Talk:Reciprocating saw

What to make of all this
From my perspective, I believe you would be hard pressed to find anybody who refers to a jigsaw, scroll saw or anything other than (I have no other word for it) a reciprocating saw as a 'reciprocating saw'. This could be one of those American use vs. Australian usage things perhaps? I don't know. Milwaukee tools are not very well known here and I've never heard anyone refer to a Sawzall. My reciprocating saw is a Makita and it looks like a large jigsaw blade sticking out of a sword handle. I believe this article has gone way off track and it should either redirect to or be merged with sabre saw, although I would prefer the other way around (sabre saw redirected to or merged with this) because I believe sabre saw is a US term? SilentC 06:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

ERLYRISA says: as I said - it's technical/scientific in nature, it has nothing to do with locality. The same term is used to describe CNC machinery in the Aerospace industry that cut with the same action. - It's a 'Reciprocating' + 'saw', and it groups all saws that work in such a manner, I would like to see the term 'Oscillating'+'Saw' aswell with a link to reciprocating saw and reciprocation.

PS the sabre saw actually doesn't describe the branded powered version of the sabre saw - the sabre saw is also a classification of type of saw, and has nothing todo with the powered reciprocating saw.


 * That may be so but if you Google "reciprocating saw" then you will get pages of links to sites selling or reviewing the hand held, powered saw that resembles a large electric drill with a big jigsaw blade sticking out the end of it. Now, it's all very nice to debate semantics and the finer points of the language but this is an encyclopedia article about reciprocating saws and it needs to at least acknowledge what the 99.5% of the population outside of the aerospace industry understand to be a reciprocating saw. It is a case of one variant of the type taking over the name. You can't do anything about it, because it has happened. We can point out that the name comes from the action of the blade and there are other types of saw that exhibit the same characteristics, but no-one would ever refer to a jigsaw as a 'reciprocating saw' (except in the aerospace industry apparently).


 * As you will discover when you read the talk pages here, it has everything to do with locality because all over the world we use the same word or term for different things. It gives rise to constant confusion. It keeps us busy and awake at night. Our job is not to try to make everyone come around to your way of looking at it. Our job is to put the information here that people are looking for. The question "what is a reciprocating saw" is not completely answered by saying "it is a type of saw with a reciprocating action and can include any number of saws that you may know of by a different name". It is completely answered by saying "it is commonly a type of saw which resembles a jigsaw but having a larger blade and designed for vertical cutting. A saw which derives it's name from the reciprocating cutting action of the blade, which it shares in common with other saws, such as the jigsaw, scroll saw etc etc.".


 * Would you mind signing your comments with four tildes? It does this-> SilentC 02:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

ERLYRISA Says:

Take for exmple the Big Mac. Thankfully when you google Hamburger Mc Donalds hasn't cornered the Web Results because it's only one company - but let's say that they didn't License/Copyright the name Big Mac, and every Burger company were to call thier Hamburger a Big Mac. - would we completely remove the terminology for the Hamburger replacing it with Big Mac and descirbing it as 2 all beef patties spec sauce lettuce and cheese? - if that is the way the world is going it would be pretty sad wouldn't it (remember what happened to the term Ugg Boot?) Should we just remove the terminolgy for Reciprocating Saw and just title it Sawzall then? - it wouldn't be very descriptive, nor correct to the initial convenction in naming such an implement. The tool that you decribe as having the appearance of a Jigsaw, with a larger blade may actually fit into the Sabre Saw category. i understand that that a company can re-define the terminolgy of an item by calling it by the mechanical action it makes - and I have no problem illustrating the piont that there is such a patented off the shelf tool by which it is called by it's action. (I even left the link there - because if your searching for it and that's what you want to find that is fine) But to re-define terminology becuase of branding and marketing hype is wrong - I doubt that you would find such a term in reputable Encyclopedias being re-defined to suit current trends in its use. I mean in a years time you could have another company marketing thier Reciprocating Saw - and it could be an interliy different implement with respect to what you wish to describe as the current marketed Reciprocating Saw. Wouldn't we all be more intelligent if we new the meaning of the Phrase 'Reciprocating Saw' insead of just associating it with Sawzall or the next manufacturer's marketing hype? What is suitable for naming and describing a tool that is named after common terminology is if it were suitably different from the terminolgy, Domino Jointer (I started that one 2) for such an implement to be deserving of it's terminology to be associated with it's name it need to be original, the domino jointers function is orginal and it's name is decriptive of it's function. another common example is the Lameno jointer aka Biscuit jointer - in the Encyclopedia it's description is headed under Biscuit Jointer and not Lameno - but refering to the fact that Lameno invented it is fine, on the contrary Sawzall didn't invent the Reciprocating Saw, they just marketed the Phrase to thier distinct implement - sadly the phrase is not distinct to thier implement.

