I, like many others, agonized over the expense of $70 for a Starrett
combination square. I thought there had to be a cheaper way to get there.
After spending nearly $50 on various poor quality combination squares, I bit
the bullet and bought a Starrett from Amazon.
Someone else said: five mediocre saw blades cost as much as one good one and
never cut as well.
As soon as the Starrett arrived, I started checking the other "squares" and
found out:
a) my two Rockler "clamp it" assembly squares aren't even close to being
square
b) my 16" Stanley Contractor grade combination square isn't square (bow in
the middle)
c) my free Grizzly combination square is a smidge better than the Stanley,
but still not square
d) my Johnson combination square from the Borg is worse than the Stanley and
Grizz
e) my random assortment of 3 drafting squares are square
I was quite surprised to see the plastic drafting sqaures do so well. Of
course, I'm not a machinist, nor do I work for NIST. And I did NOT use a
feeler gauge to judge the results. But those drafting squares, from the 5"
to the 14", ones were the best I had.
Next on the to-do list, is to order some inexpensive Engineer's Squares from
HF and check those out too.
If you're agonizing over a Starrett (or similar quality brand square) and
can afford it, do so. You'll finally have one reference instrument. I'll
keep the Stanley in the drawer and use it to judge the accuracy/precision of
tools I'll use daily.
This has only been repeated on here about a thousand times and in this
thread.
"John Manders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's very easy to check a square.
> Get a straight edged sheet of plywood and drw a line square to the edge.
> Turn the square round and it should match the drawn line. If it doesn't,
the
> square is out by 1/2 the difference between the square and the line.
>
> John
>
>
On 5 Oct 2003 06:20:37 -0700, [email protected] (Phil Crow) wrote:
>What if you're a real butterfingers, like myself? I have thought
>about spending some 'serious' money on a try square to use as a
>reference. I can't imagine that it would take too many tumbles off
>the workbench to reduce my $70 "reference" to a shiny, high quality
>paperweight.
Use the FWW online article I posted further back in this thread to
adjust it.
You could also send it back for recalibration.
Good tools are for using, not looking at! <G>
Barry
"John Manders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's very easy to check a square.
> Get a straight edged sheet of plywood and drw a line square to the edge.
> Turn the square round and it should match the drawn line. If it doesn't,
the
> square is out by 1/2 the difference between the square and the line.
>
> John
You do not need a square to do this just cut a peice of wood and flip it
over onto itself
Same rule if the end do not line up you are out 1/2 that amount
to test a 45 degree mitre cut 4 peices the exact same length with the 45 on
each end lay them on a table
in a square if the last joint is open at all divide that distance by 8
The shortewr the sample peices are the more accurate you will be
I like peices about 6 to 8 long
Good luck,
George
"mttt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I, like many others, agonized over the expense of $70 for a Starrett
> combination square. I thought there had to be a cheaper way to get there.
> After spending nearly $50 on various poor quality combination squares, I
bit
> the bullet and bought a Starrett from Amazon.
>
> Someone else said: five mediocre saw blades cost as much as one good one
and
> never cut as well.
>
> As soon as the Starrett arrived, I started checking the other "squares"
and
> found out:
> a) my two Rockler "clamp it" assembly squares aren't even close to being
> square
> b) my 16" Stanley Contractor grade combination square isn't square (bow in
> the middle)
> c) my free Grizzly combination square is a smidge better than the Stanley,
> but still not square
> d) my Johnson combination square from the Borg is worse than the Stanley
and
> Grizz
> e) my random assortment of 3 drafting squares are square
>
> I was quite surprised to see the plastic drafting sqaures do so well. Of
> course, I'm not a machinist, nor do I work for NIST. And I did NOT use a
> feeler gauge to judge the results. But those drafting squares, from the 5"
> to the 14", ones were the best I had.
>
> Next on the to-do list, is to order some inexpensive Engineer's Squares
from
> HF and check those out too.
