Met History wrote:

>> I would lean towards the "not split wood" reason as the cut nail tends
>> to rip and cut through the wood whereas the wire nail spreads it.
>
> so how does this actually happen?  i mean, the cut nail displaces the
> wood, just as the wire nail does.  even more.  so why doesn't that
> spread the adjacent little long line-y things, whatever you call them,
> capillaries or something?  c

Cutting through is different than splitting. The action of the nail
cutting not to be confused with the means of cut nail manufacture. The
flat end/point, as I understand it, cuts through the cells of the wood
rather than spreading them. Leastways this is what my grandfather
advised me was his objection to wire nails. A wire nail is pointed and
as it enters the wood it spreads the cells. The cut nail puts less
stress on the cells... I suppose pushing the cut cells ahead of it as it
is pounded into the hole. Not to be confused with any reference to...
HC's latest hobby.

A cut nail being flat in one direction it would not continue to displace
wood in the particular direction once it got started... so a carpenter
in effect could line up the flat to be parallel to the grain,
particularly for a nail placed close into an edge. As I remember it cut
nails were always supposed to be used for setting hardwood flooring. In
that I think it also had to co with a cut nail being less pliable than a
wire nail and able to be hammered in without turning into a worm splat.

Process and technique of nailing is an important skill. I'm always
amazed at how many timid people choke their hammers short. Using a
hammer requires intention and an expectation of success in going all for
it. Halfway measures with a hammer rarely make much of an impression.

][<

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>