All,

I've owned my 1970's vintage Craftsman radial arm saw for about six years
now, injury free (other than splinters, and whacking my elbow once on the
blade when adjusting it . The table top (not original) is designed such
that you push the blade forward:

blade -- material -- fence -- supporting post

The blade spins clockwise as you face the blade from the left side, so the
wood is pushed into the fence by both the forward motion of the saw and
spin of the blade. Any sort of kickback will result in either the board
being pushed harder into a 2" thick fence or the radial arm saw pushed back
along the rail toward me (no danger since I keep my hands well away from
the plane of rotation).

Today I looked at a better radial arm saw that had a different setup, where
the blade is pulled backward:

material -- fence -- blade -- supporting post

Again, the blade spins clockwise, but pulls the material into the fence.
This has a tendency to make the blade speed up as it hits the material, and
is harder to control. Also, the action of pulling the radial arm saw is
much less smooth than pushing it.

Which way is the correct way? Is there something fundamentally wrong with
the way I've set up my saw??

Thanks.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Michael White (in t)
said:

| I've owned my 1970's vintage Craftsman radial arm saw for about six
| years now, injury free (other than splinters, and whacking my elbow
| once on the blade when adjusting it . The table top (not
| original) is designed such that you push the blade forward:
|
| blade -- material -- fence -- supporting post

This is the way I've used my ToolKraft RAS since 1972 (without
injury). You can follow the link below to see my table setup.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/RAS_Table.html

"Michael White" wrote in message
nk.net...
Which way is the correct way? Is there something fundamentally wrong with
the way I've set up my saw??


Pulling encourages self-feeding and climbing in the saw itself.

Pushing allows lifting of the material as the saw makes contact.

The first will get the saw out of adjustment if it's severe, second won't.
Against this, the kickback protection is sometimes unusable.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 04:05:08 GMT, Michael White
wrote:

I guess I'm unclear how the design of the table affects whether you
push or pull the blade. In any event, the proper use of the RAS, at
least according to the instructions that came with mine (1972
Craftsman), and the supplemental aftermarket book I have, as well as
Wally Kunkel's book (How to Master the Radial Saw, which you must
have) is that the carriage (motor/blade/guard assembly) remains back
by the column while you position the work, set stops, etc., and then
you pull the carriage toward you, through the work. When you complete
the cut, you push the carriage back against the stop near the column.

Starting with the carriage out beyond the work, even with the motor
off, requires you to have to work around the assembly to position the
work, set stops, etc. Even if it weren't dangerous (which it shouldn't
be with the saw off), it's decidedly inconvenient.

Note that every safety conscious piece of writing I've seen concerning
working around power tools advises to unplug the tool when changing
bits, blades, adjustments, etc. Having that big chunk of motor/blade
sitting in the middle of your setup area while plugged in seems
utterly counter to that safety protocol.

Yes, RAS work is climb cutting. No, it's not particularly dangerous.
Yes, there is a technique to develop of simultaneously pulling the
carriage while resisting the push of the carriage with the same set of
muscles. No, I can't describe it any better than that.

I fear that your idea of technique has evolved from what I see
commonly done with sliding compound miter saws (SCMS) wherein they
position the work, pull out the carriage, plunge the carriage down
into the work, and push it forward to make the cut. It makes me gag
whenever I see it because it's counter to how a RAS is operated. But
at least it's justifiable because the carriage can be brought out OVER
the work before plunging into it, unlike a RAS which has a relatively
zero vertical component of carriage travel (I say relatively, because,
of course, the arm can be raised and lowered, but that's a setup
function, not an operational function).

I've owned my 1970's vintage Craftsman radial arm saw for about six years
now, injury free (other than splinters, and whacking my elbow once on the
blade when adjusting it . The table top (not original) is designed such
that you push the blade forward:

blade -- material -- fence -- supporting post

The blade spins clockwise as you face the blade from the left side, so the
wood is pushed into the fence by both the forward motion of the saw and
spin of the blade. Any sort of kickback will result in either the board
being pushed harder into a 2" thick fence or the radial arm saw pushed back
along the rail toward me (no danger since I keep my hands well away from
the plane of rotation).

Today I looked at a better radial arm saw that had a different setup, where
the blade is pulled backward:

material -- fence -- blade -- supporting post

Again, the blade spins clockwise, but pulls the material into the fence.
This has a tendency to make the blade speed up as it hits the material, and
is harder to control. Also, the action of pulling the radial arm saw is
much less smooth than pushing it.

