Exactly. You used glue for the dowels and M&T joints but not the pocket holes, no fair. I usually use glue AND pocket holes for my joints. I don't think this will make the pocket holes win this contest, but I bet it closes the gap between them some.
Very interesting Matthias. I'm a structural engineer in a high seismic region (New Zealand) and this demonstrates very nicely the difference between a ductile failure and a brittle failure. The pocket hole joint deflects a long way and the strength slowly rolls off after failure, whereas the mortise and tenon joints reach a higher maximum strength, but that strength drops to almost zero upon failure. For a building in a seismic zone the performance of the pocket hole connection would be preferable as a lot of energy would be dissipated when subjected to cyclic loading. Plywood lined shear walls in houses are usually specified with nail fasteners, rather than screws, because although they are weaker they fail in a predictable manner, preventing collapse even in very large earthquakes. Obviously this type of performance is not desirable for non-structural applications, where stiffer and stronger is always better. It would be interesting to see the relative strength of the same joints in the other direction (about their weak axis). I suspect the difference would be even more pronounced.
Very good comment. I am a professional engineer that specializes in pressure vessel design. We also prefer ductile failures because in an industrial setting you can literally "see" the failure before it kills someone.
An interesting reply though I would point out that Japan, itself a seismic region, is home to a number of 1000 year old temples. Mortised and tenoned, no glues, no screws. That right there is some quality joinery.
This ductility is undesired in, say, a table, as the table endures various use/forces throughout it's lifespan, the pocket-hole joints become loose, the tenons (or dowels) stay tight. ;-) (but, yeah, I do use PH on occasion...and i feel dirty every time I do)
Is anyone surprised that you can build a stronger joint, especially in soft wood, than a pocket hole? In the mean time, what about all the other criteria for selecting the proper joint beyond raw strength? Suppose you need something that can be taken apart. Screws start to look pretty good then. Available tooling? Application: what if the design imposes zero lateral force on the joint? Who cares if it's weak in that direction then? I wish people would stop arguing the merits of such things universally. The reason all these joints exist is because there are applications where they're a fine choice. Heck, how much of your house is toe-nailed together? Anyone consider that a fine woodworking joint? Well it works where it's used...
What surprised me was that Matthias would show open contempt for a wad of his fans. Pocket hole joints are popular with many DIYers. We aren't all born to families with lots of tools and access to learning how to do practical things.
Joan Perez I don't believe that's the intent. Matthias Wandel has never been anything but helpful to his audience, and by all accounts he's a stand up guy. This is kind of a long running gag between him and Steve R over at Woodworking for Mere Mortals. My beef isn't with him but with the commenters who seem to run either totally pro-pocket hole or totally anti-poket hole. I think we have enough religions in the world, and that there's no point in turning woodworking joinery into the next one!
yup...judging from nearly all his videos he loves mortise & tenon joints,oh well no 2 cooks can ever be the same likewise for carpenters,the reviews were great & yes the tenon are stronger,just like you said pocket holes projects i have had no problems at all with them after my builds & it's not like they would be under any type of ridiculous strain anyway with whatever must be placed on it.
M&T joint builds are a nightmare. Unless you’ve got specialised equipment and procedures. Same for doweling. Accuracy is a nightmare. Gluing time sucks. With pocket holes I’m “joining and rocking on”! As in continuing to work on the project and not waiting for the glue to set. Whether I use glue or not with the pocket hole joins.
Yeah, Matthias has his fancy-pants pantorouter that he invented, making M&T EZ-mode. If I had a pantorouter, I would probably make everything out of M&T too lol.
Additionally, the strength of pocket joinery can be improved by proper sizing of screws. We don't know if this test is the strongest the pocket joint without binding agent.
Well he does go on to test glued pocket hole joints in a Later video and the glue fails ling before the pocket hole does. Also there are plenty of good joints that don't need glue and are way stronger than a pocket hole even if he didn't test them.
