# Rulers - or rules.



## Cheshirechappie (14 Nov 2014)

For donkey's years, I've done all my woodwork measuring with two tools, a 12 foot Stanley tape and a 6" steel rule. 

Maybe the rule is a habit ingrained by my engineering background, but I just couldn't function without it, now! Mine's a Rabone Chesterman 64R 'rustless chrome face'; I think they're still available under the Stanley name. It's such a versatile little tool, having both imperial and metric measurements. Apart from the usual marking-out duties (when dimensions are not taken directly from another component ot tool) it comes in handy for all sorts - depth gauge when morticing, quick stock thickness checker, that sort of thing. I used it recently to set out the 10tpi i wanted when recutting a panel saw from 6tpi - attached to the saw-vice with a couple of bits of masking tape, it was easy to transfer the marks from rule to plate with a small file, moving the rule along every 4" or so. It would do 8, 16 and 20 tpi just as easily, and (as Paul Sellers demonstrated a few weeks ago) 12tpi and 6tpi by using the metric side - 2mm and 4mm is as near as a saw needs.

About 18 months ago, I bought a 36" folding boxwood rule off a well-known interweb auction site. It's much easier to read than either the tape or the little 6", and suits the scale of most woodwork. I suspect that had I worked with it from the off, I'd be bereft without it, but for some reason I still grab either the tape or the 6". Maybe it's just ingrained habit.

What are the forum's preferences? Do you find a 6" rule indispensible, or prefer a 12", or a folding boxwood rule? Do you find a tape measure does all you need?


----------



## Racers (14 Nov 2014)

I have 6"/150mm 12"/300mm 24"600mm and 36"1000mm rules that I use for marking out, all Fisher ones very nice matt Stainless Steel.
Tapes are o/k for rough work but every thing else I use rules.

Pete

All ways wanted a 2000mm one but they are expensive.


----------



## bugbear (14 Nov 2014)

The historic tools are either a 2 foot folding steel rule, or a 3 foot "4 fold" wooden rule.

For the small scale stuff I tend to do, I use a 12" steel rule, but I work in mm.

BugBear


----------



## monkeybiter (14 Nov 2014)

Steel rule [6" and 12"], steel tape, dial calliper. Which one depends on dimension and accuracy required.


----------



## niagra (14 Nov 2014)

As I make drums, I also have a flexible tape to check circumferences.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Nov 2014)

niagra":3tbktbun said:


> As I make drums, I also have a flexible tape to check circumferences.



That's a point - I don't do much curved work, but I can see how a flexible tape would help in (for example) checking the required length of veneer for a bow-front cabinet drawer. It's more direct and less prone to error than using a piece of string to find the length, and then laying it along a tape measure. I've got a tailor's cotton tape kicking about the house somewhere, but it had never crossed my mind that it might be handy in the workshop. Nice one!


----------



## John15 (14 Nov 2014)

150, 300, 600 and 1000mm stainless steel rules and a 3m Stanley tape

John


----------



## iNewbie (14 Nov 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2uv3o2e5 said:


> niagra":2uv3o2e5 said:
> 
> 
> > As I make drums, I also have a flexible tape to check circumferences.
> ...



Starrett make some Full Flexible steel rules - the largest being 24" which is 1/64th thick. Costs about £100 mind... :shock:


----------



## Peter Sefton (14 Nov 2014)

Racers":3pm9nbjy said:


> I have 6"/150mm 12"/300mm 24"600mm and 36"1000mm rules that I use for marking out, all Fisher ones very nice matt Stainless Steel.
> Tapes are o/k for rough work but every thing else I use rules.
> 
> Pete
> ...



I have been using fisher for years by far my favourite brand, The old ones that have lost there crispness get used for removing glue or gum veneer tape without the risk black staining. I like having a 150mm in my top pocket and 300mm for my bench work, 600 and 1000mm for setting out.

I use my Incra T rule for spacing dovetails or as a pencil gauge and a Incra precision rule for bending around curved work.

I have a Stanley 8M tape for timber prep and a digital vernier calliper for final sizing. I have given up with manual and dial callipers.

If the temptation for the 2M rule becomes to strong Pete give me a ring and I will see what I can do.


