PDA

View Full Version : Why Do You Own A Try Square?



Matthew Hutchinson477
05-25-2017, 6:02 PM
Virtually everyone I see, it seems, has both a try square and a combination square. As I am beginner, I figured there was some very basic reason that my lack of experience prevented me from understanding. Don't question the experts, right? Well here I am, a couple years into this endeavor, and I still don't understand why people have anything in addition to a good combination square. Speak forth, oh wise herd. Is it because Andre Roubo had one and we all want to be thought of as hip and cool among our peers? Am I missing something here?

360899

Nicholas Lawrence
05-25-2017, 6:15 PM
I have a good combination square, a speed square (nothing beats it for breaking down rough lumber), a framing square, and a small try square. They are listed in order of how often they are used.

Mike Henderson
05-25-2017, 6:27 PM
I don't see any place where you'd have to have a tri-square. A combination square will do the job.

Mike

James Pallas
05-25-2017, 6:49 PM
Mathew I use a combo most of the time. If Im setting up to bore vertical t find the try square more stable and easier to clamp in place if need be. I also use it if the combo is set up with something I want to keep. The combo is always out but the try is within reach.
Jim

Mike Baker 2
05-25-2017, 8:49 PM
Thanks for asking this question. I have wondered about this often recently, but since my combination square is doing everything I need, I just never asked. I think James Pallas' answer is a good one. That last part is reason enough to own another combination square, as well. I need to look for a good vintage one while I'm out roaming about this weekend.

steven c newman
05-25-2017, 9:00 PM
Sometimes they just seem to get the job done..
360900
I happen to have a few of each of the combos and the trys....not sure where my old speed square is. Still have my framing square.
360901
There is both a small combo square AND a small try square......was using both.....
360902
Seemed to work out fine when doing some joinery work...

Stanley Covington
05-25-2017, 9:50 PM
I use smaller try squares than what Mr. Schwarz advocates, primarily for checking square and flat on smaller members like rails, stiles and legs. Therefore, speed and agility are high priority. For checking and laying out wide stuff, I use a carpenter's square.

Combo squares are too delicate. They are useful tools, and I always have a Starrett Combo square in my toolbox. But I don't use it a lot. I have a small Veritas sliding square I use to check mortise depths, but that's about all.

Wooden squares are pretty, but since I use my squares for layout with a marking knife, and durability is more important than looking cool, wooden try squares are pointless IMO.

A try square weighs less than a combo square, therefore is handier.

A try square is less bulky than a combo square, therefore is handier.

A try square is less likely to be damaged if dropped, therefore more durable.

A try square lacks the sliding blade, therefore, retains tolerances better.

A try square (at least the ones I use) are hardened stainless steel, and therefore are more durable for layout with a marking knife than any combo square I have experienced.

A try square is cheaper than a combo square of the same level of quality and precision.

I like the Matsui squares. High precision, as in professional machinist tool precision, not home center quality. Very important is the hardened stainless steel, when using a marking knife. A very rare feature. Deep, positive markings that easily retain the tip of a marking knife are very useful too.

Stan
360905360906

Rick Malakoff
05-25-2017, 9:50 PM
Truth be known I use my speed square a lot, but it really depends on the job and the size of it which type and size that gets used.
Rick

Shawn Pixley
05-25-2017, 9:55 PM
I may be the odd one. I use a 4" engineer's square 90% of the time. Next try square and combination square. Very ocassionally speed square and framing square. All get used.

ken hatch
05-25-2017, 10:26 PM
Virtually everyone I see, it seems, has both a try square and a combination square. As I am beginner, I figured there was some very basic reason that my lack of experience prevented me from understanding. Don't question the experts, right? Well here I am, a couple years into this endeavor, and I still don't understand why people have anything in addition to a good combination square. Speak forth, oh wise herd. Is it because Andre Roubo had one and we all want to be thought of as hip and cool among our peers? Am I missing something here?

360899

Mathew,

Here come a long answer. A good combination square will do anything you need to do. But, there is that damn but, a set of try squares along with a set of combination squares will make it much easier. I have combination squares from 3" to 12" and try squares from 6" to 12" and each will do a specific job easier than one of the other squares.

Here is the conundrum: If you can have only one square the best 12" combination square you can find is the one to own but if you have a set of squares like mine the 12" combination square will likely be the least used of the bunch. Go figure.

ken

Ryan Mooney
05-25-2017, 10:49 PM
I'll throw one more in - I really like the little 4" PEC double square for a lot of things (and picked up a similar starret as a spare for a couple bucks at an estate sale).. Its just the ticket to check if you're edge jointing is square on a board or drawing a line just inset from and edge or....

On the combo square I've found the smaller lighter 6" one to be much more useful than the larger 12" but if i had to pick two I guess I'd get a 12" combo and a 4" or 6" double.

I have some decent tri squares but rarely use them myself, there is certainly the argument that they should be more accurate but I haven't found it matters for most of what I make as its not the square that's the problem there :rolleyes:

I'd venture that what you make and how you work will guide what works best for you.

John K Jordan
05-25-2017, 10:57 PM
For me a combo square is often too big so I grab the try square, a 6" double square, or even more often, the machinist's squares.

A precision double square is probably more useful than the try square. Having had several brands, I now stick to Starrett for squares with sliding parts like combo and double squares. I find theirs easier to read than most, too.

JKJ



Virtually everyone I see, it seems, has both a try square and a combination square. As I am beginner, I figured there was some very basic reason that my lack of experience prevented me from understanding. Don't question the experts, right? Well here I am, a couple years into this endeavor, and I still don't understand why people have anything in addition to a good combination square. Speak forth, oh wise herd. Is it because Andre Roubo had one and we all want to be thought of as hip and cool among our peers? Am I missing something here?

Joe Williams
05-25-2017, 11:59 PM
For me a combo square is often too big so I grab the try square, a 6" double square, or even more often, the machinist's squares.

A precision double square is probably more useful than the try square. Having had several brands, I now stick to Starrett for squares with sliding parts like combo and double squares. I find theirs easier to read than most, too.

JKJ


For some of us (speaking for myself anyway) squares are like planes. I can never seem to get enough. I could not agree more about the combo square, that is my most used square and I have a few of them. I also stick with Starrett for combo and double squares, I do have a precision engineering I got when I was new though. I also originally had a Swanson combo that turned out to not be square or become bad.

One of the reasons I have a lot of spares is I tend to leave them near the tool I have to check. My miter saw has a fixed square, table saw, then there is the special square for the MFT/3 table etc. I liked having squares the right sizes and shapes for those tools.

Mel Fulks
05-26-2017, 12:00 AM
A lot of the try squares were inherited or picked up cheap at yard sales. Why not use them,too? Did you get rid of your
VCR when DVR came in? .....That's not really the best example....

Jim Koepke
05-26-2017, 12:05 AM
Various combo squares do not seem as handy to use as fixed try squares imo.

When working with 1X12 a large framing square is often used. Of late a pair of stair gauges on my small framing square have been useful to jerry rig a larger try square.

If a 14" try square shows itself to me on a rust hunt it will come home with me if it is within my budget.

Maybe tomorrow a picture of the square line up from my shop.

jtk

lowell holmes
05-26-2017, 12:19 AM
I like try squares, but use primarily combinations squares.
I have both as well as an 18" wooden square I built.
It is the Popular Woodworking square. I also have three
Carpenter framing squares. :)

Phil Mueller
05-26-2017, 7:50 AM
I have both as well. My 6" machinist square is my go to for checking square and scribing lines. My combo squares are used more for measuring/marking guides and for any material over 6" wide. Don't know why, really. The 6" tri square just seems to feel better in my hand, I guess.

Todd Stock
05-26-2017, 8:04 AM
4" and 6" adjustable squares and a couple machinists squares on each of the two main benches in the shop, Starrett and other combos with 12" and 18" blades, medium and large try squares, a brace of carpenter squares, and one 10' x 5' folding square for really big stuff (plus a nice master square for checking the smaller tools against). I really don't want to lay out or square up something like a large piece of casework with a 4" adjustable square, and I don't want to check square on an edge with my framing square or combo square with 18" blade. My primary consideration when selecting the measuring and marking tools for the job is the scale and nature of the work.

When I see advice that suggests that this or that tool is never going to be either necessary or desirable, or only the smallest or largest size of something is useful, I mentally append the following: "...if you only build the sorts of things I build, in the materials I use, work in the precise manner that I work, and have the identical tool set which I possess....otherwise, please treat my guidance as very general in nature and of varying applicability to your specific situation."

ken hatch
05-26-2017, 8:25 AM
Various combo squares do not seem as handy to use as fixed try squares imo.

When working with 1X12 a large framing square is often used. Of late a pair of stair gauges on my small framing square have been useful to jerry rig a larger try square.

If a 14" try square shows itself to me on a rust hunt it will come home with me if it is within my budget.

Maybe tomorrow a picture of the square line up from my shop.

jtk

Jim,

I beat to it :), let's see yours:

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh222/VTXAZ/squares_zpsnytznwtr.jpg

All but the five on the far right live on one of the shop benches, usually where they are needed most of the time. The ones that are used the most are the Woodpecker try squares and the little 75mm Vesper with the 6" double square getting a fair share of love.

ken

Brian Holcombe
05-26-2017, 8:34 AM
I've moved from working commonly with a double square to working more commonly with a try square for all of the reasons that Stan mentions. For critical squaring, I find the try square is really hard to top.

