The difficulty with small squares though is extending the test line far enough to show up any error clearly: you need a steel rule, and to be sure that nothing slips out of place whilst you use it... which in turn means your ruler ought to have both sides parallel (not essential, but jolly helpful), and so on. 

It's cold and wet, and I don't really want to be in the workshop at the moment! So I was watching Matt Estlea on YouTube yesterday, making a four-joint practice piece. He reminded me about the importance of two true stock faces and a square edge, being marked and always referred to when setting out. To check you have made that, you only need a straightedge and the inside surfaces of a try square, so the outside of it isn't important. But I don't want a collection of squares I can only use one way!

If we all made enough of a fuss, retailers might have an old bit of MFC or something in the shop so we can check what we are buying. Next time, I think I'll take one with me!

E.

*Take a flat piece of something with a staight edge on it. Put the square on the edge, mark a line nominally perpendicular to that edge with a fine pencil or knife. Flip the square so it's facing the other way and make a second mark next to the first. If they're not parallel the square is off (as long as the edge it's against really IS straight). And check both the inside and outside edges of the blade, too. *Note that this won't pick up issues with tapers on the "stock" part of the square*, so it could still be off when used standing upright. To check that, you really need a jig... <sigh>.


----------



## rxh (30 Dec 2017)

Eric The Viking":2ct2y3m4 said:


> The British Standard for a machinist's square is BS 939 (German/European is DIN 875-1).
> 
> .........
> 
> *Note that this won't pick up issues with tapers on the "stock" part of the square*, so it could still be off when used standing upright. To check that, you really need a jig... <sigh>.



Or, if you have a flat surface and another square you trust, you could check it like this. Better still, if you have two additional squares you could use this way to check that all three test true against each other.


----------



## Eric The Viking (30 Dec 2017)

I get that, but you need two squares, and you still need a way of checking your "reference" one!

I had in mind something like this, made from scraps:






All you need is for the green surface to be flat and the blue one to be reasonably perpendicular to it. nothing else matters. You can write on the blue one (white MFC would be a good choice, as you can wipe pencil off it with meths). All the thing does is allow you to set the blade of the square down on the recording surface (because of the slab thickness), and keep the stock from moving about, 

You might finesse it with an elastic band, I guess, to hold the stock reasonably still. The advantage is that there's no precision required in the checking tool. 

The four-corner system is better because it magnifies the error four times (this only does it twice). If the edge of the blue surface is straight, you could use it for both internal and external checks.


----------



## adidat (30 Dec 2017)

Starrett combination square, I recall workshop heaven do a good deal on the four piece set.

Being using mine on site and in the workshop for about 6 years and still good as new! Sometimes it gets rusty or glue on and a quick wipe with fine wire wool and it looks fine!

Adidat


----------



## Ski (30 Dec 2017)

I get mine from axminster, so far found them to be very accurate.


----------



## toolsntat (30 Dec 2017)

Have a look at https://www.workshopheaven.com/hand-too ... nders.html
If you need more information Matthew will be more than happy to hear from you.
By the way, check out his purchase ethics, lifetime warranty and free returns =D> 
Cheers
Andy


----------



## thetyreman (30 Dec 2017)

I've got a starrett, they are well worth it, I've got the 150mm try square and the combination square, both are invaluable and used on every project, you will still have them in 20-30 years time, unlike a cheaper one, but obviously it's expensive initially.


----------



## transatlantic (30 Dec 2017)

squares are an odd thing for me. If I buy an expensive one, then I don't want to use it in fear of dropping it (I often drop things). Yet if I buy a cheap one, then I don't trust it.

A good compromise is to buy a quality square that you only use for reference. This is used to purchase a cheaper square (ideally you'd take it to the shop with you), and also to check that your cheaper square hasn't gone out of square every now and then.

sods law though that you drop the expensive square when comparing it against the cheaper square.

I'll say it again! .. someone needs to come out with an adjustable square! .. one that has a wee bit of wiggle room that we can set ourselves using the flip trick (which is good enough for woodwork)


----------



## woodbrains (30 Dec 2017)

transatlantic":1b1xo47p said:


> squares are an odd thing for me. If I buy an expensive one, then I don't want to use it in fear of dropping it (I often drop things). Yet if I buy a cheap one, then I don't trust it.
> 
> A good compromise is to buy a quality square that you only use for reference. This is used to purchase a cheaper square (ideally you'd take it to the shop with you), and also to check that your cheaper square hasn't gone out of square every now and then.
> 
> ...



Hello,

Here you go!





Axminster used to sell them, but don't anymore. Or you could look at Colen Clenton who makes fabulous marking tools. Classic handtools used to sell them, but don't anymore. No one wants them, it seems!

Mike.


----------



## AndyT (30 Dec 2017)

transatlantic":11wmk48h said:


> I'll say it again! .. someone needs to come out with an adjustable square! .. one that has a wee bit of wiggle room that we can set ourselves using the flip trick (which is good enough for woodwork)



Colen Clenton offers them in Australia.