----------



## -Matt- (14 Nov 2014)

Depending on where I am:
150mm steel rule in trouser leg pocket
300mm steel rule (I also have a black one with white markings, but thats double sided and doesn't have a conversion chart/ tapping sizes on the back)
300mm combination square
5M Stanley Tylon/Tyron (something) tape. Had it few months, not a mark on the tape yet, very pleased with it.
Assortment of cheap 5M tapes. Took a few to work. They didn't last too long. Bit rubbish. Was a job lot of about 12 from an auction.
Manual slidey 150mm verniers. Can't get on with dial ones. We have digital ones at work. More to go wrong really.
Dividers too I guess. I've used those for measuring and transferring of measurements.


----------



## bourbon (15 Nov 2014)

My mom (who I lost last year) used to work for Rabone Chesterman. Birmingham museum has a duplicating machine as one of their exhibits. The staff were put out when mom said to them that it was put together wrongly, she should have known as she worked it!! I still have a 'blank' 2 foot rule that I use as a straight edge most often though a Stanley tape and 12 inch rule and a scale ruler for modelmaking


----------



## DTR (15 Nov 2014)

I have a 6" and a 12" engineers rules in the tool chest, but they don't get much use other than as a straight edge. They are "surplus" from my days as an apprentice. I also have a 2' boxwood rule and a 16' tape measure. Most of the time they only get used for coarse measurements; when I need to be accurate as much as possible I measure straight from a component or use dividers or a marking gauge


----------



## Racers (15 Nov 2014)

Peter Sefton":39yi4myl said:


> Racers":39yi4myl said:
> 
> 
> > I have 6"/150mm 12"/300mm 24"600mm and 36"1000mm rules that I use for marking out, all Fisher ones very nice matt Stainless Steel.
> ...



Mmm tempting, any idea how much?

One thing I like about the Fisher rules is they are matt and you can mark the rule with a pencil, which is good for dyslexics like me who can read things wrong with out knowing.

Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Nov 2014)

Old engineer's rules are often marked in 20th's of an inch, which is annoying when you mistake them for 16th's. DAMHIKT


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Nov 2014)

phil.p":ofjl15lx said:


> Old engineer's rules are often marked in 20th's of an inch, which is annoying when you mistake them for 16th's. DAMHIKT




That's a good point - but it's not limited to engineer's rules. My boxwood folding rule (Rabone No.1380) is calibrated in 1/8" and 1/10" increments on one side, and 1/16" and 1/12" on the other. 

(What would you use 1/12" increments for? I wonder if they just put it on because they had to put something there, and couldn't think of anything more useful - already got 1/8", 1/16" and decimal divisions.)


----------



## AndyT (15 Nov 2014)

1/12" divisions would be handy if you were doing a drawing or making a model at one inch=one foot scale. 

Also useful for a typist - 12 lines to the inch was a standard that survived into early dot matrix and daisy wheel printers.


----------



## Woodmonkey (15 Nov 2014)

Wish I could find a steel ruler with mm on both sides (well all four edges if you see what I mean) and just mm, they all seem to have half mm normally for the first 100mm which just give me a headache


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Nov 2014)

AndyT":3twquizo said:


> 1/12" divisions would be handy if you were doing a drawing or making a model at one inch=one foot scale.
> 
> Also useful for a typist - 12 lines to the inch was a standard that survived into early dot matrix and daisy wheel printers.



The Prof hits the mark yet again! Andy - you're absolutely right.

I've just been doing a bit of googling. Apparently, the printing industry used (maybe still uses) 'picas' and 'points' as measurement units - there are 6 printer's picas and 72 printer's points per 0.99576". There are also DTP (desk top publishing) picas and points; in this case 6 picas and 72 points equal 1" exactly. So it's easy to see how 1/12" divisions would be of use in the print industry.

Specialist rules for printers marked in picas and points are still available - though not widely so!

You learn something every day, don't you?

