Replies

1. 
   BilWil | Aug 11, 2006 03:25am | #1

   So long as the tenon, whether floating or not, is properly sized to fit the mortice and the glue doesn't allow creap I don't think it makes any difference.  I have used both and have found no advantage to one vs the other.  I tend to use the traditional mortice and tenon joint, unless I screw up and make the tenon to loose, then I go to a floating tenon.

1. 
   Troy | Aug 11, 2006 08:41am | #2

   Thanks for your helpTroy

2. 
   Glaucon | Aug 11, 2006 05:21pm | #3

   Agree. I prefer the traditional M&T (more satisfying to make), but the glue joint of a properly sized floating tenon is as strong or stronger than the wood itself. I use floating tenons when I want to strengthen a cope and stick raised panel door for example. I can cut the mortises, then rout the cope and stick- this is helpful for larger, heavier panel doors where an M&T is desirable.Glaucon

   If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...

2. 
   hammer1 | Aug 12, 2006 04:49am | #4

   Floating tenons in end grain are challenging and hard on bits. Wood is going to shrink and swell. With a loose tenon you have twice the chance for failure. You are also adding a third piece of wood to the equation. I don't think you can get a perfect, all around, glue joint unless you use a gap filling glue, even then, wood movement may break perpendicular grain attachments. Considering all the extra work of cutting two mortises and then a separate tenon, as well as the critical fit and gluing, I'd stay with the traditional M&T in an application like an entrance door. It will be easier to cut and fit with ordinary shop tools.

   Beat it to fit / Paint it to match

1. 
   Troy | Aug 12, 2006 05:46am | #5

   Thanks Troy

1. 
   dherzig | Aug 12, 2006 10:12pm | #9

   I've been using the Beadlock system of loose tenons for a while now. They are extremely easy to use. They come in 1/2" and 3/8" diameters and the mortises are made with a drill and a provided simple jig. Alignment is a cinch and the tenons fit very tightly. In fact if they are allowed to swell slightly when the air is a little humid they are almost impossible to insert. You can buy the tenons in strips or buy a router bit that cuts them. The other part that I like is that I can cut the parts of the project exactly with square shoulders and do not have to worry about adjusting for the tenon.

1. 
   Troy | Aug 12, 2006 10:26pm | #10

   Thanks I appriciate the input.Troy

2. 
   RickL | Aug 28, 2006 03:23pm | #11

   I've been using loose tenons and horizontal slot mortisers for over 25 years. The fit of a loose tenon is far better from a slot mortiser then any other method. You are using the same process for making a mortise in rails and stiles so they are exactly the same fit. A loose tenon in long grain is certainly no weaker than an integral tenon. Remembet the rule of a good glue joint  will break on the wood not the glue joint if it is done properly. Plus on the stile mortise the horizonal mortiser gives a much better finish for gluing than the rough surface of any chisel mortise. Cetainly no gap filling issues on a slot mortiser. More likely on a chisel type mortise without a doubt. I've used chisel, chain and maka mortisers for over 35 years in factories and custom shops so I've tried them all. Slot mortisers and loose tenons are so much faster and much more accurate. It's actually less work to make 8 mortises with a slot mortiser than to make mortises and intergal tenons on a saw, router table or shaper.For a small job I don't see any difference in using a router and jig to do both. Edited 8/28/2006 12:18 pm ET by RickL

   Edited 9/4/2006 9:30 pm ET by RickL

1. 
   Mike&L | Aug 28, 2006 04:32pm | #12

   According to all that I've read, the twin keys to tennon strength is fit, allowing wood glue to achieve its chemical and mechanical bond THROUGH the wood to wood interface.  As most wood glues have only nominal to no gap-filling strength, fit is the key word here.

   David Marks muddies up the glue vs. fit issue slightly by his use of two part phenolic resin glue - used for it's looooong set up time - very forgiving in that regard.  I THINK that it has slightly better gap filling properties, and so may be more forgiving in the fit category as well.

   Finally, the advantage of using loose tennon in cope and stick joinery is that, with the loose tennon AND A TIGHTLY FITTING MORTISE/tennon ON BOTH SIDES, you can double or triple your effective glue surface over that of the stub tennon of the cope and stick....

   UNLESS you use the new fueud three part bit set for door sets that allows you to remove the center piece and extend your stub tennon (and your mortise) all the way to china if you wish.

   Ah, if my hands were only as wise as my head.

1. 
   Burl | Aug 30, 2006 11:58pm | #23

   Several years ago FWW published the results of a test done on both integral and floating tenons. If I remember correctly the joint was tested by applying pressure into the angle of the joint rather then leavering either end of the joint. The floating tenon failed at a lower pressure than the integral tenon , however not by a significant difference. If the integral tenon failed at 2700 pounds the floating failed at 2600 or 2650. I suspect if both joints are constructed to the same standards they will function similarly. After rereading this I am not sure how long ago the article appeared but if I remember correctly the photographs were in black and white so that was more than several years ago.

1. 
   RickL | Aug 31, 2006 02:53pm | #24

   It was more than several years ago. I have the article and don't recall the numbers but the loose tenon was not signifigantly different from the integral tenon. I and many other shops near me have been using loose tenons for many years with no problems and would not even consider going to integral tenons unless doing some kind of historical accurate reproduction.

3. 
   GDH2 | Aug 12, 2006 05:53am | #6

   Whee...here I go diving into something that I only know from seeing and reading - I've only actually done integral tenons. But I want to chime in because I care about the answer.

