I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less likely to strip?

Thanks.

Michael wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?


Personally, I came to like the square drives because I found them to be far
superior to a philips drive, but since I went to star drives, I don't think
I'll ever go back unless the screw I need does not come in star. Just watch
your drive tips. They last a long time but at some point they will start to
round and you'll want to replace them. Like I say though - they will last a
long time.

--

-Mike-

"Michael" wrote in message
...

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?

Torx/star provides more contact area between the bit and screw, has no
cam-out tendency, and is less likely to strip out... The risk of snapping
them off in hard woods (physically hard, not hardwoods vs. softwoods)
without predrilling goes up too! Ask me how I know that... ;~)

John

On 7/31/2014 8:07 AM, Michael wrote:
I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less likely to strip?

Thanks.




My experience is that the star has a more positive engagement and the
bit does not need to be as perfectly aligned with the screw to prevent
caming out. And the star bit engages more easily than the square drive
bit. The screw strips when the bit cams out.

Michael wrote:
I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less likely to strip?

Thanks.

One thing I found out. It is easy to get paint out of a slotted screw
to remove the screw. Next easiest is a square drive. I just had to
replace the surface boards on some outside steps. They were fixed
with square drive screws. The holes were full of paint, grit and
crud. I dug most of it out with a slim awl then inserted a spare
square drive bit and tapped it with a small hammer. Then the bit on
the impact driver slipped right in and backed them out. Not sure I
could have done this with a star drive screw, but maybe so.

For general use I vote for the star.

--
 GW Ross 

 It is the journey that matters, in 
 the end. 

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:07:24 -0700 (PDT), Michael
wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less likely to strip?

I like the square, but have found the star bit to be less costly. Why
you ask, I have replace a large number of #2 square bits.

On 7/31/2014 9:11 AM, G. Ross wrote:
Michael wrote:
I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?

Thanks.

One thing I found out. It is easy to get paint out of a slotted screw
to remove the screw. Next easiest is a square drive. I just had to
replace the surface boards on some outside steps. They were fixed with
square drive screws. The holes were full of paint, grit and crud. I
dug most of it out with a slim awl then inserted a spare square drive
bit and tapped it with a small hammer. Then the bit on the impact
driver slipped right in and backed them out. Not sure I could have done
this with a star drive screw, but maybe so.

For general use I vote for the star.



FWIW I have had great success with using an impact driver to remove
screws that are corroded, filled with putty and or paint. The impact
action seems to work the drive bit in with out doing much precleaning of
the head.

On 7/31/14, 8:07 AM, Michael wrote:
I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?

Thanks.


I've found that a perfectly mated bit/screw combo is the key.
I have a sheetrock Phillips screw bit that holds so tightly to the screw
it can actually be a bit of a PITA to get the screw off when removing.
Same with square head. If I'm driving square heads with a well mated
bit, the bit often comes off the drill extension because it's stuck to
the screw. Star heads have shown promise for me since starting to use
them regularly. Like Marlow said, the bits can round off at tip, so
have some spares.

I honestly don't have a preference, but if I had to choose one to use
the rest of my life it would be the Phillips Square-Driv, which is a
combo square/Phillips head. I like this because you can take them out
with either screw driver. Very convenient. The proper sized bit holds
and drives as well as *any* other bit/head combo I've ever used.



--

-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
...

Michael wrote:
I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?

Thanks.

One thing I found out. It is easy to get paint out of a slotted screw to
remove the screw. Next easiest is a square drive. I just had to replace
the surface boards on some outside steps. They were fixed with square
drive screws. The holes were full of paint, grit and crud. I dug most of
it out with a slim awl then inserted a spare square drive bit and tapped it
with a small hammer. Then the bit on the impact driver slipped right in
and backed them out. Not sure I could have done this with a star drive
screw, but maybe so.

In cases like this, depending upon access, I split the boards and/or pry
them off and then remove the screws with vice-grips... it's faster and less
frustrating!

On 7/31/2014 10:40 AM, -MIKE- wrote:


I honestly don't have a preference, but if I had to choose one to use
the rest of my life it would be the Phillips Square-Driv, which is a
combo square/Phillips head. I like this because you can take them out
with either screw driver. Very convenient. The proper sized bit holds
and drives as well as *any* other bit/head combo I've ever used.




