Reciprocating saws and blades

[JohnW2]

Hi folks,

I'll probably soon be needing to cut some bits of cast iron soil pipe.

Traditionally, I would always have done this with an angle grinder but everything I am hearing and seeing seems to indicate that a reciprocating saw is now the preferede tool for this task, since "they can cut through cast iron pipes like butter". I have to say that my initial reaction was that that sounded a bit far-fetched. However, having now seen a few U-tube videos showing such saws "going through cast iron pipes like butter", I have to accept that there must be some truth in what I'm being told!

I have a cheap 850W (Mac Allister) reciprocating saw. Is that likely top be man enough for the job?

My main reason for posted is that I am rather overwhelmed by the large range of reciprocating saw blades available. Many people seem to favour Bosch ones but, even if one restricts oneself to just those, there are still quite a lot to choose from. I therefore wonder if anyone can offer any suggestions/advice (about the blades and/or the task in general).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Deleted member 174758]

Traditionally, I would always have done this with an angle grinder but everything I am hearing and seeing seems to indicate that a reciprocating saw is now the preferede tool for this task, since "they can cut through cast iron pipes like butter".

Well, blades (and machines) have improved, but TBH I think the big push to using recip saws over grinders or Stihl saws on construction sites is primarily health and safety - less chance of injury with a recip (partly because both hands need to be on the tool when in use), no need to have a fire extinguisher to hand or do a 2 hour fire check (because a lot less heat is generated - so you can generally dispense with a hot work permit, extinguisher, 2 hour fire check, etc) and no need to adhere to the grinding wheel regulations (which can require additional training/certification) - and of course it's easier to get a recip into a tight space where a 9in grinder of Stihlly could never go.

I have a cheap 850W (Mac Allister) reciprocating saw. Is that likely top be man enough for the job?

Well, it is true that more power is better for recip saw work. I've had a 1300 watt Milwaukee for a few years and it is noticeably faster than the 900 watt saw I had before, and streets ahead of my (36 volt) cordless recip. But then, it also has an orbital action for use on timber, which also improves the speed

My main reason for posted is that I am rather overwhelmed by the large range of reciprocating saw blades available. Many people seem to favour Bosch ones but, even if one restricts oneself to just those, there are still quite a lot to choose from. I therefore wonder if anyone can offer any suggestions/advice (about the blades and/or the task in general).

I have tended to be cutting out mixed timber and metalwork (from nail-infested timber beams to cast iron down pipes to rolled steel RSJs or flitch plates), so I favour a thicker demolition blade, such as the Milwaukee Ax blades. Being thicker they are more durable than the Bosch blades, so seem to last longer. The cabide tipped (Ax) ones are even better, but I daren't let anyone else have them because they do get wrecked through abuse - and they ain"t cheap. For extended use I think you can't go wrong with the Milwaukee blades, but for one off jobs they are probably a tad pricey.[/i]

 

[HERTS P&D]

Hi John, I have cut throught cast iron soil stack with the blade below:

Milwaukee 48005202 Metal Sawzall Blade 230mm - Screwfix

Order online at Screwfix.com. Set of stainless steel cutting Sawzall blades. Carbide teeth for a longer life with thick metals. Up to 50 x more life compared to bi-metal blades. Ideal for cutting cast iron and thick-walled stainless steel. 25mm blade height for improved stability and minimum...

www.screwfix.com

And yes it was very quick, cutting with an angle grinder makes a lots of dust.

Andy

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks for your rapid reply.

Well, blades (and machines) have improved, but TBH I think the big push to using recip saws over grinders or Stihl saws on construction sites is primarily health and safety - less chance of injury ....

Yes, given the extent to which 'Nanny' has pervaded most aspects of life, I can well believe that. However, assuming that the videos I've been seeing are genuine, they certainly seem to get through cast iron pipes much more easily, and with far less hassle/mess, than is the case with a grinder.

Well, it is true that more power is better for recip saw work. I've had a 1300 watt Milwaukee for a few years and it is noticeably faster than the 900 watt sa I had before, andcstreetsxahead of my cordless recip. But then, it also has an orbital action for use on timber, which also improves the speed

That all makes sense, but I have to say I was impressed (nd surprised) by the relatively high proportion of reviews of lowish-powered ones were essentially 'positive', with a good few actually 'glowing'

I have tended to be cutting out mixed timber and metalwork (from nail-infested timber beams to cast iron down pipes to rolled steel RSJs or flitch plates), so I favour a thicker demolition blade, such as the Milwaukee Ax blades. Being thicker they are more durable than the Bosch blades, so seem to last longer. The cabide tipped (Ax) ones are even better, but I daren't let anyone else have them because they do get wrecked through abuse - and they ain"t cheap. For extended use I think you can't go wrong with the Milwaukee blades, but for one off jobs they are probably a tad pricey.

