Engineers Squares and BS and DIN ratings

[user 26792]

Hi all

Picked up an old 6" Eclipse Engineers Square from back when Eclipse made their stuff in Sheffield from the car boot today for 50p, it obviously needs a fair bit of truing up, none of the edges are flat, it's not perfectly 90 degrees and the top half of the blade slightly bent. Nothing impossible to fix and for 50p can't really complain. First thing, I decided to do was correct the bend on the blade, got my little hammer to correct it and a middle of the road force tap, the top corner went for six across my garage. The purpose of the anecdote was to give you a little chuckle.

Obviously this incident got me thinking about Engineers squares and although I have been meaning to pick some up for a while, I hadn't actually looked into them in any detail until today and as I browse through, I realised that there are squares rated to the same BS and DIN standard and grade B but have massive price differences. The squares in particular I'm referring to are Faithfull and Axminster which are relatively cheap and Kinex and Moore and Wright which are pretty much double the price.

So the question I have is what is the difference, surely if the square is rated and graded to the same level, the accuracy should be the same. Is the price difference down to manufacturing and material quality or is there something I'm missing?

K

 

[Rorschach]

Name on the box and possibly the quality of the steel. If it is rated and certified then they are all the same.

 

[Roughcut]

A Grade B engineers square is also referred to as workshop grade, for out on the "shop floor".
Obviously in an engineering environment a Grade B square will still have to be of a very good accurate standard to be of any use.
Grade A and AA squares are for calibration purposes and usually kept in a temperature controlled room (20 degrees celsius standard room temperature).
In an engineering/manufacturing environment measuring tools (especially inspection equipment) is checked and calibrated on a regular basis with records kept.

So a Grade B that is in good condition, with no signs of abuse /damage and is indeed "square" is plenty good enough for woodworking.
I'm of the thinking that if you use a brand of engineers square commonly known to be used in an engineering environment then you won't go wrong.
It's worth paying a few quid extra for over a cheaper alternative whether it be new or secondhand.
Unless it has been abused this is one of those tools that should last you a lifetime.

A quick way to check the reasonable accuracy of a square is to hold the base of the square up against a straight edged piece of timber or board and scribe a mark on the adjacent surface along the blade, flip the square over and repeat. If marks coincide or are parallel then the square is useable.

 

[Beau]

Got a grade B from Axminster some years back and it was joke (a bad one) Not square in either plane. Tried another and same problems. Paid the upgrade to Moore and Wright and all spot on. I doubt they were all that bad but guess quality control where they were made was pretty sloppy.

I should add this was many years ago and probably not representative of what they sell today.

 

[Rorschach]

I have a Faithful set and when compared against each other they were all true. I keep them boxed and only bring them out for fine work or mostly just for setting up tools like the bandsaw.
Using the tested set I trued up some other squares I had such as an old M&W that had seen some use, those are my main workshop used squares since they are accurate enough for day to day use and I don't need to worry about dropping or damaging them.

 

[sunnybob]

Squares can be made to BS standards, but not be accurate.
A while back I wanted to buy a good BS square. The seller insisted they were accurate.
I said I wanted a certificate with it.
he DOUBLED the price for a certified square .
I didnt buy it.
I've been fairly lucky with assorted squares, two have been as good as I will ever need. The third I threw away.
2 out of 3 aint bad.

 

[custard]

There are other twists to this certification issue, you need to know exactly what it is that's actually being certified.

On a square I think the standard calls for either just the internal or just the external angle to be true within specified limits, but not both. In other words they're not certifying that the blade and stock are each parallel.

And, as far as I can recall, the ends of the stock and blades are not covered within the standard, so they might be burred or out from 90 degrees.

Finally, if you rest a square on a flat plate, and then place another square adjacent to it at 90 degrees, then it would be nice if they made perfect contact along their respective blades. Good luck finding that with cheaper certified squares, because it's not a requirement within the standard!

Let's keep all this in perspective. For most furniture and joinery any certified square will get you to reasonable results. But for machine set up, or if you're aiming a bit higher with your furniture making, then dig deep and get a Starrett or similar brand. They're expensive, but they're expensive for a reason. I take the view that my combi squares in particular are right at the heart of my woodworking tools, so I'm happy to buy once but buy the best.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I always understood that it is the inside of the square that's tested, not the outside. The only one I have that actually shows a BS No. is a small Draper. That's why I paid £2 for it at a boot sale.

