What is the hand equivalent of a crosscut sled?

[Brian Sommers]

I'm looking for some jig where I can use a miter saw to get dead accurate perpendicular crosscut.

[Patrick Chase]

I'm looking for some jig where I can use a miter saw to get dead accurate perpendicular crosscut.

There are two:

1. Miter box, and not the cheapo kind from Home Depot. In my experience these are a bit less accurate than a fully optimized crosscut sled (no play in the miter slots, sawblade free of vibration and runout and adjusted // to miter slot[s], fence perpendicular to bars) but close enough to allow you to quickly dial the surface in with a...

2. Shooting board. If built and used properly it's capable of higher accuracy than a crosscut sled, though it uses a plane rather than a miter saw.

[John Crawford]

How about a miter box? Unfortunately, unlike a crosscut sled, you may not be able to just pop your existing saw into one, though there are several sizes. If you google around for "millers falls" miter boxes, you'll see several different varieties, and this is a whole rabbit-hole to go down....

[Mike Holbrook]

I have a Miller's Falls/Langdon miter box but my favorite is a Stanley #150. It is a smaller unit that fits on a bench hook about the size of a normal bench hook. The 20" Bontz Saw Works 10ppi backsaw I have in it uses just about all of the teeth on the saw. I have a 26" saw on the Miller's Falls miter box and it actually uses the same or less teeth, as the saw has to ride between two posts. I can actually use a regular handsaw in the 150 too.

I ended up with an extra bathroom cabinet which I placed a Festool table top on. The small miter box on the bench hook is easy to move to the top of the work table when needed. I can also clamp it to my Festool MFT table or my bench. Festool clamps fasten it in position very securely. The saw is positioned at the perfect height for sawing. Once my stock is XX I can take the saw off the table and use the table to do glue ups....

click to enlarge:

337056

[Jim Belair]

If you don't want to go vintage, my Nobex Pro does a pretty good job.

337057

[Patrick Chase]

If you don't want to go vintage, my Nobex Pro does a pretty good job.

337057

Out of curiosity how is the blade tension on that saw?

My gut reaction the first time I saw one was that the tension bar on the top doesn't have enough mechanical advantage, as the blade is about twice as far from the compression member.

[Allan Speers]

Out of curiosity how is the blade tension on that saw?

My gut reaction the first time I saw one was that the tension bar on the top doesn't have enough mechanical advantage, as the blade is about twice as far from the compression member.

I get dead-accuarate cuts with my Nobex pro. (AKA the "Champion." ) Blade tension is excellent. If you really TRY, you can deflect the blade by pushing into the stock really hard, but that's improper technique. If you let the saw do the work, as you are supposed to, there is zero drift or deflection.

I can't say enough good things about this system. Great clamps, (I added 2 more to mine, right near the center) great width & height capacity...

It's a minor pain to change blades, but at least you CAN change blades. I have all of them, and use this system to cut aluminum, brass, even iron pipe.

I did make 2 small tweaks, besides the extra clamps, though: I added some plastic shims on the inside of the guide bars, to make the vertical alignment tighter, and I put a sacrificial base in the center, so the work can't bend down when you saw. Both of these are bonehead simple mods.

The only thing I didn't like is the extension support. It actually works fine, but it's a little thin & fiddly, plus you can't have one on each side at the same time as they bump into each other underneath. I made my own supports, one for each side, which slide in plastic tracks mounted on the wooden base instead of the aluminum frame. Very nice.

There is no vintage miter box that can even come close for overall usefulness.
The only thing it doesn't have is "some good old American 'arn, haw haw haw ...."
No dried up blood of the countless users that came before you.
No mojo whatsoever.

It's a cold, cold thing, but it does its job perfectly.

[Jim Belair]

My experience is pretty well like Allan's, although I don't like/use the provided clamps but rather small f clamps to secure the stock.

