Workbench vises?

Page 1 of 2  
Hi guys,
I just got done building my base for my workbench. Now I am planning for my vises. I see front vises, tail vises, veritas twin screw vises, etc out there. I was thinking of putting a veritas twin screw vise on one end of the table and I was going to put a front vise or something on the side of the table at the opposite end. Would a tail vise be better than a front vise? Or how about one of those shoulder vises? Can someone give some pointers on why I would choose one over the other? Regards. -Guy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is exactly what I did with my bench and I think it gives a great combination of clamping options. The twin-screw vise is simply a work of art, in my opinion. I use it to hold boards for dovetailing or similar tasks. Using bench dogs with it is a breeze, and I've done that for wide panel planing, etc. The front vise I have is a Record 52 1/2 quick-release type. The quick-release is a must have option, IMO. I use that vise for long boards with a board jack along the front edge of the bench. I also have some clamping hold downs from Veritas that are great for utility clamping on the bench surface. There are a lot of good alternatives in vises than these two, but for the money and ease of installation and use, I think it's hard to beat them. This was my first bench and I doubt I'll replace it anytime in the foreseeable future.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree. A few years ago I moved shops and the new shop was much smaller. I had to give up one workbench. I kept the traditional workbench, and love it for most things, but there are times when I really miss my Veritas twin screw vice. It was great for cutting dovetails because I could fit wide boards between the screws. I have the vice in storage and have been thinking of modifying the current bench to accept the twin screw vice.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike,
Do you think a Record quick release vise is better than one of those front screw vises with a front and rear face made out of wood? Or do you just like the Record because of the quick release feature? Regards. -Guy

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

I have a record 52 1/2, installed with the rear face BEHIND the bench apron and a slab of maple attached to the front face. Love the quick release feature and the large capacity. Havn't owned a traditional single screw vice, so I can't comment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Guy,
I have mine installed exactly the same way as Gary. In this configuration you use the front apron as a clamping surface, which allows you to clamp long boards with support along the entire front of the bench. I use board jacks and a hold-down at the far end and it holds the boards extremely well.
As for the traditional screw vises, I've only used one a couple of times. They definately have an authentic look to them, but I don't think they accomplish the job any better than the Record vises. The quick-release feature simply saves time, allowing you to quickly clamp and unclamp items and cycle through jobs if you're doing repetitive tasks with the vise.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message >>

Ditto on that. I've got the Veritas twin-screw on the end, and a Record 52.5 or 53.5 (forget which) on the front corner, mounted flush with the apron with maple and masonite jaws. The quick release is an absolute must in my opinion. I use the Veritas when I have to, but the Record is the default choice for everything else.
It's hard to appreciate the quick-release until you've used it in practice. Believe me, spinning a screw to move a vice jaw several inches is tedious at best, but mostly just maddening.
--Neil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With the Records, just be sure to install rubber washers on the vise handle. I should have taken that advice myself. My 53ED nipped my finger yesterday and as a result put some red stains on the white chair leg I was working on:) Today I got my ass to the store and picked up some faucet washers.
-Stef
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guy,
I posted a couple pictures of my bench on alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
I followed to the letter Sam Allen's joiner's bench in his "Making Workbenches" book. It is definately not the most attractive bench to look at (someday I'll make my own version of the dream workbench), but it was economical and easy to build and, most importantly, extremely functional.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike in Mystic wrote:

But what's the fun of making things that are easy to build? No big dovetails, no mortises or tenons, no pegs or wedges, no dovetailed splines, no shoulder vise? (I'm almost done with my first "dream bench" - the Frank Klausz bench with the shoulder vise but with the Veritas Twin Screw Vise on the right end - I like challenges but his end vise is just too much for me.)
BTW the shoulder vise will let you clamp up parts that aren't flat rectangles. You still need the flat parts put not the parallel faces.
charlie b
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey Charlie,
The main thing with building things that are easy is two-fold for me.
1. It saves time. I work full-time, have a 7 month old son and am taking a half-time load of MBA classes. I also do projects for pay via a cabinet shop, which takes 1-2 weekends a month of my time. So, my shop time "for me" is a bit restricted right now.
2. I don't screw things up and have to repeat them. I'm still on the near side of woodworking beginner-ship, so the more straightforward a task is, the more sense it makes to me. I definiately appreciate the more complex joinery and aesthetic nuances of design, but for my developing skills, sometimes simple is the best choice.
I fully intend to someday put my woodworking skills (hopefully greatly improved by then) to the test and build a "real" cabinetmaker's bench, but for now I'm absolutely thrilled with the one I made, despite it's masonite surface and construction lumber base.
And, despite the "ease" of the projects, I honestly don't think they are any less fun to make.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 18:00:22 -0600, "Guy LaRochelle"

