Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 130

Thread: Why Do You Own A Try Square?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    South central Kansas
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by ken hatch View Post
    Here is the conundrum: If you can have only one square the best 12" combination square you can find is the one to own but if you have a set of squares like mine the 12" combination square will likely be the least used of the bunch. Go figure.

    ken
    That's all I have currently have actually. A 12" Starrett combination square that I bought for $20. I'm always keeping my eyes open for a 4" or 6" square, or a nice wood/brass/steel try square but being on a budget I have to prioritize and adding another square to my collection just hasn't been high enough on the list yet. The 12" square is definitely a bit big and cumbersome when working on smaller items so if I had a 6" combination square along with a bigger try square I doubt my 12" square would get much use. The collecting never ends!

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Hutchinson477 View Post
    That's all I have currently have actually. A 12" Starrett combination square that I bought for $20. I'm always keeping my eyes open for a 4" or 6" square, or a nice wood/brass/steel try square but being on a budget I have to prioritize and adding another square to my collection just hasn't been high enough on the list yet. The 12" square is definitely a bit big and cumbersome when working on smaller items so if I had a 6" combination square along with a bigger try square I doubt my 12" square would get much use. The collecting never ends!
    Matthew,

    Good on you....The 12" Starrett is all you need, the others just make life easier.

    ken

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    When I started getting serious about building furniture by hand, about 20 odd years ago now, I turned to used Starretts on eBay. (As an aside, it is interesting how a focus on hand tools makes us more aware as to the quality of such equipment - I had been working with predominantly power tools for many years prior to this, and do not recall giving it the same attention).

    Over the years, I purchased two 12" Starrett combo gauges, and one of these now has a 600mm blade, a recent purchase. I also have a 4" double square. The 12" combo comes out for setting up the tablesaw, and the 600mm is great for laying out panels. But it is the 4" double square that has been a star all these years. Get one if you can. Amazingly, all the Starretts have remained accurate.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Mueller View Post
    I have both as well. My 6" machinist square is my go to for checking square and scribing lines. My combo squares are used more for measuring/marking guides and for any material over 6" wide. Don't know why, really. The 6" tri square just seems to feel better in my hand, I guess.
    I love the tri-squares too, haven't used them but I sure seem to buy them. I bought them to use so I am going to start.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    How often does everyone actually check their squares for squareness. No point assuming they are correct is there??
    Because I was caught using a bad square I check mine almost every time I use them now. Stupid but I am paranoid because of that.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    IF I happen to drop a square, I'll check it.....otherwise, I leave them alone.

    Biggest thing with combo squares.....wear & tear from always moving the parts back and forth ( count how many times on your next project)....even the best ones wear a bit. Whether the groove in the ruler, the looking tab ( had one break..) or the slide area wears a bit unevenly.....ever notice that it takes a little more "Ummph" to tighten one down after awhile?

    have had to "fire" a couple combos as they weren't staying put when I tightened them up. One was a Starrett......1940s era....well worn. kept the ruler, though.

    Why do I use a try square? I don't have to readjust it before use. My combo squares are usually set up for depth of cut......the Try is for marking lines around the part. Checking dry fits, and assemblies for square, at least the smaller stuff.
    square.JPG
    Although I have several just like this one......I will use the same square throughout a project. Just as I will use the same tape measure throughout a project.
    largest try square I have is an old Stanley 8", with Rosewood and brass handle.
    cleaned up.jpg
    Have also found a few uses for the others...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by lowell holmes View Post
    Jim,

    Eighteen squares

    I only have Eleven squares, you beat me.
    Those are only the ones that are used often. Have a couple other newer Stanley try squares. One of them is in the house for my wife's kit. Have a few more combos that do not get used and then a rule with a protractor head. One with a combo head and centering head. Then there are a lot of plastic squares for drafting.

    Then there is a half dozen or more bevel squares. Oh, and least we forget a small try square with the top set up so it can also measure at 45º. I do not like that one much because it always seems to be hard to hold square against the work. Most likely that is due to my technique.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    How often does everyone actually check their squares for squareness. No point assuming they are correct is there??
    I have written about this before, and was treated like turd in a milkbucket at the time, but I will say it again.

    If you cut joints by hand, and care about working efficiently and the quality of your work, you need to occasionally check your layout tools, like try squares and especially fragile combination squares, with a beveled precision die-maker's square.

    MAG-760103_MED.jpg


    I am not suggesting using this tool to do layout work. Keep it in your toolchest wrapped in cardboard to protect it, and use it as a reliable "Standard" to quickly check the precision of your layout tools, like squares, that wear and get dinged in daily use. How often should you check them? I check at least once a year during the year-end holidays (a Japanese tradition I adopted), and whenever I drop one, or when things don't seem to line up properly.

    And nothing beats a beveled square for checking the flatness/wind of plane soles, and even the square of tablesaw blades, especially if you stain the beveled surfaces black.

