As a treat to myself, I had my wife buy me a 4212
dovetail jig for Christmas. It has a lot of whistles
and bells and I had wanted one for a while.
The week after Christmas, I finally got a chance to
go out and give it a spin.
Knowing that dovetail jigs are "very" twitchy to get
setup, I cut a armfull of plywood drawer sides and
got the jig set up on the bench.
My worst fears came to past after a couple of hours
of screwing up a "lot" of 1/2" plywood.
I was trying to make half blind dovetails and I wanted
this jig for a future project that requires drawers.
No matter what setting I made, this jig was NOT going to
make a "hand fit half blind dovetail". I called a day
and resumed the next afternoon.
(1) I set up for through dovetails.. That worked.
(2) I set up for sliding dovetails.. That worked.
(3) I set up for box joints .. That worked.
It would NOT make a useable halfblind.
I called Porter Cable and tech guy said.. "That's odd".
He did mention one little thing "it sounds like the bit is bad"
but he discounted that option pretty quickly and suggested I
try a couple more things.
I was disgusted... but I called my tool store and asked if
they had replacement Porter Cable bits for the jig ???
"No"..but we do carry the Freud bit for that jig.
I took it.... Freud 22-115
Saturday I put the new bit in the router and setup the jig
"exactly" the way the book describes for the test.
Made a test cut....
Almost PERFECT on the first pass. It was even a little loose but
it was a hand fitted half blind dovetail.
I was amazed to say the least.
I'll be making a phone call this week to the folks at
Porter Cable on their router bit purchases.
Just for the record, the 4212 is really a nice jig that is
capable of doing very nice work, once you get the correct
router bit.
On Feb 5, 1:39 pm, Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> The depth made no difference. The pins and tails
> would not fit together properly without using a
> hammer.
>
> Believe me, I tried every depth range
> the bit was capable of cutting with the same
> results.
>
> I believe the bit was made "undersized" and
> combined with the template guide set, created
> a half blind dovetail that would not fit together
> correctly.
>
> The Freud bit proved that.
Well, I believe it. You said before you are an experienced jig user.
So if you can get the Freud to work, you would have been able to get
the PC work.
I am thinking that this is just another of a long series of missteps
in mid-range quality tool making.
"The old gray tools just ain't what they used to be,
Ain't what they used to be
Ain't what they used to be.'
Robert
Pat Barber wrote:
> The 4212 I bought has(had) a defective router bit that
> would cut a half blind dovetail that required a hammer
> to put together. That is NOT correct.
>
> By not changing another setting and using the new Freud
> bit, the jig works as advertised. I consider that
> defective.
So what you're saying is that at the default depth setting the supplied
bit didn't work properly? Did you try raising the bit to loosen the joint?
> This jig is VERY different in that it was designed
> "around" this screw ball sized bit that is 17/32",
> which to my knowledge, is not used by anybody else.
According to the supplementary manual it will work with other bit sizes
as well. They specifically mention 17/32 at 7 and 14 degrees, 9/16 at 7
degrees, and 5/8 at 14 degrees. The only difference is the depth of cut.
Chris
Leon wrote:
> Because the bit for this
> particualr jig appears to be oversized at 17/32" the typical 1/2" bit will
> not remove enough on the sides for a proper fit regardless of how shallow
> the cut.
The manual suggests that any bit somewhat over 1/2" will work. They
specifically mention 9/16" and 5/8".
As you suggest, maybe someone included a 1/2" bit.
Chris
On Feb 5, 9:12 am, Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> This jig is VERY different in that it was designed
> "around" this screw ball sized bit that is 17/32",
> which to my knowledge, is not used by anybody else.
OK, I didn't know this. Are you saying that this jig is trying to say
that it uses a proprietary bit? Is PC attempting to make a jig that
uses their special bit (only to screw that up as well) that requires
you to buy that particular bit from them?
If so, what a shame. I hope you post your experience with PC's
customer service and let us know if they take care of you and if a new
bit from them allows the jig to work as advertised.
It shouldn't be this hard...
Robert
"Pat Barber" wrote
>I wish my calipers worked well enough to see that but
> cheap chinese don't measure very well.
>
> Yep.. I agree that a wrong bit might have been shipped
> and it caused me a LOT of grief. I don't know why I
> didn't get another bit earlier.
>
> I haven't tried the "alternate" bit setups yet.
I had the same experience, same dovetail jig. Same Freud replacement bit.