This test has its merits. Matthias isn't saying one joint is better is absolutely better, he's just showing the various strengths of different joints. Each has its merits and can be useful in different applications. I like this tests, as they show many of the forces that can be applied to wood and its reaction. Keep up the good work.
KREG joinery has its place. I've used that type of joint extensively. I do not artificially introduce specific force on joints like he does. Weight is distributed not focused like that. It is personal preference with him. Purists prefer old world joinery which is stronger and traditional. Pocket holes are not traditional or pure. They are new school and have their place. I wouldn't use them in furniture. But I would for cabinetry with limited use. His tests let you see what you already know. Pocket hole joints should not be compared with traditional joinery. But they are compared here and the evaluation has merit. Just take it for what is. A test. That's all.
Testing a pocket joint sideways is like asking a fish to climb a tree. Sure, it under-performs, but that's not it's design. Pocket holes are used for compressive loads on the joint (table/stool legs), or in a structure where multiple joints spread the load (Like a drawer or box). Above all, you use them when the face of the material is to be left whole! Your other two joints involved boring through the second piece of wood. If you could have done that, you should have screwed through it into the end grain (and glued). Pocket joints are a compromise when you have constraints to work around.
It's fine because he used the same jig for all joint types. In Finite Element Analysis (FEA) we often do something similar for simplicity purposes; for instance, if a table is symmetrical in two planes (i.e. X and Y planes) you can test just one leg / one half of each cross bar with the "symmetry" constraint applied. Also, a tension load applied from the bottom is the same as a compressive load applied from the top (i.e. he's just testing the joint upside down, but the forces are the same). When any beam bends the side opposite the center point of the bend will be in tension while the side closest the bend will be in compression. Same principle applies here. May not be exactly analogous to the loading seen in practice, but it's at least close enough to make reasonable comparisons of the various joinery methods (taking the glue into consideration of course).
yet unfortunately, pocket holes do infact get utilized in shear, torsion and tensile load applications. if they are joined solely for compressive loads, then it should be specified as such on the product.
Anyway he was just trying to compare the joinery methods using a simple test. Because he used the same criteria and test fixture for all the joints it's a good comparison. Sure it's not a be-all end-all evaluation, but it's not meant to be. Take it for what it's worth.
Took me a minute to remember this post. Here's my beef: These tests pit different solutions head-to-head, when they are solutions to DIFFERENT PROBLEMS. So at the end, you get "Well that means X joint is superior!" - when in fact it was "for the arbitrary use case I picked, X joint worked best out of the techniques I arbitrarily chose to attempt." Case in point, he could have slapped a 90-degree steel plate across that joint, and it would have been amazing... but he didn't because his test has some constraints. What he really measured was how much the constraints of his test differed from the use-cases of each joint style. The result of this oversimplification is that beginners/amateurs come away thinking they know something useful (X is better than Y and Z!) when that's not true. this is not helpful to anyone - The novice has gotten a wrong idea in his head from a trusted source, and the veteran already knows when each different joint works best. To circle back to my original comment: Pocket holes are not inferior, they are a solution to a problem some of those other joints can't solve.
This is like comparing a Suburban to a Festiva. One is without question stronger than the other but they both go get the groceries and pick up the kids just fine.
I am so glad I bought your pantorouter plans. I have an old horizontal boring machine but have it tuned in for face frames. Working on a couple of chairs for the living room. Lots of mortised joints. This testing makes me feel even better about it.
So joints made in 2 days with complex power tools costing hundreds of dollars were twice as strong as the joints made in 2 minutes with a drill and a $30 jig. Well that proves it. It needs to be a cold day in hell for pocket holes to be considered.
