What are the pro's and con's of a shorter stroke (3/4" vs 1.25") and how
does the orbital action feature work (and why whould I want it) ???

I'm looking at a Milwaukee 6509-xx (where xx is a number like 20, 21,
22). Anyone know the exact differences between these model numbers?

I'm looking at the Milwaukee because it seems to have the least amount
of play or wobble in the blade and the shaft mechanism vs other saws.

Some Guy wrote:
What are the pro's and con's of a shorter stroke (3/4" vs 1.25") and how
does the orbital action feature work (and why whould I want it) ???

I'm looking at a Milwaukee 6509-xx (where xx is a number like 20, 21,
22). Anyone know the exact differences between these model numbers?

How about Milwaukee????



Longer stroke comes w/ the orbital and is more aggressive. Orbital
doesn't come w/ the 6509, however.

The -20, -22 determine accessories w/ the basic saw -- iirc, the -22 is
w/ case, -20 w/o. I think the -21 is no longer available but don't
recall precisely what was the difference...

And, of course, you can cut wood w/ a Sawzall-type tool, but one could
hardly call it "woodworking"...

--

Some Guy wrote:
What are the pro's and con's of a shorter stroke (3/4" vs 1.25") and
how does the orbital action feature work (and why whould I want it)
???

I'm looking at a Milwaukee 6509-xx (where xx is a number like 20,
21,
22). Anyone know the exact differences between these model numbers?

I'm looking at the Milwaukee because it seems to have the least
amount
of play or wobble in the blade and the shaft mechanism vs other
saws.

-20 is the saw and one blade
-21 is the saw, carrying case, and two blades
-22 is the saw, carrying case, and one blade

A Sawzall is a construction and demolition tool, not a precision tool.
No matter what you do to it it's not going to give you the same kind
of smooth cut as a Bosch or Festool jigsaw. The longer stroke gives
faster cutting, so does the orbital action. Both are generally
desirable features--the one downside to the longer stroke is that you
need more clearance behind the piece being sawn.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Some Guy" wrote in message ...
What are the pro's and con's of a shorter stroke (3/4" vs 1.25") and how
does the orbital action feature work (and why whould I want it) ???

I'm looking at a Milwaukee 6509-xx (where xx is a number like 20, 21,
22). Anyone know the exact differences between these model numbers?

I'm looking at the Milwaukee because it seems to have the least amount
of play or wobble in the blade and the shaft mechanism vs other saws.


The immediate con to a 3/4" stroke over the 1/25" stroke is that it will cut
most effeminately through 3/4" thick or less material. The 1/25" stroke
lets that happen up to 1.25" thick. If the stroke is shorter than the
thickness your are cutting, some teeth never get to come out of the wood and
clear.

Some Guy wrote:
What are the pro's and con's of a shorter stroke (3/4" vs 1.25") and how
does the orbital action feature work (and why whould I want it) ???


My recip saw does not have orbital motion. However, my jigsaw offers
selectable orbital action and there is a huge difference in cutting
speed with the orbital action engaged. The quality of the cut is
noticeably lower with orbital strokes, but I don't see that as a problem
for most recip jobs. If I were buying a new recip saw, I'd probably
go for the saw that included an orbital stroke.

B A R R Y wrote:

Some Guy wrote:
What are the pro's and con's of a shorter stroke (3/4" vs 1.25") and how
does the orbital action feature work (and why whould I want it) ???


My recip saw does not have orbital motion. However, my jigsaw offers
selectable orbital action and there is a huge difference in cutting
speed with the orbital action engaged. The quality of the cut is
noticeably lower with orbital strokes, but I don't see that as a problem
for most recip jobs. If I were buying a new recip saw, I'd probably
go for the saw that included an orbital stroke.

Yep, exactly, I have the selectable orbital on my jigsaw too, cuts rough but
real fast with the orbital engaged, without I can get a clean cut that
needs minimal sanding. My recip, does not have the orbital and only has a
3/4" stroke, it will go through anything I have tried (with the right
blade), but the cuts are never real pretty anyway, and who cares it is a
demolition tool and does the job.

--
Froz...

Leon wrote:
....
The immediate con to a 3/4" stroke over the 1/25" stroke is that it will cut
most effeminately through 3/4" thick or less material. The 1/25" stroke
lets that happen up to 1.25" thick. If the stroke is shorter than the
thickness your are cutting, some teeth never get to come out of the wood and
clear.

That's not really an issue when one considers the number of tuba-x
material and thicker Sawzall's have zipped thru over the years...