Which way is the correct way? Is there something fundamentally wrong with
the way I've set up my saw??

Thanks.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

Michael White wrote:

All,

I've owned my 1970's vintage Craftsman radial arm saw for about six years
now, injury free (other than splinters, and whacking my elbow once on the
blade when adjusting it . The table top (not original) is designed such
that you push the blade forward:

blade -- material -- fence -- supporting post

The blade spins clockwise as you face the blade from the left side, so the
wood is pushed into the fence by both the forward motion of the saw and
spin of the blade. Any sort of kickback will result in either the board
being pushed harder into a 2" thick fence or the radial arm saw pushed back
along the rail toward me (no danger since I keep my hands well away from
the plane of rotation).

Today I looked at a better radial arm saw that had a different setup, where
the blade is pulled backward:

material -- fence -- blade -- supporting post

Again, the blade spins clockwise, but pulls the material into the fence.
This has a tendency to make the blade speed up as it hits the material, and
is harder to control. Also, the action of pulling the radial arm saw is
much less smooth than pushing it.

Which way is the correct way? Is there something fundamentally wrong with
the way I've set up my saw??

Yep, you've got the fence misplaced relative to the carriage--

When the carriage is in the furthest position towards the rear (post)
the blade should be fully behind the fence.

A RAS is designed to be used for cross-cutting in a "climb-cutting"
fashion, not pushed. For ripping, of course, one rotates the head and
adjusts the blade guard with its integral hold down to feed material
into the blade from the front, not the rear.

It takes some practice to get used to operating a RAS smoothly, but it
does become second nature w/ practice. Here's a case where size does
matter--the less under-powered the saw, the less the type/size of the
cut piece affects the tendency of the saw to either bog down or
"grab"...

I agree with everything LRod said. One thing worth adding is that a
blade with a negative hook (mine is -5 degrees, I think) substantially
reduces the climb cut phenomenon. Since I installed mine, I am MUCH
more comfortable using my RAS.

-John

LRod wrote:

Yes, RAS work is climb cutting. No, it's not particularly dangerous.
snip

And it can be minimized by a blade with the correct tooth geometry.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:23:10 -0400, "George" George@least wrote:


"Michael White" wrote in message
ink.net...
Which way is the correct way? Is there something fundamentally wrong with
the way I've set up my saw??


Pulling encourages self-feeding and climbing in the saw itself.

Pushing allows lifting of the material as the saw makes contact.

The first will get the saw out of adjustment if it's severe, second won't.
Against this, the kickback protection is sometimes unusable.

=================
Ghee..

I am in my 60's and have owned a RAS since the mid 60's and honestly I
always pull the blade thru the lumber .... Maybe I have been doing it
wrong for almost 40 years....oh well it always worked just fine...

Post... Blade ...fence.. Material.. ME !

Bob G.

Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people think I've
got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the other side of the
saw to see what sort of results I get.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Michael White ) wrote on Sunday 14 August 2005
11:05 pm:

All,

I've owned my 1970's vintage Craftsman radial arm saw for about six years
now, injury free (other than splinters, and whacking my elbow once on the
blade when adjusting it . The table top (not original) is designed such
that you push the blade forward:

blade -- material -- fence -- supporting post

The blade spins clockwise as you face the blade from the left side, so the
wood is pushed into the fence by both the forward motion of the saw and
spin of the blade. Any sort of kickback will result in either the board
being pushed harder into a 2" thick fence or the radial arm saw pushed
back along the rail toward me (no danger since I keep my hands well away
from the plane of rotation).

Today I looked at a better radial arm saw that had a different setup,
where the blade is pulled backward:

material -- fence -- blade -- supporting post

Again, the blade spins clockwise, but pulls the material into the fence.
This has a tendency to make the blade speed up as it hits the material,
and
is harder to control. Also, the action of pulling the radial arm saw is
much less smooth than pushing it.

Which way is the correct way? Is there something fundamentally wrong with
the way I've set up my saw??

Thanks.

Michael White wrote:
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people think
I've got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the other
side of the saw to see what sort of results I get.

Why would you have to move the fence (couldn't anyway)? Your fence
isn't wrong, you are using the saw wrong...start cuts with the saw
*behind* the fence (post side).

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

I'd like to see a photo of how you have this saw set up. Can you post one?