   I'm a big fan of David Marks (Woodworks TV show). He uses both type tenons but does more loose tenons. He usually uses a cool horizontal router. He states that they have proven to be stronger than traditional tenons.

   I thought I'd read the same in FW but I don't remember enough details to say for sure.

   I was pleased because I would like to avoid squaring up the mortises.

1. 
   KeithNewton | Aug 12, 2006 08:18pm | #8

   I think I would need to see proof of the claim that the loose is stronger. It is hard for me to see how you could possibly make that claim. I just don't think that most people are going to get that good a cut on the inside of the end-grain mortise that they are ALWAYS going to have a good glue-line along the sides of the loose tenon, and they will almost never have as good a glue-line along the bottom where it is end-grain to end-grain that will be equal to the unbroken grain of the normal tenon.That being said, If you end up with a poor glue-line on the sides, and if the loose tenon doesn't bottom out, then you won't have anything there, so the tenon becomes a lever that can split the rail down its length if it is torqued sideways. Of all of the structural properties of wood, splitting down the grain is normally the weakest.

2. 
   user-76274 | Sep 04, 2006 02:05am | #26

   FWW did feature an article in the March/April 2001 issue where multiple joints including the traditional mortise and tenon, the round-edged floating tenon, and the straight-edged floating tenon were tested.  The traditional mortise and tenon triumphed by only a small margin.

   I think the take home message is that if you have a system that you prefer for producing any version of the mortise and tenon (be it traditional, round, or square), go with it.  There is very little difference in the finished strength of the joint.

   I am a Woodrat owner so I much prefer the round-edged floating tenon.

   Please see the original article by Bruce Gray on page 74 for the whole story.

   Jon

4. 
   sapwood | Aug 12, 2006 09:17am | #7

   Both are very viable joinery methods. I don't think one can truly say that one will be stronger than the other, there are simply too many variables. I believe you should choose the joint you feel most competent with for this particular application.

5. 
   Pondfish | Aug 28, 2006 06:15pm | #13

   I'm a fan of floating tenons because the cutting the matching mortises is easy to do with a simple router jig, and the joint is very strong.  Plus, if you end up "test fitting" the door too many times, you'll wear down an integral tenon.  No problem to substitute a new floating tenon...

   I would not hesitate to use them for an entry door.

   Recommending the use of "Hide Signatures" option under "My Preferences" since 2005
6. 
   tms | Aug 28, 2006 06:48pm | #14

   Hey Troy,

   I'm fortunate enough to have an indexable horizontal mortising table. So for me, floating tennons are the easy way to go. I have made a couple of entry sized doors using them and the fits have been very good and clean.

   The big advantage of using floating tennons is that if you use a jig, or a mortising table, to cut the mortises, your layout is greatly simplified

   Tom

1. 
   Troy | Aug 28, 2006 08:23pm | #15

   Thanks for your reply, I don't have a slot mortiser but I think I will go with the floatiing tenons and cut them with a plunge router. I decided to do a "prototype" door project first out of poplar so I can get all of the details down first before I try a more expensive wood such as Walnut.ThanksTroy

1. 
   Mike&L | Aug 29, 2006 05:11pm | #16

   For me, the key to successful floating tenons has been the careful construction of a pair of accurate jigs.  Not complicated, but flush across the top, with the top square to the sides.  Someone else on this forum suggested the Tage Frid jig (I have probably mispelled his name), complete with drawings.  That works great for the side mortises in the stiles, but you'll have to build a second one with an open bottom for the mortises in the end grain of the rails.

   Once I quit trying to wing it and built the jigs everything suddenly worked like the articles.

   Mike

   P.S., see Adding tenions to cope and stick on this forum for the link to the drawings.

   Mike

   Edited 8/29/2006 10:15 am ET by Mike

1. 
   Troy | Aug 29, 2006 06:19pm | #17

   Thanks, seems that the jigs are key.Troy

7. 
   user-192253 | Aug 29, 2006 09:07pm | #18

   Troy,
   I have made a horizontal router table which is sort of a poor man's slot mortiser. I have pics if you are interested.

1. 
   Troy | Aug 29, 2006 09:23pm | #19

   That would be great. Thanks

1. 
   user-192253 | Aug 29, 2006 09:34pm | #20

   Troy,I'll send you the pics and some information this evening from home. I'm now at the office and don't have the pics here.

2. 
   user-192253 | Aug 30, 2006 09:02am | #21

   Hello Troy,

   Attached are two pics of the horizontal router table. I used 1/2" Baltic Birch plywood doubled up to give a thickness of a little over 1". The router mounting plate is aluminum and comes with three different sized inserts. It is from Bench Dog. I used black formica for the table and back and sprayed silver Hammertone over the rest. As you can see, the table size is fairly small (18" x 13") but the size could be expanded as needed or auxiliary infeed and outfeed tables could be used. The plans are in a book titled Woodworking with the Router, authored by Bill Hylton and Fred Matlack.

   If you have questions or would like more pics,just let me know.

   Regards, Guy 

1. 
   Mike&L | Aug 30, 2006 01:06pm | #22

   Nice!

2. 
   Troy | Aug 31, 2006 08:31pm | #25

   Many thanks for the pictures and the good advise.Troy

8. 
   RickL | Sep 08, 2006 10:16pm | #27

   No one mentioned this but the Architectural Woodowork Institute considers  loose tenons, dowels, haunched tenon and itegral tenon all acceptable on entry doors at economy, custom  and premium levels of millwork. It's clearly defined in the handbook of standards.