Shopsmith Forums

?

JPG wrote:If upgrading to a 510 be aware there are two versions.

=============

I did not know that,,, , what defines one from the other ?

Hobbyman2 wrote:?

JPG wrote:If upgrading to a 510 be aware there are two versions.

=============

I did not know that,,, , what defines one from the other ?

The od of the rails are the same for both versions.

The fences mount the same, but there are three different versions of the fence that vary only in how the fence body is attached to the front.

The tables are 'almost' the same/compatible. The almost is caused by the later(current) version having thinner rail tubes. A very small difference, but can cause alignment problems if one mixes old and current in a setup.

Other non-critical differences are:

Older version - The mounting of the rails is by screws into tapped holes in the table front/rear edge. The screws are accessed through holes in the outer side of the rails.

Current version - The mounting of the rails is by studs welded to the rails. The studs pass through clearance holes in the table front/back edge and a kep-nut secures them from under the table. The middle stud location is different from the older version mounting screw. The clearance holes require/allow minor adjusting of the rails to the table top surface(up/down).

So the distinguishing visual detail is the access holes on the outer face of the rails.

JPG wrote:If upgrading to a 510 be aware there are two versions.

It just keeps getting more and more complicated.

Please tell me about the 2 versions; I had no idea aobut this. Thanks.

Dansmith wrote:

JPG wrote:If upgrading to a 510 be aware there are two versions.

It just keeps getting more and more complicated.

Please tell me about the 2 versions; I had no idea aobut this. Thanks.

Back up a couple of posts.

JPG wrote:

Dansmith wrote:

JPG wrote:If upgrading to a 510 be aware there are two versions.

It just keeps getting more and more complicated.

Please tell me about the 2 versions; I had no idea aobut this. Thanks.

Back up a couple of posts.

Thanks. How did I miss that?

I stand always ready to confuse the issue.
If your primary want is a bigger table don't dismiss the low cost option of acquiring a table and carriage system from an old Mark VII...
If you do that you will also want an old Mark VII extension table which has a second face at 90 degrees and can be slid horizontally into a couple of sockets made just for it under the right side of the main table. One of the nice things about that is that in that position that extension moves with the main table and a height change of the main table (Like for depth of cut) does not require a second adjustment of the extension.
Some might consider the old Mark VII fence to be a limitation (I don't really) but life is a series of compromises. We understand that here or we wouldn't be so fond of these Shopsmiths.
I suspect that JPG has played with saw guard interchange on the old Mark VII.
JPG may also have links to discussions where we talked and posted pictures of this table system in the past.
For the sake of discussions it is always wise to specify that you are talking about the "old" Mark VII since at least my old one carries both designations on the front as a Mark VII and a Mark 7.

Personally I would probably look for a complete 510. I've always loved mine.


.

JPG wrote:

Hobbyman2 wrote:?

JPG wrote:If upgrading to a 510 be aware there are two versions.

=============

I did not know that,,, , what defines one from the other ?

The od of the rails are the same for both versions.

The fences mount the same, but there are three different versions of the fence that vary only in how the fence body is attached to the front.

The tables are 'almost' the same/compatible. The almost is caused by the later(current) version having thinner rail tubes. A very small difference, but can cause alignment problems if one mixes old and current in a setup.

Other non-critical differences are:

Older version - The mounting of the rails is by screws into tapped holes in the table front/rear edge. The screws are accessed through holes in the outer side of the rails.

Current version - The mounting of the rails is by studs welded to the rails. The studs pass through clearance holes in the table front/back edge and a kep-nut secures them from under the table. The middle stud location is different from the older version mounting screw. The clearance holes require/allow minor adjusting of the rails to the table top surface(up/down).

So the distinguishing visual detail is the access holes on the outer face of the rails.

Thinner rail walls?? Unless the OD is effected, I don't understand why this makes a difference. I know about all the discussions on incompatibilities and alignment problems but I cannot buy in without experiencing it.

Sure wish I had a pair of short extension table rails (old version). No I don't! I'm downsizing!

robinson46176 wrote:...
...
...
...
...

Personally I would probably look for a complete 510. I've always loved mine.


.

Probably a good way to go. I guess if I find a great deal on a table system, first, I may go that route. However, I have a feeling that I will find a great deal on an entire 510 MK V, or better yet, on a MK 7.

So would that make extension tubes different as well?

Hobbyman2 wrote:So would that make extension tubes different as well?

No.

The different id is only a problem IF mixing parts from the different versions.

And the difference is quite small, but it does affect tables from aligning 'perfectly'(or as good as with unmixed versions).

That said, the 510 has picky alignment issues anyway.(So some claim)


I only brought this up for informational purposes. There are few of the older version appearing on e-bay anyway. Personally, I just do not like 'surprises'.