Which WWII?

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 03:00:03 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So whaddaya think? 40T or 30T?

40T for all around work.

Barry

In article <[email protected]>, Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
>I have a shiny new Crapsman contractor's saw with what I guess is a 1.5 HP
>motor. I've spent a great deal of time tweaking it, and it's lined up
>beautifully.
>
>I can't afford one yet, but it's time to start thinking about a WWII. I'm
>lazy, so this will be the blade I leave on the saw 99% of the time. It's
>hard to say whether I do more ripping or crosscutting. I do a lot of both,
>and am looking for the best compromise between smooth crosscuts and
>fast-as-possible glue line rips.

Then you've picked the right blade. Almost.
>
>I've decided on a full sized kerf,

IMO you're probably better off with the thin-kerf version, given the saw you
have. You don't exactly have a surplus of horsepower. Not a shortage either,
mind you, but it's light enough that the thin-kerf blade, with a stabilizer,
will probably give you better performance.

>but I'm debating teeth. [snip] OTOH, I have a comparatively wimpy motor.
>
>So whaddaya think? 40T or 30T?

40. I cut mostly 4/4, but some 6/4 and 8/4, and a 40T WWII works just fine for
me. If the majority of what I worked with was 8/4 then I'd go with 30T, but
for occasional cuts in heavy stock the 40T is fine.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

"Silvan" wrote in message

> So whaddaya think? 40T or 30T?

40T WWII does all I need it to do, and is all I use.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04

"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> So whaddaya think? 40T or 30T?
>
>

40T for sure.
The WWII is a great blade. That said, there are other very good blades at
about the same or lower price.

I got a deal at the Springfield show. Ridge Carbide Tool had a special on
their 40T combo and 8" dado blade. I got both for about $220. The dado is
impressive with flat bottom cuts. The TS2000 cut everything I have thrown
at it including some thick oak. Only time I take it out now is for plywood.
The 80 tooth Freud does a better job on plywood.

As for the original Delta blade that came with the saw, I use it for rough
cutting only. Compared to the Ridge or a WWII, it sucks. For ripping down
some framing lumber, it is OK.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

In article <[email protected]>,
Silvan <[email protected]> wrote:
>I have a shiny new Crapsman contractor's saw with what I guess is a 1.5 HP
>motor. I've spent a great deal of time tweaking it, and it's lined up
>beautifully.
>
>I can't afford one yet, but it's time to start thinking about a WWII.

If money is tight then spend it on something more useful. I'm on my
second WWII (first one was a real dud). It's a nice blade, but not
significantly better than a $40 Freud combination blade. You'd be
better served spending the difference on lumber and building something.

--
Scott Post [email protected] http://home.insightbb.com/~sepost/

Absolutely the 40 tooth WWII for a majority of cutting under 2" thick. You
can absolutely cut thicker than 2" with that blade also but at a slower
pace. I resaw 3" wide boards quite often with the 40 tooth WWII although on
a cabinet saw. The WWII does a superb job of crosscutting and ripping.

Get the 40t unless you are going to be doing a LOT of ripping of THICK
stuff

John

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 03:00:03 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I have a shiny new Crapsman contractor's saw with what I guess is a 1.5 HP
>motor. I've spent a great deal of time tweaking it, and it's lined up
>beautifully.
>
>I can't afford one yet, but it's time to start thinking about a WWII. I'm
>lazy, so this will be the blade I leave on the saw 99% of the time. It's
>hard to say whether I do more ripping or crosscutting. I do a lot of both,
>and am looking for the best compromise between smooth crosscuts and
>fast-as-possible glue line rips.
>
>I've decided on a full sized kerf, but I'm debating teeth. My regular user
>blade has been a 50T Freud TK960, which I've been happy with for some time.
>I just put that blade on my new saw, after having been using the new saw
>with its stock 24T blade for awhile, and I realized that ripping with a 50T
>blade pretty much sucks.
>
>Forrest's site says "* Use 30T version if ripping mostly 2" - 3" Thick
>hardwoods."
>
>Well, I won't be. The local lumber yard only stocks 4/4, so that's what I
>use. I might have some reason to get something thicker some day, but it's
>not going to be a standard practice. I expect to cut mostly 4/4, and the
>occasional tuba stock. OTOH, I have a comparatively wimpy motor.
>
>So whaddaya think? 40T or 30T?