Recommendations on saw steel

[Jeff Wittrock]

Hello all,

I have made a few of my own tools in the last few years (a few planes, spokeshave, turning saw, etc.), and I am interested in trying to make a hand saw.

After looking at Mike Wenzloff's hand saw and panel saw kits, they are very tempting. Maybe I should explain that my goal isn't so much to have a saw (though I do want that in the end), but more to go through the process of making a saw for it's own sake.

I could use a rip saw, maybe around 5-6PPI. I know that toothing a saw from scratch with a file will take some effort (and files), but again, the time involved doesn't bother me a bit. I'm thinking of a plate around 25" long by 6" deep and 0.032 thickness.

Does anyone have some recommendations on a source for raw material? Would 1095 spring steel be a good choice at 0.032 thickness?

At this point, I'm more in the process of finding reference material to see what others have done and thought this would be a good place to start.

Thanks,

[Joe McMahon]

You may want to check with Black's Boy over at WN. He is tops on saw plates.

[Steve Meliza]

Bob Rozaieski has blogged a few times about making various back and panel saws and has some podcast episodes on building a Wenzloff saw, sharping a saw, and re-toothing a saw. In the blog posts he often mentions what materials he used, 1095 seems to be his favorite.
http://www.logancabinetshoppe.com/index.php

[george wilson]

We made our saws out of 1095 for use in the Historic Area in Williamsburg when I was toolmaker there. It is the very best spring steel,and exceeded any old blades I ever encountered. More difficult to sharpen due to higher carbon content. 1095 has about the limit of carbon and hardness(about 52 rockwell c scale) for a spring. Much any harder and the saw would crack when bent. As far as I know,the other present day small makers (including LN and LV,and various individuals) of high class saws also use 1095. None of the large commercial makers use 1095. It costs more. You can definitely tell the difference when you are sharpening 1095. Other saws feel
soft compared to it. Klaus and Pedder use it,too,as well as Wenzloff and other such high class makers.

You can buy 1095 blue shim stock from MSC and other suppliers of machinery and metal working tools. 6" wide is the usual limit for .042" stock,which is what we made our crosscut and rip saws from. We had to special order ours from Precision Steel Warehouse in 12 1/2" wide sheets. At the time there was something like a $250.00 minimum purchase,plus a $75.00 fee for cutting it off as it came in 1500# coils. BEST to buy it PRE STRAIGHTENED. The sheets of shim stock are pre straightened. We managed to straighten our first bunch by pouring boiling water on the blades and bending them straight. Otherwise,they would not straighten out no matter how hard you bent them.

.032" is going to make a very floppy crosscut saw. I made a special one for myself and for the Anthony Hay cabinet shop in Williamsburg from .030",for sawing between harpsichord keys,but they have to be used carefully. A crosscut saw with a half back on it in that thickness would be better. I'd recommend at least .035". 6" is too narrow,too.

[Robert Rozaieski]

My crosscut panel saw is 0.032" thick, about 6-1/2" deep at the heel and 20" long. It's a great crosscut saw and was bought as a kit from Wenzloff with the teeth punched but not filed. I also made a 5-1/2 PPI rip saw from 0.032" thick steel, about 6-1/2" at the heel and 24" long. I don't feel like it is too flexy but I do a lot of hand sawing and like the thinner kerf and plate. I would probably not let an inexperienced sawyer try the rip saw in that thickness. While I am comfortable with it, if one is too heavy handed with it, it would kink much easier than a thicker saw plate. The most common thickness used for old rip saws made by companies like Disston and Atkins was 0.042". However, these older saws were taper ground, often to much thinner than 0.042" at the top edge. I once had an old 26" Disston 6 PPI #7 rip saw that tapered to just a gnat's whisker under 0.025" at the top of the toe. It was a really sweet cutting saw but required a delicate stroke. If this is your first foray into ripping by hand, I'd agree with George that 0.042" is likely to be a better option, especially in the longer lengths. A saw in 0.032" will cut just fine but will require a bit more finesse and will be easier to kink, especially in a longer length.

[george wilson]

I allowed for the taper grinding of the .042",which is why I THINK .035" would be o.k.. What do you think,Robert?

[Robert Rozaieski]

I agree George. The added thickness will be a little more insurance against kinking as long as one lets the saw do the work and doesn't try to force the cut...like we're supposed to do .

[george wilson]

I do believe that I've seen more saws jammed on 30 minutes of T.V. than I have ever jammed them in my entire life!!

[Ron Bontz]

Just an FYI. I recently spoke with precision steel as well as Admiral steel. One wanted a $300.00 minimum order plus a cut fee. The other wanted a minimum order of I believe 30 lbs. Either way it comes out about the same per foot. These are on rolls of course so a slip roll and some extra work are in order. No to mention a metal shear. Stomp shear seems to work the best if available. Otherwise as mentioned flat shim stock is the best way to go, but you still have to shear it. I think TFWW still sells kits for smaller saws. After experimenting a bit I don't think I would make anything longer than an 18" half back of 0.032 without going to a tapered plate for rigidity and well as clearance as mentioned. It seems the deeper the plate the more set required to some extent. BTW, Robert. I watched your video on sawing technique. Thanks it fixed, or at least made better a problem I was having. Just living and learning, Ron

[Tony Shea]

I do believe that I've seen more saws jammed on 30 minutes of T.V. than I have ever jammed them in my entire life!!

