Extension tables

[keakap]

I have three sets of 510 rails. These rails have studs onto which you apply spacers then insert the studs into holes on the table's edge with lock washers and nuts on the inside of the table edge.

I believe I have seen rails without the studs. Instead a bolt is inserted through the rail and then the spacer is applied. An access hole in the leading edge of the rail allows access to the bolt head for tightening into a threaded hole in the tables edge..

My 520 rails attach to the tables edge, through those same holes, using hex head bolts, lock washers and nuts. The spacers are just that. Spacers that are properly sized and flat on bolt ends.

The spacers used on my 510 rails are flat on one end and contoured to fit the rail on the other.

Hi Dusty,
Great description, and right on. And thanks muchly to your help I've finally been able to identify the various differences.

The older version (mine's '83) has the rail attached by bolt- NOT stud-n-nut.
And there's another complication of which to be aware and very cautious. There are more than the 2 versions of the 510 tables/rails. For me to convert to a 520 System I think I would have to order some of the "Stud" system parts and some of the "bolt" system parts, or all three new Aux tables, or call McGyver.

I recently had a defective Main table replaced, which was very nice indeed, except for one little thing-- the Main that was sent is the newer Stud version (which I guess we are calling the '86 ver.) and my aux tables are the older Bolt version (actually two different versions of the older version).
Problem is the rails: different wall thicknesses, so the rails can NOT be aligned by the connector tubes.
[The connector tube aligns the INNER wall of the rail tube.]

[keakap]

Rambling???? Maybe, but it was all necessary to convey the answer(s).

Any body Know which 510 version is the 'latest/current' version. The 'bolt' version has got to be 'cheaper' to manufacture than the 'stud' version. I am thinking holey/bolts are 'current'.

The "Studs-n-Nuts" version is the newer. My older Aux tables are the "Bolt" kine.

Buy hay! Isn't all this history terrific!?

Where else, I wonder, could one find out the wee dirty details of all these different versions if not the Forums?

I certainly appreciate all the info contributed here. Thanks everybody.

[keakap]

my '86 510 has the holes, my '89 510 does not.
the parts breakdown for the 505/510 main table
http://www.shopsmith.com/ownersite/part ... ew_510.htm
shows the rails with the mounting studs welded on for the current version.

Great! Nothing like a breakdown (parts, that is).
This reminds me to mention that the newer version Extension table uses STUDS to mount to the Base Assy, whereas the older version used bolts, which made aligning the table to the Main table an excruciatingly painful process involving weird sized shims, a tube of grease, and a broken back.

[dicksterp]

Keakap,

That is not strictly true. My '89 510 (I upgraded to a 520) had the extension table with the stud tubes, but had bolts (not studs) to hold on the legs. I also bought a used 510 extension table off of Ebay and it was the same.

[JPG]

Hi Dusty,
Great description, and right on. And thanks muchly to your help I've finally been able to identify the various differences.

The older version (mine's '83) has the rail attached by bolt- NOT stud-n-nut.
And there's another complication of which to be aware and very cautious. There are more than the 2 versions of the 510 tables/rails. For me to convert to a 520 System I think I would have to order some of the "Stud" system parts and some of the "bolt" system parts, or all three new Aux tables, or call McGyver.

I recently had a defective Main table replaced, which was very nice indeed, except for one little thing-- the Main that was sent is the newer Stud version (which I guess we are calling the '86 ver.) and my aux tables are the older Bolt version (actually two different versions of the older version).
Problem is the rails: different wall thicknesses, so the rails can NOT be aligned by the connector tubes.
[The connector tube aligns the INNER wall of the rail tube.]

OK! I understand the bolt/stud difference(s). Please elaborate on the 'different' rail wall thickness. What are the dimensions(ID/OD of EACH)? Does this not also affect the fence rear tension adjustment? Do the different wall thicknesses coincide with the bolt/stud variations?

[keakap]

Keakap,

That is not strictly true. My '89 510 (I upgraded to a 520) had the extension table with the stud tubes, but had bolts (not studs) to hold on the legs. I also bought a used 510 extension table off of Ebay and it was the same.

Aha! Yet another version. Thanks for the info. If I ever look to buy replacement tables I'll have a nice list of needed details. Although the way it's going, the list may be the size of a health care bill.

This is fascinating stuff.

[dusty]

This may be obvious to most but I think it is still worth mentioning.

A floating table can be made into an extension table (with either bolts or studs) by simply threading the appropriate pre-drilled holes and inserting in either bolts or threaded rod or bolts with the heads cut off.

So, unless you know the history of your floating/extension tables....

Now, my extension tables have studs that I have not been able to remove. They do not seem to be just screwed in; I suspect that they may have been inserted under pressure (and maybe heat) when the tables were made.

