Porter Cable 4212 Report

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.

Reply to
Pat Barber
Loading thread data ...

Pat Barber wrote: ...

So what's the difference in the bit?

--

Reply to
dpb

Reply to
Pat Barber

I fail to see how through would fit any different than half-blind???

--

Reply to
dpb

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

Reply to
nailshooter41

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.

Reply to
Leon

formatting link

Reply to
J. Clarke

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.

Le> Unless the jig is really, really, really, different, DT bits generally

Reply to
Pat Barber

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.

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Reply to
Pat Barber

Ok, great, I guess. I just wanted to make sure that you had covered all the basics.

Reply to
Leon

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

Reply to
nailshooter41

wrote

It sounds like they are taking lessons from Sears.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

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.

Reply to
Leon

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

Reply to
Chris Friesen

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...

Reply to
dpb

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.

Reply to
J. Clarke

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:

Reply to
Pat Barber

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:

Reply to
Pat Barber

I believe they are all made for the 42xx.

The Freud catalog states that.

dpb wrote:

Reply to
Pat Barber

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.

Reply to
Leon

HomeOwnersHub website 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.