Lynn's jig for BT3, 2 questions

[graysonh]

Hello,

This is my first post, I think, and I've done a little poking around for an answer but I don't think this has been addressed specifically.

First question is, when making Lynn's jig for the BT3000, is there a generally accepted preference for whether it should attach to the rip fence or to the SMT?

The rip fence seems too fixed on one side, potentially causing play on the far side. And the SMT, on my saw at least, would seem to have too much inherent play for such a fine-tuned jig. (Maybe the play itself is something I should address?).

The plans on SharkGuard have a rip fence setup. Stytooner's website is currently down so I'm not sure what I'd encounter there (maybe an answer!).

Then, the second question: why is the jig so wide anyway? I've watched quite a few videos and no one even gets close to maxing it out. I'm thinking if I'm going to be using the joints more for lumber joinery and not box-making that I could make a narrower, more rigid jig that would do better with regard to the rip fence.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts and thanks for the wonderful resource.

[twistsol]

I've never used the Lynn jig so I can't answer any of your questions, but I can point you to where Lee's site has moved. The new address of the jigs section is below.

http://www.thesharkguard.com/jigs.php

[poolhound]

Hello and welcome,

I know you did not mention any mitre slots but do you have them on your saw. This would always be my preference for any jig like this that you want to be in the same plane as the saw.

Given your original question I would chose the rip fence over the SMT. As you point out the SMT can have a lot of play which is one reason I did away with mine for anything other than basic dimensional crosscut where a tad one way or the other doesn't really matter.

Can you expand a little on your comment "lumber joinery and not box-making." What type of lumber joinery are you considering and for what application? It seems that a box joint may not necessarily be your only or best option.

[capncarl]

I haven't heard lyns jig in a while. I built my Lynn's jig to fit the sliding miter table. It does have a little wobble in it because of its length so you have to find its sweet spot for your hand that does not cause the jig to twist. The crank mecanism can be very confusing but after you figure it out it does produce consistent parts. A whole lot better that the box joint jigs that use pins. There has been a couple of improvements to this jig that replaces the crank action. I intend on changing my jig to incorporate some of them and throw away the crank.
capncarl

[graysonh]

Thanks all for your responses.

twistsol, that explains a lot! thanks

poolhound, i'd still be making box-esque type things with one-by like other jigs, but also probably plenty of two-by projects, where the box (finger) joint would be in place of a mortise and tenon. My go-to joinery right now is either dowel or m & t and it seems like finger joints could be a much simpler method for a lot of projects. I'm also a fan of (and easily influenced by) Mathias Wendel who has been gravitating toward the box joint lately. Lastly, i hadn't even known about miter slots for the bt3 but i googled it and am really excited to either buy or make some now -- that seems like the right call!

capncarl, i saw some of your posts re lynn's jig from a few years back when i was searching the forum! What's wrong with the crank? Are you thinking to go with gears?

[capncarl]

The threaded screw movement is good but confusing. Actually stubby nubs built a mod of this with some lexan positioners that help the jig a lot. I created a lot of scrap with my jig trying to learn its quirks. It's been a while since I used it so if I needed it for a project I suppose I would have to plan of wasting my first load of wood re-learning it again.
I like the stumpy nubs version of the Lynn's jig.
google SNW42 NEW BOX/FINGER JOINT JIG with incra style positioning teeth.
Stump has several utubes on this jig. This uses the same 5/16-18 threaded rod for the positioning teeth and a cut in half threaded rod coupler for the positioner. I don't see why you couldn't adapt this way of positioning the slide to the existing screw crank Lynn's jig and not have to start over. I might give it a try.
Thanks for prompting me on!
capncarl

[JoeyGee]

I know some say they don't like the pin style jigs. That's all I've ever used and I like them. I have one for 1/2" and one for 1/4" fingers. Very quick and easy to setup and use. I guess I've never seen the need to build a complicated jig for this. I've never used one, so I don't know. What are the advantages? Do you still need a dado blade for these jigs? That would be nice not to have to change blades for it. I know Matthias' screw advance box joint jig uses regular blades.

[graysonh]

Exactly -- you don't need to change the blade. Like Mathias' box jig but seems to be less work!

I'm going to check out the stumpy nubs video as soon as i get home from work today.

[capncarl]

JoeyGee, the big advantage that I can see with these jigs with a carrage is you can easily cut a slew of boards at one time. I think that my jig can hold a 6" stack of wood. If you was making a box you could do it with 2 set ups rather than 8 with a pin jig.
Correction.... In My earlier reply I said it used a 5/16-18 threaded rod, wrong, it uses a 3/8-16 threaded rod. That makes each turn the equivalent to 1/16" an the math a whole lot easier.
capncarl

[Stytooner]

The plans on my site are totally adjustable for your own use. Mine is as large as it is to accommodate the largest box I would make height wise. You can make the jig much smaller if you want. The carriage should be as wide as the tallest box you want to make. The jig itself would be a little more than twice that dimension.
Check out those video links. They show how it works.
I haven't made any boxes in so long that it is pitiful. Busy saving the World one finger at a time.