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Michael White" wrote in message
ink.net...
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people think I've
got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the other side of the
saw to see what sort of results I get.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Michael White ) wrote on Sunday 14 August 2005
11:05 pm:

All,

I've owned my 1970's vintage Craftsman radial arm saw for about six
years
now, injury free (other than splinters, and whacking my elbow once on
the
blade when adjusting it . The table top (not original) is designed
such
that you push the blade forward:

blade -- material -- fence -- supporting post

The blade spins clockwise as you face the blade from the left side, so
the
wood is pushed into the fence by both the forward motion of the saw and
spin of the blade. Any sort of kickback will result in either the board
being pushed harder into a 2" thick fence or the radial arm saw pushed
back along the rail toward me (no danger since I keep my hands well away
from the plane of rotation).

Today I looked at a better radial arm saw that had a different setup,
where the blade is pulled backward:

material -- fence -- blade -- supporting post

Again, the blade spins clockwise, but pulls the material into the fence.
This has a tendency to make the blade speed up as it hits the material,
and
is harder to control. Also, the action of pulling the radial arm saw is
much less smooth than pushing it.

Which way is the correct way? Is there something fundamentally wrong
with
the way I've set up my saw??

Thanks.

Well, if his RAS is anything like mine, you can swap the location of
the fence and an ~4 inch strip of the table, effectively moving the
fence 4" further back than 'normal'. In such a scenario, there is no
room to place your stock when the carriage is all the way towards the
post. I believe the intended purpose of the fence swap is to extend the
width of the widest rip that your RAS can do, and it involves swiveling
the motor 180 degrees from its normal rip position when looking at it
from above (in rip vs. out rip, though I'm not sure which is which).

To clarify, when crosscutting the fence should be as close to the
operator / fixed front table as possible.

-John

John you are correct. Many times a previous owner doesn't know why there is
a need for a back board, nor do they understand the correct operation of the
RAS and the make a replacement table wrong. You need a back board behind
the fence for various cuts, rips and safe operation.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"John Girouard" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, if his RAS is anything like mine, you can swap the location of
the fence and an ~4 inch strip of the table, effectively moving the
fence 4" further back than 'normal'. In such a scenario, there is no
room to place your stock when the carriage is all the way towards the
post. I believe the intended purpose of the fence swap is to extend the
width of the widest rip that your RAS can do, and it involves swiveling
the motor 180 degrees from its normal rip position when looking at it
from above (in rip vs. out rip, though I'm not sure which is which).

To clarify, when crosscutting the fence should be as close to the
operator / fixed front table as possible.

-John

On 16 Aug 2005 12:01:46 -0700, "John Girouard"
wrote:

(in rip vs. out rip, though I'm not sure which is which).

In rip=sawblade is "inside" the motor with respect to the column
Out rip=sawblade is "outside" the motor with respect to the column.

You referred to one as "normal" but I don't believe one is preferred
over the other except insofar as rip capacity is concerned. If you
need to rip a 4x8 sheet in half, then outrip (and fence at the rear
position) is your *only* choice, making it "normal."

Similarly, if you're ripping 2" wide pieces, then outrip is
contraindicated regardless of where the fence is; inrip is the only
way to do it, and is thus arguably "normal."

As I reflect on it, save for the two special circumstances cite above
(both of which relate to capacity) I think I'm fully ambidextrous with
regard to inrip vs outrip. I think I'm equally balanced in swinging
the motor--in other words, I don't have a "normal" position I use.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

You bring up some good points, as usual. Reading your reply also made
me realize that in-rip and out-rip configurations can be completely
independent of the fence position, though I certainly implied
differently in my earlier response. Thanks!

-John

dadiOH ) wrote on Tuesday 16 August 2005 08:57 am:

Michael White wrote:
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people think
I've got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the other
side of the saw to see what sort of results I get.

Why would you have to move the fence (couldn't anyway)? Your fence
isn't wrong, you are using the saw wrong...start cuts with the saw
*behind* the fence (post side).

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

dadiOH,

This isn't the original table. The fence is mounted an inch or two from the
support post. I can barely get the front of the blade past the fence. The
table is a pair of 4'x 2', 3/4" plywood pieces glued together back to back.
Perhaps I need to plop a couple of photos out there on a web site to clear
things up, as Rumpty suggested.

Thanks.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Here it is:

http://michael12.home.mindspring.com/saw.jpg
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Rumpty ) wrote on Tuesday 16 August 2005 09:38 am:

I'd like to see a photo of how you have this saw set up. Can you post
one?

