Looking for feedback on two layout tools that I want...

[David Coburn]

Hi guys,

I'm not sure if this post should be here or in Neanderthal, so if it should move, please move it....

I'm doing a project that has some very large and deep drawer boxes (not the drawers, the carcass section that holds them). As I started to put the final shape on the walnut panels for the boxes I discovered that my existing measurement and layout tools were not up to the task of building larger drawer boxes . I have purchased a few new quality measuring and layout tools and am at the final point of what I think I want/need.

The first thing that I thought I needed when I found my errors was either a very large precision Square (like a framing square size) or a very large precision Triangle. I think I have found a good solution on the framing square and I have 2 to choose from on the Triangle. I have a couple of questions for you guys have to do with these tools:

1) Do any of you own the Lee Valley Carpenter's Square (item 60N4801)? What are your thoughts on it?

2) Do any of you own either the WP 18" precision triangle (One Time Tool) or the TSO PTR-18 Plus precision triangle and if so can you give a reason for why you selected one over the other?

3) Lastly, any general comments you may have on these tools.. negative, positive, best tool I ever had, bought it but never use it, not worth the price, straighten out your own existing tools, etc...

thanks
david

[Cary Falk]

I have the Woodpecker 26" square and the 18" tringle. Yes, they were expensive and everybody can hate on them all they want. I use them regularly to check squareness of panels and cabinets. It was worth the price for the peace of mind that they are square. Things fit together much better now that I can get things square.YMMV.

[David Coburn]

Thanks Cary..
Yea, I'm thinking in those same terms and I've pretty much made up my mind on getting them.. Assuming that to be the case, the real drawback for me on the WP Triangle is the timeframe. If I order today, I wouldn't actually receive the tool until September.. due to that I'm leaning toward the TSO triangle and was just wanting to check if anyone had any "really good" reasons to choose one over the other.
thanks,
david

[Mark Hennebury]

Learn to understand relationships and to reference and you won't need to spend any money on expensive tools. You can be far more accurate with knowledge than tools.

[Tom M King]

That Shinwa square is a nice square. I have one around here somewhere. The trouble is that I have a number of framing squares, and I always seem to just grab the nearest one.

For triangles, I've gotten by fine with drafting ones.

[Kevin Jenness]

Squares are really not the best tools for checking large assemblies for square. Better to invest in a good set of trammel points, make a set of pinch bars or pull out the trusty measuring tape and check the diagonals.

For layout an accurate framing square is useful. No doubt the Lee Valley version is a good one, and should be for the price. Whatever square you come up with, check the leg and tongue with an accurate straightedge and check for square by comparing knife lines struck against the tongue while the leg is held against a straight reference edge pointing in opposite directions. Corrections can be made with a center punch at the inside or outside of the square's corner.

Looks like the Woodpecker triangle is no longer made. The other one is full of features and priced to match. I wouldn't discourage buying good layout tools but there may be other more fundamental ones to buy before that one.

[Cameron Wood]

A framing square is pretty essential. The Lee Valley one looks nice, if on the pricey side. Lack of straightness of the legs is as much or more of a problem as lack of squareness, IME, calling for careful draw filing.

I use a 12" speed square quite a bit.

But if saws are set up to cut square, the stock will be square, and the carcases will be square, without a lot of measuring.

[Richard Coers]

I'm missing why you need two layout tools to build plywood boxes. Are your machines not cutting square parts? I've made it over 50 years with the same framing square to check my machinery cuts. That includes 8 years in my full time business. It's not a hard task to true a framing square if they don't make square ones now. Maybe you are a member of the .005" tolerance club?

[David Coburn]

Thank you Mark.


Thank you Tom.


Thank you for your comments Kevin.
Good input on the straight edge and how to square a framing square.
They brought back the WP Triangle for a second run on the OTT circuit.
It's available to be ordered for another couple of days.


Thank you for your comments Cameron.
Yea, framing square shows worst outside edge error of +/-0.001radians or 24mils at the endpoint.


Thank you Richard.

[Mel Fulks]

I like the old framing squares , never pass up one at a good price . Bought some good ones for 2 or 3 dollars , but that some years back.
Some of them are have a longer blade than new stuff and are ridiculously heavy. If they are a bit off I file them perfect.

[jay gill]

I have the WP 26” square. I bought it because it has the positive engagement of the edge where a framing square you rely on open edge against open edge. It is exactly what I wanted and works as intended. One of the main jobs I use it for is setting my track saw to 90 when cutting plywood.
The one downside is I recently discovered the number scales are off between the inside and outside edge so I cannot rely on their accuracy. I just measure independently now.

[johnny means]

Overpriced toys won't replace care and knowledge. When I layout and build large assemblies, the only thing I use for checking squareness is length measurements. Trying to use triangles and carpenters squares and such leaves to many extra variables in the mix. If your board has the slight deviation from flat squares become useless.

[David Coburn]

Learn to understand relationships and to reference and you won't need to spend any money on expensive tools. You can be far more accurate with knowledge than tools.

Mark,
Nice website.
I especially like the “CoG dependent” rocking chair.

If you have the time and inclination I would very much like you to expand on the first part comment.
thanks,
david

[Mark Hennebury]

Mark,
Nice website.
I especially like the “CoG dependent” rocking chair.

If you have the time and inclination I would very much like you to expand on the first part comment.
thanks,
david

Once you are comfortable with the concepts of Straight, flat, perpendicular and parallel, checking to verify them becomes easy. Using a square is not verifying, as it is trusting in the accuracy of the square. So unless you can check and verify the square you can't verify your results, and are working blind.

You can check if your miter fence or table saw blade is cutting square, in two planes, simply by cutting a long stick in half and standing it on it's ends, ( or trimming the end off of two sticks.) slide the two sticks together, then rotate one and see what happens. If they touch together whatever way you turn them, you are cutting square, if they don't then you saw is off. or your miter fence or both. The error will show. maybe ten times greater than checking with a precision square. Once you get the relationship of parts, error checking is easy and precise.
The two sticks on the left show a complementary angle cut, but wont tell you if it's square.
The second two sticks show one of the sticks rotated 180 degrees and will show the error.
The two sticks on the right will show the same gap regardless of which faces you put together if your sawblade and miter fence are square.

You need to mark the face and edge of the test sticks for reference.


Assem1b.jpg

Thanks for the compliment on the website.

Sorry but I don't know what you mean, "CoG dependant"

[Bill Dufour]

Made me look. I knew Starrett made tape measures but I did not know they made carpenters squares. Price is 1/3 that of the posted one by some rookie start up company not even 100 years old. If you have a Starrett tool no one will ever tell you you should buy a better one.
Look at FS 24, RS 24, RSS 24
Bill D.
https://www.starrett.com/metrology/p...Specifications