Now let’s turn our attention to the face grain side of the joint where the grain of the dowels is perpendicular to that of the board. This is similar to a multiple mortise and tenon joint but among the important differences is that, because the dowel is round, there is limited side-grain-to-side-grain glue surface. So, it is reasonable to question the glue adherence of the dowel in its hole.

To mimic and investigate this part of the joint, 3/8″ diameter Laurier and Made-in-China dowels were glued 3/4″ deep into holes drilled with a brad point bit. The next day, the wood was resawn through the middle of the dowels. The dowels were then smacked to failure as described in the previous post. The orientation of this procedure primarily examines the adhesion of the dowel to the side grain portion of the hole.

As seen in the photos above, both the Laurier and the made-in-China (MiC) dowels performed well with both Titebond III and 202GF glues. The Laurier dowels were preferable in the long grain side of the joint, so they are my choice for dowel joinery, along with TB3 or 202GF glue.

Titebond No Run No Drip (TBNRND) glue did not create good adherence, and a heavy spread of it in one of the holes caused enough resistance to inserting the dowel that the wood split. It is an excellent glue for some jobs but I don’t think the best choice for this one.

Dowel joints have the same sort of cross grain dimensional change conflict as, for example, a multiple mortise and tenon. Nonetheless, I find these tests reassuring regarding the quality of the glue line in dowel joints.

Here is another reason I prefer Laurier dowels. Their spiral grooves are shallower than the straight grooves of the made-in-China (and similar) dowels, as seen in the photo below. After a 15 minute soak in water (the second photo below), which mimics the response to water based glues, the Laurier grooves expand more to take up the space in the joint. The Laurier grooves are formed by compression, and therefore will retain their expanded profile.

But wait, there’s more! The most suspect issue with a dowel is how it adheres to the end grain glue surface in its hole. That will be addressed in the next post.

In casework, doweling can be a good choice to join the end grain of one board to the face grain of another across their widths. This method for making cabinets was described and popularized by the late James Krenov in The Fine Art of Cabinetmaking. While noting that dowel joinery opens up many design options where the sides meet the top and bottom of a cabinet, Krenov warns us to use good judgement in selecting it for a piece; though durable, it is not for heavy-duty work.

The joinery in the pieces I have made with this method has remained tight for many years without a hint of problem. Nevertheless, some doubts have lingered in my mind about a joint that involves relatively little side grain gluing surface compared to the gold standards of mortise-and-tenon and dovetail joints. I wanted to see what was really going on inside dowel joints.

To do that, I had to make ’em and break ’em. My qualitative observations, combined with some intuition and educated guessing, are informative enough for my purposes. This is not a joint strength test, nor is it scientific. The photos show typical results.

First, let’s look at the “end-grain side” of the joint where the long grain of the dowel is parallel to the long grain of the board.

Using a DeWalt Pilot Point bit and a Krenov-style jig, 3/8″ holes were bored in poplar in the long-grain direction, deep enough to allow 3/4 inch of dowel insertion plus room for excess glue. Glue was spread only in the holes. After 24 hours, the wood was sawn through the middle of its thickness. Each half was secured in a vise, and each dowel was then hit with a hammer toward the open face to make the connection fail. The photos show the dowels snapped backwards, exposing the half hole.

From left to right,above:

1. A made-in-China (MiC) dowel glued with Titebond III. Fair adhesion – some wood is torn away.

2. A MiC dowel glued with Titebond No-Run No-Drip glue. The bond largely failed as evidenced by the relatively clean surfaces.

3. A Laurier brand dowel, made in Canada, glued with Titebond III. Plenty of wood failure, indicating a good joint. That’s what I’m looking for.

Update Aug 29, 2017: A reader has informed me, based on information directly from Laurier, that Laurier dowels are no longer being manufactured. The owner has retired, and the machinery that makes the dowels is for sale.  A few sizes remain available at justjoinery.ca

The TB No-Run No-Drip glue is very viscous, and handy in that it doesn’t run down and collect at the bottom of the hole. However, in other tests I found it did not spread well over the Laurier dowels which have less space for the glue in their spiral flutes. There was too much resistance to inserting the dowels, the glue got pushed down, and too much pressure was created. I thought it might work well with the more deeply fluted Chinese-made dowels, and they did go in easier, but TB III still made a better joint with them.

So, for long grain dowel insertion, I’ll go with Laurier dowels and Titebond III. (In other trials, Lee Valley’s 202GF performed similarly to TB III.)

