I wound up with two combination squares - a cheap piece of snot I
bought, and a much nicer one I inherited from the "new" houses
previous owner (notta gloat, it ain't that nice. The Yankee
screwdriver though....)
The El-Cheapo Especi'al won't allow you to switch the position of the
head, on the blade. That is, if you want the 45 degree part on the
left, instead of the right, AND you want it that way on the 64ths
scale side, you are s.o.l. This annoyed me, but so what? I lived with
it.
The "new" combination square WILL allow me to put the head on anyway I
want. Which is more typical? A "One Way Only" set up, or an "Either
or"?
Whilst fiddling with the two and comparing them side by side, the
thought struck me that, it'd be swell if you could put two heads on
one rule, specifically a 16" or longer one, so that the flat sides
would be in opposition to one another so that you could position a
piece of stock between them and make sure the two sides were parallel
to each other all the way down the length of the stock and when you
drew or cut a line for a crosscut you'd be that much more certain it
was square all the way across the stock since the two heads could
clamp the rule to the stock, and so forth...
Anyway - it seems like that'd be a nice set up to me - one long rule
with two heads on it. Is that completely assinine? Has someone else
thought of this long ago and made something that fulfills the same
function? Or am I just "doing it wrong" ?
"Victor Radin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Starrett had (may still have) a combination square set in various sizes
> with multiple heads. I have a 6" and 12" with square, centering, and
> adjustable heads- they must be 50 or 60 years old by now, still accurate
> and "square". You should be able to do the double-header thing with a
> good set, although I don't quite understand why just flipping the
> framing square wouldn't give you the same result.
>
> Would it be a gloat to say that both sets of the starrett combo squares
> were inherited from my father and I still have all accy's except for the
> wooden box?
Nope, the price of inherited equipment is too high.
> /vic
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > I wound up with two combination squares - a cheap piece of snot I
> > bought, and a much nicer one I inherited from the "new" houses
> > previous owner (notta gloat, it ain't that nice. The Yankee
> > screwdriver though....)
Seems to me all that would require is buying a second square and putting =
the second head on the first blade. Right ?
Puff
"NFrames" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
> I wound up with two combination squares - a cheap piece of snot I
> bought, and a much nicer one I inherited from the "new" houses
> previous owner (notta gloat, it ain't that nice. The Yankee
> screwdriver though....)
>=20
> The El-Cheapo Especi'al won't allow you to switch the position of the
> head, on the blade. That is, if you want the 45 degree part on the
> left, instead of the right, AND you want it that way on the 64ths
> scale side, you are s.o.l. This annoyed me, but so what? I lived with
> it.
>=20
> The "new" combination square WILL allow me to put the head on anyway I
> want. Which is more typical? A "One Way Only" set up, or an "Either
> or"?
>=20
> Whilst fiddling with the two and comparing them side by side, the
> thought struck me that, it'd be swell if you could put two heads on
> one rule, specifically a 16" or longer one, so that the flat sides
> would be in opposition to one another so that you could position a
> piece of stock between them and make sure the two sides were parallel
> to each other all the way down the length of the stock and when you
> drew or cut a line for a crosscut you'd be that much more certain it
> was square all the way across the stock since the two heads could
> clamp the rule to the stock, and so forth...
>=20
> Anyway - it seems like that'd be a nice set up to me - one long rule
> with two heads on it. Is that completely assinine? Has someone else
> thought of this long ago and made something that fulfills the same
> function? Or am I just "doing it wrong" ?
Nah, that will just confound you more, I've figure that "square" must just
be a figure of speech. Boards are never square and the only thing less
square is the Chinweeze squares they sell at the d-pot. But they do a good
job at dissuading the dog form pissing on your tires if thrown right.
However if you draw your lines with chalk it's harder to tell.
Really though, you can buy additional heads and 18 or 24" rules from a
company that starts with "S" that actually turn out to be square. I also
saw something recently in FWW I think that tells how to square a square so I
guess I have to ask the dog for them back. I can use my "S" square to fix
them.
mark
"NFrames" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I wound up with two combination squares - a cheap piece of snot I
> bought, and a much nicer one I inherited from the "new" houses
> previous owner (notta gloat, it ain't that nice. The Yankee
> screwdriver though....)
>
> The El-Cheapo Especi'al won't allow you to switch the position of the
> head, on the blade. That is, if you want the 45 degree part on the
> left, instead of the right, AND you want it that way on the 64ths
> scale side, you are s.o.l. This annoyed me, but so what? I lived with
> it.
>
> The "new" combination square WILL allow me to put the head on anyway I
> want. Which is more typical? A "One Way Only" set up, or an "Either
> or"?
>
> Whilst fiddling with the two and comparing them side by side, the
> thought struck me that, it'd be swell if you could put two heads on
> one rule, specifically a 16" or longer one, so that the flat sides
> would be in opposition to one another so that you could position a
> piece of stock between them and make sure the two sides were parallel
> to each other all the way down the length of the stock and when you
> drew or cut a line for a crosscut you'd be that much more certain it
> was square all the way across the stock since the two heads could
> clamp the rule to the stock, and so forth...
