# box joints



## bigbearomaha (Nov 16, 2010)

I would bee interested in hearing (seeing) some opinions on the total, overall value of finger joints as opposed to rabbett joints , butt joints, etc...


when I say value, I am looking for strength and stability of joint taken into consideration of work or effort that goes into cutting said joint.


----------



## TomC (Oct 27, 2008)

I would say box joint is stronger due to the increased area of the glue joint. Also, I think it looks better.
Tom


----------



## JMC'sLT30 (Oct 26, 2010)

Please excuse my ignorance but exactly what is a box joint?:huh:


----------



## bigbearomaha (Nov 16, 2010)

a joint on a box.

I know what he refers to as a finger joint. but I know a lot of people who simply call it a box joint.

personally, I don't share the idea that a finger joint looks better, but that's just a matter of individual perspective.

in terms of glue area available, I think a rabbett joint offers the same if not more surface area.and I can nail into the wood on each side just as many times as well.


----------



## ash123 (Mar 14, 2010)

In my world, a box joint is very strong, well worth the time. It's a pretty joint to me. I've always liked mixing face and end grain as a visual element. A dovetail is my favorite utility joint. I started doing them by router and template jig and eventually getting a 15 spindle Dodds. Now I'm back to doing them by router and jig.

From a safety standpoint, I like dovetail joints better than box joints in my shop.


----------



## mdntrdr (Dec 22, 2009)

A box joint is many many times stronger than a rabbit joint. :yes:


----------



## del schisler (Nov 5, 2009)

*dovetale and pin*

In my opion the dovetale on the face of a project and the pin on the side of a box can't be beat. I do jewelry box's i have made probly 500 or so and use the dovetale and pin all the time. I use the gifkin's dovetale machine and i can do the complete box with dovetales and pin's quicker than the box joint. I have the box joint i made and i don't use it like i said the other is best for me . Here is a link on my box's thanks for looking and reading their are 3 page's most are sold

http://www.craftforum.com/members/del-schisler-2953/albums/more-jewelry-box-s/


----------



## bigbearomaha (Nov 16, 2010)

but why is it stronger?

I can say that in a finger joint, the fingers themselves add support, thus creating a stronger joint.

but, it's not always just about making a stronger joint. what about the relativity to the effort of making the joint vs the overall value of the joint?

say on a hive box, is a rabbett joint strong enough and easier enough to use that makes it a more valuable joint to use than a finger joint?


----------



## mdntrdr (Dec 22, 2009)

bigbearomaha said:


> but why is it stronger?
> 
> I can say that in a finger joint, the fingers themselves add support, thus creating a stronger joint.
> 
> ...


 
A B/J has much more glue surface, plus it is a mechanical joint.

You didn't specify joint for a hive box, if I were doing that I would probably just butt, glue, and nail.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Nov 16, 2010)

no, the reason I didn't specify a joint is because we are looking for comparisons.

see, that's something else. The end purpose and need of the box.

A bee hive box takes an incredible beating over time. weather exposure, being stacked, dropped from a height,. many times hive boxes full of honey can weigh a good 90 pounds.

drop that from chest height and you see why it needs to be strong.

compare that to say, a toy box or a mailbox or something.

lots of things need to be taken into consideration when deciding what joint to use.


----------



## mdntrdr (Dec 22, 2009)

bigbearomaha said:


> A bee hive box takes an incredible beating over time. weather exposure, being stacked, dropped from a height,. many times hive boxes full of honey can weigh a good 90 pounds.
> 
> drop that from chest height and you see why it needs to be strong.
> 
> .


Then I would go with the box joint....it is much stronger than rabbit. :yes:


----------



## bigbearomaha (Nov 16, 2010)

but
is the strength alone enough to justify it?

is the work of cutting a finger joint Which is a more complex joint to cut that much improved over a rabbett joint which is much easier and efficient to cut?


----------



## mdntrdr (Dec 22, 2009)

bigbearomaha said:


> but
> is the strength alone enough to justify it?
> 
> is the work of cutting a finger joint Which is a more complex joint to cut that much improved over a rabbett joint which is much easier and efficient to cut?


 
If they are gonna be throwing theese things out of moving cars, then yes, I would say it's well worth it.

Box joints are very simple to cut on table saw or router table.

