THIS ^^^^clark_fork said:For a gift, I would first select an item that the receiver would never buy.
...
Strong disagree on this. Starrett is very good, but they aren’t magic, and a movable-head combination square simply cannot repeatably reach the same tolerances of a fixed square of the kind we’ve thus far been discussing. It would be one thing if WP were sloppy and careless with their squaring, but I’ve never found that to be the case; my 26” WP square is provably more square (using the flip test with a scribed knife mark) than my 24” Starrett combination square (that cost almost twice as much) when its head is fully extended. Part of that is because of fixed vs. movable, part of it is because the contact surface on the WP square is simply so much larger than the Starrett.Packard said:I would always take a Starrett over a Woodpeckers square.
Yes, Starrett fixed squares are more accurate than Woodpeckers ones (which are only guaranteed to 0.0085°, or 0.0009" on a 6 inch square), but Starrett's cheapest 6" fixed square is also nearly twice the cost of Woodpeckers' most expensive one. The $75 combination square you linked above isn't guaranteed to anywhere near that level of accuracy.Packard said:Starrett guarantees the accuracy of its fixed squares to 0.0002" (two-tenths of a thousandth). But that really begs the question of what accuracy is required of even excellent woodwork.
This is true of the Starrett fixed squares, which are traditional machinist squares without scales, but it's not true of the Woodpeckers squares, which are far more versatile and designed for measuring and marking in addition to squareness checks.Packard said:A fixed square it designed to check the squareness of a part. It was meant to be used looking up towards the light to see if light leaks between the part and the square.