Grizzly cabinet saw -- which one?

Unisaw has a locking mechanism for height and tilt.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 23:32:57 -0000, Dan <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue 12 Aug 2003 06:09:40p, "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>> Three belts vs. one belt.
>> Larger hand wheels
>> Larger and heavier trunion
>> Stronger motor mount
>> Heavier miter gauge.
>>
>> I kind of like the enclosed base as well.
>
>The enclosed base means better dust control, I think.
>
>One thing nobody's mentioned: do the better cabinet saws lock the height
>and angle adjustments? I haven't had any trouble with my Griz 1022 losing
>its height like my first saw, a used Craftsman would. I swear that thing
>would move up and down when I tried to make a dado.
>
>But I'd kinda like to have some sort of locking mechanism for the height,
>now that I've had some time to think about it. Which saws, if any, do that?
>
>Dan

Beg to differ but I think i can see a difference. I put a junker blade
onmy unisaw when ripping/crosscutting waste 2x4's or 2x6's and it
never slows down. I KNOW it is dull; that's why I use it. Like I said,
it is a junker. But it'll cut nails and stuff and you never know it.
I also use a Bies splitter.




On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:27:25 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:57:52 -0500, Ramsey <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>To me, I believe that I notice a LOT of difference in accuracy. I
>>expect that it is beacuse it is "easier" to make a cut with 3 HP than
>>1-1/2 hp. That in its self makes a difference.
>
>I've noticed that the quality and condition of the blade makes more
>difference than the horsepower on anything equal to or less than 5/4.
>
>Barry

I'm a newbie also considering a Grizzly contractor saw as my first
large tool purchase. Don't think I can stretch the budget for the
cabinet saw. I have a question about this discussion thread.

Lurking for a while I have seen lots of specific reasons why a
benchtop saw is not as good (quality of materials, construction,
size). However, not much detail about why a cabinet saw is so much
better than the contractor's saw. Any further detail is appreciated. I
know a better motor and better dust collection are positives, but what
is different about the two saws that makes the quality and work
results better? Any opinions about how much better? Thanks.

- Al

Lewis Dodd wrote:

>My penny's worth:
>
>As a newbie, I would probably reccomend you buy the contractors saw. You
>can always sell it and get the cabinet saw later. I have four contractors
>saws and have used them well for over 25 years plus. Yes, there are some
>nuances, but the money difference was well applied to other well needed
>tools. A cabinet saw is great if you get into that much cabinet or carcass
>work. Most table saws are used for ripping anyway. I use my radial arm saw
>or miter saw for cross cutting. I have the other table saws set up for
>different cuts with different blades, comes in real handy in a large
>project.
>
>I have to differ with the Shop Fox fence opinions. I have the 1023Z where
>the fence locks front and back. Nothing better, the blade cannot "force"
>the back of the fence to move. Any fence that locks front and back is
>obviously twice as good as one that only locks in front.
>
I disagree. The old Jet lock fence (and the clones) locked front and
back and although they worked some of the time, almost everyone with the
means to do so has upgraded to a Beis type fence. If you can push the
Bies type fence enough to move the back of it while cutting then you are
not using the saw right, or you have the fence set up wrong.

>
>BTW, the 3 hp motor is a bonus also.
>
You wouldn't get a 3hp motor on a contractors saw.

> It makes up a lot of the weight
>difference! I think on the end wings, the 1023 is metal
>

Nope, they are cast iron. The left tilt has wider extensions.

>and the 1023z they
>are cast, more weight. Used contractors saws are all over the place for
>$100-$125. Try e-bay or pawn shops, but check the bearings and trundle
>alignment.
>
>The Woodworker II blade is good advice.
>
>E-mail Grizzly, they will get into vast detail on differences for you.
>Their website even has a link to compare all their saws.
>Regards,
>Lewis
>
I think if you can spare the money then get the cabinet saw and a mobile
base. More of the power of the motor goes into cutting with a cabinet
saw, they are more stable, there are a lot of attachments that work with
them such as sliding tables and roller extensions, they hold the sawdust
better, and $300.00 is not that much to pay for all these advantages.

