Leon wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> creamy@nospam_agbf1942.com says...
>> Kevin L. Bowling wrote:
>>> Anybody ever tried this? This stuff is great!
>>
>> One of the latest mags, I think it was Wood magazine, rated it the
>> highest in their tests. Have to get some and try it out!
>>
>> Mike Rinken
>>
>>
>>
> You need to take a look at that article agagi. The 3M SandBlaster
> disk
> was rated "Most Expensive" and NOT the best. It did about average
> compared to the rest of the group. Of the 9 disks tested the 3M did
> not
> do any better than any other paper when comparing finish quality and
> hook and loop grip. It scored C+ for agrsssiveness. It did however
> shine in the catagory of readability of grit. The 3M discs were 3
> times more expensive than disks that scored much better.
I too was reading the article late, thanks! Thought it was rated the best,
my bad!
Mike
I didn't see that article. I'd like to know what sandpapers it claimed was
better. The 3M stuff saved me about four hours yesterday. Absolutely the
best I've ever used. If there is actually something better I wanna know
about it. I'd like to make my own comparisons cause I don't believe
everything I read.
Kevin
PS I get excited about sandpaper when I can sand latex paint and/or laquer
down to bare wood in about ten or twelve strokes using 150 grit.
"Bob Bonn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin L. Bowling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Anybody ever tried this? This stuff is great!
>
> Yes, I've used it. It's excellent. Best sandpaper I've ever used.
> Just got the mag in yesterday's mail (I'm in NH) and read the article
> quickly. The best rated sandpaper was the Klingspor open coat paper.
> It was rated the most "aggressive," I believe. The best "value" was
> the Klingspor stearated disks. The 3M "sandblaster" product rated
> pretty well, but because it was so much more expensive, it didn't do
> well overall.
The 3-M stuff costs about a buck and a half more (in SW Ohio) for three
sheets than four sheets of the regular paper. I've only used a half sheet so
far whereas I would used at least three or four (full sheets)of the other
stuff by now. I've only used the paper. The sponges etc. were quite
expensive and I didn't need any at the time. If I ever see the Kligspor
paper I'll have to try some. The extra buck and a half was a great deal
considering it saved me about $120.00 in labor. Another thing I thought was
cool. I just folded the paper in half and it tore right apart easily. Didn't
need to cut it. Thinking about this I'm not sure it would hold up well in an
orbital sander. Has anybody tried it?
Kevin
"Kevin L. Bowling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Anybody ever tried this? This stuff is great!
Yes, I've used it. It's excellent. Best sandpaper I've ever used.
Just got the mag in yesterday's mail (I'm in NH) and read the article
quickly. The best rated sandpaper was the Klingspor open coat paper.
It was rated the most "aggressive," I believe. The best "value" was
the Klingspor stearated disks. The 3M "sandblaster" product rated
pretty well, but because it was so much more expensive, it didn't do
well overall.
"Kevin L. Bowling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I didn't see that article. I'd like to know what sandpapers it claimed was
> better. The 3M stuff saved me about four hours yesterday. Absolutely the
> best I've ever used. If there is actually something better I wanna know
> about it. I'd like to make my own comparisons cause I don't believe
> everything I read.
>
> Kevin
> PS I get excited about sandpaper when I can sand latex paint and/or laquer
> down to bare wood in about ten or twelve strokes using 150 grit.
> "Bob Bonn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Kevin L. Bowling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Anybody ever tried this? This stuff is great!
> >
> > Yes, I've used it. It's excellent. Best sandpaper I've ever used.
"Creamy Goodness" <creamy@nospam_agbf1942.com
> I too was reading the article late, thanks! Thought it was rated the
best,
> my bad!
>
> Mike
>
In all fairness to you, the chart you probably saw in the article leads on
to believe that the 3M is the best. Looking closer at the chare reveals
that the chart is an indicator of cost vs. performance.
Kevin L. Bowling wrote...
> Anybody ever tried this? This stuff is great!
Funny you should ask. True story:
I just bought some 3M Sandblaster paper about a week ago. Next day I
headed out to the shop to start some sanding. I do a lot of sanding. Five
minutes, later I came back in and sat down at the table across from the
missus. She set her coffee down and looked up from the mail with that
"Now what?" expression of hers.
I must have smiled. "You know how I always come in here and complain
whenever things go wrong? When advertisers over-rate their products? When
reality falls short of expectations?"
"You mean how you view mishaps as an opportunity to take a break? And
how you always go on and on whining whenever the slightest little
obstacle comes up?" she grinned. "What happened now?"
"See this?" I held up a dusty 1/4 sheet of the yellow paper. "This stuff
is golden."
"I can see that," she said.
