Blade Taper in Handsaws - Have a Mike Handy?

[Bob Smalser]

http://www.vintagesaws.com/library/ftj/winter97/w97_4.gif

I'm not alone in contending that taper-ground sawblades are hardly the Disston marketing gimmickry some say they are these days....and that taper plus its attendant requirement for less set makes for cleaner, faster cutting.

http://pic3.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/4007700/124794835.jpg

Before this revelation goes much further, let's measure your best-cutting saws and see how many have taper ground in. Perhaps taper isn't just the providence of either Disston or "best-quality" saws in general.

Saws aren't the easiest critters to mike...especially with vernier mikes....so I used an average of three readings for each measurement.

Here's my three representative saws:

A Keystone 26" 7pt rip ...a medium or "fourth" grade saw similar to a Disston 7.

Back to Front Taper at Back: .0070
Back to Edge Taper at Heel: .0074
Blade Thickness at Edge, Heel to Toe: .0434-.0392

Disston #16 26" 5pt rip: One of Disston's "third-quality" saws.

Back to Front Taper at Back: .0150
Back to Edge Taper at Heel: .0031
Blade Thickness at Edge, Heel to Toe: .0369-.0282

Disston #12 26" 9pt xct: A "second-quality" saw, according to Disston.

Back to Front Taper at Back: .0137
Back to Edge Taper at Heel: .0030
Blade Thickness at Edge, Heel to Toe: .0363-.0325

The Keystone is an exceptionally tough, stiff saw that can muscle its way thru wet, gnarly oak with the best of them, but I find it takes more effort to use.

The #16 and the #12 are similar, although the larger heel-to-toe taper of the #16 surprised me a bit. What makes them cut easier than the Keystone, however, isn't the taper, as the Keystone has even greater taper...it's significantly thinner blades that average around .0345 instead of .0413.

http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/prodimg/pz/reg/PZ-HS303XX.gif

If anyone has a modern PAX, made of fileable, tapered steel, I'd like to see how it compares with my old Disstons....fancy tenon saws alone aren't impressive....but perhaps there is a modern successor to what I consider to be the best handsaws ever made.

[Mike Wenzloff]

Yep, the full-sized hand saws have more taper, though mine have no where near the amount your readings show.

I do love the use of my name in your post, though.

What I was really after was a closer comparison to a half-back in length, hence the request for measuring a panel saw--and an overlay graphic or other way of graphically showing where the taper starts and runs.

Thanks for taking the time, Bob!

Take care, Mike

[Bob Smalser]

I don't own any panel saws to measure.

If you don't mind, post your panel saw measurements for the record, as the discussion on this is common, but the numbers aren't.

[Mike Wenzloff]

Will do, Bob. Though elsewhere I did post one with a graphic overlay, with measurements. In yet another message in that thread I also made general reference to other ones.

When my wife gets home tomorrow with the camera I'll take a couple pictures with the mic at hand.

Thank you, Mike

[Mike Wenzloff]

fwiw, the Pax, while decent saws with too much set--easily remedied--are far stiffer, more like the Keystone you mention, or a late period D-23 or Atkins.


But I'll measure a couple Pax as well tomorrow if someone else doesn't first.
Take care, Mike

[Bernhard Kühnen]

Bob,

here we go:

It is a brandnew Pax from Thomas Flinn in England.
660 mm (25,98 inch)

Handle (heel) = 1,48 mm (0,058 inch)
middle = 1 mm (0,039 inch)
toe = 0,9 mm (0,035 inch)

hope my calculation from mm to inch is correct. I mesured with a Micrometer. Althoug I do not have that much experiance with this saw I can confirm that the setting might be too much and the cut is quite rough. Do you recommend to reduce the setting?

Regarding the tenon saws I am expecting a shipment from LN and I am eager to learn how the "copies " of the good old saws behave. Have you ever had the chance to try one of the "modern copies"?

Best regards
Bernhard

[Tim Leo]

I made a few measurements on some of my handsaws this afternoon. I attached a photo of the locations of the measurements below.

Disston 22-inch 12 point Xcut
A = 0.021
B = 0.027
C = 0.039
D = 0.034
E = 0.037
F = 0.038

Looks like the toe is about 0.004 thinner than the heel, and the back is about 0.010 thinner than the cutting edge.

