Porter Cable 4212 Report

Page 2 of 2  
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:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Barber 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.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Barber wrote: ...

...
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...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I believe they are all made for the 42xx.
The Freud catalog states that.
dpb wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.