Old backsaw setup questions

[Max Withers]

I got a vintage Tyzack no. 120 tenon saw, it's not very old, I'm guessing 1970s, but it's basically unused.

http://www.flickr.com/x/t/0096009/photos/badthings/9338347533/

As expected, the handle is horrible. Aside from that, it is very heavy, and feels nice and solid. I would describe the cutting action as either ponderous or stately depending on my mood. Considering that these appear to be NOS factory teeth, I expected a smooth cut, but it is pretty bumpy. Seems like I can feel each tooth slam into the wood and jump a little before it settles down to cut.

so I have two questions:

1. Should I stone it? The kerf is much wider than the plate, and maybe the overset is causing the problem? I can't imagine that it's not sharp enough, and I don't relish learning how to file saws at 14 tpi. Or should I just deal with it until I can make a new handle that's not wobbly? It does track straight.

2. When I got it, I took out the tape to verify that there was indeed a 3/8" cant to the plate. This seemed like a nice detail until I did a little research and realized that the plate is probably not fully seated in the back. But it is at least solidly seated. Would it solve any problems to force it In all the way? I feel like a little cant is helpful for the amateur, but hardly necessary.

I'm no master sawyer, but I've used handsaws for 25 years, enough to know when I'm doing it wrong. (I am doing it wrong, but the saw's not helping!) All advice appreciated, even if conflicting.

[Chris Griggs]

The bumpyness in the cut may be due to the oversetting, but it may also be do to it having an overly aggressive rake angle. If there is room for the plate to sorta wobble back and forth in the cut, yes it has too much set and I would stone it. To test if rake is the problem saw a piece of wood with the saw tilted back so you are sawing with the grain, not into the grain. A saw with an aggressive rake will usually cut nice and fast like this but be difficult to saw with cutting straight across. Use whatever woods you typically work for this test. Super hard wood will dislike an aggressive rake and super soft will like it.

Before making a new handle try tightening down the saw nuts. If they are split nuts get yourself a split nut screw driver head.

I can't tell if the plate is canted or if the the saw has simply be knocked up into the spine farther at the toe than the heel. Though it should be easy enough to remove the plate/spine from the handle and look at each end to tell.

[David Weaver]

If the toothline and plate are straight, leave the back where it is. You can experiment with it if and when they are out of straight sometime in the future (hopefully that's never).

The teeth in it may be factory cut (with little or no filing) and if they are factory cut almost guaranteed they are overset. I can't tell if they are rip teeth or crosscut teeth.

[george wilson]

I prefer to gently squeeze over set teeth on a SMOOTH JAW, steel jawed machinist vise. That way,the teeth are not rendered narrower from stoning. It is easy to control the squeezing of the teeth. After you squeeze the first teeth,move the saw to the next bunch and be sure to bring the vise handle to the same angle as you did the first time. Work your way down the saw. Only takes several seconds. Those English modern saws are always pretty soft,so you won't break any teeth. Garlick are just plain too soft. I expect yours is too.

[Max Withers]

I scrutinized the saw a little more (need to find my magnifying glass), and if anything, there is a slight negative rake (it's filed rip). The sleeve says "cross-sharpened, hand set teeth," and they are definitely overset. It also says "nickel chrome alloy steel", so I suspect it is pretty soft. I wish I had a machinist's vice, but I may try to bend the teeth back in my Rockler Jaw Horse. It's not very precise, but it's what I have.

The back looks to me like it's folded, but I don't know how to tell for sure.

Thanks for the help.

[Jim Koepke]

Max,

Welcome to the Creek.

I scrutinized the saw a little more (need to find my magnifying glass), and if anything, there is a slight negative rake (it's filed rip).

Zero rake would be at a right angle to the imaginary line along the tips of the teeth. Rip saws will usually have a rake in the zero to nine degree range. The rake angle may be considered to be negative. My way of keeping it straight when filing a saw is to remember the teeth slant back toward the handle. If they angled toward the toe, they would dig in and stall the saw.