Max
I believe they are all made for the 42xx.
The Freud catalog states that.
dpb wrote:
> Pat Barber wrote:
> ...
>
>> This jig is VERY different in that it was designed
>> "around" this screw ball sized bit that is 17/32",
>> which to my knowledge, is not used by anybody else.
>
> ...
>
> Don't know about the jig per se, but a _very_ quick google found quite a
> number of 17/32" dovetail bits from all the usual suspects--Whiteside,
> Freud, MLCS, Grizzly, ..., as well as PC.
>
> Hence, one can assume they're not _that_ unusual...
>
> --
>
Unless the jig is really, really, really, different, DT bits generally
should not matter from one brand to the next.
If you have not cut half blind DT'S before with a DT bit keep in mind that
the bit has to be adjusted height/depth wise to its "sweet spot". If the
joint is too tight you need to raise the bit a tiny bit and retest. If the
fit is too loose you need to lower the bit/cut deeper and retest. Once the
depth is cutting to your liking this bit setting is the one you want to use
for all thicknesses of woods. Half blind DT's have to be cut at the same
depth at all times with any particular bit and or jig.
You cannot recut the DT's, you need to start with new scraps with each
adjustment.
"Pat Barber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As a treat to myself, I had my wife buy me a 4212
> dovetail jig for Christmas. It has a lot of whistles
> and bells and I had wanted one for a while.
>
> The week after Christmas, I finally got a chance to
> go out and give it a spin.
>
> Knowing that dovetail jigs are "very" twitchy to get
> setup, I cut a armfull of plywood drawer sides and
> got the jig set up on the bench.
>
> My worst fears came to past after a couple of hours
> of screwing up a "lot" of 1/2" plywood.
>
> I was trying to make half blind dovetails and I wanted
> this jig for a future project that requires drawers.
>
> No matter what setting I made, this jig was NOT going to
> make a "hand fit half blind dovetail". I called a day
> and resumed the next afternoon.
>
> (1) I set up for through dovetails.. That worked.
> (2) I set up for sliding dovetails.. That worked.
> (3) I set up for box joints .. That worked.
>
> It would NOT make a useable halfblind.
>
> I called Porter Cable and tech guy said.. "That's odd".
>
> He did mention one little thing "it sounds like the bit is bad"
> but he discounted that option pretty quickly and suggested I
> try a couple more things.
>
> I was disgusted... but I called my tool store and asked if
> they had replacement Porter Cable bits for the jig ???
>
> "No"..but we do carry the Freud bit for that jig.
>
> I took it.... Freud 22-115
>
> Saturday I put the new bit in the router and setup the jig
> "exactly" the way the book describes for the test.
>
> Made a test cut....
>
> Almost PERFECT on the first pass. It was even a little loose but
> it was a hand fitted half blind dovetail.
>
> I was amazed to say the least.
>
> I'll be making a phone call this week to the folks at
> Porter Cable on their router bit purchases.
>
>
> Just for the record, the 4212 is really a nice jig that is
> capable of doing very nice work, once you get the correct
> router bit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have cut several dovetails with earlier jigs:
(1) Porter Cable (the one prior to the 42XX series)
(2) The older Omnijig
Yes, it does require a good bit of "searching" for the
sweet spot.
The 4212 I bought has(had) a defective router bit that
would cut a half blind dovetail that required a hammer
to put together. That is NOT correct.
By not changing another setting and using the new Freud
bit, the jig works as advertised. I consider that
defective.
This jig is VERY different in that it was designed
"around" this screw ball sized bit that is 17/32",
which to my knowledge, is not used by anybody else.
Leon wrote:
> Unless the jig is really, really, really, different, DT bits generally
> should not matter from one brand to the next.
> If you have not cut half blind DT'S before with a DT bit keep in mind that
> the bit has to be adjusted height/depth wise to its "sweet spot". If the
> joint is too tight you need to raise the bit a tiny bit and retest. If the
> fit is too loose you need to lower the bit/cut deeper and retest. Once the
> depth is cutting to your liking this bit setting is the one you want to use
> for all thicknesses of woods. Half blind DT's have to be cut at the same
> depth at all times with any particular bit and or jig.
>
> You cannot recut the DT's, you need to start with new scraps with each
> adjustment.
<[email protected]> wrote
>
> OK, I didn't know this. Are you saying that this jig is trying to say
> that it uses a proprietary bit? Is PC attempting to make a jig that
> uses their special bit (only to screw that up as well) that requires
> you to buy that particular bit from them?