I apologize, I watched this 3 months ago and didn't remember the dowel joints. When I looked at the title, I just saw M&T, so I thought it was only about M&T
Another great video Matthias! Sounds like you dislike Kreg jigs. You've gotta admit that they are fast and easy though. All you need is a clamp and drill and the joint is made. Beautiful piece of equipment you have for the tenon cutter but that has to cost a pretty penny. If I were to pick strength or simplicity, simplicity wins due to strength in numbers for the total completed project. What I mean is very strong as a whole when a project is assembled.
That "tenon cutter" is called a Pantorouter, Matthias even calls it that in this very video. And it didn't cost him anything because he's the one that invented it
Thanks for running these tests, it's good to see the mechanics of these joints. Pros and cons are never ending debates; thanks for your effort, time and documentation to help youtube academy. Great job!
Thank you for all of these very well produced videos! You and others that take the time and thought process to do these videos,should not have negative comments! Because of your passion for woodworking, you have shown the world about the strengths of glue and glue joints. This is laboratory type testing. Please pay no attention to those who choose to to be negative and continue to post these great videos. Thankz.
If you use a pocket hole jig for faceframes and other non-load bearing surfaces, it's head and shoulders above any other joinery technique. Faster, just as strong, and extremely user friendly. I like the more empirical scientific approach to this as opposed to your other force/strength videos. Much improved and more reliable this time!
@surfitlive you forgot to take into account that the real projects using pocket holes are usually much larger which greatly increases the amount of forces being applied to the joint
Strength is not the main attribute of pocket hole joinery. Pocket hole joinery is for speed of construction, not strength, why not do a test which is faster to produce a m&t joint or pocket hole joint and see which wins.
o bez My mortise and tenon joints were much faster, actually. Cause I had the equipment already set up. Watch my video on making the joints, which is in the linked article.
Red Owl But they could, for not much more than the cost of the Kreg jig, and some effort to build it from plans. Then you have a far more versatile piece of joinery equipment.
Doug Burt Speed is the point of the pocket hole joint. Problems arise when people such as your self can not decipher up on the suitability of a given joint. Using a pocket hole joint where aesthetics or strength are the main requirements, is obviously bad judgement. Like anything that is misused pocket hole joints will fail. Im not pro pocket hole joints, I don't even own a jig. I just don't understand some one implying they are week when strength is not what they are designed for.
Thank you. A good effort to highlight how the fast and simple basic pocket hole holds up against the more time consuming traditional joints. Useful results; well done!
I think the test is a little misleading. It depends on what application you are using each joint for. For me personally I would only use the pocket hole jig for face frame work on finish trim. My only expectation of any joint for face frame work would be for it not to pull apart. Your test showcases the obvious strength of the mortise and tenon joint by restisting an upward force similar to a timberframing joint. With my concern being the "pulling apart" force, the mortise doesn't offer any resistance which puts the responsibility of strength on the glue. If you were building say, a homemade ladder, obviously the mortise and tenon is considerably stronger. I would never depend on the torsional strength of a screw for shear strength. But when cost is a consideration and the concern is resisting the force of pulling apart as in resisting the shrinkage of wood, the pocket hole joint is a great alternative. Again, it depends on the application. Just my opinion.
You really should test the pocket hole joints that are also glued. The benefit of pocket holes is you dont need to wait for the glue to dry before moving on in the build. Glueless pocket hole joinery should only be used for very low stressed joints.
Thanks, but I think I won't change my mind about the relative weakness inherent in end grain joints based on your 2x4 table. But I encourage you to contact the manufactures of everything from furniture to LVLs and let them know they can discard their preconceived notions about glued butt joints as there is no proof that the bond of end of fibers is weaker than overlapping those fibers.
I love your lab tests. its hard to find serious(ish) well done tests that prove useful things such as this. The best part is it shows the difference between lazy carpentry and well done carpentry. looking forward to seeing more types of joints tested to find out which may be the best.
***** I've never seen you glue the pocket holes.. Besides, where do you glue them? At the end grain? That's not very strong. I think we can agree that pocket holes has it's place, but it's not very pretty, and it's seems to me to be a "lazy mans joint"....