Mike beat me to it but there might be one or two left here:

https://www.hntgordon.com.au/colen-clen ... tools.html


----------



## ED65 (30 Dec 2017)

ScottGoddard":2z1nu64b said:


> As I spend more and more time woodworking then I have come to realise that I need more accurate tools...Therefore what are the most recommend squares that people recommend/use. I am a hobbyist, not a pro,


For jobs that don't require knife marking think about making one or two of your own in wood. A try square makes a great project to exercise your skills a bit and is a good way to make use of some smaller scraps while you're at it. And if you make one yourself you can be absolutely sure that it's square which far too many commercial squares can't manage (one job people, _one job_!)

The oft-linked-to Hayward book on making your own tools has two of the common patterns made traditionally in British workshops, the first style suited to big squares (suggested size is 30" x 14.5") that might be useful for marking out sheet goods and is actually well suited to being made from ply so that there are fewer worries about warping down the line. The smaller one can be made down to pocket size if you like, which can be surprisingly useful.

There are also quite a number of others described online today if you'd prefer to go with a different construction method, many of them rely on built-up stocks so that no mortising is necessary and this can much more easily give a perfect fit of the blade in the stock.


----------



## ColeyS1 (30 Dec 2017)

woodbrains":epf1v5j7 said:


> transatlantic":epf1v5j7 said:
> 
> 
> > squares are an odd thing for me. If I buy an expensive one, then I don't want to use it in fear of dropping it (I often drop things). Yet if I buy a cheap one, then I don't trust it.
> ...


I bought one of these and was pretty disgusted tbh. The price point suggested it was a premium product, the amount of filler though.....










A replacement was sent, it was better but still had quite a bit of filler. I know it doesn't effect it's use, but jeepers can't they drill a fkin hole without tearing it out !!!
The square joins only one other thing I've been embarrassed about buying for the shop.
I bought a 6inch marples and it's much better than this bells and whistles thing.
Avoid would be my advice.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Edit- just to add the adjustment screws stick out, unlike the stock photo.


----------



## nabs (31 Dec 2017)

inexpensive combination squares can be adjusted to be perfectly square too (well, at least as good as your eyes/testing system allow). 

Use one of the tests above to find out which direction it is out and then use a small needle file to take a little of one or other edge of the brass hook that holds the ruler until it is correct. Of course the ruler has to have parallel edges if you want both the inside and outside edges to be square.

I did this with a cheap bacho square and used it for years - the trouble is that I found it did not stay square in the long run. I don't suppose it really mattered for the DIY jobs I was using it for, but I followed the common advice and got a decent one for woodwork.


----------



## Beau (31 Dec 2017)

Just get a quality engineers square and be done with it. Yes it's expensive but messing around trying to get a cheap a square that is square and sending the duffers back has got to a right pain in the backside. Moore and Wright is a good safe brand to start with.


----------



## Jacob (31 Dec 2017)

I've had a couple of Bahco squares. Cheap, good quality, no precision/accuracy problems.
https://www.screwfix.com/p/bahco-combin ... 5mm-/3870K?


----------



## bugbear (31 Dec 2017)

nabs":178f8m87 said:


> Use one of the tests above to find out which direction it is out and then use a small needle file to take a little of one or other edge of the brass hook that holds the ruler until it is correct.


In all the squares I've seen, the hook is a single point of contact, pulling the rule down onto two small seats. Squareness is adjusted by filing the seats (relative to each other).

Sounds like yours was different.

Here's a video that shows how to adjust the common style I had.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HByNXxtep00

BugBear


----------



## transatlantic (31 Dec 2017)

AndyT":107pwz5k said:


> transatlantic":107pwz5k said:
> 
> 
> > I'll say it again! .. someone needs to come out with an adjustable square! .. one that has a wee bit of wiggle room that we can set ourselves using the flip trick (which is good enough for woodwork)
> ...



kind of defeats the object if the adjustable squares are just as expensive as the accurate squares


----------



## nabs (31 Dec 2017)

bugbear":29cpr4iv said:


> In all the squares I've seen, the hook is a single point of contact, pulling the rule down onto two small seats. Squareness is adjusted by filing the seats (relative to each other).
> 
> Sounds like yours was different.
> 
> ...


Admittedly it was many moons ago, but I could have sworn I filed the hook bit - when I am back at home I will take a closer look.


----------



## undergroundhunter (31 Dec 2017)

I will second Bahco squares I have a 6" and the 16" and both were spot on as good as my eyes can tell using knife lines. 

matt


----------



## stoopiduk (1 Jan 2018)

I'm no precision woodworker, but the range of Bahco combination squares I've bought have all served me very well. I have four different sizes, and the quality and accuracy is consistently high.


----------



## shed9 (2 Jan 2018)

transatlantic":2st3yn66 said:


> AndyT":2st3yn66 said:
> 
> 
> > transatlantic":2st3yn66 said:
> ...