Derek Cohen
05-26-2017, 8:54 AM
I have a bunch of squares .. I am a real sucker for marking tools. But these are the ones that get most use ...

Layout gauge for ... well ... layout ... :)

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/LayOutSquare_html_68ebc036.jpg

7" Vesper square for medium work, and 4" Vesper square for small joinery. These are essentially beautiful (and highly accurate) machinist squares ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Marking%20and%20Measuring/VesperatWIA3.jpg

Lastly, 3" Vesper double square. Usefule for checking squareness of joints, amount other things ...

http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/productimages/markingmeasuring/vesper/455451.jpg

What can I say - Chris is a mate and he is the best toolmaker around.

Regards from Perth

Derek

george wilson
05-26-2017, 9:23 AM
I have several Vesper squares. The result of getting into trading with him while he stays here, getting lessons sometimes. I have HAD quite a few duplicate machine tool things, most of which he now has. Trouble is,Chris makes everything that is graduated, graduated in metric. Derek: What is your little Vesper square graduated in? Looks like inches!! He hasn't had those when he was here. But, it's been a while. I have urged him to make inch grad squares for here in the USA, where he often comes to sell his tools. I don't recall when B&S went out of business. Fragments are still there, like the B&S dial calipers, but, who knows where they are made now.

As for regular use squares, my 6" Starrett is used a lot. I have best quality American made old time squares, such as Brown and Sharpe up to 24" beam. No longer made. I've been lucky to get such fine, precision squares, etc.,an EL MUCHO lower prices than they SHOULD cost. But, at $2,000.00 for the large squares,I would not have them.nor the granite master squares to check them with.

I'll admit that the really large squares are very heavy, and would easily ruin a wooden project if dropped, so I'm careful. Not often a need for such large squares. But,I also have a machine shop. I have a few Starrett combination squares, but cannot trust that they will stay as accurate as fixed blade squares.

BTW: to the OP; nice little squares you've made. Derek too!. When I was in costume,I made squares like those myself, but left all of them at the Musical Instrument Maker's Shop, so as to not strip it of tools. I could always make more, but I have no need. I do wish I hadn't left my pear wood square with ebony edges there. It had a 24" beam. They never did get their own tools bought and made (which was what they were supposed to do!)

Mike Null
05-26-2017, 10:53 AM
As an occasional woodworker building functional household items and small boxes I use my combo squares most often. Especially the 6". I have a speed square, framing square and a new, yet to be used, Japanese square, which I had no reason to buy. I will use it as a set up tool.

Andrew Pitonyak
05-26-2017, 11:10 AM
I often use the combination square when I need to adjust the length of the square. here are two examples:



Scribe a vertical line while cutting pins on a dovetail and the board is in the vice and my squares are too long.
When I want to use it to set a distance. I can set it to be 3 inches and then mark multiple things quickly at 3 inches from a face.
Use to determine the depth of something.
My combination squares usually have a 45 degree angle built into the for when I need that.


I am more inclined to use a try square for the other tasks, such as:



Is my table saw blade perpendicular to the table.
Is the end of that board square.
Did I grind my chisel square to the edges.


Now, why might I want a double combination square? Well, that is a bit trickier other than to say a 4" double combination square has a slightly smaller profile than my combination squares that have a 45 on one end. Any thoughts on that?

michael langman
05-26-2017, 11:26 AM
In the machine shop we were taught to use a combination sguare for rough layout of lines, and angles, and finding the center of squares and rounds. I use it for laying out accurate centers for holes and lines within .005 and repeatability between parts.
The smaller try squares were used for squaring stock on the mill and sometimes off the grinders.
The larger Starret Master Squares were used in critical checking of finished parts and checking precision tools and machines.

Pat Barry
05-26-2017, 12:10 PM
How often does everyone actually check their squares for squareness. No point assuming they are correct is there??

Jim Koepke
05-26-2017, 12:38 PM
How often does everyone actually check their squares for squareness. No point assuming they are correct is there??

For me it is kind of like checking the fence and depth stop bolts while using a combination plane. Most simple is knifing a line and flipping the square for a quick check. This is usually good enough for most of my joinery.

jtk

Jim Koepke
05-26-2017, 1:31 PM
Here is a picture of most of my squares:

360931

On the left are a 6, 8 & 12" combination squares that do not see a lot of use.

The speed square is also seldom used for anything but rough work outside the shop.

The wooden square at the top is fat enough to sit on a piece being sawn to help keep a saw square vertically.

The Odd Jobs is used mostly for pencil scribing a line for rip cutting.

The frame squares are used for situations where the try squares are not big enough.

The small all metal try square is used to check edges for square. It is almost always on the bench during a project. The other try squares are usually on the bench in relation to the width of the wood being worked.

The thin triangle is sometimes used for drawing.

jtk

lowell holmes
05-26-2017, 1:56 PM
Jim,

Eighteen squares :)

I only have Eleven squares, you beat me.

steven c newman
05-26-2017, 2:07 PM
I don't have the room on the bench right now......aybe later. Some of my handles are made of Rosewood and Brass.

Matthew Hutchinson477
05-26-2017, 4:30 PM
Here is the conundrum: If you can have only one square the best 12" combination square you can find is the one to own but if you have a set of squares like mine the 12" combination square will likely be the least used of the bunch. Go figure.

ken

That's all I have currently have actually. A 12" Starrett combination square that I bought for $20. I'm always keeping my eyes open for a 4" or 6" square, or a nice wood/brass/steel try square but being on a budget I have to prioritize and adding another square to my collection just hasn't been high enough on the list yet. The 12" square is definitely a bit big and cumbersome when working on smaller items so if I had a 6" combination square along with a bigger try square I doubt my 12" square would get much use. The collecting never ends!

ken hatch
05-26-2017, 4:51 PM
That's all I have currently have actually. A 12" Starrett combination square that I bought for $20. I'm always keeping my eyes open for a 4" or 6" square, or a nice wood/brass/steel try square but being on a budget I have to prioritize and adding another square to my collection just hasn't been high enough on the list yet. The 12" square is definitely a bit big and cumbersome when working on smaller items so if I had a 6" combination square along with a bigger try square I doubt my 12" square would get much use. The collecting never ends!

Matthew,

Good on you....The 12" Starrett is all you need, the others just make life easier.

ken

Derek Cohen
05-26-2017, 7:50 PM
When I started getting serious about building furniture by hand, about 20 odd years ago now, I turned to used Starretts on eBay. (As an aside, it is interesting how a focus on hand tools makes us more aware as to the quality of such equipment - I had been working with predominantly power tools for many years prior to this, and do not recall giving it the same attention).

Over the years, I purchased two 12" Starrett combo gauges, and one of these now has a 600mm blade, a recent purchase. I also have a 4" double square. The 12" combo comes out for setting up the tablesaw, and the 600mm is great for laying out panels. But it is the 4" double square that has been a star all these years. Get one if you can. Amazingly, all the Starretts have remained accurate.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Joe Williams
05-26-2017, 8:37 PM
I have both as well. My 6" machinist square is my go to for checking square and scribing lines. My combo squares are used more for measuring/marking guides and for any material over 6" wide. Don't know why, really. The 6" tri square just seems to feel better in my hand, I guess.

I love the tri-squares too, haven't used them but I sure seem to buy them. I bought them to use so I am going to start.

Joe Williams
05-26-2017, 8:39 PM
How often does everyone actually check their squares for squareness. No point assuming they are correct is there??

Because I was caught using a bad square I check mine almost every time I use them now. Stupid but I am paranoid because of that.

steven c newman
05-26-2017, 8:59 PM
IF I happen to drop a square, I'll check it.....otherwise, I leave them alone.

Biggest thing with combo squares.....wear & tear from always moving the parts back and forth ( count how many times on your next project)....even the best ones wear a bit. Whether the groove in the ruler, the looking tab ( had one break..) or the slide area wears a bit unevenly.....ever notice that it takes a little more "Ummph" to tighten one down after awhile?

have had to "fire" a couple combos as they weren't staying put when I tightened them up. One was a Starrett......1940s era....well worn. kept the ruler, though.

Why do I use a try square? I don't have to readjust it before use. My combo squares are usually set up for depth of cut......the Try is for marking lines around the part. Checking dry fits, and assemblies for square, at least the smaller stuff.
360940
Although I have several just like this one......I will use the same square throughout a project. Just as I will use the same tape measure throughout a project.
largest try square I have is an old Stanley 8", with Rosewood and brass handle.
360943
Have also found a few uses for the others...

Jim Koepke
05-26-2017, 10:00 PM
Jim,

Eighteen squares :)

I only have Eleven squares, you beat me.

Those are only the ones that are used often. Have a couple other newer Stanley try squares. One of them is in the house for my wife's kit. Have a few more combos that do not get used and then a rule with a protractor head. One with a combo head and centering head. Then there are a lot of plastic squares for drafting.

Then there is a half dozen or more bevel squares. Oh, and least we forget a small try square with the top set up so it can also measure at 45º. I do not like that one much because it always seems to be hard to hold square against the work. Most likely that is due to my technique.

jtk

Stanley Covington
05-26-2017, 10:17 PM
How often does everyone actually check their squares for squareness. No point assuming they are correct is there??

I have written about this before, and was treated like turd in a milkbucket at the time, but I will say it again.

If you cut joints by hand, and care about working efficiently and the quality of your work, you need to occasionally check your layout tools, like try squares and especially fragile combination squares, with a beveled precision die-maker's square.