Lee Valley sells the Laurier dowels. Grizzly sells the Chinese-made dowels. To keep myself out of trouble, I emphasize that these are not scientific tests, and my conclusions that I am sharing with you are for my purposes in my shop. These should be regarded as anecdotal findings. Please refer to the manufacturers’ and vendors’ literature and make your own choices.

Of course, there is the other half of the joint to consider – the face grain board. Obviously, the same dowel must be used but it does not have to be the same glue in each half. So, in the next post, we’ll look at side grain insertion of the dowels with various options. This is the part of the joint that creates more doubt for me since much of the dowel surface is bonded to end grain surfaces inside the hole. The results of my tests surprised me.

Ulmia used to make a small vise that could, among other uses, be held in the workbench tail vise to hold small or thin work pieces. It is Ulmia model #1812 “Hilfs-Spannstock” (auxiliary vise). [Note: one of the vise jaws is stamped “LSP-2816-4” and the other “LSP-2817-4” but I don’t think those are model numbers.] It can be seen in The Fine Art of Cabinetmaking, section 3, where the author, James Krenov, discusses Japanese saws (page 145 in my copy, the 1977 Van Nostrand Reinhold hardcover edition). I use two alternatives, neither quite as elegant as the Ulmia, but handy nonetheless since they hold small pieces of wood that would otherwise be problematic to work on.

The first option is strorebought, quick, easy, and cheap. (How do like it so far?) Pictured above, it is a drill press vise (MSC #56451263, $21.32), 5″ long, with 1 1/2″ wide jaws. I filed the sides of the moveable jaw so it would move freely when clamped in the tail vise, and replaced the steel jaw faces with very thin cork. It is clamped in the tail vise with the jaws projecting enough above the level of the bench top to securely hold the work piece but below the level of the top surface of the work, so as not to interfere with a plane, chisel, scraper, or other tool.

Unlike the Ulmia, the screw feeds through a threaded portion of the base structure, and thus it projects outward as the vise is opened. This is why I chose the 5″ model over the 7 1/2″ model which, though it has a larger capacity, would tend to get in my way. The Ulmia’s moveable jaw is itself threaded underneath, so the knob remains stationary as the jaw is moved in either direction. There are more expensive precision-made drill press vises available but this one does the job just fine.

Below are some examples of what it can hold. The piece of maple in the second photo is less than 1/8″ thick.

The second option is shop-made, fairly quick and easy, but costs next-to-nothing. (How’s that?) It is simply a 4 1/2″ x 2 1/4″ x 1″ block of hardwood with a 3/8″-deep recess with a 1:7 angled border. It is held in the tail vise with some of the recess projecting above the level of the bench top. A tap on a wedge of the appropriate thickness holds the work piece, tightening further as you push a plane on the work piece. Note the removable spacer, held by a screw, which can expand the width capacity of the vise. [My article in the November 2007 Popular Woodworking shows this and many other shop-made workbench accessories.]

 Here it is, set up:

And, in use:

As always, I hope these tips will help you build things in your shop, and have a great time doing it!

It is tempting to judge this saw on its looks, and there it is certainly a winner. Moreover, the range of choices available in the handle wood, saw nuts, and back allow the customized aesthetics of this tool to be especially pleasing. More substantively, the fit and finish are magnificent; there isn’t a hair out of place. My Bad Axe 10″ dovetail saw has a .018″ plate, 16 tpi rip teeth, set about .002 each side, with a mesquite tote, blued steel back, and brass saw nuts.

However, a tool must be ultimately judged by its performance, which simply means how it can help you make things out of wood. I’ve used this saw for about nine months now, and, despite some excellent Western and Japanese alternatives to which I had become accustomed, the Bad Axe has become my clear favorite.

When I pick up this saw and approach the wood, it feels just right in my hand. Though relatively beefy for a dovetail saw, the handle contour, low hang angle, and especially the balance work together to impart eagerness to go at the layout lines. When the saw does bite into the wood, the truly superlative sharpening completes the functional integration. In many side-by-side tests with my other saws, I  have gotten the most consistent accuracy and feel the most confident with the Bad Axe. It is now the saw I reach for.

A bit of relaxed tooth rake toward the toe of the saw helps start the cut. The tooth line is canted about 1/8 from toe to heel. These are both helpful features, though, to find quibbles with the design, my preference would probably be an increase in both of these.

The Bad Axe Tools Works website gives detailed technical information on the saws, and, ultimately, you will have to get one of these saws in your hand to appreciate how well it works.