I have a second blade but have only used the original. Will pick up one of the Japanese toothed ones at some point. All the blades are impulse hardened. The saw doesn't have enough mass to avoid chattering on occasion when starting a cut that is easily remedied by tipping it up or down and starting into a corner. I keep meaning to add a sacrificial base insert to support thin stock, as Allan has done.

I've never used a vintage box, other than a Stanley 100 miter machine, so can't compare.

[Allan Speers]

My experience is pretty well like Allan's, although I don't like/use the provided clamps but rather small f clamps to secure the stock.
.

You may or may not have figured this out, but those stock clamps work "backwards." The instructions are beyond abysmal, and the only video on the internet that shows them has them assembled wrong. I think a lot of folks have made this mistake, then decided the clamps are no good.

Once you put them together right, they work great, but again the clamping action is "backwards" from what you'd expect. Try to loosen them and they tighten. I really quite like them.


The saw doesn't have enough mass to avoid chattering on occasion when starting a cut that is easily remedied by tipping it up or down and starting into a corner. .

It's also easily remedied by using the japanese blade. :) - if I understand what you're referring to. (I may not be.) The stock blade is pretty good, but it cuts sort of rough. The 16 TPI Ikeda is actually smoother, even though it cuts faster, because of the way "Japanese" teeth are cut: They pull the blade into the stock.
I also have the 24 TPI, but I only use it for picture frames as the 16 TPI is so smooth cutting.
================


Of course, in response to the OP's question, a miter box isn't really the equivalent of a cross cut sled, since it can't even come close to cutting the same width. IMO, the hand tool equivalent is a crosscut saw, followed by either a jointer plane of a large shooting board.

[Frederick Skelly]

Allan,
Thanks for posting these insights on the Nobex. It's been on my "to buy" list for some time and your insights/experiences help!

Fred

[Mike Holbrook]

The Nobex I have and the ones I tried at Highland cut very slow compared to either of my 10 ppi miter saws. The miter box frame, saw frame and saw support are light weight compared to most vintage miter boxes and saws. They seem to me to be designed more for cutting light molding than "normal" stock. I don't think it is fair to say "There is no vintage miter box that can even come close for overall usefulness."

Certainly there is a trade off in regard to size and weight with these boxes. The Miller's Falls 74C I restored will tackle larger stock than the Stanley #150 just by virtue of its heavier, larger frame and saw. These days if I want to cut something big I will use one of my Festool saws or a bandsaw. The small Stanley 150 is a little less convenient than a bench hook but not by much, which is why I use it the most lately. I can also use my hand saws in the Stanley 150, adding to its utility.

[glenn bradley]

I'm a hybrid woodworker but, a miter box very much earns its spot in my shop. Not really analogous to a larger tablesaw sled one might use for square cuts on panels or wide stock but, an equivalent to my smaller sled seems pretty accurate.

[Mike Holbrook]

Right Glenn, a tablesaw can certainly handle larger pieces with a sled.

I find I can do more types of: rip, cross cut and curved cuts with Festool "hand saws" particularly the track saw and new Carvex jigsaw. With tracks and an MFT table I believe I have a more versatile cutting system than a table saw. The "hand" Festool saws powered by electricity match up better with human powered hand saws.

The MFT tables, clamps and sometimes even the tracks work with hand tools much like they work with actual Festool tools. The Festool powered tools retain much of the mobility of actual human powered tools. They share in common the way they are usually taken to the work as opposed to taking the work to them. They are designed to work on/with a bench/Festool table much like human powered hand tools....I find the Festool tools work more symbiotically with hand tools than stationary powered tools.

[Derek Cohen]

I do have a tablesaw with a sliding table, and this would be used for crosscutting panels. However, when it comes to joining mitres and fine tuning square edges, then handsaws and handplanes are the tools of choice.

A mitrebox will do the rough cut, and a shooting board will clean the edges for a precision fit.

