9” bandsaw - I know…

[Nick_]

I’d love a 12 or 14” bandsaw to do all sorts with, but after checking available space in the back of my shed, there isn’t even room for a record power 250.

I’m not really looking for anything for resawing, but I do want to make little ornaments etc - things like this

It seems I have only a couple of choices at 9”, and I’m deciding between the Axminster AW1400 and the Lumberjack 9”, which looks to be the same as a Draper and a Clarke 9”

It feels like the Cast Iron table of Axminster is the key feature, though the extra cutting height of the Lumberjack is nice. I don’t know the trade off between power and blade speed in these two either.

Keen to hear recommendations on 9” bandsaws for small free hand cuts, and I expect some shape and straight edge cutting from small 19mm boards.

Thanks

Key differences:

Table
AX Cast iron table
LJ Die cast Aluminium

Cut height
AX 80mm
LJ 90mm

Power
AX 250w
LJ 300w

Blade Speed
AX 800m/min
LJ 635m/min

Blade Size
AX 1400mm
LJ 1574mm

 

[robgul]

Can't speak for the LJ but I had the Axminster 1400 machine as a first bandsaw and found it excellent, using it for about 5 years - just slightly awkward getting at the bearings to set them up (but then a lot of machines are like that) - I now have a larger Record bandsaw - the Axi models were too expensive for me to justify the outlay.

 

[Spectric]

but after checking available space in the back of my shed, there isn’t even room for a record power 250.

Rather than put up with a small bandsaw in a cramped space I would look at the possibility of making the shed bigger, if it is just full of clutter then get some of those garden storage boxed and move the clutter.

 

[Nick_]

Rather than put up with a small bandsaw in a cramped space I would look at the possibility of making the shed bigger, if it is just full of clutter then get some of those garden storage boxed and move the clutter.

it’s a small shed, and is shared with other stuff. Definitely no room for anything bigger, nor pla

Can't speak for the LJ but I had the Axminster 1400 machine as a first bandsaw and found it excellent, using it for about 5 years - just slightly awkward getting at the bearings to set them up (but then a lot of machines are like that) - I now have a larger Record bandsaw - the Axi models were too expensive for me to justify the outlay.

thanks, good to know.

 

[Nick_]

Is the any advice on choosing power vs blade speed and table material vs extra cut height.

 

[Orraloon]

More power is good to have as well as depth of cut. I really cant say on the blade speed other than its designed in by the maker likely to get the best efficiency from the motor. My saw I can change pulleys if I wanted a slower speed for cutting metal or other materials. Never done it.
Regards
John

 

[Fergie 307]

I’d love a 12 or 14” bandsaw to do all sorts with, but after checking available space in the back of my shed, there isn’t even room for a record power 250.

I’m not really looking for anything for resawing, but I do want to make little ornaments etc - things like this

It seems I have only a couple of choices at 9”, and I’m deciding between the Axminster AW1400 and the Lumberjack 9”, which looks to be the same as a Draper and a Clarke 9”

It feels like the Cast Iron table of Axminster is the key feature, though the extra cutting height of the Lumberjack is nice. I don’t know the trade off between power and blade speed in these two either.

Keen to hear recommendations on 9” bandsaws for small free hand cuts, and I expect some shape and straight edge cutting from small 19mm boards.

Thanks

Key differences:

Table
AX Cast iron table
LJ Die cast Aluminium

Cut height
AX 80mm
LJ 90mm

Power
AX 250w
LJ 300w

Blade Speed
AX 800m/min
LJ 635m/min

Blade Size
AX 1400mm
LJ 1574mm

I wouldn't have thought the cast iron table makes a great difference on a tiny machine like this.
As mentioned on another thread I have a similar sized Clark CBS 190. Many not so good things about it but the alloy table is ok.
I would probably go for the LJ, more powerful, deeper cut and a bit cheaper too. Both appear to have roller blade guides which is good.
First thing I would do whatever you get is to replace the blade with one from tuffsaws, makes a big difference.

 

[Richard_C]

Every time someone asks for help on bandsaw choice people chime in with 'get something bigger' but there are £££ and space limits for all of us. Whatever you have you will wish you had something bigger for the odd job, but any bandsaw is better than no bandsaw and I find lots of uses that I never expected.

I don't know either machine, I do have the 1 size bigger Axminster 1950 which is fine, it took a long while and tuffsaw blades to get it all set up to work well. If I were looking again I might go RP for better guide bearings. But, you need a smaller machine.

Have a look at blade change instructions. On some you have to unbolt the fence assembly - not a propblem but one more thing to do. On mine you turn the blade and bring it out sideways through a slot so blade change is nice and quick. Best performance comes from having the right blade for the job, but we all (I guess) get lazy and just use what's on the machine at the moment for one off things.

The cast v alloy decision is interesting. Received wisdom is that cast iron is better - damps out vibrations, more 'solid' as a base helps accuracy etc. I'm not so sure and it depends a lot on where and how you plan to use the machine.

My workshop/half garage suffers some condensation when the waether warms up quickly after a cold spell, its not the cold per se but even with good ventilation a couple of times a year I get 'damp things'. I rub beeswax on as a preventative but even then the cast iron base of the bandsaw and lathe sometimes get fine rust and need a good clean, the alloy base of my mitre saw and pillar drill are never a problem.

Then there is the weight. Weight can be a good thing, but if you need to move it about to get more bench space sometimes, or if like me you like to take things outdoors in good weather an alloy based machine is much easier. I'm not sure what % of total machine weight the base would be, but worth thinking about.

We all have different needs, so no single best answer.