Poorly made set squares.

This topic has 12 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 1 August 2014 at 17:16 by Nigel Bennett.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

Author

Posts
31 July 2014 at 19:38 #159255
Chris Denton
Participant
@chrisdenton53037
I have owned a set of 4 set squares for around a year, finally got round to using them today and on two of the smaller ones there is a lump where the two parts are joined, it means it won't measure correctly when used one way round. A third one isn't square!

Just something to be aware of.
Advert

31 July 2014 at 19:38 #23431
Chris Denton
Participant
@chrisdenton53037
31 July 2014 at 20:16 #159260
Ian P
Participant
@ianp
Is this another case of 'you get what you pay for'?

I know that a bit of a blanket statement (even the best makers have off days!)

The fact that it is a set of four sort of indicates Asian/Eastern origins, only because when I have looked in the catalogues of the best quality tooling its rare (for me) to see sets of things like squares.

Where is the 'lump you mentioned? also what does wont measure relate to with regards to something without a scale?

Ian
31 July 2014 at 21:47 #159279
Chris Denton
Participant
@chrisdenton53037
Pretty much. I meant to say they were from a 'model engineer' supplier. Quite cheap. As for the measurement, I mean it won't accurately sit flat against something to define a square.

Lump is is here, might be the other side I can't remember.
31 July 2014 at 23:06 #159296
Chris Trice
Participant
@christrice43267
Well, I’m going to say it. “You generally get what you pay for”. Yes, if you go through all the boxes, you might find a set that are all well made and all square but they should ALL be like that. It shouldn’t be a game of chance.
1 August 2014 at 01:13 #159309
Enough!
Participant
@enough
Not to be pernickity but I grew up knowing these as "try" or ("tri" ) squares rather than set squares …. the latter being the kind of thing draftsmen used (in those days).

Edited By Bandersnatch on 01/08/2014 01:14:08
1 August 2014 at 08:00 #159314
Hopper
Participant
@hopper
Well here is a nice little apprentice project for you. The "lump" is most likely deformation from the rivetting process used to attach the blade to the stock, right there where the lump is.

A few careful licks with a 10" millsaw file should bring it back in line with the main stock.

You might want to grind the teeth off the edge of the file that will rub against the blade so it does not scar it up. Proceed slowly with care, taking long, gentle strokes (ooh er mister). Check it against a known good straight edge until no light is visiible between the stock and the straight edge.
1 August 2014 at 10:31 #159328
Neil Wyatt
Moderator
@neilwyatt
All three of my far-eastern squares resemble the one in the picture but don't have this fault. My mid-price British made square had a blade that wasn't even at 90-degrees to the stock – one of the few undamaged tools I have thrown away.

Neil
1 August 2014 at 11:33 #159334
roy entwistle
Participant
@royentwistle24699
I have still got and use a tri square which I made at school about 1948 if I remember we scraped them square relative to a master you can check squarenss by scribing a line turning the square over and scribing another they should be parallel

Roy
1 August 2014 at 12:47 #159345
Bazyle
Participant
@bazyle
Posted by Neil Wyatt on 01/08/2014 10:31:10:

one of the few undamaged tools I have thrown away.

Neil

why throw away a perfectly adequate shelf bracket?
1 August 2014 at 13:27 #159351
NJH
Participant
@njh
Yes but what did he throw is away AT?

N
1 August 2014 at 14:22 #159355
Les Jones 1
Participant
@lesjones1
Hi Bazyle,
Because he did not want things to roll off the shelf.

Les.
1 August 2014 at 17:16 #159374
Nigel Bennett
Participant
@nigelbennett69913
I bought a 12" square off eBay a while ago, knowing that at that price new it was going to be a joke one. So I set to with my milling machine, then files and scrapers, and gradually got myself a perfectly acceptable tool.

Yer pays yer money…
Author

Posts