There must have been quite a few special rules for particular trades. I have a couple of patternmaker's contraction rules, made with scales deliberately a fraction larger than standard inches to enable patternmakers to set out their work to allow for the contraction of metals as they cooled from molten in the mould. Those were available in quite a range of contraction rates, some allowing for 'double contraction', when the patternmaker made the wooden patterns from which metal production patterns were cast for high-volume work. Different metals contract by different amounts, and different sizes of casting could contract differently too - so two foundries casting iron might use different contraction allowances. The end result was that there were many different rules made by instrument makers for patternmakers.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Nov 2014)

Woodmonkey":19vjsc1p said:


> Wish I could find a steel ruler with mm on both sides (well all four edges if you see what I mean) and just mm, they all seem to have half mm normally for the first 100mm which just give me a headache



Know what you mean - it's the same with imperial. I can just about cope with 1/32", but 1/64", 1/50" and 1/100" are just ridiculous!

I don't know if they're still available, but there used to be something called (rather rudely, I thought) 'blind man's rules', which didn't bother with the smaller divisions - the smallest were 1/8" if I recall correctly. Perfectly adequate for 95% of woodwork ( and a lot of metalwork, too). I've never seen a metric one, but I'll bet there out there somewhere....


----------



## AndyT (15 Nov 2014)

Hi CC. I was wildly guessing on the twelfths and don't really know. I think for an old boxwood rule of more than a foot or so, scaling is the more likely purpose and I've seen pictures of rules with twelfths on described as scale rules. The near match to printing is a bit of a coincidence. Printers needed to be very accurate when setting up a composing stick to a predetermined measure and I have recently acquired a set of brass gauges that were used for that job.


----------



## Harbo (15 Nov 2014)

This one belonged to my father who was a Compositor:







I worked in a drawing office for a time - I've lots of scale rules both Imperial and metric with various scales
Eg: ¼, ½, ¾, 1 ¾, 3", 1:25, 1:12, 1:480, 1:500, 1:1250, 1:2500 and dozens more!

Rod


----------



## AndyT (15 Nov 2014)

If anyone needs a little nudge towards a whole world of hundreds of different and collectable rules for many trades, I recommend the standard work "The Rule Book" by Jane and Mark Rees http://www.reestools.co.uk/books.html.
It is not a cheap book but although I don't have a copy I can confirm that it is VERY comprehensive.


----------



## DiscoStu (15 Nov 2014)

I use 2 x 12" steel rules all the time. One has a stop attached to it which I find really useful. It cost about £6 in Axminster and was one of the best purchases I've made. Other than that I have a 5m Stanley tape. I have a woodworking square but almost exclusively use an engineers square.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (15 Nov 2014)

12' Stanley tape and a six foot Lufkin folding rule. Have a number of other measuring "items" but I aways go back to the two noted.

I've gotten into the habit (a few years back) of using a "story stick" with measurements marked out at the beginning of a project. I gage piece against piece whenever I can.


----------



## iNewbie (16 Nov 2014)

Woodmonkey":13w5ew8f said:


> Wish I could find a steel ruler with mm on both sides (well all four edges if you see what I mean) and just mm, they all seem to have half mm normally for the first 100mm which just give me a headache



The nearest to that I've seen is Starrets - but it does have 1/2mm marks.

.............This one here


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2014)

Tony Zaffuto":2egi3tct said:


> ..
> I've gotten into the habit (a few years back) of using a "story stick" with measurements marked out at the beginning of a project. I gage piece against piece whenever I can.


Strictly speaking a "storey stick" (various names) is a builders tool giving the heights of items on one storey of a building
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storey_pole 
so what you probably mean is a "rod" which can be anything from a few marks on a board to a full size drawing of all details. Same principle as a storey stick.
Should be more than a "habit" - it's more or less essential for any project; all measurements/marks taken from it direct, without the intervention of a ruler/tape etc.
Not sure about gauging "piece against piece" - if it's at all complicated or repetitive this could result in accumulated errors (like chinese whispers). Instead it's normal practice to gauge each piece against the rod (or story stick if you are a builder) - errors are distributed evenly and you are continually referring back to base, i.e. the rod.
Once you have your rod drawn out in theory you don't need a tape or a ruler or any calculations. In fact you can design and work accurately and precisely without measurements/calculations at all - if you have to. Dividers are handy!

