Simple. When a crosscut kicks the wood is *not* thrown back, away from the operator, rather the carriage is propelled *towards* the operator.
Kickback pawls on a crosscut?
If you're lucky and nothing else goes wrong.
That often happens after a kickback.
But they are. ...and they are what we were discussing.
I set mine up years ago, have made more cuts than I can remember and it's still dead on.
There are at least two things you can do with a RAS that you can't do with a SCMS:
Most radial arm saws allow the saw carriage to be turned at 90 degrees to the rails, and locked in place, so you can make rip cuts.
Radial arm saws also have long enough arbors to accomodate a dado set.
True enough, but it's also true that the primary purpose of a RAS is crosscuts, not ripping. I haven't ripped even one board on my RAS since I bought my first TS.
I can easily understand preferring to never use one for rip cuts if a TS is available. Never using one for crosscuts is a bit harder for me to understand: that's what it was designed to do.
Apparently you didn't have it clamped to the table.
Yes, on a crosscut -- the wood's going to go the same direction the teeth are moving, and that is indeed away from the operator.
Perhaps you meant to say "not on a rip cut"?
Thanx! I forgot about the head turning 90 and using the RAS like an upside down shaper table. This must be what all the "jumping the board" an "ripping" discussion is all about.
Most radial arm saws allow the saw carriage to be turned at 90 degrees to the rails, and locked in place, so you can make rip cuts.
Radial arm saws also have long enough arbors to accomodate a dado set.
------------------ >Never used a RAS but wonder how they compare with a good sliding miter >saw.
Yes, that *can* happen, if the operator isn't feeding the carriage properly.
But so what? Even if it does, you can't be hurt unless you've done something blindingly stupid like operating the saw without the blade guard, or putting your other hand in line with the cut.
Typically every new RAS right out of the box has the alignment issue. You have to assemble at least the table and that has to be done perfectly. So at least once the RAS has all those extra alignment settinsg. Then add in humidity, temperature changes and the table/fence needs to be readjusted. If you really use the RAS a lot the table has to be replaced and you start the alignment process again.
Now, if you have an industrial sized saw in good condition the adjustments are probably greatly reduced as would be expected but because of the inherent characteristics of the RAS the more commonly found ones are more trouble.
I believe that the biggest issue with all RAS's regardless of size is the wood table which moves and changes shape.
Consider also that if you most often cut a like sized material on the
16" RAS's as you do with a 10" RAS. If you mostly cut 3/4" material with a 10" RAS the equivalent on a 16" RAS would probably be 1-1/4"", assuming the capacity on a 10" saw is 3" and the capacity on a 16" is 5". When always using equivalent thickness materials I am sure the alignment and operation issues become more equal. The typical 10 RAS would probably perform much better and more smoothly if it normally cut material less the 1/2" thick.Now I am not saying that I would never use a RAS again but I would absolutely trust the results from my cabinet saw over any RAS whether it be cross cutting or ripping with few exceptions such as squaring the end of a long board or cutting dados across long boards.
This is my view after having both machines and build lots of furniture with both. I still view the TS a more safe to operate machine over the RAS even though I have never been injured with a RAS but have been with a TS.
Agreed...it's not an issue that Leon makes it to be ime. (After all, we're working wood here, not machining precision metal...)
On 8/7/2011 11:20 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ...
I'm older than I think...it's actually been 40+ years and _never_ had any of this "anything else" to go wrong yet. I really don't know what there is _to_ go wrong.
Exceptin' it just isn't an issue...
--
I believe that with access to a TS that cross cutting becoming the primary function of a RAS certainly is a true statement. When I bought my TS however I stopped ripping AND cross cutting with my RAS. ;~) Two years later I gained a log of room after never using and selling the RAS and never looked back although I did add add a 12" CMS about 10 years later. And true to form when I upgraded my TS to a cabinet saw 12 years ago the CMS became a dust collector which I only use on the occasional job site. It still sets at the old house that we sold to our son in October.
The key elements that I added to my cabinet saw immediately were a left and right Dubby jig, "infinite angle, 90-45 degree, cutting sleds". If you ever want to be able to accurately cut repeated length miters on panels or boards on your TS you might want to keep them in mind, especially if you want to make more room by eliminating a RAS. ;~) It is a hard decision to make, getting rid of a large piece of equipment, but if you find yourself only using the RAS for the occasional cross cut....
Not trying in any to away you from using your RAS, just letting you know that there are alternative ways to repeatedly do very accurate multi angle and compound angle cross cuts on a TS.
Well that is certainly true but once you start to expect more precision from your equipment your projects reflect that. Keep in mind that I have seriousely been building furniture since the late 70's, have owned both the RAS and TS and find that set up and accuracy to be simpler and better on a cabinet saw. If your are satisfied with the results you get from your RAS that is great. I eventually out grew the limitations of my RAS, both in ripping and in cross cutting and added a TS for the first time in 1983. I never used my RAS again and sold it a few years later.
When I first owned a RAS there was no such thing as a SCMS. I used the RAS to build 3 recording studios. The last studio I built in the early nineties, the RAS, although setup onsite as usual, hardly got used as I had a miter saw by then, and the RAS had become what I considered a liability issue ... had a couple of guys helping me that I was sure would eventually kill themselves with the damn thing.
I certainly haven't missed owning one. That's not to say that if I had beaucoup room and an unlimited tool budget I wouldn't have another one, along with a couple of more table saws, for dedicated use. First things, first.
In my dreams .... :)
What's "the danger"?
On a table saw you move your fingers into the blade.
On an RAS you move the blade into your fingers.
Either way you have no fingers.
How is one "more dangerous" than the other?
While I don't have your amount of experience, my own is pretty much the same.
While an RAS, perfectly aligned, is a wonderful tool, bump it in the wrong place and you have to go through the whole process again. I just don't get the same repeatability out of the RAS that I do out of a crosscut sled on the table saw.
Well, I have a PM66 TS as well, but I'd not (willingly) give up the RAS, either...
I've been building since in the mid-60s; a significant period of custom work both furniture and architectural...nobody yet complained about a lack of results... :)
--
Oh, great, another tool to buy. Thanks Leon. Now to scrape up a spare three hundred bucks . . .
On 8/8/2011 9:38 AM, J. Clarke wrote: ...
...
If a simple bump can do that, it's the POS in "POS RAS" that's the problem, not that it was a RAS... :)
--
"J. Clarke" wrote
Yabbut....squaring the end of a ten foot 1 X 12? ;-)
Max
It's inherent in the design. Bump the end of the arm from the side and something's going to give. It's called "leverage".
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required