--

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:28:47 -0400, Some Guy wrote:

What are the pro's and con's of a shorter stroke (3/4" vs 1.25") and how
does the orbital action feature work (and why whould I want it) ???

I'm looking at a Milwaukee 6509-xx (where xx is a number like 20, 21,
22). Anyone know the exact differences between these model numbers?

I'm looking at the Milwaukee because it seems to have the least amount
of play or wobble in the blade and the shaft mechanism vs other saws.


I have a (not Super) Milwaukee sawzall. It has two speeds and does
the job. An orbital action and longer stroke makes a more aggressive
(and wider for the orbital) cut. A shorter cut is useful if you want
to prevent cutting too far into a wall. I really like my Sawzall and
it has stood the test of nearly 20 years of occasional abuse. The
extra features may come in handy, really depends on what you might
need to do. I used a long blade on my sawzall to rip a log one
time--a longer stroke is useful in removing waste quickly with less
blade overheating. Milwaukee has proven to be a quality brand,
especially with reciprocating saws. I have a Milwaukee corded
electric drill that never quits. Atlas Copco (in Sweden) bought
Milwaulkee in 1995.

Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:28:47 -0400, Some Guy wrote:

What are the pro's and con's of a shorter stroke (3/4" vs 1.25") and how
does the orbital action feature work (and why whould I want it) ???

All depends on what you are intending to use it for... If you are
entirely (and I really mean entirely) using it for rough woodworking,
demo and the like, then the orbital feature will cut faster,
particularly with a coarse tooth blade.
However, if you intend to do anything with thinner stock, or _EVER_ use
it on pipe or sheet metal, you don't want the orbital action because you
will fight it to the point you either botch the job, break the blade, or
throw the whole thing in the nearest river, depending on your patience
and temperament...

Though the (usually less expensive) non-orbital action doesn't cut as
fast in thick wood, it is much more controllable in thinner stock, and
with some finesse, you can use "metal" capable blades (10-15tpi) on
thinner wood stock and get a passably smooth cut that requires little
clean up, compared to any blade with the orbital action. You can also
cut pipe (plastic and/or steel) much easier with a standard action and
actually get away with cutting sheet metal in a pinch...

I originally bought a regular cutting saw (Makita), and a some time
later, one that offered orbital action, which rapidly went to a friend
as I just didn't like the feeling and comparatively limited uses I could
put it to, compared to the regular cutting action.

Whatever you choose, if you're doing rough carpentry, after a while
you'll wonder how you did without one...

--Rick

rick frazier wrote:
Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:28:47 -0400, Some Guy wrote:

What are the pro's and con's of a shorter stroke (3/4" vs 1.25")
and how does the orbital action feature work (and why whould I
want
it) ???

All depends on what you are intending to use it for... If you are
entirely (and I really mean entirely) using it for rough
woodworking,
demo and the like, then the orbital feature will cut faster,
particularly with a coarse tooth blade.
However, if you intend to do anything with thinner stock, or _EVER_
use it on pipe or sheet metal, you don't want the orbital action
because you will fight it to the point you either botch the job,
break the blade, or throw the whole thing in the nearest river,
depending on your patience and temperament...

Though the (usually less expensive) non-orbital action doesn't cut
as
fast in thick wood, it is much more controllable in thinner stock,
and
with some finesse, you can use "metal" capable blades (10-15tpi) on
thinner wood stock and get a passably smooth cut that requires
little
clean up, compared to any blade with the orbital action. You can
also
cut pipe (plastic and/or steel) much easier with a standard action
and
actually get away with cutting sheet metal in a pinch...

I originally bought a regular cutting saw (Makita), and a some time
later, one that offered orbital action, which rapidly went to a
friend
as I just didn't like the feeling and comparatively limited uses I
could put it to, compared to the regular cutting action.

All the current model Super Sawzalls have a switch to turn orbital
action on or off, so this shouldn't be an issue.

Whatever you choose, if you're doing rough carpentry, after a while
you'll wonder how you did without one...

--Rick

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

rick frazier wrote:

Whatever you choose, if you're doing rough carpentry, after a while
you'll wonder how you did without one...

I have a Dewalt saw (it's about 6 or 7 years old) and I've really beat
the **** out of it over time. Like when I'm shallow excavating an area
by hand in clay soil with roots and I just plunge the saw into the
ground and try to cut the roots and loosen the soil. The shaft is a
little wobbly, but it was probably like that when new.