"No, I mean this stuff is the bomb!" I sounded like a 12 year old gushing
over a new pair of sneakers. "Really! It's great! This is the best
sandpaper I have ever used. Oh, I've seen the same propaganda before --
cuts 3 times faster, lasts 3 times longer -- but it's never been true.
This stuff really works! It's more like five or ten times better!"
She laughed and turned back to her bills. I headed back out the shop. It
briefly crossed my mind to step into the office and post a message to the
wreck, but I reconsidered. "Nah. Who gets excited about sandpaper?"
Jim
In article <[email protected]>,
creamy@nospam_agbf1942.com says...
> Kevin L. Bowling wrote:
> > Anybody ever tried this? This stuff is great!
>
> One of the latest mags, I think it was Wood magazine, rated it the highest
> in their tests. Have to get some and try it out!
>
> Mike Rinken
>
>
>
You need to take a look at that article agagi. The 3M SandBlaster disk
was rated "Most Expensive" and NOT the best. It did about average
compared to the rest of the group. Of the 9 disks tested the 3M did not
do any better than any other paper when comparing finish quality and hook
and loop grip. It scored C+ for agrsssiveness. It did however shine in
the catagory of readability of grit. The 3M discs were 3 times more
expensive than disks that scored much better.
Leon wrote...
> Jim, you might want to pick up the latest issue of Wood magazine. The 3M
> Sandblaster was tested against 9 other brands of papers. The 3M did
> alost as good as the other brands but it was 3 times more expensive than
> the brands that did better.
Thanks for the tip, Leon. I will certainly have to do that. I've been
buying and using sandpaper for a good coupla years now (tongue firmly in
cheek), and I wonder how I could have missed those other 8 brands all
this time.
I seriously doubt an article could change my opinion, formed as it has
been from personal experience. However, if the article points me to a
brand that I find works better, I'll be nothing but happier and would be
delighted to relay the news.
Cheers!
Jim
Kevin L. Bowling wrote...
> Thinking about this I'm not sure it would hold up well in an
> orbital sander. Has anybody tried it?
Grit 220 worked great in my ROS. The initial experience that prompted my
earlier post was for that followed by hand-sanding with 320 and 400. All
three grits were remarkable.
The first interesting thing I noticed is the apparent disregard the
product has for variations in the hardness of the material being sanded.
It easily and cleanly leveled some CA (super glue) seams in hardwood. In
general, CA sands poorly, especially with finer grits; it tends to clog
the paper, and most papers tend to cut the wood adjacent to the glue
joint much faster than the glue itself, so that without extraordinary
care, a noticeable hump is left at the joint. Not so this in this case.
The paper effortlessly left a smooth, flat, nearly invisible seam.
Some not quite perfectly dry bloodwood did clog the paper a bit, although
to a significantly lesser degree than usual, and after much more
(literally 3-5x longer) sanding than usual. If you haven't worked it
before, bloodwood has a very waxy sap, and although it sands and polishes
to an incredible finish, it does use up abrasive paper doing so.
I finished sanded four gaboon ebony chisel handles by hand, grits 220,
320, and 400. This used (but did not use up) approximately 1 to 1-1/2
square inches of paper for each grit, and took less than ten minutes
work. In contrast, the same task usually consumes 3-5 square inches of
paper per grit, and takes twenty to thirty minutes. Ebony is kind of
hard.
In addition, the paper itself is interesting. It's flexible enough to
follow gentle contours without cracking or wrinkling. It doesn't seem to
tear easily unless I'm trying to tear it. Specifically, I had no problem
tearing sheets into quarters or eighths, but it did not tear as many
sandpapers do at the seam when used while folded in half, nor did the
grit come off the paper at the folds.
Just another couple of data points.
Jim
Leon wrote...
> I have for the last 15 years or so only used PC brand and 3M brand sand
> paper.
I'm not familiar with PC brand. What's that?
> The other brands dont advertise as much as 3M does and you simply do not see
> the other brands being sold in the common Borg's. Norton, Mirca, and 3M are
> often more commonly seen in the businesses that cater to the trades.
Used a lot of Norton, 3M, Klingspor. Don't know Mirca, either. Just to
be clear, this Sandblaster stuff is a far cry from the 3M stuff I've used
before.
Jim
Silvan wrote...
> But in spite of all that personal experience, the stuff must suck because
> such and such magazine said so.
(G) To be fair, though, I don't think anyone said the stuff is not
effective. Those who have read the article merely reported that it rates
the paper as not *cost* effective.
After all the discussion on this, I took a closer look at the Sandblaster
paper and did a little web surfing for it. 3M's part number for the
series is 216U. It does get (nothing but) high praise on the net, notably
from renowned finishing expert Jeff Jewitt ("the longest-lasting, best
cutting sandpaper I've used" [1]), and folks who do french
polishing.[2][3] Jeff's assessment certainly jives with my experience so
far!
