How square is your square

[shed9]

........ an £8 square is not going to stay square for long whereas a precision tool will.........

Oh for goodness sake. Far too many broad statements. I've had a cheapie for over 30 years that is 100%. It hasn't changed at all. Look, I don't give a damn if you want to waste money on pointlessly expensive kit, but don't try to justify it to me by making stuff up.

And yet the retort is your own broad statements? Play nice MikeG, I get it you don't agree with me but you don't have to be a sphincter about it.

 

[ED65]

...an £8 square is not going to stay square for long whereas a precision tool will.

And you can definitively state this how? Apologies but this smacks of the same sort of assuredness of some forumites that you have to spend big to get a new plane that works well (even with fettling), in the face of real-world experience that proves otherwise.

You're not paying for out of the box squareness, you are paying for long term longevity. I have Starrett and Moore and Wright equipment that has been with me for decades, cheap box store squares don't factor into that equation at all.

I have a vintage Moore & Wright square that isn't square any longer after a fall of less than 1m onto a bedroom floor. Now I'll grant this shouldn't have happened and I'm kicking myself for not being more careful but for crying out loud it was a short drop to a wooden floor! Don't know about you but I'd expect an engineer's square built to any reasonable standard to withstand a minor incident like this.

 

[shed9]

And you can definitively state this how? Apologies but this smacks of the same sort of assuredness of some forumites that you have to spend big to get a new plane that works well (even with fettling), in the face of real-world experience that proves otherwise.
I have a vintage Moore & Wright square that isn't square any longer after a fall of less than 1m onto a bedroom floor. Now I'll grant this shouldn't have happened and I'm kicking myself for not being more careful but for crying out loud it was a short drop to a wooden floor! Don't know about you but I'd expect an engineer's square built to any reasonable standard to withstand a minor incident like this.

An £8 tool is going to be the absolute bare minimum in quality of materials and build, if you buy it expecting it to be true for any long duration, that's a tad wishful. As for a Moore & Wright surviving a drop of around 1m or less, no I wouldn't think it reasonable to expect it to be square after that myself, I'd put it down to experience, suck it up and get another.

 

[Bodgers]

Since contributing to this thread a couple of days ago, I thought I would take another look at my offending 4" Ax..... square. I put a straight edge along the stock, touching at both ends and held it up to the light. This is my attempt to photograph the problem:-The gap at the blade end of the stock is 0.014mm (feeler gauge measurement):-this amounts to an out of squareness of 1.2º.

I had a close look at it to see how the square was made. Studying the finishing grinding and polishing marks it looks as though the blade is assembled and riveted into a slot in the stock with it protruding slightly from the outside face. This face and the protruding bit of blade is then ground to be square with the outside edge of the blade. They then attempt to do something similar with the inside stock face. But, there is a problem - the blade is in the way, so they grind it across the face. That leaves the little bit of stock adjacent to the blade to get square. They obviously hadn't mastered that operation when it was manufactured. Maybe they're better these days.

Unclear from the photo but doesn't look like you are holding the straight edge, straight...

 

[Yojevol]

Since contributing to this thread a couple of days ago, I thought I would take another look at my offending 4" Ax..... square. I put a straight edge along the stock, touching at both ends and held it up to the light. This is my attempt to photograph the problem:-The gap at the blade end of the stock is 0.014mm (feeler gauge measurement):-this amounts to an out of squareness of 1.2º.

I had a close look at it to see how the square was made. Studying the finishing grinding and polishing marks it looks as though the blade is assembled and riveted into a slot in the stock with it protruding slightly from the outside face. This face and the protruding bit of blade is then ground to be square with the outside edge of the blade. They then attempt to do something similar with the inside stock face. But, there is a problem - the blade is in the way, so they grind it across the face. That leaves the little bit of stock adjacent to the blade to get square. They obviously hadn't mastered that operation when it was manufactured. Maybe they're better these days.

Unclear from the photo but doesn't look like you are holding the straight edge, straight...

I agree that the photo is not good. I was trying to capture the light coming through the gap between the steel rule and the stock. As stated the rule was touching both ends of the stock like this:-

So with this square a line drawn at 'right angles' to the strait edge would be 1.2º out.
I hope this expains
Brian

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Since contributing to this thread a couple of days ago, I thought I would take another look at my offending 4" Ax..... square. I put a straight edge along the stock, touching at both ends and held it up to the light. This is my attempt to photograph the problem:-The gap at the blade end of the stock is 0.014mm (feeler gauge measurement):-this amounts to an out of squareness of 1.2º.

I had a close look at it to see how the square was made. Studying the finishing grinding and polishing marks it looks as though the blade is assembled and riveted into a slot in the stock with it protruding slightly from the outside face. This face and the protruding bit of blade is then ground to be square with the outside edge of the blade. They then attempt to do something similar with the inside stock face. But, there is a problem - the blade is in the way, so they grind it across the face. That leaves the little bit of stock adjacent to the blade to get square. They obviously hadn't mastered that operation when it was manufactured. Maybe they're better these days.

Unclear from the photo but doesn't look like you are holding the straight edge, straight...

