Adjustable Squares shootout..Starrett VS B&S, Mitutoyo and Chineseum

[bandit571]

helps when you have a few...

   
And...a til to store they in...

dug up all the fancy steel, brass,& rosewood squares in the shop...

   
From a Stanley No. 20, 12" square..

   
Down to a little 3" one my Dad had...

   
Nice to have a few different sizes....

[adamcherubini]

I may not have watched carefully enough. Did he think the Starrett blade was out of square? From what I could tell it was out of straight, very possibly due to wear.  The hollow thru the center of the blade is the tell tale sign. The Chinese tool was essentially unused. So makes sense that it was straight.

I built quite a lot of pretty nice furniture using only 2 wooden squares I built myself (by hand). So I agree with those of you who said a perfect square is rarely required.

And because people post these sorts of reviews to make the point that the Chinese tools are acceptable or surprisingly accurate, I don't feel the accuracy of a combo square or double square is its only or even most important feature.  I like Starretts' markings on their scales.  You'd think every bodies' marks would be the same, but they're not.  I find Starretts' graduations are easier for me to read. In terms of their double squares (which I use more than combos) I think the weight of the stock is nicer than the others'.  I've had Mitutotyos and PECs and didn't much care for either. Now this is just personal preference, but my point is only that if the accuracy was the same, I'd pick Starrett for a host of other reasons.

Not sure about you guys, but I grow quite attached to my marking and lay-out tools. I'm emotionally attached to most of my tools, but my layout tools are like family members to me.

[meackerman]

I may not have watched carefully enough. Did he think the Starrett blade was out of square? From what I could tell it was out of straight, very possibly due to wear.  The hollow thru the center of the blade is the tell tale sign. The Chinese tool was essentially unused. So makes sense that it was straight.

I built quite a lot of pretty nice furniture using only 2 wooden squares I built myself (by hand). So I agree with those of you who said a perfect square is rarely required.

And because people post these sorts of reviews to make the point that the Chinese tools are acceptable or surprisingly accurate, I don't feel the accuracy of a combo square or double square is its only or even most important feature.  I like Starretts' markings on their scales.  You'd think every bodies' marks would be the same, but they're not.  I find Starretts' graduations are easier for me to read. In terms of their double squares (which I use more than combos) I think the weight of the stock is nicer than the others'.  I've had Mitutotyos and PECs and didn't much care for either. Now this is just personal preference, but my point is only that if the accuracy was the same, I'd pick Starrett for a host of other reasons.

Not sure about you guys, but I grow quite attached to my marking and lay-out tools. I'm emotionally attached to most of my tools, but my layout tools are like family members to me.

readability, feel in hand, how well the rule slides in the head, how well it locks down etc etc.  Accuracy is certainly important, but other less definable things are also important.  I have a bunch of other brands of squares, but use one of my Starretts the most because it just feels/works the best.

[adamcherubini]

readability, feel in hand, how well the rule slides in the head, how well it locks down etc etc.  Accuracy is certainly important, but other less definable things are also important.  I have a bunch of other brands of squares, but use one of my Starretts the most because it just feels/works the best.

Agreed. I use double squares as marking gauges when I'm marking with a pencil. I slide the blade just as I would a gauge and use the end of it. I even have one of the teeny tiny die maker's squares. So square-ness for checking or even marking square isn't really my only or even chief use for these tools. I think its a mistake to think of them as "precision squares". They are layout tools.

[meackerman]

Agreed. I use double squares as marking gauges when I'm marking with a pencil. I slide the blade just as I would a gauge and use the end of it.  I even have one of the teeny tiny die maker's squares. So square-ness for checking or even marking square isn't really my only or even chief use for these tools. I think its a mistake to think of them as "precision squares". They are layout tools.

they're precision enough as squares for woodworking.

[captjack]

they're precision enough as squares for woodworking.

In the tool and die shops I have spent my career in, use a round master square to check hand squares. not combination squares.  we know they are not square at all'

[meackerman]

In the tool and die shops I have spent my career in, use a round master square to check hand squares. not combination squares.  we know they are not square at all'

Been using combo squares for woodworking forever.  No one would ever be able to tell anything I used a combo square to square up wasn't square without being really anal about it.  If its close enough i can't tell, then its good enough.