>
It sounds like they are taking lessons from Sears.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> OK, I didn't know this. Are you saying that this jig is trying to say
>> that it uses a proprietary bit? Is PC attempting to make a jig that
>> uses their special bit (only to screw that up as well) that requires
>> you to buy that particular bit from them?
>>
> It sounds like they are taking lessons from Sears.
Well, whom ever Sears is using to make their current jigs. Remarkably I
still have a Sears DT Jig that I bought in 1980. That jig came with no DT
bit and I was able to use any DT bit in it as long it cut a particular
maximum width. Angle did not matter.
I can't really say about the other jigs but
the other two Porter Cable jigs I own, use
pretty much garden variety dovetail bits.
When I spoke to their cust rep, he told me that
the entire jig was design "around" the 17/32"
bit.
There is some weird math design going on
with this jig design. Why choose a bit that
was very hard to locate when the jig was
initially released ?
What is so magic about a 17/32" bit ?
I'll never understand the design considerations
of a dovetail jig.
There are now "several" sources for the 17/32"
bit to my knowledge. Freud happens to be a favorite.
[email protected] wrote:
> OK, I didn't know this. Are you saying that this jig is trying to say
> that it uses a proprietary bit? Is PC attempting to make a jig that
> uses their special bit (only to screw that up as well) that requires
> you to buy that particular bit from them?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:03b652f7-af1e-4e88-89a3-2dac47810f4d@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> "The old gray tools just ain't what they used to be,
> Ain't what they used to be
> Ain't what they used to be.'
>
> Robert
ALL TOGETHER NOW!
Sorry I could not resist. ;~) But you are right, if you knew the old
stuff you are becoming more disappointed in the new stuff even if it is the
old style new stuff.
"Pat Barber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I knew I wasn't the only one....
>
> Thanks for speaking up
>
> Max wrote:
>
>
> I had the same experience, same dovetail jig.
>
> Same Freud replacement bit.
>
> Max
>
>
I got to thinking, have you tried using a slightly smaller diameter guide
bushing? That will let the bit cut a wider path.
I wish my calipers worked well enough to see that but
cheap chinese don't measure very well.
Yep.. I agree that a wrong bit might have been shipped
and it caused me a LOT of grief. I don't know why I
didn't get another bit earlier.
I haven't tried the "alternate" bit setups yet.
They have all sorts of weird combo's on the "advanced manual".
http://www.deltaportercable.com/jigs/dovetail/
I noticed something "odd", the combinations can't exceed
1" in total when mixing and matching...
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Because the bit for this particualr jig appears to be oversized at
>> 17/32" the typical 1/2" bit will not remove enough on the sides for a
>> proper fit regardless of how shallow the cut.
>
>
> The manual suggests that any bit somewhat over 1/2" will work. They
> specifically mention 9/16" and 5/8".
>
> As you suggest, maybe someone included a 1/2" bit.
>
> Chris
"Pat Barber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:J1%[email protected]...
>I have cut several dovetails with earlier jigs:
>
> (1) Porter Cable (the one prior to the 42XX series)
> (2) The older Omnijig
>
> Yes, it does require a good bit of "searching" for the
> sweet spot.
>
> The 4212 I bought has(had) a defective router bit that
> would cut a half blind dovetail that required a hammer
> to put together. That is NOT correct.
>
> By not changing another setting and using the new Freud
> bit, the jig works as advertised. I consider that
> defective.
>
> This jig is VERY different in that it was designed
> "around" this screw ball sized bit that is 17/32",
> which to my knowledge, is not used by anybody else.
Ok, great, I guess. I just wanted to make sure that you had covered all the
basics.
No.. I wanted it to work as "advertised" before I
started screwing around with "other" setting.
The Freud bit fixed the problem instantly.
If I get a chance this weekend, I plan on
taking a picture or two of the two bits in
action and the results.
The geometry of these jigs are a mystery
to me. I don't understand why "any" dovetail
bit wouldn't work with this jig.
The over all length of the bit certainly has
a bearing on what works and what doesn't.
The template are "set" to 1/2" so, I'm
not sure what happens if you use a smaller
template guide.
Leon wrote:
> I got to thinking, have you tried using a slightly smaller diameter guide
> bushing? That will let the bit cut a wider path.
>
>
On Feb 4, 2:35 pm, Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Just for the record, the 4212 is really a nice jig that is
> >> capable of doing very nice work, once you get the correct
> >> router bit.