>
> Anyway - it seems like that'd be a nice set up to me - one long rule
> with two heads on it. Is that completely assinine? Has someone else
> thought of this long ago and made something that fulfills the same
> function? Or am I just "doing it wrong" ?
Starrett had (may still have) a combination square set in various sizes
with multiple heads. I have a 6" and 12" with square, centering, and
adjustable heads- they must be 50 or 60 years old by now, still accurate
and "square". You should be able to do the double-header thing with a
good set, although I don't quite understand why just flipping the
framing square wouldn't give you the same result.
Would it be a gloat to say that both sets of the starrett combo squares
were inherited from my father and I still have all accy's except for the
wooden box?
/vic
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I wound up with two combination squares - a cheap piece of snot I
> bought, and a much nicer one I inherited from the "new" houses
> previous owner (notta gloat, it ain't that nice. The Yankee
> screwdriver though....)
>
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> "Victor Radin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Would it be a gloat to say that both sets of the starrett combo squares
> > were inherited from my father and I still have all accy's except for the
> > wooden box?
>
> Nope, the price of inherited equipment is too high.
>
Yeah- you're right :( I'd rather have the old man around- if for
nothing else to see that his grandson has the same love for the crafts
that he did, a love of teaching the skills to others, and even turned
out to be a genuinely nice kid.
NFrames wrote:
>
> The "new" combination square WILL allow me to put the head on anyway I
> want. Which is more typical? A "One Way Only" set up, or an "Either
> or"?
The better square heads I've had use a tanged lock bolt to keep the lock
oriented to the heads slot. It makes it much easier to get the rule through
after it's been removed.
> Whilst fiddling with the two and comparing them side by side, the
> thought struck me that, it'd be swell if you could put two heads on
> one rule, specifically a 16" or longer one, so that the flat sides
> would be in opposition to one another so that you could position a
> piece of stock between them and make sure the two sides were parallel
> to each other all the way down the length ......
Nope, wouldn't do it. Least not with my equipment.
First, if the heads got bound or wedged there would be a real good chance of
springing the rule.
Second, if the heads got bound or wedged there would be a (slim?) chance of
damaging the heads and a good chance of snapping the lock bolt.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
> >
> Yeah- you're right :( I'd rather have the old man around- if for
> nothing else to see that his grandson has the same love for the crafts
> that he did, a love of teaching the skills to others, and even turned
> out to be a genuinely nice kid.
Ahhh man, sniff, sniff, the wreck ain't 'sposed to make you tear up.
Almost lost my old man to a stroke two years ago, before his first
grandkids arrived.
Joe
why would you want to spend time fiddling around clamping the thing to
the board?? Just lay the square against the edge and mark your line.
You are done in a couple of seconds.
dave
NFrames wrote:
> I wound up with two combination squares - a cheap piece of snot I
> bought, and a much nicer one I inherited from the "new" houses
> previous owner (notta gloat, it ain't that nice. The Yankee
> screwdriver though....)
>
> The El-Cheapo Especi'al won't allow you to switch the position of the
> head, on the blade. That is, if you want the 45 degree part on the
> left, instead of the right, AND you want it that way on the 64ths
> scale side, you are s.o.l. This annoyed me, but so what? I lived with
> it.
>
> The "new" combination square WILL allow me to put the head on anyway I
> want. Which is more typical? A "One Way Only" set up, or an "Either
> or"?
>
> Whilst fiddling with the two and comparing them side by side, the
> thought struck me that, it'd be swell if you could put two heads on
> one rule, specifically a 16" or longer one, so that the flat sides
> would be in opposition to one another so that you could position a
> piece of stock between them and make sure the two sides were parallel
> to each other all the way down the length of the stock and when you
> drew or cut a line for a crosscut you'd be that much more certain it
> was square all the way across the stock since the two heads could
> clamp the rule to the stock, and so forth...
>
> Anyway - it seems like that'd be a nice set up to me - one long rule
> with two heads on it. Is that completely assinine? Has someone else
> thought of this long ago and made something that fulfills the same
> function? Or am I just "doing it wrong" ?
I have a starrett #231 micrometer that I inherited from my grandfather,
including the adjustment wrench in the little paper bag and the cloth and
the wooden box. It's one of my most prized possessions. I also have some
slightly newer starrett mics that came in cardboard, also from my
grandfather. I really want a starrett combo square set and a starrett
precision try square to go with them.
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:50:00 +0000, Victor Radin wrote:
> Starrett had (may still have) a combination square set in various sizes
> with multiple heads. I have a 6" and 12" with square, centering, and
> adjustable heads- they must be 50 or 60 years old by now, still accurate
> and "square". You should be able to do the double-header thing with a
> good set, although I don't quite understand why just flipping the
> framing square wouldn't give you the same result.
>
> Would it be a gloat to say that both sets of the starrett combo squares
> were inherited from my father and I still have all accy's except for the
> wooden box?
>
> /vic
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> I wound up with two combination squares - a cheap piece of snot I
>> bought, and a much nicer one I inherited from the "new" houses
>> previous owner (notta gloat, it ain't that nice. The Yankee
>> screwdriver though....)
>>