Lol, I agree. How is it that anyone I watch run a hand saw outside of woodworking is so ham handed. I suppose it could be the saw they're using.

I personally will always prefer the thinner plate saw over thicker. Comparing my thin plate saws side by side to my thicker saws is like night and day. Just the few thousandth's of an inch makes a huge difference in speed and ease of cut. But as Rob and George has pointed out they require proper technique and are not for everyone.

I will say that making your own panel or full size saw from scratch may be a slight disappointment. Creating a taper ground saw plate is not something many hobbiest's or professionals can pull off with special equipment. Adding some extra set in the teeth may be enough to combat the lack of taper grind, but I'm not sure. I personally have never used an Un-tapered ground full size saw so I have no experience. But this taper grind was not something they added for fun, I promise you. I'm sure George can tell you more on this as I believe he has actually added taper grind to his saws. And Rob may be a good example of how a saw acts without. As I said, no taper grind is something I have no experience in. I believe Wenzloff saws do have taper grind, as well as his full size plates but you should check first.

[george wilson]

Actually,we did not taper grind our Kenyon style crosscut and rip saws. Jay Gaynor,curator of tools,said there was so little,if any taper on the unused originals,it wasn't necessary. Wenzloff disagrees,but at the time I took Jay's word on it. I had started to make a jig for taper grinding the blades,but was glad to not have to bother. The Cabinet Maker's Shop(our most expert users) were very delighted with our saws,and told forums in Wmsbg.,that ours were the best saws they ever had used.

The unground saws were a bit heavier than tapered ones,but that could aid in them sawing. We used minimal set to the teeth. Nothing saws worse than too much set.

Tony,what do you mean "outside of woodworking"? I saw all this jamming on a woodworker's show. Using new LN and other new high quality saws. Jamming all types of saws,bonking their noses into the floor,etc.. We made a harpsichord making film(filming IS more difficult than ordinary every day working),but we never once jammed a saw,or stalled out a plane in the middle of a push!

[Robert Rozaieski]

And Rob may be a good example of how a saw acts without. As I said, no taper grind is something I have no experience in. I believe Wenzloff saws do have taper grind, as well as his full size plates but you should check first.

The Wenzloff saws are taper ground. The Wenzloff kits however are not. So my Wenzloff crosscut is not taper ground, nor are any of the saws I've made myself from scratch. I don't find it a problem nor do I use a lot of set. Like George said, using a saw with too much set just stinks. My saws are set very little. Barely more than one would set a taper ground saw. I find the untapered plates a little heavier at the toe, but I actually like this I've found. I think it improves the speed of the cut. I also think its unclear how much if at all the early saws were tapered. George would probably have a better idea than I coming from the museum, but the Kenyon saws they copied from the Seaton chest were likely made in the later part of the century. I think that even Mike Wenzloff has said previously that while they were tapered (he got a chance to mic them I believe) that the taper wasn't a lot. So it is very possible that the earliest saws of this style had little to no taper. Consistent taper grinding probably wasn't easily achieved or cost effective until after industrialization began to take hold. I'd be willing to bet that the earliest saws in this style were likely not taper ground.

[george wilson]

There is a very thick 17th. C.(maybe a pretty early 17th.C. saw) that was dug up. The cutting edge was a lot thicker than ours are,but it was tapered,perhaps mostly by forging with a blacksmith's flatter.

We are in agreement,Robert,the extra weight does help the saw to cut,just as a good,heavy back help a back saw to cut. The Kenyon tenon saws we copied had a 3/8" thick brass back. Those were late 18th.C. saws.

Jay felt that any taper was accomplished by scrubbing the saws harder on the back edges with stones. Was it Disston who first made a large,wooden machine for grinding tapers with a big sandstone wheel?

[Jeff Wittrock]

Thanks all for the helpful advice.

I was wondering how practical it is to try and taper grind the plate with primitive tools. When I say primitive, I'm not talking about rubbing the plate with a stone although that does sound like it would be fun to try (for a little while anyway). I was thinking more along the lines of a belt sander with a fairly course belt and a tank of water to give the plate a frequent dunk. I also thought about draw filing, but with 1095 spring steel, I am imagining the file skating across the surface. I can see this going very badly already and am wondering if it is better to not attempt to taper the plate on this saw.

Seriously though, I have always been curious just how much difference taper grinding makes over an equivalent amount of set. I really appreciate everyone's advice on this since I don't have a lot of experience to draw from.

I have made a small backsaw (actually re-puposed from a cheap plastic handled special) that I filed at about 15ppi with zero set. It works fine for dovetails and tenons though I do need to wax it up.

-Jeff

[george wilson]

As someone who has spent many hundreds of hours removing large amounts of steel with a file,I can assure you that it is surprising how long it can take to remove .001" from a broad surface like a saw blade with a file. Worse with a stone by hand.