I could have added ... it rather sounds that you may never have owned/used any of those B&D 'accessories'
No, I was never brave enough to try them - they were bought by my father, as a set complete with B&D drill.
I could have added ... it rather sounds that you may never have owned/used any of those B&D 'accessories'
Ok - but I suspect that you thereby probably failed to discover that one didn't really need to be 'brave' to use them.No, I was never brave enough to try them - they were bought by my father, as a set complete with B&D drill.
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 significantI 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...
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.
Yeech, Harry - just don't go there!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.
Yeech, Harry - just don't go there!
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.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.
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'.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 ....
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).BTW I collect and restore old power tools, so I have examples of some of these tools
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.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.
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.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.
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).The table saws (both B&D and Stanley-Bridges) are hair-raisingly unsafe (and gutless).
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.About the only attachments which make any sense are the sanding attachments.
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.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 ...
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'.. Considering how many accidents which end up at A&E are caused by ladders and Stanley knives, I think that speaker was right
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
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.Thank you for your post. I seldom need to cut through cast iron but I do worry about the "like butter" you tube videos.
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