360944


I am not suggesting using this tool to do layout work. Keep it in your toolchest wrapped in cardboard to protect it, and use it as a reliable "Standard" to quickly check the precision of your layout tools, like squares, that wear and get dinged in daily use. How often should you check them? I check at least once a year during the year-end holidays (a Japanese tradition I adopted), and whenever I drop one, or when things don't seem to line up properly.

And nothing beats a beveled square for checking the flatness/wind of plane soles, and even the square of tablesaw blades, especially if you stain the beveled surfaces black.

Here is a link to the thread. http://www.sawmillcreek.org/archive/index.php/t-198817.html

And here is an excerpt of a test that you should try for yourself:

{When I was a civil engineering student, the professors teaching surveying told me that errors tend to cancel each other out. After graduation, Professor Murphy taught me the truth: errors always accumulate. Test this for yourself. Dimension a board 10 inches wide and 10 inches long with the six sides/ends square/parallel. Using a square and a sharp marking knife (pencil/pen/scribe are too fat), spin a line across the grain and around the sides, and another line with the grain and around the ends. Begin each line on a fresh surface, indexing your knife blade in the previous line where it ended, and reference the square off a different surface when cutting each line. Does the last line meet the first line perfectly, or is there an offset? If there is an offset, the error may be the board. If so, ask yourself why the board is not square/parallel, and if that amount of unexplained error might tend to make a joint or a drawer square and ship-shape or twisted like a politician. If, on the other hand, the error might just be in the square, how do you check to make sure the square is good or bad?}

There were plenty at the time that thought this advice was nonsense, but not a single person that objected mentioned actually performing this test for themselves. Try it.

Wishful thinking does not stop errors from accumulating. The Starrett name does not stop defective merchandise from being sold.

Jim Koepke
05-26-2017, 10:50 PM
Hi Stanley,

If you are looking for an error, your method will show it. If one wants to make the lines meet, then the method of always keeping to a reference will cause any error to cancel.

As an example: Set a bevel gauge off square and set it on a board with the stock on the far side and knife a line. Turn the board up toward yourself and mark from the close side at the first mark. Turn the board again toward you and set the bevel on the side from which the first line was marked where the second mark hits the edge. For the last mark register the bevel gauge to the first mark which should be on the side away from yourself. If this was done properly all the lines should meet unless the board is really twisted or otherwise wonky.

If one keeps marking from the close side while turning the work, then any error will cause lines to not meet.

jtk

Stanley Covington
05-26-2017, 11:30 PM
Only amateurs don't know the method you described.

You are entirely missing the point, Jim

Stan

Derek Cohen
05-27-2017, 1:54 AM
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=360944&d=1495852399&thumb=1 (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=360944&d=1495852399)

I have a 2 1/2" version of this that is kept alongside my grinder to check the squareness of plane and chisels edges.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Jim Koepke
05-27-2017, 2:20 AM
Only amateurs don't know the method you described.

You are entirely missing the point, Jim

Stan

We likely have one or two amateurs lurking in the wings at this very moment.

My statement was to give reason to the statement about errors canceling. Understanding how errors are introduced can lead one to see how errors work together and how to make them cancel each other.

Was the point that people didn't try your method? I do not think it foolish. Looking back at the post you linked has a post of mine with other methods of checking for square without having a master square against which to check all the other squares. Some others felt they were foolish. They likely haven't tried my crude methods either.

Knowing one's tools and materials, how they should work together and what indicates they are not working together comes from the experience of doing things.

I do not have a precision square. So far other means of testing my squares fulfills my needs.

jtk

Stanley Covington
05-27-2017, 3:13 AM
We likely have one or two amateurs lurking in the wings at this very moment.

My statement was to give reason to the statement about errors canceling. Understanding how errors are introduced can lead one to see how errors work together and how to make them cancel each other.

Was the point that people didn't try your method? I do not think it foolish. Looking back at the post you linked has a post of mine with other methods of checking for square without having a master square against which to check all the other squares. Some others felt they were foolish. They likely haven't tried my crude methods either.

Knowing one's tools and materials, how they should work together and what indicates they are not working together comes from the experience of doing things.

I do not have a precision square. So far other means of testing my squares fulfills my needs.

jtk

Jim

I agree that the methods you suggested then and now are valid.

But, they are more time consuming, and more prone to error, than a quick look with a precision square, IMO.

I agree also with your point about eliminating the accumulation of errors through better methodology. Everyone who aspires to do quality woodworking needs to learn them. But the original post was about "why do you own a try square," and my post was in response to, and quoted, a post about checking try squares. The method I suggested was obviously based on intentional accumulation of error.

The point of my post was that people need to test their tools, see the results with their own eyes, and realize how errors crept in unawares. Focus on try square.

Did you try the test with your try square?

There are many ways to do the job. I have just suggested one. It is one used by professional machinists the world over. I am very confident it is quicker and more precise than strike, flip, strike, compare. On the other hand, there are more precise and more reliable ways than the one I suggested. None of them involve knives, pencils, saws, planes, powertools, glass, boards, straightedges, or tape. All of them are time consuming and require special tools. I think the next quickest, more precise method to check a try square requires 4 precision machined circular steel pucks. I don't have those.

To each his own.

There are indeed amateurs reading the forum that would greatly benefit from a thread on techniques to reduce layout errors. Please start one.

Derek Cohen
05-27-2017, 5:02 AM
An oldie but a goldie ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB0MBGiX8TQ

Regards from Perth

Derek

lowell holmes
05-27-2017, 8:24 AM
A little excessive here in my mind. :)

David Eisenhauer
05-27-2017, 9:45 AM
You may need a single pivot point for your mind so that your flexibility improves Lowell. That Galveston Seawall type mind holding firmly against all intrusion is preventing the concept of the Magic Square to flow in:).

Pat Barry
05-27-2017, 10:19 AM
The method I have always relied on requires starting with a straight edge. Take a board with a straight edge and use your square to mark a line. Flip the square over and register it, on the same starting point and mark a second line. If the two lines are identical, then you have a square square. If not, the error of the square is 1/2 the difference in the separation of the two lines. You can then decide if that is good enough for the task. Check all your squares this way. Other ways induce other sources of error.

Jim Koepke
05-27-2017, 11:01 AM
Did you try the test with your try square?

Yes, with many of them.

jtk

lowell holmes
05-27-2017, 11:01 AM
When I bought my Disston try square, I was so proud of it, I checked everything for square. I would have known if it was out. :)

Is the correct spelling trisquare or try square?:)

steven c newman
05-27-2017, 11:59 AM
Ok, since I had a 1 x 10 to cut into two pieces for a glue up for the Pantry Cupboard's top...happen to have a nice, flat surface to work from
360954
This is they square I have been using on the project. I don't like to use more than one.....line was marked all the way around, lines met where they are supposed to meet.
other Try Squares..
360955
A different size, used according to the size of the project.
360956Useful for setting a depth of cut, that red thing?
Decided to "test" it for square, marked a line...
360957
Then, flip over and mark a second line on the first..
360958
I only marked to the end of the blade, both time.....line is one, single line.
360959
Finding angles, and centers...
360960
Top to bottom: Rosewood, Rosewood, Walnut, Plastic. The Plastic one has been around in my shops since the 1980s. Been laying out dovetails with these....

Red handled square is a Stanley Handyman. Biggest thing is NOT to drop a square..they will stay square just fine, IF you treat them right.

Afraid my "Speed Square" is a little big..
360965
More of a saw guide/ router guide/jobsite saw fence.

michael langman
05-27-2017, 1:08 PM
Stanley, I keep a Starret Bevel edged Master Square in my tool box in t's original box and paper.
It only comes out for the checking of everything else I own in tooling, and cleaning, and oiling.
We seem to think alike in many ways.

Brian Holcombe
05-27-2017, 4:27 PM
You can make the lines connect by canceling the error, but a joint won't seat cleanly in hardwood unless the shoulders are very near to square. If the shoulders are out of square in opposite directions then the joint willl seat squarely but present gaps at two corners along the shoulder. If the shoulders are out square in the same direction than the joint will seat out of square.

steven c newman
05-27-2017, 4:52 PM
Lost in all the above....WHY does one own a try square? As asked by the OP. Why even have such a square? NOT how to check the squares, not which brand name one "loves". Just a simple "Why?" Why own such a square? This was the question..
(about like arguing over who should get the One Ring.....)

Not about HOW to use one, not about how to check one. Merely WHY own one.

( for me, the Try square is already set up to use, where as a combo would need to be adjusted for the use needed. )

Warren Mickley
05-27-2017, 5:24 PM
You can make the lines connect by canceling the error, but a joint won't seat cleanly in hardwood unless the shoulders are very near to square. If the shoulders are out of square in opposite directions then the joint willl seat squarely but present gaps at two corners along the shoulder. If the shoulders are out square in the same direction than the joint will seat out of square.

I was thinking along the same lines, Brian. I guess for some it is comforting to have precision in their instruments that far surpasses their skill as woodworkers, but a regular woodworker would know if a square is not accurate by how his joinery goes. And if you are edge joining two pieces of wood and your straight edge says they are flat but when you align them they are not, by all means check your straight edge.

Some take great pains to insure a flat sole on a plane, which is good, but the best measure of the fitness of a plane is how nicely and easily it planes a flat surface.

I have used try squares and a knife to mark wood since 1970, when I started researching traditional technique. Until reading this thread I had not realized that I must have inherited a combination square from my father; I think I could find it if there were a need.

