Comparison

Leon wrote:

>
> If you absolutely confident that you saw is set up properly I would
> suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
> during shipping just like everything else.

Quite possibly. This is the only smart comment that has been made in
response to the OP so far.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Dr. Deb wrote:

> What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But
> for my test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in
> paying six times the cost of the HF for the Forrest.
>

I'm well known here for advocating some HF products, while at the same time,
expressing concerns for others. That said - you should not be surprised.
Many here like to bash HF in order to justify the more expensive purchases
they make, with no real valid reason. Good for you to have put things to
the test. That proves much more than those who would say that they can't
buy cheap stuff...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:52:06 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Well that all makes sense and is a reasonable reason to buy
>American..... but if the Forrest blade was damaged during shipping, and
>that is quite likely if the op thought the Forrest performed worse, I
>would be just as afraid to use the Forrest as the "brand x" blade.

+1.

If I was returning the blade, I'd explain why I was doing so to
Forrest. And, I'd ask them to examine it for any flaws as well and let
me know if they found any.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:00:19 -0500, "Dr. Deb" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
>between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)
>
>http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
>novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>
>Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I got
>no takers, and was not overly surprised.
>
>SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
>deepest recesses of the wallet.

Beyond the reach of the crowbars, huh?


>Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
>buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
>found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
>arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.
>
>After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid 3650
>tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head
>and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
>couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of
>Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
>Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and
>side of the same pieces of red oad.
>
>Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
>noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
>better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
>tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut. It
>had the same thing, in the same place.
>
>The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
>but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.

What are you doing buying the expensive HF blades? The 00529s last
years on my old saur. She's a low-mileage model, though. They're an
extremely good value at $5 a pop.


>To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.
>
>As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
>blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other words,
>I do want quality.

Buy 'em on sale, usually half price. I wonder how much Forrest would
charge to retip one with their carbide... Just kidding. (sorta)


>What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for my
>test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six times
>the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Fascinating, Deb. Thanks for the test and report. I've had very good
luck with both sizes of HF blades, 7-1/4 and 10". The 12-incher on my
miter saw is working fine, too, but I have a Freud Diablo to replace
it when its day comes. The $10 thin-kerf Freud on my skilsaw has been
a real nice blade, too, replacing the $1.99 HF jobs.

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

"Pat Barber" wrote:

> We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
> real
> difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
> time
> you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
> going a few hundred feet per second toward you:
>
> 1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??
>
> 2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?
>
> 3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
> r.p.m. ?
>
> 4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?
>
> Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.
>
> Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
> woodworking.
----------------------------------
Nuf said.

Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.

Lew

"Dr. Deb" wrote:

> Lew, I was not trying to save money, I was more than willing to
> plonk down
> the cash for the Forrest - I just wanted it to work at least as well
> as the
> HF blade - thinking the C4 would make it last a long time with the
> way I use
> my TS.
>
> BTW -- I recut the side of the red oak that I had used to test the
> Forrest
> with the HF blade - baby butt smooth. So, all of you who were
> saying the
> blade had to be defective, were probably right.
-----------------------------------
Glad to see you appear to have isolated your problem.

My first move would be to contact Forrest.

Don't personally have any Forrest equipment, but my guess they have
too much at stake not to want to get to the bottom of this problem and
solve it.

Lew

dpb wrote:

>
> As OP says in his followup he's a hobby user--it likely doesn't matter
> much as yet as it may later on. If he's happy, that's fine but I'll
> remain skeptical of the HF being "better" than the Forrest as a
> general precept--I'm convinced something correctable gave him the
> result he got (possibly the tightened sphincter muscles after having
> laid out the cash had something to do with it <VBG> -- and if he's
> happy w/ the HF he might as well get something he'll feel better
> about spending the $$ on).

I agree that the HF blade is not better than a Forrest as a general precept.
That was not what I was trying to say.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

dpb wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 8:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> ...
>
>> I agree that the HF blade is not better than a Forrest as a general
>> precept. That was not what I was trying to say.
>
> Well, then, I certainly have no idea what specifically it was that you
> _were_ trying to say...
>
> You never proposed that something could have been suspect in the
> comparison--either the blade, the saw, a combination to explain the
> grossly unexpected results; only afaict a willingness to blindly
> accept that a very inexpensive run-of-the-mill blade would outperform
> an obviously flawed cut made w/ a blade from a recognized premium
> industry leader...

You are correct. FWIW - I had just assumed that the Forrest must have been
defective. They have a great reputation, and to me, it is inarguable that
they are a quality product. Most of my thoughts in my responses, centered
around the suggestions that the saw must be out of tune - since that makes
no sense to me if one blade cuts fine and another does not.

>
> I'll throw out one more war story as a _possible_ albeit unlikely
> culprit -- many years ago I bought a matched pair of blades (not
> Forrest but another of similar reputation and price point)
> specifically to cut a bunch of tenons for a large project. The first
> trial w/ them went very badly indeed and left a mark much like that
> OP described on one side in particular.
>
> Investigation (and not a terribly intense one :) ) uncovered the fact
> that one of the two center holes was just a wee fraction small and
> would (and did) not fit over the unthreaded portion of the arbor
> shaft on the PM66 and so was cockeyed rather than resting flush
> against the arbor mandrel face.
>
> Whatever it was that happened in OP's case, _something_ caused that
> blade to score agreed, but to draw a general conclusion from that one
> cut is just not supported w/o additional data and followup.

