Moxon Vise

[msweig]

I think part of the height you need to consider is how high you want the work to be. The three factors for that are the height of the Moxon, your height, and your workbench height. Just put a board in the vise you have and adjust the height to what you decide you want, then figure it out from there.

[OneStaple]

Mine is a little over 5-1/4" to clear the 5" diameter of the handles. I don't feel like I wish it was any different.

Tyler

[Tapper]

Thanks to all who have responded thus far; the comments on the height of the chop are thoughtful. Obviously, I've never built one of these before so gathering information is the first step.

In my searches on the net, I've run across a couple of Moxon vise builds where the wheels are attached to the ends of the shafts, i.e. they are fast and the shafts do not protrude through the hand wheels, i.e. it operates like a giant bolt. The comment was made about the shafts not sticking out in front. How important is this, if at all?

Also, the kit from "Tools for Working Wood" has handles rather than wheels. For some reason, I'm inclined towards the hand wheels. Comments appreciated on this one also.

Thanks,

Doug

[only 3 injuries]

my scientific answer: I just liked how they would work compared to handles.

I have the benchcrafted leg vise kit and the wheel way just grew on me.

[iclark]

Thanks to all who have responded thus far; the comments on the height of the chop are thoughtful. Obviously, I've never built one of these before so gathering information is the first step.

In my searches on the net, I've run across a couple of Moxon vise builds where the wheels are attached to the ends of the shafts, i.e. they are fast and the shafts do not protrude through the hand wheels, i.e. it operates like a giant bolt. The comment was made about the shafts not sticking out in front. How important is this, if at all?

Also, the kit from "Tools for Working Wood" has handles rather than wheels. For some reason, I'm inclined towards the hand wheels. Comments appreciated on this one also.

Thanks,

Doug

I have liked the looks of wheels as well, but hate the idea of repeatedly hurting myself on the length of screw sticking out beyond the wheel.

The Tools for Working Wood handles look like they might work like the handles on some of my lathes: pull the handle out and it rotates to where it is out of the way (or to where you need it to be able rotate the screw). Could someone who has them confirm this? If that is the case, then it is more interesting since it would reduce the minimum height for the chop (and, hence, the weight of the Moxon vise).

Also the TFWW screw is only 6-1/2" long. With a 2" chop, it seems like this will limit the maximum thickness for the board to be clamped to ~1-1/2". Am I seeing that correctly and is that really something to be concerned about?

[TraditionalToolworks]

I have liked the looks of wheels as well, but hate the idea of repeatedly hurting myself on the length of screw sticking out beyond the wheel.

I think the Moxon is a great accessory to have, it compliments many workbenches. But I have always liked the Holtzapffel as it just eliminates the Moxon to begin with. I'll be building my 2nd bench based around this style as it works for me. The style I will build have so many clamping options I definitely won't need the Moxon. I like the handwheels also. There is a way to use a nut on the back board, similar to how the twin-screw that Lee Valley used to make was implemented. There is no thread sticking out, to become a hazard, it's just more work to build so people seem to opt for the easier/cheaper solution, AFAICT.

[PossumDog]

The Tools for Working Wood handles look like they might work like the handles on some of my lathes: pull the handle out and it rotates to where it is out of the way (or to where you need it to be able rotate the screw). Could someone who has them confirm this? If that is the case, then it is more interesting since it would reduce the minimum height for the chop (and, hence, the weight of the Moxon vise).

Also the TFWW screw is only 6-1/2" long. With a 2" chop, it seems like this will limit the maximum thickness for the board to be clamped to ~1-1/2". Am I seeing that correctly and is that really something to be concerned about?

The handles do not flip down or out of the way, they are fastened solidly into place.
I don't worry about them getting in the way. I guess it could be a problem if they are pointed up in the 11:00 to 1:00 position but you usually can cinch tighter or looser or just work in a different spot for that to be an issue.

The screws are about 6 1/2" long. My front chop is 1" and back is 1.5". I don't see a need to go any thicker.

[Tapper]

I think the Moxon is a great accessory to have, it compliments many workbenches. But I have always liked the Holtzapffel as it just eliminates the Moxon to begin with. I'll be building my 2nd bench based around this style as it works for me. The style I will build have so many clamping options I definitely won't need the Moxon. I like the handwheels also. There is a way to use a nut on the back board, similar to how the twin-screw that Lee Valley used to make was implemented. There is no thread sticking out, to become a hazard, it's just more work to build so people seem to opt for the easier/cheaper solution, AFAICT.

Never took a close look at Lee Valley's twin screw setup. Would be interested in suggestions on the best way to secure the nut on the back board. I have a few ideas, including  "letting it in" and using epoxy to secure it in place.

One advantage all Moxon style vises seem to have (at least to me) is that they provide a more comfortable sawing position, height-wise. I'm only 5'9" but my benchtop height is still too low to comfortably saw with a dovetail saw. 

Again, suggestions welcome on the nut.

Doug

P.S. For those interested, here is Chris Schwartz's interpretation of the Holtzapffel bench. Informative video down below.

[iclark]

The handles do not flip down or out of the way, they are fastened solidly into place.
I don't worry about them getting in the way. I guess it could be a problem if they are pointed up in the 11:00 to 1:00 position but you usually can cinch tighter or looser or just work in a different spot for that to be an issue.

The screws are about 6 1/2" long. My front chop is 1" and back is 1.5". I don't see a need to go any thicker.

Thanks good to know.

FWIW, this is why I thought that the handles might be like the ones on my Jet and PM lathes:

The black metal handles give you great leverage but also can swing out of the way after you clamp them down so you don't bump into them.

That screw head sticking out of the top in the TFWW pic looks just like the ones on my Jet.

[iclark]

Never took a close look at Lee Valley's twin screw setup. Would be interested in suggestions on the best way to secure the nut on the back board. I have a few ideas, including  "letting it in" and using epoxy to secure it in place.

One advantage all Moxon style vises seem to have (at least to me) is that they provide a more comfortable sawing position, height-wise. I'm only 5'9" but my benchtop height is still too low to comfortably saw with a dovetail saw. 

Again, suggestions welcome on the nut.

Doug

P.S. For those interested, here is Chris Schwartz's interpretation of the Holtzapffel bench. Informative video down below.

Now that you remind me, I have seen some pics where the hex nut was "let in" to the rear board. Some just did a tight fit and some expoxied them in. I guess, if you plan ahead, you can use a Forstner bit slightly smaller than the flat-to-flat size of the hex nut to drill the recess before you drill the through hole. That would make the chisel work easier and also help center the 6-sided mortise on the hole for the shaft.

I have no idea how the Holtzapffel-style bench helps with sawing dovetails. Is there a height-adjustable variant of that bench?