Trend do an adjustable square called an M3. RRP is £40ish but you sometimes see them pop up new on Ebay for >£25. Used one for years and a decent bit of kit. The one thing I like about it which you wouldn't necessarily look out for in a square is it will balance itself on the work piece without support - sounds redundant but often strangely comes in handy.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Jan 2018)

I have an infinitely adjustable square - 
https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/311917264622?c ... 495&crdt=0


----------



## Mark A (3 Jan 2018)

I bought a Bahco 12" combination square from Toolstation recently and it's about 1mm out. Should have returned it but forgot.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob (3 Jan 2018)

Mark A":33kueira said:


> I bought a Bahco 12" combination square from Toolstation recently and it's about 1mm out. Should have returned it but forgot.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Just needs a little tweak with a file and it will be equal to the expensive alternatives and save you £100 or more.


----------



## woodbrains (3 Jan 2018)

Jacob":1mxpwc5w said:


> Mark A":1mxpwc5w said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a Bahco 12" combination square from Toolstation recently and it's about 1mm out. Should have returned it but forgot.
> ...



Hello,

At least until the die cast stock moves and it goes out of square again. A Starrett costs less than 100 so you can't save this much and they are manufactured to guaranteed tolerances of within 4 thou per foot.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (3 Jan 2018)

woodbrains":16kd89mj said:


> Jacob":16kd89mj said:
> 
> 
> > Mark A":16kd89mj said:
> ...


But they don't move so that's OK.
Keeping your tools trim and in order is normal. The expensive stuff is for people who can't do it.


----------



## woodbrains (3 Jan 2018)

Hello,

I wonder if fixing an out of square square will also simultaneously yield a 45° that is 45°. Unlikely, and when you file away at it there will be no returns on the thing. Advising anyone to buy a square that isn't square and fixing it is lunacy. And die cast zinc certainly does move, at least one poster on this thread noticed it.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (3 Jan 2018)

woodbrains":3quhz24l said:


> ..... die cast zinc certainly does move, at least one poster on this thread noticed it.
> 
> Mike.


Bahco stock is die cast alloy of some sort and shows no sign of moving, but I'll keep my eyes on them!

Accuracy/precision can get beginners exited for a very old fashioned reason - the hope that the tool is to blame! 
But it is possible to make do with all sorts of garbage, getting into the (sub conscious?) habit of correcting known errors etc and producing precise work


----------



## Peter Sefton (3 Jan 2018)

Spending £20 on a quality BS939 engineers square is a good investment, I personally wouldn't waste £15 on something that isn't square it will leads to a lifetime of frustration and mistakes. 

Cheers Peter


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2018)

Buy a combination square that is older and that has a hardened head and not too much wear on the rule. It should be half the price or less of a new unhardened square, and it will be more square, work more nicely (smoothly) and last ten times as long as a square with an unhardened head. 

And be more useful than a try square (because you can mark off of the end of it).


----------



## Peter Sefton (3 Jan 2018)

D_W":xzuqsixe said:


> Buy a combination square that is older and that has a hardened head and not too much wear on the rule. It should be half the price or less of a new unhardened square, and it will be more square, work more nicely (smoothly) and last ten times as long as a square with an unhardened head.
> 
> And be more useful than a try square (because you can mark off of the end of it).



I have an old Rabone Chesterman No 1913 classic, I spent my hard earned cash as a teenager 30 something years ago to buy this square. I bet it's been out of square for at least the last 28 years!

I think you have to spend a real lot of money to get a really good combination square, I can't say its something I personally recommend doing.

Cheers Peter


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2018)

Hi Peter - i think that's a bit too old. I'll give you an example:
* I bought two unhardened starrett squares (used, but in reasonable condition), and one PEC combination square - unhardened. These were OK, but the starretts were worn out, and the PEC isn't that great - its action is really rough, you have to fight it some. It's also reasonably square, but not what you'd want if you have a choice. 
* After that, I got a suggestion from a machinist and toolmaker over here who is relatively well known to go find used squares with hardened heads (actually, he just said make sure the head is hardened, and didn't specify used). He suggested any decent older brand is fine. 

I subsequently bought two lufkin squares for $30 each. Both are dead square, both with good action and hardened heads. I think I bought them about three years apart, because I like to have two of those, and the first three I bought, I never should have. They're probably half as old as your square, perhaps less, and I could see from the listings they were low wear. Lufkin is a brand that's been diluted in the states, so it was easier to buy them for a reasonable price than it would be to find an old starrett. Anyway, I like to have two of things that aren't that expensive in case I misplace one - then I don't have to spend an hour of shop time chasing down something - the first will reappear at some point while I use the second. Watched pot never boils kind of thing. No excuse why it took me several years to have the sense to replace the dud versions - just didn't think about it until someone else requested, i guess.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Lufkin-Com...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649

(I made this seller an offer of $30, regardless of what the expired listing says was paid - I guess ebay doesn't like to share the offer price that's actually accepted)

Of course, there's always just a chance that I've had luck (both bad with unhardened squares, and good with hardened). The toolmaker who told me this tip (who was charged with fixing squares for people who had worn them out, and came to develop a preference for hardened squares) suggests that the odds are in our favor if we follow it, though. 

This reminds me that I need to list my other squares on ebay.

Not advocating anyone buy new squares of this type - they're expensive. Certainly not advocating anyone buy expensive unhardened new squares of this type, either - they have a poor future and will need correcting if used heavily. But used squares with hardened heads, a decent brand and little visible wear are a pretty good bet. 

