Puckdropper wrote:

Does your local Lowes have the 17-959 on sale? I've been thinking about
upgrading my drill press (a $100 Ryobi benchtop) to something more
substantial. If yours does, maybe mine will too. (You're in Indy, right?
I'm left of Indy about 300 miles.)

No, Lowes carried the Delta 17-950 DP(at $400), not the 17-959. For the
difference in their current prices, I think that choosing the 17-959 is
a no-brainer. I was able to locate a 17-950 in a slightly damaged box at
Lowes, and buy it for $175. It turned out the unit was badly
damaged--must have been hit with a forklift, so I returned it the same
day. A lot of aggravation for nothing (~260 pounds). Clearance units
probably won't be priced at such a low price though, the department
manager has discretion once items are "unlisted". I just mentioned that
I knew Lowes was clearing them out and negotiated a little.

I found out about the Delta clearance at sawmillcreek.org. They just
started requiring a $6 annual "contribution", for membership, which is
now required to look at their "Deals & Discounts" section--which is how
I learned about the clearance above. I don't think I'd pay the $6 just
to look at that, as in general the pickings are slim, but they have a
sub-forum focused on hand tools which I like.

Yep, I'm still in Indy. I was out to St. Louis a few weeks ago. Are
you in MO or IA?

Bill

I made several uses of my Starrett
combination square. Today was the first day I
used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.



J. Clarke wrote:
Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.



I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
be a more suitable protection?

Bill

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:14:19 -0400, Bill wrote:


I made several uses of my Starrett
combination square. Today was the first day I
used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.



J. Clarke wrote:
Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.



I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
be a more suitable protection?

I second the Boeshield recommendation. You're going to need it for your
bandsaw table anyway. DOn't use anything meant for cars on your woodworking
tools. A lot of the stuff is death on unfinished wood. Boeshield if fine.

On 7/4/2010 5:14 PM, Bill wrote:

I made several uses of my Starrett
combination square. Today was the first day I
used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.



J. Clarke wrote:
Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.



I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
be a more suitable protection?

WD-40 is not highly regarded. Johnson's paste wax is far better as a
protectant. But you might want to pick up a can of Boeshield next time
you're in Sears. It'll cost you 20 bucks but if you've got tools with
cast iron tables it's worth it and that can will last you for years.

J. Clarke wrote:

WD-40 is not highly regarded. Johnson's paste wax is far better as a
protectant. But you might want to pick up a can of Boeshield next time
you're in Sears. It'll cost you 20 bucks but if you've got tools with
cast iron tables it's worth it and that can will last you for years.


Will do. Thanks!

In article , Bill wrote:
I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
be a more suitable protection?

Johnson's paste wax is certainly better protection than WD-40, but it may not
be enough. You and I have the same climate, obviously, and I have found
Johnson's to be quite sufficient -- but my shop is in the basement, with
dehumidifiers running year-round. If you don't have a dehumidifier in your
shop, you may need something stronger. Another frequent contributor here,
Leon, is in Houston, and he's found paste wax to be totally inadequate. Of
course, Houston is just a bit more humid than Indy, and he has airborne salt
to contend with besides.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:14:19 -0400, Bill wrote the
following:


I made several uses of my Starrett
combination square. Today was the first day I
used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.



J. Clarke wrote:
Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.



I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
be a more suitable protection?

Yeah, I like waxing my, erm, I mean Johnson's paste wax. Some reviews
show that there is no help from it whatsoever, but I've seen it work,
so it's good enough for me. Go for it!

--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron

WD-40 is corrosive as hell.

The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been removed
and who knows what else.
When it became popular years ago they bought it by the case and guys were
lubricating lock and hinges, everywhere with it. After many locks (all
brass-top quality) had to be replaced they took a few to a locksmith and
they cut them open. The tumblers were mostly eating right out of the locks
from the corrosive stuff.

Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an etchant and
very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.


"Bill" wrote in message
...

I made several uses of my Starrett
combination square. Today was the first day I
used it, and the feeling of quality impressed me.



J. Clarke wrote:
Do take some Boeshield or bowling alley wax or
something to the head, and if you didn't get the stainless steel blade
to the blade as well. It does rust if you let it.



I wiped some WD-40 on it before I put it away to wipe off my
fingerprints. I have some Johnson's paste wax. Do you think that would
be a more suitable protection?

