510 to 520? Is it worth it?

Ed in Tampa · Post by **Ed in Tampa** » Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:38 am

Personal opinion it that the 510 should be withdrawn as being ill conceived now that the 520 has been developed.

I have a real problem with the 510 fence rails and connector tubes and how they interact. The 520 system is far superior and more accurate in the area of repeatability.

The 520 fence is far easier to adjust to being parallel to the blade, however in use I will state I perfer the 510 locking method better.

I originally bought a 500 which I loved. Upgraded to 510 and so hated it I stopped using my Shopsmith altogether. I saw the 520 being demo'ed and immediately ordered it. I can honestly say if I had not gotten the 520upgrade I would not have a Shopsmith today, that is how strong I feel about it.

Truthfully I have never gotten past the disappointment I experienced with the 510, it has forever tainted my view of Shopsmith quality and design.

The 500 was such a precise and exact machine and then to release the loosey goosey 510 upgrade design was very disappointing to me.

ibskot · Post by **ibskot** » Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:37 am

Thanks Ed. Honesty is always good.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:00 pm

Ed in Tampa wrote:Personal opinion it that the 510 should be withdrawn as being ill conceived now that the 520 has been developed.

I have a real problem with the 510 fence rails and connector tubes and how they interact. The 520 system is far superior and more accurate in the area of repeatability.

The 520 fence is far easier to adjust to being parallel to the blade, however in use I will state I perfer the 510 locking method better.

I originally bought a 500 which I loved. Upgraded to 510 and so hated it I stopped using my Shopsmith altogether. I saw the 520 being demo'ed and immediately ordered it. I can honestly say if I had not gotten the 520upgrade I would not have a Shopsmith today, that is how strong I feel about it.

Truthfully I have never gotten past the disappointment I experienced with the 510, it has forever tainted my view of Shopsmith quality and design.

The 500 was such a precise and exact machine and then to release the loosey goosey 510 upgrade design was very disappointing to me.

Please explain: In what way was the 510 so much worse than the 500 and what did the 520 introduce to the setup that makes it so much better.

rcplaneguy · Post by **rcplaneguy** » Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:08 pm

The way I use my 510 leads me to think the 520 upgrade is not worth the price. I use my Ryobi bt3100 table saw and Porter Cable miter saw for most cutting, however.

charlese · Post by **charlese** » Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:06 pm

I fully agree with Dusty! It depends on personal decisions. Ed in Tampa had many bad issues with his 510, but I have had none! When I bought my 510 from Shopsmith, the 520 had just come out. I asked what's the difference and was told a bigger stronger fence. So I went for the 510 and have never been sorry.

With it I have built several couch tables, display wall shelves and sconces, a large 4 piece entertainment center, a bathroom cabinet with 5 drawers, five plantation shutters, end tables, and several hundred toy cars and trucks, and some pens and pencils. That's just a partial list that comes to mind.

I have replaced the fence, because I dropped the original and broke the cast clamping mechanism. Same breakage would have happened with the 520 fence if mis treated like that.

I now have a PowerPro headstock and am extremely happy with that. Now my work process has changed to bowl turning. Not too proficient yet, but that's not the fault of the machine.

All in all the 510 is a wonderful machine.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 2:20 am

The 510 has clamping screws to secure the 'tubes' within the round 'rails' which apply pressure from the table side of the rails. The clamping screws had a tendency to cause the tube to either rise above 'center' or drop below 'center'. At least that was Ed's experience. That caused the floating tables to align vertically to the main table inconsistently.

The 520 eliminated this by having centering ribs on the interior of the top surface of the rails. The clamping screws are from the bottom of the rail so the tubes are pushed against the ribs so vertical deviations are eliminated. The 520 comes with a gauge to set the height of the rails to the table top surface on all tables the same.

FWIW there were two versions of the 510 tables. The id of the rails differ so they should not be mixed on the same machine.

The 520 rails are slightly adjustable vertically. Not so the 510.

Then there is the fence difference.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:55 am

JPG wrote:
The 510 has clamping screws to secure the 'tubes' within the round 'rails' which apply pressure from the table side of the rails. The clamping screws had a tendency to cause the tube to either rise above 'center' or drop below 'center'. At least that was Ed's experience. That caused the floating tables to align vertically to the main table inconsistently.

..........

I do not buy into this. If the problem described here is occurring there must be something else causing it. I have tried over and over to recreate what Ed describes with no success.

ibskot · Post by **ibskot** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:03 am

I am going to try to screw it up tonight. I kinda just got the 510 used and haven't really played fully a lot.

Thanks for all the input.

ibskot · Post by **ibskot** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:11 am

Can someone please tell me how I know which 510 table I have? How do you know? Is one advantageous over the other?
Thanks

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:40 am

ibskot wrote:Can someone please tell me how I know which 510 table I have? How do you know? Is one advantageous over the other?
Thanks

Functionally there is not much difference (if any).

These are the two versions that I know about.

[ATTACH]26785[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]26786[/ATTACH]

The ribbing on the work surface is the major visual difference. The one with less ribbing is the later model. The one that is ribbed all the way across is my preferred model.

The small rectangular protrusion at the corner has no functional value that I am aware (except maybe during the manufacturing process). I dislike it because it prevents the tables from coming together like the older tables do. Strictly personal preference.

Disregard the rails. The round rail can be used on either table. The extruded rail can be used on either table but the extruded rail makes it a 520 configuration (not what you asked about).

Hope this helps.