A question for you Other early vintage 10E Owners

[everettdavis]

I am working to keep a promise I made to John Burger to restore and update the Preliminary MAGNA Shopsmith Manual.

I have come across a question I cannot find the answer to. In the attached photo, I have my 10E that I originally acquired through Dave H. (CO) in Colorado SN 1414.

Skip has long held that MAGNA sold approximately 4,000 units in 1947, the original first year of production which took off with Montgomery Ward offering it nationally in their stores for Christmas 1947, which makes my unit one of the earliest ones ever made.

That said, even being one of the first ones made, it does not have a casting that appears on the Headstock in the Preliminary Manual I am redoing.

Equally, it does not appear in the subsequent 10E Manual that I restored previously.

I have attached a photo illustrating the casting variance. Now I am wondering; "Does anyone living know what it was for, or why it was removed?"

Everett

10E Headstock Early Casting Changes from Preliminary Manual.jpg (667.16 KiB) Viewed 3626 times

[jsburger]

I am working to keep a promise I made to John Burger to restore and update the Preliminary MAGNA Shopsmith Manual.

I have come across a question I cannot find the answer to. In the attached photo, I have my 10E that I originally acquired through Dave H. (CO) in Colorado SN 1414.

Skip has long held that MAGNA sold approximately 4,000 units in 1947, the original first year of production which took off with Montgomery Ward offering it nationally in their stores for Christmas 1947, which makes my unit one of the earliest ones ever made.

That said, even being one of the first ones made, it does not have a casting that appears on the Headstock in the Preliminary Manual I am redoing.

Equally, it does not appear in the subsequent 10E Manual that I restored previously.

I have attached a photo illustrating the casting variance. Now I am wondering; "Does anyone living know what it was for, or why it was removed?"

Everett10E Headstock Early Casting Changes from Preliminary Manual.jpg

An oops on the original drawings, an oops on the person that made the original mold? Who knows.

My guess is that it is the same as the casting/bolt hole on the top of the production castings to hold the belt cover. Maybe the original belt cover designer thought the attach point would be more convenient on the front of the machine. Then changes were made before production. We will never know.

[ERLover]

Even though I have 3 ERs, I dont eat and sleep with them like some here. I may take a guess, it may have been for the jig saw???

[jsburger]

Even though I have 3 ERs, I dont eat and sleep with them like some here. I may take a guess, it may have been for the jig saw???

I don't eat and sleep with them either. I cook for my wife and she sleeps with me. No cast iron in the bed.

[everettdavis]

In January 1951 article of Western Machinery and Steel World titled "Precision Makes the Shopsmith by Gordon B. Ashmead" I found a photo of the 2nd Shopsmith ever made. It has this casting on the side near the pulley as well. Indeed it may well be the one they photographed for the preliminary manual.

The photo caption identified it as “The second Shopsmith ever produced. After a short period of service as a demonstrator model, it was moved to the plant and has been used continuously as a production drill press ever since.” It goes on to state; “The operator here is shown drilling holes for drive pins in the upper chuck assembly of the Shopsmith jigsaw.”

Clearly seen in this photo is the casting on the side of the headstock, though nothing is attached to it.

The article goes on to state that tolerances were held to less than .0002” on the more critical surfaces, and that after a 20 minute run-in and the run-out of the quill and spindle assembly were accurately recorded under power. Maximum spindle run-out allowed was .0015”. During the authors observation of a number of headstocks, none had a greater run-out than .0005”, and the log book of run-out for the duration of 7 day manufacturing run, the greatest run-out logged was .0010”.

During his visit, the author found about 20 Shopsmiths set up with jigs as production drill presses, either drilling or taping parts for the unit. It is possible that all the ones with this casting were utilized in the plant itself. I have yet to notice one in the wild.

Someday I plan to restore that article as well.

Everett

2nd Shopsmith Made small.png (880.77 KiB) Viewed 3578 times

[JPG]

Also notice no belt guard.

I have become suspicious that that nubbin is for the setscrew that retains the bearing spacer on the drive sleeve. Later ones have a single set screw on the opposite side without that projection. I wonder if the ones with the projection had a twin on the opposite side.

[oldiron]

I have #6834 and it doesn't have the casting nub either. I'm just assuming the originals had it with the assumption they would need two drive sleeve spacer retaining screws and realized one was sufficient enough???

Mike

[JPG]

Well I dug the 10E headstock out and it has that nubbin on the back side only.

So I think we can conclude that the 'originals' had a set screw on both sides.

I also think that that double nubbin presented a sand casting problem.

[everettdavis]

JPG when you get a second could you send me a photo of that on your 10E and its serial number?

I am tying to collect what I can on when changes were made to production runs of 10E and 10ER beyond what Skip recorded in his data.

Thanks

Everett

[JPG]

JPG when you get a second could you send me a photo of that on your 10E and its serial number?

I am tying to collect what I can on when changes were made to production runs of 10E and 10ER beyond what Skip recorded in his data.

Thanks

Everett

Will do. May take a day er two Hang tough.