    Here is a link to the thread. http://www.sawmillcreek.org/archive/.../t-198817.html

    And here is an excerpt of a test that you should try for yourself:

    {When I was a civil engineering student, the professors teaching surveying told me that errors tend to cancel each other out. After graduation, Professor Murphy taught me the truth: errors always accumulate. Test this for yourself. Dimension a board 10 inches wide and 10 inches long with the six sides/ends square/parallel. Using a square and a sharp marking knife (pencil/pen/scribe are too fat), spin a line across the grain and around the sides, and another line with the grain and around the ends. Begin each line on a fresh surface, indexing your knife blade in the previous line where it ended, and reference the square off a different surface when cutting each line. Does the last line meet the first line perfectly, or is there an offset? If there is an offset, the error may be the board. If so, ask yourself why the board is not square/parallel, and if that amount of unexplained error might tend to make a joint or a drawer square and ship-shape or twisted like a politician. If, on the other hand, the error might just be in the square, how do you check to make sure the square is good or bad?}

    There were plenty at the time that thought this advice was nonsense, but not a single person that objected mentioned actually performing this test for themselves. Try it.

    Wishful thinking does not stop errors from accumulating. The Starrett name does not stop defective merchandise from being sold.
    Last edited by Stanley Covington; 05-26-2017 at 10:47 PM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hi Stanley,

    If you are looking for an error, your method will show it. If one wants to make the lines meet, then the method of always keeping to a reference will cause any error to cancel.

    As an example: Set a bevel gauge off square and set it on a board with the stock on the far side and knife a line. Turn the board up toward yourself and mark from the close side at the first mark. Turn the board again toward you and set the bevel on the side from which the first line was marked where the second mark hits the edge. For the last mark register the bevel gauge to the first mark which should be on the side away from yourself. If this was done properly all the lines should meet unless the board is really twisted or otherwise wonky.

    If one keeps marking from the close side while turning the work, then any error will cause lines to not meet.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    1,550
    Only amateurs don't know the method you described.

    You are entirely missing the point, Jim

    Stan

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469


    I have a 2 1/2" version of this that is kept alongside my grinder to check the squareness of plane and chisels edges.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Covington View Post
    Only amateurs don't know the method you described.

    You are entirely missing the point, Jim

    Stan
    We likely have one or two amateurs lurking in the wings at this very moment.

    My statement was to give reason to the statement about errors canceling. Understanding how errors are introduced can lead one to see how errors work together and how to make them cancel each other.

    Was the point that people didn't try your method? I do not think it foolish. Looking back at the post you linked has a post of mine with other methods of checking for square without having a master square against which to check all the other squares. Some others felt they were foolish. They likely haven't tried my crude methods either.

    Knowing one's tools and materials, how they should work together and what indicates they are not working together comes from the experience of doing things.

    I do not have a precision square. So far other means of testing my squares fulfills my needs.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    We likely have one or two amateurs lurking in the wings at this very moment.

    My statement was to give reason to the statement about errors canceling. Understanding how errors are introduced can lead one to see how errors work together and how to make them cancel each other.

    Was the point that people didn't try your method? I do not think it foolish. Looking back at the post you linked has a post of mine with other methods of checking for square without having a master square against which to check all the other squares. Some others felt they were foolish. They likely haven't tried my crude methods either.

    Knowing one's tools and materials, how they should work together and what indicates they are not working together comes from the experience of doing things.

    I do not have a precision square. So far other means of testing my squares fulfills my needs.

    jtk
    Jim

    I agree that the methods you suggested then and now are valid.

    But, they are more time consuming, and more prone to error, than a quick look with a precision square, IMO.

    I agree also with your point about eliminating the accumulation of errors through better methodology. Everyone who aspires to do quality woodworking needs to learn them. But the original post was about "why do you own a try square," and my post was in response to, and quoted, a post about checking try squares. The method I suggested was obviously based on intentional accumulation of error.

    The point of my post was that people need to test their tools, see the results with their own eyes, and realize how errors crept in unawares. Focus on try square.

    Did you try the test with your try square?

    There are many ways to do the job. I have just suggested one. It is one used by professional machinists the world over. I am very confident it is quicker and more precise than strike, flip, strike, compare. On the other hand, there are more precise and more reliable ways than the one I suggested. None of them involve knives, pencils, saws, planes, powertools, glass, boards, straightedges, or tape. All of them are time consuming and require special tools. I think the next quickest, more precise method to check a try square requires 4 precision machined circular steel pucks. I don't have those.

    To each his own.

    There are indeed amateurs reading the forum that would greatly benefit from a thread on techniques to reduce layout errors. Please start one.
    Last edited by Stanley Covington; 05-27-2017 at 3:18 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    An oldie but a goldie ...



    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dickinson, Texas
    Posts
    7,655
    Blog Entries
    1
    A little excessive here in my mind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •