510 versus 520

[Ed in Tampa]

Through the years Dusty and I have discussed the difference between the 510 and the 520. I always took the hardline that the 510 should never have been built as it was nearly impossible to align the aux table and floating tables to the main table with any precision. Dusty on the other hand felt I was wrong. Well “my growth rings did a episode on this https://youtu.be/8KE7U2GrsZ4. In which my view is confirmed. In fact he brought up a point I was not aware of, apparently Shopsmith had said never mount the fence on the floating table because of the 510 because it is nearly impossible to properly align it.

Back to my original view I believe the 510 was poorly engineered and should have never been brought to market. The 520 is superior in very way and I believe should be the only model besides the 500 or the Mark 7 and I guess the mark 4 that should considered for purchase.

[garys]

I've never had any problems getting my 510 aligned. I regularly mount the fence on the floating tables with no issues.
Whenever I see these discussions arguing small points, I have to wonder if any of these writers ever use their Shopsmith or do they just talk about it.
It seems there are a lot of "experts" who talk a lot but never make any sawdust.

[jsburger]

I've never had any problems getting my 510 aligned. I regularly mount the fence on the floating tables with no issues.
Whenever I see these discussions arguing small points, I have to wonder if any of these writers ever use their Shopsmith or do they just talk about it.
It seems there are a lot of "experts" who talk a lot but never make any sawdust.

Scott Markwood (MY Growth Rings) is not just "any of these writers". He probably would not claim to be an "expert", however, he worked for Shopsmith as an academy instructor and store manager back in the hay day of Shopsmith. I tend to think he knows more about Shopsmith via first hand information than 99% of the people on this forum.

[edma194]

Shopsmith made the 520 table system because the 510 system was less than ideal. But the 510 system has been good enough for me and thousands of other Shopsmith owners. If you want consistent ready to go table alignment get the 520. The 520 system can have the main table and extension table in fixed alignment, it's only the floating tables that can be an alignment problem, and I don't think that becomes an issue for most users. I agree the 510 system could have been engineered a little better but it is superior to the 500 table system in every way, including the tables.

[RFGuy]

I saw Scott's video yesterday and was surprised to hear him say that the fence should never be mounted on the 510 floating tables, yet he seemed to indicate that it was okay on the 520. First he pointed out that after 1985 the Mark V 510 main table is cast and milled flat but that the extension tables and floating tables are sanded flat instead at the factory. He seemed to imply that this is why the table's grooves may not be parallel between the floating/aux tables and the main table as a result. This could throw someone off because putting a fence on either a floating/aux table could mean that the fence could look out of parallel with those table grooves even though it might be parallel to the main table. I have seen this before, but really never worried about it. Next he did a good job discussing different variants of the 510 floating tables. Maybe it is the particular vintage of table or connector tubes that he had, but it looked like A LOT of play in his connector tubes in the floating table extrusions compared to what I had before. He points out that the OD of the connector tube is quite a bit smaller than the ID of the 510 table extrusion. Also points out that when tightened the connector tubes are forced out away from the table (front or back). He then compared it to the 520 and showed how the 520 extrusion is designed so that the connector tube is held more snuggly and also when tightened is pushed up rather than out like the 510. His point, I believe, was that the 510 connector tubes could result in a non-level floating table by way of how the tightening mechanism works on it compared to the 520. He used a level and showed that his aux table was 0.2° out of level from the main table. Honestly, I didn't see this as a big deal. What he showed next was how you could tighten the connector tubes in the floating table so that it was more severely out of alignment with the main table, which could happen by accident. Ultimately this was his point, i.e. if you get a floating table cocked left to right (between front and back of it) then you would have trouble with your cuts if you put the floating table askew like this. He emphatically states that this is why Shopsmith has NEVER recommended that the fence be put on the floating tables of the 510. Is that true? Has Shopsmith always discouraged this? Of course, the 520 table system doesn't have this problem because the extrusions of the 520 are designed such that the connector tubes are held more snuggly and when tightened are pushed up, not out, so less side to side play when tightening a 520 floating table. In principle, I can see everything he is discussing and it was enlightening, but in practice anyone that sets up a table saw and doesn't at least check the measurement on the front and back of the blade is asking for kickback IMHO. I was taught to always check a rip fence measurement this way and I never had a problem with a 510 fence on a floating table, but it certainly was more persnickety for me to set it up. I am sure this issue that Scott highlights is at least partly why I prefer the 520 table and fence system, i.e. it is less persnickety.