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Michael White" wrote in message
ink.net...
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people think
I've
got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the other side of the
saw to see what sort of results I get.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Michael White ) wrote on Sunday 14 August 2005
11:05 pm:

All,

I've owned my 1970's vintage Craftsman radial arm saw for about six
years
now, injury free (other than splinters, and whacking my elbow once on
the
blade when adjusting it . The table top (not original) is designed
such
that you push the blade forward:

blade -- material -- fence -- supporting post

The blade spins clockwise as you face the blade from the left side, so
the
wood is pushed into the fence by both the forward motion of the saw and
spin of the blade. Any sort of kickback will result in either the
board being pushed harder into a 2" thick fence or the radial arm saw
pushed back along the rail toward me (no danger since I keep my hands
well away from the plane of rotation).

Today I looked at a better radial arm saw that had a different setup,
where the blade is pulled backward:

material -- fence -- blade -- supporting post

Again, the blade spins clockwise, but pulls the material into the
fence. This has a tendency to make the blade speed up as it hits the
material, and
is harder to control. Also, the action of pulling the radial arm saw
is much less smooth than pushing it.

Which way is the correct way? Is there something fundamentally wrong
with
the way I've set up my saw??

Thanks.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:49:02 GMT, Michael White
wrote:

Here it is:

http://michael12.home.mindspring.com/saw.jpg



looks like somebody set it up with a fence further back than it
probably should be to try to squeeze a little more capacity out of it.
this doesn't mean it's proper to cut from the outboard position. looks
to me like it's time to make a new table...

This is the typical setup: http://www.thebuyer.ca/IMAGES/5-5.jpg with the
saw resting behind the fence.

Dave


"Michael White" wrote in message
ink.net...
Here it is:

http://michael12.home.mindspring.com/saw.jpg
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Rumpty ) wrote on Tuesday 16 August 2005 09:38 am:

I'd like to see a photo of how you have this saw set up. Can you post
one?

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Michael White" wrote in message
ink.net...
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people think
I've
got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the other side of the
saw to see what sort of results I get.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Michael White ) wrote on Sunday 14 August 2005
11:05 pm:

All,

I've owned my 1970's vintage Craftsman radial arm saw for about six
years
now, injury free (other than splinters, and whacking my elbow once on
the
blade when adjusting it . The table top (not original) is designed
such
that you push the blade forward:

blade -- material -- fence -- supporting post

The blade spins clockwise as you face the blade from the left side, so
the
wood is pushed into the fence by both the forward motion of the saw
and
spin of the blade. Any sort of kickback will result in either the
board being pushed harder into a 2" thick fence or the radial arm saw
pushed back along the rail toward me (no danger since I keep my hands
well away from the plane of rotation).

Today I looked at a better radial arm saw that had a different setup,
where the blade is pulled backward:

material -- fence -- blade -- supporting post

Again, the blade spins clockwise, but pulls the material into the
fence. This has a tendency to make the blade speed up as it hits the
material, and
is harder to control. Also, the action of pulling the radial arm saw
is much less smooth than pushing it.

Which way is the correct way? Is there something fundamentally wrong
with
the way I've set up my saw??

Thanks.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:49:02 GMT, Michael White

looks like somebody set it up with a fence further back than it
probably should be to try to squeeze a little more capacity out of it.
this doesn't mean it's proper to cut from the outboard position. looks
to me like it's time to make a new table...

Countertop maker?

It's a sheetgoods specialist of some sort.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:27:02 -0400, "David Bridgeman"
wrote:

This is the typical setup: http://www.thebuyer.ca/IMAGES/5-5.jpg with the
saw resting behind the fence.

On my 1972 Sears RAS the rear table is actually two pieces--one about
2" wide and the other about 4 or 6" wide. I can't categorically say
they were all that way, but all the ones I've seen were.

I think the 2" piece is intended to always be at the back and is what
the table clamps bear against. I'll have to look at the manual and see
what it says about it. It's been years...

The wider piece is either behind the fence (normal operation) or in
front of it, depending on whether or not you're ripping and need the
extra capacity.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

Michael,

It's time to ditch that table and the fence system. It's unsafe to operate
your RAS in this fashion. I suggest obtaining a copy of the Mr. Sawdust
book "How To Master The Radial Saw" http://mrsawdust.com and build a new
table as per his suggestions. You'll end up with a two ply steel reinforced
table that will remain flat. Also you'll use a two back board system so
that you can position the motor for various RAS operations.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Michael White" wrote in message
nk.net...
dadiOH ) wrote on Tuesday 16 August 2005 08:57 am:

Michael White wrote:
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people think
I've got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the other
side of the saw to see what sort of results I get.

