Storage Racks for combination Squares

[Eric Brown]

As I have been researching my combination squares and it has become necessary to build some racks to hold them. I ended up making two from a couple of pieces of plywood. If I was going to display them, I would have probably made them from walnut. The boards I had were about 6 1/4" wide by 34" long, 3/4" thick. I cut them in half to 17" and then tilted my bandsaw to about 10 degrees. Ran all the boards through on one edge only taking off the corners. Then I laid out slots on 1" centers along the opposite edge on two of the boards. Cut these slots on the bandsaw and then screwed the boards together. The 10 degree angle leans the boards back and better balances the squares. As these are just cheap racks no finish applied.

If you've followed my "Interesting Tools" posts you will see some of the squares here. I have not shown my whole collection and these display racks can't hold the whole collection. They are good enough for what I need them for.

515164

[Bob Jones 5443]

Clever rack.

Do you run a woodworking school? How many squares can you use on a project?

[Eric Brown]

My school is here on Sawmill Creek. Why do I have so many (name your tool here)? I study the different designs and try to figure out why one design is considered better than the rest. I research patents. Many times patents that claimed "improved" were actually more how to make them cheaper and not better.

[steven c newman]

515178
Try square rack, right below the brace drills
515179
Hiding up in the back corner, in front of the Hacksaws...a small rack for the combo squares...

Wondering IF a suitable sized Aluminum Angle"Iron" would work a bit better...Hmmm, maybe a 1-1/2" width version?

[Joel Gelman]

Thanks for the information. I went and read your interesting combination square series. It seems like the very vintage ones are of interest for collector purposes, but the Starrett is what you consider the best quality with Brown and Sharpe after that and some of the others not up to par. It is interesting to me that you would want to build storage for the squares for not only the vintage and Starrett but the others where they would not seem to be of collector value or be "go to"options. However, I do understand the collector way of thinking.

For me, the Starrett 12 inch combo was my first square and remains decades later my go to square. Since then I added a 4 inch double and 6 inch combo. For fixed squares, I have a large Mitutoyu machinist square and a 6 inch Starrett machinist square. I purchased some different Woodpeckers fixed squares in metric and imperial and seldom use them as they are too thick and hard to get accurate markings and so I favor the machinist squares to mark square, and the combo to measure. I may get rid of the remaining Woodpeckers. However, I love these

https://www.woodpeck.com/woodworking-t-squares-rack-it.html

Hard to find Starrett combo in metric. Maybe I did not try hard enough.

As for storage, seems like you would want to make storage for your go to squares where you can easily access and remove-replace the squares, and the non go to squares saved for collection would be stored in a way where they can be close together in a less prime space in the shop.

[Eric Brown]

Thanks for the information. I went and read your interesting combination square series. It seems like the very vintage ones are of interest for collector purposes, but the Starrett is what you consider the best quality with Brown and Sharpe after that and some of the others not up to par. It is interesting to me that you would want to build storage for the squares for not only the vintage and Starrett but the others where they would not seem to be of collector value or be "go to"options. However, I do understand the collector way of thinking.

For me, the Starrett 12 inch combo was my first square and remains decades later my go to square. Since then I added a 4 inch double and 6 inch combo. For fixed squares, I have a large Mitutoyu machinist square and a 6 inch Starrett machinist square. I purchased some different Woodpeckers fixed squares in metric and imperial and seldom use them as they are too thick and hard to get accurate markings and so I favor the machinist squares to mark square, and the combo to measure. I may get rid of the remaining Woodpeckers. However, I love these

https://www.woodpeck.com/woodworking-t-squares-rack-it.html

Hard to find Starrett combo in metric. Maybe I did not try hard enough.

As for storage, seems like you would want to make storage for your go to squares where you can easily access and remove-replace the squares, and the non go to squares saved for collection would be stored in a way where they can be close together in a less prime space in the shop.

Joel, you are partially correct. While the machinist squares are typically better made than the "carpenter" squares, you need to consider the environments. A machinist has a lot of metal around that the square might come in contact with. The hardened surfaces of the square and rule offer better protection from damage. Also, a machinist is typically constantly using this type of tool. Again the hardened surfaces will last longer. Now a woodworking shop typically has much softer surfaces and the accuracy isn't as critical. For a woodworker almost any of the squares I have are good enough.

A significant part of this group are Bates/Union Caliper/Union Tool and I am looking at the casting differences and name marking differences. Many heads are cast zinc that are lighter than iron and won't rust.

Also, the racks I built are temporary "storage". They will be trashed when I am done with the collection. Normally I keep my measuring tools in a drawer in my tool cabinet. These are only sitting on the bench to take pictures.

I have not decided yet if I will sell or give away these squares. Probably a little of each.

[Bob Jones 5443]

My school is here on Sawmill Creek. Why do I have so many (name your tool here)? I study the different designs and try to figure out why one design is considered better than the rest. I research patents. Many times patents that claimed "improved" were actually more how to make them cheaper and not better.
Thanks.

Anyway, those racks are an elegant and space-saving way to store the squares.

[Mike Manning]

Eric,
I can't say I read all your interesting tools - combo squares threads. Did you review/assess Lufkin squares? I'd be curious how they performed in your opinion.

Mike

[Eric Brown]

Eric,
I can't say I read all your interesting tools - combo squares threads. Did you review/assess Lufkin squares? I'd be curious how they performed in your opinion.

Mike

Sorry, I did not include any Lufkin primarily because I don't have any. From what I can see they are pretty good. If it's square and it works then use it. The results are more important than the tool.
As a side note, I didn't look at a lot of different makers. None from Europe, but their quality looks pretty good. Honestly, even the cheap Chinese tools will work ok.
I think the better quality ones have an advantage in trusting that they will function well. It may be a subconscious decision, but if you were to have several different ones to choose from (at a school for instance) you will probably pick the names you recognize before the generic ones.

My current studies are with the Union Tools combination squares. I have a bunch that look identical until you look closely. In their 1959 catalog they have all sorts of different names and based on descriptions they are the same. However, I have found that the heads cast of zinc are made in different thicknesses. Can't tell without putting them side by side or measuring. My thoughts are they could offer at different price points. So are the thicker ones better than the thin ones? Well they will all do the job, the same, but if I wanted to buy something more rugged, then the thicker ones would be my choice. I will make a post soon about how to tell the difference if shopping for one. Another interesting thing is that many of these Union Tools squares were sold under a bunch of different brand names. More info coming in the future post.

[Philip Glover]

Joel,


Hard to find Starrett combo in metric. Maybe I did not try hard enough.

You can find one here. As I remember this is where mine came from.
https://www.amazon.com/Starrett-11MH-300-Regular-Combination-Wrinkle/dp/B00209VVA2/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2LWINSCXTDB8A&keywords=starrett+11MH-300+300MM+COMBINATION+SQUARE+WITH+SQUARE+HEAD&qid=1707319297&sprefix=starrett+11mh-300+300mm+combination+square+with+square+head%2Cap s%2C107&sr=8-2&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.f5122f16-c3e8-4386-bf32-63e904010ad0



Regards,

Phil