 

[user 26792]

The reason I want a couple of Engineers squares is mostly to use when I'm restoring old tools and chisels and getting them straight and true. I have to say my gut instinct is to buy quality once and then not be worried about buying again, which is why I was originally looking at Moore and Wright or Kinex. As I started looking into it more and more the rating really just confused the matter. Ultimately I don't want to fork out silly money for something that won't make a noticeable difference to my work whilst at the same time I don't want something that will start to lose it's accuracy after a week of use. The best illustration is my use of a granite chopping board to act as a surface plate it cost £8, a proper surface plate of equal size is over £100. Having looked online and at people doing tests on granite boards and worktops the difference isn't huge whereas the price difference is.

Incidentally I have an old combi square made by Rabonne and it's been in the family for 20 years at least, taken some serious beating and never been trued up at all. Despite that, the deviation was less than 10mm over 12" when I did the first check. After a clean up of all the gunk it was covered in that deviation reduced and then I trued it up and it's spot on. I will upgrade this to a Starret eventually but right now it's not a priority.

 

[MikeJhn]

Incidentally I have an old combi square made by Rabonne and it's been in the family for 20 years at least, taken some serious beating and never been trued up at all. Despite that, the deviation was less than 10mm over 12" when I did the first check. After a clean up of all the gunk it was covered in that deviation reduced and then I trued it up and it's spot on. I will upgrade this to a Starret eventually but right now it's not a priority.

10mm in 12" that is huge, do you want to correct that or did you mean it.

Mike

 

[CHJ]

I always understood that it is the inside of the square that's tested, not the outside. The only one I have that actually shows a BS No. is a small Draper. That's why I paid £2 for it at a boot sale.

We always used a Master Cylinder Square on a surface plate and checked against a rear light source, this of course checks the outer edges, blade and stock was checked for parallel.

Later for general shop Squares we put them on the CMM which was still more than accurate enough for shop use setting up machines.

At home I just place them back to back stood vertically on a flat surface such as a cast iron machine bed with a light behind them, comparing three or more eliminates two with opposing errors.

I've had and abused my squares for between 50 & 55 years. two of which are M&W inherited from a deceased co-workers tool sale and were in their well worn boxes so had had a lifetimes use before I got them.

To check the accuracy of an internal square you can use four certified cylinders and check the resulting diagonals, this is always assuming you can compare the diagonals accurately etc. but that's even more esoteric and way out of the realms of wood working.

I've never found or managed to mark or machine a piece of wood that bettered the squares I have or the machine beds. So as Custard & Roughcut have said if really worried buy a decent brand and it will be better than you need for general wood shop use, alternate is to acquire a selection of cheaper ones and fettle them yourself with some careful draw filing and lapping if necessary to make a working set.

 

[Rorschach]

I am assuming that was meant to be 1.0mm

 

[user 26792]

Apologies the 10mm wasn't an error, it was a terrible guess off the top of my head, just checked the first test I did because I used the shelf in my wardrobe to do it lol and the variation was 3mm which I corrected.

I'm planning on buying a Swanson Speed Square, 2 Engineers Square (3" and 6"). I already have a 350mm Starrett Try Square, which I bought new and it's dead square or as square as I can tell and the combi square I mentioned earlier which I have trued up. I think for general workshop use that will be sufficient until it's not.

The main confusion is down to these pesky BS and DIN ratings, which seem to have room for error and not really giving consumers the clarity they need because of the requirement of only needing one of the sides to conform.

I'm thinking of going for the Moore and Wright mainly because they say they are still made in Sheffield.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I think M&W now are made in China. Btw, it doesn't really matter if you grind a chisel slightly out of square.

 

[Bm101]

If it helps Khuz I have a couple of the Kinex ones and to my (limited) knowledge they are excellent. I have a medium size and a wee one which I gambled on the value of but I use it for all sorts of things I wouldn't have thought of when I got it. Wouldn't be without it. That said I also have an old Moore and Wright given to me by my Dad and quite likely his Dad before that, which would have just been kept in a tool box and is still square. I didn't really know that until I bought the Kinex ones later though.
I bought my first cheapo stanley combination square years back before I had any clue what Din 00 was and didn't care either. Its alright. I bought a Moore and Wright one new a bit later and it's a different class of tool. Didn't pay much for it though, sub £20 certainly, from a local engineering firm, think it was sold as 'woodworking grade'. It's more than good enough for my standard.
I always fancied a starrett one but lets face it... neither needed or affordable for some one of my ilk. Then one day I was mooching about ebay late at night and looking for vee blocks (don't ask) saw a load of engineering gear with no minimum price. No bidders, weird auction time late at night on a tuesday. Stars all fell into place and a week or so later some really nice gear was being unpacked with big smug grin attached. All (old) starrett and M/W. A Couple of scribing gauges, the big starrett combination with the 3 attachments, a small one without the angle finder, some vee block clamps, all sorts and for the lot I paid £30 odd. The seller and probably me messed up the postage and he msg'd me a few days later to say did I want the rest of the gear he was selling to cover the difference. Errr, ok.
Would I pay full price for starrett? Nope.