[bandit571]

Lay out tool...depth checker,  draw a pencil line along an edge, but a distance from that edge....set it to the thickness of a the tail board, or a pin board to mark the other board...

   
All I ask of them, is once I set them, they stay ...set

   
Or, setting where a groove will be....

   
So I can set up a plane...

   
To make that groove....not concerned how "square" the combo square is, only that it will hold any setting I set it to...add be able to READ the scale..
Check a board for square?  I have squares MADE for just that task...same as marking a line across a board.   If the combo can't reach that spot from an end, we have ways...

   

   
Works for my shop...YMMV...

[adamcherubini]

they're precision enough as squares for woodworking.

I suspect, but not sure, that a new Starrett combo square is VERY accurate. I think a lot of us probably buy used because these things are expensive new. I believe the saddle portion of the stock is subject to wear and certainly the blades are subject to wear and machinists aren't opposed to stoning surfaces like that for nicks.....so I think the used models can come to us out of straight and out of square.

I actually tried correcting the saddles (its like a W shape) of old double squares I have (with mixed or no result).

I agree that as long as you don't project the blade (i.e. placing a straight edge against it to make a line that can stretch across a carcass side for example), all of these tools, and yes, including the Chinese ones, are probably more than good enough for what we do.

[Derek Cohen]

I’m coming into this discussion late, and note that there are 3 issues that have not been mentioned.

Firstly, let’s take the original video of three combination squares. I have 2 Starrett combos which get used quite frequently. One has a 12” and the other a 24” blade. The blades, per se, are straight, or certainly straight enough for my needs. The reason I purchased Starrett (and used, not new) is not that the blades are straight (which is, of course, important), but that the mechanism that holds them straight is hard wearing and reliable for a long, long time.

Inside the head is a tiny clamp, and this runs against the groove in the rule, which is hardened steel (at least I want it to be hardened steel, of my knive blades will wear it prematurely). That little clamp not only needs to fit the groove to hold the rule square to the head, but it must resist wear itself. As soon as it becomes a sloppy fit, accuracy goes.

Issue #1: testing squareness when new only determines the accuracy iut of a box. It is relevant to test after a longish period if time (or mock up a way to mimic this) - how well does accuracy hold up?

Issue two: I like combination squares since they are combination tools. Measure a length, scribe a line as a marking gauge, straight edge, ruling lines ... I often swap out rules, such as metric for imperial, 24”/600mm for 12”/300mm, etc. However, when it comes to checking joinery, where accuracy is important, I do not use a combination square. Such as the ends of boards to be dovetailed, or the shoulder for a mortice-and-tenon joint. I could probably get away with the combo tools, especially the 6” Starrett double square I have and am really fold of. I would never set the mitre gaige on my tablesaw with the 24” blade. I can see light at the end. But which is straighter, the blade or the mitre fence?

I periodically check that all my squares are .. square. I wuld tune them up if I needed to do so. That has never been required in over 20 years of ownership of these used Starrett combination squares. So I am clearly neurotic about accuracy in these circumstances. What feeds into this neurosis is that I have an alternative available to me.

Point 3: I have small squares which are not only accurate, but are small enough to be used with better control. 10” and 4” squares by Vesper are a lifetime investment which I do not begrudge. These are machinist squares which are infilled to look like a wood and metal square. The blades are highly tempered stainless steel, which will not bend or wear. The connection of head to blade is so durable and unmoving that they have a lifetime warrantee and a certification that makes your head spin. Total overkill, but one less thing to be concerned about!



Still, not everyone can afford these. I also have a couple of inexpensive (as they came via swap meets) 4” engineers squares, and even three certified precision combination squares by Vesper, Starrett, and Moore&Wright ..



Only the Vesper was costly. The point I wish to make is that there are many inexpensive machinist squares of varying sizes available, and that it is these which one should have for joinery, either to use because they are inexpensive, or to use as a master to check you shop wooden square. I have no issue with wooden, shop made square other than they need constant checking.

Regards from Perth

Derek