JMHO :yes:


----------



## bigbearomaha (Nov 16, 2010)

easy enough if you have a jig. and time.

it makes it more efficient with finger joints if you are going to make a whole lot at once
but to go through the setup for just a few, I'm not so sure.


----------



## TomC (Oct 27, 2008)

bigbearomaha said:


> but
> is the strength alone enough to justify it?
> 
> is the work of cutting a finger joint Which is a more complex joint to cut that much improved over a rabbett joint which is much easier and efficient to cut?


I believe the concenses is the box joint is the strongest of the ones you listed. I believe its up to you to decide if you want to go to the extra work for a box joint or use a rabbett joint. Just my 2 cents.
Tom


----------



## bigbearomaha (Nov 16, 2010)

tom, this is what I am trying to get at.

yes, the unqualified concesus is the box joint (which is really the finger joint) is strongest, but is it necessarily the most efficient or "best" joint to use. so far most of the finger joint supporters all can say just "box joint is strongest". which only covers half of what the first post asked for in terms of details.

How many times do we do things, build things, based on "simple thinking" such as "well, this is the strongest" or "this is the easiest" without looking for what may be the all around best for the project?

I was hoping for more detailed discussion. what you're telling me is that because something is popular automatically makes it better.

I have seen a lot of popular things done that were not the best things at the end of the day.


----------



## woodnthings (Jan 24, 2009)

*Best?*

Based on all the advice and discussion so far, in your case, the box joint would be the "best" for your application, dropping, rough handling, etc. Having said that, it is time consuming and labor intensive to make, so that may not be "best" for you if you are looking for a quick and easy way to make your bee boxes.
Structurally speaking the problem with rectangular or square boxes is that loads or pressure applied at the corners tends to "rack" the joints out of square. The bottom if rabbbeted in tends to resist those stresses. The box joint is most effective at resisting those types of corner stress due to the increased glue surfaces and the wood itself interlocking.
There's the dilemma. 
You can either short cut the labor and make rabbet joints, a locked rabbet like this: http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/_joineryterms.htm#lockingrabbet
a locked miter joint or butt joints with external or internal corner braces, if that works for bee hives, I don't know or use a Kehoe jig: http://www.dovetailspline.com/catalog.html tapered spline, for the increased strength required at the corners. 
In other words, just make 'em and use 'em and fix 'em when they break and use what ever method is easiest? best? 

:wallbash::bangin::whistling2::clap: bill


----------



## burkhome (Sep 5, 2010)

I think what your asking can really only be answered by a bee keeper. Is the rabbetted box likely to have to be repaired every time it is cleaned out? How often is the box emptied? How many are being delt with at a time? Not being a bee keeper, I don't have the answer to these questions. 
Sitting on the outside, looking in, I would say that rabbett joints probably would suffice since they would probably last years and when they do break, are easily repaired.
I do woodworking because I enjoy it. I would do the box joint but not because it is the most cost effective answer for the bee keeper.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Nov 16, 2010)

lol.

The bee hive box is only an example. We're getting too focused on one thing.

the discussion is efficiency and what goes into choosing the best joint for a given project.

the decision making process.

We talk about "why" a finger joint is stronger, but there are other "common" joinings that are used just as frequently. what is the deciding factor. do people just pick the one they know or hear about and go with it or do they put the specific details of the project into consideration relating effort to needed results.

You brought up a couple other types of joinings like a locking rabbett, which on bee hive boxes, I have used and seen used also.

going back to the one example I have of the hive box, considerations I have are the box being dropped with weight in it. holding together over multiple seasons that affect swelling, warpage, etc... because the box sits outside all the time for the most part.

The boxes get stacked on one another, sometimes as high as 7 boxes. Which means there is a potential for the bottom boxes to have as much as 540 pounds of weight in the other boxes sitting on them, putting pressure constantly.

so, in the hive box example, they are having to hold up to weighted drops, varying weather and supporting a lot of weight, a finger joint seems to make the most sense.

If I am making a jig and building a lot of boxes, the labor effort of making box joints goes down and it is an efficient solution.

At the same time, using butt joints with dowel pins to fasten them is also very strong and effective as well. However, time consuming to drill all the holes and cut the individual pegs.

Looks nice if you are just making a few boxes for special display or just that you only will have a couple hives.

my point is, and I guess I didn't communicate this well from the start, what is the decision making process most folks use to determine the joint they use on a given project.

is it a planned out process based on needs of the box or simply they like that one type of joint or only know how to make that one type of joint so always go with that?


