This is an oblique response to the question on the accuracy of
Starrett Combo Squares v. other manufacturers.
Although the Starrett is a first rate combo square, it still cannot
compete with a good quality try square in terms of repeatable accuracy
over the life of the tool, due to that fact that it has moving parts
that are subject to wear.
The Marples 9" "Shockproof" (no longer manufactured - r.i.p.) was
manufactured to conform to the British Standard 3322 of +- 0.01mm per
cm of blade length. (El Sauro has its mate and can check it against
his Athol Collection).
The Ulmia has a stated tolerance of +- 0.10mm over the length of the
35cm blade.
I've used both of these try squares for a number of years and reach
for one of them to check squareness of cut rather than for the
Starrett Combo Square.
For machinery setup I use a Starrett No.20 Engineers Square.
I periodically check these squares, using a Starrett No.380
Machinist's Straightedge as a reference and have never had a need to
adjust them.
The point, as it relates to the question of the OP, is that it is
cheaper to manufacture a dead on try square than a dead on combo
square and the try square provides a third, economical option to the
Starrett v. Other Manufacturers dilemma. (remember, even god never
made a square johnson)
I fear that the preferential usage of the combo square over the try
square is a direct result of the influence of Brother Norm and his
Carpenterish ways.
We should seek to overcome this influence, insofar as we aspire to the
heights of craftsmanship implied by the search for accuracy that must
be measured in angstrom units and its application to a material whose
deformities are measured in fractional inches.
I remain, tongue very much in cheek,
Y.O.B. (yer obstinate bastige)
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
TJW:
>I fear that the preferential usage of the combo square over the try
>square is a direct result of the influence of Brother Norm and his
>Carpenterish ways.
I prefer a combo (shouldn't it be combi?) over others onna
'count of I use the adjustability of the blade projection
for lay out work. Been doing this long before Norm came on
TeeBee.
UA100
On 30 Sep 2003 11:24:11 -0700, [email protected] (Chris)
wrote:
>How would one adjust a square.
You would have to lap the inside edge until it's square to the brass.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
Tom Watson wrote:
>
> The point, as it relates to the question of the OP, is that it is
> cheaper to manufacture a dead on try square than a dead on combo
> square and the try square provides a third, economical option to the
> Starrett v. Other Manufacturers dilemma. (remember, even god never
> made a square johnson)
>
Why does all this talk about Johnson's remind me of the OT porn
threads????
-Bruce
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Greetings and Salutations...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:20:07 -0600, Bruce Rowen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Tom Watson wrote:
>
>>
>> The point, as it relates to the question of the OP, is that it is
>> cheaper to manufacture a dead on try square than a dead on combo
>> square and the try square provides a third, economical option to the
>> Starrett v. Other Manufacturers dilemma. (remember, even god never
>> made a square johnson)
>>
>Why does all this talk about Johnson's remind me of the OT porn
>threads????
>
>-Bruce
>
>\
Man, I am GLAD I am not the only one chuckling on the Futon
over this.
As for the square question....I used cheaper try/combo
squares over the years, and, found that with maintenance and
regular checking, I could get good results. However, I also
pitched a number of them after they wore out, and often I had
to kind of fiddle to get them back to "square" after they wore
a bit. Never played with...ok...USED a johnson, so I can't
speak to how square it is or if it gets floppy after use (sorry...
could not resist).
However, Some years ago, I picked up a couple of Starrett
combo squares and I REALLY like them. Got them off Ebay, at a
reasonable price. They are solid, square and fit my hand well.
In conjunction to them, I like to have some machinists squares
(which are all metal, brazed together, then, lapped to an
accurate 90 degree angle) for reference. For us (the woodworking
community), even the ones from Harbor Freight can work well.
Although....I WOULD check them before I trusted them.
Regards
Dave Mundt
On 30 Sep 2003, Tom Watson spake unto rec.woodworking:
> On 30 Sep 2003 11:24:11 -0700, [email protected] (Chris)
> wrote:
>
>>How would one adjust a square.
>
> You would have to lap the inside edge until it's square to the brass.
That would take forever, wouldn't it? Not to mention the wear and
tear on one's tongue. Do you think a cat could be trained to do it?
Scott
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> I periodically check these squares, using a Starrett No.380
> Machinist's Straightedge as a reference and have never had a need to
> adjust them.
>
How would one adjust a square.
I a really nice looking rosewood and brass 6" square that I bought
last year (British company manufactured in India - can't remember the
name) that is off considerably. (I also have a 3" engineers square
that I found in my grandfathers garage. It's about 50 years old,
rusted, and most of the markings are gone. You guessed it - it's dead
on accurate)
Is there a way to fix it or did I buy an expensive paper weight?
-Chris
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:20:38 GMT, Scott Cramer
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 30 Sep 2003, Tom Watson spake unto rec.woodworking:
>
>> On 30 Sep 2003 11:24:11 -0700, [email protected] (Chris)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>How would one adjust a square.
>>
>> You would have to lap the inside edge until it's square to the brass.
>
> That would take forever, wouldn't it? Not to mention the wear and
>tear on one's tongue. Do you think a cat could be trained to do it?
>
>Scott
Yes.
cf Red Lion Abrasive Compounds
http://www.divinebrothers.com/products_c.html
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:46:26 GMT, Unisaw A100 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>TJW:
>>I fear that the preferential usage of the combo square over the try
>>square is a direct result of the influence of Brother Norm and his
>>Carpenterish ways.
>
>I prefer a combo (shouldn't it be combi?) over others onna
>'count of I use the adjustability of the blade projection
>for lay out work. Been doing this long before Norm came on
>TeeBee.
>
>UA100
Dearest El Sauro:
If'n ya wanna use da wrong tool fer da yob, dat's yer lookout.
Howsomever, if'n yer is interested in der accuracy of der t'ing, 'tis
best ter use der try square ter try ter get der t'ing square.
Fer de alternate usage yas described, I recommends da Ulmia 315K
Streichmab, mit der zingle und dooble cutters.
BTW - combo ist zingular und combi ist plural, yust like concerto be
singular und concerti be plural, aldough we must give conzideration to
der fact dat concertos has come into common usage, albeit only by der
peoples wid low foreheads.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson