Talk:Crosscut saw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-

Crosscut saw is part of WikiProject Woodworking, a project to improve all aspects of the woodworking area. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, and to visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.


Tidied article, removed uncited trivia entry. --81.77.15.123 19:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

I've got quite a few questions, the answers to which could help advance this article. MrRedwood 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Most of the article seems to deal with saws used in timber operations, which is somewhat confusing to someone that is trying to explore the topic of the hand tool (such as the one in the picture!). I'd recommend distinguishing between these two major applications: something like 'common features', 'timber cutting', 'lumber cutting'.
  • The "Common Features" section mentions using the saw as a square. It would be nice if the picture at the top exhibited that "common" feature.
  • There is a discussion of "cutters, rakers, and gullies" in the "How Crosscut Saws Cut" section, but would be better if it refers to the adjacent diagram. Or it might make more sense to refer to the more general article at Saw, but it doesn't deal with these variations either. I also note that the Saw page refers to gullet where this page refers to gullies. Which is correct?
  • That section also refers to the "noodle" shaped waste. (I always thought it was saw dust, not saw noodles! :-) A picture might help, but even better would be a discussion of when and why a saw might cut poorly. (Again, should probably be put in Saw instead.)
  • Also: the "Crosscut Saw Training" seems tacked on and poorly explained. The subsection title gives no indication this has something to do with national forests. Is or was this a one-time event? It should probably be integrated into a NPS or Wilderness Area topic anyway.
Yes, the article does have a lot of problems. Most of it is leaning towards larger two-man crosscut saws, as opposed to smaller handsaws designed to be used by one person.
  • We probably need a separate section on those, which can include the information merged from Two-man saw, too. The lumber vs. timber divide sounds like a good idea.
  • I'm not sure about using the handle as a square, so it might need to be removed.
  • Good catch on the terminology. I double-checked, and it should be "gullet". I fixed that.
  • The "noodle" information is correct in large saws with alternating cutters and rakers, but it's not a particularly significant fact, IMO. I think I want to rephrase it to better fit in line with the explanation of cutters and rakers, though.
  • I also agree that the training section probably doesn't belong.
I haven't been working on this article like I had planned to. There were more pictures a while back, but most of them turned out to have copyright issues. There is good information on the timber side in some Forest Service Manuals. These are nice because they are apparently in the public domain. Sxeptomaniac 20:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Two-man saw

I was seeing over at Two-man saw that someone proposed merging it with this article a while back but never brought it up here. It seems like a good idea, since almost all of that article just talks about crosscut saws. There's a short section on large chainsaws, but that seems like it would be better over at Chainsaw, if it is even worth keeping. I think Two-man saw should probably just redirect to this article. Sxeptomaniac 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is a two man saw not also a crosscut saw? Then it should be here. Biddlesby 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the subtle difference is in the function.

Interestingly a two man saw is just that a two man saw. It may be either a cross cut saw or a rip saw. Before there were saw mills they made lumber with a two man rip saw. You set the log up like a teeter totter, and one guy stands on the long and pulls the law up and the other guy couches underneath and pulls the saw down.

likewise 50 years ago the chainsaws were so big and heavy that it took two men to run them as well.

That said, I'm not sure that the number of men that it takes to run a saw is a valid classification. What's offensive in this page is the fact that the photo is of a carpenters saw, making it appear that this isn't the place to dicuss the now largely historical 'misery whip' with which thousands of men toiled in the first half of the 20th century to produce the wood products that everyone needed.

Since the cross-cut saw as used in forestry and logging is largely (but not exclusively) historical, you might manage the issue be bringing in in and creating a historical section which would be fairly comprehensive, and put these big saws in perspective.

It would be a pity to turn them into a footnote on a page featuring a carpenters saw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvannatta (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No expert in lumberwork, but given pics like these, surely a two-man saw is not the same as a crosscut saw, even if there exist two-man crosscut saws. JackyR | Talk 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)