oh- and yes the Sabre Saw - was once re-branded marketed by de-walt I think, it was back in the 90's - though at the very least they called it the Sabre Saw because it looked like an oversized unpowered version of the Sabre Saw (another page which I also started)and didn't just call it something it obviously was and which everything else already is - A Reciprocating Saw.

oh ther aren't just reciprocating 'saws' either - there are reciprocating sanders, grinders plungers, hammers, punches, depth guages, the list goes on - there really should be a page for each implement that use reciprocating actions to acheive thier aim.

PS I'm an Aussie self Employed Cabinet Maker Erlyrisa 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that we should ignore the generic definition of the term, I am saying that we need to take into account what most people think of as a reciprocating saw. I'd never heard of Sawzall until I read this page. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a brand name for a reciprocating saw similar to countless others. It's immaterial who invented it or produce dthe first one - there are hundreds of them out there now. The name is used generically for that type of saw. IBM invented the PC. Is your PC an IBM? Before someone came up with Personal Computer, they were called micro computers. Terminology changes. My copy of Webster's Dictionary from 1895 lists "computer" as "one who computes". So if we must stick with the 'original definition' and not change it as customs change, then we need a new name for these electronic gadgets we have on our desks.


 * It's nice to be particular about these things. I am very pedantic myself. But it's very difficult to change people's use of terminology. Like it or not, in 2006 a reciprocating saw in most people's minds is what I have described. If it changes in 5 years, then we should update the article to suit. That is the beauty of Wikipedia and probably it's biggest flaw as well. SilentC 04:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost happy with your Edits
Hmm yes evryon likes to call big chunky powered sabre saws reciprocating saws in the industry, everyone from plumbers to electricians. - but guess what they called them before they were considered reciprocating saws - they called them Sabre Saws because of the branding dewalt did with thier first model, it's only later when dewault sold it's Patent (or black and Decker) that other maufacturers started selling the same thing, but not calling it a Sabre Saw for risk of associating thier product with dewalt's famous one. PS - at least when you look up computer in wikipedia you have the definition for it as a Computer - and not just a PC as we know it today, not only that but there are links to the very first mechanical computer, even discussion on what comprises the terminology computer. So, I think your edits are great (even though you copied the Sabre Saw's Description- which is non-theless more accurate and less forgiving about the type of implement that can be considered as such) - but as a final edit I would like to emphasis the fact that the Reciprocating Saw came first - not the marketed hype., just like the Computer came first, not the PC.Erlyrisa 05:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's no different to people in the US cutting timber with a "Skil saw" and people in the UK vacuuming with a "Hoover". I cut my lawn edges with a Whipper Snipper but mow it with a lawn mower (not a Victa). The difference here is that we don't call them a Sawzall, at least "reciprocating saw" is generic, even if it has been misappropriated by someone or other for their product. Who was the first person to call an orbital sander by that name? Did the concept exist before the first production run, or did someone cook up the name, or steal it from somewhere else, to use for their great new product? Are there other tools that use an orbital action? What should we call them?


 * "even though you copied the Sabre Saw's Description" I'm not sure which bit you're referring to here. I didn't copy anything, I deleted some bits and wrote a new opening paragraph. As far as I know, they are my words. Anyway, the only change I would make to it now is possibly to flip it so that the generic term is discussed first (see I've come around to your way of thinking) and then talk about the "big vertical jigsaw" style as a specific type. But I've had enough of it for today. SilentC 05:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)



a bit of research
Before diving into the discussion, I decided to do some research, both on the web and in the books I have handy. I should say where I'm coming from: there is total confused morass of woodworking terms, where the same thing is called by a different name in different places and times and different things are called by the same name in different places and times. And even sometimes by the same person. There is no authority that tells us what the "correct" name for anything is, so our job is to document them all and try to make it clear what we are talking about. Pictures help.

