How Square are My Squares? Testing 10 Different Squares from $3 to $140 Using an Easy & Free Test

Many of us have multiple ways to check material for square, but how square are our squares? In this video I'll testing 10 different layout, combination, and bench squares to see just how square they are and show you how to test yours.

CHAPTERS:
0:00 Introduction
0:14 Larger squares
2:39 How to test a square for square
3:35 Testing the larger squares
8:58 Testing the smaller square
11:18 Final thoughts

Please note that this video is not sponsored by any of the brands in the video and all products have been purchased with my own money.

#woodworkingsquares #woodpeckers #howsquare

[Dimebonics]

Learned years ago how to adjust a steel framing square using this technique, which is pretty cool if you're interested in that type of thing. I now instinctively do this whenever I pick up a square (especially combo squares) If you're buying a square at a local store it's not a bad idea to check it there as well.

[steveeber]

I see a lot of videos using this method. Every one uses a pencil on wood. At best You can see maybe ten or fifteen thousandths with that method. If you really wantoa good test, use the knife on a blued metal surface.

[alfredomarquez]

I bought both 6" and 12" Empire adjustable squares, and both were slightly off... Then looked at the Empire aluminum "speed squares", and those were slightly dished on the "T" side... had to return them to Home-Depot, as every one of the probably 20 pieces at my local store were the same. Two months latter, they had the same speed "squares" just in a red "Milwaukee" color, instead of blue; but were also dished to almost the same degree!
And when testing a Stanley large carpenter's square, it was off again!... It was just incredible to find that a cheap, 17 Canadian Dollars LASER level, from the Canadian store equivalent to the USA Radio-Shack, is DEAD ON ACCURATE when projecting its cross lines and being perpendicular to a wall... Perfect 90 degrees! (Not bad for a small plastic prism in front of a cheap Laser!). I am amazed that there is no simple square that is true, but a cheap Laser is better!

[Rebel]

I think the most expensive square I have is a $16 7" speed square that I can't even remember the brand name of. I also have a machinist square, a combination square and a framing square, the only one of which I know the brand of, it being an ACE Hardware store brand. I did this test on them some time ago and they're all pretty reliably square. Oh, and Irwin is still around...at least it is here in southern Indiana as our local Ace carries a lot of their stuff, along with Craftsman, Milwaukee, DeWalt and Stihl.

[marshallnmoonshine]

Love this video. I don't know how I never heard of doing this, or figured it out myself.
How square is square enough?
That's a question for ol' Bessey.

[NWGR]

Excellent video, thanks for posting!
I recently had a sub-par experience with buying a woodpecker square; I bought the 1282SS, and while it was square, the blade was bent. I had to do a refund (and had to remind them to refund me the return shipping) and instead bought the cheaper, thicker all-aluminum 1281. I'm very happy with that one, but I only use it for checking for square on things like cabinet carcasses or larger builds.
Years ago I tried a 4" igauging double square before I got my LV double squares and it was a good bit off. It's a shame about that big igauging square you have; I'd probably keep one of those around for layout if it was square.
My most used squares and 4" and 6" double squares from lee valley (made by PEC tools), and my 12" starrett combo square. All are spot on.
Those are all imperial though, and I'm switching my shop to metric, so I'll be buying more PEC variants in mm soon.
I'm still looking for a perfect apron square for checking small boxes, drawers and the ends of crosscut pieces; basically I'd love a square that's like a machinist square, but made of stainless steel so it won't be affected by moisture, and completely flat, and on the thicker side (1/4" or so). I think taytools has something like that, but I'm not sure how accurate they are.

Anyway, excellent topic for woodworkers!

[joeadams]

Irwin and a machinist square all day long. If I ever decide to build museum quality anything ( that would be never) I'd consider woodpecker. There is absolutely no reason in the world for the pricing on them. None. Except all the marketing done by high-end cabinet shops whose smallest project starts at $ 5000. Look at me I have a whole red wall of tools worth 20k just to measure within one-thousandths of an inch. And you need these too or you are not a real woodworker. Oh and here's my 20 thousand dollar chisel collection. And don't forget Festool. Or a CNC. For a mere 100k you too can be a woodworker and make a shoe rack for your wife.

[joncarter]

A great video with some really interesting results. In relation to the large iGaging square it might have been useful to repeat the test just to make sure that the square hadn't slipped slightly whilst you were drawing the lines. That aside I still enjoyed it.

