Grizzly cabinet saw -- which one?

[J&KCopeland]

I had a 1973 Model, (Emerson Electric) Craftsman that I used for years. Granted, the fence was hard to adjust, but once it was fine-tuned, it worked (and is still working )fine. My son uses it, now. The key was to completely release the locking mechanism, so that there was absolutely no drag on the away lock. If there was any drag, or heavy buildup of sawdust on the back rail, it *could* be locked out of parallel.

My father has a 1953 Craftsman Table saw with a micro-adjustable fence. I have NO idea who made the saw or the fence. The fence had a knob that engaged a toothed rail and made for absolutely minute adjustments. It's still working fine, today, and has stood up to fifty years of cabinet-making.

I don't buy in to this all-Craftsman-tools-are-crap "conventional wisdom". Because, it's not true. I dislike modern Craftsman routers, because they are ungainly, unbalanced, ackward, and ugly. That said, I have TWO

20-year-old Craftsman routers (and Skill, and Bosch), that are quite adequate.

James....

[Leon]

Mine was an 83 model and would be parallel unill the rear clamping finger pulled the fence out of parallel.

No doubt... the "OLD" Craftsman machines were pretty good.

Agreed. But most the new stuff in the last 20 years has not been up to par.

I had an 86 Craftsman jointer that was crap and have an 87 Band Saw that holds it won although I would like to replace it.

[Mike]

That's what the manual says to do. Honestly for me I would probably try loosening it all from underneath first and see if I could do it without flipping it over. I think I can actually reach the 4 bolts from the back by snaking my hand in there anyway (power off obviously ;) -- it might work. Fortunately I haven't had to yet, if I ever do, I'll post here with how it went.

Mike

[Upscale]

But Leon, people are much more likely to complain about a product than promote its merits. It's obvious that there's going to be many, more complaints than praises. They have to be taken with a big grain of salt. The fact that the front mount type is so popular doesn't mean that it's better. It might mean that, but it could just as easily mean that is what the manufactures have decided to advertise. ala ~ Microsoft. Front clamping only fences require less material to construct and simpler, cheaper technology to design.

[Upscale]

Last reply to this thread. I don't agree with that last line. Assume that someone is not feeding a piece of wood through a bies style fence with front only locking. The inherent weakness is that if there's too much sideways pressure against the wood, the fence is going to skew. Ok, the massiveness of these rails and fences usually precludes that, but it's still a weakness and entirely possible. Misaligned blade, stock feed not parallel to the fence, pressure against the tail end of the bies style fence and it's there happening right in front of you. Front and rear locking fences would be less prone to that kind of skewing. It's an added safety or control mechanism if you will.

I'll admit to you that for me anyway, all of this is hypothetical in the sense that I've never owned any type of tablesaw that didn't have front and back locking mechanism. I might change my mind at some point, but it's mostly logic and specific example that drives me, not rhetoric such as "notorious" accounts.

Good discussion. Apologies if I came off too strong at some point.

Dave

[JackD]

I don't buy your "safety" argument. In this case, logic would suggest that if the wood feeding through the misaligned blade is producing severe pressure against the fence that you would PREFER that the fence moves. The alternative is that the blade bends, binds and BANG!

There really shouldn't be enough sideways force against the fence to deflect it unless you are supplying it. It is under your control. I think that one is more likely to forget to lock the fence tightly than they are to feed wood with enough sideways force to skew the typical bies style fence.

In general simpler is better.

That said, I once built a table and a fence for a bench type saw. The fence was a t-square type, but because it was made out of aluminum angle stock and was 4 feet long it REQUIRED that the tail end be clamped down. Not to get good alignment, but to make sure it was not going to move around. It was rather whippy. This points out that each type has it's merits.

-Jack

[B a r r y B u r k e J r .]

I've noticed that the quality and condition of the blade makes more difference than the horsepower on anything equal to or less than 5/4.

Barry

[Ramsey]

Beg to differ but I think i can see a difference. I put a junker blade onmy unisaw when ripping/crosscutting waste 2x4's or 2x6's and it never slows down. I KNOW it is dull; that's why I use it. Like I said, it is a junker. But it'll cut nails and stuff and you never know it. I also use a Bies splitter.

[B a r r y B u r k e J r .]

I never said there was *no* difference. Of COURSE there is, especially when cutting nails!

What I wrote was: "I've noticed that the quality and condition of the blade makes more difference than the horsepower on anything equal to or less than 5/4."

Now, how thick are those waste 2-bys?

Also, what's the moisture content in typical construction lumber?

Barry