Why would you have to move the fence (couldn't anyway)? Your fence
isn't wrong, you are using the saw wrong...start cuts with the saw
*behind* the fence (post side).

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

dadiOH,

This isn't the original table. The fence is mounted an inch or two from
the
support post. I can barely get the front of the blade past the fence.
The
table is a pair of 4'x 2', 3/4" plywood pieces glued together back to
back.
Perhaps I need to plop a couple of photos out there on a web site to clear
things up, as Rumpty suggested.

Thanks.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:02:17 -0400, "George" George@least wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:49:02 GMT, Michael White

looks like somebody set it up with a fence further back than it
probably should be to try to squeeze a little more capacity out of it.
this doesn't mean it's proper to cut from the outboard position. looks
to me like it's time to make a new table...

Countertop maker?

It's a sheetgoods specialist of some sort.

Ahhh. $100 says they used it exclusively for ripping. The carriage got
turned around to the crosscut position for sale/delivery. Probably the
first time it had been that way for years.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

Michael White wrote:
dadiOH ) wrote on Tuesday 16 August 2005 08:57 am:

Michael White wrote:
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people
think I've got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the
other side of the saw to see what sort of results I get.

Why would you have to move the fence (couldn't anyway)? Your fence
isn't wrong, you are using the saw wrong...start cuts with the saw
*behind* the fence (post side).


dadiOH,

This isn't the original table. The fence is mounted an inch or two
from the support post. I can barely get the front of the blade past
the fence. The table is a pair of 4'x 2', 3/4" plywood pieces glued
together back to back. Perhaps I need to plop a couple of photos out
there on a web site to clear things up, as Rumpty suggested.

No need to post photos, your table isn't made right. RS tables normally
have 3 pieces...the front table which is permanently fixed and 2 back
table pieces, each of which is a different width. The combined width of
the two back tables must be sufficient to place the saw blade behind the
fence.

The reason for the two back table pieces is that either can be removed
when ripping to place the blade closer to the column when in/out
ripping.

I never rip on my RAS so my back table is just one piece approximately
8" wide.

I'd suggest you buy a manual for your saw.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

dadiOH wrote:
The reason for the two back table pieces is that either can be removed
when ripping to place the blade closer to the column when in/out
ripping.

Not totally removed but moved in front of the fence to reposition the
fence closer to the column.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Surprised this hasn't come up yet. There's a pretty good chance that
your saw is covered by a recall. The recall is specifically for the
guard, but since the new guard will not fit with the original table,
they also send you a nice new table. IIRC, it is totally free to you,
and comes with very good instructions for how to align your saw. Go
here for all the details:

http://radialarmsawrecall.com

-John

The recall is only for Craftsman saws manufactured by Emerson. Unless
someone gave it a paint job along with the table modifications, that doesn't
look like a Craftsman to me.

Lee

--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

Lee Gordon
www.leegordonproductions.com

When I purchased my RAS a few years ago, it was set up in similar fashion to
yours. The top was made of particle board and the fence appeared to be an
old wooden bed rail attached to the very rear of the top, behind the blade.
The guy I bought it from gave me a song and dance about having received it
from his son and not having enough space for it in his basement. However,
his basement looked plenty big to me so I'm guessing that in its improper
configuration he was never able to figure out how to use it safely and
decided to ditch it. And that's how I was able to purchase it for just $75.
Fortunately, my saw qualified for the Craftsman recall and I got a nice new
table top free of charge, although I did have to supply my own fence(s)
which I made out of 3/4" MDF and installed in it's proper location in front
of the blade.

Lee
--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

Lee Gordon
www.leegordonproductions.com

From the OP:

"I've owned my 1970's vintage Craftsman radial arm saw for about six
years
now"

....so I assumed he meant it was a Craftsman.

-John

John Girouard ) wrote on Wednesday 17 August 2005 10:31
am:

Surprised this hasn't come up yet. There's a pretty good chance that
your saw is covered by a recall. The recall is specifically for the
guard, but since the new guard will not fit with the original table,
they also send you a nice new table. IIRC, it is totally free to you,
and comes with very good instructions for how to align your saw. Go
here for all the details:

http://radialarmsawrecall.com

-John

Interesting site, but mine doesn't qualify. It -is- a Craftsman, but the
model number starts with a 103, not a 113. Even if it did, it's a 9" saw,
which does not have a retrofit kit. Instead, I'd have to send them then
carriage and motor assembly to get $100. This, of course, would destroy my
saw.

