Shopsmith Forums

In a recent thread the subject of Combination Squares came up. So as not to hijack that thread, I figured I'd start a new one here.

I have always seen and heard that Starrett is the leading manufacture of combination squares and always been told that Starrett squares and measuring tools are the most accurate (read best). Recently I went on their site and was blown away by the offerings. (Not to mention the price of these units)

There are so many options and I have questions.

The Starrett Offerings boil down to a few basic options in numerous combinations

What I have been able to determine from the site.

the 11H models indicate a Cast Iron head, while 33H indicates a hardened steel head
a C prefix indicates a "Satin Finish" on the blade
a C suffix indicates the unit is sold with a centering tool. Thoughts and Opinions regarding the centering tool and protractor please.

Measurement types are 4R and 16R NOTE: Starrett does offer other measurements types as well, but these were the most common.

4R means 8ths. 16ths "Quick Reading" (whatever that means) with 32nds and 64ths

16R indicates Quick Reading 32nds, 64ths, Aircraft Quick Reading 50ths, 100ths Any idea on what this means??

So now for my questions because all of these options affect price.
Which is acceptable (better for wood working?)

Head Material Cast Iron (11H) or Hardened Steel (33H)? I guess a better question is what are the advantages of "Hardened Steel" over Cast Iron for wood working and vice versa.

Which measurement type is better suited to wood working?
4H or 16H I'm guessing 4H would be more appropriate for my personal circumstances and help reduce the cost a bit. I really don't see myself doing layouts down to the 100th of an inch. I'd still like to hear opinions on this though.

Are there any advantages to the Satin finish blade over the regular finish blade? Or is this strictly personal preference? What is your preference and why?

What makes the Starrett preferable to other manufactures of Combination squares? Is there really a qualitative difference or is it the mind set of "you get what you pay for"?

In Paul Seller's blog he advised a sturdy cast iron head and ensure the square is square.

In the blog Paul states that he uses Stanley Rabone squares in the UK school and Sears Craftsman 12" combination squares in his NY school. Paul also mentions that In his Opinion Starrett squares are the best available and "check all the boxes". I imagine he uses the Stanley and Sears models in his schools as a way to reduce operating cost.

Do I really need to spend $100 or so on a combination square? Just curious what others opinions are.

Besides the standard 12" combination square what other squaring tools do you use?

I have a 6" combo square (empire I think?)
and a couple of try squares one Stanley (my daily user) and another antique that sits in the tool box as I've never tested it for square.

My 12" combination square is very old, a bit rusty on the blade and difficult to read so it's time for a replacement as I also doubt its accuracy. So it goes largely unused.

Thoughts and Opinions on this subject.

Old and rusty does not mean your square is no longer useful.

Your post tells how to check squareness. If this check reports the square to be square (accurate) then it is good to use.

If square, I would not replace it unless it is too hard to read.

If you have a square that is engraved rather than printed, you might be able to improve legibility by using some lead (black or white) to press into the engravings.

I don't have a Starrett square but if they are as neat as my Starrett 36" straight edge, I sure wish I did. My brother gave me the straight edge just recently and I am very impressed with it. After receiving the straight edge, I retired two of my straight edges to the truck tool box. Fortunately, my levels are as straight as I need them to be.

In my opinion, for my level of wood working, Starrett quality (and price) are way too high browe. Those are engineering tools.

I just checked out some WW'ing magazines at our library and the Dec. 2012 issue of Fine Woodworking has a Tool Test article on Combo squares. Two brands are rated Best Value and they are Starrett and Products Engineering Corporation (PEC). The Starrett is $100 and the PEC is $44. The article covered all aspects of the squares; the length of graduation lines, the accuracy, the locking mechanism and the finish. They preferred the satin finish over polished for ease in reading.

My Starrett combo set has Steel heads and both a 12" and 24" rules. The centering head is the best centering guide I have found. The plastic stuff is too small for centering larger items such as bowls. I have a total of five sliding squares. The other one with a 12" rule is from Craftsman with a steel head, this one is really old. Then I have two smaller a 6" from Empire and a 4" from Starrett. I just checked all of them with a machinist square and found them all perfectly square. The newest set is the first Starrett set I mentioned and by far the most expensive. Some of the cheaper (and older) units refuse to stay set which can be really frustrating. Jim

The 'satin' finish rules are hands down easier to read than the 'shiney' ones.

I think the hardened steel ones are preferable to the CI ones.

I have not had one that the 'lock' allowed drift, but have on occasion needed to clean the parts so they 'operated' easier.

Perhaps I have never experienced the 'cheapo' ones.

That said I have had my hands on junk that I would never trust(only on a store shelf when looking of a good'un.

I be curious what the 'five' slides are. I have 3 different ones 90/45 combo, centering, angle. I could understand a fourth(double square), so what is the fifth?

Orrr are they three with 'duplicates'?

The quality of Starrett squares is outstanding. Maybe you could find someone that has one to compare to.

I have a newer 6" Empire that is decent quality.

At the risk of 'bothering' Jim, I have to say that precision tools intended for the machinist are although very good for wood working(or any other measuring activity), are not 'necessary' for woodworking.

This includes squares, center finders, protractors, dial gauges, vernier calipers etc.

However being accurate does have its advantages even when working with wood.

JPG40504 wrote:At the risk of 'bothering' Jim, I have to say that precision tools intended for the machinist are although very good for wood working(or any other measuring activity), are not 'necessary' for woodworking.

This includes squares, center finders, protractors, dial gauges, vernier calipers etc.

However being accurate does have its advantages even when working with wood.

Not to chose sides here but I am gravitating toward higher quality tools. My squares, for example, are all Sears or Stanley. I am sure that Starrett is not going to be my tools of choice because of cost but I can do better than a Sears Craftsman that has been bouncing around in my tool box for fifteen or twenty years.

This particular Jim agrees with both posts. I enjoy quality tools and am thankful my planning/purchasing quality tools prior to retirement has allowed me to use them. I am at a point now where the dollars must be watched much closer. No offense at this end. Jim

There is an antique store in our town that bills itself as a junk store. I frequently visit such places and am surprised at some really high quality hand tools for cheap prices. I bought a 50 year old vice for $12. The funny part being there were several vices, all newer for higher prices. The one I bought was the only one worth having. The other were in varying states of worn out. Mine had a rotten paint job but works better than any other vice I have ever owned. I looked at a Starrett sliding square, the bride suggested I already have too many. Jim