I have a large Miller's Falls 74C mitre box and 28" saw, but rarely use it. It is really a carpenter's tool and overkill for the small work in the furniture I build. Recently I restored a Miller's Falls 15 1/2 and built a 16" saw for it. This is ideal for the size mitres needed ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRestorations/MFMitreboxRebuild_html_m7c4cc0bd.jpg

Shooting boards do not need to be fancy to work well, but it does add enjoyment when they are as nice to look at as they are to use. Build yourself something special, and add a low angle plane for the best performance.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Holbrook]

I am jealous Derek. I looked for a small MF for years but never found one at a price I thought was reasonable. Is it #15 1/2 or is the box 15 1/2 inches long? I found some information on the Stanley #150 at Bad Axe saws and found them much easier to find at auction for more reasonable prices.

I was not too impressed with the 150 for the first year I had it as it seemed hard to adjust the saw holding devise accurately. After a few times taking the thing apart and playing with the parts I got a better feel for how it works. The two plates need to be closer together than I originally thought. They actually touch until I shove the saw between them. I was also concerned that the metal devise, which holds the saw in place, would scratch up saw plates. Some file work and a coating of Renaissance Wax seems to have solved that issue, if it ever was an issue.

[Alan Lightstone]

I do have a tablesaw with a sliding table, and this would be used for crosscutting panels. However, when it comes to joining mitres and fine tuning square edges, then handsaws and handplanes are the tools of choice.

A mitrebox will do the rough cut, and a shooting board will clean the edges for a precision fit.

I have a large Miller's Falls 74C mitre box and 28" saw, but rarely use it. It is really a carpenter's tool and overkill for the small work in the furniture I build. Recently I restored a Miller's Falls 15 1/2 and built a 16" saw for it. This is ideal for the size mitres needed ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRestorations/MFMitreboxRebuild_html_m7c4cc0bd.jpg

Shooting boards do not need to be fancy to work well, but it does add enjoyment when they are as nice to look at as they are to use. Build yourself something special, and add a low angle plane for the best performance.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Wow, I'm jealous. Makes my restored Miller's Fall miter box look like trash.

Works well, though, but boy yours is pretty.

[Patrick Chase]

Derek always has the best toys...

Derek, our of curiosity where did you get the spine for that saw? It looks like a milled one a la Bad Axe as opposed to traditional folded brass. It looks very nice, and very well paired to the MF box.

[Jerry Thompson]

This may be a Neander answer but I use a shooting board. I use is for 90d and 45d. It is dead on every time.

[Patrick Chase]

This may be a Neander answer but I use a shooting board. I use is for 90d and 45d. It is dead on every time.

Shooting is a pretty tedious way to get there if you're not already close, though. That's where the miter boxes come in handy.

[Derek Cohen]

While none of these fixtures are necessary - just to reassure those without them - they do well well, and are a good pairing together. Using Neanderthal methods does not be a masochistic experience.

Mike, mine is a 15 1/2. I looked for one for years and years. The link to the restoration is here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRestorations/MFMitreboxRebuild.html

The saw back did not fit as snuggly as it appears in the photo above. However, I added nylon pads as shims/runners, and this had the effect of adding precision and smoothness ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRestorations/MFMitreboxRebuild_html_5d5890d6.jpg

Patrick, the brass back (and plate) came from Isaac Smith (Blackburn Tools). He does excellent work and I recommend him highly.

The saw is filed 13 tpi crosscut, but as nicely as it works, the finish off the saw is improved by shooting.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Dave Lehnert]

I'm looking for some jig where I can use a miter saw to get dead accurate perpendicular crosscut.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTYHynhDA1M

[Kees Heiden]

For me the equivalence of the cross cut sled is a square, a pencil and a handsaw. When more precision is needed I use a shooting board also.

I do have a miter box (Ulmia) but almost never use it. Maybe time to sell.

[Jim Koepke]

For me the equivalence of the cross cut sled is a square, a pencil and a handsaw. When more precision is needed I use a shooting board also.

I do have a miter box (Ulmia) but almost never use it. Maybe time to sell.

+1 more for this method for a square end. Even when my saw work has cut perfectly square, the piece is usually run through the shooting board just to smooth the end grain.