[contessa.adella]

Extra: How square do you need? Most agree you need more square for metal working than wood…but even if putting up a stud partition wall and you need to trim a 7 foot long plasterboard, small inaccuracies grow over distance. So 1 mm out on a 12” square becomes a 7mm gap or bad overlap on your plasterboard sheet. As a general rule, if you can detect an ‘out of square’ fit by eye, then that is too much, and most human eyes are pretty good at that.

[contessa.adella]

You can have a few ‘square’ tools in a workshop, but you must have at least one which you can rely on to be properly square for when that really matters. I bought the Woodpeckers over priced 1281, but it is bang on square. Unfortunately the blade is so thick that parallax is an issue when marking (you have to view the scale with one eye from dead perpendicular over it). I also purchased a Presch brand combination square, which is also a dead on accurate. My mini engineers square is ok for saw blades but extending short squares any distance is bound to produce errors. My worst is a 7” 15 quid, aluminium square from Amazon, Chinese I think. It is about a millimetre under square at the end of its blade; if extended out by the time you get to a metre (3 feet) it will be out by a quarter inch! I need a big layout square, like two feet….but these are hard to find where people have anything good to report, and I can’t afford more Woodpeckers! I am considering just making a big plywood triangle like a rafter square, which I can ensure is true by my old friend Pythagorus….He never lets me down on accuracy.

[DKWalser]

You asked how square does something have to be in my shop. The answer depends on what we're discussing. For my work, I try to make my drawers, cabinet carcasses, face frames 'reasonably' square. I don't have a precise definition for 'reasonably square', but I wouldn't throw a kitchen cabinet drawer out if the diagonal measurements differed by 1/16". What I mean by reasonably square is that any error won't be affect function or be readily apparent without measuring.

However, to achieve that level of accuracy, I have much higher standards for my measuring tools. It's hard to be more accurate than your tools. If my square is out by, say, 1/16" over its 13" length, it would be very hard for me to consistently make anything that's more square than that. Given the inevitable inconsistencies of making things by hand (even when using modern power tools) out of wood, my parts are apt to be even more out of square than my tool's measurement error. Add in the fact that such errors tend to be cumulative and a project made from several out of square parts is apt to be itself so out of square it doesn't meet my 'reasonably square' standard. So, my standard for my squares is they must not have any perceptible error (without resorting to a dial indicator). I'd throw out the iGaging square.

[betojaquez]

Thanks for this video. I have the 7" Irwin square. Last time I checked, the inner side of the ruler blade is not square. I wonder if you can check it on yours. I'm curious what the result will be.

[valkyuri]

pretty lucky to work in a pretty high end cabinet shop and i ended up with... an empire square lol.. honestly for any freehand stuff im gonna do its plenty good enough. if i need anything better ill use our big slider saw. that woodpecker almost got me.. more money for other tools heh.

[YTubeSDD]

I know the line drawing test isn't that hard to do, but I sometimes have a hard time telling how close/parallel the lines are. Or I have trouble with lines that aren't clean and even thickness. I wish there was a not too expensive home tool that I could use to test squares and it would give me some readout of the accuracy.

Thanks for the video and hope to see more soon.

[edwardcrone]

I have wood and brass bora that is twenty some years old that is my go too.

[mikedarr]

I had a cheap 12" combo square when I started, It was ok for a while. As soon as my budget could afford I bought both a 12" & 6" Starrett. combo set. A bit pricey but both were dead accurate right out of the box, and three years of daily use are still dead accurate.

[mikeoxmaul]

User error on the larger IGaging square. Lol I too have basically the same squares and they’re all basically Woodpecker square….

[epgui]

I have the same set of woodpeckers squares, and I hate the 150mm. Have you noticed that the inside and outside scales on it are off by a multiple of 5 mm rather than a multiple of 10 mm? That means the indexing holes can only be used in reference to one of the two edges. They tried to cut corners by making the base the same as the imperial version (25 mm), but they could have avoided the problem simply by rounding down its size to 20 mm (or even rounding it up to 30 mm, although that would have likely cost more). It's certainly square, but it's poorly designed.

[stevestewart]

I have checked the width of the blade and found some variation top to bottom using a digital caliper. like a machining problem.

[Selkian]

That is not the way to hold a square for accuracy. The whole test is flawed for that reason. I could see the square move slightly on a couple of the tests.