The reason for my question is that I have a 6" x 6" x 8ft spruce post
set in concrete (7 years ago) and I'm just now getting around to
extending my fence to that post. The post has pulled about 1.75" out of
level at the top. I would have liked to cut a long, wedge-shaped piece
first, but I don't have a bandsaw, and I don't think it would been
practical to cut such a long piece on it anyways.

So I glued a 2x6 x 8' piece of (I think) pine to the post and now that
the glue has cured (PL premium) I'm going to set up a couple of metal
U-channel's on either side to act as a cutting guide and use my new
Milwaukee saw to cut down the new wood to make the post straight and
level. I'll have to do the same on the other side of the post (cut it
down) to make the post square and level.

So it's not exactly demolition work. I want a nice controlled cut,
hence why I was looking for a saw with little or no wobble in the blade,
but was wondering about the shorter stroke and the orbital action.
Since the Milwaukee 6509 doesn't have orbital action, that's ok because
it's not something that I would want anyways (not for this job) but I
guess it would have been nice if it had the regular 1.25" stroke. It'll
just take twice as long to make the cut I suppose.

The 6509 also doesn't have a trigger lock, so I'll probably put a
tie-wrap around the trigger during the cut.

It's a pain in the ass that the one I got (6509-22) came with the
plastic carry case - which I have no need for but probably added an
extra $10 to the price.

Some Guy wrote:
rick frazier wrote:

Whatever you choose, if you're doing rough carpentry, after a while
you'll wonder how you did without one...

I have a Dewalt saw (it's about 6 or 7 years old) and I've really
beat
the **** out of it over time. Like when I'm shallow excavating an
area by hand in clay soil with roots and I just plunge the saw into
the ground and try to cut the roots and loosen the soil. The shaft
is a little wobbly, but it was probably like that when new.

The reason for my question is that I have a 6" x 6" x 8ft spruce
post
set in concrete (7 years ago) and I'm just now getting around to
extending my fence to that post. The post has pulled about 1.75"
out
of level at the top. I would have liked to cut a long, wedge-shaped
piece first, but I don't have a bandsaw, and I don't think it would
been practical to cut such a long piece on it anyways.

So I glued a 2x6 x 8' piece of (I think) pine to the post and now
that
the glue has cured (PL premium) I'm going to set up a couple of
metal
U-channel's on either side to act as a cutting guide and use my new
Milwaukee saw to cut down the new wood to make the post straight and
level. I'll have to do the same on the other side of the post (cut
it
down) to make the post square and level.

So it's not exactly demolition work. I want a nice controlled cut,
hence why I was looking for a saw with little or no wobble in the
blade, but was wondering about the shorter stroke and the orbital
action. Since the Milwaukee 6509 doesn't have orbital action, that's
ok because it's not something that I would want anyways (not for
this
job) but I guess it would have been nice if it had the regular 1.25"
stroke. It'll just take twice as long to make the cut I suppose.

The 6509 also doesn't have a trigger lock, so I'll probably put a
tie-wrap around the trigger during the cut.

It's a pain in the ass that the one I got (6509-22) came with the
plastic carry case - which I have no need for but probably added an
extra $10 to the price.

Cutting six inches deep the blade is going to flex and you won't get a
square cut unless you're very lucky. Might be square enough for your
needs though. I'd be very surprised if it gave a noticeably better
cut than your old deWalt.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Some Guy wrote:
....
The reason for my question is that I have a 6" x 6" x 8ft spruce post
set in concrete (7 years ago) and I'm just now getting around to
extending my fence to that post. The post has pulled about 1.75" out of
level at the top. I would have liked to cut a long, wedge-shaped piece
first, but I don't have a bandsaw, and I don't think it would been
practical to cut such a long piece on it anyways.

So I glued a 2x6 x 8' piece of (I think) pine to the post and now that
the glue has cured (PL premium) I'm going to set up a couple of metal
U-channel's on either side to act as a cutting guide and use my new
Milwaukee saw to cut down the new wood to make the post straight and
level. I'll have to do the same on the other side of the post (cut it
down) to make the post square and level.
....

It's certainly not the tool I'd pick for that job--I'd use the edge
guide as suggested, but make the cut w/ the Skilsaw and then clean up
the end w/ a handsaw.

I don't think you're going to get the quality of cut you're hoping for
w/ the Sawzall, even w/ a guide and a fairly fine blade.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
...
The immediate con to a 3/4" stroke over the 1/25" stroke is that it will
cut most effeminately through 3/4" thick or less material. The 1/25"
stroke lets that happen up to 1.25" thick. If the stroke is shorter than
the thickness your are cutting, some teeth never get to come out of the
wood and clear.