My miter box is used for off square cuts. Even those get their turn on the shooting board.

If there were a table saw in my shop and the end grain was going to be visible it would be treated to a few passes on a shooting board.

jtk

[Lenore Epstein]

For me the equivalence of the cross cut sled is a square, a pencil and a handsaw. When more precision is needed I use a shooting board also.

I do have a miter box (Ulmia) but almost never use it. Maybe time to sell.
...recognizing, of course, that sawing straight and square is a skill that takes a fair amount of skill and practice, especially if you don't have someone to give you tips, and that you need straight and square material to make a shooting board and a plane with square sides and a sharp blade to use it.

For the OP: here's a great thread about learning how to use a saw.
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?242916-Sawing-Square&highlight=Sawing+square

Even if you start off with a miter box, it's well worth learning how to make a good cut without one if you are going to do much woodworking.

[Kees Heiden]

Sure, and my sawcuts are rarely perfect. They don't need to be perfect a lot of times of course. But after a couple of years of practice, they ain't too bad most of the times.

[Robert Engel]

For off the saw perfection, a high quality saw like some you've seen, or a miter sled.

Otherwise, it is easy to make your own then fine tune with shooting board.

Notice no one mentioned their power miter saw?

[Warren Mickley]

I'm looking for some jig where I can use a miter saw to get dead accurate perpendicular crosscut.

I think you are looking for a machine tool answer to a hand tool question. In hand tool work we rely on skill, not so much jigs. Jigs are old fashioned 20th century thinking. I remember back in the day, the 1950's and 1960's, craftsmanship was just pitiful. Even old guys, trained fifty years earlier had no idea how to get the quality of 1800.

In 2009 I found myself at a show in front of John Economaki and his Jointmaster "pro". He wanted to show me how good it was for dovetails. I said, "I make eight dovetail cuts in 25 seconds, I'm not really interested." However, he insisted so I watched him fiddle with the machine. After 25 seconds I said "I'm done". After 3 minutes and 35 seconds he had managed to make four cuts, randomly placed, all the same slant. He told me that the machine was worthwhile if you were making fifty drawers at a time. I have gotten orders for one or two dozen dovetailed drawers at a time, but not fifty. I remember when Economaki was a cabinetmaker. My guess is that if he were getting orders for fifty drawers at a shot he would never have given up and become a tool monger.

Here is a traditional approach: true a face side and an edge and use a square and a knife to mark all around, working from the reference surfaces. Then saw to the line. Alternatively, saw about 1/64 away from the line, put the board in the vise and plane to the lines.

[Brian Holcombe]

As Warren notes, if you put some real time on your saws you'll find your accuracy and speed to be quite good. I was contemplating a band saw a few years ago but finally decided I would rather devote some time toward practice and learn how to saw well.

I enjoy the freedom that hands swing offers, in fact I'm more accurate now by hand than by comparison to my fathers bandsaw.

On a big panel I will do what he suggests, knife the line saw then plane.

[Derek Cohen]

...recognizing, of course, that sawing straight and square is a skill that takes a fair amount of skill and practice, especially if you don't have someone to give you tips, and that you need straight and square material to make a shooting board and a plane with square sides and a sharp blade to use it. ...


Most of the important saw cuts are short, such as dovetails, mitres and tenon shoulders. Dovetailing is just sawing to a line. It requires practice. With tenon shoulders and mitres, score a line and add a chisel wall. That is usually all the reference one needs. It is difficult - impossible - to do this with mouldings, which is where a mitre box comes in. It is not needed for common garden saw cuts.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kirby Krieger]

Here is a traditional approach: true a face side and an edge and use a square and a knife to mark all around, working from the reference surfaces. Then saw to the line. Alternatively, saw about 1/64 away from the line, put the board in the vise and plane to the lines.

Excellent summary of the best of the thread and, imho, current knowledge — though I recommend replacing "traditional approach" with "a widely-applicable process that generally produces fine results".

