New saw

[D_W]

I wonder why they would put such a large set on it in the first place?

I can understand that it needs some set (perhaps a bit more than the averge woodworker would want), as customers would complain it binds otherwise.

But having as much set as it did really made it horrible to use.

It's a bit like mitre slots on /portable/ tablesaws (even mid-range saws). They give them so much tolerance to not bind, that they become almost useless. Although that is something you can't fix easily.

Machine setter and lax standards or an attempt to do something else (get a saw to everyone that would also work sawing down the center of a wet 2x4 on a job site).

I'm not sure that until the last 25 years that tools were ever really delivered finished to the standards that everyone has come to expect now. LN is the first company I can think of delivering hand-filed and minimal set saws in large number. They were following Patrick Leach (and a second person who I can't recall) making independence saws before that business was transferred or sold to LN.

It may be the change (some would say plague) of american influence where a market of new customers arrives and they want to be catered to. When LN and LV moved the bar some in terms of metal tool standards and service, clifton didn't follow. When they started making thin plate saws on a factory basis, and out of relatively hard spring steel - most of the continental europe and english stuff still around (and at a more favorable price but less refined) didn't change much.

A fellow I hold in high regard mentioned that his mentor (will reimann - a designer here in the US) had either learned in or made a trip to England in the mid 1950s, and in sheffield, he came upon a specialist working outside in the street. The guy was hand hammer setting small saws with a cross pein hammer at what he estimated to be 3 to 4 teeth per second. one would guess he was working at a shop that did sharpening, and the saw makers may have left the teeth somewhat unfinished (but I'll defer to the historians).

Not sure what standard practice was in the UK, but before the 1900s, chisels were very often (the majority of the time?) sold without handles because the purchasers didn't want to pay for factory or maker-made chisel handles that they could make themselves. Even in the wards catalogs (turn of the century), they were available unhandled.

 

[Orraloon]

Off topic but with reference to vice jaws.

I bought a Samsonia Perfect Model 37 J locally off ebay. The previous owner had reversed the jaws to use the vice smooth jawed. The result was that the jaws were like new. So it might be possible to reverse the jaws if you want smooth jaws.

Nigel.

This is something I better check. In the past I contemplated the vice and paper trick but due to the rough grip pattern gave it a miss and just sharpened the saw again.
Regards
John

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Boom. New saw right, Veritas left.

(I used the vice/paper method)

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Excellent result!

The good thing is, that's a one-off job. You'll get maybe three or four sharpenings out of that saw before you need to reset, and you now know that the set required for your type of work is minimal - just a very slight tweek.

It's not wise to try oversetting and back-bending too often; repeated stress reversals in hardened steels will cause failure sooner rather than later. Once is enough. You might get away with twice, but after that, I think you'd be pushing your luck. The better approach is to try minimal set and add a teeny bit more if the saw tends to bind.

Why do saw makers put on so much set? Probably because they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Too much, and someone will complain of a rough kerf. Too little, and someone cutting dripping wet pallet wood will complain that the saw binds. The rough kerf is probably the lesser of two evils from the maker's point of view.

I've learned something too - aluminium vice jaws are OK for this job. When I squeezed the teeth on my saw, I just used the bare vice jaws, but only closed the jaws to the saw blade thickness, didn't pull up hard, and the jaw roughening didn't mark the blade. Probably depends a bit HOW rough the jaw mating surfaces are! However, it's good to know that aluminium angle is hard enough to bend the teeth enough for the purpose.

Funny old job, the first time you do it though. Stomach tied in knots in anticipation of all sorts of bad outcomes, then you wonder what all the fuss was about afterwards, the job's so quick and easy!

 

[transatlantic]

Yes - it really was quite easy. I think I'll try tape instead of paper next time though. One less thing to have to hold in place properly!

Why do saw makers put on so much set? Probably because they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Too much, and someone will complain of a rough kerf. Too little, and someone cutting dripping wet pallet wood will complain that the saw binds. The rough kerf is probably the lesser of two evils from the maker's point of view.

If it was a saw I had picked up from a builders merchent, I would agree.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Thanks Chesh - I didn't consider this carefully enough - I'm sure corrosion is a major factor in the occasional tooth breakage when I refile and set an old flea market saw - it wouldn't take much and the gullet would be a prime site for rust. The 'old boys' often mention re-crystallisation as a factor for carbon steel breakage, but I believe this is unlikely in most cases.
You're obviously a qualified fellow - what's your take on this?

Phew - this could get complicated!

All steels are crystalline, but the crystals vary a lot in size and characteristic.

Imagine a crucible of molten pure iron, poured into it's mould. As it cools and starts to solidify, crystals begin to form. At the point at which it has just solidified, those crystals have grown to the point where they all just touch, and at normal temperatures, the metal's strength is dictated to a great degree by the bonds between the crystals. The arrangement of atoms within each crystal has an effect too - and the arrangement often isn't perfect, but has 'discontinuities' which affect the crystal's properties.

Now - add something else to the molten iron, such as a small proportion of carbon - and the effect on the chemical structure of the crystals, and thus their internal arrangement, can be significant. Also, depending on the amount of carbon, other compounds such as iron carbide can form, and if carbon content is high enough, some uncombined carbon can remain between the crystals. That affects the metal's properties.

Add to that the effects that controlled heating and cooling can have on both crystal internal arrangement (of atoms and carbides), and on crystal size, and you have a very complex situation.

Now add some other elements, such as sulphur and phosphorus (usually regarded as impurities and their content minimised) or other metals such as manganese, molybdenum, chromium, vanadium, nickel, tungsten and so on, and crystal chemical composition and structure, and their behaviour under heat treatment becomes very complex indeed!

Generally, tool makers like to try to keep grain size (crystal size) as small as they can.

Now, understanding all that lot is something that has developed slowly since about the late 19th century, and research continues. When the 'old boys' talked about steels 'going crystalline', they were sort of vaguely on the right track, but expressing a very limited understanding of a very complex subject.

I personally don't think it's worth the practical chap who wants a few chisels and plane irons to work wood bothering too much about the deep metallurgy. After all, apart from some crude heat treatment, there's nothing he can do about it. Much more pragmatic to just accept that steel is a very complex material, but that most tool makers produce, and have always produced, something that is acceptable or better than acceptable most of the time given the limitations imposed by nature on the steels available to them.

Or to summarise - don't get bogged down in the metallurgy, just use the tools!

(If anybody really does want to research carbon steel metallurgy in depth, try 'Engineering Metallurgy' Volume 1, Applied Physical Metallurgy by R.A.Higgins. My copy is the fifth edition, but there may be later versions.)

 

[MikeG.]

.......Or to summarise - don't get bogged down in the metallurgy, just use the tools!.......

=D> =D> Bravo =D> =D>