Do any others use a RIDGE TS2000

  • Advertise with us

« back to Power Tools, Hardware and Accessories forum

Forum topic by steve6678 posted 10-24-2012 01:16 AM 809 views 0 times favorited 2 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View steve6678's profile


438 posts in 2059 days

10-24-2012 01:16 AM

I am getting the same “ForrestWWII” answers to a lot of my milling questions.
I “USED TO” use, and enjoyed, the WWII by Forrest, until I got a Ridge TS2000.
Undeniably the BEST saw blade I have ever experienced(.)
just my opinion, my judgement.
I have spent many years using the Forrest blades.
I am convinced I have a superior blade in my saw with the Ridge.
It is simply phenominal. (spelled wrong) but it is THE best blade I have ever used.
Any other Ridge users?

-- Steve - Dust sucks!

2 replies so far

View knotscott's profile


8014 posts in 3374 days

#1 posted 10-24-2012 01:28 AM

I’ve owned, used, and tested the TS2000 against the WWII, Tenryu Gold Medal, DW7657, and others, and thought it was an exceptional general purpose blade….one of the few I consider an elite blade. The teeth are thicker on the TS2000 than those of a WWII, so it can be sharpened more times, but the quality of results are so close between a WWII, Gold Medal, and a TS2000 that it becomes really difficult to say that the one is clearly superior to the other in all aspects. It seemed on any given cut, one may have done slightly better than the other, but none consistently eclipsed the other. The Gold Medal had a thinner kerf at the time of 0.111”, and had a slightly less resistance in rip cuts, but not necessarily a better cut.

A couple of years after testing the WWII, TS2000, and Gold Medal head to head, I got the chance to run an Infinity Super General 40T, which to me, was clearly better at fine crosscuts, ply and sheetgoods, and gave a more polished edge on rip cuts from what I could tell, but the test wasn’t done head to head using the exact same material. The edges are so clean that I can often identify materials cut by the Super General by looking at the cut. The downside is that it’s a bit less efficient in thicker rips cuts, and had slightly more tendency to burn. So if 1-1/2 to 2” rips constitute the bulk of your cuts, it may not be clearly a better blade for your needs. I’m fairly confident that it’s the cleanest cutting of the 40T or 50T blades I’ve tried, but there’s always a chance that my methods are flawed.

It’s difficult to draw truly valid conclusions when you’re testing with a sample size of one blade of any given model, because the blade in hand may or may not be representative of the whole population. It’s also difficult to compare a used blade to a new blade, or more specifically a sharp blade to a blade that may not be as sharp….even a brand new blade may not be as sharp as another brand new blade of the same model…the sharpening and handling of the blade after sharpening are variables….critical variables at that. There are many other variables involved….the material itself is a variable, the operator is a variable, etc. It’s possible that your TS2000 is clearly a better blade than your WWII in your experience, but it’s also possible that your TS2000 is simply sharper than a less than new WWII, or that your technique has improved, or that you’re better at setting up your saw, or that there’s bias, etc. Either way, you’ve got a great general purpose blade on your hands…..or should I say in your saw!

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

View steve6678's profile


438 posts in 2059 days

#2 posted 10-24-2012 01:33 AM

Knotscott – wicked detailed info. Thanks. It is difficult to find differences in such equal blades. I respect your reply, very informative.

-- Steve - Dust sucks!

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