Fix bayonets: Porter-Cable's answer to the jig/saber saw

It's been a little while since I've invited anyone down Porter-Cable lane. There are a lot of reasons for that- I've had my hands full with repairs and restorations, working on the shop in order to streamline operations, and trying my best to get the repairs to my elderly F-250 wrapped up for the season. Besides that, I've covered a fair amount of territory already. I mean, we've deep-dived into circular saws, discussed belt sanders at length, covered the finishing sanders, and even took a look at the drills, complete with a comprehensive list of the million or so versions made before Rockwell dropped the ball. What else is there to examine?

L to R: 148, c. 1955, 152, c.1958, 300, c. 1963, 66, c. 1967, and 348, c. 1966

There are a number of names for the tool we're about to consider; They've been known as jig saws, saber saws, and ( erroneously) scroll saws. Moreover, there were trade names for them, too- the Milwaukee Sawzit springs to mind. But to Porter-Cable ( and later, Rockwell), they were always known as Bayonet saws.

Arguably the best of the breed was the first one out of the gate.

On shelves just in time for Christmas of '55, the 148 was nothing short of a marvel. Weighing only 5 lbs, the mighty 148 is one of the smallest worm-driven tools ever made ( even the equally venerable A-2 belt sander weighed 9lbs). The original version cut at over 4,000 strokes a minute through virtually anything for all the world like Durandal. I own a 148 kit, and I can attest to that fact - cuts in 3/8" steel are well within the abilities of this pocket Hercules. The 148 was built with a fixed base, but an accessory angle-adjusting base was offered from the start. This was a clever design based on the retrofit base created for the first A-6 and A-8 Guildtool saws of the late '40s. The fixed base sounds like a bad idea until you consider the most common use for these saws- they were far and away the most commonly used tool for sink cutouts in the era before laminate trimmers got popular. Both bases could accept the "Magic circle" insert, which fit tightly around the blade and helped prevent chip out. The 148 was an incredibly durable saw with exceptional smoothness and introduced a hitherto unknown concept- it's the first reciprocating power tool to oscillate in the cut, clearing the blade gullets and improving both blade life and cutting speed. It was a truly impressive first try, which was replaced by the 548 by August of 1957.

I'm kidding. While the 548 did replace the 148 in the lineup, there's actually no difference at all save for the number- the change was made to bring the bayonet saw into line with the nomenclature of the late '50s, in which the tools starting with a one were considered Standard Duty, while anything beginning with a five was considered Heavy Duty.

In that vein, another bayonet saw joined the family, and this one retained the " 1" designation.

The 152 was an excellent design in its own right and streets ahead of many a competitor's attempt ( in those days, the only real rivals the 548 had were the Scintilla saws, the Cutawl, and the Black and Decker designs. The Scintilla would go on to beget the Bosch series of jigsaws; the Cutawl existed largely in the world of stage set designers and sign makers, and the B&D was made with diminishing returns until Universal blades went out of fashion). The 152 was destined for the home handyman and was correspondingly less expensive ( in 1959 a 548 set you back 99.50, while it only cost 54.95 for the 152 ), the savings in cost coming from the bevel gear drive system, liberal use of bushings, and simplified construction. This led to a larger machine, and if I were to lay any true criticism at the 152's door, it's the bulkiness of the saw. The angle-adjusting base could be fitted to this saw as well.

Status Quo was held thus until 1962 when the 152 was sent to a nice farm upstate, and the new kid in town showed up.

The 300 looks strikingly like the 152, and there's a good reason for that; it's essentially a 152 on stilts. The mechanism of the 300 is similar to the 152 save for the longer drive link, which increases the stroke by 1/4". This explains the easiest difference to spot between models, as the 300 has a large excrescence in the handle cover, the better to accommodate the link. Another change was the fitting of an adjustable base from standard, a base that also incorporated a rip/circle guide. I'm not wild about the 300 if I'm honest. The longer stroke is a nice feature, but the rather lax job of cramming a longer link in a design that was just adequate for the original system led to the 300 being extremely prone to throwing a rod, the tendency of the design to wear prematurely claiming a lot of them and making it one of the less encountered members of the family.

it wasn't until 1966 that the 300 would be replaced by the 348,

which is the first bayonet saw to be built with the drive system in front, rather than beside, the motor. As a result, the 348 is taller but slimmer, and the clamshell design allows for easier assembly and service. Unfortunately, the downside was wear, exacerbated by the typical dust ingestion of all saws of this class, mixing with the grease to make a crude form of MDF and causing the gears and other moving parts to run dry. Early 348s had a clever feature in the form of a light, built into the housing and turned on and off with the motor switch. This actually did good execution, but the incandescent bulb got very hot and tended to break elements. Replacing this bulb was a chore, requiring the saw to be disassembled significantly, and the feature was dropped almost immediately. I sometimes think about retrofitting my 348 with an LED bulb, but that's waaaay down my to-do list since I use the 148 almost exclusively.

