Amana Finger Joint Shaper Cutters: 999 vs. SC300

[John Poole]

I have walnut billets that are approximately 2 1/4" square by 12". I'd like to be able to join them into longer pieces and I'm considering the Amana Finger Joint Shaper cutters.

http://www.amanatool.com/shaper/999.html

tells us that these two models have fingers with the following widths:

999 22/64" (or 11/32)
SC300 13/64"

Both have finger depths of 3/8" and a cutting head height of 1 1/2".

I'm unable to determine if for the number of fingers for the SC300 over the 1 1/2" height is more than the 999; I believe it to be so, but there is no downloadable profile for either head to make that determination.

More importantly, I'd like to hear from anyone who has experience with either or both of these cutter heads.

Aside - for another project, I tried to make box finger joints using dovetail template system and straight bit and the walnut simply ate up the bit. I then tried the table saw approach using a finger joint jig and found making 1/4" cuts in 1/2" walnut to be very risky business. So, I'm concerned about how well making finger joints on a shaper (3 HP - Robland) will work and look forward to someone's comments who has experience doing so with hard woods. Maybe I'm pushing the limit?

[Peter Quinn]

There seems to be a misprint on the Amana web page. I believe both cutters have the same geometry, the only difference is the bore size, one being 3/4" and the other being 1 1/4". Check this link http://www.toolstoday.com/p-5470-fin...er-cutter.aspx for accurate specs. If you look at the upper left side of your original link there is a box that says " For actual wood sized sample click here". Click there. You will get a new page with a printable PDF 100% size of what the wood will look like. It's a handy reference. I havent used either but obviously you will need a good coping jig or sliding table to do this.

[Mike Schuch]

Aside - for another project, I tried to make box finger joints using dovetail template system and straight bit and the walnut simply ate up the bit. I then tried the table saw approach using a finger joint jig and found making 1/4" cuts in 1/2" walnut to be very risky business. So, I'm concerned about how well making finger joints on a shaper (3 HP - Robland) will work and look forward to someone's comments who has experience doing so with hard woods. Maybe I'm pushing the limit?

I don't understand? Walnut is very soft amongst hard woods. I do not understand why it would eat up a straight bit. Was the bit dull to start with or was it high speed steel instead of carbide? I also don't understand why making making finger joints on 1/2" walnut on a table saw with a finger joint jig is risky? The finger joint jig I made has plenty of vertical support and I clamp the work piece to the jig with a vice grip like C clamp for speed. My fingers are no where near the blade and the work piece has no where to go because it is clamped.

I make 45 degree lock miters on Ipe' all the time on my ancient Walker Turner 3hp shaper without any problems. Ipe' is many times the hardness of walnut and walnut cuts like butter in comparison. Is your tooling very dull? Is your shaper not aligned properly? If your shaper spindle isn't perfectly perpendicular to the shaper table you aren't going to get good results and you will be fighting the shaper instead of letting it do the work.

Something doesn't sound right if you are having problems machining walnut?

[John Poole]

I have walnut billets that are approximately 2 1/4" square by 12". I'd like to be able to join them into longer pieces and I'm considering the Amana Finger Joint Shaper cutters.

http://www.amanatool.com/shaper/999.html

tells us that these two models have fingers with the following widths:

999 22/64" (or 11/32)
SC300 13/64"
<snip>

I spoke with Frank (no last name provided) at Amana, he's the technical support person and he confirmed that the 999 and SC300 have the same profile. He provided me the details, but I lost them when my session crashed and the phone notes were not saved. The difference between the two is simply the core size for the spindle.