(I have a reference moore and wright square that I use to check these things when they arrive, so I'm not guessing at whether or not they're actually as square as they appear to be).


----------



## custard (3 Jan 2018)

The problem with engineers squares is once they get up to around about 12'' or 300mm the stock is becoming a bit too heavy to be comfortably used in the way most woodworkers use them, i.e. with one hand holding the blade flat on the workpiece while the other hand scribes or pencils a line. At this size and above the weight of the solid steel stock trying to swing down risks introducing inaccuracies.


----------



## Peter Sefton (3 Jan 2018)

Custard you make some valid points on the larger steel squares, I think this is why the larger solid aluminium squares with lips in the stock are very popular. 

I have an old 12" Morre and Wright from when they were Sheffield made, it's a beast but still very accurate.

Cheers 

Peter


----------



## Jacob (3 Jan 2018)

custard":3c4nr070 said:


> The problem with engineers squares is once they get up to around about 12'' or 300mm the stock is becoming a bit too heavy to be comfortably used in the way most woodworkers use them, i.e. with one hand holding the blade flat on the workpiece while the other hand scribes or pencils a line. At this size and above the weight of the solid steel stock trying to swing down risks introducing inaccuracies.


You get a similar problem with wooden handled ones. If the blade isn't broad enough to contain the centre of gravity, the square won't sit on the workpiece without tilting. Doesn't introduce error it's easy enough to hold in the right place, but it can be inconvenient if you are doing a lot of marking up - not being able to leave it sitting in place whilst you sharpen a pencil or blow your nose etc.


----------



## D_W (3 Jan 2018)

About 10 years ago, I acquired a starrett 24" try square for $17 (that's not a typo). It was decommissioned navy goods, and a professor in California had made a hobby of acquiring decommissioned goods and storing them....until he died (I'll never understand that...if you're just going to acquire a pile and then die, what's the point?). Anyway, a relative was selling his stuff off on ebay....

...fast forward to now, the comment about weight rings true. You get a free beer in my house if you can accurately mark a tenon one-handed with the 24" try square without dropping it or getting cut by it. 

The japanese have accurate flexible light weight squares for this kind of thing, and to my knowledge, mark with ink - not like a pen, but with ink on a striking tool that releases it easily. I've used my starrett square to set steel carpenter's squares for large cabinet marking, but find them awkward to use for accurate work. The japanese marking tools are flexible so that you can bend them against a reference surface and get good positive contact (which can be hard to do with a rigid carpenter's square).

At the same time, I've developed an aversion for aluminum marking tools over the years. There's a serious durability issue there, and some of the branded "guaranteed" aluminum squares sold in the US are not actually square (but they're as expensive as they would be if they were!). 

I suppose there are a lot of subtleties (perhaps that's true of a lot of woodworking topics), one of which is that in my suggestion above about hardened heads on combination squares, you have to be able to spot heads (and rules) that aren't defective or worn (which seems like common sense, but it's not going to be that common if someone doesn't have the experience to have the sense), which you can clearly verify in the pictures of the expired auction. Or beyond that, if you're buying from an antique tool dealer with less than honest intentions, rules and heads can be put together without any regard to whether or not they actually lock up square, or at all. My first starrett combo came from a well-respected tool dealer here in the states, and the head and rule cannot lock up at all - there is always play. It's obvious that they were assembled by the dealer and not originally together, because it isn't just a wear issue.


----------



## Bm101 (3 Jan 2018)

(Just a beginners thoughts)
I've been holding back because the big boys are involved but no one has mentioned Kinex squares so far so I thought I'd mention them. Engineers squares so not for everyone but a deal cheaper than starret. I have the 150x100 and 75x50 fropm Workshop Heaven though they may be available elsewhere etc etc etc ad infinitum. The liitlun I find useful for all sorts. 'Bang on' square is more than good enough for me. I've visited an engineers workshop and seen what true accuracy entails. I'd be lucky and brave to even try and replicate that with my half a*sed attempts but I love and cherish those little squares because they give me confidence even though I will never need DIN 875/0 in real life. They give me confidence and I take real care of them .
I have a Moore and Write combination square that seems true off the big kinex and a stanley combinaion that is relegated to diy. :| 

https://www.workshopheaven.com/hand-too ... nders.html


----------



## MusicMan (4 Jan 2018)

To my mind the ideal square is adjustable, and has a push-out slip, the same thickness as the blade, near the end of the stock. This slip avoids the problem mentioned by Custard, of a heavier square rocking. The figure shows a Bridge City square to this design. I bought a set of three of these when I worked in the USA (when they were cheaper and I had more money!) and use them all the time. This model is not relevant now, as it has been discontinued (and BC prices are now ludicrous though they are beautiful tools!), but maybe someone knows an equivalent, or will be inspired to make their own to this design?







Note the support slip in the bottom left of this square.






The slip of wood at the top of the square is a shallow wedge, to ensure that the weight of the blade does not rock the square while setting.

