Boring square holes?

The architect on this particular job, is interested in the option of doing square Japanese style peg holes. I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions on the best way to do it. I could drill a 1" hole and chisel it out with a corner chisel. I looked at large stationary mortisers, but they don't have enough stroke or flexibility. What I wish existed would be a chain mortiser style machine with the capacity to take a 1" mortise chisel auger to cut through 8" of white oak. And while I'm wishing I'd like a pony and a million bucks for Christmas.
Any ideas?

Well if you get a pony get one that bucks you will be half there.

Depending on the size of the project, can you get someone to make a new bar for a chain mortiser? Or is one inch too tight for the chain? Can you use rectangular pegs so the mortiser works? I've seen 7/8" mortice bits but I have no experience with them. The bit was 4-5" long can it be welded so it can be extended into the piece?

The hole only needs to be square at the surface. Bore a regular hole and then square up the first inch into the timber with the corner chisel as you have mentioned.

Then when you put in a round peg with a square end the peg will appear to be square. You'll have to draw knife your own pegs to make the work.

Does that work for you?

Jim Rogers

What about if you can view both sides of the timber? Alas seeing both sides of the peg?

Didn't makita used to make a hollow mortiser for timber?


I'd make some samples first for the architect, then price out how you'll do it.
Cheaper way is to peg with standard pegs and use square plugs inserted from both sides.
Expensive way is to cut them all by hand.
Perhaps slightly less expensive way is to buy a woodworking mortiser and modify the base and cut from both sides. Clean up by hand.

It seems of you use a draw bore that your blocks will need to be extra long with some taper to them so you can drive them in.

Hello,

Just trying to imagine squaring up the peg holes in an entire frame because I have not done it on that scale all in one go and so my reaction, based on what I have done is that squaring up the holes is not really a big deal and even doing them by the hundreds doesn't seem like it would be so bad, and in oak would go quite well. It really comes down to a personal judgement.
On a practical level I have noticed holes being squared by taking the chisel from a mortice boring machine in the hand and using it with a hammer to square up round holes. There are some disturbing aspects of that idea that maybe could be worked out though. Also remember that Japanese pegs holes are not drawn, just straight, so draw boring with a square peg, while I've done it, is an incongruity in the strictest sense, (think about deflection of the peg for one thing), for what that's worth.

Greetings,

Don Wagstaff

Thanks for all the input...I think I'll try a couple methods and see what works.
One thought I initially had for draw boring would be to insert wedges from both sides. Like one would in a wedged scarf. That way the peg hole would be filled on both sides. That would weaken the pin too much though if it was only 1" x 1". I would probably have to make it rectangular to avoid failure of those wedges. Or just not draw bore them and use one square piece.

Don, what do you mean by disturbing aspects of using the chisel from a mortise boring machine. Other than otherwise reputable timber framers whacking a chisel with their nail hammers ! I agree that it probably isn't going to too hard even with a corner chisel. Just out of curiosity, what was your application for square pegs?

Hello,


It's just that the chisel's obviously not designed to be used with a hammer and it should be properly adapted.

I last used pegging like this in the half-lap jointing of roof trusses. I can't really speak of draw boring in that case, but the holes in both halves were off-set so driving the pegs did tension the joint.

That idea of driving 2 wedged pegs from opposite sides is feasible enough. I hope you pass on how goes if you try.

Greetings,

Don Wagstaff

I'm not sure where you get the idea that draw boring isn't done in Japanese carpentry Don.

What do you make of this then?:

[img:center]https://picasaweb.google.com/104943063435486564254/December62012#5818993359399316450[/img]

Chris,
I couldn't get that link to work...Could you repost? I'd like to see it.
I'm currently leaning toward doing a solid square peg and just offsetting the holes a bit. Interesting ideas all around.
Does anyone know where I could find information on portable hollow chisel mortisers. Info seems scarce and Makita USA can't even get info on products for other markets.

Let's try this link instead:

Japanese draw-bored mortise and tenon detail

I have a Makita portable hollow chisel mortising machine. I brought it back from Japan with me. I could probably order another one if you twist my arm and bribe me, however you may do just as well with a General International or Powermatic hollow chisel mortiser. Usually the peg mortise is reasonably close to an arris, so any hollow chisel mortising machine that can extend out over 6" across a timber will work for most connections. I got one at the College of the Rockies and we used it for the TF course when I was working there. Just needs a couple of outfeed supports - it worked well. The Makita beam mortiser is more ideally for softwoods - trying to poke large holes through on oak is probably not going to be a good time in anything larger than 5/8". Japanese pegs, or komi sen, usually aren't much bigger then 15mm though.