Thanks for the info.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

dadiOH ) wrote on Wednesday 17 August 2005 09:10 am:

Michael White wrote:
dadiOH ) wrote on Tuesday 16 August 2005 08:57 am:

Michael White wrote:
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people
think I've got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the
other side of the saw to see what sort of results I get.

Why would you have to move the fence (couldn't anyway)? Your fence
isn't wrong, you are using the saw wrong...start cuts with the saw
*behind* the fence (post side).


dadiOH,

This isn't the original table. The fence is mounted an inch or two
from the support post. I can barely get the front of the blade past
the fence. The table is a pair of 4'x 2', 3/4" plywood pieces glued
together back to back. Perhaps I need to plop a couple of photos out
there on a web site to clear things up, as Rumpty suggested.

No need to post photos, your table isn't made right. RS tables normally
have 3 pieces...the front table which is permanently fixed and 2 back
table pieces, each of which is a different width. The combined width of
the two back tables must be sufficient to place the saw blade behind the
fence.

The reason for the two back table pieces is that either can be removed
when ripping to place the blade closer to the column when in/out
ripping.

I never rip on my RAS so my back table is just one piece approximately
8" wide.

I'd suggest you buy a manual for your saw.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Any clue where I can get a manual for this? I did some searching, and since
the model number starts with "103", it was made by "King Seeley", which was
bought out by Emerson in 1964.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

John Girouard ) wrote on Wednesday 17 August 2005 10:31
am:

Surprised this hasn't come up yet. There's a pretty good chance that
your saw is covered by a recall. The recall is specifically for the
guard, but since the new guard will not fit with the original table,
they also send you a nice new table. IIRC, it is totally free to you,
and comes with very good instructions for how to align your saw. Go
here for all the details:

http://radialarmsawrecall.com

-John

Looks like my dating was off. The guy I bought it from said it was from the
'70s, but some internet searching puts it at 1964, at the latest. Sorry
for the bad info.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

What I've looked at on that web page looks good, but I noticed the book
seemed to be geared toward DeWalt. Will I get much out of the maintenance
for my ancient Craftsman?
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Rumpty ) wrote on Wednesday 17 August 2005 08:31 am:

Michael,

It's time to ditch that table and the fence system. It's unsafe to
operate
your RAS in this fashion. I suggest obtaining a copy of the Mr. Sawdust
book "How To Master The Radial Saw" http://mrsawdust.com and build a new
table as per his suggestions. You'll end up with a two ply steel
reinforced
table that will remain flat. Also you'll use a two back board system so
that you can position the motor for various RAS operations.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Michael White" wrote in message
nk.net...
dadiOH ) wrote on Tuesday 16 August 2005 08:57 am:

Michael White wrote:
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people think
I've got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the other
side of the saw to see what sort of results I get.

Why would you have to move the fence (couldn't anyway)? Your fence
isn't wrong, you are using the saw wrong...start cuts with the saw
*behind* the fence (post side).

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

dadiOH,

This isn't the original table. The fence is mounted an inch or two from
the
support post. I can barely get the front of the blade past the fence.
The
table is a pair of 4'x 2', 3/4" plywood pieces glued together back to
back.
Perhaps I need to plop a couple of photos out there on a web site to
clear things up, as Rumpty suggested.

Thanks.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Michael White wrote:
dadiOH ) wrote on Wednesday 17 August 2005 09:10
am:

I'd suggest you buy a manual for your saw.

Any clue where I can get a manual for this? I did some searching,
and since the model number starts with "103", it was made by "King
Seeley", which was bought out by Emerson in 1964.

You may not find a manual specific to your saw but most any would do.
Sears sells/used to sell a red, soft cover book that covered several
tools including the RAS.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Mr. Sawdust's book applies to any RAS with respect to operation. His
alignment suggestions apply to DeWalt's. If you wan a good book for
alignment of your Craftsman, you want the Jon Eakes radial saw book. (do a
google).

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Michael White" wrote in message
news
What I've looked at on that web page looks good, but I noticed the book
seemed to be geared toward DeWalt. Will I get much out of the maintenance
for my ancient Craftsman?
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Rumpty ) wrote on Wednesday 17 August 2005 08:31
am:

Michael,

It's time to ditch that table and the fence system. It's unsafe to
operate
your RAS in this fashion. I suggest obtaining a copy of the Mr. Sawdust
book "How To Master The Radial Saw" http://mrsawdust.com and build a new
table as per his suggestions. You'll end up with a two ply steel
reinforced
table that will remain flat. Also you'll use a two back board system so
that you can position the motor for various RAS operations.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"Michael White" wrote in message
nk.net...
dadiOH ) wrote on Tuesday 16 August 2005 08:57 am:

Michael White wrote:
Thanks for all the input. Seems like most (but not all) people
think
I've got my fence wrong. I may try moving the fence to the other
side of the saw to see what sort of results I get.