[dusty]

I have and use both a 510 and a 520. Does either do what it does better than the other? I have said it before and I'll stick to it. NO. They both can be used interchangeably to perform any given at the same level of precision. One simply needs to know the strengths and weaknesses of the table system that they are using. The 520 might be brought to a specific level of precision more easily than can the 510. But that does not mean that the 520 is capable of doing more precise work than the 510. The user of a 510 simply needs to be aware of those weaknesses - example: the differences that exist between the 510 rails and tubes and those of the 520.

[font=]If one believes that with the fence mounted on a 520 floating table can be moved side to side without effecting parallelism they are dreaming. Mount a 520 floating table onto the tubes and see if you can alter its parallelism with the main table. Scott demonstrated (to make a point) using a 510 floating table that the table could be skewed. He did not do the same with a 520 but he could have.

I don't know where I came up with this. Scott touched on the sloppiness of the 510 tubes and rails but he demonstrated nothing about this.

Many times when I find that I want(need) the rip fence on a floating table - I mount the fence to the table and skew the table on the tubes to achieve alignment. This can be done using either a 510 or a 520 table system.

I like the 520 fence better than the 510 because I don't have to be as deliberate with it but I can match setup accuracy using a 510. Just be more deliberate.

Anyone who uses the grooves in the table tops as references for alignment is foolish.

Remember that the only differences between a 510 and a 520 are the "rails and rip fences". Learn how to use whichever you have and be confident that you can do whatever wood working you would normally do in a home workshop. Don't blame all of your poor results" on the equipment you use".

[RFGuy]

Dusty,

Yeah, I agree with almost everything you said. I was surprised that Scott mentioned that SS has NEVER recommended the fence to be mounted on a floating table on the 510 table system. Is that really true? Pretty sure when I had my 510 table system that I saw demonstrations with it on it and also product literature that showed this, but I could be wrong. Honestly I would have to have a 510 and 520 sitting side by side to compare/contrast them for the mounting of the floating tables between the two to determine if one is more likely to skew than the other. It did seem like he was presenting a worst case to make a point for the 510, but he never showed it on the 520 floating tables in fariness. I never knew this about the connector tube mountings, but Scott pointed out that this potential weakness of the 510 table system was addressed in the 520 table system. However, like you say you can get askew on alignment on either system so perhaps he over-emphasized the point he was making. In my opinion, it is important to double-check the measurement to fence on the front and back sides of the blade to verify there isn't an opportunity to pinch a cut causing a kickback in the worst case or burning in the best case. Lastly, and maybe I am alone in this regard, but I have always found mounting the fence to the floating tables problematic and this gets worse on the 520 because the fence base is wider than the 510 fence base. Once I get everything locked and in position, invariably I find that I often need to move the fence a bit more and find that I locked my floating table in the wrong spot forcing me to loosen the floating table, shift it slightly, lock it and setup the fence again. You do have a little bit of adjustment room to each side, but not much IMHO. I really wish that SS would sell a bigger floating table, perhaps 50% or 100% wider. I know other forum members have had success with getting the fence to straddle two tables, e.g. one floating table and the aux table, but I have never seen the extrusions line up perfectly for this on my Mark V. So, I am always hesitant to straddle the fence across two tables and yes I have performed all alignments and checked and re-checked them but I always have a slight offset between different tables/extrusions. It is a small offset, but it is there. All things considered, in my experience, the 520 table system is still hands down better overall than my 510 table system. I have never tried a 500 table in person so I can't compare to it.

[Ed in Tampa]

I am not a precision freak and in fact much of my work shows how little precision I seek. But I owned and used the 500, 510 and 520. To me the the 500 was the most precise but suffered from size and other restraints that both the 510 and 520 overcame. However when I got my 510 I was sickened but tge lack of precision in it. My tables would mount one way one time and another the next. Sure if I pulled pushed lifted shoved down I could get them into some sort of alignment but but to duplicate a setup was nearly impossible. I always forgot to push this shove that lift these. I worked with Shopsmith over this and they sent me two main tables, a aux table a new fence and connector tubes along with many fence tubes both for tge main table and aux tables. I will say they were very willing to work with me and over time it became obvious to me I was chasing something I could not achieve. I gave up and pushed my Shopsmith into the corner. It sat there for years unused and untouched. I kept up with Shopsmith and followed all developments but I viewed the whole thing as hopeless. If someone would have came along and made an offer I probably would have sold it.
Then one day I was at state fair and the wife wanted to see something so to waste time I walked over to the Shopsmith demo. That is where I saw the 520, after the Demo I talked to the salesman and played with the machine and I found all the flaws of the 510 were addressed and corrected by the 520. I ordered my upgrade. It is excellent even the build quality had 100 percent improvement! My opinion give me a 500 or a 520 but if I had to have a 510 I would rather give up woodworking.
Which I nearly have being as old as I am. My days in the shop are nothing more than walking through and touching my old tools and wondering what will happen to them since the youth of today find working with their hands beneath them. Someday people are going to wake up and find there is no one to build them a house or fix a water leak. I see they are thinking about outlawing gas stoves it might be a good thing since everyone thinks digging a gas line ditch is too much work for them. Sorry for the rant.