Hi Chris;

Neither link is working.

Thanks;
Jim

Hello,

Yes, we haven't seen such a sweeping statement in a while have we. Probably not so helpful except that it draws you out Chris, so that's good. I say that Japanese pegs are not draw bored mainly because it's true. But of course to say that Japanese peg holes are not drawn actually means that no Japanese joint has ever been draw bored by anyone and that cannot be right. Maybe better to qualify by saying it's not the equivalent joint to the one used in Western work. Look the technique was not feasible until there were augers or some kind of boring tool which in Japan is a gimlet - no timber framing tool, that. Sure its possible to chisel the entire square hole which was the way in Japan it was initially done and why the keyed joint dominates. Also the principle is fine if your after maximal stiffening throughout but Japanese construction is in principle about the right amount of flexibility, I mean a flexible joint and one highly tensioned don't go well together. So that's where I see incongruity. One other incongruity of the situation at hand I see is just what you bring up yourself, the relatively small cross section when you think that 15 mm is about the size of my pinky out at the tip. I do recall draw-boring being included in one book of Japanese joinery that also was quite keen on metal fasteners. The link you set up there probably contradicts what I write here but it doesn't seem to be connected right.

Greetings,

Don Wagstaff

Sorry about the link not working. not sure what to do about that, except provide the actual address where the pic is stored:

https://picasaweb.google.com/104943063435486564254/December62012#5818993359399316450

I have long found this forum very awkward to use for attaching pictures.

As to your comments Don, well, I see things a bit differently. Yes, you've drawn me out of my cave.

Pegs are not stiff connections, first of all. The draw bore is helpful in keeping the connection firmly together, in the case of a post and a beam say, during shrinkage and/or seasonal movement. I don't think it's purpose is primarily to stiffen the connection, since pegs are inherently flexible. That said, draw-boring does place a joint in tension, however that tension is going to vary - the peg needs to behave elastically to a certain extent. If the beam shrinks, the tension on the peg is going to ease.

Peg size and number, along with structural arrangement, timber size and joint detailing are significant factors that affect how much tension might be in a joint, however no pegged connection can resist much tension anyhow. The pegs will flex, and at a certain point relais will give or the peg will break.

'Draw-boring', to my way of thinking, is more about the principle of off-setting the peg hole in mortise and tenon so that the peg has to elastically bend around as it is driven through. I don't take the word 'boring' to only mean with a drill or auger. 'Bore' simply means to make a hole. Whether the peg mortise is round or square doesn't affect that off-setting mechanism, so making an argument that the technique was not 'feasible' in Japan until augers came along is not convincing in my view. Also, to say the joint used in Japan is 'not equivalent' to the one used in western work is misleading - they are alike in principle and only differ in respect to the shape of the mortise for the peg. I would say they are equivalent.

The argument about "Japanese construction is in principle about the right amount of flexibility, I mean a flexible joint and one highly tensioned don't go well together" is not winning me over. I think too much is made of that 'flexibility' by some writers, and it is a bit simplistic to characterize an entire framing system, especially one with great diversity in methods, in that manner. Diagonal bracing has been employed in wall systems in Japan for 150 years, as one counter-point. Connections which suffer tension in Japanese framing, like western framing, are typically reinforced with metal. Case in point would be angled wall bracing, which the Japanese do not peg but tie in place with metal and hide in the wall. Pegging diagonal braces is problematic, as you probably know.

I might add that diagonally braced systems also suffer from flexure, both by lateral deformation of the timbers by the braces, and insufficient stiffness at the pegged connections.

Many scarf connections, like kanawa-tsugi, or sao-tsugi (rod mortise and tenon) joints, involve driving in a wedge or pin to drive the end grain bearing surfaces of each joint half in opposite directions, placing the joint in a degree of tension. How does this square with your assertion that tension in the connections is somehow incompatible with Japanese framing practices?

It would be correct to say, I think, that Japanese framing is primarily a system of framing components to bear compression loads rather than tension. That's a logical way to employ solid wood in a structure, is it not?

I also might point out that after your argument that creating tension in a joint is somehow alien to Japanese carpentry practice, you then state that a 15mm peg having a relatively small cross section - aren't you therefore saying that such a connection would be less capable of creating tension? It seems like a contradiction.

