Biting Off More Than I Need To?

[Adam Stevens2]

I readily admit that furniture design is not my forte. I am attempting to build a small table that's really my first attempt at anything remotely complicated.

My question is, am I basically trying to do too much with some of the joinery? The images show a side panel with six small mortises cut out to house the tenons marked out in a drawer rail (the table is supposed to have a small storage drawer). You can probably tell that the mortises aren't laid out as evenly as I thought they were, hopefully that won't hurt too much.

Is there a more sensible approach I could take here, or this workable? I am enjoying the practise, I suppose! But it should have some useful purpose as well.

Appreciate your thoughts/advice/criticism.



293015 293014

[Brian Holcombe]

Can you post up a sketch of what you're trying to accomplish in the finished form?

[Adam Stevens2]

Somewhat exploded view (no drawer).


293073

[Mark Kornell]

That's unnecessary joinery. The drawer rail does not need a M/T joint to connect with the side panel. The joint is long grain to long grain, you can simply glue the two pieces together to create the "L" shape. The only thing a M/T joint will do in that case will be to accurately register the two pieces. And even that's not truly necessary if you are careful with your glue-up. If you want that accurate registration, you really only need 1 small M/T. (A spline would work, too. Or even a dowel.)

You will need some kind of joinery where the drawer rail joins to the front rail, as that is end grain to long grain. You've got a double tenon, and that's fine.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Adam

As Mark notes, the joinery chosen could be improved.

The sides and back require stub mortice and tenons, while the front works with a sliding dovetail and a blind dovetail.

I recently uploaded a pictorial of this to my website, here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ShakerStyleBedsideTable2.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ShakerStyleBedsideTable2_html_4c69cc4.jpg

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ShakerStyleBedsideTable2_html_5b957fb4.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Adam Stevens2]

Yeah I had a feeling I was going overboard. I might keep what I've done to the side as practice pieces.

Enjoy your work, Derek. I've been thinking about that router plane you put together as one of my next projects.

[Brian Holcombe]

Joinery for the front rail under the drawers is one of the most critical parts of a design like this. I did a desk in this fashion with a simple mortise and tenon but wish I had actually done a blind wedge tenon. Blind wedge tenons create a dovetail inside the joint which is very difficult to loosen and does not rely upon glue in any meaningful fashion.

[Adam Stevens2]

Was there anything specifically wrong with the mortise and tenon for the front rail? That is what I am planning to use for the moment.

[Jim Matthews]

It could be assembled that way, but the dovetail joinery is proven to be mechanically sound.

The problem with multiple mortise and tenon joints is getting all of them to align on the square.
It can be done, but it's a complication.

I would suggest half-laps, where the rail will be hidden if you don't want to make a dovetail joint.

[Brian Holcombe]

Was there anything specifically wrong with the mortise and tenon for the front rail? That is what I am planning to use for the moment.

Nope, it's held up quite well. However I've been moving toward mechanical joinery for the most critical joints in any given project. That stretcher is under a lot of tension anytime weight is put on the table.