LumberJocks

Forrest WW2 vs Freud glue line rip & Ultimate cutoff (general blade vs swapping 2 specilized blades)

  • Advertise with us

« back to Power Tools, Hardware and Accessories forum

Forum topic by Fallon posted 03-07-2010 06:26 AM 4413 views 0 times favorited 3 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View Fallon's profile

Fallon

86 posts in 2592 days


03-07-2010 06:26 AM

Topic tags/keywords: question blade tablesaw

I did something stupid (cranked my saw over towards 45 degrees while my zero clearance insert was in) & apparently damaged my Delta blade. It still seems in good shape, but the left side of any cut is just fuzzy & nasty.

So anyway I went over to Woodcraft with the intent of picking up a Forrest WW2 (and a new zero clearance insert) as I’ve read all the good reviews of them on here & they were on sale. The sales guy I talked to really didn’t know much about the WW2 & personally had a stack of Freud’s. He ended convincing me to get a Freud Glue Line Rip (LM74R010 30 tooth) & a Freud Ultimate Cutoff (LU85R010 80 tooth). That ended up with 2 function specific blades for about $30 more than a single Forrest. I’ve seen good reviews around here for the Freuds (usually just behind the Forrest), so it wasn’t too hard to push me that way.

I’m now having a second thoughts. The prospect of swapping blades in and out isn’t that bad, but it just isn’t appealing. What do you guys do? Stick with a general blade that gives good or very good all around performance, or swap out blades for excellent function specific performance?

Should I take the Freuds back & go for the WW2 or just keep em & get use to swapping blades?

This is for a 80’s Unisaw, which has more than enough power for anything I’ll be throwing at it. Mostly small hobby projects & at this stage in my game I’m not experienced enough to lay out my projects that well in advanced to optimize my workflow & minimize my blade swaps.


3 replies so far

View MedicKen's profile

MedicKen

1610 posts in 2927 days


#1 posted 03-07-2010 06:36 AM

I have a WWII and the Freud glue line rip. I would not change a thing. The rip blade is nice, especially in harder woods. The Forrest is great for cross cuts but does not do well in ripping, even though its a combo blade. if it were me I would keep the 2 blades and switch when needed. I cant speak on the 80 Freud, I dont have any experience with it

-- My job is to give my kids things to discuss with their therapist....medic20447@gmail.com

View Pete_Jud's profile

Pete_Jud

424 posts in 3217 days


#2 posted 03-07-2010 07:29 AM

I have great luck with the Matsushita 40 tooth blades. A little pricey but well worth it. I use it for both ripping and crosscutting.

-- Life is to short to own an ugly boat.

View knotscott's profile

knotscott

7215 posts in 2840 days


#3 posted 03-07-2010 02:05 PM

For clarification, note that Freud offers two distinct rip blades that state “Glue Line Rip Blade” on them…one is the LM72 24T FTG ripper, and the other is the LM74 30T TCG ripper….the latter is what’s most commonly purchased as a true “GLR”, while the 24T is a bulk ripper for thick ripping. The two models sometimes get confused because of the “GLR” claim.

Depending on what you cut, the 80T might be a good purchase because it excels in a region that the WWII isn’t stellar in…ultra fine crosscuts and plywood/sheetgoods.

As well as the LM74 performs within it’s range, it has a very limited range, does not exceed the capabilities of the WWII in the same region, and doesn’t offer anywhere near the versatility of the WWII. Most good 40T or 50T general purpose combo blades will also leave a glue ready edge….the “GLR” claim seems to be a good marketing tool, but it’s not a unique blade grind that’s overly essential in most hobby shops IMO. “Glue ready” basically means from saw to glue up without needing extra work…a very common scenario with many good blades. The LM74 gives a glue ready edge in up to 1” rips as advertised, but does not crosscut well, is prone to burning in thicker materials, and is prone to tearout in plywood/sheetgoods. You’d essentially be gaining no capabilities with the LM74 vs the WWII, but will definitely be losing some that the WWII offers. The WWII gives glue ready rips in up to 2” material, plus it’ll do fairly well in ply/sheet materials, and crosscuts fairly well. With either of these blades, you still won’t have reasonable coverage for ripping 2”+ materials, and may still want a 24T bulk ripper available. On the plus side, the LM74’s triple chip grind will hold up a little better than the WWII’s ATB grind, so can be a better choice for high volume ripping operations or for cutting materials that are known to be tough on blades. (The 30T WWII is often a more useful choice than the 30T GLRs because it’ll leave a glue ready edge, will rip very thick materials (up to ~ 3”), plus still has acceptable crosscut performance in many applications….it actually makes for a more complimentary match to the 80T LU85 IMHO).

