No announcement yet.

Table saw blades

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Table saw blades

    I only have had my 3650 for a short time but am very impressed with how it cuts. The blade is quiet and leaves a good edge. I was kind of surprised after I saw how thin the saw plate was.

    In the August issue of the Woodworker's Journal they have a review of table saw blades. the Ridgid R1050C was rated as a "Best Buy." The WWII had better overall marks but was downrated due to price.

    My question for you folks with the WWII. Is there really a marked difference in cut quality between the stock blade and the WWII?


  • #2
    As far as I'm concerned, a rating of "Best Buy" has more to do with the pocketbook than it does with the quality of the product being reviewed. Comparing the Ridgid blade against the Forrest or any other of the top quality blades for that matter is not a fair fight. The Ridgid line of blades are adaquate for those who are looking for a midpriced thin kerf blade that performs well within its limitations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Ridgid blades are inferior but they aren't in the same class as many other professional grade blades such as Forrest, Freud LU and F Series and Ridge Carbide(no relationship to RIDGID) to name a few.

    One major point to consider when it comes to buying midpriced blades is that in the long run they will actually end up costing more money than buying a professional grade blade in the first place. A professional grade blade will take many more resharpenings than those "Best Buy" blades.
    I decided to change calling the bathroom the "John" and renamed it the "Jim". I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.


    • #3
      I agree with Dave 100%. That WWJ article had some great info, and was pretty good until they gave extra points for low price and deducted them for a higher price. I also think a finer grading scale would have been more useful...liek maybe 1-10 instead their poor, fair, good, excellent rating of essentially 1-4. I do think price should be a consideration but it should really take a back seat to absolute performance. Too many people came away from that article stating that the Ridgid 1050C and DeWalt DW7640 beat out the WWII and the Freud F410 in a blade comparison, and that's not really the case. So many variables come into play when you draw a line at a certain price point.....if they chose different price categories by even $1 in some cases, the outcome of the results would have shifted. Plus some people are better bargain hunters than others, so their price isn't necessarily yours or mine. The RC1050 and 7640 are good blades but are not on par with several pf the elite blades in the test that cost more, and I could find several blades in the same price range that I think would perform at least as well or better and that would likely hold an edge longer and withstand more resharpenings.

      I was also surprised that they didn't suspect something was wrong with the DeWalt DW7657 blade they tested.....that one's a contender to the WWII at a relative bargain price. It's widely recognized for it's top performance at a midrange price, so according to their price factor scale it should have kicked some butt. Unfortunately, that particular 7657 tested very poorly, and I'm really surprised that it didn't raise a flag for someone on their staff. Bet they would have double checked the WWII if it cut poorly.

      I was also baffled that they included 4 models from CMT, but omitted the Freud LU86R010, and had no Tenryu or Ridge Carbide blades....CMT makes some nice blades and bits, but they're not exactly a heavyweight in the marketplace compared to Freud, DW, and Forrest.
      Last edited by hewood; 09-01-2006, 06:57 PM.


      • #4
        i have a blade that i never see mentioned and i wonder why? i have the 10" porter cable "razor" witch has a mix of both fast and smooth cuting teeth. the blade costs about $35 and to me seems to do a very nice job for most things. it is much better than contractors blade but not as good as a furnture style blade(60+ tooth blade). seems to me i am the only one here that uses this blade. i can't find any reviews one this or any other blades though
        9/11/01, never forget.


        • #5
          Originally posted by earlinjax
          My question for you folks with the WWII. Is there really a marked difference in cut quality between the stock blade and the WWII?
          I have never had the opportunity to try the stock blade on a 3650 but I would think there is a noticeable difference. The deciding factor on how much you should spend on a blade would be the intended application, if you’re cutting 2x for rough carpentry work or if you are building fine furniture. I don’t recall reading about anyone who does fine woodworking (or as in my case attempts to do fine woodworking) regretting spending the extra cash on a perineum blade. If you would like to try the WWII, you can currently get the TK version delivered to your door for $74.12 from Amazon.



          • #6
            IMO there's a marked difference between the WWII and most other decent aftermarket blades like the entry level Freuds, Oldham, Irwin, Dewalts, and the titanium Ridgid line. Most stock blades are pretty poor, and the 3650's is no exception, so "yes", there should be a significant difference from the stock blade. If not, something else is wrong.
            Last edited by bench dog; 09-03-2006, 04:37 AM.


            • #7
              WWII is hard to beat

              I use a WWII almost exclusively for just about everything. I might change to my favorite Freud 80T for silky-smooth cuts, but even then I have to watch what I'm cutting because the Freud will burn some hardwoods (like Koa) that the WWII slices like butter with no burn. A worst-case with the WWII is a 220 grit touch-up, and that's easy to live with.
              Unanswered Questions
              are far less dangerous
              than Unquestioned Answers.