Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I got
no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid 3650
tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head
and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of
Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and
side of the same pieces of red oad.

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut. It
had the same thing, in the same place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.


To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other words,
I do want quality.

What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for my
test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six times
the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Deb

On 7/26/2012 12:00 PM, Dr. Deb wrote:

Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I got
no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid 3650
tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head
and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of
Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and
side of the same pieces of red oad.

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut. It
had the same thing, in the same place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.


To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other words,
I do want quality.

What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for my
test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six times
the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Deb



Ok, so lets take a look at how you tested it.

Did you have the stabilizer on the WWII blade and the HF blade?
Is your saw properly aligned.
Did you have any burning?

Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not aligned
correctly.

Have you used a dial indicator on your fence to check that it doesn't
bow. (you clamp the dial indicator mounted to a block of wood to a miter
gauge that has no play. then run the miter back and forth and verify the
fence)?

A good blade can't correct an un-aligned saw.

If all things are good, then by all means go return it.

On 7/26/2012 11:16 AM, tiredofspam wrote:
On 7/26/2012 12:00 PM, Dr. Deb wrote:

Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a
comparison
between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU
46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools,
I got
no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge
and
buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid
3650
tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my
head
and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4
piece of
Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other
end and
side of the same pieces of red oad.

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I
noticed a
tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and
recut. It
had the same thing, in the same place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more
often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it
sharpened.


To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other
words,
I do want quality.

What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But
for my
test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six
times
the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Deb



Ok, so lets take a look at how you tested it.

Did you have the stabilizer on the WWII blade and the HF blade?

FWIW you absolutely do not need a stabilizer on a WWII 1/8" kerf blade.

On 7/26/2012 11:00 AM, Dr. Deb wrote:

Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I got
no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid 3650
tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head
and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of
Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and
side of the same pieces of red oad.

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut. It
had the same thing, in the same place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.


To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other words,
I do want quality.

What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for my
test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six times
the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Deb

Something was not right.

If you are seeing tooth marks with either either blade your saw is not
properly aligned pr your wood is not perfectly straight. A great blade
will only cut as well as the saw is set up.

Is your wood perfectly straight?

If you absolutely confident that you saw is set up properly I would
suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around during
shipping just like everything else.

Seriously I am extremely happy with the results of my WWII and I have
been doing this seriously for 30+ years. I have only been using a
Forrest since 1999. No blade has cut as well for me as the Forrest.

On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:

I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
during shipping just like everything else.

Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
not up to the standards we are used to.

I would return it regardless.

That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
cabinet saw to see the how they fare.

I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Dr. Deb wrote:

What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But
for my test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in
paying six times the cost of the HF for the Forrest.


I'm well known here for advocating some HF products, while at the same time,
expressing concerns for others. That said - you should not be surprised.
Many here like to bash HF in order to justify the more expensive purchases
they make, with no real valid reason. Good for you to have put things to
the test. That proves much more than those who would say that they can't
buy cheap stuff...

--

-Mike-

On 7/26/2012 1:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:

I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
during shipping just like everything else.

Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
not up to the standards we are used to.

I would return it regardless.

That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
cabinet saw to see the how they fare.

I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.


Still the quality of cut from a Forrest I never see saw marks unless the
blade is dull, or the piece didn't get fed through right (ie pulled away
from fence)

I still don't suspect the blade. I suspect the saws alignment.

tiredofspam wrote:



Ok, so lets take a look at how you tested it.

And let's not get carried away...


Did you have the stabilizer on the WWII blade and the HF blade?
Is your saw properly aligned.
Did you have any burning?


Why would you even ask that? Would any of those questions even matter in
the context of the explanation provided? Answer - NO.


Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not
aligned correctly.

Then the same sort of problem should have presented itself in some way with
the HF blade - yet it did not.


Have you used a dial indicator on your fence to check that it doesn't
bow. (you clamp the dial indicator mounted to a block of wood to a
miter gauge that has no play. then run the miter back and forth and
verify the fence)?