For setting, one can use the straight edge and flip square method, but I never find this very good. First one has to make sure the edge is really straight. Then you can only use it a few times before there are so many lines that they are indistinguishable. I use a four-sided jig that magnifies the error by four, and is self-calibrating (as four right angles is a complete circle). I estimate the accuracy is about 0.003 degrees (10 seconds of arc).

The pictures show two of the squares with my high accuracy square setting jig, which I trot out whenever the subject of squares comes up: high-accuracy-square-setting-jig-t93871.html. Apologies to those who are bored by seeing this!

I made this out of wood because I wanted to practice making the sides square and straight, and had some 150 year old teak to use. It would be quicker, probably more accurate, and more sensible to use aluminium extrusion, e.g. T-track or 2030 extrusion (checked for straightness by ensuring that any three of the side pieces will match with no gaps).

The jig lives on the workshop wall and can be used to check a square in a few seconds. I do this whenever starting a new project. It will handle combination squares. There are obvious modifications one can make to handle T-squares or inside squares.

The same principle can be used for 45 degree angles, but needs eight sides and gets a bit fussy!

Keith


----------



## Jacob (4 Jan 2018)

I just bought a cheapo at £3.98 mainly in the hopes that the scribing pin would replace the missing pin from a Bahco square.
It fits!
Checked for accuracy - it's spot-on in woodworking terms; random variations no more than thickness of a 2H pencil line.
The scale is excellent but the stock is lightweight compared to the Bahco which is also alloy but much heavier.
But perfectly usable and has the two contact points which could be filed for adjustment.
5 stars for price, 4 stars for quality!


----------



## nabs (4 Jan 2018)

I dug out my old Bahco square and the mechanism to keep the ruler square to the stock is indeed as bugbear described in an earlier post (the hook engages with the slot on the ruler and pulls it down on to two small rails), so I obviously misremembered how I adjusted it. 

I also worked out why it was now out of square - the ruler does not lie flat anymore - it curls up and I think is slightly twisted. This is not a manufacturing fault though, as it has a hard life being used outside on building projects (I probably trod on it several times!)

Abuse aside, given it is simple to get a combination square square - assuming the ruler is machined straight/parallel, which it is (was) with my Bahco - by adjusting the rails with a file or bit of sandpaper, then I suppose it is reasonable to ask why it is worth spending more. 

D_W makes a good point about the better quality ones being hardened - on close inspection there are lots of nicks and dents on the edges of my Bahco rule but my hardened Starrett, which is nearly 40 years old, is perfect. Is there some other reason?

PS I assumed that all the Starretts were hardened - interesting to hear that this is not the case.

small steel rail just visible:





bahco and Starrett - not a lot to either of them, really!


----------



## D_W (4 Jan 2018)

Hardened steel, cast, etc, simply wears much longer and dents much less easily. If something dents less easily, as long as a corner, etc, doesn't break, it means the wear surfaces will deform less easily. 

Slower wear and less deformation means:
* smoother action
* longer lasting
* closer to initial squareness

I guess this is one of those tips that works a fair percentage of the time, but each time I mention it, there is some dissension about why it's not a good tip. Is it too subtle? i don't know. You've found the same thing I have, though - that of the squares you have, the hardened one is just in better shape.


----------



## AndyT (4 Jan 2018)

I'm quite surprised that having only just managed 8 pages on squares we've found another four pages worth already.
Inspired by it all I've just spent a few minutes comparing the various old and new squares in my workshop.
The good news is that they are all square enough except for one poor specimen I suspect was made in a school metalwork lesson. I only keep it on the superstitious grounds that it came with the right initials stamped on it.

However, I have noticed one other factor that differentiates some of the squares.
One that I find really useful is a little nameless engineer's square that I bought from Axminster. It's very handy for marking round small stock or squaring down dovetails. Its blade is 3/4" x 1/16" and its stock is 3/4" x 3/8". I generally work in inches as most of my tools are old and I find this feature really useful. It would be nice for metric workers if there was an equivalent in metric round numbers, say 1, 10 and 20mm.

I happen to have two "precision ground" squares. The older one, by Moore and Wright doesn't refer to any external standard but the other, by now-defunct maker Fisher of Canterbury is marked as BS939 grade B.

On both of these, the stock is annoyingly short of any useful size, at about 31/32" by 11/32". Presumably this is the effect of grinding a stock piece of steel down until it achieves squareness. 

So sometimes, they are less useful than the non-certified cheaper version.


----------



## Peter Sefton (4 Jan 2018)

Andy, Fisher are still made, these are the squares I use and supply to BS939.

My small 2" one sounds the same size as yours with a 3/4 x 1/16th blade as you say great for dovetail work. Fisher also make combinations squares but are not worth buying in my opinion.

Cheers Peter


----------



## AndyT (4 Jan 2018)

Oops, thanks Peter. I thought I had looked them up when I got the square but maybe the info on my old packaging is out of date.


----------



## whiskywill (5 Jan 2018)

ColeyS1":3i0c3eq7 said:


> Edit- just to add the adjustment screws stick out, unlike the stock photo.



They don't on mine. They are recessed.