Given a choice, I would prefer a table with threaded holes. Let me configure them with or without threaded rod. This would allow you to use a table as a floating table without studs to bang your head on.

[keakap]

OK! I understand the bolt/stud difference(s). Please elaborate on the 'different' rail wall thickness. What are the dimensions(ID/OD of EACH)? Does this not also affect the fence rear tension adjustment? Do the different wall thicknesses coincide with the bolt/stud variations?

The 'old' rails, bolt type, are:
outer diameter = 1-1/4"
inner diam = 1-1/32
wall = 7/64

the newer style rail, Stud-n-Nuts style, that I have is:
outer diam = 1-1/4
inner diam = 1-1/16
wall = 6/64

The fence tension is not a problem. Note the OUTer diameters are the same, and that's where the fence makes contact.
Unfortunately tho, the connector tubes, when 'locked' exert aligning pressure against the INside of the rails, so locking the front, the old Aux table gets pushed out of alignment by the amount of the disparity, 1/64 (which IS enough to see). By the time I get to the back tubes the misalignment is 1/32 and that's what makes connection difficult.

Surely 1/64 doesn't sound like much, and I was surprised at that, but it stands out like a sore thumb when the fence straddles the two tables. That 1/64 (.4mm) or so difference between the left side of the fence (against the rail) and the right side translates to a considerable skew at the rear of the table. Kick-back City! This only relates to certain setups, of course. But danged if just about everything I do seems to be effected some way.

I dunno. The old walls are thicker, so are they stronger? But they have holes in them, so are they weaker? Or as strong, thick vs holes?

Speaking of strength, the new locking knobs are 1-1/8 wide, and meant to be "finger" tightened. The old 'knobs' are 5/8 diam, with two thru-holes sized to accept the standard do-everything 5/32 long-shaft allen wrench, and you can Really crank them dudes down tight with that leverage!
[If you're horizontal boring, (then you should stand up and be exciting!), uh, that is, if you're in that SS mode and the backstop for your workpiece is clamped to the Ext table, lock the connector tubes with the allen wrench and no amount of quill feed force is going to push the tables apart.]

[keakap]

Given a choice, I would prefer a table with threaded holes. Let me configure them with or without threaded rod. This would allow you to use a table as a floating table without studs to bang your head on.

I agree. And thanks to the good ideas found on this forum I threw out the old bolts from my Ext table and bought 2" bolts (allen head, forget what they're called) and nuts to make a "threaded rod" or "stud" like arrangement for alignment porpoises. Vast improvement.
That leaves the other two Aux tables, one threaded and one not. Good 'nuf.

[JPG]

The 'old' rails, bolt type, are:
outer diameter = 1-1/4"
inner diam = 1-1/32
wall = 7/64

the newer style rail, Stud-n-Nuts style, that I have is:
outer diam = 1-1/4
inner diam = 1-1/16
wall = 6/64

The fence tension is not a problem. Note the OUTer diameters are the same, and that's where the fence makes contact.
Unfortunately tho, the connector tubes, when 'locked' exert aligning pressure against the INside of the rails, so locking the front, the old Aux table gets pushed out of alignment by the amount of the disparity, 1/64 (which IS enough to see). By the time I get to the back tubes the misalignment is 1/32 and that's what makes connection difficult.

Surely 1/64 doesn't sound like much, and I was surprised at that, but it stands out like a sore thumb when the fence straddles the two tables. That 1/64 (.4mm) or so difference between the left side of the fence (against the rail) and the right side translates to a considerable skew at the rear of the table. Kick-back City! This only relates to certain setups, of course. But danged if just about everything I do seems to be effected some way.

I dunno. The old walls are thicker, so are they stronger? But they have holes in them, so are they weaker? Or as strong, thick vs holes?

Speaking of strength, the new locking knobs are 1-1/8 wide, and meant to be "finger" tightened. The old 'knobs' are 5/8 diam, with two thru-holes sized to accept the standard do-everything 5/32 long-shaft allen wrench, and you can Really crank them dudes down tight with that leverage!
[If you're horizontal boring, (then you should stand up and be exciting!), uh, that is, if you're in that SS mode and the backstop for your workpiece is clamped to the Ext table, lock the connector tubes with the allen wrench and no amount of quill feed force is going to push the tables apart.]

THANK YOU FOR THE DIMENSIONS!:)

WOULDN'T PLACING A 1/64" SHIM(.016...) BETWEEN THE "OLD" SPACER AND THE TABLE ALLOW ALIGNMENT WITH THE 'OTHER'(NEWER) 510 VERSION? THIS MOVES THE INNER WALL OF THE TABLE TUBE TO THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE TABLE AS THE THINNER(NEWER) WALL TABLE TUBES.