There is something more important that I want to tell you about this tool. I think of it similarly as my Japanese Daitei chisels and French Auriou rasps. The Bad Axe saw is a tool with a soul, but in this case it is a characteristically American one. This is born of the personal commitment of its maker, Mark Harrell, a man who has spent much of his life serving America. Mark understands saw making history, listens to the input of many woodworkers (disclosure: including me), and is passionate about innovation, refinement, and excellence in producing a saw that you will not mistake for any other. Further, he allows for a range of your choices in saw plate, filing, handle size, and materials.

Yes, the soul of the tool is meaningful and I sense it when I bring the Bad Axe saw to the wood.

I don’t mean to complain but . . .

1. Ulmia used to make a little vise that I’ve only seen in The Fine Art of Cabinetmaking by James Krenov, and months too late on Ebay. It is an Ulmia “Hilfs-Spannstock” (auxiliary vise) model #1812. [Note: One vise jaw is stamped “LSP-2816-4” and the other “LSP-2817-4” but I don’t think those are model numbers.] It can be clamped to the workbench top for holding small work, but, more usefully, can be secured in the tail vise to hold thin, small, and narrow parts. I have a shop-made alternative plus another option to be discussed in a future post.

2. The Lie-Nielsen convex sole block plane gets plenty of use in my shop since almost everything I make involves multiple curves. I like the shallow 27″ radius along its length, but it would be more useful for me if the 3″ radius across its width were shallower. Thus, even better would be a few different models with different radii. The plane is very handy to use but, for my taste, could still could be a bit bigger overall, and would be easier to grasp with grooves on the sides as finger grips.

3. I wish the Lie-Nielsen #2 had an option of a 50° frog as do most of their other bench planes. I think 50° is the best basic go-to angle for bevel-down smoothing planes and would make the handy 7 1/2″-long #2 more valuable.

4. The rose-head countersink with radially-asymmetric flutes that Lee Valley used to make is just about perfect, but as far as I know, has disappeared from their product line.

5. Veritas (Lee Valley) makes saddle squares and other, similar, markers which are very nice except for the annoying cut-away on the inside of the angle which is supposedly to vault saw whiskers. Who has these big saw whiskers and why would you want to preserve them? The cut away causes your layout line to deviate at the corner, often just where you need it most. This type of feature is found on machinist squares to vault metal burrs but is a disadvantage on tools used for marking continuous layout lines on wood.

The above suggestions are made here with great respect for these excellent companies.

6. The old Disston “Stronghold” style file handles are unbeatable. I have a supply in different sizes but, as far as I know, they are no longer manufactured. I wonder if the patent status would permit their manufacture again by some company.

7. I don’t know about you, but my hand gets tired using a coping saw or fret saw, even of the best quality. Because the handle is parallel to the blade, one is forced to use it with a bent wrist. There ought to be some way to rig a handle which is nearly perpendicular to the blade, much like a backsaw. I suspect this would also make it a more accurate tool. Uh oh, I think I just put a bug in my ear.

8. Finally, I request a magic lantern which grants me just these three wishes: an instant sharpening system which requires no time or effort whatsoever, a board stretcher (especially for width), and, most of all, a clock that doesn’t move unless I want it to. I’ll pay for shipping, no problem.

Readers, you undoubtedly have your own lists, and if I thought about it longer, my list could certainly exceed this one. Thanks for reading.

The saw pictured in the previous post, and above, is the Gramercy dovetail saw but that is not the original handle.

In this blog, I have praised the Gramercy saw, and I still think it’s a great saw. However, the original handle is set rather high – a high hang angle – and I have come to dislike that feature. I understand and respect Joel Moskowitz’ reasons for designing it that way but, partly because I’ve reworked some of my sawing mechanics, I now find it just does not best suit me. I’m using a lower stance with my shoulder and elbow more downward.

So, I made a handle from some spare Claro walnut. (In the process, I increased my appreciation of the skill level exhibited by professional tool makers. I needed some shimming to get the fit right.) In the photo below, the Gramercy handle is placed in its original position, a hang angle of 35°, for comparison with the 66° of the replacement handle. This is a large difference which, to me, makes the replacement feel significantly better in use. I also like the beefier grip of the replacement better than the skinnier original.

Mark Harrell of Bad Axe Tool Works deserves most of the thanks for my evolution. I have been using his dovetail saw this year and it has become my favorite. The hang angle of the Bad Axe is about 61° and the tote feels just right in my hand. I outlined its basic shape and adapted the front to fit the Gramercy. As Mark explains, the hang angle of his saw “gets you behind the push stroke.” [To be clear, converting the Gramercy saw was not done at the suggestion of, in consultation with, or to the knowledge of Mark. Reading Mark’s ideas and using his saw were informative, but the responsibility for the conversion is mine alone.]

