Drooling Newbie begs for tolerance - A TWO HEADED combination square?

[Puff Griffis]

Seems to me all that would require is buying a second square and putting = the second head on the first blade. Right ? Puff

[NFrames]

I wound up with two combination squares - a cheap piece of snot I bought, and a much nicer one I inherited from the "new" houses previous owner (notta gloat, it ain't that nice. The Yankee screwdriver though....)

The El-Cheapo Especi'al won't allow you to switch the position of the head, on the blade. That is, if you want the 45 degree part on the left, instead of the right, AND you want it that way on the 64ths scale side, you are s.o.l. This annoyed me, but so what? I lived with it.

The "new" combination square WILL allow me to put the head on anyway I want. Which is more typical? A "One Way Only" set up, or an "Either or"?

Whilst fiddling with the two and comparing them side by side, the thought struck me that, it'd be swell if you could put two heads on one rule, specifically a 16" or longer one, so that the flat sides would be in opposition to one another so that you could position a piece of stock between them and make sure the two sides were parallel to each other all the way down the length of the stock and when you drew or cut a line for a crosscut you'd be that much more certain it was square all the way across the stock since the two heads could clamp the rule to the stock, and so forth...

Anyway - it seems like that'd be a nice set up to me - one long rule with two heads on it. Is that completely assinine? Has someone else thought of this long ago and made something that fulfills the same function? Or am I just "doing it wrong" ?

[Bay Area Dave]

why would you want to spend time fiddling around clamping the thing to the board?? Just lay the square against the edge and mark your line. You are done in a couple of seconds.

dave

NFrames wrote:

[Victor Radin]

Starrett had (may still have) a combination square set in various sizes with multiple heads. I have a 6" and 12" with square, centering, and adjustable heads- they must be 50 or 60 years old by now, still accurate and "square". You should be able to do the double-header thing with a good set, although I don't quite understand why just flipping the framing square wouldn't give you the same result.

Would it be a gloat to say that both sets of the starrett combo squares were inherited from my father and I still have all accy's except for the wooden box?

/vic

[tmbg]

[Mark]

The better square heads I've had use a tanged lock bolt to keep the lock oriented to the heads slot. It makes it much easier to get the rule through after it's been removed.

Nope, wouldn't do it. Least not with my equipment.

First, if the heads got bound or wedged there would be a real good chance of springing the rule.

Second, if the heads got bound or wedged there would be a (slim?) chance of damaging the heads and a good chance of snapping the lock bolt.

[John Keeney]

Nope, the price of inherited equipment is too high.

[Victor Radin]

Yeah- you're right :( I'd rather have the old man around- if for nothing else to see that his grandson has the same love for the crafts that he did, a love of teaching the skills to others, and even turned out to be a genuinely nice kid.

[BIG JOE]

Ahhh man, sniff, sniff, the wreck ain't 'sposed to make you tear up. Almost lost my old man to a stroke two years ago, before his first grandkids arrived.

Joe

[Mark]

Agreed.