The only other saws of the classic era were the 648 and the 60. I don't own a 648 and am in no real hurry to amend that. The 648 has an impressive stroke and speed and is very sturdy, but it suffers from a fatal flaw in my eyes- it's not ambidextrous. The switch is mounted in such a way that it can only be reached by the operator's right index finger and only if the operator has largish hands. The 648 also deviates from the traditional formula by not having a handle- it's gripped by the motor housing, which is a nice idea in theory ( a lower purchase on the tool lends itself to less tipping), but increases operator fatigue since it's harder to firmly grip an object the larger in diameter it gets. For those reasons, the 648 is a bit of a letdown. Also, it's double insulated, which means it's plastic, which means it's kinda ugly.

Speaking of plastic ( and ugly), there's the 60.

I actually like the 60, if I'm honest, because it reminds me strongly of the tiny post-oil embargo cars of the '70s. In essence, the 60 is a 348 stripped of absolutely everything not strictly necessary to the raising and lowering of a bayonet saw blade. Debuting in April of '65, the 60 was a second wave tool of the Green Line, an infamous series of power tools sold by Rockwell and the leading cause of the ultimate sale of both Porter-Cable and Delta to Pentair. The Green Line tools were lower-cost versions of some of the simpler tools in the Rockwell lineup, being made from Cycrolac plastic in beautiful seafoam green ( as an aside, I actually like seafoam green as a color. Maybe it's because I grew up when everything from toasters to station wagons came in that shade). I was recently given one of these saws by some lovely friends of my in-laws, who found it in kit form for a mere five dollars. The saw needed a little TLC from sitting, thorough cleaning and regreasing and the replacement of some very crunchy field leads, putting it back to rights. The saw cuts well and doesn't really have any serious flaws save for the peculiar pinch bolt design for retaining the rip guide. In a home shop, this saw would probably handle moderate use for decades, as it obviously has. The earliest Green Line tools were not at all poorly made, and the 60 is no exception; while I doubt I'll be using this saw hard, I will put it to work for lighter tasks ( if only to let the little fellow keep his hand in). While the first generation of Green Line tools are adequate, later versions were cheapened up until the number returned to service centers for warranty repair formed literal mounds, as any power tool repairman of a certain age could attest.

There were, of course, other saws made in the '70s, namely the 67/68/69 series. These saws were the basis for all the later post-Rockwell designs that were popular throughout the '90s, even if the original saws were, frankly, awful.

In the end, The last saw standing was the 548. Oh, sure, there were saws with quick-release chucks, but I don't consider any model to be a true bayonet saw unless it uses the L-shank blade interface. Proprietary to Porter-Cable, this design had excellent clamping properties since the shank prevented the blade from being pulled out of a properly tightened chuck. These blades were generally made of a much higher grade of steel than the competitor's offerings and were available in endless permutations and for virtually any material from closed-cell foam to stainless steel. These blades are still frequently seen on *bay, the NOS of 50 years of being more than equal to current demand. I bought heavily of the common styles when they were being discontinued and have enough hundred packs of the widely used ones to keep our boys here in clover for the rest of my life, if not longer.

What happened to these saws? Well, they weren't cheap, for one. A lot of the work they handled became the province of laminate trimmers. Then there's the issue of blades- while Porter-Cable would attempt to make a quick release version, no one really seemed to buy them. I mean, everyone else on the job site had a Bosch, and you could buy blades for those anywhere. What made these P.C. saws so special,
other than build quality, power, speed, smoothness of cut, accuracy, and dependability?

Well, I guess you'll just have to pick one up and see what thousands of woodworkers raved about.



Our Cast:
148/548: 3.5Amp motor, 4,500stroke per minute (idle), 7/16" stroke, 5lbs
152:2.5Amp motor, 4,700 strokes per minute (idle), 5/16" stroke, 7lbs
300:2.5Amp motor, 4,000 strokes per minute (idle), 9/16" stroke, 5lbs
348:3.0Amp motor, 3,500 strokes per minute (idle), 9/16" stroke, 5lbs
60: 2.5Amp motor, 3,300 strokes per minute (idle), 3/8" stroke, 4-1/4lbs

-James Huston