Pat Barry
05-27-2017, 5:47 PM
Lost in all the above....WHY does one own a try square? As asked by the OP. Why even have such a square? NOT how to check the squares, not which brand name one "loves". Just a simple "Why?" Why own such a square? This was the question..
(about like arguing over who should get the One Ring.....)

Not about HOW to use one, not about how to check one. Merely WHY own one.

( for me, the Try square is already set up to use, where as a combo would need to be adjusted for the use needed. )
The purpose of the tool is self evident. Kind of a "if a tree falls in the woods ..." type of question. Squareness is a convention used to simplify construction. Things don't 'have' to be square after all.

Chris Parks
05-27-2017, 11:54 PM
The method I have always relied on requires starting with a straight edge. Take a board with a straight edge and use your square to mark a line. Flip the square over and register it, on the same starting point and mark a second line. If the two lines are identical, then you have a square square. If not, the error of the square is 1/2 the difference in the separation of the two lines. You can then decide if that is good enough for the task. Check all your squares this way. Other ways induce other sources of error.

I have never been convinced this is a good method because it relies on the knife being held exactly at 90 degrees or the same angle each time and that is difficult to do.

Stanley Covington
05-28-2017, 1:31 AM
I have never been convinced this is a good method because it relies on the knife being held exactly at 90 degrees or the same angle each time and that is difficult to do.

It also relies on the board's edge being truly straight. T'aint always so.

Jim Koepke
05-28-2017, 2:28 AM
Not about HOW to use one, not about how to check one. Merely WHY own one.

As said in an earlier post in this thread, the feel better in my hands than a combination square. Plus as you also said, fiddling with a combination square to set it up isn't my cup of tea.


I have never been convinced this is a good method because it relies on the knife being held exactly at 90 degrees or the same angle each time and that is difficult to do.

If the knife is following the edge of the square's blade it should only require the same angle against the blade through the stroke. The lines should then be parallel if the square is true. My tendency is to space the lines a small amount. Usually a visual confirmation is enough. If a higher degree of confirmation is desired the lines can be viewed with an inspector's loupe to see if the lines vary. (An inspectors loop has a scales on its glass base to measure in the range of five thousandths of an inch.) Of course most people do not have one of those:

https://www.emsdiasum.com/microscopy/products/magnifier/measuring.aspx

jtk

Chris Parks
05-28-2017, 3:12 AM
As said in an earlier post in this thread, the feel better in my hands than a combination square. Plus as you also said, fiddling with a combination square to set it up isn't my cup of tea.



If the knife is following the edge of the square's blade it should only require the same angle against the blade through the stroke.
https://www.emsdiasum.com/microscopy/products/magnifier/measuring.aspx

jtk

And you can guarantee to do that without any shadow of a doubt and measure the parallelism of both lines? I know it is an extreme argument but that is where this thread has gone to. If you really want to check a square properly you need a surface plate and a square cylinder to compare it to. As to why we need a try square, we don't, in previous times they were the only square I guess and could be made by the user relatively easily. I inherited mine from my Grandfather, never use it and I suspect he never had a combination square at all. I seem to recall someone telling me when I was very young that they did not trust the combination square to always be accurate but a try square always stayed accurate. I must have asked the question I guess. Our preference in tools lays with the individual, why own a track saw for instance or a Lie Nielson plane instead of another brand and then some people think buying any new plane is an outright ludicrous thing to do.

Pat Barry
05-28-2017, 8:20 AM
I have never been convinced this is a good method because it relies on the knife being held exactly at 90 degrees or the same angle each time and that is difficult to do.
If the suggested method is difficult it might be that square isn't the biggest issue you have to deal with.

Chris Parks
05-28-2017, 8:32 AM
If the suggested method is difficult it might be that square isn't the biggest issue you have to deal with.

And that would be?

Jim Koepke
05-28-2017, 12:17 PM
And you can guarantee to do that without any shadow of a doubt and measure the parallelism of both lines?

I can guarantee to do it with enough precision to suite my needs.

Testing more than once with repeated results gives me confidence of my squares being capable of doing their job.

Any serious error will show up elsewhere during a woodworking project.

I am not about to invest in a surface plate and/or precision equipment for the sole purpose of checking my squares. There are many ways to check the work pieces against each other during a project to indicate problems with one's marking equipment.

Chris, if the problem you mention was of concern to me, I would be worried about marking a simple line to guide a saw cut.

And getting back to the original focus of this thread of why own a try square, it is because to me they are more useful than a combination square and tend to be more accurate. Repeated results with combination squares showing various degrees of error got me to strip their usable parts and throw a few of them into the garbage bin. So far none of my try squares have shown such inaccuracy.

jtk

Andrey Kharitonkin
05-29-2017, 7:51 AM
I'm just a beginner myself and this topic is of interest to me because so far I restrained from buying a combination square. I bought several try squares. Each time I was thinking about ordering combination square I thought that try square is more use to me and more value for me for the money. But still thinking about the reason why, albeit opposite to OP - why combination square?

Why try square? They are cheaper, simple, come in different sizes.
Why not combination square? Scribing parallel line or measuring depth is done already by other tools - marking gauges, incra T-rules and calipers. Any another good reason to have it sliding?

I was thinking more in direction of buying large beveled square for reference checking as mentioned above and small beveled square for checking stock ends/edges. And small double square for checking for square inside dovetails or mortises. In this case I think it better be sliding beam to adjust for all possible small sizes. Is Starret combination square beam (or ruler) is better for checking against the light than traditional try square? (Is it kind of slightly beveled?)

As a funny note, I can say that here in Europe there is no obsession with combination (sliding) square. Also, it is not required to have cabinet table saw to do woodworking. In the beginning (after reading and watching internet) I had believe that I have to have both :) Was hoping to see comments from Kees Heiden or other European woodworkers :)

Another funny note, I find it less convenient to have leaps (?) on try squares, like incra or woodpeckers aluminium squares. I think it is useful for sheet goods, but not in small 6" or similar sizes. Recently, Woodpecker had one-time-tool with stainless steel beams but also with sticking out ruler on the stock part. I spotted on Derek's photo a try square with retractable middle piece. That looks promising for me to drool about buying it :)

lowell holmes
05-29-2017, 12:03 PM
Here in the states, there is an old saying "Different Strokes for Different Folks". I think this subject fits that category. If you can afford it, get one of each. I have several and use the one that suits me at the time. They are not expensive here.

lowell holmes
05-29-2017, 7:04 PM
Is the proper spelling trisquare , trysquare, try square, or tri square?:confused:

Jim Koepke
05-29-2017, 7:47 PM
Is the proper spelling trisquare , trysquare, try square, or tri square?:confused:

When my dictionary is checked with tri-square it comes up thus:

361068

Tri suggests three functions. Even when a wooden try square has a 45º check built in it still only has two functions unless you count a ruler on the blade.

jtk

Stanley Covington
05-29-2017, 8:21 PM
Is the proper spelling trisquare , trysquare, try square, or tri square?:confused:

Jim has it right. Definitely "TRY" square. From the 1300's meaning "examine judiciously, discover by evaluation, test."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=try

Stanley Covington
05-29-2017, 8:36 PM
Combination squares definitely have their uses.

The blade of a combo square can be set to a distance that must be repeatedly checked or measured, but which a marking gauge cannot reach, or where the beam gets in the way. A try square can't do this.

In carpentry, the combo square's blade is extended to a distance from the edge of a board, a pencil is held against the blade's end, combo and pencil are moved together, and a reliable pencil line is made. Not as accurate as a marking gauge, but quicker, and good enough for most carpentry work. Can't do this with a try square.

When fitting hinges and hardware to cabinets, a combo square can be used with a marking knife on the end of the blade to mark the far limit of the hardware's location. Can't do that with a try square.

Useful for all sorts of indexing work.

When doing some layout work, a try square's blade may be either too long or too short for the situation, whereas a combo square's blade is easily adjusted to fit.

A combo square is unsurpassed for quickly and accurately checking the depth of large mortises. Can't do that with a try square.

None of these operations require an expensive, highly accurate combo square, BTW.

Stan

Mel Fulks
05-29-2017, 10:51 PM
Oxford English Dictionary says "try" square

Phillip Mitchell
05-29-2017, 10:53 PM
Stanley, 100% agreed. I'm a carpenter and have been working on hanging / installing hardware for a house full of all different types of doors lately. There were times that I used a try square in conjunction with 2 or 3 combo squares to ensure accurate and repeatable layout. It would have been slower and potentially less accurate without them. Laying out hinges, locksets, stops, and strikes are all jobs that greatly benefit from combo squares.

Combo squares are just another tool to help us get different jobs done accurately and efficiently. Try squares also have their place under the sun, and I'm glad they are around and available.

Jim Koepke
05-30-2017, 1:21 AM
Combination squares definitely have their uses.

The blade of a combo square can be set to a distance that must be repeatedly checked or measured, but which a marking gauge cannot reach, or where the beam gets in the way. A try square can't do this.

In carpentry, the combo square's blade is extended to a distance from the edge of a board, a pencil is held against the blade's end, combo and pencil are moved together, and a reliable pencil line is made. Not as accurate as a marking gauge, but quicker, and good enough for most carpentry work. Can't do this with a try square.

When fitting hinges and hardware to cabinets, a combo square can be used with a marking knife on the end of the blade to mark the far limit of the hardware's location. Can't do that with a try square.