Bill

Josepi wrote:
WD-40 is corrosive as hell.

The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been removed
and who knows what else.

Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an etchant and
very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.



Thank you for the heads-up. I'm sure I could have waited, but after
reading that I didn't read the next thread before I cleaned up my
combination square with SAE-30. I'll look for Boeshield.

Bill

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:12:35 -0400, Bill wrote:

Josepi wrote:
WD-40 is corrosive as hell.

The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been removed
and who knows what else.

Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an etchant and
very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.



Thank you for the heads-up. I'm sure I could have waited, but after
reading that I didn't read the next thread before I cleaned up my
combination square with SAE-30. I'll look for Boeshield.

I buy it from Rockler or Woodcraft, but Sears sells it too:

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/search_10...4&viewItems=24

Josepi wrote:

WD-40 is corrosive as hell.

Huh??? It's no lubricant (as many people think), but corrosive as hell?
Not ture.


The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been
removed and who knows what else.

It never had any lubricant properties.

When it became popular years ago they bought it by the case and guys
were lubricating lock and hinges, everywhere with it. After many
locks (all brass-top quality) had to be replaced they took a few to a
locksmith and they cut them open. The tumblers were mostly eating
right out of the locks from the corrosive stuff.

Bull. This stuff is pure junk in my opinion, but to state that it eats up
tumblers just ignores the mountains of evidence to the contrary. The junk
is used everyday and it does do some work to clean up rusty or oxidized
surfaces, but it does not eat up brass or any other material. You might
want to submit a cite for your claim above.


Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an
etchant and very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.


Locksmiths use it all the time - for immediate relief of a problem. Not for
a long term lubricant. So - you found what - one locksmith that makes this
claim?

--

-Mike-

Bill wrote in :

Puckdropper wrote:

Does your local Lowes have the 17-959 on sale? I've been thinking
about upgrading my drill press (a $100 Ryobi benchtop) to something
more substantial. If yours does, maybe mine will too. (You're in
Indy, right? I'm left of Indy about 300 miles.)

No, Lowes carried the Delta 17-950 DP(at $400), not the 17-959. For
the difference in their current prices, I think that choosing the
17-959 is a no-brainer. I was able to locate a 17-950 in a slightly
damaged box at Lowes, and buy it for $175. It turned out the unit was
badly damaged--must have been hit with a forklift, so I returned it
the same day. A lot of aggravation for nothing (~260 pounds).
Clearance units probably won't be priced at such a low price though,
the department manager has discretion once items are "unlisted". I
just mentioned that I knew Lowes was clearing them out and negotiated
a little.

I found out about the Delta clearance at sawmillcreek.org. They just
started requiring a $6 annual "contribution", for membership, which is
now required to look at their "Deals & Discounts" section--which is
how I learned about the clearance above. I don't think I'd pay the $6
just to look at that, as in general the pickings are slim, but they
have a sub-forum focused on hand tools which I like.

Yep, I'm still in Indy. I was out to St. Louis a few weeks ago. Are
you in MO or IA?

Bill

Ah... Your previous post lead me to believe they had the 17-959. No big
deal. (Still worth a look, though.)

I think SMC required the use of a real name on the site, something I'm
reluctant to do. Everything else I do on the internet is done with the
handle of Puckdropper, so why should one site be any different?

Boy, my distance estimate was off. It's only 200 miles to Indy.

Puckdroper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.

Puckdropper wrote:

I think SMC required the use of a real name on the site, something I'm
reluctant to do. Everything else I do on the internet is done with the
handle of Puckdropper, so why should one site be any different?


I think "real name" is a relative thing; maybe you have an alias? I
think SMC is mainly trying to cut down on the number of people who might
attempt to spam its site.

"Puckdropper" puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote in message
...
Bill wrote in :

Puckdropper wrote:

Does your local Lowes have the 17-959 on sale? I've been thinking
about upgrading my drill press (a $100 Ryobi benchtop) to something
more substantial. If yours does, maybe mine will too. (You're in
Indy, right? I'm left of Indy about 300 miles.)