My suggestion on saws is usually to read the back saw project at Norsewoodsmith.com and the multitude of writings at Vintagesaws.com.

Good luck and keep us up to date on what develops with this saw. A lot of my saw learning came from two inexpensive 1950s - 1970s vintage back saws.

jtk

[Mike Allen1010]

+ 1 to Chris' suggestion:

The bumpyness in the cut may be due to the oversetting, but it may also be do to it having an overly aggressive rake angle. If there is room for the plate to sorta wobble back and forth in the cut, yes it has too much set and I would stone it. To test if rake is the problem saw a piece of wood with the saw tilted back so you are sawing with the grain, not into the grain. A saw with an aggressive rake will usually cut nice and fast like this but be difficult to saw with cutting straight across.

I also agree with George that clamping the teeth in a machinist vise will help take out some of the set. After that, if you want to set it up with a rip tooth configuration for Sawingdovetails, it wouldn't be that hard to re-filed the rake angle at 5 -- 8°. For crosscutting, I like 15° rake angle for saws of this size/scale.

Best of luck with the rehab -- it's a fine saw it should give you great service once it's tuned.

All the best, Mike

[Jim Matthews]

When I'm having trouble with my saws (I sharpen my own - so I can't blame the maker for their condition) -

I lighten up and experiment with the angle of attack.
If I've been consistent in sharpening, this allows me to find
the ideal approach for the teeth to cut without "skipping".

If I need to bear down into the kerf, the teeth aren't sharp.

As I finish to my desired line by planing or paring, I'm unabashed about using wax on my saw plates.
A light coat of oil will do much the same, if the plate binds.

If the board tries to spring closed as you progress, stick in a folded 3x5 index card to keep the kerf open.

My guess is that if you take a pass with a file you'll find some of the teeth sharp, others dull.

[Max Withers]

So the next question is where to get files. (And where I put my magnifying glass). I gather I'm looking for double extra slim Bahcos? Unless I can find old Nicholsons somewhere.

I really appreciate the advice. I would probably not have experimented with vintage saws without all the information I found here (and elsewhere on the web).

[Hilton Ralphs]

I've recently bought from Lee Valley, Tools for Working Wood and Classic Hand Tools (UK). Time will tell.

[Ken Shepard]

I think I own the same Tyzak saw - bought it from Woodcraft many years ago. As you point out, the saw is of good basic quality, but the handle is terrible and the saw does not saw well. I had used it a few times, then set it aside as it was useless for either tenons or crosscuts. It laid untouched in a drawer for many years until a few months ago as I was rearranging my shop I found it. Now that I have restored and sharpened quite a few backsaws, I decided to take a look at the Tyzak, figure out what ailed it, and fix it if I could. First thing I noticed was that it had very fine teeth for a large backsaw - some 18 to 20 tpi if I remember correctly. Also, it was sharpened crosscut and had a great amount of set. First I removed most of the set and that made a big difference, but all those tiny teeth would clog in cutting anything thicker than 3/8" or so. Best thing to do I figured was to re-tooth it to a more appropriate configuration, so I jointed off all the teeth, recut it to 12 tpi, and filed it rip with just a bit of rake and a little set.

Wow, what a difference! Now I had a saw I could use. Still had the ugly handle problem, though, so I pulled it off and removed the ugly red finish, rounded the sharp edges, reprofiled the horns, and added a lamb's tongue. To my eye, this is your classic sow's ear to silk purse conversion.

Here are photos of the original handle, handle during reshaping, and a couple of the finished saw:

[Max Withers]

Great job on the handle, Ken! I was going to start from scratch, but I may try to find my own silk purse after seeing your pictures. One problem is that the handle feels too "long" for me: the tip of my index just reaches the edge of the chamfer where the back is set in to the handle. I am used to that finger resting on that chamfer, but maybe that's not really necessary....

