Talk:Crosscut saw

Untitled

Tidied article, removed uncited trivia entry. --81.77.15.123 19:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems

I've got quite a few questions, the answers to which could help advance this article. MrRedwood 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the article seems to deal with saws used in timber operations, which is somewhat confusing to someone that is trying to explore the topic of the hand tool (such as the one in the picture!). I'd recommend distinguishing between these two major applications: something like 'common features', 'timber cutting', 'lumber cutting'.
• The "Common Features" section mentions using the saw as a square. It would be nice if the picture at the top exhibited that "common" feature.
• There is a discussion of "cutters, rakers, and gullies" in the "How Crosscut Saws Cut" section, but would be better if it refers to the adjacent diagram. Or it might make more sense to refer to the more general article at Saw, but it doesn't deal with these variations either. I also note that the Saw page refers to gullet where this page refers to gullies. Which is correct?
• That section also refers to the "noodle" shaped waste. (I always thought it was saw dust, not saw noodles! :-) A picture might help, but even better would be a discussion of when and why a saw might cut poorly. (Again, should probably be put in Saw instead.)
• Also: the "Crosscut Saw Training" seems tacked on and poorly explained. The subsection title gives no indication this has something to do with national forests. Is or was this a one-time event? It should probably be integrated into a NPS or Wilderness Area topic anyway.

Yes, the article does have a lot of problems. Most of it is leaning towards larger two-man crosscut saws, as opposed to smaller handsaws designed to be used by one person.

• We probably need a separate section on those, which can include the information merged from Two-man saw, too. The lumber vs. timber divide sounds like a good idea.
• I'm not sure about using the handle as a square, so it might need to be removed.
• Good catch on the terminology. I double-checked, and it should be "gullet". I fixed that.
• The "noodle" information is correct in large saws with alternating cutters and rakers, but it's not a particularly significant fact, IMO. I think I want to rephrase it to better fit in line with the explanation of cutters and rakers, though.
• I also agree that the training section probably doesn't belong.

I haven't been working on this article like I had planned to. There were more pictures a while back, but most of them turned out to have copyright issues. There is good information on the timber side in some Forest Service Manuals. These are nice because they are apparently in the public domain. Sxeptomaniac 20:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Two-man saw

I was seeing over at Two-man saw that someone proposed merging it with this article a while back but never brought it up here. It seems like a good idea, since almost all of that article just talks about crosscut saws. There's a short section on large chainsaws, but that seems like it would be better over at Chainsaw, if it is even worth keeping. I think Two-man saw should probably just redirect to this article. Sxeptomaniac 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is a two man saw not also a crosscut saw? Then it should be here. Biddlesby 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the subtle difference is in the function.

Interestingly a two man saw is just that a two man saw. It may be either a cross cut saw or a rip saw. Before there were saw mills they made lumber with a two man rip saw. You set the log up like a teeter totter, and one guy stands on the long and pulls the law up and the other guy couches underneath and pulls the saw down.

likewise 50 years ago the chainsaws were so big and heavy that it took two men to run them as well.

That said, I'm not sure that the number of men that it takes to run a saw is a valid classification. What's offensive in this page is the fact that the photo is of a carpenters saw, making it appear that this isn't the place to dicuss the now largely historical 'misery whip' with which thousands of men toiled in the first half of the 20th century to produce the wood products that everyone needed.

Since the cross-cut saw as used in forestry and logging is largely (but not exclusively) historical, you might manage the issue be bringing in in and creating a historical section which would be fairly comprehensive, and put these big saws in perspective.

It would be a pity to turn them into a footnote on a page featuring a carpenters saw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvannatta (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No expert in lumberwork, but given pics like these, surely a two-man saw is not the same as a crosscut saw, even if there exist two-man crosscut saws. JackyR | Talk 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A major issue I see here is the lack of explanation about smaller carpentry crosscut saws, which - numbers-wise - far exceed those of logging/forestry crosscut saws, and I'm a forestry/logging crosscut person. Perhaps the suggestions of merging with other Wiki articles would take care of that? Re one-man/two-man logging saws, by all current professional standards they are all crosscut saws.

Merge from Underbucking

Underbucking is a crosscut technique that's got its own short article. Seems well suited to a section in this article. Jojalozzo 18:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually underbucking should probably be merged into log bucking. 184.19.104.1 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Or it could be merged into both this article and log bucking. I don't see why not. 184.19.104.1 (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I think underbucking and log bucking are so closely related they should be merged and log bucking mentioned in this article.Jim Derby (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

With the lack of input I removed the merge templates for Underbucking to Crosscut saw. Jim Derby (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

crosscuts vs chainsaws

Regarding the crosscut saw vs chainsaw section. What was written by the previous editor about safety and effectiveness of crosscut saws reflects what Forest Service trail crew members are often told, but in my experience much of it is just not true, and few people with significant chainsaw experience believe it. There is unlikely to be any unbiased written sources for any of this, so perhaps it should all just be removed. I have spent my working life, 20 seasons, on trail crews and have bucked many thousands of trees with both crosscut saws and chainsaws, and feel that I am as good an authority as anyone on the subject. I changed it to better reflect what I believe is the reality. Crosscut saws are much better tools than people who haven't used them assume, but the chainsaw restriction on Forest Service wilderness is a major limitation on their ability to maintain their trails, and should be recognized as such. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.Kneejam (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

QR code installed

{{Toodyaypedia article}} QR codes in place Elrebe56 (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crosscut saw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100530102709/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/download/hep/fspubs/pdf77712508hi.pdf to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/download/hep/fspubs/pdf77712508hi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A contradiction?

Under the "Common Features" section of the article it says: "A felling saw is generally less stiff than a bucking saw ...the thinner, lighter design is easier to use without gravity holding the blade against the cut." Yet, under the "Vintage saw versus modern saws" section, it says: " modern saws have some advantages over vintage saws such as stiffness which is useful for felling..." So one section of the same article says a felling saw should be "less stiff" while another section says that stiffness is "useful for felling...". A reader could easily be confused.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tschurin (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you are correct, there is a contradiction. Since the commentary about stiffness is not well sourced, it looks like there is a need to not only correct the text but to offer suitable references. Damotclese (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Springboard?

The caption on the first image is "Two-man felling saw and springboard". What is a springboard and how is it used? There are pages on springboards but nothing that applies to sawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.175.34 (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)