Combination square comparison

[dwasifar]

I decided to do a little comparo of combination squares for the edification and amusement of you, the reader.

 

Included in this comparison are a PEC 12" blem (meaning a factory second for cosmetic reasons); a Johnson 16"; the Stanley 12" I've been mostly using up until now; and, to represent the bargain bin, a Pittsburgh 12" purchased from Harbor Freight especially for this comparison.

 

 

Country of origin:
Pittsburgh: China (duh)
Stanley: Not marked, presumably China
Johnson: USA
PEC: USA

Price:
Pittsburgh: $7
Stanley: $10 (approx.)
Johnson: $17
PEC: $33 (remember it's a blem, though; perfect would be $75)

Weight:
Pittsburgh: 196g
Stanley: 284g
Johnson: 354g (but remember this is a longer one than the others)
PEC: 422g

It's interesting that the PEC is over twice as heavy as the lightweight Pittsburgh. But the PEC has a larger head than all the others, about half an inch longer on the base.

Finish:
Pittsburgh: Not surprisingly, it's kind of rough. There are mill marks on the base:

And the ruler has a slightly sloppy end and evidence of clamp damage during manufacturing, about 1/2" from the end and another about 1-1/4" in:



On the plus side, the Pittsburgh has a square groove, like the PEC, and although the milling on that is sort of sloppy at the bottom, it's straight where it counts, and it slides well. Its number stampings are flush and blacked in, making it pretty easy to read. And although the end is a little sloppy, it looks like the first marking on each scale is pretty accurate.

Stanley: The milling is better than the Pittsburgh:



But the ends are sloppily cut and inaccurate:




In that second picture I'd say that's off by at least 1/32". The stamped scale markings are thick and have a lot of flare-up around them, making them difficult to read accurately. It slides easily but sloppily. 

The groove in the Stanley's ruler is smaller and appears stamped rather than milled as the other three:



That rough area at the bottom of the groove is the STANLEY brand stamping pushing through from the reverse side. It doesn't affect function but it seems careless.

Johnson: Surprisingly the milling looks a lot like the Pittsburgh:



But the ends are better and more accurate than the Stanley:




They look pretty good, but I think the Pittsburgh beats it. Readability has the same problem as the Stanley, but not as pronounced, because the stamped scale has finer lines that don't flare as much. It slides smoothly.

PEC: As expected, this one has the best finish, both on the head and on the rule:




Readability is outstanding, far better than any of the others. The ends are nice and square, no slop at all, and they look accurate to the first marking on each scale. It slides nicely and feels good, but surprisingly it takes more force on the adjustment knob to secure the head, and correspondingly more force to loosen it.

Levels:
None of the levels are really great. Of the four, the most accurate was the Pittsburgh. The Stanley leans inward, the Johnson leans outward, and the PEC leans outward just a tiny fraction. The PEC is the least visible. I suppose that means it's the most protected, but it's so small as to be mostly unusable. Fortunately I rarely ever need it.

Squareness: 
The picture tells the story:



Of the four, the Stanley was the least square, followed by the Pittsburgh and Johnson (pretty similar), and then the PEC which was pretty much zeroed in.

My conclusion: Obviously the PEC is the winner. It's clearly a pro tool on a different level than the others. But of the others, I'd have a hard time choosing between the Johnson and the Pittsburgh. The Johnson feels more substantial and slides a bit more smoothly, but the Pittsburgh is more readable and has more accurately machined ruler ends.

The Stanley is going bye-bye. It doesn't win in any category. It's the unsquarest, has the sloppiest ruler, and is the hardest to read. The Pittsburgh beats it handily, and that's pretty pathetic when you consider that the Pittsburgh only cost $7.  I'm disappointed that an established brand like Stanley is getting knocked down by a Harbor Freight tool you can buy for pocket change, and I worry about what that means for Craftsman in the future.

[BMack37]

Wow, that Stanley is bad! I have a cheap one, I really only use it for marking. I just don't trust the ruler on those and haven''t checked to see how accurate it is yet. I forget which brand it is but I'll post similar pics, I believe it's different than those you reviewed.

[Bremon]

I use an Empire, which seems reasonable but I really ought to check it after seeing these results lol. 

[BMack37]

I checked and I have a Swanson. I didn't get pics yet but I checked out the markings and they are perfect, I checked them against 4 different name brand tape measures for inch and one for metric.

[dwasifar]

23 hours ago, BMack37 said:

I checked and I have a Swanson. I didn't get pics yet but I checked out the markings and they are perfect, I checked them against 4 different name brand tape measures for inch and one for metric.

 

Where'd your Swanson come from?  Current ones are made in China.

[BMack37]

20 hours ago, dwasifar said:

 

Where'd your Swanson come from?  Current ones are made in China.

 

I assumed China, I bought it this year from Lowe's...it's possible that it was old stock but no markings on the tool itself so I presume it was made in China. Pics coming in a bit.

[BMack37]

I'm not comfortable in giving the level accuracy. It's a little off of my phone's level. Matches my Craftsman, a little outside to a couple cheaper levels.

 

Pictures are scaled by the forum, they're pretty high-res if you save them for comparison sake. This is the 16" Swanson.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BK13]

Man, I was hoping this thread would take off! I could totally nerd out on squares...