A few further refinements:
- Tools matter. One needs a square square, planes that shave smoothly, marking tools of a precision that matches the results one wants, and saws that enable one to make flat cuts.
- Techniques matter. One must have the skill (and the tools) to flatten faces of boards, to square those faces to each other, and to saw to a line marked on two sides of a board.
- The board need not be fixed in a vise to "plane to the lines".
- Planing end-grain requires special approaches that should be mentioned.


I think you are looking for a machine tool answer to a hand tool question. In hand tool work we rely on skill, not so much jigs.

This is well said and should be held in mind.

I'd like to add a comment about "skill". In _my_ experience with _my_ body, skill is _not_ learning how to mimic a machine. Skill is giving my body a problem and allowing it to solve it. My process for learning a skill:
- set a clear objective
- use reliable feedback (apropos to the OP's question: Tom Fidgen states that hand-tool woodworkers should check every cut they make for square)
- start with known best practices
- simplify constantly
- practice consciously (and better: practice consciousness)

In hand tool work, we rely on our bodies. This woodworking is distinct for its humanism.

[Richard Line]

This is a good thread. There is one other approach that I don't think got noted. That is to use a straight batten to guide the saw. Still need a good layout line to align the batten. Then let the batten guide the cut by holding the saw against the batten. Still won't be perfect, but a much quicker shooting board session. I find this helps both the horizontal and vertical alignment of the cut. Still I need more work with freer hand sawing.

[Patrick Chase]

In 2009 I found myself at a show in front of John Economaki and his Jointmaster "pro". He wanted to show me how good it was for dovetails. I said, "I make eight dovetail cuts in 25 seconds, I'm not really interested." However, he insisted so I watched him fiddle with the machine. After 25 seconds I said "I'm done". After 3 minutes and 35 seconds he had managed to make four cuts, randomly placed, all the same slant. He told me that the machine was worthwhile if you were making fifty drawers at a time.

I would argue that the JMP isn't a "hand tool" at all, but rather a "hand-powered machine tool". The user has no connection to the wood, and no real influence over how it's worked once the settings are dialed in. In that sense it's no different from a Leigh dovetail jig or a MultiRouter.

Of course you could make some of the same arguments about a miter box, though obviously it's a less extreme example.

[Kirby Krieger]

I would argue that the JMP isn't a "hand tool" at all, but rather a "hand-powered machine tool".

And my argument would be :) that your misprision evades an important distinction:
I include the JointMaker in the grouping "Hand Tools" because it is _human-scaled_. The JMP is a human-powered machine tool, but that misleads, imho, by emphasizing the source of the tool's motive power. The important difference between "hand-tools" and "power-tools" is not — in spite of the names — the source of the power that moves them. Imho, it is that hand tools are (of necessity) _human-scaled_. Power tools might be, or might not be. (The battery-powered engraver that — iirc — David Charlesworth recommends for labeling plane blades is a human-scaled power tool.) Since electrical power is so cheap and readily available, it was inevitable that tools brought to market would not be human-scaled in their use of and application of power. But the JMP is human-scaled.

I think it is accurate to describe it as a "human-powered machine tool", and right to include it among "hand tools". I don't think it is right to use the description "human-powered machine tool" disparagingly (and, as I've commented privately, my experience with the JointMaker varies from yours). [Paragraph re-written for clarity.]

The "machine tool" aspect is apposite to this discussion: it implies — afaik — a repeatable set-up condition that allows for easy production of interchangeable parts. Every chuting board is a machine tool.

[Patrick Chase]

I think that this is similar to the other Bridge City thread in that it's mostly a matter of aesthetics, as Derek pointed out in that thread. Everybody has unique reasons for choosing "hand tool" woodworking to begin with, and those reasons color our perceptions of boundary-stretching tools like the JMP.

Kirby and I agree on the basic facts of what the JMP does or doesn't do, and yet we arrive at basically opposite judgments. We also appear to have divergent definitions of "connected-ness to the wood", which is understandable in that that's an entirely subjective concept to begin with.