A rookie saw-sharpening question. . . .

[Michael Ray Smith]

I picked up a very nice little Atkins saw (No. 21, I think, but the etch is almost gone). It's in good condition except it's really dull and just a little out of joint (but not badly). I don't see any sign that it's ever been sharpened, so what I'm going to describe is probably the way Atkins made it. I don't have much experience yet sharpening saws, but I'm going to give this one a shot.

Looking at it very closely, here's what I see: 14 tpi, 12 degrees rake, no fleam, and no set. It's double taper ground, sorta -- the cutting edge is thicker than the back, and the back is thicker at the heel than at the toe, but the cutting edge is the same thickness (or at least very close to it) for the entire length. (I measured the thickness at various places, but I didn't write them down. . . so, of course, I don't remember the numbers right now, but the taper from the cutting edge to the back is pretty significant even at the heel.)

I'm inclined to keep the same tooth configuration -- 12 degrees rake, no fleam, no set -- but I thought I'd ask those with much more experience and wisdom: Was this sort of configuration common? With that much rake but no fleam, is it good for ripping, x-cutting, both, or neither?

[David Posey]

No clue on whether or not they were historically done this way, but that does seem like it would cut awfully slow. I suppose it would leave a pretty nice finish, but I can't imagine any place with exposed wood where you would prefer the saw finish over the finish of a plane or scraper.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Wasn't the Atkins 21 originally a saw for cutting metal? Maybe I'm thinking of another model, but for some reason that sticks in my head. would explain the lack of set and the teeth of a TPI we'd more often think of finding on a backsaw than a handsaw.

[Chris Vandiver]

By it's description, it sounds like a metal cutting saw to me. High tooth count, no set, 12deg. rake and who needs fleam for cutting iron.:)

[Chris Vandiver]

Joshua is correct, if your Atkins is indeed a #21, then it was made for metal cutting.

[Jim Koepke]

A metal cutting hand saw that isn't a hacksaw?

WOW! PICTURES PLEASE!

jtk

[Joe Bailey]

A metal cutting hand saw that isn't a hacksaw?

WOW! PICTURES PLEASE!

jtk

Jim,
Here's yet another Atkins - a #79 stamped as having "Special Hard Temper for Cutting Metal and Wood":
233190233191233192

Then we have this Simonds No. 15 "hack hand saw":

233193233194

[Chris Vandiver]

A metal cutting hand saw that isn't a hacksaw?

WOW! PICTURES PLEASE!

jtk


And from the Disston catalogue;

[Michael Ray Smith]

Jim, here are the pictures you requested. Seems weird to me to have a handsaw for cutting metal with blade that's not under tension, but from the other posts it's obvious that such saws were once made several good manufacturers. I learn something new almost every time I post a question or read other posts on this forum. That's what I love about it.

I guess the answer to my question whether this saw is good for ripping or for x-cutting is "neither." Now I'm not quite sure what to do with it because I don't really need a saw for cutting metal. I suppose I'll put it on the bay. I don't think I'll sharpen it before I do, and I'm certainly not interested in reshaping the teeth to turn it into a ripper or cross-cutter. I'm not opposed to modifying, reconditioning, or restoring old tools to make them useful (in fact, I do it all the time), but I'm not inclined to do things that alter the original purpose of the tool -- especially when it takes that much work!

Some corrections and additions to my original description: As measured with my cheap micrometer, it's about 49 thousandths thick at the teeth (with no measurable difference just above the teeth. . . so there really is no set) with no more than a thouabousandth difference between the heel and the toe. At the heel end, there's almost no difference between the thickness at the teeth and at the back. . . maybe a thousandth but not much more than that. At the toe, the taper is pronounced, with the thickness at the back about 30 thousandths, even though the width of the plate at the toe is only about 1 1/2 inches. BTW, the blade is about 20 inches long and a little more than 4 inches wide at the front of the handle.

233285233286233287233288233289233290233291

[Jim Koepke]

Thanks for the pictures Michael.

That is the kind of saw that could win a few drinks in some of the bars I used to know.

jtk