Ive had a couple (literally two) really outstanding buys in my time and this was one of them but only post to say it is worth keeping an eye on the bay not to be smug. You have to have the luck but they do come up.
Good luck.
Chris

 

[transatlantic]

How bloody hard is it to create a square that is visibly accurate? and by visibly accurate, I mean comparing to a true reference and not see a gap.

I don't understand why it's so difficult.

A square has ONE job. One! ... utterly pointless and a waste of time, energy and materials to manufacturer something that is not fit for purpose!

It infuriates me that companies cannot get this right (just like table saw mitre gauges with 2mm of play .... graaaaghgahgahgah!!!!!)

It would be better if the cheaper squares were just made adjustable. Like a bevel square, but more robust, and with more points of clamping pressure. At least that way we could make it square ourselves and do a much better job no doubt!

Rant over!

graaaaghgahgahgah!!!!!

 

[Beau]

How bloody hard is it to create a square that is visibly accurate? and by visibly accurate, I mean comparing to a true reference and not see a gap.

I don't understand why it's so difficult.

A square has ONE job. One! ... utterly pointless and a waste of time, energy and materials to manufacturer something that is not fit for purpose!

It infuriates me that companies cannot get this right (just like table saw mitre gauges with 2mm of play .... graaaaghgahgahgah!!!!!)

It would be better if the cheaper squares were just made adjustable. Like a bevel square, but more robust, and with more points of clamping pressure. At least that way we could make it square ourselves and do a much better job no doubt!

Rant over!

graaaaghgahgahgah!!!!!

=D>

 

[user 26792]

How bloody hard is it to create a square that is visibly accurate? and by visibly accurate, I mean comparing to a true reference and not see a gap.

I don't understand why it's so difficult.

A square has ONE job. One! ... utterly pointless and a waste of time, energy and materials to manufacturer something that is not fit for purpose!

It infuriates me that companies cannot get this right (just like table saw mitre gauges with 2mm of play .... graaaaghgahgahgah!!!!!)

It would be better if the cheaper squares were just made adjustable. Like a bevel square, but more robust, and with more points of clamping pressure. At least that way we could make it square ourselves and do a much better job no doubt!

Rant over!

graaaaghgahgahgah!!!!!

LMAO, this made me chuckle, also I don't understand the difficulty in making a square.

 

[user 26792]

If it helps Khuz I have a couple of the Kinex ones and to my (limited) knowledge they are excellent. I have a medium size and a wee one which I gambled on the value of but I use it for all sorts of things I wouldn't have thought of when I got it. Wouldn't be without it. That said I also have an old Moore and Wright given to me by my Dad and quite likely his Dad before that, which would have just been kept in a tool box and is still square. I didn't really know that until I bought the Kinex ones later though.
I bought my first cheapo stanley combination square years back before I had any clue what Din 00 was and didn't care either. Its alright. I bought a Moore and Wright one new a bit later and it's a different class of tool. Didn't pay much for it though, sub £20 certainly, from a local engineering firm, think it was sold as 'woodworking grade'. It's more than good enough for my standard.
I always fancied a starrett one but lets face it... neither needed or affordable for some one of my ilk. Then one day I was mooching about ebay late at night and looking for vee blocks (don't ask) saw a load of engineering gear with no minimum price. No bidders, weird auction time late at night on a tuesday. Stars all fell into place and a week or so later some really nice gear was being unpacked with big smug grin attached. All (old) starrett and M/W. A Couple of scribing gauges, the big starrett combination with the 3 attachments, a small one without the angle finder, some vee block clamps, all sorts and for the lot I paid £30 odd. The seller and probably me messed up the postage and he msg'd me a few days later to say did I want the rest of the gear he was selling to cover the difference. Errr, ok.
Would I pay full price for starrett? Nope.

Ive had a couple (literally two) really outstanding buys in my time and this was one of them but only post to say it is worth keeping an eye on the bay not to be smug. You have to have the luck but they do come up.
Good luck.
Chris

Thanks for that little anecdote Chris you lucky ****, I don't think I have ever come across a good auction in my life. I do keep an eye out at local car boot sales etc but yet to find anything worthwhile haa. From my limited knowledge so far, it seems the older a tool is, the better the quality.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I completely fail to understand why it is so difficult to make a square adequate for reasonably fine woodworking.

The stock and blade need a straight edge - not difficult even with modestly priced industrial machinery

A jig is required to assemble the two components. It needs to be square and checked regularly - daily, weekly, monthly, before each production run????

There should be no need for testing - but it either matches the jig set up or is wrong.

We should ridicule (not just complain about) manufacturers who can't manufacture a very basic piece of kit!