I keep phone log/email log of my attempts with customer support. I
think if I were you (and I understand that not everyone will do as I
do) I would call Porter Cable, tell them of my solution, and what you
had to do to get the jig to work properly. I would tell them that I
expected a new bit.
You might be surprised at their response. With so many choices for
any product these days, it seems that customer support for some things
has taken a marked upward turn lately.
Besides, I am tired of paying for products that don't perform at all,
or under perform. There are a lot of other dovetail jigs out there.
BTW, does anyone know why Woodcraft is dropping Akeda?
Robert
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2:35 pm, Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Just for the record, the 4212 is really a nice jig that is
>>>> capable of doing very nice work, once you get the correct
>>>> router bit.
>
> I keep phone log/email log of my attempts with customer support. I
> think if I were you (and I understand that not everyone will do as I
> do) I would call Porter Cable, tell them of my solution, and what
> you
> had to do to get the jig to work properly. I would tell them that I
> expected a new bit.
>
> You might be surprised at their response. With so many choices for
> any product these days, it seems that customer support for some
> things
> has taken a marked upward turn lately.
>
> Besides, I am tired of paying for products that don't perform at
> all,
> or under perform. There are a lot of other dovetail jigs out there.
>
> BTW, does anyone know why Woodcraft is dropping Akeda?
http://www.akeda.com/find-a-dealer.html
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Pat Barber wrote:
...
> This jig is VERY different in that it was designed
> "around" this screw ball sized bit that is 17/32",
> which to my knowledge, is not used by anybody else.
...
Don't know about the jig per se, but a _very_ quick google found quite a
number of 17/32" dovetail bits from all the usual suspects--Whiteside,
Freud, MLCS, Grizzly, ..., as well as PC.
Hence, one can assume they're not _that_ unusual...
--
Lee Michaels wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> OK, I didn't know this. Are you saying that this jig is trying to
>> say that it uses a proprietary bit? Is PC attempting to make a jig
>> that uses their special bit (only to screw that up as well) that
>> requires you to buy that particular bit from them?
>>
> It sounds like they are taking lessons from Sears.
I don't know how the Omnijig works but with the Incra you fine tune
the depth to correct for manufacturing tolerances in the bit
dimensions. Should be able to do the same with any dovetail jig that
cuts pins and tails with the same bit I would think.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> OK, I didn't know this. Are you saying that this jig is trying to
>>> say that it uses a proprietary bit? Is PC attempting to make a jig
>>> that uses their special bit (only to screw that up as well) that
>>> requires you to buy that particular bit from them?
>>>
>> It sounds like they are taking lessons from Sears.
>
> I don't know how the Omnijig works but with the Incra you fine tune
> the depth to correct for manufacturing tolerances in the bit
> dimensions. Should be able to do the same with any dovetail jig that
> cuts pins and tails with the same bit I would think.
Most regular DT jigs work this way also and most any regular sized bit would
work but if the fingers on the jig are too fat a common bit may not have
enough reach to under cut the guide finger. Because the bit for this
particualr jig appears to be oversized at 17/32" the typical 1/2" bit will
not remove enough on the sides for a proper fit regardless of how shallow
the cut.
I suspect that there is nothing wrong with the actual bit other than
probably being the wrong bit to begin with. I'm betting the wrong bit was
packaged with the jig.
I thought I would wait until today(Tuesday), so that
I might have a chance to actually get through to customer
support. You can bet that I want a new bit or two.
[email protected] wrote:
> I keep phone log/email log of my attempts with customer support. I
> think if I were you (and I understand that not everyone will do as I
> do) I would call Porter Cable, tell them of my solution, and what you
> had to do to get the jig to work properly. I would tell them that I
> expected a new bit.
The depth made no difference. The pins and tails
would not fit together properly without using a
hammer.
Believe me, I tried every depth range
the bit was capable of cutting with the same
results.
I believe the bit was made "undersized" and
combined with the template guide set, created
a half blind dovetail that would not fit together
correctly.
The Freud bit proved that.
Chris Friesen wrote:
> So what you're saying is that at the default depth setting the supplied
> bit didn't work properly? Did you try raising the bit to loosen the joint?
> According to the supplementary manual it will work with other bit sizes
> as well. They specifically mention 17/32 at 7 and 14 degrees, 9/16 at 7
> degrees, and 5/8 at 14 degrees. The only difference is the depth of cut.