Disston D8 28-inch 5 point Rip
A = 0.028
B = 0.034
C = 0.038
D = 0.037
E = 0.041
F = 0.041

Looks like the toe is about 0.004 thinner that the heel, and the back is about 0.007 thinner than the cutting edge.

Warranted Superior 26-inch 8 point Rip
All measurement locations are 0.040 inch. No taper at all on this saw.


I guess those Disstons really are better than the Warren & Ted saws.

[Bob Smalser]

Thanks all.

A friend in Luxemburg sent me this one I was unaware of:


I bought a new Roberts & Lee rip saw last week. Length 650 mm, handmade, Dorchester model 570, walnut handle, and as the toolshop told: "fully taper ground skew-back steel blade with breasted toothline and bevel sharpened teeth to ensure the finest possible cut without binding".

Here the thickness measures, sorry they are metric:
Back thickness near handle: .0386
Edge thickness near handle: .0402
Back thickness at toe: .0197
Edge thickness at toe: .0374

Testing after diminishing set and a little filing on a dry oak board 4 cm thick, gave me a 25 cm long cut in one minute without much effort.

The pic shows it with a temagori, my favourite til today.

Marc



http://sites.internet.lu/folders/marcilly/RobertsLee_1.JPG

Hadn't heard of these...but we're getting closer.

[Bruce Branson]

What is the point of all this?No one I know is cutting wet wood in their shop to make furniture,and if they are making really long rip cuts they use a table saw.Maybe we should have a seperate boat builders forum.

[Bob Smalser]

What is the point of all this?

Blade taper has a direct relationship (inverse proportion) to set and applies just as much to 8% hardwood as it does to 12% softwood.

My point?

1) What makes a legendary saw a legendary saw?

2) What compromise of thickness, taper (and eventually hardness) makes a saw cut well, hold its edge, yet is easily filed?

3) What new saws out there today equal the old, as the old are a finite commodity?

4) This is the hand tool forum were folks come to learn...including me. Attendance, I believe, is optional.

5) The are cuts in high-end furniture that aren't made efficiently with machines. Consider lyre curves and bow fronts.

Boatbuilding just provides an early introduction to the changing bevels, 30-foot cuts and awkward positions that makes one appreciate an exceptional saw:

http://pic3.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/7309305/95249350.jpg

[Mike Wenzloff]

What is the point of all this?No one I know is cutting wet wood in their shop to make furniture,and if they are making really long rip cuts they use a table saw.Maybe we should have a seperate boat builders forum.
Hi Bruce,

While I think it started as a means of Bob to tweak on me for the saws I make--without taper grinding--it has taken on a life of its own. Take the title of this thread. Want to guess who Mike is?...

So I apologize to all here that what started elsewhere has spilled over to here.

I'll avoid posting further in this thread.

Take care, Mike

[Bob Smalser]

Hi Bruce,

While I think it started as a means of Bob to tweak on me for the saws I make--

Not so at all. "Micrometer" was entirely unintentional, and I'm sorry that you take offense, because none was intended.

You comments just piqued my interest in finding out about saws I don't have access to. I had no idea D8's had so much taper, and you can clearly see they were grinding tapered blades long before 1929.

[Dennis McDonaugh]

What is the point of all this?No one I know is cutting wet wood in their shop to make furniture,and if they are making really long rip cuts they use a table saw.Maybe we should have a seperate boat builders forum.

Bruce, you're right about the wet wood, but I routinely use a handsaw to dimension stock in my shop and would venture to guess lots of others do too. A table saw is a great tool to rip an entire board into smaller width stock. But what if you want to use only a portion of the width for your work piece? You have two choices, cut the board in two at the length you want and then rip the piece to width. Your offcut is the same length as your workpiece and you lose a lot of options for using it somewhere else. Instead, you can rip it with a hand saw, stopping at the length you desire, then crosscut the piece out of the original board. Now your offcut is still with the original board and can be used to make longer boards.

The discussion on taper grinding a board started at Woodnet and is an interesting discussion about how handsaws work. Since this is a handtool forum, it is the appropriate place to discuss the issue and I think its interesting to see a comparison between new and vintage saws.

Feel free to ignore this or any thread that you don't particularly like.