I can add that 15 mm pegs are fairly standard in Japanese framing because the structural parts to which they associate have been fairly standardized in most respects for the past 100 years or so - 105mm or 120mm post sections, for instance. In much the same way, western framing might most often be done with 8"x8" posts and 3/4" pegs. It doesn't mean that custom sizes and larger/smaller pegs are not employed in other situations.

I think the offset, draw-bored connection has some advantages when done with a square peg mortise rather than a round one. And it is still done, often enough, simply by chiseling work.

I can add to the foregoing that...

Thinking about the scarf joint kanawa-tsugi a little further, I realize that it is a little hard to say whether the net effect of driving in the wedging pin is to put the joint in compression or tension. Obviously the end grain abutments are in compression. So that might not be such a good example to have brought forth.

I think the case is much clearer with the rod joint that the internal tension of the joint is increased as the wedges and/or peg are driven in. Also true for adapted forms of the joint, as seen in 2-, 3- and 4-way splined connections.

Interjection. My first primary goal when draw boring the peg holes is not to load the joint but to choose that when I insert the peg it does not push the joint apart. The risk of marking exactly where the theological peg will fall can vary and the end result can be the joint being pushed apart. Even pulling the members together with ratchets and straps and then boring risks, in time, the joint being held apart. I find the result of drawing boring and having the joint be pulled together during and after the frame a perk, most joinery is in compression anyway. I would find it odd the the eastern influences would not draw the joinery.

Hello,

The purpose aside, the beauty of the technique, (so called draw boring) is when all goes as intended and the peg or pegs are driven home, the joint is incredibly effective. It does amaze me how much impact on the overall integrity of, it's a mortice and tenon were on about here right, the joint this aspect has. What does that mean? It makes the joint solid and stiff. So, no, it's not just about the aesthetics of closing up the connection it's equally about how well an individual joint performs its function within the whole of the construction, and rigidity is clearly the trajectory, conceptually and practically of European style construction, not absolute rigidity at all but rigidity in the Cartesian sense of the human effort to resist the condition of the natural world. The worth of pegging in this way depends on reaching an optimal balance of forces.

If we are going to look at Japanese construction and European, which has been done before by people like Grubner and Zwerger for example then I think it's valid to bring up flexibility in Japanese construction. I do buy into the point that the joinery and related techniques reflect among other things naturally but in large part even, the sheer demands of the natural environment prone to earthquakes.

So the question is then where does this pegged joint fit into the Japanese context? I am saying it is marginal at best and even go so far as to say, without drawing any further conclusions but just as a fact, that it was introduced relatively late, 150 years ago sounds about right, from the west, where, in European joinery it's equivalent place is central, it's integral to particular joints and to the entire construction.

Chris, Do you actually think the way the hole is made is so insignificant to it's widespread use, or in the way I put it before its feasibility? I can't believe it. Don't get all to caught up in the name, here they say toogen which can mean to draw as in a horse drawn wagon.

Well my response admittedly is general - for the time being - but I've got the side of the barn torn out and need to get a new post in there so got to go for now.

Greetings,

Don Wagstaff

Don,

if Graubner and Zwerger are your primary sources of information on Japanese carpentry, then I can understand why you might be a little askew in your perceptions of Japanese carpentry. Graubner's 'Encyclopedia of Wood Joints' is filled with errors and should not be relied upon as anything other than a general survey.

Anyway, not much interested in engaging further - your argument a few posts back was that draw boring is not done in Japanese traditional construction, and I've shown an example of that very thing and described why I think it is used. I'm sure there are carpenters there who do not employ that technique, just as there are timber framers in other places who do not.

~C

Hello,

The two authors I mention only because they write explicitly to compare Japanese and Western Carpentry. This is at the core of the topic which was not technical but implied a incorporation of Japanese style into Western Framing. And what I was trying to get at is the question of where the off-set boring and pegging fits into Japanese joinery regardless of how much it is or is not employed, with the intention that a general understanding can help clarify the specific use. I use the technique most commonly employed in boring the hole as an explanation of why draw boring is foreign to Japanese joinery where the wedged or keyed joint is used in its place.

Greetings,

Don Wagstaff

Hello All,

I know I'm coming to this conversation late, but for the sake of the public record, and Chris's support. There has been some information on this post thread I must comment on. I have PM'd the original poster and offered my assistance with the his challenge of square pegs.