Not a factor for me. Everything I've ever built has been perfect and
durable so I've never had the need to take a screw out.

On 7/31/2014 8:07 AM, Michael wrote:
I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less likely to strip?


IME, it is not the screws so much as the bits. The wrong size and/or
cheap, worn bit will be a problem sooner rather than later, no matter
which screw head you chose.


--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:25:06 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

Michael wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?


Personally, I came to like the square drives because I found them to be
far superior to a philips drive, but since I went to star drives, I
don't think I'll ever go back unless the screw I need does not come in
star. Just watch your drive tips. They last a long time but at some
point they will start to round and you'll want to replace them. Like I
say though - they will last a long time.

I like the square drive because the driver will hold the screw for easier
work in difficult to reach locations. I haven't tried the star so maybe
it does the same.

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:


I like the square drive because the driver will hold the screw for
easier work in difficult to reach locations. I haven't tried the star
so maybe it does the same.

I hadn't really noticed the screws wanting to stick on the bits with the
stars. The way they work, transmiting torque via the lobes, it's possible
for the fit to be loose or sloppy and still drive screws perfectly.

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 8:07:24 AM UTC-5, Michael wrote:
I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less likely to strip?



Thanks.

Thanks for the info! I can't think of a better place for this kind of help.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:54:55 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:25:06 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

Michael wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?


Personally, I came to like the square drives because I found them to be
far superior to a philips drive, but since I went to star drives, I
don't think I'll ever go back unless the screw I need does not come in
star. Just watch your drive tips. They last a long time but at some
point they will start to round and you'll want to replace them. Like I
say though - they will last a long time.

I like the square drive because the driver will hold the screw for easier
work in difficult to reach locations. I haven't tried the star so maybe
it does the same.

Star (Torx) does the same. ...in spades. I'll spend a pretty good
premium to get the star heads. The exception is sheetrock screws,
where the Phillips head really is needed. The Phillips head is
designed to cam out.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:07:24 -0700 (PDT), Michael
wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less likely to strip?

Thanks.
The square "robertson" screw wins hands down for strip-proof. Against
ANY other common design

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:25:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Michael wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?


Personally, I came to like the square drives because I found them to be far
superior to a philips drive, but since I went to star drives, I don't think
I'll ever go back unless the screw I need does not come in star. Just watch
your drive tips. They last a long time but at some point they will start to
round and you'll want to replace them. Like I say though - they will last a
long time.
By "star" I assume you mean Torx??? They are good, but they will
strip a lot easier than the square "robertson" Takes a lot to wear or
damage a robertson driver to the point it will slip.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:54:55 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:25:06 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

Michael wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?


Personally, I came to like the square drives because I found them to be
far superior to a philips drive, but since I went to star drives, I
don't think I'll ever go back unless the screw I need does not come in
star. Just watch your drive tips. They last a long time but at some
point they will start to round and you'll want to replace them. Like I
say though - they will last a long time.

I like the square drive because the driver will hold the screw for easier
work in difficult to reach locations. I haven't tried the star so maybe
it does the same.
Torx will do it too - bit not quite as well as the Robertson.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 22:25:50 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:25:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Michael wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?


Personally, I came to like the square drives because I found them to be far
superior to a philips drive, but since I went to star drives, I don't think
I'll ever go back unless the screw I need does not come in star. Just watch
your drive tips. They last a long time but at some point they will start to
round and you'll want to replace them. Like I say though - they will last a
long time.
By "star" I assume you mean Torx??? They are good, but they will
strip a lot easier than the square "robertson" Takes a lot to wear or
damage a robertson driver to the point it will slip.

I find exactly the opposite. Torx (star) are much better. I find the
screws aren't nearly precise enough for the Robertson (or "square head
recess") to work as well as it should.

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:25:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:25:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?

By "star" I assume you mean Torx??? They are good, but they will
strip a lot easier than the square "robertson" Takes a lot to wear or
damage a robertson driver to the point it will slip.

Square drive/Robertson tips are tapered; the harder you push,
the greater the drive surfaces contact forces become. So, you can drive
them very hard. But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).

Torx/star tips are straight-sided, you get equal torque limits in
drive and remove operations. So they're easier to remove.

Philips/crosspoint, like Robertson/square, are tapered, and can
be difficult to remove.

On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?