----------



## ColeyS1 (5 Jan 2018)

whiskywill":2lntqo2q said:


> ColeyS1":2lntqo2q said:
> 
> 
> > Edit- just to add the adjustment screws stick out, unlike the stock photo.
> ...


You must have had a good one









Did yours have loads of filler around the brass bits ?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## Glynne (5 Jan 2018)

Peter Sefton":2nl3ow9r said:


> Andy, Fisher are still made, these are the squares I use and supply to BS939.


In light of this thread I checked all of mine yesterday, and the Fisher I bought from Peter some time ago is my reference.
I checked this and then all of the others against it and surprisingly only one was slightly out - amazing given how clumsy I can be.


----------



## patrickjchase (14 Jan 2018)

If you really want accuracy then combination squares are right out, as that sliding interface inevitably wears and compromises accuracy. Hardened heads help, but only to a point.

No, a Real Woodworker (tm) must have a few fixed master squares like the Starrett 55- and 20- series in various sizes. The Starrett 20-24 is a particularly attractive bargain in a 24" square for the low low price of $1800 or so.

FWIW and IMO, chasing precision for woodworking is a fool's errand. British class B (1 mil per inch of squareness tolerance) or the corresponding modern tolerance is adequate for most work, particularly once we learn to avoid unfortunately tolerancing stackups in our layouts.

Disclosure: I have a Starrett 55-6, that I mostly use to check other tools and rarely for metalworking. I also have a bunch of other squares of varying accuracies. Probably the biggest surprise of the lot in terms of "accuracy per dollar" was the Vesper double square, which comes close to rivaling the Starrett *fixed* squares' accuracy at lower price.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Jan 2018)

patrickjchase":3iwfm535 said:


> If you really want accuracy then combination squares are right out, as that sliding interface inevitably wears and compromises accuracy. Hardened heads help, but only to a point.
> 
> No, a Real Woodworker (tm) must have a few fixed master squares like the Starrett 55- and 20- series in various sizes. The Starrett 20-24 is a particularly attractive bargain in a 24" square for the low low price of $1800 or so.
> 
> ...



Hello, and welcome to the forum!

One small point - the use of the word 'mils' confused me slightly. I read it as 'millimeters' to start with, but as that made no sense in this context, I googled it. Seems it's a commonly used US shorthand for 'thousandth of an inch' - which made much more sense. The term 'mils' isn't used in the UK (we call 'em 'thous'), where we have dual use of Imperial and Metric systems, with Metric (usually SI) predominant in engineering. Thus, 'mils' would be read as 'millimeters' or possibly 'millionths of an inch' in the UK. Not really a woodworking matter, but as it cropped up I just thought I'd mention it in case confusion arises!


----------



## JohnPW (15 Jan 2018)

In the UK, "mil" is short for "millimetre".


----------



## custard (15 Jan 2018)

patrickjchase":3c6js4qi said:


> If you really want accuracy then combination squares are right out, as that sliding interface inevitably wears and compromises accuracy. Hardened heads help, but only to a point.
> 
> No, a Real Woodworker (tm) must have a few fixed master squares



#-o 

Oh dear. I've principally used combi squares for several decades. Guess that's me ruled out as a "real woodworker".

Welcome to the forum Patrick, looking forward to seeing your work.


----------



## Tasky (15 Jan 2018)

JohnPW":1h0uq0o4 said:


> In the UK, "mil" is short for "millimetre".


In the context of speech, sure... But in written communication, that's what 'mm' is for. 
But when I read, it my mind automatically thinks of 'mils' as in milliradians, where you have (by NATO standard) 6400 mils in a 360º circle.


----------



## John15 (15 Jan 2018)

An accurate square should allow you to mark a shoulder line that lines up on all four sides of your square workpiece. If it doesn't it's not a lot of good.

John


----------



## transatlantic (15 Jan 2018)

John15":2jqped6o said:


> An accurate square should allow you to mark a shoulder line that lines up on all four sides of your square workpiece. If it doesn't it's not a lot of good.
> 
> John



Not the best test in the world. Your workpiece is far more likely to be out of square


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 Jan 2018)

The very best square is one made and available from Chris Wong in Canada. 

The Magic Square ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB0MBGiX8TQ

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (15 Jan 2018)

transatlantic":rv29tn36 said:


> John15":rv29tn36 said:
> 
> 
> > An accurate square should allow you to mark a shoulder line that lines up on all four sides of your square workpiece. If it doesn't it's not a lot of good.
> ...



Well, if you consistently end up with something good doing that, it's a reasonable test. Not necessarily mathematical proof, but good enough for a weekend woodworker. As you say, no guarantee that it's the square that's bad if the pieces don't line up, though.


----------



## Peter Sefton (15 Jan 2018)

If you set a sliding bevel out of square and mark around a section of timber always referencing off face side and face edge it will also give you a complete, but it will not be a square mark.

Try it out for fun.

Cheers Peter


----------



## D_W (15 Jan 2018)

Peter Sefton":2oidum7l said:


> If you set a sliding bevel out of square and mark around a section of timber always referencing off face side and face edge it will also give you a complete, but it will not be a square mark.
> 
> Try it out for fun.
> 
> Cheers Peter



It might not be ideal if you're looking for square, but it's a useful tip if you need to mark a shoulder on a piece of wood that doesn't need to be perfect on all sides.


