I ordered a thin kerf (3/32) WWII blade from Amazon for my fairly old
(but excellent condition) contractor's saw. However, I received the
thick kerf blade (1/8"). Should I bother to return it?

1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%), but blade
manufacturers do go to the trouble of having both types, so someone
thinks the difference is significant.

Thanks

Mitch

On Jun 16, 2:20 pm, MB wrote:
I ordered a thin kerf (3/32) WWII blade from Amazon for my fairly old
(but excellent condition) contractor's saw. However, I received the
thick kerf blade (1/8"). Should I bother to return it?

1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%), but blade
manufacturers do go to the trouble of having both types, so someone
thinks the difference is significant.

The difference is 25% or 33 1/3% depending on how you look at it. The
thinner blade has to remove less wood and will run more smoothly
through thicker and harder woods.

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:20 pm, MB wrote:
I ordered a thin kerf (3/32) WWII blade from Amazon for my fairly old
(but excellent condition) contractor's saw. However, I received the
thick kerf blade (1/8"). Should I bother to return it?

1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%), but blade
manufacturers do go to the trouble of having both types, so someone
thinks the difference is significant.

The difference is 25% or 33 1/3% depending on how you look at it. The
thinner blade has to remove less wood and will run more smoothly
through thicker and harder woods.

Just to clarify for OP, that would be either (4/32)/(3/32) -- 4/3 =
1.33 -- 33% (or, of course, if reference the thicker, it reduces to 3/4
-- -25%.

But, my real reason for posting is if you don't know why in particular
you ordered it, you probably won't know the difference...

Assuming it's not a thin rim but full thickness, if you're planning on
some thicker harder stock as Rico says, it might be worth the trouble,
particularly if your saw is underpowered. OTOH, the thinner blade tends
to flex a little more so there's a slight cost, perhaps, as well...

Judge on what you're expecting to do most with it and go from there...

--

But, my real reason for posting is if you don't know why in particular
you ordered it, you probably won't know the difference...

I ordered the thin kerf because the Forrest site recommended it for
contractors saws. My last blade was also a think kerf blade (freud).
So, I think I'll send it back to Amazon. (Thanks for the math
correction)

Mitch

In article om, MB wrote:
I ordered a thin kerf (3/32) WWII blade from Amazon for my fairly old
(but excellent condition) contractor's saw. However, I received the
thick kerf blade (1/8"). Should I bother to return it?

Depends on several factors. The most important are how powerful a motor you
have in your saw, and what type of cutting you typically do. The 1/8" kerf
blade requires a more powerful motor. If you do a lot of rip cuts in thick
and/or hard woods, you'll probably want the thin kerf blade (I'm assuming that
your contractor's saw has about a 1HP motor, no?).

If the motor is powerful enough that this isn't really a consideration, then
look at what other blades you use frequently on the saw. When I upgraded from
a contractor's saw to a 3HP cabinet saw, I also went from a thin kerf WWII to
a standard kerf WWII -- because I also often use a melamine-cutting blade that
takes a 1/8" kerf, and now I can swap blades without affecting the reading on
the rip fence scale.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

MB wrote:
I ordered a thin kerf (3/32) WWII blade from Amazon for my fairly old
(but excellent condition) contractor's saw. However, I received the
thick kerf blade (1/8"). Should I bother to return it?

1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%), but blade
manufacturers do go to the trouble of having both types, so someone
thinks the difference is significant.

Thanks

Mitch

Since you didn't say what your main use for the saw is, it is difficult to
recommend either way. Since you are getting a Forrest blade I am assuming that
you are NOT going to be working with much construction grade materials and the
like, and will be working with good quality woods for "finer" projects. If that
is the case, then I would think that the thick blade *could* actually be a
better choice.

I have a Craftsman 1 1/2 HP contractor saw and have a couple of thin kerf and
several "standard" blades. My absolute favorite blade is a Forrest Customized
WWII that they called a Special #1 created for cutting box/finger joints. It
is a standard 1/8" kerf and has a grind that is similar to a ATB-R but not quite
the same. Still, it cuts a perfectly flat bottomed 1/8" kerf. I use it for all
kinds of cuts including some short rips. It does take more pressure to push the
wood through when ripping, but I don't think it is dangerously so. I don't have
a "standard" WWII blade to compare against so I don't know if this blade takes
more pressure than a standard WWII. A sharp thick blade will cut easier than a
dull thin blade too. As long as you use the same caution and safety equipment
as thin blades you will be fine. What I really like about it is that all of the
cuts I make with it come out baby butt smooth.

