# Cheap TS blades



## BrownsFan (Jul 11, 2011)

I've been using a cheap 7 1/4 circular saw blade (Menards with rebate) in my table saw for rough cutting. I realize I lose a little bit a potential blade height, but otherwise does anyone know any safety issues with this? My motor is a 1.5hp at 3450 RPM. The blade is rated for up to 6000 RPM. The pullies appear to be approximately a 1:1 ratio so I'm getting 3500 RPM at the blade.


----------



## ShopTinker (Oct 27, 2010)

I've used 7 1/4" blades in my 9" table saw for 20 years and have never had a problem. I think my driver pulley is a little smaller then the driven, so mine would turn a little slower than yours. It's natural for us to adjust our feed rate for the type of blade and speed that it cuts. 7 1/4" blade has a smaller circumference so the number of teeth per second contacting the wood is lower and must be fed a little slower then a larger diameter blade.


----------



## fussy (Jan 18, 2010)

Eric,

Another advantage is you can get much thinner ker blades for cutting small pieces or cutting special wood.

Steve


----------



## a1Jim (Aug 9, 2008)

I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## jusfine (May 22, 2010)

Dan, I guess I was never that good at math, but I would think that a 7 1/4" blade w 40 teeth vs a 10" blade with 40 teeth would have a faster contact rate as the teeth are closer together on a smaller surface… no?


----------



## gfadvm (Jan 13, 2011)

I have used those ultra thin kerf DeWalt circsaw blades in my Grizz hybrid when I needed to cut a really thin kerf in something and have had no problems. They cut remarkably well.


----------



## ShopTinker (Oct 27, 2010)

Jusfine, Your right, if both blades had 40 teeth. The teeth on the 7.25" blade would be about 1" apart and the teeth on the 10" blade would be about 2" apart, so there would be more teeth in contact with the wood with the 7.25" blade at any time. The number of teeth per second would be the same.

I was thinking about your standard cheap rip or crosscut saw blade. There are more teeth on a 10" blade and they are moving faster as they contact the wood. A 7.25" blade with 40 teeth and a 10" blade with the same tooth spacing would have 76 teeth , thus the 7.25" blade would have fewer teeth per second contacting he wood.


----------



## cabmaker (Sep 16, 2010)

I have cut severals miles of material using a 7 1/4 in lieu of a ten inch without incident. enjoy


----------



## TCCcabinetmaker (Dec 14, 2011)

As long as the arbor is the same then you should be fine.

Personally I go for the middle price range blades, they hold up, and well I don't have to buy them that often.


----------



## BrownsFan (Jul 11, 2011)

Thanks everyone. I agree the mid-priced blades are pretty good, but you can't argue with a $1 circ blade… even if its only good for 1 project. I like the cheapies for rough cuts and save my mid-priced Avanti for final finish cuts.


----------



## jerkylips (May 13, 2011)

I have to comment on this. No offense, but it kind of cracks me up that you posted, "I've been doing this for a while - is it safe?". You may want to ask that question earlier in the process next time..


----------



## BrownsFan (Jul 11, 2011)

I see what you mean Jerky.  The whole thing started with a crazy idea… lets put a cheap circ blade on the TS for the tough cutting. I said to myself… OK I'll try it THIS ONCE. Well things went ok and its started to become the norm in my garage.


----------



## jusfine (May 22, 2010)

Thanks Dan!

Eric, I guess I got off the topic a bit when I read Dan's response, but I have also done this with a tablesaw on a jobsite. I did quit buying cheap blades when 3 of the carbide teeth flew off during a prolonged ripping session.

Luckily nobody was hurt but it did give me a scare.


----------



## Dal300 (Aug 4, 2011)

Like most others here, I've done the 7 1/4" in a 10" saw, but it finally dawned on me that it was false economy.
The blade wore out a lot faster and I was always buying new blades. It could have had something to do with the wood I was cutting, either pitchy pine or some crappy hardwood, but I think it had more to do with making the blade do what it wasn't meant to do.
I started buying the Irwin Marathon 10" blades for about $20 and they last a lot longer. My cost for 7 1/4" blades was averaging about $10/ea. and I could go through 3 or 4 of them for every $20 10" blade. I think it has to do with the gullet in the larger blade working better than in the smaller blade.
For ripping with the smaller blade I would use an 18 tooth blade so the teeth were farther apart, but a 24 tooth worked well for cross cut.

As to your question about safety issues, I doubt that it's any more dangerous than a regular 10" blade, unless you forget the circumference is smaller and do something silly.


----------



## BrownsFan (Jul 11, 2011)

Dallas,

Can you explain the gullet idea to me? What I mean is I can't imagine running a piece through a 40T blade so fast that the gullet fills completely with debris… even a 60T for that matter. Now if you're talking a 200T plywood blade perhaps those gullets might fill. In the case of most carbide tipped blades. I would think the number of cutting teeth would have a much greater impact than the gullet. Obviously, the number of teeth and gullet determine each other, along with circumference. Is this simply a question of the chicken or the egg???


----------



## Dal300 (Aug 4, 2011)

Eric, You would be amazed at how fast the gullet on a blade can fill up.

The majority of 10" ripping blades are 24-30 tooth, Combination blades into the 60 tooth area and cross cut blades are 40 tooth on up.

Someone else here can explain better than I can why this is, but suffice it to say that the more teeth on the blade, the more problems you'll have doing rips because the gullets fill up.


----------



## NormG (Mar 5, 2010)

I use them unless I am cutting a large piece of lumber that would require the larger size blade


----------



## davidmicraig (Nov 21, 2009)

Just a few observations to add to the conversation. The following is just devil's advocacy and not pitches to be a mom and produce a safer America  -

1. In regards to safety, I would think the question is not so much what size blade you are using but what type of material you are throwing at the saw that would make you want to go the cheapest route possible. When you are talking about a $1 a blade circ saw blade, you are not just utilizing a circ saw blade, but the cheapest one you can find. That can be a little dangerous in its own right, not for size, but quality because I would think the blade would be dull, would be running at a higher RPM, and of a material that would be more prone to structural damage under heavy use. The material you are sawing, I would imagine, is cheap lumber which probably means poorly milled with a higher capacity for binding and kickback.

2. Savings. As already mentioned, the smaller the blade and the faster the RPM, the more contact per tooth per cut. In the end, I would think the more wear would result in more replacements which result in offsetting cost savings.

Thanks for the discussion,

David


----------



## knotscott (Feb 27, 2009)

If the blade you're using is thinner than the splitter/riving knife, the wood will bind on the splitter…not a good situation. You're better off with a good quality standard 10" blade IMO. If price is driving factor to use the 7-1/4" blades, there have been some insane deals on German made Onsrud blades on Ebay. Sale prices on other good 10" thin kerf blades like the Freud Diablo, CMT ITK Plus, or DeWalt Precision Trim series are pretty attractive too. These are all very good affordable 10" blades.


----------



## Dal300 (Aug 4, 2011)

I bought some of those Onsrud blades on eBay and I have to say I am extremely impressed.
They've out performed my Freud Diablo blades, even after cutting a couple hundred board feet of Osage Orange.


----------

