Ray Iles Pigsticker review

[Reinis Kanders]

Would not making a V in the center approach to mortising be somewhat inefficient because it either requires to shift the grip or change a stance for every chop?
In this video Follansbee is using similar approach and it seems that he has to shift his stance frequently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1bo6NVYCc0

On the other hand Follansbee must have settled to this method after some exploration and it must be pretty fast because most of the stuff he makes (chests, chairs) requires a lot of chisel work.

[lowell holmes]

I learned to chop 1" square mortises in two Paul Sellers classes. We chopped the mortises with 1" bevel edged chisels. I've built five chairs since then, using bevel edged chisels.
That is the reason I posted my comment. I have mortise chisels and sash chisels as well as numerous sets of bevel edged chisels.

That makes seven chairs. My whole point is that
it is interesting to divine the historical precedent, but that is a different interest than making chairs.

I feel like it is good to be able to use historical precedent, but making chairs is more fulfilling. I had an issue with one of the chairs I made, and there was not room for 1" through tenon,
but there was room for 15/16". I was able to grind one of my chisels to 15/16" and the chair is now rocking two great grandchildren.

[Patrick Chase]

"Craftsman" style furniture was made a century ago by machine. A hand tool woodworker would usually do something different, like two narrower tenons or a round tenon.

In the hand tool era narrow mortises like 3/8 were done with mortise chisels and wide mortises like in timber framing were done with framing chisels while the bulk of the waste was bored or coarsely chopped out. If I were asked to make a 1"x1" mortise I would probably make two parallel 3/8 mortises and then chop out the 1/4 strip in the center.

FWIW my first thought upon reading Lowell's post was similar, but with narrower parallel mortises and then a coping saw to rough out the center, leaving some paring work on the ends. If I remember the design of those chairs correctly there's more than enough room to access the mortise with a coping saw or fretsaw.

[lowell holmes]

Just for fun, lay out a 1" square mortise in a scrap of 3/4" wood. Reinforce the limits with a 1" chisel by placing it in the scribe marks.

Then, start chopping the mortise using Paul Sellers technique. You will probably enjoy the exercise. You just nibble away it.

OBTW, I love my Ray Iles pigstickers and I use them every time I have need for them. They are everything they are supposed to be.

[Patrick Chase]

I feel like it is good to be able to use historical precedent, but making chairs is more fulfilling.

What do you think has changed that makes historical precedent invalid or irrelevant in this case?

The wood hasn't, the chisels haven't (Sellars uses classic Marples bevel-edged chisels made of plain old HCS), and human anatomy hasn't. I believe that covers all the bases, so pigstickers are as relevant and useful now as ever.

I think that Sellars' technique is useful, and that's why I linked to his video earlier in this thread. I don't think it reflects any sort of progress though. It's just yet another way of doing things, that has likely been practiced all along.

[Charles Guest]

I like (and follow) Kirby's advice on dovetailing, but he seems to have his head shoved somewhere when it comes to mortising.

The big problem here is that he insists that the chisel must have parallel sides, i.e. sash mortise configuration like the L-Ns (and you can see in the picture that he's using a lightweight sash mortise chisel). He justifies this by arguing that tapered sides will allow the chisel to rotate (true to some degree), and then insists that rotation will make the mortise WIDER than the chisel. 9th-grade geometry tells us that the cut width will be chisel_width*cos(rotation_angle), which can never be greater than chisel_width. Also, for a tapered pigsticker the maximum rotation angle (before it's stopped by the chisel side) is about 1 deg, so the minimum mortise width is 0.9998*chisel_width. Put another way, the worst-case error is 0.02% of the mortise width.

I recall seeing a FWW article that compared his opinions on mortising side-by-side to Klausz'. Klausz advocated side-tapered pigstickers like the Ray Iles ones, and pretty much annihilated Kirby's arguments. I suppose that his techniques makes sense if you limit yourself to toy chisels, though even then I'd probably go with Paul Sellars' technique instead (second half of the video).

EDIT: And then in his description of the "full-depth" method he doubles down on the rotation/width canard. Ugh. It occurs to me that with a registered chisel such as he uses rotation *does* increase the mortise width, so in that sense he's causing the very problem he claims to be avoiding.

I've used both types -- parallel sided and tapered. I honestly couldn't tell that much difference. The difference for me in speed and overall quality came with I started going full depth in the middle and then working back to the ends with each blow going all the way to depth. Releasing a parallel sided chisel seems much less an issue with this method.