***** I'm not calling you lazy, I'm only saying the joint itself is lazy. And as others are pointing out, for some applications that's fine, but in fine furniture and things that need strength, it's not the way to go. I don't know about you, but a hole and a screw head is not my idea of beautiful, especially if there is a lot of them in the same area... :-P Don't think I'm calling you lazy though, I'm very thankful to you for bringing us a lot of free, enjoyable wood stuff :-)
Spacehero Call me crazy but I think pocket holes are gorgeous. Every time I make something out of them and then look back at it and consider how quickly I created it I think, "What a beautiful system!" :) Okay, the holes themselves are ugly. Fortunately in areas where they would be seen I can use the joint so loathsome that Matthias couldn't even bring himself to speak its evil name, much less test it with his new rig: biscuits. ;)
***** ermagerd... fight !!!!!!! More seriously. Anyone can be against pocket holes.. what'ev'. But setting up a biased test to make them appear at their worst is kinda lame.
The wood appeared to be spruce, pine or fir, which I think would favor the glued joints over the pocket hole screws. Softer woods absorb the glue better and don't hold screws as well. With a hard wood like maple I think you would see the results move closer together. Even if the glued joint strengths didn't get lower, the screwed joint strengths should get higher. I don't agree that adding glue to the screwed joints will change much since it's an end grain application. Also, no designer with a clue would use a pocket hole joint in tension as you are testing them. If they were tested in shear, with the force applied at the joint, not 8" away, then they would fair much better. If you calculate strength vs. time to assemble, then the pocket hole screws win hands down. This may not be a big deal on one off projects in the home shop, but it is in a production environment. Perfection is the enemy of good enough.
The problem with your experiment is that the normal every day Joe doesn't have the equipment to make all those other joints so the regular person if they want to step out and start making a little sturdier wood working pocket holes is the way to go
The guy who replied to you said timber framed. They use old joints. And they've been around for a loooong time Even the japenese build there temples that way. How do you think catholic churches were made up. They are made well that are still standing today. Even through earth quakes. There are company's starting to make them again. They still build them in Japan to.
Matthias Wandel Wood gears are dreadful. Steel is FAR stronger. ;) Should we do some strength tests or can we agree that the wood is plenty strong for this use? :)
Thanks for great test. Your video shows that pocket hole joints are for applications not requiring strength. I like to add that traditional joints provide a professional look to your project in addition to strength. I appreciated the glue tests as well. Keep up the great work Matthias.
Pocket holes or mortise & tenon w/glue both have their merits. I wouldn't use pocket holes on a structural assembly even though the commercials show they are strong. Mortise & tenon look better and show a better quality of workmanship. I've used biscuits on some projects. I built two chairside tables and a couple of small bathroom cabinets using pocket holes. They've held together for over 4 years now (and I'm not even close to being a professional woodworker). Keep the videos coming. I even learn a lot from the good and bad comments taking the bad ones with a grain of salt. Thomas Edison once said that even a failure is a success - you've learned that can't use to do it that way (I'm paraphrasing here).
Glue the pocket holes for apples to apples for sure. Or just don't glue the dowels and M&T joints. And it absolutely would make a difference, this video was more of a comparison between different glue types in a M&T joint than anything else, and no surprise that epoxy was best.
@@78779 not so weak if you pre load the end grain with glue, let dry, then glue the joint. This combined with pocket screws would make a much stronger joint.
Despite all the smart comments, I like the testing you do on different things. Everybody can choose their own method of joinery. You just proved that they are not as strong and that's good enough for me. I use them when all I need is quick and easy and not susceptible to heavy strain. Good job once again!