If I am wrong and you DO a lot of ripping of thick pieces, then you are in for a
long day anyway. One day my son got a hair up his butt and decided to build
something. We had to rip a bunch of 10 foot construction grade 2x10's (he
already had them) into 2x2's. That overtaxed the saw even with a thin kerf
ripping blade. We could get about a cut and a half and then the breaker would
pop. We'd turn the saw off, reset the breaker, go get a drink or two (he's a
health nut so it was water), and start again. It REALLY didn't help that the
lighting ( and there is quite a bit of lighting for a garage) was on the same
circuit as the saw either. I really need to do something about that. :-)

Wayne

Sat, Jun 16, 2007, 11:20am (EDT-3) (MB) doth query:
I ordered a thin kerf (3/32) WWII blade from Amazon for my fairly old
(but excellent condition) contractor's saw. However, I received the
thick kerf blade (1/8"). Should I bother to return it?
1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%), but blade manufacturers
do go to the trouble of having both types, so someone thinks the
difference is significant.

Manufacturers will make anything that will sell; look at the ricer
cars for proof of that. Me, I like a 1/8" kerf, it makes measuring
easier, faster, for me; but iIt's your money, your saw, your choice.



JOAT
If a man does his best, what else is there?
- General George S. Patton

"MB" wrote in message
ps.com...
I ordered a thin kerf (3/32) WWII blade from Amazon for my fairly old
(but excellent condition) contractor's saw. However, I received the
thick kerf blade (1/8"). Should I bother to return it?

1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%), but blade
manufacturers do go to the trouble of having both types, so someone
thinks the difference is significant.

Thanks

Mitch


I would say keep the thicker kerf blade. Long ago I used thin kerf blades
on a 1 hp saw. I switch to a better but not as good as Forrest regular 1/8"
kerf blade and the cuts were even better.
Thin kerf will not deliver as flat of cut as often as a thinker kerf blade
will.

I don't know the motor HP, but the nameplate is stamped 15 A, 115 V.
Is that 1 HP?

I'm an amateur that does mostly furniture and cabinets. My last
project involved about 20ftx1.5ftx3/4inch counter top of bubinga glued
up from 10 inch wide boards. (came out quite nice BTW). For my current
project I have some 2 inch thick walnut I'll be cutting up for some
table legs. I can't imagine the walnut being harder than bubinga, but
it is twice as thick. Anyway, since it handled the bubinga with a well
worn thin kerf blade, I assume the saw isn't totally anemic. Changes
to the fence calibration is another good point. Perhaps I'll try few
test cuts and then decide.

Mitch

"MB" wrote in message
ps.com...
I don't know the motor HP, but the nameplate is stamped 15 A, 115 V.
Is that 1 HP?

I'm an amateur that does mostly furniture and cabinets. My last
project involved about 20ftx1.5ftx3/4inch counter top of bubinga glued
up from 10 inch wide boards. (came out quite nice BTW). For my current
project I have some 2 inch thick walnut I'll be cutting up for some
table legs. I can't imagine the walnut being harder than bubinga, but
it is twice as thick. Anyway, since it handled the bubinga with a well
worn thin kerf blade, I assume the saw isn't totally anemic. Changes
to the fence calibration is another good point. Perhaps I'll try few
test cuts and then decide.

15a is typically a bit under 1.5hp.
I use only thin kerf. They simply cut easier.

People claim that thin kerf blades are not as stable as thick and therefore
don't give as smooth a cut.
They must be more discerning than I am.

Frankly though, if I was going to cut 20' of bubinga I would take the time
to put a rip blade on; in fact, I leave a rip blade on most of the time.

..... In article om,
MB wrote:
==-----------

I ordered a thin kerf (3/32) WWII blade from Amazon for my fairly old
(but excellent condition) contractor's saw. However, I received the
thick kerf blade (1/8"). Should I bother to return it?

1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%), but blade
manufacturers do go to the trouble of having both types, so someone
thinks the difference is significant.

Thanks

Mitch


FWIW I have the regular 1/8" kerf WW2 on my Delta Contractor II, 1.5hp,
and I'd never go back to using a thin kerf blade for general use. It is
somewhat slower when ripping thick stock, but not a problem.

--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

I agree. I used a full kerf blade on my 1 horse saw. Tooth count and
geometry are far more important.
"Leon" wrote in message
...


I would say keep the thicker kerf blade. Long ago I used thin kerf blades
on a 1 hp saw. I switch to a better but not as good as Forrest regular
1/8"
kerf blade and the cuts were even better.
Thin kerf will not deliver as flat of cut as often as a thinker kerf
blade
will.

"Larry W" wrote in message

FWIW I have the regular 1/8" kerf WW2 on my Delta Contractor II, 1.5hp,
and I'd never go back to using a thin kerf blade for general use. It is
somewhat slower when ripping thick stock, but not a problem.