Thanks for those insights. At least for the immediate future, I'm talking of a one-off "job", but that job will probably involve a good few cuts in cast iron pipes.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Hi John, I have cut throught cast iron soil stack with the blade below:

Thanks. I'll certainly bear that in mind!

And yes it was very quick, cutting with an angle grinder makes a lots of dust.

.... not to mention lots of sparks As I said, I was extremely surprised by the apparent ease of cutting CI pipes as illustrated in the videos - in fact, as I've implied, I didn't really believe it until I had seen it with my own eyes!.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Deleted member 174758]

@JohnW2 I don't think it is "Nanny" at all - I can think of two mill conversions within 15 miles of home where major fires were caused by grinding of metal was done towards the end of day in the absence of extiguishers and where both mills were badly damaged in the resulting fires. In point of fact many of the safety constraints we work under in construction are designed to ensure that we go home safe and intact at the end of every day. They seem to result in a lot less serious injury than we saw 40 to 50 years ago

 

[JohnW2]

@JohnW2 I don't think it is "Nanny" at all - I can think of two mill conversions within 15 miles of home where major fires were caused by grinding of metal was done towards the end of day in the absence of extiguishers and shere bith mills were badly damaged in the resulting fires.

Obviously tangential to my question, but the "bad damage due to the resulting fires" would presumably usually be the consequence of the poor practices and lack of attention to precautions (such as fire extinguishers) on the part of the workers concerned, who were doing something that could be done relatively safely given adequate training, hence competence, care and 'precautions'.

In point of fact many of the safety constraints we work under in construction are designed to ensure that we go home safe and intact at the end of every day.

Of course but, again. (in fact, even more so) an interest in self-preservation ought to result in workers adopting safe practices (on the basis of training, 'competence' and common sense), without the need for 'safety constraints', Is the problem perhaps an inadequacy in the training and/or supervision of the workers concerned?

Having said all that, whilst you may well be right in suggesting that the move from grinders to reciprocating saws (for the sort of tasks being discussed) in the construction industry has probably been largely the consequence of "H&S" considerations, I don't think that "H&S considerations" are behind what I have been hearing and reading. All of the suggestions (that recip saws are preferable) I have seen were directed at "DIYers", and all majored on the saws being an easier/nicer/quicker/less messy method, without any mention of safety advantages, and certainly no mention of fire risks with grinders.

They seem to result in a lot less serious injury than we saw 40 to 50 years ago

That may be true (I don't know the facts/figures) but, in nearly all walks of life, 'our' ("society's") attitude to risk has changed an awful lot over the past 50+ years. There were countless things that were accepted and acceptable when I was a youngster in the 1950s and 1960s which would be regarded as 'unthinkably dangerous' now - even though most were just as 'dangerous' back then as they are today.

If you go back far enough, there was a day when a good few employers 'forced' their workers to expose themselves to what both they and the workers new to be 'unacceptable' risks. That's different, and was, I agree, something that needed to be (and hopefully has been) put a stop to by legislation.

Anyway, back to my question ... if my upcoming job entails making, say, a dozen or less cuts in CI soil pipes, would an appreciably cheaper) non-carbide blade be likely to last long enough for that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[^woody^]

Lenox blades. And move the saw back and forth.

 

[opps]

I really must purchase a reciprocating saw.

I note that Milwaukee sell both carbide and diamond blades.

Cast Iron / abrasive materials / fibreglass | Milwaukee Tool UK

Work at optimum performance for longer periods with top-quality reciprocating saw blades from MILWAUKEE®, offering options for every application.

uk.milwaukeetool.eu

The diamond blade- 230mm long is available with a diamond coating for £14. That strikes me as being very reasonably priced. I once paid £18 for a Smart carbide oscillating saw blade to cut through 4 screws.

How many soil pipes could one cut with the carbide blade Vs the Diamond blade?

 

[StephenOak]

In point of fact many of the safety constraints we work under in construction are designed to ensure that we go home safe and intact at the end of every day.

In the 1980s I shared a flat with a chap who ran building sites. He had started on civils (six years on the Thames Barrier) and moved on to construction.

