Replies

1. 
   JohnWW | Apr 25, 2007 05:33pm | #1

   David,

   It sounds like the tool you want is a classic western style handsaw.  You'll need a coarse tooth blade, something like 4 to 6 teeth per inch, filed for ripping.  My personal favorite is a vintage Disston D8, with the thumb hole in the handle for two handed sawing.  Mine is 28 inches long with 5 1/2 teeth per inch.  This is a big saw, the blade at the front of the handle is 7" wide.

   If you do a Google search for "Disston D8" you'll find plenty of information on the saw and some sources for a used one.

   Tree saws won't serve your purpose they are crosscut saws with the tooth profile designed for sawing green wood.

   For a new saw, I can suggest a few sources, The Best Things has two brands of saws: a Pax brand saw for around $85.00 and a new maker of saws, Wentzloff, selling a rip saw for a pricey $265.00, but the saw looks beautiful.  The Best Things site is at: http://www.thebestthings.com/index.html 

   A second site, Tools for Working Wood, also sells Pax saws and they are showing a newly introduced Pax 28" rip saw with 5 1/2 TPI, that matches my vintage Disston.  The saw sells for $100.  Their site is at: http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/ 

   John White

1. 
   davidlane | Apr 25, 2007 06:34pm | #2

   Thanks John. That's really helpful. In doing some research I uncovered a premium British brand from Highland Hardware, "Roberts & Lee" 5ppi/4tpi rip saw. It's pricey also, but I am wondering if the difference in ppi/tpi would be worth considering. Your thoughts on that?The Disston D8 sounds very promising otherwise. Thanks again.
   -David

1. 
   JohnWW | Apr 25, 2007 09:58pm | #3

   The Roberts and Lee blade is coarser, but that is an advantage when cutting thicker stock, the wider spacing between the teeth gives more room for sawdust and fewer teeth in contact with the bottom of the kerf, both are an advantage when cutting thick stock like your 8/4 walnut.

   John W.

1. 
   davidlane | Apr 25, 2007 11:47pm | #4

   Thanks John.  One more round and I'll leave you alone, I promise!  I am finally wondering about balancing application over time with maximum rip for this one round of 8/4 boards.  If the 5 1/2 tpi saw will rip 8/4 effectively and likely have more use for future smaller ripping jobs (4/4, for instance), that would be a consideration. 

   Again, doing some research I happened upon this rule of thumb:  "Choose a saw for ripping that has no less than 4 teeth for the thickness of the wood being cut, and no more than 8. For an example - an appropriate saw for a 1" thick board would be from 4 to 8 PPI. Subsequently, a 3/4" board would require a saw in the <!----><!---->6 to 10<!----> PPI range, and a 1/2" board in the <!---->8 to 12<!----> PPI range."

   This has me leaning toward your initial recommendation (5.5 tpi) regarding since it's within that range for an 8/4 board.  Plus it would work well for thinner stock. Sound at all logical??

    

   Like I said, I'll take your advice to heart and take the plunge after this.  Thanks again.  This is a very helpful service.  -DL

    

1. 
   JohnWW | Apr 26, 2007 06:35pm | #5

   David,

   I don't mind answering your questions, there's no need to apologize.

   Using your rule of thumb, it would seem that an 8/4 board would require a saw with 2 to 4 TPI, which sounds about right. 

   So a 5 1/2 TPI would be a bit fine for sawing the walnut.  In practical terms this will mean that the sawing will go slower and you'll have to bear down harder on the blade.  It might take you 15 minutes to make the 60" cut with the closer tooth spacing versus 8 or 9 minutes with a coarser blade.  I guess it boils down to whether or not you want to make an investment in a saw that will possibly not see a lot of use after this job.

   If you try to use the 4 TPI blade on thinner stock you will find that it will tend to dig in and grab easily making the sawing thinner stock difficult and annoying.  If I were going to own only one saw, the 5 1/2 TPI blade would be my choice.

   John W.  

   Edited 4/26/2007 11:58 am ET by JohnWW

2. 
   davidlane | Apr 26, 2007 09:48pm | #6

   Excellent.  Thanks a million!  -David