<HTML>.<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">           .</BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE>Del wrote A petty point, perhaps, but the amount of compression--i.e., the physical displacement of the wood cells--is the same in both types of wood. As long as the hole diameter and the size of the pin remains the same the amount of compression would also be the same if you used spruce or balsa. The resistance to that compression, however, is a whole other matter. The tight-grain maple resists compression much more than does balsa--or the earlywood of loose-grain maple. Hence the lower force required to drive the pin into the loose-grain maple--there is much more earlywood in there. Also, there is less long-term compression set in the latewood of any species than there is in the earlywood. </BLOCKQUOTE>          Not petty but the same ,perhaps more articulate ,but the point remains though ,doesn't it, ? that if one wants a tighter fit pin ( more compression of the wood)  in a maple cap with wider  grain a smaller hole is required. That was my point.             Dale <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>