Why - he had a much better cut with a different blade, without going through
all of that. You have to fess up and admit the evidence he has presented.


A good blade can't correct an un-aligned saw.

Nor can a cheap blade. So - your point is...?


--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:


If you absolutely confident that you saw is set up properly I would
suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
during shipping just like everything else.

Quite possibly. This is the only smart comment that has been made in
response to the OP so far.


--

-Mike-

On 7/26/2012 9:00 AM, Dr. Deb wrote:

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.

We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any real
difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next time
you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips going a
few hundred feet per second toward you:

1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??

2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?

3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500 r.p.m. ?

4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?

Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.

Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
woodworking.

On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:

....


Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not
aligned correctly.

Then the same sort of problem should have presented itself in some way with
the HF blade - yet it did not.


We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
there wasn't a mark...

....

Why - he had a much better cut with a different blade, without going through
all of that. You have to fess up and admit the evidence he has presented.
....

No, he didn't say "much better" (altho unless there's something funny
going on I'm presuming a "Deb" is a she rather than a he) -- it was
"little if any noticeable difference"

A good blade can't correct an un-aligned saw.

Nor can a cheap blade. So - your point is...?

No, but a a poorly aligned saw can (and probably will) make a good blade
look no better than or even worse than a poor one...if it's not cutting
in line, neither is the other one and neither is up to what might be if
aligned properly.

--

dpb wrote:
On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:

...


Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not
aligned correctly.

Then the same sort of problem should have presented itself in some
way with the HF blade - yet it did not.


We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
there wasn't a mark...

Actually - he stated a difference.


...

Why - he had a much better cut with a different blade, without going
through all of that. You have to fess up and admit the evidence he
has presented. ...

No, he didn't say "much better" (altho unless there's something funny
going on I'm presuming a "Deb" is a she rather than a he) -- it was
"little if any noticeable difference"

Ok - point taken.



A good blade can't correct an un-aligned saw.

Nor can a cheap blade. So - your point is...?

No, but a a poorly aligned saw can (and probably will) make a good
blade look no better than or even worse than a poor one...if it's not
cutting in line, neither is the other one and neither is up to what
might be if aligned properly.

Correct. Think about that. The $100 blade should not have cut worse - the
same at the worst.

--

-Mike-

"dpb" wrote in message ...

On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:

....


Since you say there is a tooth mark, my guess is your saw is not
aligned correctly.

Then the same sort of problem should have presented itself in some way
with
the HF blade - yet it did not.


We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
there wasn't a mark...

....

Why - he had a much better cut with a different blade, without going
through
all of that. You have to fess up and admit the evidence he has presented.
....

No, he didn't say "much better" (altho unless there's something funny
going on I'm presuming a "Deb" is a she rather than a he) --
================================================== =============
In the original post, Deb makes a reference to SWMBO and getting the money
for fathers day.

Dr. Deb wrote:

Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I got
no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid 3650
tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head
and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of
Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and
side of the same pieces of red oad.

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut. It
had the same thing, in the same place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.


To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other words,
I do want quality.

What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for my
test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six times
the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Deb


After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am
staying neutral.

--
G.W. Ross

Everywhere is walking distance if you
have the time. --Steven Wright

On 7/26/2012 12:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
there wasn't a mark...

Actually - he stated a difference.

_Inferred_, not precisely stated.

...
....


....

No, but a a poorly aligned saw can (and probably will) make a good
blade look no better than or even worse than a poor one...if it's not
cutting in line, neither is the other one and neither is up to what
might be if aligned properly.

Correct. Think about that. The $100 blade should not have cut worse - the
same at the worst.

Not necessarily. It's quite possible (and I'd say probable) that the
imprecision in the cheaper covered up defects in the saw the more
precise blade made apparent.

--

"Dr. Deb" wrote in message
...

Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I
got
no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid
3650
tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my
head
and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece
of
Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end
and
side of the same pieces of red oad.