For what ever reason, when Americans or Europeans typically speak of timber framing in Asia, they seem to go in their minds, to Japan first. I have always found this a bit strange. Timber framing, was a craft of the ship wright as well as the house wright, and originated in the Middle East, moving into Asian thousands of years ahead of Europe. If you consider what the North American Pacific Coast People build as timber framing, as I do, then they are even ahead of Europe. The Shang Dynasty of China had an architectural timber frame wood culture in complexities that rivals today, and that was in the 12 century BCE; at which time most of Europe was just coming our of their Neolithic period with only basic, at best, post and fork lashed frames. When I read comments like the following, I become incensed:

"speaking of draw bore pegged joints,"


From the West? You mean Europe? This statement, beside being completely and utterly untrue, further demonstrates a continued European/American since of superiority; whether intentional or otherwise, it presents that way.

"Draw Boring," was practice in Asia for thousands of years ahead of European architecture, and in my specialty, folk architecture, the trunnels may be as large as 30 mm. I know in Japanese Minka, they are commonly over 20 mm or larger and can be found in frames that are over 300 plus years old. So, know they did not come from Europe.

As far as the literature that was referenced, though informative and worth reading, they are full of errors and opinions, once again, from the European perspective. If anyone truly is interested in a complete understanding of a craft, they must read from all perspectives of the host culture. Better yet the people doing the craft today.

I won't even start about the realities of oblique vs horizontal frame stiffing methodologies as they were eluded to in this post thread.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jay C. White Cloud

Hello Jay and others,

Central to any point I was trying to get across is not the existence or origin of this particular kind of pegged joint but how widespread or commonplace its use was and the extent to which it could be considered typical or representative. I choose a risky way of going about it by taking the comparison route. Maybe a statistical survey of only Japanese carpentry would have been safer even if more boring. So for clarity's sake, I make no contention about the origins of draw boring, just how representative it might be considered.

As far as the quote of mine you have placed, if we get rid of the loaded language or coincidental speculation on introduction, and look at the wider context, it comes down to this: the drawn and pegged joint is used in Japanese carpentry only sporadically regardless of it's origins, where in European carpentry it is commonplace. On this point I am open to any discussion that may shed light on where I might have gone astray. The 150 years actually came from a statement by Chris from earlier as I recall, that I just went along with for the sake of argument. But even going back the 400 years the Dutch have been trading there leaves a lot of room for intercultural exchange. Still, you say Jay, draw boring has been done is Asia for thousands of years.

I have no interest in or intent of defending Zwerger or Grubner for any claims they make or any of their statements at all and I take no position on their conclusions. Still, I will point out they both find that Japanese carpentry is more refined and makes use of a higher skill level and more ingenuity that European carpentry. They do happen to be some of the only writers that have held European and Japanese carpentry up for a side by side look, for what that is worth. The point being that the comparative route I chose has been taken before. Although it was Zwerger for one that pointed out the relationship- maybe overly obvious - between the widespread use of draw boring and the development of boring implements in the Japanese context, which the article from the Takenaka museum seems to support by implication.

I take your point about perspective Jay and am reminded again about the sticky business of making cross cultural comparison. What was it, said by someone? "Cross cultural comparisons can be odious." Anyway that's why I really tried to limit the scope of the comparison I was making about the representative nature of draw boring and its centrality within two traditions relative to each other.

greetings,

Don Wagstaff

For the technical update... I have been making many square holes successfully. I have been boring a round hole first then going through by hand with a 1" chisel from a hollow chisel mortiser. It really does work quite well. The main difficulty is the chisel getting jammed in the hole, although the chip ejection slot on the chisel makes an excellent place to use a small pry bar and fulcrum to pop it right out. Thanks again for all the input, it certainly helped.

Hello Hylandwoodcraft,

Post some pictures someplace so we can see your work. It sound like it is going to be beautiful.

Regards, jay

Hello Don,

I'm sorry if my post seemed too harsh. I was not being accusatory, just clarifying certain points and what I see as misinformation. The following are just some of you statements that I would have to say are simply not true or misinterpretation. As a practicing timber wright, specializing in (and avid academic observer of) vernacular folk architecture of the Middle East and Asia, I would be more than glad to have a discussion about some of your conclusions. I have just taken some of what you wrote, for sake of clarity, so we can address each point in reference.

Square trunnels deflect just fine and there is no issue with getting them to do so.

The gimlet is not a timber framing tool, with that we agree, however the technique of drawing a joint tight by offsetting a trunnel's mortise has no bearing on whether it is square of round, or whether it's drilled or chiseled.