Useful for all sorts of indexing work.

When doing some layout work, a try square's blade may be either too long or too short for the situation, whereas a combo square's blade is easily adjusted to fit.

A combo square is unsurpassed for quickly and accurately checking the depth of large mortises. Can't do that with a try square.

None of these operations require an expensive, highly accurate combo square, BTW.

Stan

Yes, there are good uses for combination and adjustable squares.

For a line at a set distance from an edge my Odd Jobs is used for pencil lines or lines too far from the edge for a marking gauge.

For hinge layouts a wheel or pin gauge works well. Often I get out my #95 butt gauge.

Funny you mention a try square not being good for marking lines parallel to an edge.

361086

If you look closely at the second try square from the top on the left you can see where a previous owner drilled holes for the purpose of drawing lines parallel to the edge. It is not as convenient as the a combination square. If one has a steady hand it can be rested on the blade, holding a pencil while moving the square along an edge. With a bit of practice it becomes a natural feeling maneuver.

A combination square is also good for making repeated stepped marks. If you want marks ever X distance for setting shelf pins or any other need the blade can be set and then set the end against the first mark and the second mark is drawn against the stock or set the stock on the mark and draw against the end of the blade.

My try squares are more comfortable in the hand. If you look you will see that all but one have had finger grips carved into them. When they or the Odd Jobs can not handle the job one of my combination squares gets to do the work.

jtk

Stanley Covington
05-30-2017, 4:26 AM
Yes, there are good uses for combination and adjustable squares.

For a line at a set distance from an edge my Odd Jobs is used for pencil lines or lines too far from the edge for a marking gauge.

For hinge layouts a wheel or pin gauge works well. Often I get out my #95 butt gauge.

Funny you mention a try square not being good for marking lines parallel to an edge.

361086

If you look closely at the second try square from the top on the left you can see where a previous owner drilled holes for the purpose of drawing lines parallel to the edge. It is not as convenient as the a combination square. If one has a steady hand it can be rested on the blade, holding a pencil while moving the square along an edge. With a bit of practice it becomes a natural feeling maneuver.

A combination square is also good for making repeated stepped marks. If you want marks ever X distance for setting shelf pins or any other need the blade can be set and then set the end against the first mark and the second mark is drawn against the stock or set the stock on the mark and draw against the end of the blade.

My try squares are more comfortable in the hand. If you look you will see that all but one have had finger grips carved into them. When they or the Odd Jobs can not handle the job one of my combination squares gets to do the work.

jtk

Thanks for the insight, Jim.

My father was a carpenter and always used a combination square (well before the days of the speed square) as a marking gauge with a pencil held on a mark on the blade. He got pretty good accuracy doing this, but I never could.

The Odd Job is a strange tool that I have seen in tool catalogs, but never played with. Pretty useful for carpentry work? What about more precise cabinet work?

Stan

Kees Heiden
05-30-2017, 5:38 AM
At least overhere in Holland the combination square is not very common. I think it only came on the market relatively late, under influence of English/American habbits or brands entering our market.

I have one, it was as cheapy (of course, I always seem to end up in the cheap corner) probably made in the far east. It wasn't very square when I got it and needed readjusting. But I use a try square all the time at the bench and the combination square leads a sheltered life in a cupboard. A trysquare is just simpler and quicker to use for most jobs.

I quit buying second hand try squares. The edges are usually worn out, not straight anymore, not very square either. So it is a good idea to check your own square from time to time. I use the method Jim posted about, usually with a piece of plywood. An undisturbed factory edge is way straight enough for me to do this test.

And yes I did the test of rotating the square around a bit of squared timber and seeing if the ends meet. But it doesn't tell if the timber was really square or if the square itself isn't square anymore.

Stanley Covington
05-30-2017, 6:29 AM
And yes I did the test of rotating the square around a bit of squared timber and seeing if the ends meet. But it doesn't tell if the timber was really square or if the square itself isn't square anymore.

Kees

That is exactly my point.

Stan

Nicholas Lawrence
05-30-2017, 6:35 AM
I like my combination square. It is one of the more expensive tools I have, but has been very reliable, and does 90% of what I need in a square. With the rotating protractor head I picked up, it is even more useful.

I have an odd job, but have not found it to be something I reach for. If I am going somewhere and need something that fits in a shirt pocket, it is good for that. It will do many of the things a combination square will do.

Derek Cohen
05-30-2017, 10:01 AM
I built this collection about 10 or so years ago. Tool art ... :)

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Workbench%20and%20Workshop/Tools%20as%20Art/Tools3.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

george wilson
05-30-2017, 10:09 AM
A combination square is quite a good tool. In the final analysis though, it isn't quite(a thou or 2) as accurate as a fixed all steel machinist's square. So,I haven't used a combination square for a long time. I rely upon the all steel, fixed blade Starrett squares that I accumulated many years ago. I had to use more traditional squares when I was in public.

Watch out for the no-name Chinese all steel squares. They usually don't quite make it. As Clint Eastwood would have said, had he been a machinist in a movie:"Your steel Chinese square AIN'T MAKING IT" ! (A reference to his boss's mouth wash!!:)

The amount of out-of-square that a GOOD combination square can be (and I mean the HARDENED HEAD Starrett combo squares) Is so little that woodworkers needn't worry about it. I have had well experienced metal spinners say that a combination square is always out by .002". Now,if that is .001" PER SIDE, in trying to scribe to the center of a cylinder) , it isn't too much to worry about in woodworking. Wood of much size at all can move that much! I don't know how worn their combination squares may have been. They were referencing the part of a combo square that is used to find the center of a round cylinder , anyway. But it shows that moving parts on a square can get worn through use. Bridge City (Is that their name? I own none. Doesn't mean their tools are bad! ) Tools tried to minimize that problem by inserting 2 hardened pins into the groove in the stock that the blade slid in. The all hardened Starrett combination square is still the best tool, though. And, brass parts on a square may look pretty (and you know I have used brass quite a lot, but not on critical surfaces) AIN'T MAKING IT.

Hopefully you can make sense of this rather confusing post!

DEREK: Keep adding on to that square rack, and you will eventually have your own Studley tool box! But, in your case, trying to combine the 2 names, it might be the DUDLEK tool box!:)

lowell holmes
05-30-2017, 10:13 AM
Derek,

Your image did not make the trip. :)

Derek Cohen
05-30-2017, 10:30 AM
Hi Lowell

I am not sure why you cannot see it. George and I can.

Perhaps the shine off the steel is blinding you? :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

steven c newman
05-30-2017, 10:31 AM
But, no glare....

lowell holmes
05-30-2017, 11:47 AM
Derek, I can see it now. I must have had a bad link. :)

Jim Koepke
05-30-2017, 11:57 AM
361106
The Odd Job is a strange tool that I have seen in tool catalogs, but never played with. Pretty useful for carpentry work? What about more precise cabinet work?

Mostly mine is used for drawing a line for a rip cut. Occasionally it is used to draw a large circle or arc. Here is a not so great quality .pdf showing its various uses:

361106

It wouldn't be my choice for precise cabinet work. For framing up a rabbit hutch it would be okay.

jtk

lowell holmes
05-30-2017, 12:37 PM
I have an Odd Jobs. I never use it, but I might. :D

steven c newman
05-30-2017, 3:12 PM
Later today, maybe, I will need to mark out some plywood to cut shelves
361113
I need 3/4" x 14-1/2" by 29" pieces. Panel is 3/4" x 30" wide, by 48" . Figure I can get a few shelves out of this panel. What is hanging there is my framing square. Will be using that to do layout for a few cuts.
I have a "speed square"
361114
That I can clamp in place, offset so I can use a circular saw. I tend to use this for long cuts. It was made for use on a jobsite DeWalt saw. Works just as well guiding a router, as well ( I'd have to go and find one, first)
used the Combo square to set a jig on the bandsaw, for width of cut.....have a few cleats to make...

Andy Nichols
05-30-2017, 4:32 PM
Have several shop made Try squares with different lengths and blade sizes, built most of them in one afternoon. Made with hard maple handles and Cuban mahogany blades, much cheaper than store bought.

Have two Starrett combo squares, 6 & 12 inch, use them mostly to check my shop made squares, or when I need a measurement, but then it's good to have the wood Try squares so the slide location does not have to be changed.

Also have a few high end Try squares, but still mainly use my wooden ones. My longest is 18" and shortest is around 4" with several in between....I do make both sides square, I know many only do the inside, but I find them more useful with inside and outside square, and it's not that much harder to do.

Andy

Bill Houghton
05-30-2017, 5:45 PM
I grew up watching Dad use a combination square, so that's what I used when I started frightening pieces of wood; and I still do.

But I've become aware that the stock (handle) of a try square is often longer than the beam (blade), relative to the analogous parts of a combination square; so, in theory, you would get better registration. I really need to start experimenting with the try squares I've acquired over the years; maybe I'll change my practices!

Stanley Covington
05-30-2017, 5:55 PM
Thanks, Jim.

george wilson
05-31-2017, 9:42 AM
If you want an excellent, reliable try square,I'd recommend you get one from Vesper Tools. As I mentioned,I have several, in a dedicated drawer. I'd recommend one without any wood inlay in the handle, to swell or shrink. I've had no trouble so far, but wood is wood, and never stops moving. He has accurate instruments to check them with. He makes an excellent T-bevel, too.