[Bruce Branson]

I don't really need a primer on how to use handsaws,I use both Japanese and Western style handsaws just about everyday.I just questioned the boatbuilders part and how that applied to furniture making.If I have a question I will ask it and it's the person I asked choice to answer it or not, which Bob did.Going back to 1903 there is a book called the Handymans Book by Paul N.Hasluck which has a very good section on the selection and care of handsaws.It has notes from Disston,Grimshaw,andHodgson.They believed that a blade should be as thin as possible in relationship to the teeth and that all saws should be thinner on the back edge.It also has a chart of thicknesses for saws from standard rip to fine panel saw.Sorry for the rant but I think Smalser answers questions just fine.

[Dennis McDonaugh]

I don't really need a primer on how to use handsaws,I use both Japanese and Western style handsaws just about everyday.I just questioned the boatbuilders part and how that applied to furniture making.If I have a question I will ask it and it's the person I asked choice to answer it or not, which Bob did.Going back to 1903 there is a book called the Handymans Book by Paul N.Hasluck which has a very good section on the selection and care of handsaws.It has notes from Disston,Grimshaw,andHodgson.They believed that a blade should be as thin as possible in relationship to the teeth and that all saws should be thinner on the back edge.It also has a chart of thicknesses for saws from standard rip to fine panel saw.Sorry for the rant but I think Smalser answers questions just fine.

Why the Rant Bruce? Since you didn't quote Bob's original post, I beleived you were directing the question to those who found the thread interesting and I answered your question from my perspective. I suggest you use a PM if you only want to communicate with a specific person. That way there won't be any confusion of this type in the future.

[Bruce Branson]

Maybe someone could test too identical saws with and without taper to see which one works the best for them.My Japanese saws miked the same thickness top to bottom and rip very well after I removed the excess set.They were very hard to start.

[Alan DuBoff]

Bob,

Thanks for posting this info. I for one think there is quite a bit to it, and saws were being made for several centuries at least, before many of the saws we use today were even made, and many of those are 100 years old.

Surely the saw makers have yester year have gone through most of this same analysis, in their own way, but we don't have them anymore to answer the questions that arise. Thanks for helping this though process Bob!

For those that aren't interested, why are they interested to post in the thread? Seems easier to move onto the next...

Regards,
Alan

[Gary BALCOM]

I made a few measurements on some of my handsaws this afternoon. I attached a photo of the locations of the measurements below.

Disston 22-inch 12 point Xcut
A = 0.021
B = 0.027
C = 0.039
D = 0.034
E = 0.037
F = 0.038

Looks like the toe is about 0.004 thinner than the heel, and the back is about 0.010 thinner than the cutting edge.

Disston D8 28-inch 5 point Rip
A = 0.028
B = 0.034
C = 0.038
D = 0.037
E = 0.041
F = 0.041

Looks like the toe is about 0.004 thinner that the heel, and the back is about 0.007 thinner than the cutting edge.

Warranted Superior 26-inch 8 point Rip
All measurement locations are 0.040 inch. No taper at all on this saw.


I guess those Disstons really are better than the Warren & Ted saws.


Tim,
I had to revive this thread as my first post on SmC. Do you find any difference in use between the not tapered warranted & superior, and any other similar saw? I'm really considering a hand tool only shop....this means I need a good rip saw...I noticed later in this thread Mike Wenzloff posted that his rip saws are not taper ground. If a top notch maker like that isn't taper grinding, it makes me question its usefulness. I also read a post on Adam Cherubini's site where he questions the taper grind as well. He claims his rectangular not tapered blades cut very well, because of the extra heft.

Long story short, I'm restored a diston D-23 to an 8 pt Rip. It's a nice saw, but I'm looking for something like a D-8 now. I'm also considering buying a blade from Two guys in a Garage, and making my own saw. any thoughts?


Quick back story; I've been in the career of woodworking since '97, so I know my way around a commercial shop. But, at my current home I don't have room for all of my power tools, so I'm looking to see what I can do by hand.

[Pete Taran]

This kind of witty banter reminds me of how the oldtools listserve got started back in the day. Not to add gasoline to the fire, but taper grinding, as many call it, absolutely was done out of necessity, not because of marketing hype. Consider the following.

