On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 21:54:25 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:


My old Milwaukee and my old Delta are both twice the saw virtually
anything avalable today is. About 10 years or so ago I took out the
armature on the delta cutting aluminum - I had a choice - something
like $120 for a new armature, of $69 for a new cheap saw. I'm sure I
made the right choice, because I still have that saw. The cheap $69
saw would have been in the dump long ago.

That's interesting - why do you say that? Difference in construction?
Evidence? Actually, I believe you are proabaly right, but I'm interested
in hearing what you actually found to be the reason for your statement.
The old Delta is a solid aluminum case, with cast aluminum shoe and
pivots - very accurate and solid. The brush holders are likewize
solidly constructed, and the bearings - ALL of them, are precision
fitted into the aluminum housings. The metal fan on the armature is
pressed onto a spline on the shaft, and the commutator is like a peice
of jewelry, with lots of metal. The armature is well wrapped, and well
"varnished" .

The cheap saws have the bearings pressed into plastic housings - the
brush holders are a joke, plastic fans that melt and come off the
shaft if the armature gets warm, the stamped sheet metal shoe is
fastened to the stamped depth adjustment peice with a couple of sloppy
rivets for the pivot. IMPOSSIBLE for them to maintain any accuracy
over time (assuming there is any to start with) and the crappy stamped
wing nuts that are supposed to hold the shoe adjustment either strip
or jam after a few uses.

The saw has had some HEAVY use, cutting mixed hardwood studs and
planks for my shed, among a lot of other jobs.

The old Milwaukee is heavier, and more powerful, and is an example of
a plastic (double insulated) saw that is also very well built - with a
lot of heavy cast aluminum parts and good over-all construction (and
it's likely over 25 years old too)