No, I was never brave enough to try them - they were bought by my father, as a set complete with B&D drill.
Reciprocating saws and blades
- Thread starter JohnW2
- Start date
No, I was never brave enough to try them - they were bought by my father, as a set complete with B&D drill.
Sponsored Links
Ok - but I suspect that you thereby probably failed to discover that one didn't really need to be 'brave' to use them.
As I've said, the blades/discs/whatever were attached to the drill in essentially the same way that such things were (and still are) attached to any power tool, and the (very solid) cast casings of the 'attachments' attached very firmly to the ventilation slots in the drill's casing. I really can't think of any significant sense in which a drill with one of those attachments was any less safe than would be the corresponding 'dedicated' portable power tool - but, as always, maybe I'm missing something.
Kind Regards, John
D
Deleted member 174758
You could start with considering ergonomics - purpose designed circular saws have far better ergonomics than any of the drill with attachment combos. Purpose designed circular saws also have more power and run at a higher speed (e.g. B&D 2-speed drills used to run at 900/2400 rpm, earlier 1-speed drills did around 1850 to 2200rpm - the little 150mm saw that Kango used to sell ran at something like 7000rpm - so a lot less chance of a kick back). Purpose designed saws generally have larger bases, which aids stability. They also (at least modern ones) have the facility to be attached to a vacuum - abd there's nothing safe in being pelted in the face with sawdust whilst making a cut. And finally the guards at least on B&D saw attachments lacked a return spring and had one open side - Stanley-Bridges were the same whilst some 3rd party attachments in the 1960s lacked any blade guard at all - so thosr attachments are ba lot less safe than a "modern" circular saw with its' self closing saw blade guard (Stanley USA corded portable circular saws certainly had sprung guards in the late 1930s). That is something that I, as a daily user of circular saws at work, regard as significant
BTW I collect and restore old power tools, so I have examples of some of these tools
Last edited by a moderator:
OK - imagine just a bare blade, attached to the normal chuck, via an arbour. Further imagine that is designed to be used freehand, just holding the drill in your hands.
Sponsored Links
D
Deleted member 174758
Yeech, Harry - just don't go there!
Exactly!
Needless to say, I wouldn't go anywhere near such a thing with a bargepole. However, as I've tried to explain, the historic 'attachments' we're talking about were not remotely like that.
Kind Regards, John
All valid points, but I wouldn't personally say that any of them qualify the attachments as "Absolutely deadly" (particularly when that comment followed "jigsaws etc." (see below). I am sure I am very far from alone in having used those attachments for a good few years 'without incident'.
In any event, I think any 'negative' comments (such as yours) about those attachments really only apply to the the circular saw attachment, since I really don''t see that there were any significant safety issues in relation to any of the others. Sure, they didn't have 'dust extraction', but nor did (m)any DIY power tools back then.
As I said, I think I still have a more-or-less 'complete set' of the B&D ones, although it is a very long time since I last used any other than (very occasionally, the lathe - but even that not for a long time).
Kind Regards, John
I had a segmented diamond metal cutting blade bend one of the segments to about 60 degrees, not sure how but I was cutting a large RSJ and presumably the grinder had a little twist (obviously caused by the operator), I think it just pushed the blade out of the cut, certainly when I tried to restart cutting (before I examined the blade and saw what had happened) it just kept coming out of the cut so no real drama. Straightened the segment in the vice and it was as good as new.
D
Deleted member 174758
I'll put it another way then, the circular saw attachment is awkward to use, inaccurate and completely gutless. The jigsaw attachment is just big and awkward. The table saws (both B&D and Stanley-Bridges) are hair-raisingly unsafe (and gutless). About the only attachments which make any sense are the sanding attachments.
BTW in terms of safety, it doesn't matter how long you use anything without incident, if you are using it in a dangerous manner, or the item has an unsafe design or can become unsafe through failure then the possibility of an accident is always there. "I've always done it this way, without an accident, so it must be safe/my usage must be safe" is the anathema to safety - don't take my word for it, that is a quote from a lecturer fron RoSPA a few years back. Considering how many accidents which end up at A&E are caused by ladders and Stanley knives, I think that speaker was right
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you are probably viewing this with a 21st century (or, at least, 'later 20th century') mind. Maybe you were in a different position from me, but back in the 60s and early 70s, the 'attachments' were all that were available to, or affordably by, me - and, even though obviously 'inferior to'(and probably 'less safe than') what subsequently became available, they were (at least for me) an extremely welcome improvement on the previous reliance on hand tools.