----------



## Peter Sefton (15 Jan 2018)

D_W":3qxt1cg5 said:


> Peter Sefton":3qxt1cg5 said:
> 
> 
> > If you set a sliding bevel out of square and mark around a section of timber always referencing off face side and face edge it will also give you a complete, but it will not be a square mark.
> ...




It just shows a square can be inaccurate and give you a continuous box mark, but the shoulders are not square and problems will follow.

Cheers Peter


----------



## D_W (15 Jan 2018)

Peter Sefton":116qeug7 said:


> D_W":116qeug7 said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Sefton":116qeug7 said:
> ...



Sometimes, one square pair (face and edge) is enough, and two more that are relatively close (visually) are fine. Especially if you're working by hand.


----------



## John15 (15 Jan 2018)

transatlantic":p7kq5u4d said:


> John15":p7kq5u4d said:
> 
> 
> > An accurate square should allow you to mark a shoulder line that lines up on all four sides of your square workpiece. If it doesn't it's not a lot of good.
> ...



I did say *square* workpiece.

John


----------



## MusicMan (15 Jan 2018)

Tasky":1x3xf7z3 said:


> JohnPW":1x3xf7z3 said:
> 
> 
> > In the UK, "mil" is short for "millimetre".
> ...




when did NATO redefine pi? There are 2xpi radians in a full circle.


----------



## bugbear (15 Jan 2018)

MusicMan":17amb9b7 said:


> Tasky":17amb9b7 said:
> 
> 
> > JohnPW":17amb9b7 said:
> ...


Hmm. This story

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

has pi at 3.2, which would lead neatly to 6400 (2 * 3.2 * 1000)

EDIT; Dead $DEITY. NATO and Indiana share the same view of maths.

http://www.metric-conversions.org/angle ... ersion.htm

BugBear


----------



## MusicMan (15 Jan 2018)

They'll repeal the laws of thermodynamics next.


----------



## Tasky (15 Jan 2018)

MusicMan":3i7bk7xj said:


> when did NATO redefine pi? There are 2xpi radians in a full circle.


Whenever NATO decided to derive it from SI units, I guess. 1950s?
I understand the French and Americans started using it in WW1, though... 

They just rounded it from 6283.185 true milliradians to just 6400, to make things a touch easier for simple-minded mortarmen to place rounds accurately!!
The idea is that moving your point of aim by 1 mil at your end means the point of impact at the target end 1,000 metres away will move by 1 metre. Apparently it works just as well in yards, too! 

Perhaps something could be implemented to measure how many mils out your square is?


----------



## woodbrains (15 Jan 2018)

Hello,

Don't American's use the word mills to mean thousandth of an inch?

I would always use mm ( at least say 'millis') and never say mills, it is very confusing!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jan 2018)

John15":2hz58cog said:


> transatlantic":2hz58cog said:
> 
> 
> > John15":2hz58cog said:
> ...


How would you know it was square?


----------



## Tasky (16 Jan 2018)

woodbrains":1rl4fhso said:


> I would always use mm ( at least say 'millis') and never say mills, it is very confusing!


As with much of the English language, a lot depends on the context. 
If it's clear you're talking in small, straight measurements, in an environment that commonly uses milimetres, then it's a reasonable assumption that 'mils' would be understood.... although I'd personally just say 'mil' myself, in the same way you might say 'foot' instead of 'feet'. 

This solves the mil vs mils issue.


----------



## John15 (16 Jan 2018)

How would you know it was square?[/quote]

Good point Jacob. I hadn't thought about that!

John


----------



## John15 (16 Jan 2018)

Jacob":39tmj5r3 said:


> I did say *square* workpiece.
> 
> John


How would you know it was square?[/quote]

Good point Jacob. I hadn't thought about that!


----------



## Jacob (16 Jan 2018)

Peter Sefton":1ogemohg said:


> If you set a sliding bevel out of square and mark around a section of timber always referencing off face side and face edge it will also give you a complete, but it will not be a square mark.
> 
> ....


No it won't, unless you turn the square (or the wood). If you do all the marks the normal way with the square stock in your left hand, turning the wood, the marks will not meet. To bring them together, you'd have to turn it and use in your right hand for two of the marks, or turn the wood end to end.

Had to try this out to make sure!

OTOH the good news is - if the workpiece itself is perfectly rectangular* in section, then whichever way you apply a perfectly accurate square, the marks will meet.

*Or a perfect parallelogram. Doesn't do to overthink these things - everything becomes impossible!


----------



## Peter Sefton (16 Jan 2018)

Jacob":1fq9cxf0 said:


> Peter Sefton":1fq9cxf0 said:
> 
> 
> > If you set a sliding bevel out of square and mark around a section of timber always referencing off face side and face edge it will also give you a complete, but it will not be a square mark.
> ...



As you say keep the stock of the bevel in your left hand, but it sounds like you didn't keep referencing off face side and face edge, if you just keep turning the timber you will draw a spiral.