By the way: My old 1965- ish Marples try square has a brass strip along the working edge of the beam, but, rather than being screwed on, like they ALL are these days, it has a sliding dovetail holding the brass to the mahogany beam. Things have gone down hill since the older days. Even though the 60's aren't THAT old!! The dovetailed strip of brass has never shown any sign of coming loose. I don't know if tightness holds it on, or if it's also glued with epoxy.

Too bad things always go downhill. As a machinist,I know that with a dedicated milling setup.you could probably mill both the dovetail in the wood, and in the brass in several minutes. I'd gladly pay a bit higher price for that dovetailed brass strip if I had to, if they would at least OFFER the option. These days, with the resurgence in home shop woodworking,I'm sure the upgraded version would sell well. After all, look what woodworkers will pay for a LN or LV plane. In the case of the LN, it is an upgraded version of an old Stanley. Even, being capable of making any tool I want myself,I still have several LN and LV tools. The LV NX 60 being the best ! If I was fully sane, I would just make everything myself ! Shows you how erratic humans are !!! In reality,I ought to sell off some of those tools that are so numerous that I can't find anything :). But, that's the way many of us are. I just CAN'T go into the Woodcraft store and NOT buy anything :).

BY THE WAY: DO NOT buy the ceramic COATED stainless steel kitchen knives they sell. Buy ONLY BARE ceramic which is white. Their coated steel ones are red or black. But,that THIN layer of ceramic on their (or ANYONE ELSES!!!!!) comes loose in flakes. Those flakes are as thin OR THINNER than the old Gilette Blue Blade disposable razors. And,they NEVER,EVER degrade if you swallow chips of the ceramic. They stay in your intestines forever, unless you get lucky and pass them. They forever will be cutting your intestines.

Those knives ought to be outlawed. Any fool can see that they are dangerous. It will probably take the pencil pushers at the FDA many,many years to figure it out. The ceramic coat does NOT stick to the steel beneath it. It serves NO BENEFIT whatever.

I wasted money on 2 of their coated blades, and as soon as I saw one flaking off, it was never used again. Some friends have a red one, with about 1/2" of ceramic coating missing along the cutting edge. They never even imagined those flakes getting in their food and being ingested.

Stewie Simpson
05-31-2017, 10:30 AM
The many reasons I prefer the versatility of a combination square over a Try Square. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYNswD_eEB0

Megan Fitzpatrick
06-01-2017, 11:43 AM
I like my large wooden square for framing work – it's a lot lighter to use when I'm atop a ladder – plus if I drop it, it's not the end of the world. (I have an 18" Lufkin combo square, too, that I could use for house work, but I'd be awfully sad if I dropped it!) So the wood one goes in the air (and in my car for marking up stock to break down in a parking lot). Plus, the wooden ones are just fun to build!

lowell holmes
06-01-2017, 11:53 AM
I made the Pop Wood square. It hangs from the ceiling in my shop so I can get to it. :)

I also have two framing squares.

Vlad Evdokimov
06-01-2017, 4:32 PM
Hello guys. What do you think about such square?

361238

Bill Houghton
06-01-2017, 5:25 PM
Is the proper spelling trisquare , trysquare, try square, or tri square?:confused:
Try, of course: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

Rick Malakoff
06-01-2017, 5:56 PM
Hi Vlad,
That's an interesting square where was it made?

Found this on Sunday never have seen one and just had to have it. Seems to me that it was made to sell to the unsuspecting homeowner as something was needed to complete their project.

361240361241

Chris Parks
06-01-2017, 9:48 PM
He makes them for sale https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pch62ADSSg

Jim Koepke
06-01-2017, 10:16 PM
Hello guys. What do you think about such square?

361238

Howdy Vlad and welcome to the Creek.

Pretty interesting looking square. It takes a speed square to a new level.

jtk

Jim Koepke
06-01-2017, 10:17 PM
Hi Vlad,
That's an interesting square where was it made?

Found this on Sunday never have seen one and just had to have it. Seems to me that it was made to sell to the unsuspecting homeowner as something was needed to complete their project.

361240361241

Wasn't Power Master the house brand of Montgomery Wards?

jtk

steven c newman
06-01-2017, 11:35 PM
Power Kraft...

george wilson
06-02-2017, 9:52 AM
Yes,Power Kraft. But,really, NOT that much power!!!!:):):) However much power you could get out of a washing machine motor (which I actually used when I was young and had no money.)

lowell holmes
06-02-2017, 10:05 AM
I don't think I'm smart enough to use that square. I follow KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. :)

Jim Koepke
06-02-2017, 11:40 AM
However much power you could get out of a washing machine motor (which I actually used when I was young and had no money.)

Depending on the machine they were from, they were usually 1/3 or 1/4 horse motors. I am still using a couple, one in a bandsaw and one in the drill press.

jtk

mark kosse
06-03-2017, 6:41 AM
It depends on what tri square it is. I've never looked at a combo square and thought man that's a good looking tool. I like my tri square.

george wilson
06-03-2017, 9:14 AM
1/3 or 1/4 HP is about right for washing machines!!:) They can be very dangerous, too. When I was just out of college, and still had no money. I had bought an old, old tilting TABLE walker Turner table saw from a fellow class mate. My only available motors were a few of those old appliance motors that we never threw away when we discarded the rest of the washing machine. I was cutting some long, thin strips for guitar binding when the motor bogged down. Somehow my fingers got in the wrong place when the capacitor kicked in, sending the strip of wood backwards, with my fingers atop it. I got the first two fingers slit about 1/4" deep right through the finger nails. Took me two years to be able to comfortably dial a telephone again! Luckily, my nails grew back un distorted. It was some few years before I could play the guitar again, unless I used a pick! And,I was a finger style player, and still am.

That was the only time I ever got a significant cut from a table saw. That first year of teaching(or was it the 2nd.?) I bought a REAL saw, the Clausing I still have today. It is a very smooth running saw compared to a Unisaw, and weighs twice as much.

The lesson was: NEVER try putting an under powered motor on a table saw!

Bill Houghton
06-03-2017, 6:12 PM
Wasn't Power Master the house brand of Montgomery Wards?

jtk

No, the Monkey Wards house brand was Powr-Kraft (yes, correct spelling - marketing people who can't spell are nothing new). That one probably started its life in the 99-cent bin. Still, if it's square and the rule is straight, it's not to be sneezed at; you've got a good long baseline in that square head.

Rick Malakoff
06-03-2017, 7:30 PM
These 2 followed me home, 361352
the Johnson with the missing rivet which I think I'll fill with a mother of pearl button;) or just some epoxy. The 9" was made by the
L S S co. Athol Mass. had no idea who that was and wondering if the 5$ I paid was too much.

Jim Koepke
06-03-2017, 8:22 PM
[edited]

The 9" was made by the
L S S co. Athol Mass. had no idea who that was and wondering if the 5$ I paid was too much.

LOL!

L S S stands for Laroy Sunderland Starrett. If you are worried that you paid too much there are likely many people like me who would be willing to pay you $5 and shipping if it would make you feel better.

jtk

Rick Malakoff
06-03-2017, 8:28 PM
Sorry Jim, but thats a keeper the 5$ was for both!
Rick

Patrick Chase
06-04-2017, 10:02 PM
For any question like that, there are a vast range of justifications but often just one true answer: "Because I have a Tool Acquisition problem".

Seriously, I have quality combo squares, double squares, and try and machinist squares. The combo squares can do basically anything the others can, but the ergonomics aren't as good. There's something to be said for having a tool that's just the right size for what you're measuring and no bigger. That's why people splash out big money for tools that are both slim/compact and accurate like the Vesper double square (https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/item/MS-DOUB.XX/Vesper_Double_Square_with_Imperial_or_Metric_Blade s) (I use mine all the time).

Avoid the Groz machinist "squares" though. The problem is that they aren't very square.

Patrick Chase
06-04-2017, 11:27 PM
And here is an excerpt of a test that you should try for yourself:

{When I was a civil engineering student, the professors teaching surveying told me that errors tend to cancel each other out. After graduation, Professor Murphy taught me the truth: errors always accumulate. Test this for yourself. Dimension a board 10 inches wide and 10 inches long with the six sides/ends square/parallel. Using a square and a sharp marking knife (pencil/pen/scribe are too fat), spin a line across the grain and around the sides, and another line with the grain and around the ends. Begin each line on a fresh surface, indexing your knife blade in the previous line where it ended, and reference the square off a different surface when cutting each line. Does the last line meet the first line perfectly, or is there an offset? If there is an offset, the error may be the board. If so, ask yourself why the board is not square/parallel, and if that amount of unexplained error might tend to make a joint or a drawer square and ship-shape or twisted like a politician. If, on the other hand, the error might just be in the square, how do you check to make sure the square is good or bad?}

There were plenty at the time that thought this advice was nonsense, but not a single person that objected mentioned actually performing this test for themselves. Try it.


OK, I'll bite. Having done a LOT of worst-casing and error analysis, it all depends on the nature of the errors and specifically how correlated they are.

They seldom "cancel out" in the real world, except in some very clever designs/processes that are explicitly designed to achieve that. The best you can hope for is statistical independence, in which case the square root of the sum of the squares is a reasonable estimate. Strictly speaking it's only statistically valid if they have normal distributions or if there are a lot of errors of similar magnitude, but it's usually a good ballpark estimate for truly independent errors.

The problem is of course that errors are seldom independent. The case you give is a classic example of a single underlying issue that causes a whole bunch of errors to move in tandem. In that case they do indeed accumulate.