Agreed. I did not try to draw any generalized conclusions - at least not
intentionally.

>
> For example OP didn't report what he learned from Forrest when he
> contacted them to get their input before deciding to return it. It
> sounds like he was simply relieved he could justify getting the money
> back that he really didn't want to spend to begin with...

Perhaps. From my experiences with other types of products that are in the
league of a Forrest blade, I would have expected Forrest to have offered to
somehow make good on the blade with (most likely...) a replacement.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

dpb wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 12:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> ...
>
>>> We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
>>> there wasn't a mark...
>>
>> Actually - he stated a difference.
>
> _Inferred_, not precisely stated.
>


You're really reaching in order to deny the obvious statement that he made.


>>
>> Correct. Think about that. The $100 blade should not have cut
>> worse - the same at the worst.
>
> Not necessarily. It's quite possible (and I'd say probable) that the
> imprecision in the cheaper covered up defects in the saw the more
> precise blade made apparent.

You're reaching even farther now.

I'll agree that more than one factor could be at work here, but I'm
surprised at how far you are reaching to deny the evidence that the OP put
forward.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 7/30/2012 5:31 PM, Bill wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:5011ab1c$0$51116
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> "Pat Barber" wrote:
>>>
>>>> We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
>>>> real
>>>> difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
>>>> time
>>>> you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
>>>> going a few hundred feet per second toward you:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??
>>>>
>>>> 2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?
>>>>
>>>> 3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
>>>> r.p.m. ?
>>>>
>>>> 4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?
>>>>
>>>> Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
>>>> woodworking.
>>> ----------------------------------
>>> Nuf said.
>>>
>>> Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
>>> such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.
>>>
>>> Lew
>
>
> Does anyone here recollect having a carbide tooth fly-off during
> operation? It seems like something one would remember. With all of the
> cheap blades and circular saws around, I would think it might make the
> news once in a while?
>
> Becoming "all too familiar" with my box-cutter, I was slashing through
> several layer of plastic yesterday and sliced across my thumb. I almost
> didn't want to look. I felt very lucky that I only needed a band-aid!
> If the blade had been sharper, it might not have happened (or something
> else might have happened), but I don't want a "do-over". Careful out
> there!
>
> Bill
>
>
Absolutely, I have had Freud carbide tips come off and if you hit
something imbedded in the wood, Look out.

dpb wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 1:33 PM, G. Ross wrote:
> ...
>
>> After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
>> Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
>> anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am
>> staying neutral.
>
> I'd _always_ question saw setup as well as technique in any
> comparison...
> I'd also in a comparison measure runout, etc., etc., etc., to know.
>
> I'd _ESPECIALLY_ do such stuff if my intent were to post the results
> (which effort to do such meticulous reporting is why you'll never find
> me actually publishing such comparisons! :) ).

Well... I'd just use the blade that cut the best and not try to create all
sorts of tests to prove why that just could not have been true.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

tiredofspam wrote:

>
>
> Ok, so lets take a look at how you tested it.

And let's not get carried away...

>
> Did you have the stabilizer on the WWII blade and the HF blade?
> Is your saw properly aligned.
> Did you have any burning?
>

Why would you even ask that? Would any of those questions even matter in
the context of the explanation provided? Answer - NO.


> Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not
> aligned correctly.

Then the same sort of problem should have presented itself in some way with
the HF blade - yet it did not.

>
> Have you used a dial indicator on your fence to check that it doesn't
> bow. (you clamp the dial indicator mounted to a block of wood to a
> miter gauge that has no play. then run the miter back and forth and
> verify the fence)?

Why - he had a much better cut with a different blade, without going through
all of that. You have to fess up and admit the evidence he has presented.

>
> A good blade can't correct an un-aligned saw.

Nor can a cheap blade. So - your point is...?


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

dpb wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> tiredofspam wrote:
>>
> ...
>
>>
>>> Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not
>>> aligned correctly.
>>
>> Then the same sort of problem should have presented itself in some
>> way with the HF blade - yet it did not.
>>
>
> We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
> there wasn't a mark...

Actually - he stated a difference.

>
> ...
>
>> Why - he had a much better cut with a different blade, without going
>> through all of that. You have to fess up and admit the evidence he
>> has presented. ...
>
> No, he didn't say "much better" (altho unless there's something funny
> going on I'm presuming a "Deb" is a she rather than a he) -- it was
> "little if any noticeable difference"

Ok - point taken.


>
>>> A good blade can't correct an un-aligned saw.
>>
>> Nor can a cheap blade. So - your point is...?
>
> No, but a a poorly aligned saw can (and probably will) make a good
> blade look no better than or even worse than a poor one...if it's not
> cutting in line, neither is the other one and neither is up to what
> might be if aligned properly.