>
> If you're agonizing over a Starrett (or similar quality brand square) and
> can afford it, do so. You'll finally have one reference instrument. I'll
> keep the Stanley in the drawer and use it to judge the accuracy/precision
of
> tools I'll use daily.
>
How do you know the Starrett is square?
J
"Jon Endres, PE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you know the Starrett is square?
>
I don't. I *trust* it to be square.
Good tools are for using, not dropping. Fifteen years in a machine shop, I
never once dropped a precision tool. Just have to pay attention to what you
are doing.
"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> On 5 Oct 2003 06:20:37 -0700, [email protected] (Phil Crow) wrote:
>
>
> Good tools are for using, not looking at! <G>
>
> Barry
>
What if you're a real butterfingers, like myself? I have thought
about spending some 'serious' money on a try square to use as a
reference. I can't imagine that it would take too many tumbles off
the workbench to reduce my $70 "reference" to a shiny, high quality
paperweight.
Snip>
> USE THE STARRETT DAILY!!! <G> It dosen't like the darkness of the
> drawer! It'll wilt and die!
>
> Once you do, you'll appreciate that the quality goes way beyond
> "square".
>
> Barry
How do you know the Starrett is square?
Because he paid $70.00 dollars for it
"Jon Endres, PE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "mttt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I, like many others, agonized over the expense of $70 for a Starrett
> > combination square. I thought there had to be a cheaper way to get
there.
> > After spending nearly $50 on various poor quality combination squares, I
> bit
> > the bullet and bought a Starrett from Amazon.
> >
> > Someone else said: five mediocre saw blades cost as much as one good one
> and
> > never cut as well.
> >
> > As soon as the Starrett arrived, I started checking the other "squares"
> and
> > found out:
> > a) my two Rockler "clamp it" assembly squares aren't even close to being
> > square
> > b) my 16" Stanley Contractor grade combination square isn't square (bow
in
> > the middle)
> > c) my free Grizzly combination square is a smidge better than the
Stanley,
> > but still not square
> > d) my Johnson combination square from the Borg is worse than the Stanley
> and
> > Grizz
> > e) my random assortment of 3 drafting squares are square
> >
> > I was quite surprised to see the plastic drafting sqaures do so well. Of
> > course, I'm not a machinist, nor do I work for NIST. And I did NOT use a
> > feeler gauge to judge the results. But those drafting squares, from the
5"
> > to the 14", ones were the best I had.
> >
> > Next on the to-do list, is to order some inexpensive Engineer's Squares
> from
> > HF and check those out too.
> >
> > If you're agonizing over a Starrett (or similar quality brand square)
and
> > can afford it, do so. You'll finally have one reference instrument.
I'll
> > keep the Stanley in the drawer and use it to judge the
accuracy/precision
> of
> > tools I'll use daily.
> >
>
> How do you know the Starrett is square?
>
> J
>
>
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:02:14 GMT, "mttt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>If you're agonizing over a Starrett (or similar quality brand square) and
>can afford it, do so. You'll finally have one reference instrument. I'll
>keep the Stanley in the drawer and use it to judge the accuracy/precision of
>tools I'll use daily.
>
USE THE STARRETT DAILY!!! <G> It dosen't like the darkness of the
drawer! It'll wilt and die!
Once you do, you'll appreciate that the quality goes way beyond
"square".
Barry
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:54:26 GMT, "Jon Endres, PE"
<[email protected]> Crawled out of the shop and said. . .:
>
snip
>
>How do you know the Starrett is square?
>
>J
>
SHHHH Keeter might hear you! *G*
Traves
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:55:14 GMT, "mttt" <[email protected]>
pixelated:
>
>"Jon Endres, PE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> How do you know the Starrett is square?
>>
>
>I don't. I *trust* it to be square.
Scratch and flip. (As opposed to scratch 'n sniff, Davey.)
.-.
Life is short. Eat dessert first!
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 15:54:26 GMT, "Jon Endres, PE"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>How do you know the Starrett is square?
It's a Zen thing. It just _is_. <G>
If it's not, Starrett will fix it!
Barry