In a future post, I will discuss the Bad Axe saw more, but the summary for now is that it’s wonderful. Mark’s passion for excellence has raised the game for saw making.

Here are a few more thoughts on saw hang angles:

The Disston D-7, pictured below, has an angle of 74° which puts the power more behind the saw, which is needed for heavy ripping with an aggressive tooth rake.

Tilting the wrist can compensate for an undesirable saw hang, but, as any tennis player knows, the wrist is most firm in its unbent position.

Finally, what is the hang angle of the saw below? Defying just about everything discussed here, the Japanese pull stroke saws demonstrate that there is more than one good way to do things.

A saw that feels just right in your hand and sails through the wood with ease and control is a wonderful thing. An important factor in this is the angle formed by the handle (tote) of a saw and its tooth line – the “hang” of the saw. Though it gets relatively little attention among the details of teeth-per-inch, plate thickness, set, rake, and so forth, the hang is the foundation of your interface with all the other aspects of the saw.

I propose that it is important enough to be routinely specified by the makers of top quality saws along with the other parameters of the saw. True, it can be estimated by simply looking at the saw, but quantifying it would facilitate its manipulation in designing the saw, just as is done with tpi, for example. Of course, similar to all the other quantifiable elements of a saw, the hang defies formulaic prescription because the many factors all work together to produce the desired sawing mechanics, comfort, and effectiveness.

In the saw above, the hang angle is 66°, defined by the white tape lines. Note that the line on the tote connects the two rounded forward-most points on the surface against which your palm rests. This discussion should not be misconstrued as suggesting that a saw handle can be defined simply by a number. Similar to the weight of a tennis racket, the number gives you some information, a manipulable parameter, but does not negate the importance of balance, shape, and numerous other factors, many subtle.

The rake angle of the teeth, essentially the aggressiveness of the front of the saw tooth meeting the wood, is a particularly important influence on the effectiveness of a given hang angle. Other influences include:

• The height of the work, your bench, and you
• The balance of the saw
• Crosscut vs rip
• Wood hardness
• Tooth sharpness
• Your wrist, preferred grip, stance, and body mechanics

The interaction of all these factors will decide what hang is right for you. The main point is that the hang angle is an important element to be aware of when considering a saw. Of course, this is not something to determine with a computer model in an armchair. Try different saws in different cutting situations and see what works right for you. Nowadays, woodworkers are so fortunate to have tremendous saw makers producing magnificent tools.

Next: I will show an example of a saw hang that I decided I did not like, and what I did about it.

In managing the fit of the height of a drawer in its housing, the seasonal changes are larger, and thus not a matter of such fine tolerances as with the width which was discussed in the previous post. Let’s take a closer look.

A four-inch high drawer front in flatsawn solid maple will expand about 1/8 inch when the ambient air goes from 35% to 80% relative humidity. For flatsawn cherry or walnut, the change will be about 3/32 inch. For quartersawn wood, the values will be about half to two-thirds of those. Wood finishes will slow but not eliminate these changes, as shown by the work of the US Forest Products Laboratory.

If you are building inset drawers and the humidity in your shop is at the low end of that range, allow those amounts of clearance from the top edge of the drawer front to the divider or case member above it. If the drawer is eight inches high, double those clearance amounts; for a two-inch drawer, halve them. (The drawer in the photo is just over two inches high.) The tops of the drawer sides are made flush with the front, while the top edge of the drawer back is made a bit lower than the sides.

This means that during the dry season, the clearance space above each drawer front in a group will be proportionate to the height of the drawer. This will look odd only to those who do not understand wood. For overlay or lipped drawers, appropriate clearance must still be made but it is, of course, hidden by the front.

Remember too, the depth of a solid-wood case with the grain running vertically will similarly change with the seasons, and thus the length of the drawer must be calculated for the time when the case has the shortest depth, plus a margin of safety.

Woodworking lore and some authors extol “piston-fit” drawers whereby pushing in one drawer in a set will cause others to be forced outward from the resulting air pressure within the case. Well, this can be done and is not very difficult to accomplish. For fun, you might try it on the way to building useful work. To me, “piston-fit” implies virtually zero clearances – which may work for small drawers at one particular time of the year, but not for practical woodworking. Proper clearances for the sides, front, and back that render a drawer functional year-round preclude a true piston-fit. It should not be considered a hallmark of top-quality drawers.

Really, you’ll feel much more comfortable when your drawers have a practical fit.