Correct. Think about that. The $100 blade should not have cut worse - the
same at the worst.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 7/26/2012 11:16 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 12:00 PM, Dr. Deb wrote:
>>
>> Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a
>> comparison
>> between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU
>> 46231)
>>
>> http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
>> novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>>
>> Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools,
>> I got
>> no takers, and was not overly surprised.
>>
>> SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
>> deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge
>> and
>> buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
>> found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
>> arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.
>>
>> After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid
>> 3650
>> tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my
>> head
>> and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
>> couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4
>> piece of
>> Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
>> Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other
>> end and
>> side of the same pieces of red oad.
>>
>> Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
>> noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
>> better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I
>> noticed a
>> tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and
>> recut. It
>> had the same thing, in the same place.
>>
>> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more
>> often,
>> but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it
>> sharpened.
>>
>>
>> To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.
>>
>> As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
>> blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other
>> words,
>> I do want quality.
>>
>> What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But
>> for my
>> test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six
>> times
>> the cost of the HF for the Forrest.
>>
>> Deb
>>
>
>
> Ok, so lets take a look at how you tested it.
>
> Did you have the stabilizer on the WWII blade and the HF blade?

FWIW you absolutely do not need a stabilizer on a WWII 1/8" kerf blade.

On 7/26/2012 9:55 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:43:26 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> I noticed that the blade was bought from Amazon. Who knows the path it
>> took before it got to the buyer. It's much easier that you'd think to
>> warp a saw blade. They are also very easy to straighten out, but you
>> really have to know what you're doing to keep from making it worse.
>
> And, it might not have been a warped blade at all. IIRC, there was a
> comment about tooth makes. That might imply a bent, slightly chipped
> or misaligned tooth.
>
> I think I'd want to get in touch with Forrest about this, before I
> returned it to Amazon ~ if only for future reference. I've never owned
> a Forrest blade, but their reputation hinges on the quality of their
> products. I have no doubt they'd be all over this in a flash.
>

Yeah I seriously doubt they would say you are still in warranty, return
it to us and we will give you a certain percentage refund. ;~)

On 7/26/2012 12:42 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 9:00 AM, Dr. Deb wrote:
>
>> Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
>> noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
>> better cut.
>
>> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more
>> often,
>> but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it
>> sharpened.
>
> We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any real
> difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next time
> you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips going a
> few hundred feet per second toward you:
>
> 1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??
>
> 2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?
>
> 3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500 r.p.m. ?
>
> 4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?
>
> Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.
>
> Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
> woodworking.
>



Well that all makes sense and is a reasonable reason to buy
American..... but if the Forrest blade was damaged during shipping, and
that is quite likely if the op thought the Forrest performed worse, I
would be just as afraid to use the Forrest as the "brand x" blade.

On 7/26/2012 12:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
>> during shipping just like everything else.
>
> Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
> see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
> not up to the standards we are used to.
>
> I would return it regardless.
>
> That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
> cabinet saw to see the how they fare.
>
> I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
> quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
> through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
> of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.
>


Still using the yet to be sharpened Forrest that we used on the never
ending kitchen job last year, the Murphy bed and tower cabinets, cutting
table for Kim, Bryan's bed, Kitchen drawers for our house and the
neighbors house, our new pantry, a corner dining room cabinet, 3 sets
of book cases, and the wall of book cases you helped me deliver a couple
of weeks ago.... did I leave anything out? :~)

"dpb" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> tiredofspam wrote:
>
...

>
>> Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not
>> aligned correctly.
>
> Then the same sort of problem should have presented itself in some way
> with
> the HF blade - yet it did not.
>

We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
there wasn't a mark...

...

> Why - he had a much better cut with a different blade, without going
> through
> all of that. You have to fess up and admit the evidence he has presented.
...

No, he didn't say "much better" (altho unless there's something funny
going on I'm presuming a "Deb" is a she rather than a he) --
===============================================================
In the original post, Deb makes a reference to SWMBO and getting the money
for fathers day.

On 7/26/2012 1:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
>> during shipping just like everything else.
>
> Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
> see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
> not up to the standards we are used to.
>
> I would return it regardless.
>
> That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
> cabinet saw to see the how they fare.
>
> I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
> quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
> through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
> of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.
>

Still the quality of cut from a Forrest I never see saw marks unless the
blade is dull, or the piece didn't get fed through right (ie pulled away
from fence)

I still don't suspect the blade. I suspect the saws alignment.

On 7/26/2012 12:00 PM, Dr. Deb wrote:
>
> Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
> between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)
>
> http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
> novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>
> Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I got
> no takers, and was not overly surprised.
>
> SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
> deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
> buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
> found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
> arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.
>
> After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid 3650
> tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head
> and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
> couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of
> Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
> Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and
> side of the same pieces of red oad.
>
> Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
> noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
> better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
> tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut. It
> had the same thing, in the same place.
>
> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
> but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.
>
>
> To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.
>
> As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
> blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other words,
> I do want quality.
>
> What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for my
> test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six times
> the cost of the HF for the Forrest.
>
> Deb
>


Ok, so lets take a look at how you tested it.

