"Tom Watson" wrote in message =
news | On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:03:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
| wrote:
|=20
| I'm always mystified at the prejudice displayed toward RASs by those =
who have=20
| never owned and rarely used one.
|=20
| Well, I've owned three of them, used them a lot in the past, and I
| think they suck.
|
| Radial arm saws are WAAAAAY safer than table saws.
|=20
| An interesting claim but one not carefully supported by data.
|=20
| When operating the RAS, one=20
| hand is *always* on the handle of the saw and it is therefore =
impossible to=20
| amputate that hand or any of its digits
|=20
| Are you suggesting that most table saw accidents result in double
| amputation?
|=20
| - and to keep the other hand safe, all=20
| you have to do it put it someplace that isn't in the path of the =
blade, and=20
| keep it there.
|=20
| Well, Golly Gee, isn't that the whole game with any tool?
|
| Kickback is a rare event, and if it occurs, the workpiece is thrown =
*away*=20
| from the operator, not *toward* him as with a TS.
|=20
| It is not the workpiece that must be feared but the whirling blade
| that self feeds towards the operator, perhaps not by intent, but
| surely by design.
|
| Crosscutting long boards on a table saw is insane by comparison with =
doing the=20
| same on a radial arm saw.
|=20
| Are you not available to the joy and safety of cutting with a sled and
| outfeed table?
|
| Ripping looks scary... but think about it - there's less blade =
exposed during=20
| rip operations on a RAS than on a TS (assuming you haven't done =
something=20
| stupid like removing the guard).
|=20
| In the act of ripping with a table saw the work is directed down and
| towards the table, whereas the work is naturally thrown up when using
| a radial arm saw.
|=20
| In what way do you think that having the work directed away from the
| table is more safe than having it inherently directed towards it?
|=20
|
| I know I'm coming perilously close to violating the Usenet Prime =
Directive by=20
| attempting to inject a dose of reality into a discussion
|=20
| Not so far.
|=20
| , but, please, let's=20
| at least attempt to be a little bit objective here.
|=20
|=20
| I agree totally with Robatoy on this and I will be glad to tell you,
| in the spirit of objectivity, that you will never see one of these
| widowmaker pieces of **** in a professional shop, excepting the
| instances where it is dedicated to crosscutting, usually close to the
| lumber rack, so that it can buck things up into rough lengths. And
| that is only the case because they already owned the pig and did not
| want to sell it for scrap to have a down payment on a SCMS.
|=20
| Radial Arm Saws are the Swiss Army Knives of the amateur wooddorking
| world and suffer from the same affliction as their referent; they
| don't do anything well but are often asked to do many things poorly.
|=20
| If radial arm saws had a corkscrew, I might consider putting one back
| in my shop.
|=20
| I long ago traded a RAS, allegedly capable of cutting 25" in crosscut,
| for a 12" SCMS. The reason was that what was alleged did not prove
| true, to a usable accurate degree, under daily use, and that work went
| back to the TS.
|=20
|=20
| A careful thinking about the geometry and stresses under load of a
| contraption such as the RAS would inevitably lead a thoughtful and
| prudent person to give theirs away to their dearest enemy.
|=20
|=20
|=20
|=20
|=20
|=20
| Tom Watson - WoodDorker
| tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
| http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Being as objective as one can, I must honestly declare that I have both =
in my shop. I started with a RAS and added a "cabinet" saw shortly =
after I discovered the thrill(?) of a RAS RIP. I later added a slider.

Anyone in the London ON area like a really good, hardly used RAS?

--=20
PDQ