A good test Matthias. I doubt anyone expected pocket holes to come even close to proper M&T joinery. However! I built a 6' x 4' bench that carries my site Dewalt table saw at one end and my router and its housing and all my bits etc at the other. Underneath on a shelf is my wet-dry vac. It's built entirely using pocket holes and no glue. The legs are 3x3 and the rails and all supports are 4x2. It's on wheels and never flexes or twists when being pulled around...and it's heavy! When I built it I wondered all the way through the build if I was doing the right thing with pocket hole joinery, but I have to say that after 2 years it's still as good as the day it was built. This for me was a test of how good pocket holes can be if you're in a rush, or the project doesn't warrant taking the trouble to M&T the joints.
This type of test reminds me of the Verizon 4G coverage commercials, where they put up coverage maps of the entire US for various carriers and ask people which they'd choose. Verizon, having the broadest coverage, is the "obvious" choice that they show everyone picking. But what about a person who doesn't travel all over the US? That's not going to be their criteria for selection. If I'm building face frame cabinets, and I want to assemble the frames, that joint isn't going to be relied on to carry much force at all. Assembling face frames with pocket holes allow for a much faster assembly with, and this is the key word, sufficient holding strength. I could choose from about a dozen different joint types for that, but my primary criteria for selection isn't going to be max strength. Besides, I've seen dozens of pocket hole videos, and I've never once heard anybody tout them as "the strongest joint on Earth". So this test, while academically interesting, isn't providing any sort of new information.
I think it's common spence to think that a single pocket hole joint wouldn't be that strong, however, one does not use a single pocket hole joint in a project. I'd be interested to see how strong the pocket hole joint can be in a step stool or some other kind of design intended to carry or hold weight.
I love these kinds of videos. This one and the one you did showing the effectiveness of adhesives used with different clamping force while drying taught me a lot. I always thought the harder I could clamp before set up, the stronger the joint would be.
I love to see these kinds of tests. Showing a summary results table at the end would have made a great video even better. Thanks, I really enjoy your videos.
Yikes. LOL. I read some of the comments and had to stop. I enjoyed this video. I thought it was very useful. I do like using pocketholes. and I won't stop. But knowing where I can and shouldn't use them is helpful. I need to learn more about this. With that said... I recently made a bench using pocket holes.I like it. It looks good. You can't see the pocket holes unless you flip it over. I have had three people sitting on i at once with weight in excess of 400lbs combined. It held just fine. BUT... I have some plans on building twin beds. It seems to me that I should rethink the joint for the rails.
Not really a fair test. All your joints are mechanical plus glue except for the pockethole joint. I'll bet if you add glue to it you'll notice a huge difference. Joining 2 pieces like you did I would always add glue myself in production.
zarinjanis Not particularly fair - the benefit of the pocket hole is that it's almost fool-proof and requires almost no setup or skill to create. Not that dowels are particularly difficult either but they ARE more-so than pocket holes. So if Glue+Pocket Hole is equivalent to Dowels, that's good enough for many jobs. Sure, traditional joinery is without question best sometimes it's simply not necessary...
I have to agree. I don't think there would be much of a difference between all of them if the pocket hole joint was glued. I also think that the strongest one of all wasn't tested, where the butt joint would be glued and screwed through from the other side. Strongest, fastest and easiest.
John Heisz Yeah, all the conditions of the test are the worst-case scenario for pocket joinery. And, as you so adeptly point out, none of the tested joinery methods would be the likely choice under the test conditions. I think the tester might not be objective enough to do a proper test. Look at Matthias’s equipment designs. He would have glued and screwed that joint as you suggested.
John Heisz Personally I don't believe that'd be stronger than mortise and tenon - and honestly I don't believe it'd be stronger than a pocket hole either since you're relying on the threads to bite into end-grain (always weaker) instead of cross-grain. The wildcard is that you can get a lot more threads in the end-grain but you also increase risk of splitting the longer the screw. Hard to say. Matthias hates pocket holes regardless, nothing will change that! (if I had all those neat joinery machines I'd probably hate them too.) :D
Thank you Matthias for taking so much of your time to show the rest of us what a really smart person can do. Have you ever tested the strength of a glued mortise and tenon joint that also had glued dowels through the side of it?
