Talk:Bucksaw

Have looked at this quite a bit and it seems bucksaws and bow saws (turning and crafting saws) have had a name collision. Bow saws are for craft work much as a coping saw where bucksaws are for, as example, cutting firewood (bucking) and rough work. Two very different usages homogenized together into the term bow saw. Likely this is because the modern bucksaw usually has a bowed pipe handle and people being how they are thought "that is a bow." Have not found any good references on the web delineating each type however, 45 years of cutting and ordering parts for both did until recently were almost every bucksaw is now called a bow saw ending the distinction and ending availability of proper bucksaw (tall) or bow saw (short) blades. Very difficult to acquire anything but the lowest common denominator in blades resulting in one size fits all. Suggest "coping saw" may be used for bow saw when bow saw is desired. For a bucksaw there is no replacement. August 27, 2010 70.252.143.109 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo

We need a photo with the twsted twine mechanism to tighten it. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Bow saw with Bucksaw

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These appear to be synonyms or closely related topics that can be addressed on the same page. Ost (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• They're not close synonyms: "bow saw" refers to its construction, "bucksaw" refers to its function.

Merging the two of these would not be an improvement, other that saving some bytes. Obviously WP is desperately short of space and needs to economise on every byte... Or, we could instead structure articles to be as readable as possible. That would involve cross-linking between them, and some duplication of content – another terrible problem we have to fix on WP, which is actually not any sort of problem at all.

Merging the two of these is a bad idea. If mergitis becomes unavoidable, it would be better to merge them all to frame saw, which is at least a coherent concept for a structuring level. That would then need two sections in the article: applications and construction. Applications would cover: woodturning, general joinery in the era before cheap steel when nearly all saws were frame saws, and firewood. Construction would cover the three types of frame saw: rigid tensioned frames, string-tensioned H or seesaw frames, and sprung bows (most of which rely on modern steel tube). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and explanation. Why does bow saw say that "This type of saw is also known as a ... bucksaw" and feature a picture of a bucksaw if they're not synonyms? The difference in construction and use should be made clear if that is the differentiating factor.

While not synonyms, your explanation indicates that bucksaw is a type of bow saw (unless there are other types of bucksaws that have not been demonstrated). It also seems like bow saw is a subtopic of frame saw. Given that, I still don't see a reason for multiple articles if they can be addressed as subtopics, but that's why we have editorial discussions. I would think each type of saw could have its own section, but I'm not expert on this topic.

While I also understand the benefit of having multiple articles and argue against some merges, the cost of not merging is that it requires more editing and watching of pages to maintain quality articles. Bucksaw, Bow saw, and Frame saw are poorly-referenced short articles; combining them may enable making an article that is stronger than the sum of its parts. —Ost (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Support merge as initially proposed: agree with the proposer that these are synonyms, and hence best discussed in one place. Even if a term relates more to a method of construction, such a method of construction is a helpful part of an article. Around where I've lived (two commonwealth countries) Bow saw would have been the preferred term. These two seem to significantly different from frame saw, as the blade is on one of the outer sides rather than enclosed within a frame. Klbrain (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categorisation of structurally-similar saws

(Cross-posting to all relevant talk pages).

I've noticed some inconsistencies in how Wikipedia categorises several saws with similar designs.

The articles Coping saw and Fretsaw both describe their subjects as a type of bow saw. The Bow saw article however is describing a specific type of saw (which may or may not be the same thing as a Bucksaw), rather than a general category that would include coping saws and fretsaws. Both the bow saw and bucksaw articles describe their subjects as a type of frame saw. But again, the Frame saw article seems to be describing a specific design of saw, not a general category that would include bow saws, fretsaws, or coping saws. Additionally, there are the articles on Hacksaw and Piercing saw, which don't assign their subjects to a broader category, but presumably ought to once we have worked out what the general term for all these types of saw is.

I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable the categorization of saw to fix this myself, so I'm posting this here in the hope that someone who is can do so. Iapetus (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The Bow saw article however is describing a specific type of saw (which may or may not be the same thing as a Bucksaw)
See the discussion above. I've performed the merger now. FaviFake (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)