Which Circular Saw Blade Brand Wins?

17 g more than the Milwaukee

3 g more than the DeWalt

the lightest blade tested

1 g more than the Milwaukee

3 g more than the Milwaukee

by far the heaviest blade at that point in the video

the heaviest blade tested

nonstick electric shield coating, precision laser cut vents

new tracking point amp tooth geometry

precision ground tungsten carbide teeth, thin kerf design, heat expansion slots; used as the video's control blade and is NOT advertised or designed for demolition

claims 8 times longer life, laser cut heat expansion slots, PTFE coating to reduce friction and heat build-up

patented body slot technology for smooth cuts, laser cut plate and carbide face grind

polymer stabilizing vents, ultra tough nickel cobalt, claims up to 10 times longer lasting than regular blades, inner fuse anti-friction coating

speed coat anti-friction finish, brute carbide for long life; NOT marketed for framing, marketed for nail demolition

large gullets, 3/16 in kerf, extra thick steel body, claims 5 times longer life

large European style micrograin carbide tips, standard kerf size; claims to be designed for wood with nails, but labeled not recommended for ferrous, non-ferrous, or masonry

2.22, 2.37 seconds; average of 2.27 seconds, fourth fastest of the initial round

2.22, 2.52 seconds; average of 2.47 seconds, fifth of six ranked in the initial round

2.47, 2.57 seconds; average of 2.56 seconds, slowest of the six blades ranked in the initial round

1.66, 2.22 seconds; average of 1.92 seconds, the FASTEST blade in the initial clean-wood round

2.52, 2.63 seconds; not included in the video's explicit ranked list of the six fastest new-blade averages

1.87, 2.02 seconds; average of 1.95 seconds, second fastest of the initial round (close behind Masterforce)

7.04, 6.89 seconds, much slower than the standard blades due to its thicker kerf and lower tooth count

8.46, 14.6 seconds, the slowest of all blades in the initial round

4.7, 4.96 seconds, described as performing fairly well given its heavy, thick-kerf design

4.3, 4.81 seconds; 22 of 24 teeth showed damage; had the fastest third pass of the nail test at 4.81 seconds

3.89, 4.96 seconds; 17 of 24 teeth with very minor damage, held up well

5.31, 9.17 seconds; 19 of 24 teeth showed damage

6.28, 7.65 seconds, struggled badly and appeared to overheat mid-pass; 21 of 23 teeth showed some (mostly minor) damage

5.67, 6.89 seconds; 20 of 24 teeth with very minor chipping

3.95, 5.62 seconds; 16 of 24 teeth with minor damage

11.81, 15 seconds; 13 of 14 teeth with very minor damage

22.42, 70 seconds; the blade came loose mid-third-pass and had to be retightened before finishing; 4 of 5 teeth showed damage

10.09, 15.5 seconds; 9 of 14 teeth with minor damage

slightly faster than the Milwaukee

slowest of that round

the slowest of that round; the coating appeared to be causing problems

the FASTEST blade of that round

a 39% slowdown from new

on a fresh blade, described as only a 15% slowdown versus a worn blade's clean-cut time

nearly twice its new-blade time

(from 5.42 after nails), fourth place in that round

the shingle segment states this blade slowed 'from 4.17 seconds after 30 nails to 9.12' - note this 4.17 figure conflicts with the 4.71 seconds given in the prior post-nail retest; both numbers kept verbatim as a transcript inconsistency, not resolved. Result after shingles: 9.12 seconds, fifth of the top 5 named in that round

(from 5.52 after nails)

improved notably to 8.3 seconds (from 9.17 after nails) as the shingles scraped away the green coating; second place in that round

(from 5.47 after nails), the FASTEST blade in that round

the transcript separately states this blade slowed 'from 12.97 seconds before the shingles to 39.57 seconds after,' a figure that does not fully reconcile with the 11.07 second retest value above; both kept verbatim as a transcript inconsistency

narrowly beating the DeWalt's 11.05 seconds

the transcript gives two slightly different numbers for this result: 17.74 seconds during the individual test description and 17.64 seconds in the round's recap ranking; both kept verbatim, not resolved

slowed considerably after hitting the second deck screw

a close second behind the Diablo's 11 seconds

slowest of the final round (nearly 4 times its new-blade time)

a major failure - the host states the blade's body slot became warped from the deck-screw test, causing it to drag so badly the saw began moving backward; the blade was retested twice with no improvement

not among the top 5 blades explicitly ranked in that round's recap, indicating a notable late slowdown despite earlier strong results

by far the worst of any blade tested