Did you have the stabilizer on the WWII blade and the HF blade?
Is your saw properly aligned.
Did you have any burning?

Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not aligned
correctly.

Have you used a dial indicator on your fence to check that it doesn't
bow. (you clamp the dial indicator mounted to a block of wood to a miter
gauge that has no play. then run the miter back and forth and verify the
fence)?

A good blade can't correct an un-aligned saw.

If all things are good, then by all means go return it.

"Dr. Deb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
> between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)
>
> http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
> novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>
> Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I
> got
> no takers, and was not overly surprised.
>
> SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
> deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
> buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
> found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
> arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.
>
> After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid
> 3650
> tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my
> head
> and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
> couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece
> of
> Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
> Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end
> and
> side of the same pieces of red oad.

Out of curiosity, was the board recently face jointed, thicknessed and edge
jointed? The tooth mark comment makes me think the board wasn't tracking
through the blade evenly.... or a splitter/riving knife was causing it to
torque as it was feeding due to the splitter/riving knife being out of
alignment.

John

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 7/26/2012 12:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> ...
>
>>> We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
>>> there wasn't a mark...
>>
>> Actually - he stated a difference.
>
> _Inferred_, not precisely stated.

If you really want to be picky... the OP *implied* it. You *inferred* it.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:5011ab1c$0$51116
[email protected]:

>
> "Pat Barber" wrote:
>
>> We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
>> real
>> difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
>> time
>> you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
>> going a few hundred feet per second toward you:
>>
>> 1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??
>>
>> 2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?
>>
>> 3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
>> r.p.m. ?
>>
>> 4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?
>>
>> Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.
>>
>> Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
>> woodworking.
> ----------------------------------
> Nuf said.
>
> Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
> such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree with Pat and Lew on this one. My WWII has been in constant use
for the last two years and it still cuts as smooth as the day I put it
on.

On 7/26/2012 11:00 AM, Dr. Deb wrote:
>
> Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
> between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)
>
> http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
> novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>
> Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I got
> no takers, and was not overly surprised.
>
> SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
> deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
> buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
> found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
> arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.
>
> After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid 3650
> tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head
> and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
> couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of
> Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
> Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and
> side of the same pieces of red oad.
>
> Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
> noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
> better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
> tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut. It
> had the same thing, in the same place.
>
> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
> but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.
>
>
> To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.
>
> As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
> blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other words,
> I do want quality.
>
> What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for my
> test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six times
> the cost of the HF for the Forrest.
>
> Deb
>
Something was not right.

If you are seeing tooth marks with either either blade your saw is not
properly aligned pr your wood is not perfectly straight. A great blade
will only cut as well as the saw is set up.

Is your wood perfectly straight?

If you absolutely confident that you saw is set up properly I would
suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around during
shipping just like everything else.

Seriously I am extremely happy with the results of my WWII and I have
been doing this seriously for 30+ years. I have only been using a
Forrest since 1999. No blade has cut as well for me as the Forrest.

Dr. Deb wrote:
>
> Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
> between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)
>
> http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
> novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>
> Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I got
> no takers, and was not overly surprised.
>
> SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
> deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
> buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
> found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
> arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.
>
> After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid 3650
> tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head
> and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
> couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of
> Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
> Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and
> side of the same pieces of red oad.
>
> Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
> noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
> better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
> tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut. It
> had the same thing, in the same place.
>
> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
> but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.
>
>
> To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.
>
> As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
> blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other words,
> I do want quality.
>
> What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for my
> test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six times
> the cost of the HF for the Forrest.
>
> Deb
>

After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am
staying neutral.

--
G.W. Ross

Everywhere is walking distance if you
have the time. --Steven Wright

G. Ross wrote:
> Dr. Deb wrote:
>>
>> Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a
>> comparison between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght
>> blade (SKU 46231)
>> http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
>> novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>>
>> Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap
>> tools, I got no takers, and was not overly surprised.
>>
>> SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
>> deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the
>> plunge and buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So
>> shopping around I found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order"
>> button. The package arrived today and, of course, I had to check it
>> out. After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my
>> Ridgid 3650 tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped
>> back, scratched my head and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF
>> 46231, mounted it and made a couple of test cuts. Then I remounted
>> the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of Southern Red Oak and did an an
>> crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the Forrest for the HF blade
>> and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and side of the same
>> pieces of red oad. Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was
>> very little, if
>> any noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade
>> gave the better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the
>> Forrest, I noticed a tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip
>> fence over 1/4" and recut. It had the same thing, in the same place.
>>
>> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more
>> often, but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than
>> have it sharpened. To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it
>> is what it is.
>>
>> As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My
>> bandsaw blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In
>> other words, I do want quality.
>>
>> What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for
>> my test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in
>> paying six times the cost of the HF for the Forrest.
>>
>> Deb
>>
>
> After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
> Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
> anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am
> staying neutral.

