Table Saw Blade?

[PeteG]

It's time a changed the blade on my Axminster TS200, could anyone please recommend a good blade for ripping and cross cutting in hard wood?

 

[Steve Maskery]

It depends on the thickness.

If you normally use only thinnish stock, say up to an inch, then you would do well with a medium-count blade, such as 36 or 48 teeth. Set at the right height, you will get 3 teeth in the wood at any one time. You can also crosscut with that. Of course, a proper cross-cut blade will be better, but it is an acceptable compromise. Go for an ATB (alternate top bevel). Many rip blades are now being ground with ATB rather than the traditional flat top grind.

I have a Freud combi blade. It has a mix of xcut and rip teeth:
http://www.rockler.com/freud-lu83r-indu ... saw-blades

I'm not aware of anyone selling it inthe UK unfortunately, nor do I know if they do an 8" version.

Why not give Doug Perry a call at Cutting-Solutions, he sells good blades at a fair price and will give you good advice.

S

 

[RogerP]

+1 for Freud. but as Steve says some types are a little difficult to find in UK, however they are around. Search eBay and Google.

I bought a thin kerf general purpose which cuts most stuff well and I've been very pleased with it.

 

[PeteG]

Appreciate the help Steve and Roger I don't think my hardwood will be more than an inch and half thick for the T/S Steve. I'll give Doug a call

Thanks again.

 

[Steve Maskery]

I should have pointed out that a "proper" rip blade probably would not be a great choice, even if you are ripping, at least not for inch stock. Inch-and-a-half, maybe, but at the thinner sizes the teeth will just bang into the workpiece if they are further apart than the thickness of the stock. Rip blades are generally designed for 2"+.

 

[Mar_mite]

Why don't you look at the axi blades, I use the extra fine for sheet materials. Cheap as chips and decent quality. You might want to make sure the kerf suits your riving knife though.

 

[PeteG]

I should have pointed out that a "proper" rip blade probably would not be a great choice, even if you are ripping, at least not for inch stock. Inch-and-a-half, maybe, but at the thinner sizes the teeth will just bang into the workpiece if they are further apart than the thickness of the stock. Rip blades are generally designed for 2"+.

Thanks again Steve, I would never have given any thought to the teeth being further apart than the thickness of the wood!

Why don't you look at the axi blades, I use the extra fine for sheet materials. Cheap as chips and decent quality. You might want to make sure the kerf suits your riving knife though.

Hello Waka and thank you Sorry but I have to ask. Should the kerf be the same size as the riving knife?

 

[Waka]

Yes, the riving knife should always match the kerf of the blade, I carry several riving knifes to match various blades.

 

[marcros]

Yes, the riving knife should always match the kerf of the blade, I carry several riving knifes to match various blades.

The knife should be between the kerf thickness and the thickness of plate of the blade. At EXACTLY the kerf thickness it should be ok, but if it is a fraction thicker you will start to cause problems.

 

[PeteG]

Appreciate all the help gentlemen I had know idea how important the thickness of the riving knife had to be in relation to the blade!

 

[sploo]

I should have pointed out that a "proper" rip blade probably would not be a great choice, even if you are ripping, at least not for inch stock. Inch-and-a-half, maybe, but at the thinner sizes the teeth will just bang into the workpiece if they are further apart than the thickness of the stock. Rip blades are generally designed for 2"+.

Interesting point. I'm aware of the "minimum of 3 teeth in the stock" rule for bandsaw blades. Is there a general rule for table saw blades?

I.e. if I were ripping I'd choose a low tooth count blade, but if I'm ripping thin stock should I think again and stick to one with more teeth?

 

[Steve Maskery]

Yes indeed you should.
The issue with sawing is one of removing the sawdust. And the quality of the finished surface. The two are often in conflict.

Big gullets (i.e. few teeth) are great at carrying away long curls of wood that have been cut in a rip direction.

But if you are cross-cutting, then the sawdust particles are much smaller and and you can get away with smaller gullets, more teeth and therefore a finer cut. The shape of the teeth also makes a difference, flat top grid, alternate top bevel, triple-chip grind. All good for different applications. It is not a one size fits all.

 

[sploo]

Yes indeed you should.
The issue with sawing is one of removing the sawdust. And the quality of the finished surface. The two are often in conflict.

Big gullets (i.e. few teeth) are great at carrying away long curls of wood that have been cut in a rip direction.

But if you are cross-cutting, then the sawdust particles are much smaller and and you can get away with smaller gullets, more teeth and therefore a finer cut. The shape of the teeth also makes a difference, flat top grid, alternate top bevel, triple-chip grind. All good for different applications. It is not a one size fits all.

Thanks Steve. I'm slightly limited in that I'm using a TS-200, so it doesn't appear there are that many choices down in the 200-205mm blade size. Certainly Axminster's 24/32/48/64 tooth blades are all listed as ATB. I have the first three, and recently changed the "standard" 32 out for a 48 for cross cutting some 1/2" and 1 1/2" thick pine; and it's done a reasonably good job.