No, Lowes carried the Delta 17-950 DP(at $400), not the 17-959. For
the difference in their current prices, I think that choosing the
17-959 is a no-brainer. I was able to locate a 17-950 in a slightly
damaged box at Lowes, and buy it for $175. It turned out the unit was
badly damaged--must have been hit with a forklift, so I returned it
the same day. A lot of aggravation for nothing (~260 pounds).
Clearance units probably won't be priced at such a low price though,
the department manager has discretion once items are "unlisted". I
just mentioned that I knew Lowes was clearing them out and negotiated
a little.

I found out about the Delta clearance at sawmillcreek.org. They just
started requiring a $6 annual "contribution", for membership, which is
now required to look at their "Deals & Discounts" section--which is
how I learned about the clearance above. I don't think I'd pay the $6
just to look at that, as in general the pickings are slim, but they
have a sub-forum focused on hand tools which I like.

Yep, I'm still in Indy. I was out to St. Louis a few weeks ago. Are
you in MO or IA?

Bill

Ah... Your previous post lead me to believe they had the 17-959. No big
deal. (Still worth a look, though.)

I think SMC required the use of a real name on the site, something I'm
reluctant to do. Everything else I do on the internet is done with the
handle of Puckdropper, so why should one site be any different?

Usually if you have a real e-mail address, that is sufficient. I've had a
throw away e-mail account for Lobby Dosser for the past ten years or so. He
gets a Bunch of spam! But it is a Real name as far as a number of companies
are concerned.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 01:19:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote the following:

Josepi wrote:

WD-40 is corrosive as hell.

Huh??? It's no lubricant (as many people think), but corrosive as hell?
Not ture.

PDFTFT

--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:51:16 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote the following:

Canada Ingredients:
Ingredient CAS Number Percent
Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 64742-47-8
64742-88-7
45-50%
Petroleum Base Oil 64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
30-35%
Non-Hazardous Ingredients Proprietary 10%
Surfactant Proprietary 2%
Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 2-3%

USA Ingredients:
Ingredient
CAS #
Weight Percent
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
45-50
Petroleum Base Oil
64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
25
LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
12-18
Carbon Dioxide
124-38-9
2-3
Surfactant
Proprietary
2
Non-Hazardous Ingredients
Mixture
10

Kind of hard to figure out the "corrosive" agent in either!

Kinda hard to miss the mild lubricant in there, too, innit?

--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron

In article , Bill wrote:
Josepi wrote:
WD-40 is corrosive as hell.

The label is different in Canada. The lubricant properties has been removed
and who knows what else.

Locksmith said it happens all the time. Not a protectant but an etchant and
very corrosive. Rinse with oil after usage.



Thank you for the heads-up.

Don't thank him, Bill, he doesn't know what he's talking about. WD-40 is *not*
corrosive, as anybody who's ever used it knows. Josepi is a troll; he's best
ignored.

On 7/5/2010 8:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Kinda hard to miss the mild lubricant in there, too, innit?

I'm of the opinion that WD-40 neither corrodes, nor lubricates well for
any length of time. It does seem to get gummy and will leave a varnish
residue behind if used on the same mechanism for a long time, which is
why I never used it on my shotguns, except to give them a good dousing
after coming back from a duck/goose hunt, before grabbing Hoppe's #9.

Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing moisture, and
moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal surface ...
and great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and surfaces
like nothing else will.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Jul 5, 8:05*am, Swingman wrote:

Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing moisture, and
moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal surface ...
and great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and surfaces
like nothing else will.


It's OK as a "honing oil" on my oilstones rather than oil which tends
to gum up as I hardly ever use them, and some people swear it's good
for arthritis.

Didn't know about it being good for cleaning SS. Gotta try that,
thanks Swing.

Luigi

"Luigi Zanasi" wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 8:05 am, Swingman wrote:

Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing
moisture, and
moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal
surface ...
and great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and
surfaces
like nothing else will.


It's OK as a "honing oil" on my oilstones rather than oil which
tends
to gum up as I hardly ever use them, and some people swear it's
good
for arthritis.

Didn't know about it being good for cleaning SS. Gotta try that,
thanks Swing.

Luigi

What I like is how WD-40 helps to dissolve and relocate old
lubrication. I don't use it specifically for lubrication, but to
"reactivate" old lube, such is in the bearings of a rolling garage
door. It penetrates great and the dissolved old lube then
relubricates the ball bearings without any fuss or mess.

Nonny



--
On most days,
it's just not worth
the effort of chewing
through the restraints..

