dpb wrote:
On 3/25/2014 2:49 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
dadiOH wrote:


Ditto and I wouldn't part with mine either. Sure beats a table saw
when you need to whack a foot off a 10' piece 8/4 oak.

Yeahbut, I so prefer my SCMS over any radial arm saw for this type
of work.

The radial'll handle much heavier/larger work while the SCMS can be
left to deal w/ what it's for--detail stuff/precision.

So - I'd have to wonder what that means. My 12" SCMS will handle any width
of wood that I can imagine working with, but maybe you mean something else.
Of course - it cannot rip, but that's what my table saw is for.


I've an old Rockwell 16" RAS in a long bench and while it can be tuned
to be as precise as one wants, my main use for it is roughing out
where I really don't care but to the nearest inch or so, usually.

Which really confuses me. That does not sound like it is a better tool than
a SCMS.


The little 10" B&D's are ok but generally just aren't rugged enough
for heavy work...Dad had one of them and I had one for a number of
years as my first and for quite a while only power tool and I did a
lot of work with it but it was always with a fair amount of continual
tuning.

First off - B&D - not a good standard for conversation. Then... 10" - I
never thought that there would be such a difference between 10" and 12"
until I moved to a 12" SCMS. What a world of difference. As for the tuning
requirement - that's what got me to buy a new SCMS. My 10" Craftsman just
could not be tuned to a reliable level. So - I bought a new one and went to
12". I cannot begin to express how much more reliable and repeatable this
saw is than my Craftsman ever was. It's like going to an entirely different
tool.


The fear of the RAS is grossly over-exaggerated imo.

I agree on that point. I just don't see the need for an RAS in this day and
age of SCMS.

--

-Mike-