As before, I would not use such melodramatic language, but we are agreed that they were certainly the things about which one could have the greatest safety concerns. However, I was not unaware of that, even back then, but nevertheless had one (as, presumably, did a good few other people).
As above, as far as I was concerned, they all 'made sense' back then, being the only alternative to hand tools that was available to me.
You don't really need to lecture me about such things, or to quote RoSPA (whom I have been known to advise). I have spent many decades working in safety-critical fields, and a substantial part of my work has involved the estimation/quantification of risks, and the minimisation and/or mitigation of them.
As you say, individual anecdotes are meaningless (and I was trying to be careful not to imply otherwise). It actually works both ways. Just as one person "always doing it this way without accident" certainly does indicatee that something is 'safe', nor does one person (or a few people) having a catastrophic experience necessarily indicate (let alone 'prove') that something is significantly 'unsafe' (e.g. if 'the other millions of users' had no such problem).
It's inevitably all down to probabilities and, as I have repeatedly said, is hence dependent upon 'our' (society's) view (which changes withthe passage of time) as to what probability of harm (i.e. 'degree of risk') is 'acceptable', and which is 'unacceptable'.
[ It is, of course, possible to take the view (as some people do) that "one serious injury or death is one serious injury or death too many" but in a world in which extremely little comes with 'zero risk', to act on such a view would result in ludicrous, and certainly impractical, things being done! ]
I think you are probably doing somewhat of an injustice to (most) people. Despite what you seem to imply, I would say that most people are aware of the fact that using ladders and Stanley knives (and countless other things, not the least of which are 'roads') is potentially dangerous - just look at what they try to teach their children about such things. However, as well as (hopefully) 'exercising caution, they will usually (even if subconsciously) make an assessment of the degree of risk (probability of coming to harm), based on what proportion of users they believe come to harm, and then decide whether that is a level of risk which they regard as 'acceptable'.
Of course, that can get seriously undermined by 'human nature', since most of us are inclined to believe that we are 'more careful' than most others, and that "it (harm) will happen to someone else" - but even then there is usually an acknowledgement of the risk 'to everyone else', even if their psychology thinks that they are themselves somehow 'immune' from that risk
Kind Regards, John
Just a quick update ...
I've now successfully done the cutting of 4" cast iron soil pipes with a Milwaukee carbide blade in my modest/cheapo reciprocating saw.
It certainly cut through the cast iron. However, these people who say that they go through cast iron 'like butter' must have come across some incredibly hard butter, and some of the U-tube videos must be seriously 'speeded up'!
It was certainly much slower in getting through the cast iron than would have been the case with a grinder, but a lot less messy, noisy or dramatic/'frightening'. Also, there was no problem cutting all the way through pipes which were close to a wall - i.e. no 'grinder access' to some of it, such that multiple 'grinder cuts' would have been needed (greatly reducing, if not reversing, the 'time difference'), probably even with a (heavy) 9" grinder, let alone my little 4½" one.
I am therefore sold on reciprocating saws as being the tool-of-choice for this activity - and, as discussed, that may also be somewhat 'safer' (than using a grinder).
Thanks for all your inputs and advice.
Kind Regards, John
I've now successfully done the cutting of 4" cast iron soil pipes with a Milwaukee carbide blade in my modest/cheapo reciprocating saw.
It certainly cut through the cast iron. However, these people who say that they go through cast iron 'like butter' must have come across some incredibly hard butter, and some of the U-tube videos must be seriously 'speeded up'!
It was certainly much slower in getting through the cast iron than would have been the case with a grinder, but a lot less messy, noisy or dramatic/'frightening'. Also, there was no problem cutting all the way through pipes which were close to a wall - i.e. no 'grinder access' to some of it, such that multiple 'grinder cuts' would have been needed (greatly reducing, if not reversing, the 'time difference'), probably even with a (heavy) 9" grinder, let alone my little 4½" one.
I am therefore sold on reciprocating saws as being the tool-of-choice for this activity - and, as discussed, that may also be somewhat 'safer' (than using a grinder).
Thanks for all your inputs and advice.
Kind Regards, John
Thank you for your post.
I seldom need to cut through cast iron but I do worry about the "like butter" you tube videos.
It was the first time I've done it with a reciprocating saw but I have, very occasionally cut cast iron with a grinder in the past.
... but, yes, quite so! I wouldn't say that the videos are 'worrying', but they are certainly potentially misleading - although I always did feel that they were 'far too good to be true'! It certainly does look like genuine cast iron pipes they are cutting - so, as I said, all I can think is that those videos must be 'seriously speeded up'.
I obviously can't recall exactly, but I would say that it probably took me 'a few minutes' to cut through each 4" CI pipe.
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
