No replies expected just had to tell you....

[lcm1947]

I hear you Cabinetman and agree 100% now. This blade is just - well it's great! And gwyneth, yes that is so true. Hard to accept perhaps but I am a believe for sure now. Not knocking my TS3100 but it ain't no high priced TS by any means but I can't imagine a smoother cut from any saw with a cheap blade or I'd even say an inexpensive blade. I will now be looking around for a quality BS blade now that I've experienced this. I've put it off by questioning asking myself " just how much difference could jsut a blade make ". Well I know now. Loring I too will be a two WWll blade owner as soon as I catch them on sale again. So Loring I think I remember you having the thick blade one though, correct? So is your second one also the thick one? Darn! Dustmight now you tell me.

[RodKirby]

Well...

I have been using the 1/8" kerf WWII for about 10 years - 2 of them in fact.

Bought the second when I met up with Loring and the other guys in Houston.

Every time the topic of the "best" saw blade has come up I have commented - and now I can say:

I told you so

[lcm1947]

Hey Rod I don't mind hearing "I told you so". When a man's right, he's right. . Thanks for the reply by the way. So why the thick blade ( 1/8" ). Any particular reason? Have you ever tired the thin blade? I'm just curious. I guess I'm thinking I might try the thick one too just to see. After all they both are Forrest blades. Just can't figure out which would be best, thin or thick. I only cut 3/4" stuff anyway so maybe the thick blade would be better for me. I guess the thick would produce a better cut although I'm not sure if that is true. Really just don't know. So what's your feeling on the matter if I may ask?

[gwyneth]

Hard to accept perhaps but I am a believe for sure now. Not knocking my TS3100 but it ain't no high priced TS by any means but I can't imagine a smoother cut from any saw with a cheap blade or I'd even say an inexpensive blade. I will now be looking around for a quality BS blade now that I've experienced this. I've put it off by questioning asking myself " just how much difference could jsut a blade make ". Well I know now.

The only bandsaw I've used since 6th grade shop is my dilapo 3-wheel 10" Delta. In addition to inherent problems with this design, and engineering flaws in this model known to cause tremendous blade drift, mine has been banged to **** and back riding around the country, and the table support has broken off three times and been epoxied together twice.

I wish I could say that I got a high-grade Morse blade for it as a result of the 'not crazy' theory...but it was the only one I could find a while ago. Since the thing chews up blades it looked as if it would be a big waste of money.

Wrong! The best proof yet for the theory. Almost no blade drift, beautiful cut, and, knock on wood, has yet to break (superstitiously because I have obtained a spare Morse, but logically because its higher metal quality can endure the stress of repeated un-tensioning and re-tensioning.)

While a fair number of people seem to grow into the 'mediocre to good tool, good blade/bit' concept, the 'low-end tool, seemingly outrageously high-quality blade/bit' philosophy is pretty radical. But I'd love to see a WW magazine do some kind of comparison test with tools it would never voluntarily use.

[lcm1947]

Well there you go. So what's a Morse blade? Is that a company?

[LCHIEN]

So Loring I think I remember you having the thick blade one though, correct? So is your second one also the thick one? Darn! Dustmight now you tell me.

actually #2 is a TK.

From what I've heard, and of course forrest would doubtless not make one if it were inferior, and working with the original BT3 TK blade, I don't expect to have any problems with it.

[gwyneth]

Well there you go. So what's a Morse blade? Is that a company?

MK Morse is probably better known for its hole saws and metal cutting blades, and I have no idea why they make a dinky sized bandsaw blade for wood, but they do.

After finding the link for you, I just looked at the company's web site for the first time, and it's kind of funny in view of this discussion that its slogan is "Saw Blades Improve Power Tool Performance".


The M.K. Morse Company professional-quality hole saws, saw blades and abrasives

[RodKirby]

Hey Rod I don't mind hearing "I told you so". When a man's right, he's right. . Thanks for the reply by the way. So why the thick blade ( 1/8" ). Any particular reason? Have you ever tired the thin blade? I'm just curious. I guess I'm thinking I might try the thick one too just to see. After all they both are Forrest blades. Just can't figure out which would be best, thin or thick. I only cut 3/4" stuff anyway so maybe the thick blade would be better for me. I guess the thick would produce a better cut although I'm not sure if that is true. Really just don't know. So what's your feeling on the matter if I may ask?

It just "felt better" to me at the time In fact, I'm trying to recall if there was even a thin kerf blade available at the time I bought my first one?

Clearly the physics point to a thin kerf blade being "better" - less wood having to be cut, therefore less effort required. Assuming the cut quality is the same (?) - we need someone that has both to comment...

[Knottscott]

... Clearly the physics point to a thin kerf blade being "better" - less wood having to be cut, therefore less effort required. Assuming the cut quality is the same (?) - we need someone that has both to comment...

Hi Rod - The TK's definitely require less effort....it's always been noticeable IME. I don't own a 40T WWII in both kerfs, but I've tried very similar blades in full kerf. The cut quality of the WWII TK (without a stabilizer) is very comparable to the DW7657 40T full kerf, and the Tenryu Gold Medal medium kerf. IMHO the WWII TK eclipses the cut of the full kerf LU84, DW7646, LU82, Leitz 60T, and Tenryu RS25550 by a small margin, and in all cases it was easier on the motor. It typically takes a good 80T crosscut blade to get a noticeably cleaner cut than something like the WWII, but they don't rip very well. One surprising and shining exception is the LU88....it's labeled as a 60T TK crosscut but it actually rips pretty well to ~ 6/4 due to it's 15 degree hook, and it does cut a bit cleaner than my WWII and other 40-50T blades...it's an excellent compromise of abilities if you don't need to cut 2" stock.

[lcm1947]

Oh well my mistake Loring. Glad I didn't bet. Well I was just curious Ken. Thought maybe there was something I didn't know but it makes sense that Forrest wouldn't make an inferior blade but I though maybe the TK's were just better for the underpowered saws but not as good in maybe another area. Thanks for that info Dustmight. Interesting and just makes me that much more pleased with my choice. So the second Forrest blade will also be the TK. Hey thanks a ton for the link gwyneth. I going there right now to see if they have a 59 1/2" blade for my Ryobi. They are hard to find. I know I've been looking. Found a 59 1/4" but not a 59 1/2". Appreciate you going to the trouble of providing the link. Cool.

[gwyneth]

Hey thanks a ton for the link gwyneth. I going there right now to see if they have a 59 1/2" blade for my Ryobi. They are hard to find. I know I've been looking. Found a 59 1/4" but not a 59 1/2". Appreciate you going to the trouble of providing the link. Cool.

The package for my 56 1/8" gives a bunch of their different sizes and machines...it claims that 59 1/4" is the correct size for the Ryobi and 59 1/2" for several Craftsman models. So they apparently make both.

It may be worth trying the 59 1/4", since 1/4" isn't a lot of variance over five ft. Or Amazon, where I got mine, may have the 59 1/2".

[lcm1947]

Thanks again gwyneth. I looked at the Morse site and got the phone number so will call them tomorrow to see what they think about the proper size for my Ryobi. I'll also check out Amazon just to see what all they offer. Thanks again for the info.