Anyone have any experience with these two bits? Saw the Freud demo at
the Milwaukee woodworking show. It comes with a setup block and
retails for about $80, ($50 less than CMT.) I can't imagine that the
Freud would not be of acme quality. With that said, whats the word on
the $40 woodline bits?

BD wrote:
Anyone have any experience with these two bits? Saw the Freud demo at
the Milwaukee woodworking show. It comes with a setup block and
retails for about $80, ($50 less than CMT.) I can't imagine that the
Freud would not be of acme quality. With that said, whats the word on
the $40 woodline bits?

You might want to consider these as well...

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...19&cat=1,46168

Chris

"BD" wrote in message
oups.com...

I can't imagine that the
Freud would not be of acme quality.


I could. I probably have 10-14 Freud bits and am not impressed with their
quality. I would choose CMT over Freud every time assuming they offer the
same profile. They both come from Italy so I am not being prejudice. ;~)

Thanks, I just checked out the leevalley link you sent me.
Unfortunately I need one with 1" or depth of cut.

Have you tried the MLCS website ??

http://www.mlcswoodworking.com/

They have a bit that can be used on wood from 1/2" up to 1-1/8"

John

Hey thanks! It looks like thats the one I'm going with. I have some
reservations about running it in quarter sawn white oak with my Porter
Cable 690RVS 3/4 HP. I think it should do ok as long as I pre-miter
the board edges. Any thoughts?

wrote in message
oups.com...


They were nice and sharp and well-balanced but the carbide rapidly
developed crumbly edges. They didn't just get dull like other bits,
they had (comparatively) huge chunks of carbide missing from the
edges.


Exactly my experience. I still keep a few chunks of the carbide as a
reminder.

I will definitely side with the people steering you towards CMT. If you have
any CMT bits, look at them under a magnifying glass. Look closely at the
carbide tips. Then look at virtually any other brand on the market. The
micro grain carbide they use comes to a chrome like polished finish, it much
less resistant to chipping off and keeps its sharp longer than any other
bits I have every used. When you look at the carbide tips on the other
brands, even the ones that come close, there is always a noticable
difference in the appearance, you can always detect the larger grains, which
means dulling quicker and easier to have pieces chip off.

You get what you pay for, CMT often times cost twice as much. However, they
usually last at least 4 times longer........oh yeah, then there's that whole
issue of how much cleaner they cut.

CMT bits, IMHO are worth the price, finest bits on the market. The only time
I use something different, like one of the other responders here, is when I
cannot find a profile I need in a CMT bit.


"BD" wrote in message
oups.com...
Anyone have any experience with these two bits? Saw the Freud demo at
the Milwaukee woodworking show. It comes with a setup block and
retails for about $80, ($50 less than CMT.) I can't imagine that the
Freud would not be of acme quality. With that said, whats the word on
the $40 woodline bits?

Well thanks for all the responses. I was looking around the internet
and found an article from Fine Woodworking
( www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/w00045.asp ). Surprisingly,
the MLCS beat the CMT although both
were in the top 7 of 17. At a third of the price I think I am going
with the MLCS-it also comes with a setup block.

"BD" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well thanks for all the responses. I was looking around the internet
and found an article from Fine Woodworking
( www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/w00045.asp ). Surprisingly,
the MLCS beat the CMT although both
were in the top 7 of 17. At a third of the price I think I am going
with the MLCS-it also comes with a setup block.


That was with just a straight bit. I would like to see the same test with a
profile bit.

Leon is right BD,

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Getting a higher rating on one bit
one time from one magazine is not a sound arguement.

If you find yourself always adjusting this, and adjusting that, and speeding
up bit speed, slowing down feed rate, vice versa, changing cutting depth,
taking more passes....................etc etc etc..........and you keep
getting tearout and imperfect joints or you find yourself wishing you could
get consistent perfect/clean cuts etc..................

Try a CMT bit. You'll see.

RRRangerPaul


"BD" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well thanks for all the responses. I was looking around the internet
and found an article from Fine Woodworking
( www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/w00045.asp ). Surprisingly,
the MLCS beat the CMT although both
were in the top 7 of 17. At a third of the price I think I am going
with the MLCS-it also comes with a setup block.

Well thanks for your concern. I have already ordered the MLCS bit.
I'm using it to make four quarter sawn white oak quadralinear bed
posts. Hopefully it will live that long. I would hate to buy
redundant bits but Woodcraft is having a 25% off CMT bits this month so
if it comes to it I'll go get one of those.

Ranger Paul wrote:
I will definitely side with the people steering you towards CMT.

Add one more!

CMT is excellent. However, CMT is #2 to Whiteside in my experience.

Barry

Ranger Paul wrote:
Leon is right BD,

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

As in "red" to "orange"? G

Barry

Leon wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


They were nice and sharp and well-balanced but the carbide rapidly
developed crumbly edges. They didn't just get dull like other bits,
they had (comparatively) huge chunks of carbide missing from the
edges.


Exactly my experience. I still keep a few chunks of the carbide as a
reminder.

Last time I complained about this on the wreck I was told that sort
of failure was characteristic of poorly recycled carbide. Evidently
recycled carbide is is ground up and then mixed with fresh
material all of which is then sintered together. Big chunks tear out
if the recycled carbide is not ground finely enough and does not
bond well to the matrix.

--

FF