Yes and the ingredients and labels have changed over the years. The US can
**used** to say "lubricates" on the front and the Canuck can didn't.

Now, I see, none of the cans state "lubricates" on the front.

Pretty hard to state "lubricates" and "removes oil and grease" in the same
breath...LOL

Meanwhile WD-40 claims the ingredients are secret and nobody knows what is
in it.

http://www.lockpicking101.com/viewto...=1075&start=30


"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
...

Canada Ingredients:
Ingredient CAS Number Percent
Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 64742-47-8
64742-88-7
45-50%
Petroleum Base Oil 64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
30-35%
Non-Hazardous Ingredients Proprietary 10%
Surfactant Proprietary 2%
Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 2-3%

USA Ingredients:
Ingredient
CAS #
Weight Percent
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
45-50
Petroleum Base Oil
64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
25
LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
12-18
Carbon Dioxide
124-38-9
2-3
Surfactant
Proprietary
2
Non-Hazardous Ingredients
Mixture
10

Kind of hard to figure out the "corrosive" agent in either!

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 7/5/2010 8:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Kinda hard to miss the mild lubricant in there, too, innit?

I'm of the opinion that WD-40 neither corrodes, nor lubricates well for
any length of time. It does seem to get gummy and will leave a varnish
residue behind if used on the same mechanism for a long time, which is why
I never used it on my shotguns, except to give them a good dousing after
coming back from a duck/goose hunt, before grabbing Hoppe's #9.

Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing moisture, and
moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal surface ... and
great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and surfaces like
nothing else will.


Going to try that one Today! Got some ratty looking SS that I can't keep
clean.

On 7/5/2010 6:29 PM, Josepi wrote:
Yes and the ingredients and labels have changed over the years. The US can
**used** to say "lubricates" on the front and the Canuck can didn't.

Now, I see, none of the cans state "lubricates" on the front.

Pretty hard to state "lubricates" and "removes oil and grease" in the same
breath...LOL

Meanwhile WD-40 claims the ingredients are secret and nobody knows what is
in it.

http://www.lockpicking101.com/viewto...=1075&start=30


"Lobby wrote in message
...

Canada Ingredients:
Ingredient CAS Number Percent
Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 64742-47-8
64742-88-7
45-50%
Petroleum Base Oil 64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
30-35%
Non-Hazardous Ingredients Proprietary10%
Surfactant Proprietary2%
Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 2-3%

USA Ingredients:
Ingredient
CAS #
Weight Percent
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
45-50
Petroleum Base Oil
64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
25
LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
12-18
Carbon Dioxide
124-38-9
2-3
Surfactant
Proprietary
2
Non-Hazardous Ingredients
Mixture
10

Kind of hard to figure out the "corrosive" agent in either!

I've got a can of "Sprayon 708" Teflon lubricant. According to the MSDS
it contains propane, heptane, and isopropyl alcohol. Anything it
touches quickly turns to rust (fortunately I found that out before I
used it on anything expensive). There's obviously something or other in
it that's not listed on the MSDS (Teflon, for one thing, unless they're
lying about that).

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:05:07 -0500, Swingman wrote
the following:

On 7/5/2010 8:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Kinda hard to miss the mild lubricant in there, too, innit?

I'm of the opinion that WD-40 neither corrodes, nor lubricates well for
any length of time.

Right, no better than 3-in-1 oil. They didn't used to have any oil in
it, though.


It does seem to get gummy and will leave a varnish
residue behind if used on the same mechanism for a long time, which is
why I never used it on my shotguns, except to give them a good dousing
after coming back from a duck/goose hunt, before grabbing Hoppe's #9.

#9 is a solvent, so what's the doucheing with WD for? Removing the
duck spit?


Wd-40's great for what it was designed for, displacing moisture, and
moderately useful as a handy solvent for cleaning a metal surface ...
and great in the kitchen for shining up SS appliance doors and surfaces
like nothing else will.

You forgot its best attribute: removing the slime from labels whose
glue didn't come off.

--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 7/5/2010 6:29 PM, Josepi wrote:
Yes and the ingredients and labels have changed over the years. The US
can
**used** to say "lubricates" on the front and the Canuck can didn't.

Now, I see, none of the cans state "lubricates" on the front.

Pretty hard to state "lubricates" and "removes oil and grease" in the
same
breath...LOL

Meanwhile WD-40 claims the ingredients are secret and nobody knows what
is
in it.

http://www.lockpicking101.com/viewto...=1075&start=30


"Lobby wrote in message
...