Why would you have to move the fence (couldn't anyway)? Your fence
isn't wrong, you are using the saw wrong...start cuts with the saw
*behind* the fence (post side).

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

dadiOH,

This isn't the original table. The fence is mounted an inch or two
from
the
support post. I can barely get the front of the blade past the fence.
The
table is a pair of 4'x 2', 3/4" plywood pieces glued together back to
back.
Perhaps I need to plop a couple of photos out there on a web site to
clear things up, as Rumpty suggested.

Thanks.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is
to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Michael White wrote:
What I've looked at on that web page looks good, but I noticed the book
seemed to be geared toward DeWalt. Will I get much out of the maintenance
for my ancient Craftsman?

Did you try Sears parts? Did you check at OWWM.COM to see if they might
have a manual for your machine? OWWM is a treasure trove for things
related to old woodworking machinery.

Just about ANY good book on radial arm saws will lay down the specific
principles of maintaining and aligning your saw. The implementation
thereof will vary somewhat between makes but it typically is NOT rocket
science.

As for the table problem you seem to have:

Typically, you will see four, maybe more bolts which fasten the main
table to the saw frame along with one or two adjusting screws towards
the center of the table which provide adjustment/support to keep the top
from sagging and screwing up your hard work aligningg

What you need to do is fabricate a top which is less deep (front to rear
so there's no confusion) which will, in turn allow you to place the
following BEHIND the main table and in front of the support column:
1) a 3/4" thick fence,
2) a piece approx 3 1/2" wide and
3) a piece approx 1 1/2" wide

The latter dimensions are not critical, more proportionate than anything
else. They allow for the in and out rip mentioned by others. Changing
those dimensions will really only affect the measuring device (if any)
on the arm. No biggie.

The fence and the two spacers mentioned are then clamped into position
somehow - my Craftsman uses a little L-bracket on each side with a
thumbscrew not unlike what you'd find on a small C or bar clamp.

If you strike out at Sears and OWWM.com in your quest for a manual, let
me know and I'll scan in the relevant portions of my early 70's
Craftsman RAS and send it to you as a .pdf file.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:02:27 GMT, Michael White
wrote:

What I've looked at on that web page looks good, but I noticed the book
seemed to be geared toward DeWalt. Will I get much out of the maintenance
for my ancient Craftsman?

Yes. The table alignment procedure for a radial arm saw, well
described in the book, is consistent throughout the world of RAS' for
the most part, even if there are some differences in certain specifics
(control locations and fasteners, for example). There are also some
usage examples that are applicable in principle across the RAS
spectrum. It's also interesting reading just to learn a little about
the history of the RAS.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

Unquestionably Confused ) wrote on Thursday 18 August
2005 07:50 am:

Michael White wrote:
What I've looked at on that web page looks good, but I noticed the book
seemed to be geared toward DeWalt. Will I get much out of the
maintenance for my ancient Craftsman?

Did you try Sears parts? Did you check at OWWM.COM to see if they might
have a manual for your machine? OWWM is a treasure trove for things
related to old woodworking machinery.

That's one of the first sites Google hit - there's not one there.

Just about ANY good book on radial arm saws will lay down the specific
principles of maintaining and aligning your saw. The implementation
thereof will vary somewhat between makes but it typically is NOT rocket
science.

I figured as much. As far as I know, I have it set up pretty darn close -
all my crosscuts are square, and the blade is parallel to the fence for
rips. There does seem to be a bit of warp or slop in the guide bar (i.e.
the one -not- primarily supporting the saw), though. This usually shows up
as making one side of a 4' long, 12" wide cut 1/32" longer than the other,
and as a bit of a bow in the cut. I spent several hours one afternoon
tearing things completely down and putting them back together trying to
eliminate it. It's more noticeable on oak than soft pine.

As for the table problem you seem to have:

Typically, you will see four, maybe more bolts which fasten the main
table to the saw frame along with one or two adjusting screws towards
the center of the table which provide adjustment/support to keep the top
from sagging and screwing up your hard work aligningg

Mine has four threaded holes, two on each of the table supports. The first
pair of threaded holes is 10" from the front of the table support, the
second 20". At the front of the table support (nearest the post) is a pair
of non-threaded holes that look like some of the picture hangers that are
meant to hang on a bolt or nail head (i.e. two circles of differing
diameters sort of squished together).