In his career there had already been a significant improvement in the attitude to safety and a resulting decrease in injuries & deaths. It was something like multiple deaths per week in the building sector in the 1960s had dropped to a bit less than one per week by then and further fell (by the mid-90s?) to one or two per week year.

And for every person that is killed there are plenty who are injured, and some of those will be serious, life-altering, injuries.

IIRC it was in this period that the 'No safety boots, no hard hat, no hi-vis = no job' line started to become common.

an interest in self-preservation ought to result in workers adopting safe practices (on the basis of training, 'competence' and common sense)

Not necessarily.

The chap above had some horror stories of people doing stupid things, that were against common sense and their training.

Also common sense ( as well as not being that common ) does not really apply in an area with which you have no familiarity. So a tool that cuts through cast iron 'like butter' is not something that most people will ever come across. Hence how to deal with such a tool, where, and how close, to stand when someone else is using one, etc are not obvious.

Similarly, the two hour fire check rule that @JobAndKnock mentioned is not something that most people would come up with unprompted.

 

[JohnW2]

I really must purchase a reciprocating saw.

Same here. It's one of the few 'portable' power tools (or small workshop tools) that I don't have, because I hadn't previously thought that I really had a need for one, having thought of them more as a 'gardening' sort of tool.

I note that Milwaukee sell both carbide and diamond blades.

Indeed - and even 'non-carbide' ones I think

The diamond blade- 230mm long is available with a diamond coating for £14. That strikes me as being very reasonably priced.

Indeed, very reasonable, although it would probably end up nearer to £20 if one had to pay postage.

How many soil pipes could one cut with the carbide blade Vs the Diamond blade?

I'd like to know the same, and also for 'non-carbide' ones, if they exist - anyone got any thoughts?

However, I've seen it said that, in contrast with the situation with cutting stone/concrete/masonry etc., daimaond blades do not offer much of an advantage in terms of cutting metal - has anyone got any thoughts about that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Not necessarily. The chap above had some horror stories of people doing stupid things, that were against common sense and their training.

Of course. There are stupid peoplearound - and, indeed, many/most of us have been known to do stupid things sometimes, even wehen we 'knew better'. However, the person who is 'systematically stupid' will probably continue to do stupid things "if no-one is looking", regardless of rules and laws!

Also common sense ( as well as not being that common ) does not really apply in an area with which you have no familiarity. So a tool that cuts through cast iron 'like butter' is not something that most people will ever come across. Hence how to deal with such a tool, where, and how close, to stand when someone else is using one, etc are not obvious.

Indeed. That's true of any tool, from an actual 'butter knife' upwards, and is the reason why 'training' (and,where appropriate, 'supervision') is important. However, in context, your comment is almost the opposite of what has been suggested- namely that the move to a tool which "cuts cast iron like butter" was probably primarily because it was considered 'safer' than the traditional alternatives.

Kind Regards, John

 

[StephenOak]

@JohnW2 I notice that you swerved my comments about the building trade becoming significantly less dangerous, specifically less fatal.

Of course. There are stupid peoplearound - and, indeed, many/most of us have been known to do stupid things sometimes, even wehen we 'knew better'. However, the person who is 'systematically stupid' will probably continue to do stupid things "if no-one is looking", regardless of rules and laws!

Hence mass use products (and practises) have to designed for a population that includes stupid people. So tools that require two hands away from the cutting point for example.

You seem to be objecting to the idea of reducing the chance of there being unnecessary risk, which seems rather odd to me.

However, in context, your comment is almost the opposite of what has been suggested- namely that the move to a tool which "cuts cast iron like butter" was probably primarily because it was considered 'safer' than the traditional alternatives.

Firstly, any of the tools mentioned would cut cast iron. That does not make the recip saw safe or even safer but rather less dangerous IMO.

And most of the H&S matters that @JobAndKnock mentioned were nothing to do with the cutting work itself being inherently safe, but the preceding & subsequent matters being less or non-existent; training/certification grinding wheel regulations, hot work permit, presence of fire extinguishers and fire checks.

It is very easy to look back on our younger days as being somehow better in all ways.

There were countless things that were accepted and acceptable when I was a youngster in the 1950s and 1960s which would be regarded as 'unthinkably dangerous' now - even though most were just as 'dangerous' back then as they are today.

Things in the 1950s & 60s were not as dangerous as they are today, they were significantly more dangerous.

