Shopsmith Forums

Anybody here an expert on buck saws (or bucksaws for that matter). I generally see them
with two designs. In one design the frame is rectangular. In the other, it is a trapezoid with the sides angled in. Anyone know if there is an advantage of one design over the other ?

Sorry not an expert but this is an interesting question. When I think of a bucksaw/buck saw the trapezoidal shape comes to mind. I have an old one from home sitting in the shop somewhere, use to be Uncle Walter's who was an uncle who became a grandfather(long story). He had a tool chest that my Mother got after he died and I have only a few of his tools. Anyway it is that shape and that was the common shape in our area of the world. That could have simply been a supply side reason, if the hardware carried them that is what you purchased.

Looking forward to some other responses.

Ed

I've got an old trapezoidal bucksaw, too. I'd thought that the rectangle was restricted to the finer turning saws. I was wrong.

The rectangle seems quite intuitive. And it breaks down nicely for transporting. Why the complication of the trapezoidal? Maybe this: http://nonenmac.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html

Does this indicate a perennial difficulty of getting the blade tight enough?

I cannot see how the trapezoid would be superior or inferior to the rectangle as far as tightening goes.

While the angled design is more pleasing to my eye, it would seem to take more effort to make the trapezoid (angled mortises or tenons) and it seems potentially less efficient since you lose part of the stroke length because the sides angle inward and reduce the effective length of the stroke (at least as the wood emerges above the blade).

I'm at a loss.

However, I expect to be making one or more and may try both designs!

The trapezoid shape creates a greater change in tension for a given adjustment of the upper portion.

The center joints need to 'float/rock/whatever' as the tension is adjusted(the geometry changes with tension adjustments due to flexing of the 'vertical' arms.

I do know it is a sweat producing tool.

I have at least 3 and I think they are all square. One was my grandfather's and is like new. The others I just "picked up" somewhere as antiques. My father never had one as far as I know.
I have given thought to making one and I have blade stock in bandsaw sawmill blades that were damaged in just one spot and the rest of the band like new. It would be easy to cut to length and punch at the ends. My thought was to make a fairly large one for cutting a limited number of pieces of over-length firewood indoors. I finally got over that after I bought a decent quality electric chainsaw. Fast, fairly quiet and no exhaust.


.

robinson46176 wrote:I have at least 3 and I think they are all square. One was my grandfather's and is like new. The others I just "picked up" somewhere as antiques. My father never had one as far as I know.
I have given thought to making one and I have blade stock in bandsaw sawmill blades that were damaged in just one spot and the rest of the band like new. It would be easy to cut to length and punch at the ends. My thought was to make a fairly large one for cutting a limited number of pieces of over-length firewood indoors. I finally got over that after I bought a decent quality electric chainsaw. Fast, fairly quiet and no exhaust.
.

My thoughts exactly, unless you want the exercise. Woods warms you about 3-5 times, in the process of getting to burning it in the stove.

I have a nice chain saw. One of these is for a brother in law who won't use a chain saw. The other would be collapsible and for canoe camping -- cutting through strainers and making firewood.

algale wrote:I have a nice chain saw. One of these is for a brother in law who won't use a chain saw. The other would be collapsible and for canoe camping -- cutting through strainers and making firewood.

Just dont nick that slow boat to nowhere!!!

algale wrote:Anybody here an expert on buck saws (or bucksaws for that matter). I generally see them
with two designs. In one design the frame is rectangular. In the other, it is a trapezoid with the sides angled in. Anyone know if there is an advantage of one design over the other ?

Here's my theory.

Wikipedia says that a bucksaw is designed to cut on the push stroke. That sounds right. I don't own a bucksaw, but I do have a couple of steel-framed "bowsaws", and that's how they work.

To cut on the push stroke, you obviously need force applied longitudinally down the blade. But you also need some down-force on the blade, to persuade the teeth to bite into the wood. So the force vector you want is actually at a bit of an angle to the blade.

With the side-frame of the bowsaw tilted in (trapezoidal), you can make the angle such that the frame is roughly normal (90 degrees) to the desired force vector. This is good, because that side frame also functions as a handle. And thus you can basically just push straight into the handle, and your hand doesn't have to apply either a parallel (to the handle) force vector, or a torque, do get the required down-force on the blade.

This would probably make a lot more sense I drew up a force-vector diagram. But I haven't finished my morning coffee, and am still much too lazy.

I suspect that the main advantage of the rectangular design is ease of construction. But I bet that the trapezoidal design works much better for one-handed operation. Which is how my steel bowsaws are used.