Starvin Larry

In this tutorial, we’re going to take a quick look at the speed square, a tool that you may already have, but may not fully understand. While made for framing carpentry, a speed square can be indispensable in a lot of measuring and marking situations. Let’s have a look.

A speed square (aka “rafter square” or “triangle square”) is a measuring multitool. Made of steel, aluminum, or plastic, this common carpenter’s tool combines a ruler, a Try square, a protractor, a line scribing tool, a common-width board ripping guide, and a saw guide for making accurate 90° and 45° cuts with a hand or circular saw. A speed square’s main uses are

• as a Try square, for quickly measuring a line perpendicular to the edge of a board (hence the “square” in the name),
• as a Miter square, for accurately marking 45° angles, and
• as a protractor, for easily finding and marking various common angles, especially roof rafter pitches and angles for stair stringers (the vertical supports on a stairway).

The speed square was invented in 1925 by Albert Swanson. Swanson was a carpenter in a small town outside of Chicago. He wanted to create a device to make it easier to quickly determine roof pitches. After he created the speed square, other carpenters began asking him for one, and the Swanson Tool Company was born. Speed Square is actually a trademarked name, but like Kleenex, it is often used as the generic name for this class of tool. Stanley’s similar tool is called a Quick Square and Irwin’s is simply called the Rafter Square.

How Does it Work?

This video clearly runs through most of the key features of the speed square and how one might use it in day-to-day angle measuring and cutting, and in determining pitches.

Measuring Pitches – Part of the speed square’s role as a protractor, and its original mission as a tool, is in quickly finding common (and uncommon) rafter angles for the pitches on roofs. This is accomplished by use of the main protractor and two specialty protractor angle guides on the inside of the tool. The guide directly above the protractor is marked “Common.” On it, common roof pitches are indicated as the rise (in inches, over a 12″ run), for common rafters from 1″ to 30″. Above this guide is another, marked “HIP-VAL.” This stands for “Hip-Valley” and refers to the rise over a 12″ run for Hip or Valley-type rafters.

The above video shows one example of how to use a speed square for finding rafter pitches. Explaining the entire process for doing this quickly becomes too convoluted for this overview. Stanley has the manual for their QuickSquare online and I found a public copy of the Swanson Speed Square manual (see links below). The Stanley manual does a great job of explaining all of the different roof types, includes a glossary of terms, and shows you how to use a square to find the correct pitch for different types of roofs. Classic Work, the YouTuber who did the above speed square basics video, also has a video demonstrating how to frame rafters with a speed square.

Other Cool Features – The Swanson Speed Square has a patented feature — the diamond cut, a diamond-shaped cut-out on the ruler edge of the tool. This is used for squaring on a line scribed across the board so that you can then make a perfect 90° line from your scribed angled to the edge of the board.

You can also use a speed square as a make-do level when you find yourself without a proper bubble level. You do need a plumb-bob, but you can improvise one with a string and a nut (or some other suitable weight). Here’s a video showing this in action.

For More Information

I managed to find a copy of the infamous little blue Speed Square manual [PDF] that ships with every Swanson Speed Square. I found it in the archives of the Oak Lawn public library, Oak Lawn, Illinois, being the home of the Swanson Tool Company.

A little more accessible for the newbie is Stanley’s Quick Square Instruction Manual [PDF].

There’s also a brief how-to on The Family Handyman which shows you a simple method of finding a roof pitch with a level and a speed square.

Source

More outstanding woodworking from Bill…

From Bill’s shop Here

Via Reason.com

Legislation introduced in California to rein in police use and misuse of asset forfeiture laws in order to take people’s money and property (often without ever charging with them with a crime) has seen some significant changes in the Assembly since we’ve previously reported on it.

A not-small amount of the text of Senate Bill 443 has been removed as opposition by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors has grown. Gone is the requirement that local law enforcement agencies follow some of California’s more restrictive forfeiture rules. Police departments in California (and other states) often bypass state regulations by participating in the Department of Justice’s “Equitable Sharing” asset forfeiture program. The DOJ version of the program has looser requirements and often lets police departments keep a greater portion of the money than state rules do. Gone is the requirement that a big chunk of the money would go to a state-controlled asset forfeiture fund to manage distribution. These were all ways to try to reduce the “profit motive” for police to try to seize whatever they could on the most specious of justifications by eliminating the amount of money they would be able to keep.

But the most important component of SB 443 remains: Prosecutors will actually have to convict people of crimes before law enforcement agencies will be able to permanently keep cash and assets they seize during arrests, even if they partner with the feds. For that reason, organizations like the asset forfeiture reformers of the Institute for Justice (IJ) continue to support the bill.

The bill had already passed the California Senate (with only one vote of opposition) but is now dealing with some heavy opposition from the law-and-order folks lobbying the Assembly. Their opposition efforts are being bolstered by the federal government officials warning that too many restrictions on asset forfeiture will threaten California’s participation in federal sharing programs entirely, potentially causing a loss of tens of millions of dollars in state revenue.

The Institute for Justice this week passed along some communications from opponents trying to scare legislators away from reform. The possibility of losing federal dollars obviously contributed to the decision to eliminate the state-level asset forfeiture fund. The federal rules require that law enforcement agencies maintain their own asset forfeiture funds in order to participate in the federal program. Shifting some of the money back into the state would have run afoul of these rules. That’s exactly what happened with New Mexico’s reforms, which actively forbid law enforcement agencies from maintaining asset forfeiture funds. A representative from the U.S. Treasury warned that the same thing could happen to California.

But perhaps it’s best that the complicated state distribution program was eliminated. Do we need even more state bureaucracy managing things? Such a shift could possibly create just a new set a bad financial incentives rather than eliminate the current ones.

Nevertheless, it turns out just requiring a citizen to be convicted of a crime before the government can keep his or her stuff may be too much for the federal government’s liking. The Institute for Justice provided a copy of an e-mail from a Treasury representative sent out last week that warned, “I highly doubt our federal agencies can figure out whether a conviction occurred in a timely manner. I’m not sure they would have the resources, desire, or technical capability. …  Accordingly, I think I would still advise our policy officials here that it would be prudent not to share with agencies should this law be passed.”

Read the whole thing Here