Mark V 500 Main Table with two cutouts

[dgale]

I've been wondering lately why my Mark V 500 main table has two saw cutouts, while virtually every other one I've ever seen just has the one main cutout. On mine, it has the main cutout with the interchangeable inserts for saw, dado, drum sander/shaper etc., as well as a cutout on the left side for the saw blade. I'd never seen another like it until just now when I noticed one for sale on E-Bay:



Anyone else have this as well? Is this something they did for a certain era of 500's? (Mine is a late '78 model).

[JPG]

Since the 500 rip fence does not span the main to extension table, there is a rip width range that is impossible. By utilizing the 'extra' slot, rip cuts within that range can be accomplished.

Not sure of the SS Inc. 500 tables, but the earlier Magna American tables will not accommodate a 10" blade at full cut depth.

Please do not ask how I know that!:rolleyes:

[reible]

Hi,

My 1976 model came with the two slot table. I purchased it new from shopsmith so I know its history. Used machines it is hard to tell what is/was original.

It is clear at some point the slot was eliminated, I've never seen a date for that posted.

Ed

[MikeG]

Here are two pages that address the second slot. The first came with my 1980 unit. It has a date of Jan. 1980 (the 1/80 in the lower right). The second is from PTWFE that mentions the limitations using a 10" blade in the second slot.
I hope this helps.
[ATTACH]19011[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]19012[/ATTACH]

[dgale]

Thanks - that's helpful. So if I understand this correctly, the second slot was originally there so you could rip wider boards without having to move the fence to the extension table, but they subsequently eliminated it as they felt it made the table weaker (?) and/or more prone to warping? I understand the limitations of this slot in terms of blade height - I can easily rip 2x material with this slot but I don't push it beyond that. I don't really get the weakened table issue and enjoy the flexibility. What do others think? Also, any ideas on what date ranges the various table configurations were made?

[stephenrc]

The 1981 Mark V 500 that I inherited has a purchase date of 9/8/81 on the warranty card. The table doesn't have the second slot and isn't shown in manual. In the PTWFE book, there is one photo showing the second slot and it's the one showing the blade guard.

[JPG]

Understand the following pertains only to a Mark 5 or Mark V '500'.

I would like to see how the 'individual' who authored those two pieces of 'information' sets it up to accurately rip between 4" and 9" width using the center slot only.

Perhaps the wider extension table was de rigueur then, but much discussion has taken place regarding the feasibility of bridging the main/extension table gap with the fence. With the older narrow cast front(rip fence mounting surfaces) proper alignment to the main table is quite remote(nothing to adjust). The newer(wider) extension table has the same extrusion on the front as the main table, but getting perfect alignment is unlikely.

IMHO there was good reason for the second slot. Probably the 'real' reason for 'removing' it was the 10" blade. The second slot works fine with a 9" blade for which it was originally intended.

Lowering the table too far onto a 10" blade in the second slot will definitely weaken the table as the blade nibbles away at the table bottom.

[pennview]

I measured the second slot on a Mark VII and it measures 10 3/16", so should be no problem using a 10" blade on that model.

[JPG]

I measured the second slot on a Mark VII and it measures 10 3/16", so should be no problem using a 10" blade on that model.

The Mark VII 10" sanding disc will also.

The Mark VII was designed as a 10" saw.

[dgale]

I wonder why they didn't just redesign the cutout to handle the 10" blades at full height? Instead they just got rid of it...