Out of curiosity, was the board recently face jointed, thicknessed and edge
jointed? The tooth mark comment makes me think the board wasn't tracking
through the blade evenly.... or a splitter/riving knife was causing it to
torque as it was feeding due to the splitter/riving knife being out of
alignment.

John

On 7/26/2012 1:33 PM, G. Ross wrote:
....

After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am staying
neutral.

I'd _always_ question saw setup as well as technique in any comparison...

I'd also in a comparison measure runout, etc., etc., etc., to know.

I'd _ESPECIALLY_ do such stuff if my intent were to post the results
(which effort to do such meticulous reporting is why you'll never find
me actually publishing such comparisons! ).

--

On 7/26/12 12:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:

I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
during shipping just like everything else.

Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
not up to the standards we are used to.

I would return it regardless.

That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
cabinet saw to see the how they fare.

I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.


That's what I was thinking. See how it's cutting, not months from now,
but weeks. C3 is the Doug Fir of the carbide world when it comes to
hardness. :-)


--

-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

"G. Ross" wrote in message
...

After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the Forrest
had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would anyone have
suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am staying neutral.

That's part of the reason why I was asking if the board had been face
jointed, thicknessed and edge jointed recently... since he was working both
sides of the board with the two blades if the board wasn't "perfect" it may
have not feed through smoothly on one edge while it did on the other.

John

dpb wrote:
On 7/26/2012 12:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
there wasn't a mark...

Actually - he stated a difference.

_Inferred_, not precisely stated.



You're really reaching in order to deny the obvious statement that he made.



Correct. Think about that. The $100 blade should not have cut
worse - the same at the worst.

Not necessarily. It's quite possible (and I'd say probable) that the
imprecision in the cheaper covered up defects in the saw the more
precise blade made apparent.

You're reaching even farther now.

I'll agree that more than one factor could be at work here, but I'm
surprised at how far you are reaching to deny the evidence that the OP put
forward.

--

-Mike-

G. Ross wrote:
Dr. Deb wrote:

Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a
comparison between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght
blade (SKU 46231)
http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap
tools, I got no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the
plunge and buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So
shopping around I found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order"
button. The package arrived today and, of course, I had to check it
out. After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my
Ridgid 3650 tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped
back, scratched my head and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF
46231, mounted it and made a couple of test cuts. Then I remounted
the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of Southern Red Oak and did an an
crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the Forrest for the HF blade
and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and side of the same
pieces of red oad. Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was
very little, if
any noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade
gave the better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the
Forrest, I noticed a tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip
fence over 1/4" and recut. It had the same thing, in the same place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more
often, but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than
have it sharpened. To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it
is what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My
bandsaw blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In
other words, I do want quality.

What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for
my test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in
paying six times the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Deb


After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am
staying neutral.

Read the OP again - you have it backwards. Saw alignment has indeed been
mentioned. If that were a problem then one would expect to see problems
across all sorts of blades.

--

-Mike-

dpb wrote:
On 7/26/2012 1:33 PM, G. Ross wrote:
...

After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am
staying neutral.

I'd _always_ question saw setup as well as technique in any
comparison...
I'd also in a comparison measure runout, etc., etc., etc., to know.

I'd _ESPECIALLY_ do such stuff if my intent were to post the results
(which effort to do such meticulous reporting is why you'll never find
me actually publishing such comparisons! ).

Well... I'd just use the blade that cut the best and not try to create all
sorts of tests to prove why that just could not have been true.

--

-Mike-

As to the questions:

1) Yes the saw is set up right
2) Yes the alignment on the fence is right
3) The cuts were made on the opposite end and side of the same piece of red
oak, the only difference was the blade.

I will fully admit, I was extremely surprised.

Could it be that the Forrest blade was faulty? That is certainly possible.

For those who said, "Use the one that gives the best cut." That is exactly
what I am going to do - in fact the Forrest is on its way back to Amazon.

IF, repeat "IF," I were a production woodworker, knowing the testimonies and
reputation of the Forrest, I would have gone for a replacement. However, I
am a hobbyist. I enjoy the work and am learning all the while. That being
said, the C3 on the HF blade will probably last me as long as the C4 on the
Forrest blade will last those of you who do production work.