There is no adjusting screws, or any place adjusting screws would be.

What you need to do is fabricate a top which is less deep (front to rear
so there's no confusion) which will, in turn allow you to place the
following BEHIND the main table and in front of the support column:
1) a 3/4" thick fence,
2) a piece approx 3 1/2" wide and
3) a piece approx 1 1/2" wide

The latter dimensions are not critical, more proportionate than anything
else. They allow for the in and out rip mentioned by others. Changing
those dimensions will really only affect the measuring device (if any)
on the arm. No biggie.

There's no scale on the arm of this thing.

The fence and the two spacers mentioned are then clamped into position
somehow - my Craftsman uses a little L-bracket on each side with a
thumbscrew not unlike what you'd find on a small C or bar clamp.

If you strike out at Sears and OWWM.com in your quest for a manual, let
me know and I'll scan in the relevant portions of my early 70's
Craftsman RAS and send it to you as a .pdf file.

I'm downloading the Emerson's manual from owwm.com right now. Thanks.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

Michael White wrote:


I figured as much. As far as I know, I have it set up pretty darn close -
all my crosscuts are square, and the blade is parallel to the fence for
rips. There does seem to be a bit of warp or slop in the guide bar (i.e.
the one -not- primarily supporting the saw), though. This usually shows up
as making one side of a 4' long, 12" wide cut 1/32" longer than the other,
and as a bit of a bow in the cut. I spent several hours one afternoon
tearing things completely down and putting them back together trying to
eliminate it. It's more noticeable on oak than soft pine.

Hasven't had my morning coffee yet so I'm missing your point here. If,
however, its what I think it is, that manual you downloaded should tell
you generally how to snug things up. If it's a worn part you may have
some difficulty but as I recall there are numerous minor adjustments
that can be made to snug things up on all the mechanicals.


Mine has four threaded holes, two on each of the table supports. The first
pair of threaded holes is 10" from the front of the table support, the
second 20". At the front of the table support (nearest the post) is a pair
of non-threaded holes that look like some of the picture hangers that are
meant to hang on a bolt or nail head (i.e. two circles of differing
diameters sort of squished together).

As in a keyhole slot to either side (outboard) of the base frame or,
perhaps, right on it, dead center? The smaller portion of the hole is
to the rear, correct? That's where the thumb screw like clamp for the
rear tables/fence go. IF you don't have the screws any longer then
you'll just have to buy some from Sears or Jerry-Rig something. Once
you see the manual you'll understand what is needed. Should not be a
major problem regardless


There is no adjusting screws, or any place adjusting screws would be.

That or those probably disappeared when the table was replaced. Again,
you'll see it/them once you get your hands on a manual, most likely any
Sears manual. It is used to adjust the center of the table to keep it
flat. Piece of cake. Get a drive in t-nut, drill the appropriate sized
hole for the set screw, insert setscrew in counter-bored (from the top)
hole and adjust as necessary. Just make sure to size the screw so that
it doesn't intrude more than half the thickness of the top. You don't
want to "adjust" it with your carbide tipped blade. It would probably
work but then you'd have other problemsg


The latter dimensions are not critical, more proportionate than anything
else. They allow for the in and out rip mentioned by others. Changing
those dimensions will really only affect the measuring device (if any)
on the arm. No biggie.

There's no scale on the arm of this thing.

Cool. No scale means no problemsg

Michael White wrote:

....
I figured as much. As far as I know, I have it set up pretty darn close -
all my crosscuts are square, and the blade is parallel to the fence for
rips. There does seem to be a bit of warp or slop in the guide bar (i.e.
the one -not- primarily supporting the saw), though. This usually shows up
as making one side of a 4' long, 12" wide cut 1/32" longer than the other,
and as a bit of a bow in the cut. I spent several hours one afternoon
tearing things completely down and putting them back together trying to
eliminate it. It's more noticeable on oak than soft pine.
....

This doesn't make any sense to me...if you're making a 4' long cut you
have to be ripping and to have one end wider than the other at the end
of a rip means something has moved during the cut???

At first I was thinking the rollers on the arm are sloppy and I suppose
you could still be canting them...if so, they should be mounted on
eccentrics so they can be snugged up to the rail--you want them "just
under" the point at which it is hard to move the head but not sloppy.

I suppose you could also have a loose yoke lock or simply the structure
isn't rigid enough...I don't know this saw so don't know how sturdy it
is (or isn't)...