Looking for opinions on best combination square

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

LRobins

>Love my Starretts.

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

Brian Greene

>I have an old Browne and Sharpe set with the three heads I found in an antique store. Love it. I don't know where to buy a new one.

Brian in Ottawa

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

Rossmoor Galoot

>In my mind you can't go wrong with either. Brown and Sharpe is usually cheaper since it lacks the name recognition of Starrett. I do not believe Brown and Sharpe still make squares but they turn up regularly on eBay.

Starrett

Wiley Horne--Glendora CA

>Agree with Lloyd. You will love Starrett tools. Everything about them. They even just feel right. Be sure and get the satin chrome bladed square.

Wiley

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>Brown & Sharpe and Starret are equal in my eyes; I have both brands in different sizes. I wouldn't buy a new one of either since so many used are available, but if you have the money and want a new one, I would get a set of 6", 12" and 24" Starrets. They would certainly look good in the tool box. The Starret I think has a better resale value.

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

John Meikrantz

>A recent issue (I don't remember which one, have to check when I get home) of Fine Woodworking did a really good review of combination squares. They chose Starrett as their favorite, but also had good things to say about some other manufacturers. One in particular that is well priced is the PEC tools version.

Surprisingly, one of the Stanleys scored well. I have a Starrett and two Stanleys, and am happy with all of them.

Check out Enco (www.use-enco.com) for a good price comparison between Starrett, B & S, PEC, and Mitutoyo. Also pull up the FWW article, as it had some interesting points to make about features that I wouldn't have thought about, i.e. ease of blade changing. I think the PEC would have been the second choice, closely follwed by the Brown and Sharpe.

I must admit, I get a lot of use out of my little 7" Stanley, as well as the 12" Starrett.

John

Re: Starrett

Paul M. in San Diego

>I agree too. I have had the 6" Starrett for about 5 years, and it's my go-to square. I have a couple of others, but they only get used when I need to use a larger or smaller square. But if this will do the job, the others get put away. It beats my others (including a Browne&Sharpe) in readability, and it is also truely square (the others are ever-so-slightly off).

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

Dan Donaldson

>I have the Starrett 4" and a 12" with a 24" extra blade. The 4" is probably one of the most used tools in my shop. They are easy to read, operate smoothly and keep their square. (can you tell I like them;-).

I played with a few others where I bought them, but if you see them together with another one, you will almost certainly want the Starrett. There is a definate difference in feel.

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

David Barnett

>Like Dan, I have a 12" with two 24" blades (yeah, now I only need at least one other head), and I'd be lost without 'em. I've seen a few other brands, but I like the readability of the satin finished rules from Starrett best.

Stanley

Russell Seaton

>I have owned the same Stanley combination square for about a decade now. Used it many many times. Carried it in my tool belt pouch. I now carry a Swanson speed square in the tool belt pouch. This Stanley is my "go to" square. I am not afraid to use it anywhere. Although I do not open paint cans with it.

I also own a beautiful Starrett hardened steel square with satin chrome blade. Beautiful square. Purchased from Joel at Museum of Woodworking. I love picking this square up and feeling it. But its not as useful as the Stanley because I would never put it in my tool belt pouch or use it in rough carpentry. I do more rough carpentry than fine woodworking. The Starrett is too nice for normal work. It is a bench only fine woodworking tool. To me anyway.

Re: Stanley

Dan Donaldson

>I also have a couple of old squares that I use when doing rough work, but I still use the little Starrett for most everything (except paint cans ;-)). That one is fairly expensive, but I bought it to use, and if I should destroy it, I will buy another. It is just too easy to use and handy to sit in a tool box.

That said, my 6 - 12 inch one is my shop reference that does not get used for any kind of rough work. On that one, I am with you, it is a workbench only tool.