--

-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

-MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

For the same reason you lift your feet when you walk.

On 8/1/14, 5:20 PM, Bill wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

For the same reason you lift your feet when you walk.


I don't get that either. A screw is a helical ramp, more or less. You
turn it to go in and come out. The farther the screw is in, the more
friction/resistance there is in both directions. Most often, I find it
necessary to push on a screw when removing it, at least until it's a
good deal out.

What am I missing?


--

-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 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pusing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out yout have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...

--
Grant

On 8/1/2014 8:25 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pushing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out you have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...


Theory aside, when the head is buggered, pushing gets it out, not
pushing makes the bit slip. One law of physics out does the other.

On 8/1/14, 7:25 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pusing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out yout have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...


Yeeeeeeeaaaahh, OK. wow


--

-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

-MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 5:20 PM, Bill wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

For the same reason you lift your feet when you walk.


I don't get that either. A screw is a helical ramp, more or less.
You turn it to go in and come out. The farther the screw is in, the
more friction/resistance there is in both directions. Most often, I
find it necessary to push on a screw when removing it, at least until
it's a good deal out.

What am I missing?



Well, I should clarify my remark, since there appears to be at least 2
factors:
1. The friction (between the bottom of the screw head, and the
workpiece) that I alluded to.
2. The fact that you are pushing "down" when you wish for the screw to
come "up", that has been mentioned.

On 2014-08-02, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/1/2014 8:25 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pushing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out you have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...


Theory aside, when the head is buggered, pushing gets it out, not
pushing makes the bit slip. One law of physics out does the other.

True. But the point is you're better off using a screw head and bit
design that minimizes the amount of pushing required -- especially
when removing a screw since the pushing is forcing the screw in the
"wrong" direction.

--
Grant

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:15:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/1/2014 8:25 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pushing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out you have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...


Theory aside, when the head is buggered, pushing gets it out, not
pushing makes the bit slip. One law of physics out does the other.

That doesn't mean pushing down is making it easier (than it would be
were a different head chosen up-front).

On 8/1/2014 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:15:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/1/2014 8:25 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pushing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out you have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...


Theory aside, when the head is buggered, pushing gets it out, not
pushing makes the bit slip. One law of physics out does the other.

That doesn't mean pushing down is making it easier (than it would be
were a different head chosen up-front).


In a perfect world. . .


If you are removing screws above you, you can defy gravity and push "up"
to get the screws out.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:55:57 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 22:25:50 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:25:06 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Michael wrote:

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less
likely to strip?


Personally, I came to like the square drives because I found them to be far
superior to a philips drive, but since I went to star drives, I don't think
I'll ever go back unless the screw I need does not come in star. Just watch
your drive tips. They last a long time but at some point they will start to
round and you'll want to replace them. Like I say though - they will last a
long time.
By "star" I assume you mean Torx??? They are good, but they will
strip a lot easier than the square "robertson" Takes a lot to wear or
damage a robertson driver to the point it will slip.

I find exactly the opposite. Torx (star) are much better. I find the
screws aren't nearly precise enough for the Robertson (or "square head
recess") to work as well as it should.
I guess there is a difference between the generic "square-drive" now
being sold in the USA and the original Canadian Robertson (or Scrulox)
screws and screwdrivers. I know I've seen a lot af really crappy
square drive screwdrivers recently, and a lot of REALLY crappy screws
of all types with Chinese lettering on the boxes.. And the difference
between pozi-drive, Reed and Prince (aka Freerson), and Philips screws
and drivers causes a LOT of problems because they look so similar but
are virtually incompatible.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:59:30 -0400, Bill
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 5:20 PM, Bill wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

For the same reason you lift your feet when you walk.


I don't get that either. A screw is a helical ramp, more or less.
You turn it to go in and come out. The farther the screw is in, the
more friction/resistance there is in both directions. Most often, I
find it necessary to push on a screw when removing it, at least until
it's a good deal out.

What am I missing?



Well, I should clarify my remark, since there appears to be at least 2
factors:
1. The friction (between the bottom of the screw head, and the
workpiece) that I alluded to.
2. The fact that you are pushing "down" when you wish for the screw to
come "up", that has been mentioned.


I smell a scarlet colored fish.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 22:33:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:15:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/1/2014 8:25 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pushing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out you have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...