I agree that the photo is not good. I was trying to capture the light coming through the gap between the steel rule and the stock. As stated the rule was touching both ends of the stock like this:-So with this square a line drawn at 'right angles' to the strait edge would be 1.2º out.
I hope this expains
Brian

Not trying to be funny - but that engineer's square is probably acceptable for 'engineering' use, because it's supposed to be offered to the job in such a way that the inside of the stock and blade contact the job, or the outside of the stock and blade contact it. The part of the stock that's proud of the inside face isn't really supposed to be used (even though it quite often is, it's strictly speaking 'improper use').

That said, it obviously won't serve your purposes accurately enough. Bin it, and obtain a better one - there's not much point in trying to 'fix' it.

 

[MikeG.]

.........An £8 tool is going to be the absolute bare minimum in quality of materials and build, if you buy it expecting it to be true for any long duration, that's a tad wishful............

Do you not bother actually reading what people write? Or is it that you simply assume that anyone who says anything which contradicts your viewpoint must be lying? I've already told you that this claim of yours is wrong. My language will get stronger if you keep repeating such nonsense in the face of the decades-long experience of others. You've obviously never bought anything at the lower end of the price range, so you quite clearly don't have the first idea what you are talking about.............so why pontificate, when all you do is show your ignorance to those of us who have bought cheaper squares than you? Stop, think, and maybe, just maybe......learn.

 

[MikeG.]

..........you don't have to be a sphincter about it.

Stop making stuff up and you won't induce strong reactions. You are about to join a very short list of mine which means our interactions on this forum come to an end. There are many sphincters in the human body, but you clearly aren't talking about the Pyloric sphincter, Glissons sphincter, or the cardiac sphincter. Ta ta.

 

[Benchwayze]

I think with adjustable squares there is often play in yhe channel and the tightening wedge. This gets noticeable over time. My Rabones
don't seem to suffer and I use the one to set up my circular saw. NP!


Regards. John

 

[Jacob]

Maybe the question should be "how do you work with a square which isn't square"? or for that matter , without a square at all. In fact it's not difficult.

 

[shed9]

Stop making stuff up and you won't induce strong reactions. You are about to join a very short list of mine which means our interactions on this forum come to an end. There are many sphincters in the human body, but you clearly aren't talking about the Pyloric sphincter, Glissons sphincter, or the cardiac sphincter. Ta ta.

My opinion, nothing more, nothing less; I suggested a £30+ square would be better than an £8 one and that collective word salad response was how you decided to tell me that you're more right than me in the most ironic fashion?

Put me on that list please, for the love of God, put me right at the top. There is clearly something else going on here and I simply do not care what your real issue is.

 

[scooby]

Not any use for fine woodworking, but I checked my framing square that I bought in 2012 and in the 2ft length it was spot on. :shock:
Fair enough its just a piece of steel with no moving parts but it has had a hard life ,and for something that isnt made for precision, I was quite surprised.

Still need to check engineers squares..

 

[MikeG.]

Maybe the question should be "how do you work with a square which isn't square"? or for that matter , without a square at all. In fact it's not difficult.

Interesting, Jacob. I'm intrigued. I use a square for guiding a knife cut for the ends of all my mortises and bridle joints, for setting out through mortises on the opposite faces, for setting out and cutting tenon shoulders, for transferring marks from one board to another............and on and on. I simply can't imagine doing hand tool woodwork without one. Could you give us a little more detail on how I could do this without a square?

 

[SMALMALEKI]

I have Axminster engineers square which is still out by a small margin.

What margin?

Show us a picture

Hi
I have taken some pictures and measurements from my Axminster PRECISION grade II which I will share. As it has been mentioned earlier in this forum there is almost 0.5 mm inaccuracy at 250 mm.
The shank is not straight at all.
There is a 0.1 mm difference between two ends of shank height.
I am struggling to attach photo as they are apparently too big for the website.

Best regards

 

[SMALMALEKI]

The measurement at the end of stock is 30.19 mm and at the blade end it is 30.30 mm.
And it lets light through when offered a straight edge.

 

[SMALMALEKI]

Another attempt to add photos. There is a slight difference in reading of callipers which is self explanatory from photos.

 

[lurker]

For an engineering square, to me that isn't acceptable.
I bet it is within advertised tolerance though.

For woodworking its fine.
For woodworking it is a rather expensive option.

 

[shed9]

Going back to the suggestion of resettable blades, these do work and deal with the issue of keeping a square square, certainly within the requirements of woodworking.
I use a Trend M3 for general marking out on wood and use a known reference to adjust and keep it in check. It's actually a decent square for it's price, it's shoulders protrude further than the average square and so it works well on bevelled edges. There is also another smaller independent blade which, although I've never used as it's intended, when its out it lets the whole unit balance on the workpiece which can be handy sometimes.
A combination square can also generally be adjusted by abrading the slide points.

 

[Bodgers]

How did you check it was straight?

 

[woodbloke66]

For an engineering square, to me that isn't acceptable.
I bet it is within advertised tolerance though.

For woodworking its fine.
For woodworking it is a rather expensive option.

Just to throw a spanner in the works :lol: and from the Ax website page; 'All Axminster Precision Engineer's squares conform to DIN875/II, guaranteed square and straight.' - Rob