Which WWII?

[Silvan]

I have a shiny new Crapsman contractor's saw with what I guess is a 1.5 HP motor. I've spent a great deal of time tweaking it, and it's lined up beautifully.

I can't afford one yet, but it's time to start thinking about a WWII. I'm lazy, so this will be the blade I leave on the saw 99% of the time. It's hard to say whether I do more ripping or crosscutting. I do a lot of both, and am looking for the best compromise between smooth crosscuts and fast-as-possible glue line rips.

I've decided on a full sized kerf, but I'm debating teeth. My regular user blade has been a 50T Freud TK960, which I've been happy with for some time. I just put that blade on my new saw, after having been using the new saw with its stock 24T blade for awhile, and I realized that ripping with a 50T blade pretty much sucks.

Forrest's site says "* Use 30T version if ripping mostly 2" - 3" Thick hardwoods."

Well, I won't be. The local lumber yard only stocks 4/4, so that's what I use. I might have some reason to get something thicker some day, but it's not going to be a standard practice. I expect to cut mostly 4/4, and the occasional tuba stock. OTOH, I have a comparatively wimpy motor.

So whaddaya think? 40T or 30T?

[Swingman]

40T WWII does all I need it to do, and is all I use.

[Leon]

Absolutely the 40 tooth WWII for a majority of cutting under 2" thick. You can absolutely cut thicker than 2" with that blade also but at a slower pace. I resaw 3" wide boards quite often with the 40 tooth WWII although on a cabinet saw. The WWII does a superb job of crosscutting and ripping.

[Scott Post]

If money is tight then spend it on something more useful. I'm on my second WWII (first one was a real dud). It's a nice blade, but not significantly better than a $40 Freud combination blade. You'd be better served spending the difference on lumber and building something.

[Doug Miller]

Then you've picked the right blade. Almost.

IMO you're probably better off with the thin-kerf version, given the saw you have. You don't exactly have a surplus of horsepower. Not a shortage either, mind you, but it's light enough that the thin-kerf blade, with a stabilizer, will probably give you better performance.

1. I cut mostly 4/4, but some 6/4 and 8/4, and a 40T WWII works just fine for me. If the majority of what I worked with was 8/4 then I'd go with 30T, but for occasional cuts in heavy stock the 40T is fine.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

[Edwin Pawlowski]

40T for sure. The WWII is a great blade. That said, there are other very good blades at about the same or lower price.

I got a deal at the Springfield show. Ridge Carbide Tool had a special on their 40T combo and 8" dado blade. I got both for about $220. The dado is impressive with flat bottom cuts. The TS2000 cut everything I have thrown at it including some thick oak. Only time I take it out now is for plywood. The 80 tooth Freud does a better job on plywood.

As for the original Delta blade that came with the saw, I use it for rough cutting only. Compared to the Ridge or a WWII, it sucks. For ripping down some framing lumber, it is OK. Ed [e-mail]

[John Crea]

Get the 40t unless you are going to be doing a LOT of ripping of THICK stuff

John

[B a r r y]

40T for all around work.

Barry