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

milanuk

>Actually, it wasn't *that* recent... ;)

I only mention this because I've been following a number of threads on different boards and on the Wreck concerning combo squares, as I've decided my Johnson/Empire squares aren't really cutting it any longer. I've seen people repeatedly reference the article in FWW, and for those who are interested, it's #159, Nov/Dec. 2002. My luck being what it is, I started my 'collection' of FWW w/ the next issue (Winter Tools/shops). So I have that back issue on order. In the mean time, I'm eyeballing some Starrett's on e-Bay. Not saving too much $$$ there unless they are in rough condition.

I'm interested in either a Stanley or an Enco for 'construction' work, i.e. outdoor projects, leaving on the main bench in the shop, and keeping the nice 'reference' squares in my workbench where I do my woodbutchering, hopefully safely out of sight/reach of the kids (and their friends!).

Anybody here have a good reason (for woodworking purposes) why say, a cast iron head would be better or worse than a forged steel one i.e. the Starrett C11H-12-4R (cast iron) vs the C33H-12-4R (forged steel)?

TIA,

Monte

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Like Dan I also have Starretts in 4" and 12". These live in my workshop. If I am working outside (e.g. doing carpentry type work around the house) then I will take along an old Stanley.

The thing about Starretts - once used you will appreciate this - is just how SMOOTHLY they slide. None of the others I have tried even comes close. In a class of their own here. Plus you get a beautifully finished product (altho the Browne and Sharp is as good in this department).

My problem is that I want both Imperial and Metric blades, and this gets expensive.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: precision engineerin

paul womack

>Combination squares are about halfway on the accuracy scale. I'm not sure you can get them better than grade 'B' accuracy. Reference square (with fixed blades) are available in grade 'A' and 'AA'. I'm not sure of the designation for bottle squares, which are (AFAIK) the ultimate.

When buying a "proper" precision tool, you can only rely on the accuracy guaranteed and calibrated. Assuming that a Starrett grade 'B' square is any more accurate than a Groz grade 'B' would get you a failing mark on any engineering course.

The point of a combination squate is really versatility, and as such ease of handling is probably as important as the accuracy it has.

Any of the "classic" precision manufacturers made fine, elegant, and easy handling combo squares.

So - if you want a nice square for general use, I'd recommend (in the USA) picking up a vintage Brown & Sharpe or Starrett.

If you want a true square reference, I'd buy a cheap (relative term :-) grade 'A' square, and keep it in its box.

BugBear

Re: precision engineering rebuttal

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>Of course two same-rated combo squares should be of the same accuracy, out of the box. However, one would suspect that some of them keep that accuracy better than others.

A Blue Chip chisel is not too bad, for that first slice. ;-)

BTW, I have a Craftsman and a Starrett. Like others, I think I end up using the Craftsman more, for fear of damaging the sweet little Starett. But then, I am more of a carpenter than a cabinetmaker these days. :-(

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

Tony - Memphis

>I took a class from Lonnie Bird last Oct. and he had a nice very small old combination square that he used for all osrts of stuff. I think it was an oldie he bought at a flea market or some such. Anyway, I really dug it so I asked for Santa to bring me a small Starrett and he did! I had never been a fan of combination squares, but this thing is really sweet. The size is perfect for all sorts of things and its light weight makes it easy to balance. I think its a 4 incher, but I can't recall. Anyway, its one of those things that once you get it, you figure out all kinds of things to do with it. I think Santa got mine at Highland Hardware, but I'm not sure.

Tony

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

Joe Rogers,Northern Virginia

>No difference as far as accuracy. There is a different finish on the non machined surfaces that may appeal to you one way or the other.YMMV

JR (And any cost issues)

Not for woodwork

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Hi,

You didn't mention what you were planning to use this for, and its none of my beeswax anyway...but:

I went through this phase where I sought really accurate squares. I figured that without an accurate square all of my work would be crap. I went through another phase (years ago) when I felt all my tools needed to BE square. Some yoyo had me believing the sides of my planes should be square with their soles. Ends of chisels, sides of chisels...all stuff and nonsense!