Canada Ingredients:
Ingredient CAS Number Percent
Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates 64742-47-8
64742-88-7
45-50%
Petroleum Base Oil 64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
30-35%
Non-Hazardous Ingredients Proprietary10%
Surfactant Proprietary2%
Carbon Dioxide 124-38-9 2-3%

USA Ingredients:
Ingredient
CAS #
Weight Percent
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
45-50
Petroleum Base Oil
64742-58-1
64742-53-6
64742-56-9
64742-65-0
25
LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
64742-47-8
12-18
Carbon Dioxide
124-38-9
2-3
Surfactant
Proprietary
2
Non-Hazardous Ingredients
Mixture
10

Kind of hard to figure out the "corrosive" agent in either!

I've got a can of "Sprayon 708" Teflon lubricant. According to the MSDS
it contains propane, heptane, and isopropyl alcohol. Anything it touches
quickly turns to rust (fortunately I found that out before I used it on
anything expensive). There's obviously something or other in it that's
not listed on the MSDS (Teflon, for one thing, unless they're lying about
that).

I doubt they can get away with outright lies, but it would not surprise me
that stuff is being left out when an MSDS is created.

What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of free
space behind the box.

The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
to where I need it most.

Now, what is the "right" way?

Bill

"Bill" wrote in message
...
What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of free
space behind the box.

The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of wood
across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out the
knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force to
where I need it most.

Now, what is the "right" way?

Bill

Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of
free space behind the box.

The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
to where I need it most.

Now, what is the "right" way?

Bill

Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs.


Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...

Yup. Find the unfastened side of the K.O and place the blade of your
screwdriver (red handled Robertson here LOL) and give it a wack with your
hammer or or palm. When it's sticking out the back grab it with a long nose
pliers from the outside and twist it until it breaks off. Now you need to
get a strain relief into the hole and a cablein the back.

OTOH. You typically do not want to come into the back of a receptical box.
The cable conductors will be aiming directly at the back of the receptical
and have to be bent on a hard 90 degree turn to get the receptical in. If
you have to put a dimmer or other large device in the box you may not get it
in without wire damage.

The end of the box is the best entrance and the easiest to install.

Ohh and there is no T.K.O. in this one. Give it one good crack.


"Bill" wrote in message
...
Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...


Lobby Dosser wrote:
Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs.

"Bill" wrote in message
...
What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of
free space behind the box.

The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
to where I need it most.

Now, what is the "right" way?

Bill

Yup. Find the unfastened side of the K.O and place the blade of your
screwdriver (red handled Robertson here LOL) and give it a wack with your
hammer or or palm. When it's sticking out the back grab it with a long nose
pliers from the outside and twist it until it breaks off. Now you need to
get a strain relief into the hole and a cablein the back.

OTOH. You typically do not want to come into the back of a receptical box.
The cable conductors will be aiming directly at the back of the receptical
and have to be bent on a hard 90 degree turn to get the receptical in. If
you have to put a dimmer or other large device in the box you may not get it
in without wire damage.

The end of the box is the best entrance and the easiest to install.

Ohh and there is no T.K.O. in this one. Give it one good crack.


"Bill" wrote in message
...
Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...


Lobby Dosser wrote:
Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs.

"Bill" wrote in message
...
What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of
free space behind the box.

The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
to where I need it most.

Now, what is the "right" way?

Bill

In article , Bill wrote:
What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of free
space behind the box.

The first thing I'd try, I think, is just a big screwdriver. If you can push
one edge of that knockout just 1/16" inside the box, you should be able to get
a nail puller or small cat's-paw under that edge and lift it farther.
Eventually you'll be able to grab it with a pliers.

Or you might try drilling a small hole in the knockout, then using an
automobile dent puller to pull it toward you.

Bill wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a
metal electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost
2" of free space behind the box.

The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push
out the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct
the force to where I need it most.

Now, what is the "right" way?

Bill

Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs.



Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...

Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much easier to
hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it out, how to you
propose to get a romex clamp on them?

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 02:07:55 -0400, Bill wrote the
following:

What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of free
space behind the box.

The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
to where I need it most.

Now, what is the "right" way?