The existence of an evolution in flexibility in Asian frames I agree with. However, this conclusion that Asian and/or Japanese joints aren't tight because of the need for flexibility is false and does not represent the realities of the joinery or the frames, in any way. The actuality, from their horizontal bracing methods, (nuki in Japan)- their draw wedged through tenons on many beams and simple to complex lap joinery, all are extremely tight either by the weight of them or the drawing and/or compression of a wedge. The doubly housed lap joints are very common and lock a frame together, unless gravity turns off, there is nothing to dislodge them, all are as tight, or tighter, than what you would find in Europe. When they do use oblique bracing, (and they do use it but more applicably for specific needs) it is often a strut more than a brace, because unlike European braces, Asian ones work in both compression and tension in many cases. The incongruity, is your conclusion that a flexible frame has to have joinery that is not under tension, which is not the case at all, nor what you find in Asian joinery, of which most are just like what you find in Europe, only more diverse in form and application.

Note: this is a place to note one of the inaccuracies, (IMO,) within Zwerger's text: "diagonal bracing -In the minka, - it was no used at all." p.165 here he was siting Kawiashima's text "Minka:traditional houses of rural Japan," p.77 As soon as one of the folks I teach returns it, I can quote what Kawiashima actually states in his text. He (Kawiashima,) even has photos of oblique bracing in his book. This is one of the reason's, when I refer students to Zwerger's erudite text, I warn them that he may take a different meaning or understanding to the texts he has sited, or perhaps I'm in error on what he is meaning. I find others read Zwerger as I do, most of the time.

Other than sited text, how do you draw this conclusion? My personal experience/observation, from Asian house/ship wrights work demonstrates otherwise. If you have personal observations counter to this, please share it and the text that specifically state this, please site that location. Zwerger's workd, on page 122 only gives a cursory description of "draw boring," that is not enough to fully understand how the technique actually works; failing to mention the offset of the hole in the tenon. His description of the technique, in certain context, is not even accurate.

Draw boring is represented in Asian/Japanese frames and you actually did make reference to origin as coming from the West, in this statement:

How do you draw this conclusion? What did you observe. Where did you read this to be true? I have not read or observed this, but if you have, I would like to discuss your conclusions.

Here again you allude to European influence, which I'm sure there was some limited amount culturally, but not in architectural design, particularly in the imperial class of architecture As such were strictly mandated by building and guild codes, by this time period in Japan. The Japanese would not have seen the Dutch as having much to offer architecturally. Japan did not poses a pelagic sailing fleet and no real interest in it, having been an insular nation, and in many ways, today as well.

I'm not sure what you meant by restating my chronological description of draw boring in Asia?

Again, this is far from accurate. There are many others, both American and European, that have done not only cultural but architectural comparison of Asian and Japanese timber frames, going back quite some time. For example, (from my reading list,) as far as E. S. Morse, "Japanese Homes and their suroundings," 1886. Zwerger himself sites text after text in his bibliography.

Where did Zwerger point out the relationship? I can't remember that when I read the text, and would like to read it, please so I may address his conclusion. I thank you for the reference to the piece written on the Takenaka museum web site, (I have read many of their entries and refer folks there often who have an interest in Asian woodworking,) about boring tools, but do not see how that is germane to the commonality of drawn joinery and it's implementation in Japan?

I have dusted off some of the books in my library, and have access to Dartmouth Colleges Architectural library, so I can possibly site more literature to help in our discussion. Thank you for your time and I look forward to discussing this further with you, should you like.

Best Regards,

Jay

Hello Jay,

You know, For this to make any sense at all I think we would have to be more on a similar plane of thought. We would have to agree, in the first case just what it is at the core of the contention because for my part, though it would appear otherwise the way you have contextualized it, it is not a question of an all inclusive survey of Japanese architecture and construction techniques. It could be a question though of what is Japanese carpentry and when can a technique or aspect of it be considered Japanese or what is the Japaneseness of a particular aspect. These are more the parameters of where I am concerning this particular thread, you know, that I find more pointed and where something meaningful might be the outcome instead of the point counter point, you said he said routine because otherwise it will just be a matter or me repeating myself and not getting anywhere. Were there such a consensus, then relating it back to say, draw boring in this case, maybe that would be more interesting. And then my position would be something like the following: That the existence of examples of this technique doesn't qualify it as representative or something we could call Japanese. That in order for that to be the case there would have to be, for one, widespread use, that is to say that it was a technique that carpenters commonly used or used on a standard basis. Equally as important, that the means of producing it with reasonable effort were readily at hand and that there was a need for its use or it fulfilled a function that couldn't be dealt with more effectively otherwise. You see where I'm going, I think. It comes down to the old necessary and sufficient argument. It may be so that I have climbed a mountain once or even many times, but does that mean that I can claim to be a mountaineer?

