The Pragmatic Woodturning Woodworker

Recently I conducted a survey concerning chucks and jaw sets.  I have included the output from the survey in the form of the attached spreadsheet.  My purpose for the survey, although not overly scientific, is to gather information on what makes a particular brand appealing and how turners are using the equipment.  In short, I am curious to know what folks have and what shaped their decisions.  It also occurred to me that, although folks are certainly using a variety of chucks, I have not seen much written in the literature as to the merits of chuck design and utility.  One excellent source available for those interested in maximizing the usefulness of their chuck and jaw combinations was  written for “American Woodturner” by Richard Raffan (“It’s All in the Jaws”, December 2010, pgs. 22-27).  If there is anyone that knows a thing or two about a chuck, it is Richard Raffan and I highly recommend the article that is available in the journal section on The American Association of Woodturners.

I attempted to keep the survey short because I am typically not a fan of surveys and can appreciate the labor involved in answering one.  I wanted to establish some sort of idea of how the most well-known brands stack up against one another before trying to paint a picture of why and how folks are using their selections.  I turned to an external survey tool that provided a mechanism for textual feedback and the opportunity for folks to report ownership of more than one brand of equipment.  The responses are provided in the spreadsheet along with some charts at the request of several of the participants (link at the bottom of the blog).

I read the responses as they came in, but lacking an automated analysis system, I had  to rely on my memory when forming my comments.  That said, I have jotted down my initial impressions accepting that my interpretation might be a little skewed (pardon the pun) because of the time between reading and writing.  However, I am sure that they will be checked extensively by others because I have attached the raw data to help inform and draw individual conclusions.

• Cost isn’t as much of a factor as might be expected.  In fact, it looks to have ended up in the middle.  However, I am skeptical because Teknatool seems to be selected more often.  Perhaps this is  more because of a favorable cost to quality ratio as compared to strictly cost.  However, there are many folks that own equipment from more than one manufacturer.
• There are mixed reviews on the usefulness of considering chuck jaws in the influence of design.  I got the impression that a jaw set is selected after the fact to fit a design and that little consideration is given to the possibility that a particular jaw set might induce an improvement in design not previously contemplated.  In fact, many folks were very adamant that the jaws don’t influence design at all.  Appreciating their point,  I would suggest that there is also room to consider design aspects as they relate to jaws when planning the re-chucking process?
• I think we can safely say folks like to have multiple chuck and jaw combinations rather than changing jaws for each situation.
• Step jaws are not mentioned much.  This is interesting as they provide for several fixing diameters (read appropriately sized foot for the finished piece) in one design and if the jaws grip on a true circle require little tenon length for a safe and strong fixing.
• I don’t recall reading much about smooth dovetailed deep cup jaws as a considered/preferred jaw set design.  Another interesting observation, considering that jaw depth can lead to some very functional, but non-traditional methods for fixing that might limit the number of times a piece is re-mounted.
• Geared keys fall short for some folks, making the experience of chucking a little unpleasant.
• A tight grip is important and marked wood is not desirable.
• I was looking for more discussion about the effects of jaw design on functionality (e.g., considerations like chamfered vs. crisp outer lips or interrupted vs. continuous inner lips).

Wow, that was a lot of copying and pasting, but worth the effort.  I’d like to thank all that participated for your time and effort.  I hope this little compilation proves useful and that it spurs many conversations out there in the community.  Enjoy!

*  Information identifying the responder (e.g., e-mail addresses and web  links) was removed from the survey in the interest of privacy.  This survey was taken by the responders through the “Survey Monkey” online survey tool.  Use of this information is in compliance with the terms  of the “Survey Monkey” web site and has been agreed to by both parties.  Use of this information beyond personal viewing and study is unauthorized without the express written consent of the owner of this site. The site owner does not accept responsibility for the illegal  use of the information in whole or in part. © Matthew C. Lewis.  All rights reserved.