I looked up the US, Canadian, UK & Australian web sites for what the Sawzall-type reciprocating saw was called. In North America, we call it a Sawzall because Milwaukee invented it, just like a portable circular saw is a Skilsaw, but I digress. Here are the results of the web search:

So, Reciprocating saw is the winner for the sawzall-type saw, although "sabre saw" is also used in some UK and Australian web sites (and one Canadian one!). BTW, I also have a Makita POS reciprocating saw. The collar kept on falling off and now I have lost it. Doesn't seem to affect the performance though. As a North American, a sabre or saber saw is another name for the electric jigsaw with a somewhat obsolete flavour. But it gets more confusing when I looked the different types of reciprocating-action saws in my wooddorking library.


 * Feirer Cabinetmaking and Millwork, the standard school text in North America, calls the sawzall a "reciprocating saw". Feirer calls the electric hand-held jigsaw a "bayonet saw", with mention of it being also called a "saber", "sabre" or "hand jig" saw. Feirer has an entire chapter entitled "Jig or Scroll Saw" devoted to the 'lectric scroll saw.
 * Audel's Carpenter's and Builder's Library (old standard trade reference &mdash; I have the 1974 edition) has "saber saw" for the jig saw, no mention of the sawzall, probably not invented yet. Scroll saw is scroll saw.
 * Percy W. Blandford, The Woodworker's Bible (1976) ISBN 0-517-448629 (1985 edition) has saber saw for the jigsaw, but he also calls the scroll saw a "large saber saw" in the picture but a "fret-saw" or "jig-saw" in the text. One picture is of a really neat contraption where the top of the blade is held by a bow (as in bow and arrow) type thing fixed to the ceiling, and the bottom fixed to a motor. {Pretty cool, you could cut curves in anything with that.
 * Ernest Joyce, Encyclopedia of Furniture Making has "jigsaw" for jigsaws, but notes they should more properly be called "sabre saws" as jig saw "could also be taken to mean power-driven fretsaw in which the blade is secured at either end." No sawzall.

So I propose this article be about the sawzall type reciprocating saw. Sabre/Sabre saw should be a disambiguation page pointing to this page and to the jigsaw page. All the articles should mention the other uses of their title and provide the appropriate redirect. as well, all the articles should mention the varied names the tool has gone under. And Bob's your uncle. Luigizanasi 06:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I applaud your efforts! I was thinking of what we call them and knew we had another name but had a mental blank. Recipro saw is the term I was trying to think of. This is the problem we will always have with wikpedia. Normally, whoever writes the book gets to determine the terminology. We are trying to be all things to all people, which is never easy. Your idea sounds fine to me. To be honest, I don't really know what a sabre saw is. I have seen a picture of a jigsaw labelled with it, which confused me at the time. When it comes to naming things, I guess it's less important to judge whether or not the name is appropriate than it is to capture what most people mean when they use the name. If there are different definitions, then we list them all clearly and separately. I wonder if other fields have the same problem. SilentC 06:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I like what Luigizzana has researched. I beleive it proves my piont : that no matter how ill-informed a perticular literary novice is about a particular tool, they can always fall back on the fact that the item at hand can be called a Reciprocating saw, by the action that it makes, not by it's overall appearance. , eg a saw can be called a saw in all cirmcumstances - even though it may actually be a Hack Saw. So what silentC proposes as to 'dumbening down' the description for a Reciprocating saw and associating it with the Sabre Saw just because no-one calls it by that name anymore isn't quite logical. Encyclopedias are supposed to educate by reference AND technicality. I think that refering to the General Term Reciprocating Saw with the descrition of a Sabre saw is still wrong. I think it would be wiser to have the Reciprocating Saw as a main page directing users to the varied forms of it, including the Sabre Saw, and it's comonnly refered to name as the Recipro Saw / Reciprocating Saw - informing the reader of it's history (being invented and called by it's appearance ie the Szablya/Sabre Saw) (maybe we could just include this discussion as a part of contents!) , I'd like to piont out why it is important to use the Generic Technical Description instead of the coloquial description, eg. A marble Cutting Company has just invented a new masonry cutting device. It feeds blocks of marble into a blade that isn't a Bandsaw but instead the Blade 'reciprocates' cutting up and down, are we to not call this machine a reciprocating Saw, and account for it's description as being as such here in this encyclopedia? - or are we to only describe what the masses understand. That is - is this encyclopedia the Golden Books Volume of Enclopedic Knowledge, or should it be websters accurate.Erlyrisa 08:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to wonder if you are actually reading anything I'm writing. I thought we had arrived at an agreement yesterday and now you're back on your hobby horse again. If anything, Luigi's research proves our point, not yours. It's not 'dumbing down' and if you knew anything about how dictionaries are compiled, you would see the irony in your "Websters accurate" remark. It's simply a matter of acknowledging, whether Erlyrisa likes it or not, that there is a common use of the term 'reciprocating saw' in addition to the technical definition. Simple as that. It's not hard. I think what we have now is a good compromise. SilentC 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh whatever - I'm happy with the way it is now - it will have to do, but considering how much time we have wasted we could have re-written the whole section on Reciprocating power tools by now and group everything accordingly Under the heading Reciprocating tools, including all medical, aerospace, laboratory, and mass produced Reciprocating Tools. All we have done now is limit this section, and not allow it to grow into the other fields. maybe with time as doctors and engineers start to divulge descriptions of some of the instruments, techniques, technology etc that they deal with on wikipedia (have a look at the medical instruments section - it's practically empty!) we can start to group more of the tools together under specific classifications, either by technical design and or by usage.