PS I'm about to do a storey stick for a staircase. A long rod (in my case a length of architrave is the only thing I've got long enough) stood vertically on the floor to the floor level above and marked accordingly. This mark is then checked/corrected for any unevenness on the ground floor as the position of the last riser isn't vertically above the first one. This is then divided into equal risers (using dividers traditionally, but a long tape and a calculator helps!) and off you go!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Nov 2014)

No argument from me on the utility of rods (or story sticks, if you happen to be in North America).

If you're replacing or restoring an existing feature, you can set out the rod directly from existing features; no rules or tapes needed. However, for new work, when the only information available may be the architect's or furniture designer's drawings, how do you set out the rod without using some sort of standard measuring device such as a tape or rule?


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2on3b2d4 said:


> No argument from me on the utility of rods (or story sticks, if you happen to be in North America).
> 
> If you're replacing or restoring an existing feature, you can set out the rod directly from existing features; no rules or tapes needed. However, for new work, when the only information available may be the architect's or furniture designer's drawings, how do you set out the rod without using some sort of standard measuring device such as a tape or rule?


if the information you have is in the form of measurements then that's what you have to use. But if you had full size drawings you could work directly from them. Not that you _have_ to it's just useful thing to be able to do and somewhat neglected nowadays. 
A big woodwork manufacturer drawing office would pass work down to the shop floor as rods, or a foreman would convert the drawings into rods.
Or on a small scale - if you are the designer/maker than drawing up the rod is the last step in the design process.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Nov 2014)

Quite.

Just a note to the wise - it's not good practice to scale directly from a drawing. Paper has a nasty habit of stretching and crinkling. Given the tolerances most woodworkers need to work to, it's probably not so critical for most jobs, but it's not good practice. It's most emphatically a no-no in the engineering world.

The materials from which rules are made - both boxwood and steel - are selected to be relatively unaffected by changes in atmospheric temperature or humidity (boxwood is pretty stable longways of the grain). Quality steel rules are marked 'standard at 20C' (or whatever other temperature), though the discrepancy at other temperatures will be insignificant for woodwork purposes. Either will be more accurate than scaling from a drawing could be.


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2014)

Cheshirechappie":w18rxiad said:


> Quite.
> 
> Just a note to the wise - it's not good practice to scale directly from a drawing. Paper has a nasty habit of stretching and crinkling. Given the tolerances most woodworkers need to work to, it's probably not so critical for most jobs, but it's not good practice. It's most emphatically a no-no in the engineering world.
> 
> The materials from which rules are made - both boxwood and steel - are selected to be relatively unaffected by changes in atmospheric temperature or humidity (boxwood is pretty stable longways of the grain). Quality steel rules are marked 'standard at 20C' (or whatever other temperature), though the discrepancy at other temperatures will be insignificant for woodwork purposes. Either will be more accurate than scaling from a drawing could be.


Yes - and no, especially not if the measurements are wrong to start with. 
Taking marks directly from a drawing by laying on components and marking off with a pencil (and a set square) is basically how you use a rod so it has to be a durable bit of paper or better still a board. 
It is (or was) common in engineering too - steel yards, boat builders, sail makers and many others work up full size drawings on the floor with chalk lines etc and work from them. It eliminates error - it it fits on the rod, or the sailmakers loft floor etc. it'll fit in reality, whereas written down measurements are very prone to error. More complicated engineering would work up three dimensional rods i.e. full size models to work with.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (16 Nov 2014)

Jacob":268sf20n said:


> It is (or was) common in engineering too - steel yards, boat builders, sail makers and many others work up full size drawings on the floor with chalk lines etc and work from them. It eliminates error - it it fits on the rod, or the sailmakers loft floor etc. it'll fit in reality, whereas written down measurements are very prone to error. More complicated engineering would work up three dimensional rods i.e. full size models to work with.



Taking measurements direct from drawings (either paper prints or the draughting film or linen originals) is an engineering no-no. Trust me Jacob - I earned my living in engineering drawing offices for most of my working life, so I know of what I speak. Every drawing that left our offices (and there were thousands of them!) was endorsed 'If in doubt ask: do not scale'.

It used to be the practice in the chemical and petro-chem industries to build a scale plant model, usually about 1:20 or thereabouts, as drawings left the D.O. but before construction started. That made sure that everything fitted as it should, and confirmed pipe routes, maintenance access and such like. It was also handy for plant operators and plant engineers to see what they were dealing with. I've never come across a full size model. Nowadays, the models are constructed electronically; a development that put a lot of modelmakers out of work. In many ways, the electronic models are more versatile; some can be linked to stress analysis software, bills of materials can be generated automatically and other such conveniences.