----------



## Gene Howe (Feb 28, 2009)

If it's strictly utilitarian, rabbit, glue and maybe nails/screws. 
If it needs to be really strong, finger joints with a finger joint shaper bit.
Less strong, box joints. If I'm feeling masochistic, lock miters.:no:
From there, butt joints and nails/screws. I absolutely hate making dowel joints! have no quarrel with them, I just do not like making them.
Finally, mitered joints reinforced in a myriad of ways.

For boxes which do not need exceptionally strong joints, my preferences are (in no special order) miter and cross spline, dovetail, box joints or, simple, unreinforced miter joints.

My decision to use one or the other (and expend the time necessary) is totally dependent on the boxes' intended use and/or *MY* esthetically based opinions.:laughing:


----------



## JMC'sLT30 (Oct 26, 2010)

Hmmmmm:confused1:! From what I have read so far through this thread is that by far structurally the box/finger joint is the "BEST FOR THE JOB AT HAND". That being said my thouhgt would be "Why is there never enough time to do the job right, but always enough time to do it over?" It appears that cost should not be the issue because if you make the initial investment of doing it the more durable way right off the bat, when the box starts to fall apart so to speak, just set up your jig and make another or two instead of repairing.


----------



## mdntrdr (Dec 22, 2009)

bigbearomaha said:


> but
> is the strength alone enough to justify it?
> 
> is the work of cutting a finger joint Which is a more complex joint to cut that much improved over a rabbett joint which is much easier and efficient to cut?


 
You could always provide a roll of duct tape with each finished piece....

That would be easy! :yes:


----------



## burkhome (Sep 5, 2010)

Duct tape would fly...IF...you classed it up a little and used colored tape.


----------



## woodnthings (Jan 24, 2009)

*Duct tape, the handyman's secret weapon...*

From the Red Green show, I laughed my a** off watching that show many times. The Norm Abrams of DIY goof ups. :thumbsup: bill
BTW this thread has gone full circle a few times. JMO :blink:


----------



## bigbearomaha (Nov 16, 2010)

> this thread has gone full circle a few times. JMO


If you say so.


----------



## BWSmith (Aug 24, 2010)

Back in the good-ole-days,when any reasonable looking and acting person could walk into a hdwre store and buy Dynamite,it came in bxs with.................fingerjointed crnrs.

Fst fwd a few years,well alot of years,metrology equip still gets pckgd in wooden bxs with...........fingerjointed crnrs.

They have their place,its up to you to figure out whether its warrented or not.I like the look of DT's better,if its a beauty contest...but if theres any "science" about it,FJ's might be on the menu.BW


----------



## Tony B (Jul 30, 2008)

*Rule of thumb*

The best joint is the easiset joint to make that will be sufficient for the usage. 
Having said that, I only make box joints for decorative purposes. They are labor intensive because sometimes you get some 'break-out' on the edges and this has to be repaired. There is also a good amount of sanding. If you have a table sander - no problem. On the other hand, for something utilitarian like a bee hive box, it would not be so lablor intensive because most of the 'cleaning-up' and sanding of the joint would not be necessary and given the above info as to weight and handling, I think it would be the best joint and worth the effort. They dont take long to make. Many years ago, i have made them for bee keepers when I lived in Ar. 
I like the looks of a box joint as it is more modern looking than a dovetail.


----------



## cowboy dan (Apr 11, 2010)

del schisler said:


> In my opion the dovetale on the face of a project and the pin on the side of a box can't be beat. I do jewelry box's i have made probly 500 or so and use the dovetale and pin all the time. I use the gifkin's dovetale machine and i can do the complete box with dovetales and pin's quicker than the box joint. I have the box joint i made and i don't use it like i said the other is best for me . Here is a link on my box's thanks for looking and reading their are 3 page's most are sold
> 
> i believe that the original box joint is dovetail. the box joint is the simple version. yes it is strong, but as you say dovetails are the best. i have an old 50s' desk in my shop. the drawers are dovetail joints. the bottom drawer held the internals of my 68' BBB (150lbs) for 5 years. the drawer warped and bent totally out of shape... but she held together! that's the strength of a dovetail. i have seen box joint drawers come apart simply by shutting them too hard.


----------