Lots of mechanised tools tools / machines did not have safety locks and lots of people were killed & maimed by them. People worked in noisy environments or holding vibrating tools and developed hearing loss or hand and arm damage. Cars did not even have seat belts, let alone air-bags & crumple zones.

I'm sure that nowadays some people are risk-averse to a silly extent (and I very strongly suspect that this is worse now that it was in the 1950s & 60s) and it infuriates me when people complain about genuine accidents and expect there to be no risk in life.

But that is what I, and I expect others, are talking about. Rather it is the unnecessary risk of people being maimed or killed being mitigated at small or zero cost.

 

[JohnW2]

I really don't want this thread to get taken over by these 'distractions', but ....

@JohnW2 I notice that you swerved my comments about the building trade becoming significantly less dangerous, specifically less fatal.

I didn't 'swerve' anything - merely didn't see the need to comment on your statement of undisputed facts.

Hence mass use products (and practises) have to designed for a population that includes stupid people. So tools that require two hands away from the cutting point for example.

As I said, training/education is essential with any 'tool'. Even in the case of the 'butter knife', a child has to be taught not to poke it into a toaster or their, or their sibling's, ear or eye.

You seem to be objecting to the idea of reducing the chance of there being unnecessary risk, which seems rather odd to me.

Goodness only knows what gives you that idea. I am stressing the need for training/education (and, where appropriate/necessary, supervision) in relation to the use of any 'tool'.

Firstly, any of the tools mentioned would cut cast iron. That does not make the recip saw safe or even safer but rather less dangerous IMO.

Very little in this world is totally 'safe' but, in terms of the semantics, "safer" and "less dangerous" mean essentially the same thing.

You seem to be blaming me for something, but this all started with someone else's (very probably correct) suggestion that preference for recip saws over grinders in the construction industry was probably largely due to 'health and safety' considerations (specifically that the saws were less likely to cause fires than grinders).

It is very easy to look back on our younger days as being somehow better in all ways.

It is, but we always need to remember that a lot of the changes have been in societal views as to what risks, or levels of risk, are 'acceptable', not because practices have become 'more dangerous'.

Things in the 1950s & 60s were not as dangerous as they are today, they were significantly more dangerous.

You're really quibbling now! You surely must understand that my point was that a particular practice of that era would, if it were still practised identically today, be just as dangerous (not more dangerous) as it was back then.

I'm sure that nowadays some people are risk-averse to a silly extent (and I very strongly suspect that this is worse now that it was in the 1950s & 60s) and it infuriates me when people complain about genuine accidents and expect there to be no risk in life.

I totally agree. You might well; be right in saying that extreme ('silly') degrees of risk-averseness have become more common, but there have always been some people of that ilk.

It somewhat amuses (but also saddens) me when I see people who smoke, drink lots of alcohol, drive, climb ladders etc. etc. (and even those who use power tools!) get excited/concerned about risks to their health/life which are of incredibly low probability.

But that is what I, and I expect others, are talking about. Rather it is the unnecessary risk of people being maimed or killed being mitigated at small or zero cost.

Me too. However, it's not as simple as you imply, since "unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder, being crucially dependent on one's degree of risk-averseness. Some people might be inclined to go to ludicrous lengths to protect themselves against risks of "vanishingly small" probability - so, for them, to leave themselves exposed to such risks, without attempts at mitigation, would be regarded as "unnecessary".

However, I still have some cast iron pipes to cut, so hope the discussion will get back 'on topic'

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Things in the 1950s & 60s were not as dangerous as they are today, they were significantly more dangerous.

Having lived through it, I agree - it was a very dangerous time to work.

Lots of mechanised tools tools / machines did not have safety locks and lots of people were killed & maimed by them. People worked in noisy environments or holding vibrating tools and developed hearing loss or hand and arm damage. Cars did not even have seat belts, let alone air-bags & crumple zones.

Yep, you only need to read some of the ads for tools, especially those intended for the DIY market. I have in mind some of the adaptors and attachments commonly sold for B&D drills, to make them into jig-saws, and etc.. Absolutely deadly!

I'm sure that nowadays some people are risk-averse to a silly extent (and I very strongly suspect that this is worse now that it was in the 1950s & 60s) and it infuriates me when people complain about genuine accidents and expect there to be no risk in life.

Nothing you do can be without any risk at all - all you can really do is assess the risk and minimise it. I habitually worked and still work live, it frequently mitigates the risk of something unexpectedly becoming live.