I don't think pocket hole joinery was ever intended to replace conventional joinery just give another maybe quicker option such as face frames no need for extreme pressure testing there.
I think it's long past time that Festool sent Matthias a Domino tool to test! Maybe two - we need to know how the larger one holds up in making outdoor projects too. :D
Don't disagree with you about pocket holes. They are not high end joinery. They are however ideal for a beginner woodworker with limited tools who is making a bookcase or a little table. I thank you for your time and efforts to educate and provide interesting videos for us all to enjoy. LOL, not only is it a cold day in hell, it has been a very cold month all over Ontario. I am so ready for spring.
I am reminded of the line about engineers: Some people see a glass as half full, some see it as half empty, and an engineer sees it as 50% bigger than was needed. Why in the world do we NEED joints that are stronger and stronger and stronger? And if you don't need a joint that will support an elephant standing on that step-stool, then, as was said, what about all the other differences besides raw strength? As was mentioned, pocket-screw joints are: Faster, can be disassembled, do not require precision work on two diff pieces, etc. Bias against them is going to be there, just like bias against many easier/faster technologies. But I think doing a mortise and tenon when you could use a pocket screw joint is a form of snobbery that is fine for someone to do them-self, but it's completely egregious to imply that the other is somehow less acceptable! And grasping for ways to put it down is just that, Matthias! In other words, I agree w/ the comments that this is a less-than-useful comparison.
I think the point of pocket screws is speed vs strength. You can buy a pocket hole jig cheap and apply it fast. If I had a machine that did motise and tennon joints I too would prefer that.
I dont have the pantorouter or these other fancy machines to make these dovetails, mortises and stuff. So if the pocket hole is not strong, what other method you reccomend that is easy to use with simple tools and are relatively reliable?
Part of the reason I love your channel are the tests. I think that most of us who occasionally use pocket holes actually glue and screw. Could you please run a test with pocket holes and glue?
Jeff Stanley ?? above where? if you’re talking about the video comments, you know that people don’t get them in the same order, right? also, about what?
***** You are both right. I have a Festool TS 75 track saw and with the longest track it was an $840 investment but it works so I got what I paid for which is nice these days.
I did read many of the comments, but I didn't see my comment: In situations where I use pocket holes, stress forces are never applied to the joint itself. If the load (from the normal use, I should say) doesn't fall onto the supporting wood, I don't use pocket holes (And if I'm wanting something fast vs something pretty, I modify my design until it does). I assumed this was a given... and I believe this is why pocket holes aren't horrible for things like basement shelves or extra workbenches. So let's consider a workbench. If designed correctly, the surface's top sits upon on a wooden leg, not on the screws so that heavy things on the bench don't torque the joinery/screws. It may mean a modification of the design, but the goal is to get the forces away from the joinery and onto the wood. (I'd sketch an example if it were possible to add an image here). That said, I'm very glad to see what the joint could hold if it were under stress, and I love the science here, thank you (and I appreciate the threaded rod approach over the prevoius Jack method). Big fan.
Justin Lauzet For a workbench, it's not the top down forces that kill it. It's the blows from the side. And these will stress the joints in a very similar matter as these tests.
Matthias Wandel Do you mean a blow from running into it with other equipment/cars/ATVs? I might bump a bench on the side with some wood I'm maneuvering, but I can't think of an example where I've hit the side of a kreg joint (or even an entire bench) with greater than 50 but less than 250 lbs of force on the side. Consider that a 100 lb blow can't move the bench (or else it doesn't really see 100 lbs on a single joint). The best example for your argument that I can imagine are moment forces (forces turning about my joint versus on top of the leg) while moving a bench - that is, friction from sliding over the ground, or a leg hits something but the rest of the table keeps going. My own workbench isn't designed with kreg screws (I didn't even have it yet), but I think I could probably design a workbench that employs them that can be assembled quickly and is also very strong. The last kreg jointed thing I made are stationary garage shelves, whose strength in the back comes from a horizontal 2x4 screwed into studs, and the strength in the front from sitting on top of 2x4 legs that go run to the ground. The shelves aren't supported by the joints. Now, I could hit one of the legs with my car, but I don't think the joint type mattes at that point. I've climbed up the shelves with no fear (and I'm a big guy). I think if the strength is coming from the joint, don't use kreg joints (or redesign). As you've pointed out, they're not for that. Until now, I assumed everyone understood this as a design criteria when selecting kreg joints for a project.