However, if I were then to rip some lengths of 1/2" thick pine, I take it I shouldn't change to the 24 tooth ripping blade.

Conversely, at some point soon I want to cross cut some ~60mm square hardwood. I'll be at the limit of the saw (and wanting a clean finish) but should I not be using the 48 tooth blade because of the material thickness?

Is there any rule of thumb regarding material thickness and tooth count? I appreciate that material type and saw power will also be a factor.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

TBH I think tooth count for circular saw blades contacting the wood is not worth thinking about. Not in the same terms and for bandsaw TPi anyway. Unless your stock is particularly thin, I would just rip with a rip blade and crosscut with a crosscut and not give it much thought. Think about this: when the saw blade height is properly adjusted, (saw gullets above surface of the wood to be cut) then the arc the saw blade makes in the wood is much longer than the wood thickness. Effectively, you have many more, maybe 3 times more teeth in contact with the wood, than it seems you might, by thinking of the material thickness alone. I have no problems ripping 3/4 inch stuff or even thinner, with a dedicated rip blade in my tablesaw.

You can get combination blades that are a compromise, but do both. Surface finish on cross cutting will not be as fine, and feed rate while ripping will be slower, than dedicated blades, but changing from one to the other will be eliminated, which might be more important in the end.

Mike.

 

[fluffflinger]

IMHO it really depends on what project you are working on.

I prefer a combination blade for most applications because I am lazy! But if I have alot of ripping to do I'll change the blade, equally so when I need to up the quality of cut I'll change to a dedicated crosscut blade but for day to day use I find it easier to leave the combination blade in the machine.

I did have a thin kerf Freud Combination Blade similar to the one Steve mentions and it was great but then when I had to change blades I had to change my riving knife as well and that got very long winded. Having said that the Freud Combination blade was fantastic and very inexpensive (relative to the quality). I think I'm right in saying Steve got his blade from the US as did I. I think if the Freud Blades were more readily available here more people would use them, the thin kerf makes a big difference to low powered saws, which was my situation.

As to tooth count and thickness from experience I'd say it's very important in a bandsaw much less so on a table saw.

 

[PAC1]

Eventually you come to the conclusion that you need 3 blade
1. a Rip blade for those big rip jobs
2. a fine or superfine for cutting sheet materials and precise cross cutting
3. a combination blade for all other work

 

[Tugalis]

When we had a 10" saw we would use a beautiful blade bought from a guy on the net who was to table saw blades who tuffcut seem to be for band saw blades (forgotten his name though lol). They were £70, easily sharpened and could slice through 4mm birch ply with zero chip out and I thought we would never go back. However since a freak accident with the saw we bought the TS200 and have been using the axcaliber blades from Axminster. Sharp and cheap. They last a good amount of time and are easily replaceable. I have looked high and low but no one really sells a good 8" blade over here.

In regards to your suggestions of a few blades and the comment about the riving knife, woth the TS it is so easy to change the knife when you change the blade I don't think it's worth worrying about IMO. Suppose it just depends how much you would be cutting as to whether it's worth buying multiple blades or just one!

 

[blackrodd]

I would advise using a ripsaw having the usual left and right alternate bevel for ripping, as the idea is that the grain fibres and knots were more easily severed, and will tend to grab, or snatch the stock less.
The more pronounced hook angle is part of the cutting action and also clearing bigger waste particles.
Look at the waste produced by ripping compared to the waste produced by cross cutting, using the correct blades.
The cross cutting tooth is more, almost upright and again is bevelled left and right each side as this cuts across the fibres cleaner but produces smaller waste particles.
The flat topped saws are for fast cutting but mainly for using in a 6 cutter type situation whereby these blades cut very finely and used as a splitting saw, and so cut fast and clear the waste quickly
I would not use these for ripping, especially thicker stock
Typically used as one or two flat topped blades splitting a 4"x 1"or 6"x 1"into 2, or 3 pieces.
You can see this very easily, when looking through the 2"x 1" PAR rack, the outsides are planed by cutters and the middle stock is split, by the splitter saw blade.
Most blades today can be a compromise, Freud for instance produce some excellent saw blades but using a dedicated blade for the ripping or cross cutting is better and safer.
Regards Rodders

 

[sploo]

Thanks for the replies. I'm only lacking the 64 tooth "very fine blade" for the TS200. I've used the 48 tooth cross cutting blade with reasonable success on pine (cross cuts, of course). If I were to put some 3/4" plywood through the saw would I therefore likely to be better off with the 64 tooth blade (vs. the 48)?

I have found changing the blade on the TS200 pretty simple (and quick). Taking the insert plate off probably takes longer than changing the blade itself TBH. The riving knife is a bit more fiddly, but all the stock Axminster blades for the saw have the same kerf, so there's no necessity to change the knife.

 

[Mar_mite]

I cut a lot of mdf, I use axi 64 tooth 8" blades. They leave a good finish on the edges and greatly reduce the time cleaning up saw marks. It just takes a quick rub with sandpaper. And they are cheap.