What to get is really a matter of your preference…..Extracted from my blog on blades:

Key Decisions:
Blade selection is very much proprietary to your saw and what you cut. The first decision should be to choose which types of blades are best for your situation. You can choose separate task specific blades that perform very well in a narrow operating range, or more of a “do-all” general purpose blade that will give “good” results in most applications but excel at none, or choose a variation that combines both philosophies. These philosophies all have merit depending on the situation, your preference, budget, and cutting objectives. A decent purebred 60-80 tooth crosscut blade will certainly make “cleaner” crosscuts than a 30, 40 or 50 tooth general purpose blade of comparable quality. Inversely, a 24 tooth bulk ripper will certainly be more efficient at ripping thick material than the general purpose (GP) style blade. The key to “better” depends on how you define that term. Better performance in one aspect of cutting doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a better choice overall. Consider both sides of the equation before making a decision.

Taking the approach of using task specific blades requires owning at least two blades that each excel in a limited operating region, and are typically unacceptable for tasks outside of their intended scope. They also require blade changes for each different task for optimum results. Two task-specific blades (typically a 24T ripper and a 60T or 80T crosscutter) will generally stay sharp longer than a single general purpose blade because they share the work load, but will cost more upfront and will also cost more to re-sharpen when the time comes. A general purpose blade will neither rip as efficiently as a true rip blade nor crosscut as cleanly as a dedicated crosscut blade, but you may find that it’s more than acceptable at doing both tasks for most situations. A valid argument in favor of using one high quality general purpose blade is that the GP blade leaves a cleaner edge than the rip blade, crosscuts faster than a crosscut blade, and does so with the convenience and cost of using one blade. Most higher quality general purpose blades will leave a glue ready edge, which is often as good as it needs to be. If you happen to do a lot of specialty cutting of fine veneered plywoods, veneers, melamine, MDF, plastics, etc., a blade made specifically for these materials is definitely recommended. If you tend to rip very thick dense materials regularly, then a dedicated ripping blade is a wise choice for you right from the start. Sooner a later a decent general purpose blade will be useful, so it’s always a reasonable starting point IMO, even if you pursue separates later.

Breaking from convention, it’s also possible to choose separate blades that offer different regions of excellence than the conventional dedicated 24T bulk ripper and 80T fine crosscut blade. Even though the majority of general purpose/combination blades have 40T or 50T, there are some blades with 30T and 60T that offer more versatility than standard 24T and 80T separates, and can be used in a somewhat limited general purpose capacity. A 30T blade with an ATB grind and a steep positive hook angle (like the Forrest 30T WWII & DeWalt DW7653) will rip more efficiently than comparably designed 40T general purpose blade in materials up to 3” (given suitable power), will make cleaner rips than a standard 24T ripper, and may even crosscut acceptably well in many situations. The weakness of the 30T blade is that it won’t perform well for fine crosscut or fine plywood type duties, but it will give “glue line” cuts and more versatility than a standard 24T ripper, which potentially means fewer blade changes and acceptable performance in a wider region. A good blade of this type will be suitable for wide range of tasks that don’t require fine finish cuts. Inversely, a good quality 60T ATB blade with a positive hook angle will make cleaner rips up to ~ 1-1/2”, will make cleaner crosscuts and ply cuts than a conventional 40T ATB general purpose or 50T ATB/R combo blade, and is a good choice where cleaner cuts and lower ripping efficiency are suitable. The weakness of the 60T blade will be loss of efficiency in thicker ripping, causing bogging of the saw and more burning. The combination of the 30T and 60T blades offers increased range over a standard 40T or 50T GP blade, and better versatility than standard 24T and 80T separates. Depending on your situation, a good 30T or 60T blade may be suitable as the only blade you’ll need, and the two blades combined will “tag-team” to cover a very wide range of tasks extremely well, yet can still be left on the saw with little need to be changed for most tasks….sort of a “best of both worlds” scenario.

-- Happiness is like wetting your pants...everyone can see it, but only you can feel the warmth....

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com