Read the OP again - you have it backwards. Saw alignment has indeed been
mentioned. If that were a problem then one would expect to see problems
across all sorts of blades.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Lew, I was not trying to save money, I was more than willing to plonk down
the cash for the Forrest - I just wanted it to work at least as well as the
HF blade - thinking the C4 would make it last a long time with the way I use
my TS.

BTW -- I recut the side of the red oak that I had used to test the Forrest
with the HF blade - baby butt smooth. So, all of you who were saying the
blade had to be defective, were probably right.


Deb





Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> "Pat Barber" wrote:
>
>> We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
>> real
>> difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
>> time
>> you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
>> going a few hundred feet per second toward you:
>>
>> 1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??
>>
>> 2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?
>>
>> 3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
>> r.p.m. ?
>>
>> 4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?
>>
>> Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.
>>
>> Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
>> woodworking.
> ----------------------------------
> Nuf said.
>
> Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
> such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.
>
> Lew

dpb wrote:
> On 7/27/2012 8:14 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> ...
>
>> You are correct. FWIW - I had just assumed that the Forrest must
>> have been defective. They have a great reputation, and to me, it is
>> inarguable that they are a quality product. Most of my thoughts in
>> my responses, centered around the suggestions that the saw must be
>> out of tune - since that makes no sense to me if one blade cuts fine
>> and another does not.
> ...
>
> OK, but I surely didn't get the first thought--maybe I didn't read
> carefully enough, I don't know...
>

It's just the nature of a medium like usenet I think. There are generally
multiple thoughts that can be replied to - or multiple aspects of a thought.
It is as clear as day in our mind, as we reply, but does not come across
quite so clear to others when they read it. Either because of they way we
say it, or because of the filter of their own thoughts in the whole thing.

The only thing that really pisses me off when that happens is when the
reader responds with "you said..." and ignores any attempt on your part to
explain what you really meant. No shortage of that kind of thing here.

I appreciate your flexibility in this discourse, especially since it clearly
took a little flexibility on your part to extend that.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Bill wrote:

>
> Does anyone here recollect having a carbide tooth fly-off during
> operation? It seems like something one would remember. With all of
> the cheap blades and circular saws around, I would think it might
> make the news once in a while?

Well - they sure would if that were ever more than a rare occurrance. The
fact of the matter is that carbide flying off of blades was a very rare
event - even with the cheapest of blades. The hype was bigger than the
actual occurance.

>
> Becoming "all too familiar" with my box-cutter, I was slashing through
> several layer of plastic yesterday and sliced across my thumb. I
> almost didn't want to look. I felt very lucky that I only needed a
> band-aid! If the blade had been sharper, it might not have happened (or
> something else might have happened), but I don't want a "do-over". Careful
> out there!

No - careful in your shop Bill. Close calls are better lessons learned than
lessons shared.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"G. Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the Forrest
> had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would anyone have
> suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am staying neutral.

That's part of the reason why I was asking if the board had been face
jointed, thicknessed and edge jointed recently... since he was working both
sides of the board with the two blades if the board wasn't "perfect" it may
have not feed through smoothly on one edge while it did on the other.

John

IMO, pretty much any new blade, no matter what brand, should be sharp enoug=
h, properly flat and otherwise aligned to make perfectly clean cuts for, at=
least, some reasonable time period. Beyond that, how its sharpness and al=
ignment (flatness or teeth) holds up, for continued perfect cuts, is anothe=
r matter.

Given the info, I would suspect the Forrest blade was likely defected, in s=
ome way.

Sonny

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:43:26 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>I noticed that the blade was bought from Amazon. Who knows the path it
>took before it got to the buyer. It's much easier that you'd think to
>warp a saw blade. They are also very easy to straighten out, but you
>really have to know what you're doing to keep from making it worse.

And, it might not have been a warped blade at all. IIRC, there was a
comment about tooth makes. That might imply a bent, slightly chipped
or misaligned tooth.

I think I'd want to get in touch with Forrest about this, before I
returned it to Amazon ~ if only for future reference. I've never owned
a Forrest blade, but their reputation hinges on the quality of their
products. I have no doubt they'd be all over this in a flash.

On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:

> I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
> during shipping just like everything else.

Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
not up to the standards we are used to.

I would return it regardless.

That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
cabinet saw to see the how they fare.

I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/26/2012 9:00 AM, Dr. Deb wrote:

> Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
> noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
> better cut.

> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
> but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.

We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any real
difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next time
you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips going a
few hundred feet per second toward you:

1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??

2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?

3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500 r.p.m. ?

4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?

Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.

Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
woodworking.

On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> tiredofspam wrote:
>
...

>
>> Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not
>> aligned correctly.
>
> Then the same sort of problem should have presented itself in some way with
> the HF blade - yet it did not.
>

We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
there wasn't a mark...

...

> Why - he had a much better cut with a different blade, without going through
> all of that. You have to fess up and admit the evidence he has presented.
...

No, he didn't say "much better" (altho unless there's something funny
going on I'm presuming a "Deb" is a she rather than a he) -- it was
"little if any noticeable difference"

>> A good blade can't correct an un-aligned saw.
>
> Nor can a cheap blade. So - your point is...?

