Shopsmith Forums

One thing that I be conflicted over is the parts that make for 'smooth' operation. They be plastic. The older designs are metal to metal contact. I cannot help but consider that is more 'secure/rigid'.

Yes indeedy the fence is not the ONLY design improvement of the 520 over the 510.

I will probably just have to accept that this is the way it is but no one is telling why they think the 520 fence is so much better than the 510.

As for the 510 fence having the through holes, I find the sliding t-nuts (in the side of the fence) just as versatile.

The 520 fence is heavier than the 510 fence BUT what does that buy you?

As reible has said, "Like all things personal preferences are part of the deal".

dusty wrote: . . .

As for the 510 fence having the through holes, I find the sliding t-nuts (in the side of the fence) just as versatile.

. . .

Are those sliding t-nuts positionable at the same location as the through holes? Especially the height.

I agree for making new jigs, it doesn't matter, but with already existing jigs it does.

JPG wrote:

dusty wrote: . . .

As for the 510 fence having the through holes, I find the sliding t-nuts (in the side of the fence) just as versatile.

. . .

Are those sliding t-nuts positionable at the same location as the through holes? Especially the height.

I agree for making new jigs, it doesn't matter, but with already existing jigs it does.

Yes, the t-nuts used in the 520 fence would position bolts the same distance off the main table top as do the holes in the 510 fence. The t-nuts can be position anywhere along the entire length of the 520 fence.

jjbuzard wrote:The beauty of my modification is that if you bump the fence slightly out of alignment you don't have to fiddle with those 2 cap screws on the bottom of the fence.

I have only recently started using the table saw function on my 10ER and had never done an alignment on the fence.
I was getting binding at the back end of the cut so I did a quick and dirty alignment, loosen two bolts, align fence with miter slot, engage front and rear clamps, tighten two bolts, done. It only took a couple of minutes and now it works great.
I’m sure it isn't perfect, but it's close enough.

My Hot Rod modification only takes seconds to correct alignment.

JPG wrote:One thing that I be conflicted over is the parts that make for 'smooth' operation. They be plastic. The older designs are metal to metal contact. I cannot help but consider that is more 'secure/rigid'.

Even with the UHMW, the LOCKING CONTACTS are still the Back Lock and Fence Clamp.I have locked it down and grabbed the fence proper and tugged on it and it stays put.The Beisiemer Fence System I had used nylon glides and adjustment points and my Saw Stop fence uses nylon glides and nylon adjustment points, neither of them ever have a problem with slipping out of place once locked down, that is where I got the idea from.

I think you are saying that the 520 fence locks more securely to the table than does the 510 fence.

To that I would say " locked is locked". I do not believe the 520 secures any better than the 510.

Only trying to make it better and easier to work with.