I'm no expert on shipwright work, but my understanding is that the drawing office produced shear plans to scale, and the lofters set them out full size to produce the templates from which parts were marked out. Similar methods were used in steel shipbuilding until CAD/CAM superceded them, though I gather some templates are still lofted to check plate profiles during bending operations.

Still - we've veered rather far from woodwork and rulers. Maybe that's enough digression, eh?


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2014)

The rod is the drawing you take your marks from, you don't actually measure (not every time at least). Sometimes were on paper too - shop fitters would work from a drawing rolled out on to the floor and so on.
Full scale models - I didn't know this until I visited the (spectacular) Rolls Royce museum. One prime exhibit was a full size wooden mock-up of a ships engine. It was needed to facilitate the design of all the bits and bobs around it - pipes, valves etc and to see that it (plus accessories, ancillaries) could be fitted in the space in the ship itself. A common procedure apparently.

PS at the other end of the scale - anybody making model aircraft with balsa wood and tissue would almost certainly use a paper "rod" on which components are laid for cutting and assembly. Having to measure for each component would be impossible.
There's a lot of it about, with many variations. Dress makers patterns? It's all "engineering" one way or another, with a surprising amount of overlap in techniques.


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2014)

Cheshirechappie":279bl6y4 said:


> ..... how do you set out the rod without using some sort of standard measuring device such as a tape or rule?


I forgot to answer this.
As an example say you wanted a CD box. You start with your bit of board for the rod (I use MFC shelf lengths from B&Q). You lay on it your CD case and mark it's width etc. then add clearances, then thickness of materials (might be direct from PAR samples if that's what you are using) then lid joint - and so on. If you have any hardware you can lay that on the rod too and draw marks as necessary. You can take off settings for marking gauges, etc. Other marks lifted by laying on components, or with dividers. Spaces (e.g. for DTs) divided with dividers. You could do the whole thing from scratch without touching a ruler, and it's quite a practical approach.


----------



## bugbear (16 Nov 2014)

Cheshirechappie":4alw6wr9 said:


> Quite.
> 
> Just a note to the wise - it's not good practice to scale directly from a drawing. Paper has a nasty habit of stretching and crinkling. *Given the tolerances most woodworkers need to work to*, it's probably not so critical for most jobs, but it's not good practice. It's most emphatically a no-no in the engineering world.
> 
> The materials from which rules are made - both boxwood and steel - are selected to be relatively unaffected by changes in atmospheric temperature or humidity (boxwood is pretty stable longways of the grain). Quality steel rules are marked 'standard at 20C' (or whatever other temperature), though the discrepancy at other temperatures will be insignificant for woodwork purposes. Either will be more accurate than scaling from a drawing could be.



I think the errors that a full scale drawing avoids are conceptual, more than metrological. I agree entirely your point on a plan not being up to close tolerances, but working direct from a plan might save transferring a measurement for the WRONG part of the project. Getting super close to 4.6571 inches is all well and good, but not when it's the size of a part other than the one you're meant to working on.  

So whilst working to measurement avoids one kind of error, full scale plans avoid another. It's then a matter of which kind of error matters most.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2014)

bugbear":3jt5uohs said:


> ....working direct from a plan might save transferring a measurement for the WRONG part of the project. .....


Or just getting the measurement wrong in translation. And you'd have to dimension every detail correctly or risk mistakes in calculations. Lists of measurements on the backs of envelopes! The rod avoids nearly all of that.


----------



## Peter Sefton (16 Nov 2014)

Racers":zeu17wwb said:


> Peter Sefton":zeu17wwb said:
> 
> 
> > Racers":zeu17wwb said:
> ...



I will check out the price Pete and report back, I know I made a decision not to stock the 2M as it's a fairly rear beast! The satin chrome finish is one of the things I like about them too. I also suffer from dyslexia and forgetfulness, not a medical condition but marking rules with the pencil is one way around it!

