Anyone Have an Original Disston #120 Acme?

[Bob Smalser]

http://www.disstonianinstitute.com/acmepage/120sawb.jpg

I have one to restore, and scouring the various old Disston publications, I get conflicting guildance on how much rake the single-beveled teeth were given at the factory.

http://www.vintagesaws.com/library/primer/crossprofile2.JPG

Some Disston pictures have no rake at all (or a 45-degree rake depending on how you want to say it), and the teeth look like those on a buck saw, and other pictures show the normal, 15-degree rake filed into any other crosscut saw.

I'm looking for pictures of original teeth, or at least ones filed by someone who knew what he was about. The circa 1890 saw I have was only resharpened once, and whoever did it trashed the teeth so bad it measures 11 1/2 points. And nobody I know made an 11 1/2-point saw.;)

http://www.disstonianinstitute.com/acmepage/acmeetch3.jpg

Thanks

[harry strasil]

I don't know if this will help Bob, but shown are 2 new D-23's from the early 40's that have never been retouched.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/irnsrgn/wood/sawteeth.jpg

11 on top and an 8 on the bottom.

[Wiley Horne]

Bob,

Have you seen this reprint, on Disstonian Institute, of Disston's 'Lumberman's Handbook' of 1907:

http://www.disstonianinstitute.com/sawfiling1.html

The section on crosscut saws begins about halfway down. In discussing Fig. 14, 15, 16, Mr. Disston appears to be talking about the Acme 120 saw, stating that the saws in the figures are made very hard and will admit of no setting, but have lots of relief taper tooth to back.

Funny thing is that Mr. Disston is more relaxed about the rake angle than about varying the _back_ fleam according to hardness of wood.

Wiley......wishing he had an original Acme 120.

[Bob Smalser]

Bob,

Have you seen this reprint, on Disstonian Institute, of Disston's 'Lumberman's Handbook' of 1907:



Yes. Also the 1918 edition. There are some conflicts, and Disston changed the tooth profile of the #120 in 1928 to match all their other saws. I suspect that's when they went from hand to machine filing, as in their 1907 booklet there is a picture of factory workers filing saws by hand.

I was able to joint the saw during lunch and its not as bad as at first glance. Nor is the steel as hard as I first thought. I can sharpen it to a 15-degree rake with only losing about a third of the current tooth height. I'm leaning toward Mike W's recommendation for a 25-degree fleam angle. It should take that without dulling easily, and franky, the taper isn't real impressive compared to a #12 or #16. This #120 is close to full-width and is .038-.020 at the back and .040-.039" at the cutting edge. As thick as a D-8, and with only slightly more taper. So spend your hard-earned money on more sleeper #16's instead.

What I can't do and save as much existing tooth as possible is flatten the backs while sharpening the cutting edge, so the choice becomes losing sawblade or filing it like the post-1928 Acme's. I lean toward saving sawblade, as I figure the only reason Disston filed just one bevel on the early saws was to save files in hard steel.

I suspect once I get this blade polished I'll just go with my usual 15-degree rake and the sloped gullets that make taller teeth for better chip raking.

Crosscut with light set:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/9131162/238005849.jpg

Rip with full set:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/9131162/266424129.jpg

Moderately breasted jointing:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/9131162/238005847.jpg

And thanks all again.