Disston actually patented a process on Aug 29, 1876 (181,650) to roll the steel for his saws into a tapered blank, so they didn't need to be ground. The reason? It took a lot, and I mean a lot of work to grind all that steel away. If the taper grind was really optional, and only shrewd marketing, it's doubtful that he would have tried to recreate the wheel to do it better and faster. I'm sure part of it was his desire to save on high carbon steel. Even in 1876, it wasn't that easy to make, even though he had literally cornered the market on US production.

Stepping back even further, if a taper grind was a luxury, and not a necessity, would any of the earlier makers have bothered? I mean earlier than that, people worked long hours and did what they could to shave time and cost out of any product. Is it realistic to think that people would have spent a ton of time on something like that, which isn't even that noticeable unless you use a micrometer, if it weren't because it was absolutely necessary. Life was too short as it was to lay on a wooden catwalk suspended over a 6' diameter rotating grinding wheel. Those guys didn't live very long, that dust is nasty stuff in the lungs.

I'll add one more data point to the mix. The #12/112 was/is one of the best cutting saws in Disston's fleet. If anyone owns one and cuts with it, they understand what that thinner, stiffer blade and more tapered blade means in the cut. However, Disston had a saw which was even more tapered than that, the Acme 120 (and it's unembellished counterpart the #77). I dug one out, and using my Mitutoyo micrometer which is accurate to .00001 yields:

A .02060"
B .03010"
C .03685"
D .04515"
E .04240"
F .04150"

The idea was that the cutting edge would be relatively constant...as you can see above, it varies by only .0035" over the entire width of the cutting edge, about the thickness of a sheet of copy paper. But look at the relief you get from edge to back. In the toe, it's 50%!

That's some serious taper.

Happy Cutting,

Pete

[Jim Koepke]

Howdy Gary and welcome to the Creek. Not knowing where you are makes for a difficult answer on this.

If you work with mostly well dried hardwoods a taper on a rip saw might not be as important as it is for someone like me who often works with softwoods that are not fully dry. Short stock may also not need a taper as much as a long piece being ripped.

Many times I have had to insert a wedge in a cut that closed up due to wood movement during the cut.

jtk

[Ray Selinger]

You are talking about handsaws that are carpentry tools.When I did my apprenticeship they were still commonly in use. The ease or lack there of in cutting was very noticeable.Remember this was in the days before cheap and available generators.

[Glen Canaday]

Yeah, I was just reading the OP for the first time and wondering how the #12 got relegated to second-tier. Then later on I wondered where this ABCDEF thing came from, then I realized I couldn't see the attachment on my phone!

I've got accurate mics (I do machining on the side...er, for a living!) and I've got an Acme 120, several D8s 26" and 20", #7 26" and 18" panel, a 10" #4, a 26" #12, and a few others from Atkins and the like if anyone wanted to compare measurements. All are garage and estate finds and only a few have been restored, so ymmv when measuring over rust but I'll need to eventually see that thumbnail to give it all in alphabetical order.

[Rob Paul]

Odd that Pete's 120 is thicker at the toe than at the heel along the cutting edge ?. mine isn't
(for A/B/C = toe/mid/heel on back, D/E/F = toe/mid/heel on cutting edge)

[Glen Canaday]

Odd that Pete's 120 is thicker at the toe than at the heel along the cutting edge ?. mine isn't
(for A/B/C = toe/mid/heel on back, D/E/F = toe/mid/heel on cutting edge)

Thanks Rob. Now I won't need the picture anymore.

I'll hold off on the measurements until someone wants them. Measuring all those for comparison is not a two-second undertaking and requires taking notes, which I am horrible at.

[Gary BALCOM]

Howdy Gary and welcome to the Creek. Not knowing where you are makes for a difficult answer on this.

If you work with mostly well dried hardwoods a taper on a rip saw might not be as important as it is for someone like me who often works with softwoods that are not fully dry. Short stock may also not need a taper as much as a long piece being ripped.

Many times I have had to insert a wedge in a cut that closed up due to wood movement during the cut.

jtk


Thanks Jim,
I'm in South East, near Atlanta. I'll be working with dry stock, whether it had needles or leaves in it's past life. Mostly furniture. I think I'll keep my eye on ebay for a D-8 and go from there. I'd love one with a thumb hole, because I think they're neat.