Here's a thought problem to consider to understand the difference: What do you think would happen in the example you gave if you randomly picked a different square from a different manufacturer to scribe each individual line?

The squareness of the wood is likely to be independent of any bias in the square btw, unless the square was also somehow involved in the trueing process.

Patrick Chase
06-05-2017, 2:54 AM
The amount of out-of-square that a GOOD combination square can be (and I mean the HARDENED HEAD Starrett combo squares) Is so little that woodworkers needn't worry about it.

George brought this up a couple times, and I think it's worth clarifying: Most combo squares have a hard steel blade and cast iron head. The accuracy of the square is mostly determined by the machining of lands in the head's groove, and in an iron head those will inevitably wear a bit with heavy use. It's pretty easy to bring them back into true by filing, but if you want a combo square that will retain its as-manufactured accuracy then you should go with the forged-and-hardened steel Starretts. I have one and it's both the most accurate and most durable combo square I own. Of course that set cost enough (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=71651&cat=1,42936) that I baby it even though it probably doesn't need it.

The Vesper double square is similarly made btw.

lowell holmes
06-05-2017, 9:34 AM
I do try to have one of each. :)

george wilson
06-06-2017, 9:45 AM
George brought this up a couple times, and I think it's worth clarifying: Most combo squares have a hard steel blade and cast iron head. The accuracy of the square is mostly determined by the machining of lands in the head's groove, and in an iron head those will inevitably wear a bit with heavy use. It's pretty easy to bring them back into true by filing, but if you want a combo square that will retain its as-manufactured accuracy then you should go with the forged-and-hardened steel Starretts. I have one and it's both the most accurate and most durable combo square I own. Of course that set cost enough (http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=71651&cat=1,42936) that I baby it even though it probably doesn't need it.

The Vesper double square is similarly made btw.

As I mentioned,Bridge City tries to ensure the lasting squareness of their combo squares by inserting a little hardened steel pin on either side of the clamp that holds the blade in the head. Not to belittle their efforts, but this system 's lasting accuracy depends upon a few things: 1; How firmly do the bottoms of either pin contact the bottoms of their holes? 2; What are those holes drilled into? Brass or wood? Brass, at least I would hope. 3; The pins are hardened, but are they harder than the blades of the squares? Is it possible for the tops of the pins to scratch the bottom edges of their blades ? 4; Brass is not as hard as normal cast iron. Certainly not in the same league as hardened steel. The hardened steel head will outlast the brass heads many times over. I think the ordinary Starrett cast iron head would also out last the brass head, too. Brass is attractive, and I have made many brass tools. Only where the last mentioned does not apply, though. But I would not use brass on a serious and expensive combination square.

I'm sure a few more of these questions could be asked,but these are all I can think of right now. I think there is no better system than the Starrett combination square with the hardened head. The Starrett system is a LOT more complicated to make than the Bridge city. They have to harden the heads, and have the means to accurately grind the bottoms of those very thin slots that the blades bear against. Bridge City possibly does not have the special grinding machine to accomplish this. And when they are finished, the Starrett hardened heads offer vastly more of a hardened surface for the blades to slide against. This is going to make the straight edges of the Starrett blades STAY straight MANY, MANY times longer than the comparatively tiny hardened pins of the Bridge City.

steven c newman
06-08-2017, 10:36 PM
The reason I use the try square? Because the combo is usually set for a certain distance I want to keep checking. No need to square the thing, just set the depth/distance and leave it there. Then I can use the try square to square across, mark a cut line square to a preset mark.
361657
Kind of lost in the normal jumble on the bench, but, there is both a small try square and a small combo square sitting there. Was doing 1/2Lap joints at the time. Combo was set to half the thickness of the boards, and left like that. Try square to mark a cut line to saw. Wide chisel to pop the waste off, another to pare it flat. Block plane to help out. Shoulder plane as needed.
361658
Seemed to work....

Michael J Evans
06-09-2017, 1:57 AM
I own 3 aluminum try squares. They came in a pack that my mom bought me one Christmas. I really thought they were great at first (all I had was a couple smaller steel squares ) but the rules are beveled for some reason, meaning my knife or pencil can mark under the rule blade, which is super irritating. On the two larger sizes I used the pins that hold the rule and body together came loose and the rules can literally be wobbled up and down. I haven't tried any nice try squares but those have definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. Would like to get a nicer one someday for the reason Steven states.

Derek Cohen
06-09-2017, 3:27 AM
Michael, I suspect that they are the same design as the one that Stanley and I posted early on in this thread. If so, they are for examining whether something is square, and not for marking. The thin bevelled edge is for that reason.

Regards fro Perth

Derek

Patrick Chase
06-09-2017, 9:36 AM
I own 3 aluminum try squares. They came in a pack that my mom bought me one Christmas. I really thought they were great at first (all I had was a couple smaller steel squares ) but the rules are beveled for some reason, meaning my knife or pencil can mark under the rule blade, which is super irritating. On the two larger sizes I used the pins that hold the rule and body together came loose and the rules can literally be wobbled up and down. I haven't tried any nice try squares but those have definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. Would like to get a nicer one someday for the reason Steven states.


Michael, I suspect that they are the same design as the one that Stanley and I posted early on in this thread. If so, they are for examining whether something is square, and not for marking. The thin bevelled edge is for that reason.

Indeed. What Michael describes sounds like a pale imitation of a bevelled-edge master square (http://www.starrett.com/metrology/product-detail/Solid-Squares/Squares/Precision-Hand-Tools/Precision-Measuring-Tools/55-6): The good ones are extremely precise (the Starrett I linked is spec'd square to within 0.0001" per 6"), extremely expensive, and worth every penny if you do any sort of precision work. The bevelled edge allows you to detect very small deviations in squareness. It's possible to visually detect 0.0001" gaps under a beveled-edge square with a strong backlight. With all of that said, a master square is ridiculous overkill for woodworking.

What you want for marking is something like a machinist's square (http://www.starrett.com/metrology/product-detail/metrology/metrology-products/precision-measuring-tools/squares/Solid-Squares/S3020Z) or try square. Note that they can be almost as precise as master squares (the set I linked is spec'd square to 0.0002" per 6", which is still overkill for woodworking), but they're designed for marking.

Patrick Chase
06-09-2017, 9:55 AM
On a related note to this thread, I strongly recommend the Vesper double square (https://www.vespertools.com.au/vesper-squares/precision-double-squares/). TFWW and Highland sell it in the US.

It's basically as compact and handy as a similarly-sized try square, with the advantages of being useful for measurements and accepting small blades to measure things like mortise and dovetail squareness. My sample has better squareness and blade flatness than my Starrett double square (https://www.amazon.com/Starrett-13C-6-Inch-Double-Hardened/dp/B0002CSBP2) despite having a much shorter baseline (the width of the head where it meets the blade). It's easily square to within 0.0005" over 6" when compared to my master square.

IMO it's also a functional and aesthetic winner, with very simple, minimalistic, and usable adjustment and markings. I particularly like the rotationally retained "hook" in the head, which makes blade-swapping very quick.

The only downside is cost.

Chet R Parks
06-09-2017, 10:13 AM
Patrick,
Thanks for posting about the Starrett "master square" My Dad was a tool & die maker and I still have his old one with the fitted wooden case. The one I have the blade is 5.50 long and made by Brown and Sharp. I always wondered about it's accuracy. I realize it's not a Starrett but there can't be that much of a difference.
Chet

Michael J Evans
06-09-2017, 10:20 AM
Michael, I suspect that they are the same design as the one that Stanley and I posted early on in this thread. If so, they are for examining whether something is square, and not for marking. The thin bevelled edge is for that reason.

Regards fro Perth

Derek

That makes perfect sense. I've tilted my combo square for that exact reason.

I just figured, they were poorly made (which they still are), and that they were going to be a continual P.I.A

Patrick Chase
06-09-2017, 10:23 AM
Patrick,
Thanks for posting about the Starrett "master square" My Dad was a tool & die maker and I still have his old one with the fitted wooden case. The one I have the blade is 5.50 long and made by Brown and Sharp. I always wondered about it's accuracy. I realize it's not a Starrett but there can't be that much of a difference.
Chet

I used the Brown and Sharpes as an engineering student (I couldn't afford my own though) and I think they're in the same league. I believe that George said he has B&S master squares, and I doubt he'd tolerate anything less than first-rate accuracy :-).

steven c newman
06-09-2017, 10:42 AM
Thought I posted a little blurb last night.....must have missed the "post" button...

The combo square ( single one, per project) I use is usually set up to mark a depth of cut, like around a mortise. I leave the setting alone.
The Try Square I use is for marking a square line across a board, and to check IF a joint is square.

Both squares will sit on the bench during a project, each has their own jobs to do.
361673
Usual suspects. There is a small combo square and a small try square in the jumble.....
361674
Add in a backsaw, and these will appear..
361675
Other times, other sizes of squares get used. Not the least worried about who made any of them...all I ask is that they do their jobs.
361676
Even if it is to just check a corner....

Patrick Chase
06-09-2017, 7:26 PM
That makes perfect sense. I've tilted my combo square for that exact reason.

The problem with tilting is that the straightness specs for rules as used in combo squares are only valid when used flat.

When you tip them on edge any curvature/bend will contribute additional height errors. You can get a sense of this by tilting both ways and seeing how the apparent flatness of the piece you're evaluating changes (which it almost certainly will unless the workpiece is so far out that its error swamps any contribution from the rule).