I guess if you are doing metal work, a good square is important since the material is so stiff, you can't mash it together. I think you need really good engineer's squares to set up woodworking machinery. (Not sure, don't have any.)

Beyond that, any square is pretty much good enough. I use home made all wooden squares now. There are techniques you can use to limit the detrimental effects of an 88 degree "square". With careful marking out procedures, the "best" square is the square you like, that feels good, and is just the right length for your work.

Go buy your Starret, if you like. You may fall in love with it. Or it may forever line a tool chest drawer, while an old rosewood stanley with a kinked and pitted blade resides permanently on your work bench. An accurate square just isn't a necessity for fine woodworking.

Adam

Re: Not for woodwork

deanj

>I'm going to agree with Adam. The level of accuracy of a high end square is well beyond what you can expect to "do" with wood. Wood is going to move anyway, so depending on when you cut and when you measure its for naught. I've been on a quest to find a square I "like." As Adam said, you have to like what you use, and a big chunk of metal isn't nice to my hands when I'm surrounded by things with wood handles -- My saws, my planes, my chisels. So for me to be content with a square I want some wood in it. Wood feels nice, and the stock end isn't so heavy and out of balance. I have a small machine square, and I like it, I just want to find a mid sized square that is "pretty."

I guess I'll just have to make my own. I'm fond of the one in hornbean shown in Krenov's books.

In the end, get what looks and feels good to you and you'll do your best work.

-Dean

Re: Not for woodwork

Dennis

>I agree,no need for hand tool work to go that route.

Dennis

remove nospam for email

Re: Not for woodwork

Paul M. in San Diego

>I agree Adam,

The main reason I like my 6" Starett is that it is so easy to see the marks with my fading vision. My eyesight has gotten bad enough to where I should be wearing bifocals, but I just hate things popping in and out of a small focus range while I'm working. So I just go without glasses and I can see as long as my nose is close enough to the work. The markings on the Starett are so clear that there's no mistakes. My other squares are too vague and hard to see clearly.

I'm in the same boat brother!

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>I'm near sighted and my near sight (like most myopics) has been phenomenal...until very recently. Looking at a computer screen certainly doesn't help.

Like you, its giving me problems in the shop, sharpening saws especially. I try to take off my glasses, and that helps, until I get my face more than a foot away from my work. Then I can't find my file card! I've been thinking about getting the surgery. That way, I can just switch to reading glasses.

I want to move both workbenches into the same room at Pennsbury Manor; Maybe as early as this weekend. One problem we have is not enough light. I've been practicing more and more with some old tricks that help folks like us. Maybe this is a good time to list a few:

Marking gauge is the way to transfer dimensions. Obviously you can set it to a board when you need a uniform thickness. But I set it to my chisels when I need a precise repeat-able width.

When laying out, I deeply nick corners with my striking knife. When I reposition the square to mark the next face, I set the knife in the nick and move the square to it.

When edge straightening, I listen for a continuos shaving.

Rather than checking boards' surfaces, I inspect the shavings (since I can move them to the light.

The marking gauge is really the greatest tool when you think about it.

Adam

Re: Looking for opinions on best combination squar

Jack from Maine

>I use a stanley.I only use mine for depth setting repeatability in things that don't need to be accurate.Or for marking a roughly square(or,square enough)right angle line.For accurate square marking I use a known accurate square.I would love to get some starretts but only because I like the look and feel of a well made tool.My uses may change with a Starrett but that remains to be seen.Also,I'm new to fine woodworking and a carpenter by trade.---Crackerjack

I dunno, Adam...

David Barnett - Venice, FL

>At Lethal Force Institute, we were taught "If you intend to hit the attacker, aim for the center of mass, and if you intend to hit the heart, aim for a particular ventricle."

And it's a machinist's heuristic that to obtain a given level of precision, employ measuring instruments resolving repeatedly to a power of ten greater than that sought.