[dusty]

Dusty,

Yeah, I agree with almost everything you said. I was surprised that Scott mentioned that SS has NEVER recommended the fence to be mounted on a floating table on the 510 table system. Is that really true? Pretty sure when I had my 510 table system that I saw demonstrations with it on it and also product literature that showed this, but I could be wrong. Honestly I would have to have a 510 and 520 sitting side by side to compare contrast them for the mounting of the floating tables between the two to determine if one is more likely to skew than the other. It did seem like he was presenting a worst case to make a point for the 510, but he never showed it on the 520 floating tables in fariness. I never knew this about the connector tube mountings, but Scott pointed out that this potential weakness of the 510 table system was addressed in the 520 table system. However, like you say you can get askew on alignment on either system so perhaps he over-emphasized the point he was making. In my opinion, it is important to double-check the measurement to fence on the front and back sides of the blade to verify there isn't an opportunity to pinch a cut causing a kickback in the worst case or burning in the best case. Lastly, and maybe I am alone in this regard, but I have always found mounting the fence to the floating tables problematic and this gets worse on the 520 because the fence base is wider than the 510 fence base. Once I get everything locked and in position, invariably I find that I often need to move the fence a bit more and find that I locked my floating table in the wrong spot forcing me to loosen the floating table, shift it slightly, lock it and setup the fence again. You do have a little bit of adjustment room to each side, but not much IMHO. I really wish that SS would sell a bigger floating table, perhaps 50% or 100% wider. I know other forum members have had success with getting the fence to straddle two tables, e.g. one floating table and the aux table, but I have never seen the extrusions line up perfectly for this on my Mark V. So, I am always hesitant to straddle the fence across two tables and yes I have performed all alignments and checked and re-checked them but I always have a slight offset between different tables/extrusions. It is a small offset, but it is there.

I have no basis upon which to declare it true or not BUT I had never heard that until now. Now Scott was an insider so Scott probably knows much that Shopsmith would never say publicly.

With regard to skewing, the rails determine that and the 510 rails definitely allow skewing more easily and to a greater degree than does the 520 but the rails are not intended to be skewed. That said - the 510 rails can be locked in place to minimize unintentional skew and absolutely secured tight if need be.

Why does any manufacturer do "upgrades"? To correct previous errors or to make general improvements, Thus 510 to 520 table system .

I have a habit of mounting the rip fence on the floating table and moving the combination to make final adjustment (if it is obvious that the rip fence will end up on a floating table. Obviously, that will happen only when ripping wider pieces.

With regards to a wider floating table -- consider a main table without legs. I have that setup in the shop right now. I have it there due to a previous thread about table flatness but when done with that I may just leave it there. Also, consider two floating tables tightly secured to one another. I use two small but strong spring clamps to do that. Clamping the underside of the tables together. I often do this with an extension table clamped to a floating table. This produces one double wide extension table. I love my tinker toys.

If you pull two tables (any type) together and the extrusions don't align to one another - there is something wrong. Whenever I mount rails to tables I do that on the Shopsmith with the rails loosely attached to the tables. I then slide the tables tightly against on another. lock the rails to the tubes and then secure the table to the rails. I do not believe I have any rails (front or rear) whose profile does not very closely match all of the others.

[DLB]

...I talked to the salesman and played with the machine and I found all the flaws of the 510 were addressed and corrected by the 520. I ordered my upgrade. It is excellent even the build quality had 100 percent improvement!
...

Just for clarity, you upgraded the 'bad' 510 into the 'good' 520? As opposed to replaced? And used a 510 to 520 kit as opposed to a 500 to 520 kit? Just looking to understand what differences were in play between your two experiences.

- David