Beveled edge master squares don't have that limitation, because you can hold them in the optimal, as-specified orientation and still have a sharp edge in contact with the workpiece.

lowell holmes
06-10-2017, 10:11 AM
Do you think that can be seen in normal carpentry? If you square the end of a 2x4 and cut it with an 8 point saw you are not working to precision.

If you want the end to be flat, hit it with a hand plane after the cut. You can scribe the mark with a knife before cutting, but you still need the flat surface.

Patrick Chase
06-10-2017, 10:45 AM
Do you think that can be seen in normal carpentry? If you square the end of a 2x4 and cut it with an 8 point saw you are not working to precision.

If you want the end to be flat, hit it with a hand plane after the cut. You can scribe the mark with a knife before cutting, but you still need the flat surface.

Thread view says you're replying to my comment #36 about square-tilting so I'll reply accordingly.

No, that amount of imprecision doesn't matter for something like marking out a crosscut.

With that said, you would only tilt a straightedge or use a beveled master square to begin with if you were trying to detect small flatness deviations, on the order of tenths of mils. For anything larger than that a conventional rule held flat against a backlight is sufficient. I therefore replied to Michael Evan's post under the assumption that he had some underlying requirement that caused him to do what he described.

IMO there are cases that arise in woodworking (more in tool preparation than in marking) where that sort of precision can be handy, though never necessary. As I said in a previous post, flatness specs on the order of tenths of mil are overkill for woodworking.

george wilson
06-10-2017, 10:58 AM
For the woodworker or the machinist as an every day square,I'd recommend using a flat edge square rather than a bevel edge square. The bevel edge square is made for a certain application. It is for standing on the beam and checking the squareness of an adjoining vertical surface.(I hope I made that statement understandable). The knife edge of a beveled square is also easier to use for seeing if ANY light is coming from under the blade. You can see as little as .0001" of light coming from under the blade more easily if there is a single line of contact with the blade and the beam.
The bevel edge square is a good INSPECTION instrument. The flat edge square is better for scribing lines against the blade. Its blade is completely in contact with the surface you are scribing. That is what wood or metal workers will be doing most of the time.

Beware of any square, including the bevel edge ones. All of these squares can be made in China. Despite the accuracy that the bevel edge square's appearance implies, it may not be any more accurate than any other Chinese square. If you buy ANY machinist's square,be prepared to spend a bit of money on it if you want an accurate one. Back in the 70's,I paid $50.00 for a 6" Starrett square in new condition. It has proven to be a wise investment. Now that I also have black granite squares and granite
straight edges to check everything with,I can be more sure of myself.

I bought a 3 piece set of SPI machinist's squares from Manhattan Supply Co. for the toolmaker's shop before I retired, and took my squares home. The SPI squares were not horribly expensive, and all 3 have proven to be quite accurate. SPI means "Swiss Precision Instruments". They are no longer made in Switzerland, and Manhattan Supply Co. (MSC) bought the name several years back. SPI instruments may be made in a number of places, including China. But if they are made to the specifications demanded by the supplier, they can be perfectly good. The Chinese CAN make good tools. It is the BUYER, who wants to pay nearly nothing for his tools, etc.,who is responsible for the lack of quality inherent in most Chinese products. An oil can that came with a Chinese lathe I bought for the Toolmaker's Shop revealed the label for a can of Lychee nuts !!! (I have also seen that same sort of thing inside Japanese made Zippo style cigarette lighters back in the 1950's. Now, their tools and instruments command high prices) The Chinese themselves do not use things like table saws and other equipment we commonly use over here, for the most part. Many Chinese factory workers have little idea how the tools they are making actually function.

An American quality control supervisor in Taiwan, for example, saw a small crew of Chinese, do the trim in a new office. These workers had a sort of folding plywood "bench" that they used. With JUST hand tools, they efficiently made all of the panelling on the office walls.

I am also aware of a father and son working in a single car garage in Taiwan. These poor guys repeatedly dig 8' deep holes in the casting sand floor of the garage. They manage to pour 1000# castings for milling machines into this hole, which they have prepared the pouring cavity in. Their furnace is behind the garage, and is very large, indeed, but a very simple type of furnace which the two of them can rebuild, and re line after several castings have been made with it. I'd love to hang out there and see how they do this amazing effort !! Those guys have great personal skill! This is how cannon makers several hundred years ago made cannon. They were hired by the owner of a castle to make cannon to defend the castle with. They worked in the courtyard of the castle. There, they made a furnace out of bricks (which they may also have made!). The metal, iron or bronze, would be poured in a groove in the ground after a plug in the bottom of the furnace had been knocked out. When I was in England, at the Tower of London, I saw a huge bronze cannon made by the Turks. It must have been over 12' long, and was in 2 pieces which ACCURATELY screwed together with very large threads(about 1 thread per inch, if I recall correctly). They unscrewed the thread to load the gun. One half of the gun was the breech. I looked that thread over very carefully, and could not see any tool marks on it. It was probably chiseled out. The gun, being made in 2 parts, made it easier to transport. It fired LARGE stone balls. I think they must have been about 18" in diameter, but my memory is hazy on that. The gun is now kept indoors, but for hundreds of years it was left outside. This gun would fire these large stone balls at the same spot many times, till the wall crumbled. I'll add that the gunner had to mix his own powder on site, as it was dangerous to transport over bad roads that constantly jarred the powder. Static electricity could be generated and the whole shebang could have gone up!

As a final note, do not forget that properly trained Chinese can build rockets and satellites that work just fine. And, that is no mean trick !! I predict that eventually the Chinese will perfect their quality control efforts, and get their manufacturing other problems in line. Then, their goods will become as prized as Japanese products now are, and will also be as expensive.

michael langman
06-10-2017, 12:08 PM
When I bought my bevel edged master square from Starrett it was with the intention of also checking cylindrical things, like the posts on a die set.
With a regular flat faced square it is harder to see the deviations in the surface being inspected.
A lot of times I would use a piece of .0002 onion skin to inspect or setup something because the light could not be seen in place.
Using onion skin with a bevel edged square is also much easier and more accurate in most cases.

Patrick Chase
06-10-2017, 12:40 PM
For the woodworker or the machinist as an every day square,I'd recommend using a flat edge square rather than a bevel edge square. The bevel edge square is made for a certain application. It is for standing on the beam and checking the squareness of an adjoining vertical surface.(I hope I made that statement understandable). The knife edge of a beveled square is also easier to use for seeing if ANY light is coming from under the blade. You can see as little as .0001" of light coming from under the blade more easily if there is a single line of contact with the blade and the beam.
The bevel edge square is a good INSPECTION instrument. The flat edge square is better for scribing lines against the blade. Its blade is completely in contact with the surface you are scribing. That is what wood or metal workers will be doing most of the time.

<snip>

Indeed. With that said, my bevel-edge master square is also the best tool I have for evaluating critical flatness, which is after all a component of squareness inasmuch as flatness deviations contribute to angular deviations. I therefore tend to use it for that as well. Sorry I was unclear about that.

w.r.t. Chinese products and quality, I think that the stuff we import from China tends to often be cheap and of low quality because that's what we (specifically the Western-based transnational corporations that outsource to China) want and are willing to pay for.

EDIT: Obviously a bevel-edged straightedge like the Starrett 385 would work just as well (the flatness spec is basically the same). I just don't happen to have one of those.

Frederick Skelly
06-10-2017, 12:47 PM
w.r.t. Chinese products and quality, I think that the stuff we import from China tends to often be cheap and of low quality because that's what we (specifically the Western-based transnational corporations that outsource to China) want and are willing to pay for.

Sure, we've had that conversation before and guys who work with chinese companies have agreed that they build what we want to pay for. Plus, IIRC, they stressed the need for Customers to regularly perform QC onsite, at the factory.

John K Jordan
06-10-2017, 2:25 PM
Sure, we've had that conversation before and guys who work with chinese companies have agreed that they build what we want to pay for. Plus, IIRC, they stressed the need for Customers to regularly perform QC onsite, at the factory.

A number of things I've bought through Amazon have come directly from China. Yesterday I received an adjustable reamer (with free shipping). It was a disaster. The sent me one that someone else had apparently abused and destroyed. It was nicely wrapped and sealed in new packaging materials. The Amazon return process wanted me to pay the postage. We'll see how it works out.

On a previous order a different company substituted a very cheap and worthless item for the one advertised and that I had bought before. I had to argue with them for days before they refunded the money. Another Chinese company sent me a 400nm UV light when they advertised a 365nm light. Useless to me.

In all three cases the correct or undamaged product would have been usable but the people supplying it were either not careful or dishonest. Maybe they will learn to change their methods. Someday I will learn to pay more attention to where the item is coming from.

JKJ

Patrick Chase
06-10-2017, 4:11 PM
Sure, we've had that conversation before and guys who work with chinese companies have agreed that they build what we want to pay for. Plus, IIRC, they stressed the need for Customers to regularly perform QC onsite, at the factory.

Yep. That's true of any manufacturing environment.

When I started out as an ME new R&D engineers were expected to rotate down through manufacturing with and be on-call to support the products they had designed. When my employer outsourced manufacturing they severed that link, and it took years to rebuild post-manufacturing-release support back to an adequate level. Unsurprisingly this involved a lot of travel, continuous on-manufacturing-site presence, etc.

I'm sure none of that was accounted for in the cost projections that drove the decision to outsource, though.