No, but a a poorly aligned saw can (and probably will) make a good blade
look no better than or even worse than a poor one...if it's not cutting
in line, neither is the other one and neither is up to what might be if
aligned properly.

--

On 7/26/2012 12:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

>> We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
>> there wasn't a mark...
>
> Actually - he stated a difference.

_Inferred_, not precisely stated.

>> ...
...

>>
...

>> No, but a a poorly aligned saw can (and probably will) make a good
>> blade look no better than or even worse than a poor one...if it's not
>> cutting in line, neither is the other one and neither is up to what
>> might be if aligned properly.
>
> Correct. Think about that. The $100 blade should not have cut worse - the
> same at the worst.

Not necessarily. It's quite possible (and I'd say probable) that the
imprecision in the cheaper covered up defects in the saw the more
precise blade made apparent.

--

On 7/26/2012 1:33 PM, G. Ross wrote:
...

> After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
> Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
> anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am staying
> neutral.

I'd _always_ question saw setup as well as technique in any comparison...

I'd also in a comparison measure runout, etc., etc., etc., to know.

I'd _ESPECIALLY_ do such stuff if my intent were to post the results
(which effort to do such meticulous reporting is why you'll never find
me actually publishing such comparisons! :) ).

--

On 7/26/12 12:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
>> during shipping just like everything else.
>
> Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
> see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
> not up to the standards we are used to.
>
> I would return it regardless.
>
> That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
> cabinet saw to see the how they fare.
>
> I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
> quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
> through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
> of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.
>

That's what I was thinking. See how it's cutting, not months from now,
but weeks. C3 is the Doug Fir of the carbide world when it comes to
hardness. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/12 3:23 PM, Swingman wrote:
> If the tool does the job that you need it to do, nothing else need be said.
>

Except: Festool.

Oh, and oakrust.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/2012 2:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

> You're reaching even farther now.
>
> I'll agree that more than one factor could be at work here, but I'm
> surprised at how far you are reaching to deny the evidence that the OP put
> forward.

There's really little direct evidence. There's an account.

I (like many others here) have enough experience over 50+ yrs and have
used enough Forrest and other similar quality blades to have a pretty
good database stored to know they do simply perform better than
inexpensive ones in general.

If one does find an exception to that, I'd expect it to be an aberration
easily explained by either damage as Leon mentioned or other conditions.

Again, that a new HF may seem to cut similarly to a good blade on a
poorly tuned saw isn't a surprise, either. Misalignment and/or runout
negates much of the advantage of having a very good blade. Just as a
novice violinist won't/can't make a Strad sound much better than his
practice violin; he just doesn't have the skill yet to make use of the
quality of the instrument.

Accept or no; it's so and makes no difference to me whether do or not.

As OP says in his followup he's a hobby user--it likely doesn't matter
much as yet as it may later on. If he's happy, that's fine but I'll
remain skeptical of the HF being "better" than the Forrest as a general
precept--I'm convinced something correctable gave him the result he got
(possibly the tightened sphincter muscles after having laid out the cash
had something to do with it <VBG> -- and if he's happy w/ the HF he
might as well get something he'll feel better about spending the $$ on).

--

On 7/26/2012 2:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

> Well... I'd just use the blade that cut the best and not try to create all
> sorts of tests to prove why that just could not have been true.

Well, if there's a score mark, _something_ is wrong and that shouldn't
be particularly difficult to find out what.

If I had just spent _big_bucks_ (tm) on a blade and it didn't perform,
I'd also surely like to know why.

And certainly if it's for the purpose of a comparison and I'm going to
claim something of one over the other they each deserve a fair shake.
If the Forrest was, in fact, somehow damaged in shipment or somesuch it
pretty much invalidates the whole object and result doesn't it?

--

"Dr. Deb" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Could it be that the Forrest blade was faulty? That is certainly possible.

That'd be my guess. I'd be inclined to send it back for a replacement and
re-run your test with a replacement blade. Forrest Woodworkers usually give
a superb cut.

Tom

On 7/26/12 9:38 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:52:06 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Well that all makes sense and is a reasonable reason to buy
>> American..... but if the Forrest blade was damaged during shipping, and
>> that is quite likely if the op thought the Forrest performed worse, I
>> would be just as afraid to use the Forrest as the "brand x" blade.
>
> +1.
>
> If I was returning the blade, I'd explain why I was doing so to
> Forrest. And, I'd ask them to examine it for any flaws as well and let
> me know if they found any.
>

I noticed that the blade was bought from Amazon. Who knows the path it
took before it got to the buyer. It's much easier that you'd think to
warp a saw blade. They are also very easy to straighten out, but you
really have to know what you're doing to keep from making it worse.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 7/26/2012 8:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

> I agree that the HF blade is not better than a Forrest as a general precept.
> That was not what I was trying to say.

Well, then, I certainly have no idea what specifically it was that you
_were_ trying to say...

You never proposed that something could have been suspect in the
comparison--either the blade, the saw, a combination to explain the
grossly unexpected results; only afaict a willingness to blindly accept
that a very inexpensive run-of-the-mill blade would outperform an
obviously flawed cut made w/ a blade from a recognized premium industry
leader...