Erlyrisa 00:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "considering how much time we have wasted" - I don't consider this sort of debate a waste of time. It's how we learn and improve things. You have your perspective, I have mine. I have learned something from yours, so that is no waste of time for me.


 * "All we have done now is limit this section, and not allow it to grow into the other fields ..." Feel free to add whatever you feel is missing or wrong, that's what Wikipedia is all about. Don't sit back and wait for someone else to do it. I fully support anything you want to do to improve it.


 * "specific classifications, either by technical design and or by usage" Or both. I'm all for Wikipedia:Categorization. You can explore the Category: keyword. It lets you do things like that easily. SilentC 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was hoping you would do IT :).... ahwell, maybe I shouldn't have started these pages in the first place - now I feel ablogied (did i spell that right). - I'm still compiling stuff for the fretwork page and the categorisations I'm trying to include for that., one day...Erlyrisa 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV lines
You will find that the Reciprocating saw is a popular tool used by many window fitters and construction workers.

There is more demand from people wanting to cut down tree branchs but can not justify the cost involved in buying a chainsaw.

These lines, aside from containing grammatical and spelling mistakes, also sound more like ad copy than encyclopedic writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.60.249 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Random note moved from top of page
This page is disambiguous.

After reading the discussion page for sabre saw.

'Reciprocating' saw needs to be defined as all groups of powered saws with reciprocating action - not just a particular marketed brand.

I disagree with that entirely - the term reciprocating saw is used almost exclusively to describe the Milwaukee Sawzall and it's various competitors from DeWalt, Porter Cable, etc. It refers to the 2 handed, 6 amp variety. This is why we have other terms such as sabre, scroll and jigsaws.

ERLYRISA says : I was the one that firstly provided the link for the reciprocating saw, it is a generic term -quiet scientific, and I am sad to see it being hijacked becuase of branding.

A Reciprocating saw is a purely generic term, all companies use it.

--Tom (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this?
"Oct 2011, Maya Kogyo Co., Ltd. in Kobe City Japan, has expressed through a lawyer Hirotake Honjo, which there is a reason a patent in Japan should be unavailable. The patent which is named "SAW BLADE FOR ELECTORIC SAW" and Pub. No. in USA is "US20010006017", has been saved with Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. by Maya Kogyo Co., Ltd.."

This is under the "see also" section at the bottom of the article. It is barely legible, and I don't see what it has to do with anything in this article. Why is it even there? Primium mobile (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There is also a corresponding link, all posted in early November.  Seems either dislocated or just inappropriate, so I have commented them both out until some explanation is provided. RBarryYoung (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Construction Noise Control
I don't see any particular connection between this link and the article. Unless there is a specific issue involving noise and reciprocating saws, it should be deleted or moved to somewhere more specifically relevant. Wcoole (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I just learnt wikipedia doesn't go back to the date the page was created.
,and I created it.

It has been left in a state where it looks like I have specifically gone out of my way to modify an existing page.

Good job wikipedia, wouldn't want facts. Erlyrisa (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)