Check with summer beam books for sure. Char and Bill live near me and I've been over to see their collection, very impressive. She has a lot of out of print books as well. www.summerbeambooks.com

I'm just trying to learn as much as I can about this. I was on the course with Brad (brad_bb)where we learned Mill Rule. I've got some other books on order but this one looks good. Thanks for the link I will definately contact them.

Carlos

I was just rereading this thread tonight to see if I finally understand....

So to simplify .... could it be said that square rule and mill rule are essentially the same the difference being...

In square rule you run a chalk line first (preferably on an edge of a mortise or tennon)...and then you work from the chalk line instead of a milled edge

If this is so... in mill rule when we score a line we have a nice solid edge to hold the square... how do you go about scoring a line in square rule.... besides carefully??

Carlos

Carlos, if scoring is the biggest of the problems then so be it. I personally don't see the need to score. Why do you score?

p.s. check out the mill rule vs. square rule thread

Gain, Gain, Gain, with the ole chalkline rule.

Mo

Scoring just adds another level of precision. It is a technique used by cabinet makers. I'm guessing you do your layout with a pencil and cut to the line with a saw?? I was taught to score, cut off the line and then pare to the line with a chisel.

So do you agree with my statements about square rule??

Carlos

Carlos,

Sorry I was editing while you were posting.

I can see your point with scoring. But to me it seems a bit much.
Paring end grain with a chisel in my honest opinion is a %^&$% and seems to let ones sawing abilities not matter. They should in my opinion. Take half the line and be done with it.

As far as square rule vs. mill rule difference. As i see it you work from reference face to a set dimension on both, but in square rule you are probably left with more wood to cut out for housings to meet the "perfect" timber. That means that only structural housings in mill rule would be present but in square rule you have those housings for everything. Like braces. Braces don't need housings to brace do they? The bearing point of the tenon carries that right? Anyone?

Peace, mo

Carlos, score if you want. I gave up scoring after about a year, but not completely. If I am using a chain saw to make a cut, I score. Most every thing else is half the line hand saw or skill saw.

I love the housings left in square rule, even the brace. It has to be better. You end up with the whole section of the brace as a bearing point, most likely over done but nothing wrong with that.

I would like to reiterate, square rule doesn't always need chalk lines, some times but mostly not. It seems, through this whole thread, lines are attached to square rule, lines are an exception. Tim

Another thing to remember is that the lines can get blurred between mill rule, square rule and mapping.

For example, we are currently working on our fourth truckload of band sawn cypress for a project. 80% of the sticks are 1/8" over dimension and the rest are within 1/16 of that. And they are dead square. It is very well-sawn. It would be absurd to reduce an 8-1/8 x 8-1/8 to 7-1/2 x 7-1/2. We either make the housings/mortises/etc 8 1/8 or we make them all 8 and reduce the tenoned members to 8". Is this mill rule? mapping? square rule? I don't really care. It's all the same. If the stock is consistent you don't have to be so heavy handed in your gains and reductions and the visual impact of "square rule" becomes minimal, but you are still laying everything out the same way. Braces and timbers that need bearing are housed a set distance of f the reference edge (or line) that will give us the bearing we need.

The one underlying principal in all of the above methods is that all timbers are laid out from a reference corner or if it is a crooked or twisted or hewn stick, it gets chalk lines that represent a reference plane offset a certain distance from the reference corner.

As Tim mentioned, a lot of this thread is talking about a very specific circumstance -- when you are working with very twisted and crooked and dimensionally variable timber. Making a twisted and crooked 8 5/16 x 10 3/16 join a twisted and crooked 7 7/8 x 8 1/16 and have it look decent. We run into it occasionally, but usually the timber is better than that.

I think Gabel's got a handle on the difference between mill and square. In Mill, you can trust that the dimensions of the timbers will be close enough to their expected values that you can cut your mortises and housings to those dimensions. You don't have to reduce everything to the next smallest increment to account for significant variations in dimension. If you find an occasional deviation from what you expect, then make note of it and make the necessary adjustment on the mating timber (mapping). Regarding the reference face, if the outside face of the timber is too twisted or bowed to serve as the reference, then maybe that piece should be set aside as a "spare"?

And I always score. Leaves a cleaner saw cut, and there's none of the ambiguity of a fat pencil line. Just doesn't take much time if it's part of your routine. But the saw is accurate enough that we rarely need to pare the end grain back to the line. CB.

I understood everything except this comment by Tim. If you aren't using a chalkline, Are you then using the reference face and therefore reverting to mill rule? Please explain further so I can understand what you mean. How are you doing square rule if not using chalk lines?