Hand saws

[G S Haydon]

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]

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]

... 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]

... 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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.

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

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

 

[Jacob]

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]

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]

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]

....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]

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]

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

 

[Trafalgar]

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]

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]

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]

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.