Lastly, it looks as if the HF blade is a good "learning blade" for those of
us who are just starting out and need something that will give a good cut,
but not gouge the wallet too deeply. Later, as we grow our skills and find
the need something like the Forrest, we can move up.

Thanks for all the comments.

Deb








Dr. Deb wrote:


Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I
got no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid
3650
tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my
head
and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece
of
Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end
and side of the same pieces of red oad.

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed
a
tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut.
It had the same thing, in the same place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it
sharpened.


To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other
words, I do want quality.

What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for
my test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six
times the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Deb

On 7/26/2012 3:16 PM, Dr. Deb wrote:
IF, repeat "IF," I were a production woodworker, knowing the testimonies and
reputation of the Forrest, I would have gone for a replacement. However, I
am a hobbyist. I enjoy the work and am learning all the while. That being
said, the C3 on the HF blade will probably last me as long as the C4 on the
Forrest blade will last those of you who do production work.

If the tool does the job that you need it to do, nothing else need be said.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/26/12 3:23 PM, Swingman wrote:
If the tool does the job that you need it to do, nothing else need be said.


Except: Festool.

Oh, and oakrust.


--

-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

"Pat Barber" wrote:

We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
real
difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
time
you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
going a few hundred feet per second toward you:

1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??

2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?

3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
r.p.m. ?

4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?

Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.

Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
woodworking.
----------------------------------
Nuf said.

Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.

Lew

On 7/26/2012 2:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

You're reaching even farther now.

I'll agree that more than one factor could be at work here, but I'm
surprised at how far you are reaching to deny the evidence that the OP put
forward.

There's really little direct evidence. There's an account.

I (like many others here) have enough experience over 50+ yrs and have
used enough Forrest and other similar quality blades to have a pretty
good database stored to know they do simply perform better than
inexpensive ones in general.

If one does find an exception to that, I'd expect it to be an aberration
easily explained by either damage as Leon mentioned or other conditions.

Again, that a new HF may seem to cut similarly to a good blade on a
poorly tuned saw isn't a surprise, either. Misalignment and/or runout
negates much of the advantage of having a very good blade. Just as a
novice violinist won't/can't make a Strad sound much better than his
practice violin; he just doesn't have the skill yet to make use of the
quality of the instrument.

Accept or no; it's so and makes no difference to me whether do or not.

As OP says in his followup he's a hobby user--it likely doesn't matter
much as yet as it may later on. If he's happy, that's fine but I'll
remain skeptical of the HF being "better" than the Forrest as a general
precept--I'm convinced something correctable gave him the result he got
(possibly the tightened sphincter muscles after having laid out the cash
had something to do with it VBG -- and if he's happy w/ the HF he
might as well get something he'll feel better about spending the $$ on).

--

On 7/26/2012 2:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

Well... I'd just use the blade that cut the best and not try to create all
sorts of tests to prove why that just could not have been true.

Well, if there's a score mark, _something_ is wrong and that shouldn't
be particularly difficult to find out what.

If I had just spent _big_bucks_ (tm) on a blade and it didn't perform,
I'd also surely like to know why.

And certainly if it's for the purpose of a comparison and I'm going to
claim something of one over the other they each deserve a fair shake.
If the Forrest was, in fact, somehow damaged in shipment or somesuch it
pretty much invalidates the whole object and result doesn't it?

--

On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
On 7/26/2012 1:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:

I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
during shipping just like everything else.

Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
not up to the standards we are used to.

I would return it regardless.

That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
cabinet saw to see the how they fare.

I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.


Still the quality of cut from a Forrest I never see saw marks unless the
blade is dull, or the piece didn't get fed through right (ie pulled away
from fence)

Actually I have seen tooth marks from my Forrest, that all started after
tilting the blade and forgetting to remove the zero clearance insert.
;~) Forrest fixed it for a very reasonable cost.


I still don't suspect the blade. I suspect the saws alignment.