I have no experience with a thin kerf blades, but I did read somewhere that
some builders of fine furniture using higher end expensive stock use thin
kerf blades to minimize stock removal when cutting. At approximately 1/32"
savings at a time, I'm not sure if what I read has any merit. I guess when
cutting hundreds and perhaps thousands of board feet daily, the savings
should eventually add up.

"MB" wrote

I ordered a thin kerf (3/32) WWII blade from Amazon for my fairly old
(but excellent condition) contractor's saw. However, I received the
thick kerf blade (1/8"). Should I bother to return it?

1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%), but blade
manufacturers do go to the trouble of having both types, so someone
thinks the difference is significant.

Will you existing splitter be thicker than the thin blade you ordered?

Jeff

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
email : Username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk

....In article ,
--------
Upscale wrote:


"Larry W" wrote in message

FWIW I have the regular 1/8" kerf WW2 on my Delta Contractor II, 1.5hp,
and I'd never go back to using a thin kerf blade for general use. It is
somewhat slower when ripping thick stock, but not a problem.

I have no experience with a thin kerf blades, but I did read somewhere that
some builders of fine furniture using higher end expensive stock use thin
kerf blades to minimize stock removal when cutting. At approximately 1/32"
savings at a time, I'm not sure if what I read has any merit. I guess when
cutting hundreds and perhaps thousands of board feet daily, the savings
should eventually add up.



I've never bought the argument that a thin kerf blade would save any
significant amount of stock, but it occurrs to me that in a production
setting, a 25% reduction in sawdust might be significant!







--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

(Larry W) wrote in
:

*snip*


I've never bought the argument that a thin kerf blade would save any
significant amount of stock, but it occurrs to me that in a production
setting, a 25% reduction in sawdust might be significant!





Taking a few minutes to do a little math:
If a thin kerf blade saves you 1/32" in cutting boards, you'd have to
make 32 cuts in a board to save 1". 10 cuts in a 10' board is a lot of
cuts for me, but in doing so I'd save 10/32" or 5/16".

Myth busted. (This makes for good TV, doesn't it? Just run through the
math... and display results. ;-) AM I MISSING AN EYEBROW?)

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

On 16 Jun, 19:20, MB wrote:

1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%),

More like 30% !

Why did you buy a thin kerf blade? If that's still a good reason,
then swap it. Otherwise thick is fine.

A while ago, I bought an old cast-iron cabinet saw. It had been
converted from 3 phase to single phase, but unfortunately with far too
small a motor. Until I had time to swap a decent motor onto it, I ran
this underpowered saw on a thin kerf blade. The difference, especially
for deep rips, was significant. When I got round to fitting a 3HP
motor, I could use thick kerf blades instead. As they're thicker,
they're nominally a bit more stable and give a better surface.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 16 Jun, 19:20, MB wrote:

1/8 vs 3/32 seems like a minor difference (3%),

More like 30% !

Why did you buy a thin kerf blade? If that's still a good reason,
then swap it. Otherwise thick is fine.

A while ago, I bought an old cast-iron cabinet saw. It had been
converted from 3 phase to single phase, but unfortunately with far too
small a motor. Until I had time to swap a decent motor onto it, I ran
this underpowered saw on a thin kerf blade. The difference, especially
for deep rips, was significant. When I got round to fitting a 3HP
motor, I could use thick kerf blades instead. As they're thicker,
they're nominally a bit more stable and give a better surface.

I bought my Woodworker II blade at the St. Louis show. The Rep told me to
only use a thin kerf blade on a direct drive low power saw.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Larry W" wrote in message

FWIW I have the regular 1/8" kerf WW2 on my Delta Contractor II, 1.5hp,
and I'd never go back to using a thin kerf blade for general use. It is
somewhat slower when ripping thick stock, but not a problem.

I have no experience with a thin kerf blades, but I did read somewhere
that
some builders of fine furniture using higher end expensive stock use thin
kerf blades to minimize stock removal when cutting. At approximately 1/32"
savings at a time, I'm not sure if what I read has any merit. I guess when
cutting hundreds and perhaps thousands of board feet daily, the savings
should eventually add up.



Considering that a think kerf can flex as much as 1/32 in thicker cuts I
would say that any savings is a myth on a thin kerf blade.

Why did you buy a thin kerf blade? If that's still a good reason,
then swap it. Otherwise thick is fine.

It was a toss up, but the web site suggested it for contractor saws
and there was no price difference. Sounds like that there is no
consensus in this NG (and there is a lot of data points in this NG),
so my original reason was not that strong, and it's not been
strengthen after this discussion. Thanks to everyone for their
comments.

Mitch