work bench question

[bill walton]

I'm going to start a new bench this week and every plan or ready-made bench seems to have the stretchers attached to the legs with some sort of bolt arrangement rather than glued M&T. Other than being able to take the bench apart, is there a reason I have overlooked for building one this way. My last was built 4 or 5 years ago with glued M&T and would still be in use were it not for hurricane Wilma.

TIA
Bill

[Steve Clardy]

The bolt, nut system is quicker than cutting mortises and tenons.
Just depends on your preferences, time, etc.
I don't really prefer one over the other.
I have a working shop, and really don't have the time to tie up in fancy, or better, best wood joints for a work bench.

[lou sansone]

Well, it is always nice to show off your joinery skill even when it comes to the mundane bench leg. I say go for it
Lou

[Bart Leetch]

I have both M&T with bolts run through.

[Alan Turner]

I don't use front to back stretchers, but rather a sled foot (double wedged tenon) and for the top a bridle joint. For the side stretchers, I use a very shallow M&T, with a 6" x 1/2" bolt and captured nut. My reasoning is that it can be tightened, and can be removed if one wants to move the bench, not that I ever have. It is a quicker M&T than a fulll, through M&T with wedges, and is as strong, I think.

[Steve Cox]

Mine is regular M & T (not through) and has been moved once from shop to shop and plenty of times around the shop. It's still as solid as the day I made it. If I was to do it again I'd do it the same way.

[Ken Pywell]

I used bolts for mine because I new I was going to be moving and breaking it down seemed like a good idea. Of course, when the time came to move, did I actually break it all down? Of course not! If you were happy with the m & t, and it worked for you, no reason to change. I would think either one would suffice.
Ken