[Glen Canaday]

If all dry stock, you can also include an Acme 120 in the mix, a D100, or an Atkins no 51. Each also had thumbholes as an option!

[Ron Bontz]

This kind of witty banter reminds me of how the oldtools listserve got started back in the day. Not to add gasoline to the fire, but taper grinding, as many call it, absolutely was done out of necessity, not because of marketing hype. Consider the following.

Disston actually patented a process on Aug 29, 1876 (181,650) to roll the steel for his saws into a tapered blank, so they didn't need to be ground. The reason? It took a lot, and I mean a lot of work to grind all that steel away. If the taper grind was really optional, and only shrewd marketing, it's doubtful that he would have tried to recreate the wheel to do it better and faster. I'm sure part of it was his desire to save on high carbon steel. Even in 1876, it wasn't that easy to make, even though he had literally cornered the market on US production.

Stepping back even further, if a taper grind was a luxury, and not a necessity, would any of the earlier makers have bothered? I mean earlier than that, people worked long hours and did what they could to shave time and cost out of any product. Is it realistic to think that people would have spent a ton of time on something like that, which isn't even that noticeable unless you use a micrometer, if it weren't because it was absolutely necessary. Life was too short as it was to lay on a wooden catwalk suspended over a 6' diameter rotating grinding wheel. Those guys didn't live very long, that dust is nasty stuff in the lungs.

I'll add one more data point to the mix. The #12/112 was/is one of the best cutting saws in Disston's fleet. If anyone owns one and cuts with it, they understand what that thinner, stiffer blade and more tapered blade means in the cut. However, Disston had a saw which was even more tapered than that, the Acme 120 (and it's unembellished counterpart the #77). I dug one out, and using my Mitutoyo micrometer which is accurate to .00001 yields:

A .02060"
B .03010"
C .03685"
D .04515"
E .04240"
F .04150"

The idea was that the cutting edge would be relatively constant...as you can see above, it varies by only .0035" over the entire width of the cutting edge, about the thickness of a sheet of copy paper. But look at the relief you get from edge to back. In the toe, it's 50%!

That's some serious taper.

Happy Cutting,

Pete

+1
If taper were not important, I would be making 22, 24, and 26" panel/ hand saws. But getting the taper right, with consistent repeatability, and cost effectively is a whole different animal. Enough said.

[Mike Holbrook]

You make a nice 20" saw Ron:

click to enlarge:
342055

Yes, I finally took the time to get my Stanley #150 miter box adjusted correctly. I was concerned that it would damage the saw. I sawed a bunch of 1x 4 with it recently without getting a scratch on it, so my concerns were unfounded. Nice saw, doubt my restored MF Langdon 74C will see much use now. The MF has to be twice as heavy and even with a 26" saw, saws slower than my Stanley #150 with the Bontz 20" saw.

I would post a picture of my "Mike" halfback saw too but I built it from a kit and do not want to embarrass Mike with my lesser handle making skills.

Gary I live in Alpharetta/Metro Atlanta, for at least a little longer, and have a few old Disston, Atkins and Simmonds saws you could try. I am still working on my saw tuning and sharpening skills so I can't guarantee they all work flawlessly.

[Gary BALCOM]

You make a nice 20" saw Ron:

click to enlarge:
342055

Yes, I finally took the time to get my Stanley #150 miter box adjusted correctly. I was concerned that it would damage the saw. I sawed a bunch of 1x 4 with it recently without getting a scratch on it, so my concerns were unfounded. Nice saw, doubt my restored MF Langdon 74C will see much use now. The MF has to be twice as heavy and even with a 26" saw, saws slower than my Stanley #150 with the Bontz 20" saw.

I would post a picture of my "Mike" halfback saw too but I built it from a kit and do not want to embarrass Mike with my lesser handle making skills.

Gary I live in Alpharetta/Metro Atlanta, for at least a little longer, and have a few old Disston, Atkins and Simmonds saws you could try. I am still working on my saw tuning and sharpening skills so I can't guarantee they all work flawlessly.

Mike,
Thank you for your offer. I'd be happy to take you up on it. We just moved here almost 3 years ago from rural upstate new york, and I haven't exactly blended in with the locals yet. We're in Buford, not too far from you. I'd be happy to take any tips on saw tuning I can. I just got the picture to open...Your saw in the miter box is a work of art!!