Ultimately, as I have thought about it, and maybe you will see it otherwise, there is a great deal of subjectivity either way. You, and others, say examples of draw boring are found in contemporary and historical Japanese buildings, so draw boring is Japanese. I say it may be that there are instances of draw boring throughout Japanese carpentry but it's not characteristic and wouldn't call it Japanese.

Since you ask, the specific passage from Zwerger about the relationship between the ability to drill holes with a drill and the centrality of parallel sided peg use is: Wood and Wood Joints..., p 122.

Greetings,

Don Wagstaff

Good Day Don,

I'm sorry you think we have to agree with each other or "be more on a similar plane of thought," to have a learned discussion about a topic. I feel that as long as someone has reasonable emotional/intellectual intelligence, they should be able to dialog about a topic, even if they have different experiences or concepts. I for one, grow each time in mind and soul, when I have an exchange that makes me think in a different light.

I don't believe I contextualized anything, nor did I request a survey. I quoted what you said, made a counter point, and asked for a reply that would demonstrate further facts about your position, it's that simple.

I still would like to do that, not only for my own interest in the topic, but for others that may read this post thread. The topic is "draw joinery," and "stiffness," in Asian/Japanese timber framing. It would be fine, at another time and post thread to discuss Japanese joinery, but I'm still waiting for you to address the sections of your quoted remarks that I have written comments to. We do not need to discuss "Japaneseness,," I have not mention anything relating to "Japaneseness," nor did I claim that "draw boring," was Asian or Japanese. As far as, "point counter point," well that kind of is idea about discussing something with someone that you might have a different perspective from.

Lets get to the discussion of "draw boring." Please address what I wrote in the last thread post and here, about the realities of it in Asia/Japan, and what experience or reading you have done to show that it was not as I have described it.

I, nor anyone else, called draw boring Japanese, just that it is used and relatively common.

Again, I'm not claiming that draw boring is Japanese/Asian. I am stating that many of the joint, in common use in Japan and Asia, today and antiquity, are "drawn joints," either by offset trunnel, wedge, and/or sloped geometry of a joint.

I do clearly see your argument, and have addressed it. They had the "need," as anyone that is constructing anything of wood, to secure it snuggle and tightly together, as they have for several thousand years. Simple put, Asian joints are very tight, always have been.

I was going to let this go, and pass over it. I just can't, I am a mountaineer and AMGA Certified member. I have been rock climbing on and living in mountains, and in the wilderness, most of my life. I teach indigenous life skills. If someone does something once that does not identify them with those qualities but, yes, if someone tries, even in failure, to try something many times, I would identify them with that action.

I and others do not say that draw boring is Japanese. I never have and I never will, what I have said was that many of the pegged joints in Asian and Japan are "drawn joints," it isn't just a random "instance." Is there a degree of subjectivity, of course. There is on any topic.

I was looking for something from Zerger that you may have read, other than on page 122, as I already explained in my last entry, this is not a very good description of "drawn trunnel technique."

Regards,

Jay

Hi Jay,

As I read through what you write there it's clear that we are not making any progress. It was just not meant to be, or so it seems, that we came to a meeting point concerning this topic where the discussion could begin. Without some common ground, to use another metaphor, it strikes me as odd to have further discussion.

Greetings,

Don Wagstaff

Here are a few pictures of the square peg detail, plus a few other pics of the project. One plus about the square pegging... the pegs sure are easy to make!

Awesome Sean, these look great!!!

I didn't know you had a Hema...are you punching the rough hole with that first or drilling. If you get a 25 or 30 mill bar and chain, you can use it.

Did they have any draw or strait through?

Great job...we will talk soon.

Regards, jay

Thanks!
They will have a slight draw. I was making pegs today so I drove the one in the picture for size testing purposes. I used a 1" wood owl to do the initial hole with a drill stand. I have both the 1.5" and 2" bar and chain for the Hema. I didn't know they made anything smaller for that.

The use to and I think you can still get custom made ones, but they are expensive. Your techniques seems to be working just fine, keep it up.