Lamialle Gerald If you have the right equipment, and set it up, mortises are the quickest - just put some glue on and plug them in. No futzing with alignment or drilling pocket holes. Just build yourself a slot mortiser and a pantorouter.
Cold day in hell? Is this because the jig you bought is not a noble tool for a master like yourself? I don't know about woodworking, I just enjoy your videos.
I like pocket hole joints and when needed I use glue for those joints. I think you were being unfair in your testing. You are definitely intitled to your opinion. Makes me wonder if you wanted to create some controversy.
I would just like to say thanks for this video. The comments that the video brought give a wealth of knowledge for novice woodworkers. For instance, it seems like pocket holes are used to be quick to assemble, even though, as you prove, the strength is not there. For many projects, pocket holes are good enough. But, the comments also infer, if you want a joint that people will see, and want it to be aesthetically pleasing, then you may want to spend the time making a mortise and tenon or dowel.
Great video! On the plus side this simple to use pocket hole jig you bought on this cold day in Canada will make for a great Christmas stocking stuffer for my two Son in Laws.
I'm getting so many comments about glue (see description and annotation), I decided, for the time being, to block these comments. No need for you to comment about glue. It's been commented many times before.
it is so easy for people to send bad comments when they don't do anything... i am sure it took you at least a half day of your own time to make this test for us... so i would like to thank you, you inspire me everytime
Oh, man, i love to see scientific tests applied on woodworking. It makes me more comfortable to choose a technic. Would be great to see the difference in resistance between glued Pocket hole and no-glued Pocket hole
I agree Matthias but I'm confused I think, about your purpose in these 2 vids and worry that the unprecedented cold front has affected that fine mind of yours...or is it just mischievousness? IMHO you have one of the most formidable, creative minds for design and craftsmanship/artisanship out in YT land or anywhere for that matter. I believe that you would obviously KNOW what joint to use where and when to achieve your end results. Your last dresser is a testament to that, as it could be dropped from and airplane and survive...and made from scraps! If these are about craftsmanship/artisanship Vs the quick/repetitive get it done build, you/we win in my book, as I believe we need to bring that back to our culture and teach it again. However if these are about beating up Kreg, I feel your tests are flawed just by the basic Tenets (spelled Tenons 8-) of mechanical engineering...a cantilever...Really?@¿@ If so you could have just named your Vid..."Why you never, ever use a pocket jig for a cantilever shelf", but probably wouldn't have created a maelstrom of dichotomous fervor. Whose nose maybe My mind is being affected by the cold...Like Jeffery Rush said in Shakespeare in Love..."It's a mystery" and I'm still confused? ~PJ
Everyone complaining about the lack of "adhesive" should remember that without the screws, a pocket hole joint is just a butt joint, which common sense tells you is weak and is one that Matthias has tested before as well (see the glue strength testing page). This test basically measures the strength of the screws, and combining that figure with the ones on Matthias site for butt joints, still results in a weaker joint than mortise and tenons or dowels. Whether or not a weaker joint is acceptable on a project is something that each craftsman needs to determine for himself.
+Matthias Wandel I'm standing on my digital scale right now and it tracks up and down with pressure. Just a suggestion for accuracy is all. Not that it's needed.