There are also many good words for Mirka abrasives. (Leon had recommended
Mirka). In particular, Jeff Jewitt touts it specifically for value [4],
which is where the Wood article purportedly finds fault with 3M's 216U.
Numerous others praise the Mirka Bulldog Gold series, especially for
finishing applications. Interestingly, many references that address
finishing problems suggest solutions involving the 3M 216U or the Mirka
Bulldog Gold as alternatives.
I have to confess that despite over 20 years of woodworking, I had never
heard of Mirka abrasives until this discussion (thanks, Leon and Owen!).
To find that it is a rather big and highly respected name in the industry
puts my own knowledge and experience in a humbling perspective. You can
bet I plan to try some Mirka sandpaper immediately, if not sooner. (G)
Cheers!
Jim
[1] http://www.homesteadfinishing.com/htdocs/3mabrasives2.htm
[2] http://www.milburnguitars.com/fpmatcontents.html
[3] http://www.woodfinishingsupplies.com/faqs.htm
[4] http://www.homesteadfinishing.com/htdocs/Mirkaabrasives2.htm
In any case, you guys all suck. I haven't received my copy of that issue
yet. What sucks even more is that the news-stands have them already! :(
Clint
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Creamy Goodness" <creamy@nospam_agbf1942.com
>
>
> > I too was reading the article late, thanks! Thought it was rated the
> best,
> > my bad!
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
>
> In all fairness to you, the chart you probably saw in the article leads on
> to believe that the 3M is the best. Looking closer at the chare reveals
> that the chart is an indicator of cost vs. performance.
>
>
Jim Wilson wrote:
[snip facts]
> Just another couple of data points.
But in spite of all that personal experience, the stuff must suck because
such and such magazine said so. Come on Jim, get with it!
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
"Creamy Goodness" <creamy@nospam_agbf1942.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> One of the latest mags, I think it was Wood magazine, rated it the highest
> in their tests. Have to get some and try it out!
It is the recent version of Wood. But I also thought it was expensive and
they rated the Klingspore's a best buy. It was late and I was scanning the
mag, but I think that's what they were saying...
In article <[email protected]>,
Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> The 3M SandBlaster disk
> was rated "Most Expensive" and NOT the best. It did about average
> compared to the rest of the group. Of the 9 disks tested the 3M did not
> do any better than any other paper when comparing finish quality and hook
> and loop grip. It scored C+ for agrsssiveness. It did however shine in
> the catagory of readability of grit. The 3M discs were 3 times more
> expensive than disks that scored much better.
<cheapskate mode>
Did they compare one of the Mirka lines? If so, which one and would you
mind relating how Mirka compared?
</cheapskate mode>
Thanks.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Jim, you might want to pick up the latest issue of Wood magazine. The 3M
> Sandblaster was tested against 9 other brands of papers. The 3M did
> alost as good as the other brands but it was 3 times more expensive than
> the brands that did better.
I'm intrigued now by the apparent difference of opinion. Perhaps the only
way to solve it is to spend a coupl'a bucks and make up my own mind.
"Kevin L. Bowling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anybody ever tried this? This stuff is great!
>
Put me down for an agree. It's the only paper I buy. There are more and more
Sandblaster products these days. I'm only referring to the basic sheets, and
for hand-sanding. With those caveats, I agree, it's the best I've ever
tried, and worth getting excited over, pathetic as that may seem.
I have for the last 15 years or so only used PC brand and 3M brand sand
paper. I at one time worked for a 3M wholesale distributor and had my pick
of any thing that we stocked and got it at no charge. I brought home
several rolls of 250 count sanding disks. I agree that 3M makes a good
product as far as the sand paper is concerned but there are "just as good
products" out there that cost much less. For me cost was not a factor.
The other brands dont advertise as much as 3M does and you simply do not see
the other brands being sold in the common Borg's. Norton, Mirca, and 3M are
often more commonly seen in the businesses that cater to the trades.
"Jim Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote...
>
> > Jim, you might want to pick up the latest issue of Wood magazine. The
3M
> > Sandblaster was tested against 9 other brands of papers. The 3M did
> > alost as good as the other brands but it was 3 times more expensive than
> > the brands that did better.
>
> Thanks for the tip, Leon. I will certainly have to do that. I've been
> buying and using sandpaper for a good coupla years now (tongue firmly in
> cheek), and I wonder how I could have missed those other 8 brands all
> this time.
>
> I seriously doubt an article could change my opinion, formed as it has
> been from personal experience. However, if the article points me to a
> brand that I find works better, I'll be nothing but happier and would be
> delighted to relay the news.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Jim