I'll throw out one more war story as a _possible_ albeit unlikely
culprit -- many years ago I bought a matched pair of blades (not Forrest
but another of similar reputation and price point) specifically to cut a
bunch of tenons for a large project. The first trial w/ them went very
badly indeed and left a mark much like that OP described on one side in
particular.

Investigation (and not a terribly intense one :) ) uncovered the fact
that one of the two center holes was just a wee fraction small and would
(and did) not fit over the unthreaded portion of the arbor shaft on the
PM66 and so was cockeyed rather than resting flush against the arbor
mandrel face.

Whatever it was that happened in OP's case, _something_ caused that
blade to score agreed, but to draw a general conclusion from that one
cut is just not supported w/o additional data and followup.

For example OP didn't report what he learned from Forrest when he
contacted them to get their input before deciding to return it. It
sounds like he was simply relieved he could justify getting the money
back that he really didn't want to spend to begin with...

--

On 7/27/2012 8:14 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

> You are correct. FWIW - I had just assumed that the Forrest must have been
> defective. They have a great reputation, and to me, it is inarguable that
> they are a quality product. Most of my thoughts in my responses, centered
> around the suggestions that the saw must be out of tune - since that makes
> no sense to me if one blade cuts fine and another does not.
...

OK, but I surely didn't get the first thought--maybe I didn't read
carefully enough, I don't know...

If the other blade isn't true it could smear out the single clean score
mark the other (true) blade left. If OP is only used to an out-of-tune
saw it's quite possible never has recognized a truly in-tune cut to
clearly judge just what might have gone wrong. Certainly he saw a
problem but immediately assigned blame to the blade instead of digging
in was/is my biggest problem in the reported conclusion.

I wasn't/am not familiar w/ the particular saw so I did a search--John
White of the FWW shop did do a introductory evaluation of it and reports
it is a pretty nice machine overall. The test machine as received he
noted was pretty accurate other than the fence was somewhat out of line
and noted it was a real booger/time-consumer to align properly.

--

Steve wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:5011ab1c$0$51116
> [email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Pat Barber" wrote:
>>
>>> We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
>>> real
>>> difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
>>> time
>>> you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
>>> going a few hundred feet per second toward you:
>>>
>>> 1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??
>>>
>>> 2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?
>>>
>>> 3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
>>> r.p.m. ?
>>>
>>> 4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?
>>>
>>> Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.
>>>
>>> Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
>>> woodworking.
>> ----------------------------------
>> Nuf said.
>>
>> Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
>> such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.
>>
>> Lew


Does anyone here recollect having a carbide tooth fly-off during
operation? It seems like something one would remember. With all of the
cheap blades and circular saws around, I would think it might make the
news once in a while?

Becoming "all too familiar" with my box-cutter, I was slashing through
several layer of plastic yesterday and sliced across my thumb. I almost
didn't want to look. I felt very lucky that I only needed a band-aid!
If the blade had been sharper, it might not have happened (or something
else might have happened), but I don't want a "do-over". Careful out there!

Bill

Sounds like you aren't using it its designed purpose and probably only need
the cheapo blades. Higher cost does NOT necessarily indicate better quality
first, but instead special uses.



In news:[email protected],
Dr. Deb <[email protected]> typed:
> Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to
> try a comparison between the Forrest WoodWorker II and
> the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)
>
> http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
> novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>
> Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling
> cheap tools, I got no takers, and was not overly
> surprised.
>
> SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it
> back in the deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I
> decided to take the plunge and buy a Forrest WoodWorker
> II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I found it
> on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The
> package arrived today and, of course, I had to check it
> out.
>
> After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it
> in my Ridgid 3650 tablesaw and made a couple of test
> cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head and said,
> "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and
> made a couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest
> WWII, got a 7/4 piece of Southern Red Oak and did an an
> crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the Forrest for the
> HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end
> and side of the same pieces of red oad.
>
> Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very
> little, if any noticable difference. If there was a
> difference the HF blade gave the better cut. On the
> first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
> tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over
> 1/4" and recut. It had the same thing, in the same
> place.
>
> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened
> a bit more often, but at $19.50, you can almost get a new
> blade rather than have it sharpened.
>
>
> To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is
> what it is.
>
> As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the
> 46231. My bandsaw blades are Woodslicers, my router bits
> are all name brand. In other words, I do want quality.
>
> What I would really like to see is a lab test between
> these two. But for my test, on my saw, in my shop, there
> is no justification in paying six times the cost of the
> HF for the Forrest.
>
> Deb

On 7/30/2012 3:31 PM, Bill wrote:

> Does anyone here recollect having a carbide tooth fly-off during
> operation? It seems like something one would remember. With all of the
> cheap blades and circular saws around, I would think it might make the
> news once in a while?

I didn't mean to state that it was a common occurrence, but that it was
one of "many" things that can go wrong with cheaper products. I have
lost teeth on my Freud($200) dado set on occasion and that is because
carbide tips are VERY brittle and chip quite easily.