IANAE, but I use an ice pick to good effect. Oops, that's on plastic
boxes. On metal, I use my 11" (or 14?) long, insulated needle nose
pliers to knock out one end and rock it from behind with them
afterwards. http://fwd4.me/Vt2 is similar, but the set I bought had a
needlenose pair and a pair with more of a linesman type of jaws.

--
It's also helpful to realize that this very body that we have, that's
sitting right here right now, with its aches and its pleasures, is
exactly what we need to be fully human, fully awake, fully alive.
-- Pema Chodron

Mike Marlow wrote:

Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...

Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much easier to
hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it out, how to you
propose to get a romex clamp on them?

I think I could have got them on with 1 3/4" of space, but I will do as
you advised, in case that their are problems with tightening the
"nut/collar" that goes inside the box that I don't fully comprehend.

Thank you,
Bill

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:

Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...

Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much easier
to hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it out, how to
you propose to get a romex clamp on them?



I think some of the confusion came from the fact that my sub-panel's
directions said to "hit" at the little tab/button, and for electrical
boxes it appears to be just the opposite. I think we're gonna have
'lectric in a few days folks!

Bill

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Lobby Dosser wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
...
What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a metal
electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost 2" of
free space behind the box.

The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push out
the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct the force
to where I need it most.

Now, what is the "right" way?

Bill

Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs.


Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with? IIRC,
the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...


What they said.

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Lobby Dosser wrote:
wrote in message
...
What is the popular way to remove knock-outs from the back of a
metal electric receptacle box after it is nailed up? I have almost
2" of free space behind the box.

The best idea Ive come up with on my own so far is to put a piece of
wood across the face of the box, and use a C-clamp to try to push
out the knock-out. Maybe a few very small washers to help direct
the force to where I need it most.

Now, what is the "right" way?

Bill

Old screw driver and a hammer. That's why they call them knock-outs.



Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...

Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much easier to
hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it out, how to you
propose to get a romex clamp on them?


As soon as I got home, I took another look at the electrical box. The
most appropriate sized holes for a 12-2 cable, 3/8" radius, were all on
the back of the box.

I took a 3" C-clamp, and a small piece of one-by and pushed-in connector
ports on the back (2 corners), quite handily. This did not put any
force on the connection to the stud either (as using a screwdriver
undoubtedly would have). The connectors were easy to fit and it will be
easy to pull 8" of cable through.

Mike, Maybe you read 1.75" as .75"? The romex clamp sticks out, at
most, 3/4", no?

Bill

Geeesh! Get the pop in ones that grip as you tighten them. You bought
expensive clamps for romex style cables.


"Bill" wrote in message
...
I think I could have got them on with 1 3/4" of space, but I will do as
you advised, in case that their are problems with tightening the
"nut/collar" that goes inside the box that I don't fully comprehend.

Thank you,
Bill

On 7/7/10 2:24 AM, Bill wrote:
I took a 3" C-clamp, and a small piece of one-by and pushed-in connector
ports on the back (2 corners), quite handily. This did not put any force
on the connection to the stud either (as using a screwdriver undoubtedly
would have).

You worry too much. :-)

Millions of electricians knock those out with screwdrivers or pliers and
it's fine on the box/wall connection.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:

Could you do it with only 1.75" inches behind the box to work with?
IIRC, the little welded "button" in on left, next to the stud.
I put that box up like it was never coming down...

Why are you trying to knock out the back of the box? It's much
easier to hit it from the top or the bottom. If you do knock it
out, how to you propose to get a romex clamp on them?

I think I could have got them on with 1 3/4" of space, but I will do
as you advised, in case that their are problems with tightening the
"nut/collar" that goes inside the box that I don't fully comprehend.


There are a couple of considerations Bill - one is just the accessability of
the rear of the box. One might ask why you would want to create a situation
where you have to fight to make a connection. Down the road, and re-work is
only going to be that much more difficult and it's not going to be easy
during the intial install. The other is simply that you are creating a less
than desireable environment inside the box with a rear hit. If you're only
using 21 cu in boxes, you've got a tight squeeze with a rear hit. If you're
using 18 cu in, you're creating a nightmare. I strongly suggest you just
hit the top and the bottom. Standardize on how you hit the box - either
feed in from the top or feed in from the bottom - and then exit from the
other end. Makes re-work later on much easier. Your wire bends will thank
you for that little change in approach.

--

-Mike-