If one blade cut better than the other alignment is not the reason the
Forrest performed worse.

Shipping damage was probably the culprit.

On 7/26/2012 12:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/26/2012 11:57 AM, Leon wrote:

I would suspect a damaged Forrest blade. These things get tossed around
during shipping just like everything else.

Seeing how all cuts were made on the same saw, with the same setup, I
see no other explanation ... that particular Forrest blade is apparently
not up to the standards we are used to.

I would return it regardless.

That said, it would interesting to try both blades on a well setup
cabinet saw to see the how they fare.

I've seen quite a few inexpensive blades made the first few dozen cuts
quite nicely, but you generally needed three or four blades to get
through a project; while a Forrest will take you through a dozen or more
of the same size projects with the same quality cuts.



Still using the yet to be sharpened Forrest that we used on the never
ending kitchen job last year, the Murphy bed and tower cabinets, cutting
table for Kim, Bryan's bed, Kitchen drawers for our house and the
neighbors house, our new pantry, a corner dining room cabinet, 3 sets
of book cases, and the wall of book cases you helped me deliver a couple
of weeks ago.... did I leave anything out? :~)

On 7/26/2012 12:42 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
On 7/26/2012 9:00 AM, Dr. Deb wrote:

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more
often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it
sharpened.

We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any real
difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next time
you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips going a
few hundred feet per second toward you:

1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??

2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?

3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500 r.p.m. ?

4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?

Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.

Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
woodworking.




Well that all makes sense and is a reasonable reason to buy
American..... but if the Forrest blade was damaged during shipping, and
that is quite likely if the op thought the Forrest performed worse, I
would be just as afraid to use the Forrest as the "brand x" blade.

On 7/26/2012 1:33 PM, G. Ross wrote:
Dr. Deb wrote:

Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a
comparison
between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU
46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools,
I got
no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I decided to take the plunge
and
buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid
3650
tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my
head
and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4
piece of
Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other
end and
side of the same pieces of red oad.

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I
noticed a
tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and
recut. It
had the same thing, in the same place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more
often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it
sharpened.


To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other
words,
I do want quality.

What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But
for my
test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six
times
the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Deb


After reading all the replies so far I am left wondering---If the
Forrest had made a good cut and the HF blade left a tooth mark, would
anyone have suggested checking the saw alignment? Otherwise I am
staying neutral.


Probably not. First of all if you are getting a good cut and you are
satisfied the saw is set up good enough for you.

Second, Forrest guarantees a high degree of quality results and promises
certain tolerances, I doubt the brand x blade makes no such claims.

"Dr. Deb" wrote in message
...

Could it be that the Forrest blade was faulty? That is certainly possible.

That'd be my guess. I'd be inclined to send it back for a replacement and
re-run your test with a replacement blade. Forrest Woodworkers usually give
a superb cut.

Tom

dpb wrote:


As OP says in his followup he's a hobby user--it likely doesn't matter
much as yet as it may later on. If he's happy, that's fine but I'll
remain skeptical of the HF being "better" than the Forrest as a
general precept--I'm convinced something correctable gave him the
result he got (possibly the tightened sphincter muscles after having
laid out the cash had something to do with it VBG -- and if he's
happy w/ the HF he might as well get something he'll feel better
about spending the $$ on).

I agree that the HF blade is not better than a Forrest as a general precept.
That was not what I was trying to say.

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:00:19 -0500, "Dr. Deb"
wrote:


Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to try a comparison
between the Forrest WoodWorker II and the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling cheap tools, I got
no takers, and was not overly surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it back in the
deepest recesses of the wallet.

Beyond the reach of the crowbars, huh?


Finally, I decided to take the plunge and
buy a Forrest WoodWorker II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I
found it on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The package
arrived today and, of course, I had to check it out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it in my Ridgid 3650
tablesaw and made a couple of test cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head
and said, "Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and made a
couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest WWII, got a 7/4 piece of
Southern Red Oak and did an an crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the
Forrest for the HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end and
side of the same pieces of red oad.

