How Square Do Cabinet Parts Need To Be?

W

woodshopdemos

Honorary Member
Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
759
We have posts and threads quite often on squaring the guide rail, the saw, the Domino...etc. We buy expensive Starrett rules because they are Starrett. But how square do we have to make things?
   I put together a one page info sheet this last week. I would love for any and all of you to comment on it.
http://www.woodshopdemos.com/fes-sq-1.htm
fes-sq15.jpg
 
Good tips there John. It's all about being square with cabinets, otherwise correctly fitting the doors and drawers can be a misery.
 
That little gizmo is on my shopping list from Lee Valley before your post. I do use the Incra square you showed and have been for years. Woodpeckers also sells a 1280 square that is accurate and larger than the Incra.
 
So John, do you find thatr LV gizmo working well? I have the Starrett, Incra and large Enco squares and find them all useful.

Bob
 
Good morning John,
Great tips.  I'll definitely order a tapetip next time I order from LV!

Only suggestion I would have is that the tips don't seem to answer the question in the title "How square do cabinet parts need to be?"  I thought you would provide some standard like 1/64 inch per four foot length or something like that - though I'm not sure that's a good idea.
Maybe a better title could be something like "How to tell if cabinet parts are square?"

BTW, I'm a big fan.  Just finished a dining table using your mezerna finish process over Behlen's Rockhard - looks great and should last a while. ;D
 
Jesse took the words right out of my mouth.  Lots of useful, good ideas in the writeup, but inquiring minds want the answer to the initial question.

 
Jesse Cloud said:
Only suggestion I would have is that the tips don't seem to answer the question in the title "How square do cabinet parts need to be?"  I thought you would provide some standard like 1/64 inch per four foot length or something like that - though I'm not sure that's a good idea.
Click to expand...

Jesse-

I'm not sure there is an answer.  Although "square is square".  I think there may be confusion with fit.  And that is part of the "magic" of woodworking!  Making it look good - and making it "work".

My 2 cents - YMMV!
 
I dunno about the rest of you, but to me "square is square". IMO, there's no compromise, and there's no such thing as good enough. When I set cabinets (which is what I do far more than anything else these days), I want all surfaces to be either perfectly level or perfectly plumb. Well, if your parts are just a little bit out of square, its not possible to get the cabinets both perfectly level and plumb. I either use a corsscut sled on my TS or my MFT. Both are calibrated with the 5 cut method to the extent that my calipers will go.

Just my opinion of course...
 
clintholeman said:
Jesse Cloud said:
Only suggestion I would have is that the tips don't seem to answer the question in the title "How square do cabinet parts need to be?"  I thought you would provide some standard like 1/64 inch per four foot length or something like that - though I'm not sure that's a good idea.
Click to expand...

Jesse-

I'm not sure there is an answer.  Although "square is square".  I think there may be confusion with fit.  And that is part of the "magic" of woodworking!  Making it look good - and making it "work".

My 2 cents - YMMV!
Click to expand...
Clint,
I agree.  Once you get out of square all he** breaks loose, so I always try to make things as square as I can.  Part of what was on my mind was an article I saw in the latest notorious (see the thread on Wood's domino strength test) Wood magazine.  There is an article on "Attainable Accuracy".  For many operations they state a "Good enough" standard.  I nearly browned my shorts when I saw the standard for good enough thickness planing is "Plane stock to within 1/8" of the thickness specified" :o :o :o  I think its irresponsible to give such advice, especially to beginners who may believe it and wonder why their joints don't fit.  I'm glad to see that's not where Mr Lucas was going. ;)
 
Jesse,

I've never read that magazine, but it sounds terrible. Is it common place for them to give lousy advice like that? I'm making a mental note never to spend a dime on that rag.

At least FWW backs up their testing relatively well, and their advice is almost always spot on.
 
To be fair, when my tools were Craftsman, I too thought 1/8" was accurate. ;D

Post Festool, I have a vernier caliper with my woodworking tools and I'm not afraid to use it.
 
Thicknessing to 1/8"?!?  I mean I've thicknessed to  a little proud on ocassion, but and 1/8"  I agree with Lou [again] I don't think I'm all that intereted in that magazine, if that is their design/construction philosophy.  I don't think my clients would be very happy with 1/8" tolerances - and neither would I.

I use my verneer caliper all the time, when I do measure and think even an absolute novice should and needs to do better than 1/8". 

There may be other thoughts and stuff I'm not seeing, but I know with FesTools, those tolerances would be a travesty - not to mention a waste of money!
 
Years ago I designed speaker cabinets for production volumes for a professional audio company and I specified general dimension to +/- 1/16 and critical dimensions +/- 1/32.

Fred
 
I thank you all for such a lively thread. At times like this, I wish we all around a campfire or 1080 and discussing it. I am with many of you when you say that +/- 0 is square. In my early days, I wondered how the 4th corner wouldn't fit together, the other three worked fine. I think we have all been there. In the more recent years I have come to realize that 1/16th off is way off. I use playing cards for a lot of the router table tasks. If I had to pick a deviation that us allowable, it would be the thickness of the playing card (particularly the heart face cards.)
  Ed Bennett gave me my first engineers square and with it his encouragement to align things so that the end product was "dead on."  I think of my tools as part of a system. Every tool is aligned so that every component is "right on."
  When Elena and I were practising with the then new to the shop Domino Joiner, she was surprised and delighted that the side with 11 mortises came down and fit over the 11 tenons so snugly. We were trying to prove to ourselves that we could use the tight mortises all the way down the line and have the pieces slide together. It did and it was a nice feeling.
  So square is light pregnancy, I guess. You can't be a little bit pregnant.
Again, thank each and every one of you for your thoughts.
 
Okay John, what is a "1080"?

My rule of thumb on square is if I can see that it's off I'll do it again.
Some projects warrant getting out the magnifying glasses to double check.
Errors don't "average out", they accumulate, so if you let one go it just gets worse.

One comment to add to your page on squares is to be suspicious (check carefully) of the reference edge on the workpiece (or the fence) when testing squares. For example, when you are testing the orange drafting square it is flipped from one position on the fence to another and struck lines are compared for alignment. If the fence had a curve or piece of debris it would make the test invalid. Some people think I'm a nut for cleaning off the edge of the wood before testing it with the square.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Comparing rules/tape
Replies
2
Views
343
smorgasbord
S
J
Warning: Woodpeckers Semble Clamps can Ruin Woodwork
Replies
5
Views
1K
leakyroof
leakyroof
M
How do you handle repetitive cross cuts on sheet goods?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
11K
ChuckM
C
HowardH
Dash-board system with accessories
Replies
6
Views
3K
peacefulandpatriotically
peacefulandpatriotically
woodbutcherbower
'Carpe Diem' = the 15-hour double bed ....
2
Replies
22
Views
10K
alltracman78
A
Back
Top