[Patrick Chase]

I've used both types -- parallel sided and tapered. I honestly couldn't tell that much difference. The difference for me in speed and overall quality came with I started going full depth in the middle and then working back to the ends with each blow going all the way to depth. Releasing a parallel sided chisel seems much less an issue with this method.

Interesting - I have almost the opposite subjective impression.

I lever waste out using the top of the primary bevel as a fulcrum, so the back<->side edges are the ones doing all the work. I find that in a parallel-sided chisel the top<->side edges just tend to get caught above the fulcrum (i.e. they engage on the lip and upper sidewalls of the mortise) if the chisel is rotated even the slightest bit, and that slows me down. A small amount of bevel therefore helps, because it keeps those top<->side edges disengaged while still being close enough to perpendicular to prevent any serious twisting.

[lowell holmes]

I didn't say it is invalid, but when I have a joint to make, I will use what's available to me. There is only one way to make 1" square mortise in a 1" board that I know. I'm sure if I were clever, I would find another way to make it. The task at hand is to make a difficult visible joint that has to be near perfect. To me, that is sharply defining the limits of the mortise, make it leaving no splintering nor bruising.
The through tenon has to match it perfectly. Remember the 1" tenon has to be as perfect as the mortise, and it is cut on the top end of fatter leg.

Actually, I am following historical practice that is about 20 years old.

Google "Brazos Rocker" and you will come up with pictures of guys with the chairs they built.

[Warren Mickley]

Would not making a V in the center approach to mortising be somewhat inefficient because it either requires to shift the grip or change a stance for every chop?
In this video Follansbee is using similar approach and it seems that he has to shift his stance frequently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1bo6NVYCc0.

Yes it is probably a little faster not to keep changing position like that. You might remember a video David Weaver showed of a Chinese fellow mortising. He doesn't go back and forth like that and neither do I. But I think that if that is the only thing that is inefficient about one's mortising technique it isn't too bad.

[Warren Mickley]

There is only one way to make 1" square mortise in a 1" board that I know.

Actually, I am following historical practice that is about 20 years old.

Only one way that you know? I just wrote you another method in response to your question in #30 of this thread. Did you not bother to read it? For the record I made a 15/16 X 1" mortise with a 5/16 mortise chisel (two mortises and chop out the center) and a 1x1 with a 1" bevel edge chisel in 15/16 thick oak. My method was slightly faster, a bit neater, and less tiring.

Historical practice that is 20 years old? I used your method to make 1" mortises in 1979 when I only had five chisels.

[Steve Voigt]

I like (and follow) Kirby's advice on dovetailing, but he seems to have his head shoved somewhere when it comes to mortising.

The big problem here is that he insists that the chisel must have parallel sides, i.e. sash mortise configuration like the L-Ns (and you can see in the picture that he's using a lightweight sash mortise chisel). He justifies this by arguing that tapered sides will allow the chisel to rotate (true to some degree), and then insists that rotation will make the mortise WIDER than the chisel. 9th-grade geometry tells us that the cut width will be chisel_width*cos(rotation_angle), which can never be greater than chisel_width. Also, for a tapered pigsticker the maximum rotation angle (before it's stopped by the chisel side) is about 1 deg, so the minimum mortise width is 0.9998*chisel_width. Put another way, the worst-case error is 0.02% of the mortise width.

I recall seeing a FWW article that compared his opinions on mortising side-by-side to Klausz'. Klausz advocated side-tapered pigstickers like the Ray Iles ones, and pretty much annihilated Kirby's arguments. I suppose that his techniques makes sense if you limit yourself to toy chisels, though even then I'd probably go with Paul Sellars' technique instead (second half of the video).

EDIT: And then in his description of the "full-depth" method he doubles down on the rotation/width canard. Ugh. It occurs to me that with a registered chisel such as he uses rotation *does* increase the mortise width, so in that sense he's causing the very problem he claims to be avoiding.

Funny, I've read the Kirby article before and I found it to be a perfectly good description of efficient technique, apart from one or two oddball things. A couple notes.