That's not really an issue when one considers the number of tuba-x
material and thicker Sawzall's have zipped thru over the years...

--

And yet one with a longer stroke will cut faster.

Leon wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
...
The immediate con to a 3/4" stroke over the 1/25" stroke is that it will
cut most effeminately through 3/4" thick or less material. The 1/25"
stroke lets that happen up to 1.25" thick. If the stroke is shorter than
the thickness your are cutting, some teeth never get to come out of the
wood and clear.
That's not really an issue when one considers the number of tuba-x
material and thicker Sawzall's have zipped thru over the years...

--

And yet one with a longer stroke will cut faster.

Yes, but the standard 3/4" stroke certainly isn't really the "most
effeminate" of cuts...that's the point that the ability to whack thru
most anything pretty effectively really isn't greatly compromised w/ the
shorter stroke--that every tooth doesn't clear the material surface
isn't generally that much a limiting factor.

--

Leon wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

Leon wrote:
...

The immediate con to a 3/4" stroke over the 1/25" stroke is that it will
cut most effeminately through 3/4" thick or less material. The 1/25"
stroke lets that happen up to 1.25" thick. If the stroke is shorter than
the thickness your are cutting, some teeth never get to come out of the
wood and clear.

That's not really an issue when one considers the number of tuba-x
material and thicker Sawzall's have zipped thru over the years...

--


And yet one with a longer stroke will cut faster.



Agreed, although sometimes a shorter shorter stroke is preferred when
blade clearance is limited.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
...
The immediate con to a 3/4" stroke over the 1/25" stroke is that it
will cut most through 3/4" thick or less material. The 1/25" stroke
lets that happen up to 1.25" thick. If the stroke is shorter than the
thickness your are cutting, some teeth never get to come out of the
wood and clear.
That's not really an issue when one considers the number of tuba-x
material and thicker Sawzall's have zipped thru over the years...

--

And yet one with a longer stroke will cut faster.

Yes, but the standard 3/4" stroke certainly isn't really the "most
effeminate" of cuts...that's the point that the ability to whack thru most
anything pretty effectively really isn't greatly compromised w/ the
shorter stroke--that every tooth doesn't clear the material surface isn't
generally that much a limiting factor.

--

First off, let me correct my typo "effeminately" should have been
"efficiently". The 1.25" stroke will more efficiently and more quickly cut
material over 3/4" thick than a 3/4" stroke will. Whether that matters much
to the user is a personal decision.

Sounds like you will be making a ripping cut? If so I doubt that you
will be pleased with the result. I'll bet the blade will wander along
the grain lines. You'd be better off with a hand powered, sharp! rip saw.

Pete Stanaitis
--------------

Some Guy wrote:
rick frazier wrote:


Whatever you choose, if you're doing rough carpentry, after a while
you'll wonder how you did without one...


I have a Dewalt saw (it's about 6 or 7 years old) and I've really beat
the **** out of it over time. Like when I'm shallow excavating an area
by hand in clay soil with roots and I just plunge the saw into the
ground and try to cut the roots and loosen the soil. The shaft is a
little wobbly, but it was probably like that when new.

The reason for my question is that I have a 6" x 6" x 8ft spruce post
set in concrete (7 years ago) and I'm just now getting around to
extending my fence to that post. The post has pulled about 1.75" out of
level at the top. I would have liked to cut a long, wedge-shaped piece
first, but I don't have a bandsaw, and I don't think it would been
practical to cut such a long piece on it anyways.

So I glued a 2x6 x 8' piece of (I think) pine to the post and now that
the glue has cured (PL premium) I'm going to set up a couple of metal
U-channel's on either side to act as a cutting guide and use my new
Milwaukee saw to cut down the new wood to make the post straight and
level. I'll have to do the same on the other side of the post (cut it
down) to make the post square and level.

So it's not exactly demolition work. I want a nice controlled cut,
hence why I was looking for a saw with little or no wobble in the blade,
but was wondering about the shorter stroke and the orbital action.
Since the Milwaukee 6509 doesn't have orbital action, that's ok because
it's not something that I would want anyways (not for this job) but I
guess it would have been nice if it had the regular 1.25" stroke. It'll
just take twice as long to make the cut I suppose.

The 6509 also doesn't have a trigger lock, so I'll probably put a
tie-wrap around the trigger during the cut.

It's a pain in the ass that the one I got (6509-22) came with the
plastic carry case - which I have no need for but probably added an
extra $10 to the price.