My main bench (Tage Frid design) has a shoulder vice and a movable dog in the tail vice. Both are hand-made in timber (3" x 4" oak) with factory steel screws.
A shoulder vice is good for awkward items, and it allows you to put tall things in it vertically. However it's otherwise a poor vice for clamping. It works on my bench, but only because I usually work between dogs.
If you get an English pattern face vice, get a big one. The downside of such a vice is the guide bars in the middle that prevent you holding things vertically. Go for a big one so you get some space at the side. Fit wooden faces too.
An Emmett pattern patternmaker's vice is handy, and quite affordable for the modern Taiwanese repros. A great second vice, they're not so good as an only vice. They're always on the skew, so they're less rapid to clamp up square things, which is after all what you do most of the time. They're also difficult to mount rigidly on some types of bench.
My "tail" vice has an L-shaped moving jaw, which gives me a "notch" vice in the front edge. More usefully though, it carries a row of moving dog holes. These turned out to be more use than any vice I've had.
I'm unconvinced by tail vices. The L shaped wooden sort isn't a vice and shouldn't be used as one. As Tage Frid pointed out, this puts racking forces into the joints and distorts it from sliding smoothly. Don't use the back "jaw" as a vice on the end of the bench.
I also have no use for a tail vice, because there just isn't space around my wall-standing bench to work on the end of it. Maybe if you have a free-standing island bench, then YMMV.
If I did have a tail vice, I'd probably go for a twin screw with easy independent adjustability. I only have one row of dog holes and I really wish I had two (given how useful the first row has turned out to be).
The frame of my bench is 4" deep, which is about right for rigidity and for getting a clamp over it. My other bench is stiffened by a vertical apron on the front, which made it unusable for clamping - bad idea.
--
Smert' spamionam

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

FYI: a vice is a bad habit. Smoking, drinking and womanizing are all vices. If you want to clamp wood, you need a vise. Now if you collect vises, and spend your all rent money on them, then your vises are also your vices.
The Spelling Police
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mortimer Schnerd responds:

Wrong country, Morty.
Andy is a Brit and all Brits spell funny.
Charlie Self "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06 Apr 2004 00:38:31 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) scribbled:

NO, NO! It's you Murricans who spell funny. Every other English-speaking country in the world spells stuff like the Brits do. (Except for some contamination in Kanuckistan - I don't know why LVT spells it "vise".)
Luigi Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Luigi Zanasi responds:

Is that sort of like, like, "50 million Frenchman can't be wrong"? Or your kids, "But Dad, everyone does it"?
As for LV spelling vise correctly, the Lee family long ago learned how to work the marketing game, and I'd be willing to bet, even with Rob refusing to give us retail stores, the U.S. holds most of LV's customers.
That good customer bit is a thing that has baffled me with Yurpeen's and Chiwanese: the U.S. is by far the largest customer of both areas. So both areas force their metric system on us, instead of giving us what we're used to and comfortable with. Was the whole thing a worldwide conspiracy to force me to buy an extra set of wrenches?
Charlie Self "It is not strange... to mistake change for progress." Millard Fillmore
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

When I was working in England I was often told that Americans were inconsistent in their spelling (and pronunciation) and that I needed to be careful with regard to spelling consistency in my written reports. The very next report on wing flaps I turned in followed the phrase "centre flap", with "innre flap" and "outre flap" ... that got a BIG rise. I would also ask why, if they pronounced "schedule" like they do, did they not do the same for "school"? That pretty well ended all argument on consistency in spelling and pronunciation.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/02/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

British "english" and its American cousin "plain english" are a mongrel lot, a line with heritage linked to so many other cultures and languages, some Teutonic, hence knight, laughter and daughter, the latter baffling since only one letter changes but the pronunciation is totally different.
If you want a dog that'll do one or two things very well, get a pure bred. If you want a dog that can get by quite well without you but hangs around because he likes you - get a mutt.
In a nation of "mutts", it was Webster and his dictionary that made "the melting pot" work. No common "terms" and "definitions" - no contracts/agreements. No contracts/agreements - no business and that leads to disagreements and conflicts - which sometimes leads to the exchange of "common words" and often fists.
Anyone want to try and explain the spelling and pronuncition of Sequoia - to a Dutchman?
charlie b
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"charlie b" wrote in message

... or Cholmondeley to an American.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/02/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about 'splaining "Worcester" to me?
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.