Your experiences might be different.

I will continue with Freud.

On 7/27/2012 6:58 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:22:22 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Yeah I seriously doubt they would say you are still in warranty, return
>> it to us and we will give you a certain percentage refund. ;~)
>
> Not sure what you're saying. I'd guess that Forrest would want to know
> what was wrong with a disappointing blade. After all, it reflects
> directly on them whether or not it was a shipping/handling damage
> problem.
>


I was kiddingly referencing the Promecell warranty/policy.

On 7/26/2012 1:33 PM, G. Ross wrote:
> Dr. Deb wrote:
>>
>> Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a
>> comparison
>> between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU
>> 46231)
>>
>> http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
>> novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>>
>> Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools,
>> I got
>> no takers, and was not overly surprised.
>>
>> SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
>> deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge
>> and
>> buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
>> found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
>> arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.
>>
>> After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid
>> 3650
>> tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my
>> head
>> and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
>> couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4
>> piece of
>> Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
>> Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other
>> end and
>> side of the same pieces of red oad.
>>
>> Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
>> noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
>> better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I
>> noticed a
>> tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and
>> recut. It
>> had the same thing, in the same place.
>>
>> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more
>> often,
>> but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it
>> sharpened.
>>
>>
>> To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.
>>
>> As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
>> blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other
>> words,
>> I do want quality.
>>
>> What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But
>> for my
>> test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six
>> times
>> the cost of the HF for the Forrest.
>>
>> Deb
>>
>
> After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
> Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
> anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am
> staying neutral.


Probably not. First of all if you are getting a good cut and you are
satisfied the saw is set up good enough for you.

Second, Forrest guarantees a high degree of quality results and promises
certain tolerances, I doubt the brand x blade makes no such claims.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:22:22 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Yeah I seriously doubt they would say you are still in warranty, return
>it to us and we will give you a certain percentage refund. ;~)

Not sure what you're saying. I'd guess that Forrest would want to know
what was wrong with a disappointing blade. After all, it reflects
directly on them whether or not it was a shipping/handling damage
problem.

On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 1:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
>>> during shipping just like everything else.
>>
>> Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
>> see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
>> not up to the standards we are used to.
>>
>> I would return it regardless.
>>
>> That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
>> cabinet saw to see the how they fare.
>>
>> I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
>> quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
>> through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
>> of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.
>>
>
> Still the quality of cut from a Forrest I never see saw marks unless the
> blade is dull, or the piece didn't get fed through right (ie pulled away
> from fence)

Actually I have seen tooth marks from my Forrest, that all started after
tilting the blade and forgetting to remove the zero clearance insert.
;~) Forrest fixed it for a very reasonable cost.

>
> I still don't suspect the blade. I suspect the saws alignment.

If one blade cut better than the other alignment is not the reason the
Forrest performed worse.

Shipping damage was probably the culprit.

On 7/26/2012 3:16 PM, Dr. Deb wrote:
> IF, repeat "IF," I were a production woodworker, knowing the testimonies and
> reputation of the Forrest, I would have gone for a replacement. However, I
> am a hobbyist. I enjoy the work and am learning all the while. That being
> said, the C3 on the HF blade will probably last me as long as the C4 on the
> Forrest blade will last those of you who do production work.

If the tool does the job that you need it to do, nothing else need be said.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

As to the questions:

1) Yes the saw is set up right
2) Yes the alignment on the fence is right
3) The cuts were made on the opposite end and side of the same piece of red
oak, the only difference was the blade.

I will fully admit, I was extremely surprised.

Could it be that the Forrest blade was faulty? That is certainly possible.

For those who said, "Use the one that gives the best cut." That is exactly
what I am going to do - in fact the Forrest is on its way back to Amazon.

IF, repeat "IF," I were a production woodworker, knowing the testimonies and
reputation of the Forrest, I would have gone for a replacement. However, I
am a hobbyist. I enjoy the work and am learning all the while. That being
said, the C3 on the HF blade will probably last me as long as the C4 on the
Forrest blade will last those of you who do production work.

Lastly, it looks as if the HF blade is a good "learning blade" for those of
us who are just starting out and need something that will give a good cut,
but not gouge the wallet too deeply. Later, as we grow our skills and find
the need something like the Forrest, we can move up.

Thanks for all the comments.

Deb








Dr. Deb wrote:

>
> Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
> between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)
>
> http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch-50-tooth-alternate-top-bevel-design-
> novelty-combo-blade-46231.html
>
> Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I
> got no takers, and was not overly surprised.
>
> SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
> deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
> buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
> found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
> arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.
>
> After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid
> 3650
> tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my
> head
> and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
> couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece
> of
> Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
> Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end
> and side of the same pieces of red oad.
>
> Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
> noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
> better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed
> a
> tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut.
> It had the same thing, in the same place.
>
> The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
> but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it
> sharpened.
>
>
> To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.
>
> As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
> blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other
> words, I do want quality.
>
> What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for
> my test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six
> times the cost of the HF for the Forrest.
>
> Deb