Analog still has it's place in this world. If I am looking for a sudden voltage, current spike in and electrical circuit, give me an old analog meter with a d'arsonval movement. A lot of high end sound equipment still use analog vu meters as they give the quickest response time to changes in db levels. The bathroom scale did just fine for this application.
I laughed when he said the pocket hole guide is "dreadful". Thems fightin' words and he knows it. :) It's the woodworking equivalent of BuzzFeed-style (TRULY dreadful) clickbait headlines. I trust it will pay off handsomely. :-D
Great video Matthias. I believe your comparative tests are real world and valid. The ranking of results allows objective folks to decide where to employ the stronger joint and where to apply the less strong joint. Of course the conspiracy theorists abound but generally they contribute nothing.
The comparison with doweling was most informative; I need to investigate that. Often Pocket Holes are a fast way to assemble and effectively "Clamp" things in place. in many situations they are also "Strong Enough" for the task. It depends what you have in your toolbox, workshop or skill set.
Wow, lots of hate here. I for one thought this was a great video. I don't think anyone can really argue that pocket hole joinery is stronger than Mortise and Tenon. People use pocket holes as they are quick, and don't require much skill or equipment. In many uses they are sufficient. There are trade offs for speed, strength, cost, aesthetics etc to be made with all joinery choices. Matthias was just quantifying the difference in strength for us, and if you read his accompanying article and listen to his commentary, he was actually surprised that they were that strong. In the end it's just some science folks. If you think his methodology is flawed, set up your own experiment, post your results and wait for the backlash.
instantsiv I don't know if you're joking or actually serious, but if it's the latter, I wouldn't say he manipulated the numbers. If by that you mean he didn't add glue to pocket hole joints, then that can be explained by saying that pocket holes don't usually have glue since they're usually mean't to just be quick and simple no hassle.
looking at all the comments, it seems you really annoy people if you do something that contradicts their world view. as in 'how dare you say pocket holes are rubbish when i use them all the time because i don't have the skills to make any other type of joint". yes pocket holes are easy etc etc. but if i tried to sell piece of furniture with pocket holes, i am sure i will be out of business in a day. pocket holes belong in cheap furniture... not fine furniture, and i know which i would prefer to have. now i guess i sit back and wait to see how much hate i get lmao
No hate from here, but I do use pocket holes. I like to operate the clamp mechanism and drill those 15 degree holes and watch the chips go into my cyclone. Along with pallet wood, I just enjoy my hobby. Truly, I'd be very hungry if woodworking was my business. I do appreciate to see craftsmanship from someone who is knows their stuff!
No hate intended toward you. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But what's even more annoying is when people make broad insulting statements such as 'how dare you say pocket holes are rubbish when i use them all the time because i don't have the skills to make any other type of joint." Have a great day Tayler.
Jay Bates Well put, Jay, and your comment bears the weight of your well-earned reputation. Nothing like someone dishing out hate then laughing at the notion of getting any in return.
believing that glue will add strength to that small end grain contact zone, is an instant sign that you ve never done woodworking or used glue. edit: for those who claim glueing the pocket joints will make an improvement...
Seeing a lot of comments defending pocket holes and honestly, I don't get it. Yeah, they're pretty fast, but if you want a strong joint I'd avoid using screws altogether.
I personally think the type of joinery you use is first function, if it satisfies the need of the project then it is acceptable, and secondly whatever your personal preference is. My problem with these types of videos isn't necessarily the test itself, but the way they are approached he referred to them as "dreadful" immediately...he didnt even own a pocket hole jig in the first place...so to begin your test with..."These things suck and I don't like them" kind of an attitude does a disservice to the test immediately.
I can agree there, though he's obviously had no problems without making pocket hole joints so far - to be honest I've never made them myself either. There's a lot of options to replace them and personally I still find many of the options to be better and definitely stronger. But, like you said, it completely comes down to what's best for the function of the joint and the piece you are making - and personal choice places a big part. There's an endless number of ways to butt joint two pieces of wood together after all. :)
