Milwaukee 24" framing square

[Will Blick]

Saw this Milwaukee 16x24" Alum. framers square advertised as a new tool on Toolnut for only $25. I got one. I dont like others abusing my accurate squares. I put it up against my Woodpeckers, and they were Nutz-on registered to each other. I was quite shocked. I would have thought a few thou out since it is quite a long run of 24". But nope, dead on. I might have got a good sample, or, maybe CNC machining, even on the low end products are damn good these days. Its not as robust as the Woodpeckers, but much thicker than I would have thought...did I mention it was $25?

Mw.jpg20190919_151857.jpg

[Frank Pratt]

Thanks for posting this Will. I bought a japanese framing square from Lee Valley & it's very accurate, but it was over $80.00.

[Phillip Mitchell]

I think you got lucky and happened to get a good one. I've worked as a timber frame carpenter and know my way around a framing square and have had several different squares in my hands. It's good to have a reliable aluminum square (lightweight is helpful in certain circumstances) but it's also useful to have a few reliable steel squares as well.

$25 is a fair price to pay for an aluminum square, but I bet if you ordered 10 of them, they wouldn't all be to the same tolerance. I could be wrong, but that's been my experience with 98% of new aluminum framing squares.

Of course, they can be tuned to be square along the inside 90, but out of flat, slightly tapered along its length or poor quality etching are all harder to fix and makes a square close to useless pretty quickly.

Glad you got a good one!

The stainless Shinwa square that Frank mentioned above is good and I've used one a lot, though I don't own one personally. It can go out of square just as easily as anything else if mistreated. I personally like the much older Stanleys. Aluminum and steel. I bought a steel one at an antique shop once that has 1/8" on all 4 edges, which is really handy for certain layout applications instead of having the 10ths and 12ths when you don't really need them on every square.

[Will Blick]

You could be very right, as I mentioned, I was quite surprised, and made the disclaimer,
I might have got a good example.
I dont know enough about CNC machining to understand the tolerances available today at reasonable pricing.

[David Buchhauser]

I've got a 40 year old Craftsman steel 24" square that is very accurate as well. I think they made them better in the "old days".
David

[andrew whicker]

I imagine they are stamped which I think would be pretty accurate. I wonder if it isn't the aluminum they use (how well it was heat treated or stress relieved) that causes them to go out. but what I find is what is mentioned above: they flex, they twist, etc. and then it's kind of a moot point. Anyway, a point which has been drug thru the mud over and over again: the cheaper ones just have a larger standard deviation on acceptability. Doesn't mean you won't get a good one.

[Dave Sabo]

These are a lot thicker than other aluminum squares I've seen, so maybe that's why they're more accurate.

Milwaukee is is making a push into the accessory market , and they're not going after the homeowner or bargain hunter.

That said, these squares are available at pretty much any Homedepot in the country.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Milwauke...Q024/308655523

[lowell holmes]

You can check a square by scribing a line and reverse the square and check for square.

[Will Blick]

Very Clever Lowell, seems so simple, but I never thought of it !!
I guess u need a good reference on the one side, such as a straight edge.

Dave, fully agreed...by the looks of this square, I would be very surprised if it was forged. It screams CNC.
I have noticed that CNC'd products, even at the low end, have greatly increased their tolerances. Anyway, for $25 if anyone needs a rough n ready square, they should try one. Maybe a few more people reporting in here, we will find out if I got a red herring

Sometimes we always assume, cause something is much less money, it cant be as good, or accurate, etc. I do the same quite often. Not true 100% of the time

[Frederick Skelly]

You can check a square by scribing a line and reverse the square and check or square.

I was thinking the same thing Lowell. I'll do that next time I go to HD and look for one of the Milwaukees.
Fred

[Will Blick]

these squares are not in my local HDs...
special order only...
are they at your local HD's ?

[Frederick Skelly]

The website "claims" my store has them in stock. Guess I'll find out when I go by next time.

[Will Blick]

OK, curiosity got the best of me...
I aligned the bases of both the WP and MLW to a Starett straight edge... butted their long sides together. I put a light under the two.. in a few areas, I could just barely see some light...but not enough to put a .001" shim in, not even close. So any differences this way is much less than .001". Considering WP tolerances are something like .001" per ft, the experiment seems fruitless.

While Lowels suggestion was good, it requires you drawing a line, or mark a line, then turn the square to see if they are aligned. This is a good "rough check", but not effective for finding barely measurealbe differences. Instead, the feel of our finger tips can better determine non-flush edges. We can feel way better than a thou with our finger tips. We all use our finger tips when joining wood, we can sense tiny differences of less than .001", which we dont have tools to measure accurately. When I introduced a line using Lowells method, the line itself was another variable (how drawn, angle of marker, consistency of thickness, etc.) and requires only eyesite, which also has variables, such as angle of viewing, light, etc. The other issue is, the two bases are not the same, the WP has a lip, the MLW does not. Therefore, the best test is as I did the first time, and repeated again below.

When aligning the two short sides (the MLW sits nice in the WP base), I "think" I can feel a very minute difference between along the long sides, but not enough for a .001" shim to detect when sliding up and down the two edges. Not even close. I slide the shim down trying to catch any differences, not enough to catch. So the differences are way beyond what I am capable of measuring, AND, is way less than the WP tolerance they machine their tools at. And, remember, we are ww, not machinists So my original comments stand, the two have are basically identical squareness.

I also got the MLW small 7" rafter square, (also a new product), I tested it against the WP triangle sitting flush atainst a Starett straight edge. Same results as above, no detectable differences...being shorter, this outcome is less of a surprise than the 24" square. See attached pix...

Hoping some others run this experiment, to determine if my results are a fluke, if not, these squares might be a very low cost option for ww's.

Dislcaminer: I dont work for Milwaukee or have any associations with them. I dont even have any Milwaukee tools. So, not a fanboy... I own Festools, Dewalt and Bosch for power tools.


20190922_140252.jpg20190922_141419.jpg20190922_141452.jpg

[John K Jordan]

Is squaring up a framing square a lost art now? Well hardly an art, just normal procedure.

It used to be standard practice to check then adjust a square if needed, either when new or if dropped or abused. All that is needed is a hammer and a punch. If not familiar with this, ask Da Google. It's not rocket science.

JKJ

[Will Blick]

I asked Dr. Google...
I found this...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...VgUZ8jfXkD4OGX

Is this what you refer to?
I am trying to find less than .001" variances vs. a damn good benchmark. In the method u mention, the benchmark variables of the test are many, 1) how straight the cut line u are referencing, as u have to reference opposite sides of the line when flipping the square to draw the pencil lines; 2) the pencil line thickness, angle of drawing it, etc., 3) Your eyes ability to see tiny differences in the pencil lines.

In my case, instead of a cut line, I used a starett straight edge, not sure how a refernce line can be any better. Then I compared the two edges.

For a rough check, such as for construction framing, sure the method in the youtube video which Dr. Google revealed, is more than adequate.

Also, I was not trying to "square a frame", I was simply checking the squareness against a known reference. I can not fathom taking a hammer and punch to alum this thick and trying to adjust its squareness. I can see this with thin squares as shown in the youtube link above.