Cheers Peter


----------



## Jacob (16 Jan 2018)

OOPS no I got it wrong! Sorry Peter. Yes if you do it the usual way the lines will meet. I was trying it out with hand and thumb - now had a go with an actual bevel.


----------



## Peter Sefton (16 Jan 2018)

Jacob":19731hai said:


> OOPS no I got it wrong! Sorry Peter. Yes if you do it the usual way the lines will meet. I was trying it out with hand and thumb - now had a go with an actual bevel.




Thought I was going mad for a moment  

Cheers Peter


----------



## CStanford (16 Jan 2018)

Lines will meet even if the square or work piece isn't perfect:

Register square on face edge, mark the true face. Then register square on true face and drop line down the face edge. Register square on face edge and mark the back face. Then register square on true face and mark edge to meet the back face.


----------



## Peter Sefton (16 Jan 2018)

CStanford":33wmgj12 said:


> Lines will meet even if the square or work piece isn't perfect:
> 
> Register square on face edge, mark the true face. Then register square on true face and drop line down the face edge. Register square on face edge and mark the back face. Then register square on true face and mark edge to meet the back face.



Indeed, thus using an inaccurate square leaves you believing you are marking out correctly but you will have accuracy issues later in the making process.

Use an accurate square for piece of mind.

Cheers Peter


----------



## CStanford (16 Jan 2018)

A sanity check is to see if smaller workpieces will stand upright on the bench by themselves, and larger carcase pieces upright on their mate with no gaps showing, near where the two will be joined - the 'where the rubber meets the road' test. Rail ends should always be offered up to their mating stiles to see if there are gaps before tenons are cut. If the stile has a little belly or the rail end isn't a gap-free fit then twist can be introduced at glue up. This is part of the process of getting over subordinating the accuracy of a work piece to the accuracy or supposed accuracy of a machine tool, or even a square. Test parts against their mate to the extent possible. Don't trust anything but test fits.


----------



## John Brown (16 Jan 2018)

"The Starrett 20-24 is a particularly attractive bargain in a 24" square for the low low price of $1800 or so."

In my naivety, I presumed this was a typo. Maybe $180, I thought, or possibly "low" was a mis-typed "ow!".

So I googled it.

Suffice it to say that I will never need a square of that accuracy, unless I'm building an apparatus for detecting gravitational waves. And I doubt that wood would be the best choice of materials for such a device.


----------



## CStanford (16 Jan 2018)

Large rectangular work pieces can of course be tested for square by measuring the diagonals. Edges square to the face can be tested with even a somewhat out-of-square, square, since you're only measuring squareness over a distance of an inch or less (the thickness of the component) and most squares are dead accurate over such a short distance. Slight dips and bumps at panel ends, which won't affect the diagonal test one way or the other, are best evaluated against the top of the workbench or the mating component. You don't need a large expensive square to make furniture. Some 'errors' between components do cancel. Be happy when that happens. 

Some 'errors' that appear relatively huge when measured with a tool room grade square completely disappear or are clearly inconsequential when checked against its mate in the article of furniture being made.


----------



## Peter Sefton (16 Jan 2018)

I am afraid measuring diagonals does not guarantee squareness, trapezoids have the same diagonal lengths but are not square.

Cheers Peter


----------



## CStanford (16 Jan 2018)

A perfect one does and it's rare that you could manage to produce such a thing by accident. It doesn't matter because you're still going to test the panel against it's mate and there surely will be a gap unless you've managed to produce a mirror image in the mating piece - essentially an impossibility. See my previous posts.

The notion of working to _a square_, as if working a single project component in total isolation, is antithetical to more things than I have time to list. It is certainly not hand craftsmanship.

I'm not mounting an argument against owning a decent square. You have to have something, and it might as well at least start out accurate. If it stays that way so much the better. One would still be foolish not to test work pieces as I have described in my other posts. This is essential for work pieces larger than the capacity of one's square.


----------



## thick_mike (16 Jan 2018)

Peter Sefton":12zvzvxh said:


> I am afraid measuring diagonals does not guarantee squareness, trapezoids have the same diagonal lengths but are not square.
> 
> Cheers Peter



Can you not measure 3 units one way and 4 the other? If the diagonal between the two points is 5 units, the angle must be 90 degrees.


----------



## CStanford (17 Jan 2018)

Yes, you can.


----------



## Jacob (17 Jan 2018)

Peter Sefton":28dc0b7l said:


> I am afraid measuring diagonals does not guarantee squareness, trapezoids have the same diagonal lengths but are not square.
> 
> Cheers Peter


Obviously not. There's no way to guarantee the squareness of a circle either.
Making rails and stiles in pairs of the same length, with joints in the right places,_and _ measuring the diagonals, does guarantee squareness, assuming they are all in the same flat plane


----------



## Peter Sefton (17 Jan 2018)

thick_mike":16pc6lih said:


> Peter Sefton":16pc6lih said:
> 
> 
> > I am afraid measuring diagonals does not guarantee squareness, trapezoids have the same diagonal lengths but are not square.
> ...



Yes you are correct this does work but I have used this method more in laying out footings and brickwork than in furniture.

Cheers Peter


----------

