Crosscut weirdness

[RFGuy]

It may be helpful for the OP to take a look at this other thread. As I recall from that thread, we kind of went around in circles a bit on alignment. In the end, the miter gauge wasn't properly square and had some issues in that it wasn't assembled correctly. I point this out, because perhaps on this thread it may be worth reviewing whether his square is dialed in as well. IF the OP has some time to skim the thread linked below, there might be 1 or 2 things that stand out. Just a thought...

viewtopic.php?p=270202#p270202

[HopefulSSer]

Will take a look. Thanks!

[edma194]

How did you determine that your table is properly aligned? If it isn't then the two slots will give different results and the miter gauge must be off if one slot seems to cut correctly.

[HopefulSSer]

Basically I scoured this site for setup methods and also other more generic table saw methods I could find and cross-checked a bunch of them. They all confirmed one another, once I'd gotten it set. And I cross-checked with two reference surfaces: blade and sanding disk. I'm very confident it's aligned properly. I've also checked the miter gauge against multiple references (machinist's square, confirmed-square combo square, draw-a-line-and-flip-it, etc)

Assuming correct SS's statement that the two slots are milled simultaneously using the same arbor and are therefore guaranteed to be parallel, how could misalignment of the table cause one slot to yield correct cuts but not the other? Even if the miter gauge is off, wouldn't I see complementary errors one side to the other? I'm not challenging you but rather these are legit questions I'm trying to understand. I can't get my head around the results I'm getting. Doesn't seem like it should be possible....

[RFGuy]

Assuming correct SS's statement that the two slots are milled simultaneously using the same arbor and are therefore guaranteed to be parallel

Yeah, we are all just trying to help. IF I led you astray by questioning if the two slots are exactly parallel then I apologize. I only ever align/check one of mine and I am content with that. I thought I had kind of seen previous forum posts to confirm that you should align one slot or the other one to the blade, but now I can't find any relevant posts. So either I am imagining this or going crazy or these posts are just buried too deep in the forum archives. In any event, hope you get this resolved if you want to use both miter slots.

[edma194]

That table was milled decades ago, it could have changed it's shape over time. That seems unlikely without any other evidence like a warp in the table surface. You could check for squareness all around with a straight edge but I assume you would have noticed something like that already.

As for the miter gauge being off, it has to be some very small amount in order for the board not to jam in the blade, and the cuts would show complimentary errors, just that one side appears to be cutting at 90 degrees and so making the other cut appear to be even further off.

[edma194]

I only ever align/check one of mine and I am content with that.

That's all I've ever done. If any slots were misaligned the only way I would notice is the same way the OP did. And if I did see that result I would assume it was my fault and maybe not even repeat the cut in the same manner.

[HopefulSSer]

bainin is very generously loaning me some blades and arbors to try. They're technically not the correct ones for my 500 so I'll have to remove the lower guard and scootch the table over but they should work for confirming or eliminating my blade as the source of error.

[HopefulSSer]

As for the miter gauge being off, it has to be some very small amount in order for the board not to jam in the blade, and the cuts would show complimentary errors, just that one side appears to be cutting at 90 degrees and so making the other cut appear to be even further off.

That's what I can't get my head around -- isn't the complement of 90º, 90º?

[edma194]

That's what I can't get my head around -- isn't the complement of 90º, 90º?

That first cut couldn't really be 90º, it would have to be slightly off and the wood not tracking through the blade at exactly 90º, and it would bind if any further off. I am merely speculating here on how to produce the result you see, what you have could be something else entirely, including a misshapen table. It's so old there's no telling what might have happened in manufacturing over 60 years ago.