Shopsmith Forums

Near Chicago

If I had the room I would be driving to pick it up now.

http://chicago.craigslist.org/wcl/tls/4396586293.html

The only reason I'd get a Mk II, is to complete a collection. (Having a 10 E, ER, Mk II, V, VII, 5 and 7.) Outside of that, I'd pass.

The Mk II is (arguably) the worst Shopsmith made.

steve

skou wrote:The only reason I'd get a Mk II, is to complete a collection. (Having a 10 E, ER, Mk II, V, VII, 5 and 7.) Outside of that, I'd pass.

The Mk II is (arguably) the worst Shopsmith made.

steve

I am not sure this is a collector's piece as it appears to have a Mark V carriage, saw guard, etc. It is clean though.

This machine has popped up for discussion a couple of times within the past few weeks and, though I’ve thought it’s not for me, I’ve thought that it might be if the problem generally listed for so many people not wanting one were corrected.

Of course this means an idea has crossed my mind and I’ve wondered what the folks here might think of the idea.

The ‘Idea’ —

It seems to me that the primary complaint about this machine has to do with plastic parts. Has anyone ever considered milling metal replacements for those parts? This provides the person has the capability to do so of course, and I expect there’re more than one person here who has. So… If it hasn’t been done yet there must be a reason. What’s the reason?

1958 to 1960 Mark II (5-in-1)
This unit was made exclusively for Montgomery Wards. It was not made of the same quality as the MARK V. These units were NOT manufactured by Shopsmith, Inc. Shopsmith, Inc. has NO repair parts for these tools.

idcook wrote:This machine has popped up for discussion a couple of times within the past few weeks and, though I’ve thought it’s not for me, I’ve thought that it might be if the problem generally listed for so many people not wanting one were corrected.

Of course this means an idea has crossed my mind and I’ve wondered what the folks here might think of the idea.

The ‘Idea’ —

It seems to me that the primary complaint about this machine has to do with plastic parts. Has anyone ever considered milling metal replacements for those parts? This provides the person has the capability to do so of course, and I expect there’re more than one person here who has. So… If it hasn’t been done yet there must be a reason. What’s the reason?

The 'problem' with the Mark 2 has little to do with plastic(except maybe the belt guard). The Mark 2 was a cheap alternative to the Mark 5 produced at the request of Montgomery Ward. There are reasons it was 'cheap'. There are some common parts but those are not the ones with problems. IMHO it met MW's objective. It can be useful, but falls far short of a Mark 5(JMHO again). I only have some parts of a M2 so I cannot comment re a 'complete' machine. With an old M5 headstock and a 'saw horse' base, it makes a 'decent' portable SS. FWIW, the trunion is identical to a M5.

rcplaneguy wrote:1958 to 1960 Mark II (5-in-1)
This unit was made exclusively for Montgomery Wards. It was not made of the same quality as the MARK V. These units were NOT manufactured by Shopsmith, Inc. Shopsmith, Inc. has NO repair parts for these tools.

If anyone cares to offer it, I’d love to see a full itemization of whatever may be considered flaws in this machine.

JPG40504 wrote:The 'problem' with the Mark 2 has little to do with plastic(except maybe the belt guard).

I find that interesting as it has appeared to me that plastic is usually the first item mentioned (often the only item) regarding quality of the M2.

Things like no variable speed knob (you have to change belt positions on pulleys).

http://shopsmith-tool-hunter.blogspot.com/2007/05/shopsmith-mark-ii.html

idcook wrote:If anyone cares to offer it, I’d love to see a full itemization of whatever may be considered flaws in this machine.

Let's call them 'shortcomings'.

My perception from a slightly removed vantage point.

Speed control is by belt/cone pulley changes. Not unusual for that era, and the tension relief handle makes that easier.

The base is flimsey. Stamped sheet metal attached to tubes. Not totally clear on this, wood rails were an option??????

The tailstock is created by attaching an M2 socket piece to the extension table which itself was essentially a piece of angle iron shaped metal that was very small.

All the motion locking is done by screws with bent shafts(no wedges). That includes the SPT mounts which are M5 compatible.

The table height adjusting was done like the 10ER.(the trunion posts are not geared).

The belt guard broke usually.

It has been described on this forum as a POS, but I consider it to be more beneficial than that.