First, I suspect that when he's talking about the importance of square sides (note that he says square to the face, not parallel sides), he's comparing mortise chisels (of any type) to bevel edge chisels. I don't think he's making the "LN sash-style vs. Ray Iles pigsticker argument" that you are. Vintage mortise chisels, whether pigstickers or sash, are all over the map in terms of whether they're truly parallel-sided or slightly trapezoidal in section. I have a number of both style and there's no consistency (and some are tapered the wrong way, which obviously needs fixing before the thing will work at all). Kirby learned to chop mortises decades ago, when an argument over minutely tapered vs. perfectly parallel sides simply couldn't have happened.

Second, it most certainly is possible to enlarge a mortise in a most unfortunate way by twisting the chisel. It is not a question of trigonometry; it's because whatever force (or bad technique) that causes the chisel to twist also knocks it out of plumb, so you are driving or levering at an angle, which will scar the walls and enlarge the top of the mortise. If this has never happened to you, either you are very talented, or you have not cut many mortises! I would have thought it was an issue that one needs to learn to overcome, just like cutting dovetails without gaps.

I think Kirby gets lost in the weeds a bit when talking about the "layered" vs. "full-depth" methods; that stuff isn't very important. But before that, he does a good job of hitting the most important points, namely riding the bevel (excellent description of that), stance behind the mortise, levering technique, etc. The article reads like it was written by someone who's chopped a lot of mortises and is good at it, which is more than one can say for a lot of woodworking articles out there.

The only thing that's weird is when he talks about using two hands to position the chisel. I have to assume that he's writing this as beginner's advice; surely he doesn't do that himself. Actually, that's one of the more difficult things to learn about mortising. Positioning the chisel quickly and accurately on the gauge marks, while holding it by the handle and not like a pencil, is quite difficult to learn but imo it's one of the keys to working efficiently.

[Patrick Chase]

Yes it is probably a little faster not to keep changing position like that. You might remember a video David Weaver showed of a Chinese fellow mortising. He doesn't go back and forth like that and neither do I. But I think that if that is the only thing that is inefficient about one's mortising technique it isn't too bad.

FWIW I cheat a bit and do a couple/few chops per direction before reversing. It's not like there's any rational reason why the bottom of the "V" has to be centered or even stay in the same place.

[Steve Voigt]

I learned to chop 1" square mortises in two Paul Sellers classes. We chopped the mortises with 1" bevel edged chisels. I've built five chairs since then, using bevel edged chisels.
That is the reason I posted my comment. I have mortise chisels and sash chisels as well as numerous sets of bevel edged chisels.

That makes seven chairs. My whole point is that
it is interesting to divine the historical precedent, but that is a different interest than making chairs.

I feel like it is good to be able to use historical precedent, but making chairs is more fulfilling. I had an issue with one of the chairs I made, and there was not room for 1" through tenon,
but there was room for 15/16". I was able to grind one of my chisels to 15/16" and the chair is now rocking two great grandchildren.

I would hate to have to regrind the size of a chisel every time I wanted a different size mortise. I would think one would have to have an awful lot of chisels for that.

I regularly chop square mortises, usually around 13/16ths, with whatever chisel is closest. Mine are turned at 45° to the edge of the stock, which makes it a little easier. But they are highly exposed mortises that need to look good. It's not a problem.

That said, regrinding is not a bad idea if you are chopping lots of mortises at the same size. If I can ever settle on a consistent size, I might have to try that!

[Patrick Chase]

Second, it most certainly is possible to enlarge a mortise in a most unfortunate way by twisting the chisel. It is not a question of trigonometry; it's because whatever force (or bad technique) that causes the chisel to twist also knocks it out of plumb, so you are driving or levering at an angle, which will scar the walls and enlarge the top of the mortise. If this has never happened to you, either you are very talented, or you have not cut many mortises! I would have thought it was an issue that one needs to learn to overcome, just like cutting dovetails without gaps.

Oh, I've certainly had that happen many times, but IMO straight vs tapered sides don't matter there, at least for the range of bevel angles we're discussing in this thread. I was specifically objecting to Kirby's contention that a parallel-sided chisel would mitigate that (IMO it doesn't).

I've also read Kirby's FWW article a couple times, and based on both sources I'm pretty sure that he means NO taper - he specifically rejects tapered-side pigstickers IIRC. I'll go back and reread though.

As I said in another reply, I realized almost immediately after writing the post you replied to that I had been too inflexible.

EDIT: The exact wording from Kirby's FWW article is "[the mortising chisel's] blade is perfectly rectangular in cross section". He clearly means registered.