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very little, if any
noticable difference. If there was a difference the HF blade gave the
better cut. On the first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over 1/4" and recut. It
had the same thing, in the same place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened a bit more often,
but at $19.50, you can almost get a new blade rather than have it sharpened.

What are you doing buying the expensive HF blades? The 00529s last
years on my old saur. She's a low-mileage model, though. They're an
extremely good value at $5 a pop.


To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the 46231. My bandsaw
blades are Woodslicers, my router bits are all name brand. In other words,
I do want quality.

Buy 'em on sale, usually half price. I wonder how much Forrest would
charge to retip one with their carbide... Just kidding. (sorta)


What I would really like to see is a lab test between these two. But for my
test, on my saw, in my shop, there is no justification in paying six times
the cost of the HF for the Forrest.

Fascinating, Deb. Thanks for the test and report. I've had very good
luck with both sizes of HF blades, 7-1/4 and 10". The 12-incher on my
miter saw is working fine, too, but I have a Freud Diablo to replace
it when its day comes. The $10 thin-kerf Freud on my skilsaw has been
a real nice blade, too, replacing the $1.99 HF jobs.

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

dpb wrote in :

On 7/26/2012 12:50 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 7/26/2012 12:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

We don't know that; all we know is that it wasn't reported, not that
there wasn't a mark...

Actually - he stated a difference.

_Inferred_, not precisely stated.

If you really want to be picky... the OP *implied* it. You *inferred* it.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:52:06 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Well that all makes sense and is a reasonable reason to buy
American..... but if the Forrest blade was damaged during shipping, and
that is quite likely if the op thought the Forrest performed worse, I
would be just as afraid to use the Forrest as the "brand x" blade.

+1.

If I was returning the blade, I'd explain why I was doing so to
Forrest. And, I'd ask them to examine it for any flaws as well and let
me know if they found any.

On 7/26/12 9:38 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:52:06 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Well that all makes sense and is a reasonable reason to buy
American..... but if the Forrest blade was damaged during shipping, and
that is quite likely if the op thought the Forrest performed worse, I
would be just as afraid to use the Forrest as the "brand x" blade.

+1.

If I was returning the blade, I'd explain why I was doing so to
Forrest. And, I'd ask them to examine it for any flaws as well and let
me know if they found any.


I noticed that the blade was bought from Amazon. Who knows the path it
took before it got to the buyer. It's much easier that you'd think to
warp a saw blade. They are also very easy to straighten out, but you
really have to know what you're doing to keep from making it worse.


--

-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

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:43:26 -0500, -MIKE-
I noticed that the blade was bought from Amazon. Who knows the path it
took before it got to the buyer. It's much easier that you'd think to
warp a saw blade. They are also very easy to straighten out, but you
really have to know what you're doing to keep from making it worse.

And, it might not have been a warped blade at all. IIRC, there was a
comment about tooth makes. That might imply a bent, slightly chipped
or misaligned tooth.

I think I'd want to get in touch with Forrest about this, before I
returned it to Amazon ~ if only for future reference. I've never owned
a Forrest blade, but their reputation hinges on the quality of their
products. I have no doubt they'd be all over this in a flash.

On 7/26/2012 9:55 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:43:26 -0500, -MIKE-
I noticed that the blade was bought from Amazon. Who knows the path it
took before it got to the buyer. It's much easier that you'd think to
warp a saw blade. They are also very easy to straighten out, but you
really have to know what you're doing to keep from making it worse.

And, it might not have been a warped blade at all. IIRC, there was a
comment about tooth makes. That might imply a bent, slightly chipped
or misaligned tooth.

I think I'd want to get in touch with Forrest about this, before I
returned it to Amazon ~ if only for future reference. I've never owned
a Forrest blade, but their reputation hinges on the quality of their
products. I have no doubt they'd be all over this in a flash.


Yeah I seriously doubt they would say you are still in warranty, return
it to us and we will give you a certain percentage refund. ;~)