What did you use to reshape the handle? I was eyeing that sawmaker's rasp, but I really need to focus on tools for working wood more than tools for working tools at the moment.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Mine is 14 tpi, by the way, which doesn't seem outlandish for tenons. But if I retooth it I will probably go down to 11-12. The plan is to use it for a while to get a better idea of what I want. I might have to at least strip off that finish first though, it is really grating.

[Ken Shepard]

To reshape the handle I used rasps, files, gouges, sandpaper - anything I had available to shape all the curves and crevices. A sawmaker's rasp would make the process go faster, but with patience you can certainly reshape the handle with tools you already own. I figured I couldn't make it any worse and could always make a new handle from scratch if I screwed it up. Just stripping off the finish and breaking the sharp edges would be a big improvement if you don't want to completely reshape the handle. To make it saw better, try removing the set with a vise as George suggests. You can tape card stock or layers of paper to the blade beneath the teeth to limit the amount of set removed when you squeeze the teeth in a vise. The quick and easy way of reducing set by stoning the teeth is not a good approach when you have a lot of set to remove.

Good luck; report back on your progress.

[Mark Dorman]

You can tape card stock or layers of paper to the blade beneath the teeth to limit the amount of set removed when you squeeze the teeth in a vise.

Good luck; report back on your progress.

Beat me to it Ken, I call it the Wenzloff paper trick, because that is where I first learned of it.

[Max Withers]

Thanks to the strangeness of 'creekers... I mean, the kindness of strangers, who in addition to the advice and encouragement provided above, donated a saw vise and some USA Nicholsons, I have actually fixed this saw.

10212931016_bec6b3e857_b.jpg

the before:

9338347533_30efd5c758_b.jpg

The long version:

First, I sharpened it. This was actually not that hard. If you have doubts just do it! I tried a rake jig, but I didn't make it very well, or at least I found it too hard to use with a 4" xx-slim, so I just eyeballed it. This was actually easier than it sounds because I went with 15º rake and 15º fleam so I had the bevel square set up at the right angle anyway (and also, I'm kind of losing my grip on geometry in my old age, but 15º rake with the 60º equilateral triangle let me use the top face of the file as a guide if that makes any sense). I found the fleam much easier to gauge (although I doubt I was super precise), and it was also easy enough to drop my "tang hand" to slope the gullets also not precisely. I don't know if that makes a difference, but it can't hurt with such tiny teeth. Tried it out on some poplar and it cut like... a sharp saw through dry poplar.

It wasn't exactly a piece of cake, and I can't say I look forward to trying to sharpen smaller teeth, but it took no more than an hour, I didn't even need layout fluid, and the sound wasn't even too bad. Probably because the steel is too soft as George suggests above. In short, do not be afraid, buy a backsaw and sharpen it yourself. (Preferably one older than this).

The problem now was the handle, which... I just could not. My hand actually recoiled when I picked it up. I know it sounds like crazy snobbery, and it doesn't even look that bad compared to what they're selling now, but it was really just an abomination in every way. So thanks to Ken's thread posted above, and also Andy Lovelock's restoration of a slightly older Tyzack 120:
I don't think I can link to another forum but if you google
Saw Talk #5: Shaping a Lamb's Tongue and more
you will find it very illuminating.
(If anyone is a member over there, please convey my gratitude to Andy),
I set out to do my worst. The worst thing (aside form the finish), was the enormous finger hole, which I couldn't exactly make smaller, so I just reduced the outside circumference as much as I could, and ad some traditional details. I wasn't going to even bother with a lamb's tongue, but the process was so fun I couldn't resist. The main thing I wanted to do was to increase the hang angle so I could use it with a 3 finger grip. It is probably too fragile now, especially around the hook, but if it breaks, I can make a more reasonable handle from scratch.

At no point did I wish I had an artisanal handmade saw-maker's rasp, although I did think about very expensive sets of rifflers a lot. And I couldn't have done it without my incredibly rare and collectible Stanley 99E. Oh, you don't have one of those? I suggest you email the following picture to all the tool dealers to get on the waiting list:
10-099-Stanley-Bostich-Utility-Knife-L.jpg

Now I'm going to go patinate it.