Theory aside, when the head is buggered, pushing gets it out, not
pushing makes the bit slip. One law of physics out does the other.

That doesn't mean pushing down is making it easier (than it would be
were a different head chosen up-front).


Anyone with a torque screw driver want to do a test? Drive several
identical screws into severel peices of different woods then read the
torque required to remove them with no downward force, and with , say,
5, 10, and 15 lbs of force pressing on the screw and tabulate the
results? In both hard wood and soft wood - and using both steel and
brass screws.
I'd be willing to bet the difference in torque required would be
within the limits of the torque required to lift the downward force
treating the screw as a simple inclined plane. (in other words,
insignificant).

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:29:40 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 8/1/14, 7:25 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).


I don't get this. Why not push when removing?

Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pusing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out yout have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...


Yeeeeeeeaaaahh, OK. wow
Like I said - a scarlet fish -(red herring)

Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-02, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/1/2014 8:25 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).

I don't get this. Why not push when removing?
Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pushing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out you have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...

Theory aside, when the head is buggered, pushing gets it out, not
pushing makes the bit slip. One law of physics out does the other.
True. But the point is you're better off using a screw head and bit
design that minimizes the amount of pushing required -- especially
when removing a screw since the pushing is forcing the screw in the
"wrong" direction.
Since the amount that you wish to raise the screw head with a twist of
the wrist is very, very, small, I think the
effect you describe may be negligible. Of course, the wider the
threads, the greater the effect. I could probably
design a screw that would be difficult to unscrew by pushing down on
it! ; )

Bill

wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:29:40 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 8/1/14, 7:25 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2014-08-01, -MIKE- wrote:
On 8/1/14, 3:45 PM, whit3rd wrote:
But when you want to REMOVE a screw, you don't
want to apply a push (this hurts you because it increases friction).

I don't get this. Why not push when removing?
Because the objective is to _raise_ the screw. Pusing down on it
makes that harder to do and thus requires more torque to raise it. To
get more torque without cam-out yout have to push harder, which then
requires more torque to raise the screw, which requires you to push
harder...

Yeeeeeeeaaaahh, OK. wow
Like I said - a scarlet fish -(red herring)

I have a hunch this thread isn't over yet! ; )

Torque drive.
octagonal design.

throw away square.
john



"Michael" wrote in message
...

I can't decide which is better, the square or the star? Which is less likely
to strip?

Thanks.

On 2014-08-02, jloomis wrote:

Torque drive.
octagonal design.

throw away square.

OK, so square (four sides) is better than slot (two sides), and
octagonal (eight sides) is even better than four sides, the logical
conclusion would seem to be than the more sides the better.

Take that to the limit as sides - infinity, and you get what must
be the best of all: round drive (or as it is usually known: cheap
philips head screws after use with the wrong sized driver).

--
Grant

wrote in message news
I'd be willing to bet the difference in torque required would be
within the limits of the torque required to lift the downward force
treating the screw as a simple inclined plane. (in other words,
insignificant).

I think the initial "breaking loose" of the screw to get it to turn requires
more down pressure and torque than does the following turns... I think back
to the days of working on motorcycles and using an impact driver that was
hit with a hammer to break Phillips head screws free as an extreme example.
A less extreme example is when I've hit the handle of the screw driver with
a hammer as I put rotational force upon it to break the screw free. More
typically I push down hard with the screw driver to break the screw free and
them use primarily rotational torque to remove them. When using a powered
driver (usually my PC drywall driver) with various bits the same dynamic
occurs... I need a lot more down pressure to break the screws loose than to
remove them.

John

Grant Edwards wrote in news:lrirnm$7r9$1
@reader1.panix.com:


OK, so square (four sides) is better than slot (two sides), and
octagonal (eight sides) is even better than four sides, the logical
conclusion would seem to be than the more sides the better.

Take that to the limit as sides - infinity, and you get what must
be the best of all: round drive (or as it is usually known: cheap
philips head screws after use with the wrong sized driver).


There's probably some truth in that... But remember the bit you used to
make the round isn't making a good quality round. It's kinda like those
Combo drive screws or the square drives that are almost, but not quite,
compatible.

Make a good quality round, use a good quality round bit, and pull rather
than push and the screw will come out easily.

(Do be careful not to make the round too round. You might wind up cold
welding the bit to the screw. :-))

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.