I had having tear out problems with my box joint jig and decided to blame it
on the craftsman 1/2" straight bit that came free with my router table.
I bought a MLCS 1/2" spiral bit. It worked great, giving me no tear out on
the same wood that was a problem before. But when I went to assemble the
box, it wouldn't go together, the cuts were too small. In desperation I
recut it with the old bit and it went together fine. I was very surprised
at that, figuring that the spacing would be off and I would just have a pile
of scrap, but sometimes you get lucky.
Anyhow, I measured the cuts from the craftsman at 0.504" and the MLCS as
0.496". Presumably my router has no run out at all. <g> (the spacing on
the jig is 0.490").
I can accept that the craftsman is oversized, a bit extra for sharpening
maybe; but is 4 thousanths undersized acceptable for the MLCS. Okay, it was
real expensive, but it wasn't exactly cheap either.
Is this something to complain about, or an acceptable tolerance?
It is wide spread practice; wide target tolerance of bit specs except
for shank diameters.
What to expect: Nothing, measure all critical cutters.
And to be sure, the high stress trapped cutting of box joints will
bend the cutter, (less so at shallow depths). So even tho a cutter
measures .500" for example, its cutter pathway can easily be .505-.510
or more!
Practice on scrap first to learn the working nature of the boogers
before you commit to project stock.
http://www.patwarner.com (Routers)
***************************************
"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I had having tear out problems with my box joint jig and decided to blame it
> on the craftsman 1/2" straight bit that came free with my router table.
>
> I bought a MLCS 1/2" spiral bit. It worked great, giving me no tear out on
> the same wood that was a problem before. But when I went to assemble the
> box, it wouldn't go together, the cuts were too small. In desperation I
> recut it with the old bit and it went together fine. I was very surprised
> at that, figuring that the spacing would be off and I would just have a pile
> of scrap, but sometimes you get lucky.
>
> Anyhow, I measured the cuts from the craftsman at 0.504" and the MLCS as
> 0.496". Presumably my router has no run out at all. <g> (the spacing on
> the jig is 0.490").
>
> I can accept that the craftsman is oversized, a bit extra for sharpening
> maybe; but is 4 thousanths undersized acceptable for the MLCS. Okay, it was
> real expensive, but it wasn't exactly cheap either.
>
> Is this something to complain about, or an acceptable tolerance?
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:28:31 -0700, toller wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> I had having tear out problems with my box joint jig and decided to blame it
> on the craftsman 1/2" straight bit that came free with my router table.
>
> I bought a MLCS 1/2" spiral bit. It worked great, giving me no tear out on
> the same wood that was a problem before.
What type of wood?
Spiral bits give more of a shearing cut which can produce a smoother surface.
Of course they do cost more than straight bits.
> But when I went to assemble the
> box, it wouldn't go together, the cuts were too small. In desperation I
> recut it with the old bit and it went together fine. I was very surprised
> at that, figuring that the spacing would be off and I would just have a pile
> of scrap, but sometimes you get lucky.
>
> Anyhow, I measured the cuts from the craftsman at 0.504" and the MLCS as
> 0.496". Presumably my router has no run out at all. <g> (the spacing on
> the jig is 0.490").
It would be best to measure the bit since wood can have "spring back" after a
cut, but in general router bits that don't use carbide cutters brazed to a
shank (probably like your spiral bit) should have accuracy close to mill
bits. I'd call it an inspection error if the bit was more than 0.001" out,
but I wouldn't be bothered by 0.004" if the bit was inexpensive. I seriously
doubt any of your bits we made over sized to allow for sharpening, but it
would be handy if you used the bit alot ;^)
>
> I can accept that the craftsman is oversized, a bit extra for sharpening
> maybe; but is 4 thousanths undersized acceptable for the MLCS. Okay, it was
> real expensive, but it wasn't exactly cheap either.
>
> Is this something to complain about, or an acceptable tolerance?
I've dealt with MLCS before, but never had to work with their customer
service. I'd wager they would correct the problem for you.
-Bruce
>
>