When it comes to just using the saw for general 40T cutting for framing it would work but, when it comes to trimming an interior or cabinet grade work and using a 60/80T and narrow/to wide trim or panels you may not always get the results wanted.Īs the slide is moved within the miter slot it may raise and fall depending on how far out your table is and show up when you are jointing/babbiting or trimming. On the slide you may notice this on the underside as well and you may notice a camfered looking edge. Your miter slot may show a bright wear place where the slide is making irregular wear. If your saw has a little age to it, and it has been out of adjustment as you say, you can see telltail signs at your miter slot and on the slide. Some saws have 4,6,8 table screws(securing bolts) Straight measure across the throat at the lead and aft sections, then do a diag and parellel. Tom, use your straight edge and feeler gauges to determine how far out your table really is. Good grief, woeeeeeee Nellie and stop the clock I have a real late model Powermatic 64A table saw. If you still want a really flat, stable, tabletop, Northfield can set you up. If you make small finicky or technical pieces, optimizing the throat plate area, and the fence, is where to spend your time. If the table is out of flat a 1/32 or so, but every thing else is as above and very solid, you will probably be able to do most anything sensible within good woodworking practice on it. Having a large cast iron table, say 40" square or larger, is very convenient. I've moved on to other saws, and having a solid, truly flat faced, straight, and really square to the table fence is important, Having the saw table flat, or maybe even crowned a little around the blade area with a solid, flat throat plate is very helpful. But everything is solid,it stays where it is put, and the throat plate is large, solid, close, and very flat around the blade area.
Hercules table saw opinion full#
Sometimes it is faster to cut a lap, or tenon, with high confidence of repeatable accruacy, instead of moving to a tenoner set up.įunny thing, the Eaglsfield is not a saw I would reccomend, it takes way to many cranks with a full aerobic work out to tilt the blade, and the rise and fall is nearly as bad. The miter gage was big enough and accurate enough to confidently do repetive miter cuts, and even dados. Long angle cuts, jamb rabbeting, long bevel rabbets on the back of window stools, etc. I actually found it convenient to do operations accurately enough on the saw that I would previously have set up the shaper to run. Then I bought a 19-teens R.D Eaglesfield TA variety saw, and began to discover the convenience of having a saw that could be set up accurately, and fence that could be made accurately square. Plywood jointery was done on a shaper or with routers. (A tenoner will do many more joints besides tenons).
Dimensioning was done with jointer, planer, and shaper.
I figured the only use for a tablesaw was to rough rip & cross cut stock, so it could be further processed on other machines. For _many_ years, my primary saw was a mere 12" Rockwell contractors saw. My perspective on tilt arbor variety saws ("tablesaws") has modified over the years.
The tops are already fairly thin, so there is a certain amount of risk that if made thinner, it will continue to settle. I don't think there is much gain to having one re-ground unless it really bothers you. However, they do seem to have things down so that it is a pretty nice saw, given a certain amount of windage allowed in some of the components and systems.
So a certain amount of movement and settling is almost a forgone assumption. The castings are not really that heavy, or heavily ribbed/edged, and it seems they blanchard grind the tops about as fast as they are cool enough to handle out of the molds, these days. These saws pack a lot in for the price, but at the expense of a certian amount of refinement. I would venture that if it does, a PM 64A is probably not the ideal saw for whatever it is you are doing. "Does" it bother you? From a work/perfomance perspective?
0 kommentar(er)