Cheers Peter


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (16 Nov 2014)

Well, I suppose there are many here with far more experience than I and I remain open to suggestions. Whether I follow suggestions is up to me and my understanding of them.

Several clarifications: my story stick or whatever it may be called, simply shows critical measurements such as leg lengths, case widths, drawer widths, etc. At the beginning of a project, I'll layout these on a stick, use it for layout on boards for best yields before cutting. As far as gaging, for example, if I'm cutting four legs, I cut the first, mark it as master and mark out the other three from it.

Again, I'm a ham & egger amateur, not trained or even having attended classes of any sort. What I posted above is what works for me and may not make a whole lot of sense to some here, but that's quite OK, I don't take offense and am here to hear other methods and appreciate the group as a whole.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2014)

What you are doing sounds fine Tony. 
What I'm on about is the next stage where you take the story stick idea and do the full "rod" process. For instance you would then mark up all your four legs from the rod before you cut anything, which sounds like a trivial detail but becomes really useful with any level of complexity - and then becomes routine even for simple projects. Like just cutting a number of pieces to the same length - taking the marks from the same rod becomes easier than measuring and marking each one, and reduces mistakes


----------



## DennisCA (17 Nov 2014)

For folding boxwood rules, the classic hultafors one is where I'd go, though their yellow plastic version is said to be much better, but not traditional.

A Talmeter might also be of interest, you can measure and transfer markings without having to know the exact size.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2014)

Having chuntered on about not using them I forgot to say what rulers I do use:- various tapes metric/imperial, Rabone combi square scale, cheapo Draper vernier callipers. That's it really. 
That precise and accurate measuring devices will lead to precise and accurate finished work, can be wishful thinking. It's more about how you do it, rather than what kit you use - in fact you can be precise and accurate without measuring anything at all.


----------



## Bod (17 Nov 2014)

Woodmonkey":3t5d3bdt said:


> Wish I could find a steel ruler with mm on both sides (well all four edges if you see what I mean) and just mm, they all seem to have half mm normally for the first 100mm which just give me a headache



Look for a Moore & Wright No P421mm rule.
This has single millimeter divisions on top and bottom of the face side. Clear and easy to read.
Good luck with finding one, I've only ever seen 2, mine has been coverted many times at work, hence it is clearly engraved as mine!!

Bod


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Nov 2014)

Mitutoyo offer 6" and 12" stainless steel rules both flexible and rigid with 1mm divisions on at least one edge - http://www.mitutoyo.co.uk/small-tool-in ... ations=351

Moore and Wright also offer similar rules, with the mm only on the top edge on one side, and on the bottom edge on the other; however, they don't seem to sell directly, so a bit of googling to find a retailer would be required.

Both maker's offerings are satin-chrome finish, which (agreeing with Peter Sefton and Racers) is the best finish for steel rules - easy to read in almost all light conditions except pitch dark, without glare or awkward reflections. It does seem to be a tough and lasting finish too; I've had my 6" Rabone Chesterman 64R since 1981 and it's still in excellent condition, despite not really being pampered.


----------



## Stuart (17 Nov 2014)

I have a 3 foot folding rule and use it when spindle turning and rarely unfold it, if it touches the turning when I am marking out it does not fill me with dread that metal rules touching spinning wood do.
As joiner for nearly fifty years a 16 foot tape has been part of my going to work kit and clipped to my belt, same as a pencil behind my ear.
I have only ever worked off paper rods when shop fitting and the rod went with the job, first to the wood machinist, then to the joiners with the prepared timber and then onto site with the job. It was a very accurate way of working and few mistakes were made.
Joinery shop rods were drawn out on birch ply, in the case of stairs only the height was drawn out on a batten as Jacob described and set out with dividers. The newels and winders (or kites) and easing on the strings were set out full size on the ply and with dividers, trammel points and a batten, 16 foot tape and a roofing square with the veritas nuts the whole staircase could be set out and made very quickly. 
So a rod for setting out is essential for me when setting out three dimensional work and a a 16 foot tape, 
for toy making a Starrett combination square


----------



## boggy (19 Nov 2014)

A very useful rule is one with the zero in the centre and scale increasing to left and right. With one of these you can find the centre of a piece of wood instantly. Axminster sell one but unfortunately in Imperial only


----------