I have a contractors saw, a 12/14 table saw, 6 Unisaws and 1 left tilt
Grizzly and I like it as well as any of the others.
Jamie

>
>

>
> I have to differ with the Shop Fox fence opinions. I have the 1023Z where
> the fence locks front and back. Nothing better, the blade cannot "force"
> the back of the fence to move. Any fence that locks front and back is
> obviously twice as good as one that only locks in front.

HELL NO ! Honestly I would never (and that is a statement I do not
normally make) ever go back to using a fence that locked front and
back...NEVER ! And I do enough cutting of sheet goods on my tablesaw to
tell you right off that my "real" Biesmeyer fence has never flexed
during a cut...NEVER!



> The Woodworker II blade is good advice.
Nothing wrong with this advice although if you look at some of my other
posts on blades you will see I generally use Frued blades...90 percent
as good as the Forrest but half the price... but even saying that a
WW11 is on both my Table saws at this moment..

I do not own a Grizzley...BUT my other comment to the original poster
would to stick to his guns and buy once rather then dropping down to a
contractors saw then having to upgrade in 5 or 10 years...IF the
original poster gives up on woodworking I bet he could place an ad in
the newspaper and have the saw sold BEFORE the paper even hits the
street...

Bob Griffiths



>

:
>
>
>>And maybe some lumber.
>
>
>
> Let's not forget about that! <G>
>
> Barry

==========================================================
It was only yesterday that I surveyed my "stock" of lumber... oh boy
it may be a lean Christmas around my home this year... LOL

I retired in 1998 and while I was working managed to hord enough lumber
to last me at least 20 years into my retirement...

well I was wrong...

I blew thru my "hord" in less then 3 years and restocked my shop
sometime in 2002 with only a couple 1000 bf of lumber. And as of
yesterday that is getting a little "low".

I may end up with a hell of a lot of good woodworking machinary and no
lumber at the rate I am going...

Got to go pull up the spread sheet and redo the "retirement"
budget...1st thing to go is my wives clothing budget... opps if that
went I may not even think about woodworking anymore... hell of an idea !

Bob Griffiths

>
> It's a prejudiced and elitist opinion of the "front only locking fence"
> group. The fact that front only locking fences have the majority of the
> market only amplifies that elitist opinion. It's just like Microsoft; they
> may or may not have a better product, but they do have a superior marketing
> machine.
>
>
Have to agree about Billy Bob Gates and his Microspend Corp...

BUT when it comes to Fences...I have my opinions that have been formed
over quite a few years and those opinions put me into the FRONT
Lock group...

All I can say on this subject is that I
personally have had way too many problems with Fences that locked down
both front and back...

This is not saying that "some ..or even most" do not lock down correctly
every time... All I am saying is that I have ran into that problem way
too many times, with too many brands of these fences...

Since I can avoid the problem entirely by using a Front Lock fence thats
what I use...

Left Tilt, Right Tilt, front lock down, dual lock down, Forrest vs Freud
Delta vs Jet..Powermatic vs General... WE ALL HAVE OUR PERSONAL opinions
on each subjsct...

Bob Griffiths

My penny's worth:

As a newbie, I would probably reccomend you buy the contractors saw. You
can always sell it and get the cabinet saw later. I have four contractors
saws and have used them well for over 25 years plus. Yes, there are some
nuances, but the money difference was well applied to other well needed
tools. A cabinet saw is great if you get into that much cabinet or carcass
work. Most table saws are used for ripping anyway. I use my radial arm saw
or miter saw for cross cutting. I have the other table saws set up for
different cuts with different blades, comes in real handy in a large
project.

I have to differ with the Shop Fox fence opinions. I have the 1023Z where
the fence locks front and back. Nothing better, the blade cannot "force"
the back of the fence to move. Any fence that locks front and back is
obviously twice as good as one that only locks in front.

BTW, the 3 hp motor is a bonus also. It makes up a lot of the weight
difference! I think on the end wings, the 1023 is metal and the 1023z they
are cast, more weight. Used contractors saws are all over the place for
$100-$125. Try e-bay or pawn shops, but check the bearings and trundle
alignment.

The Woodworker II blade is good advice.

E-mail Grizzly, they will get into vast detail on differences for you.
Their website even has a link to compare all their saws.
Regards,
Lewis

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:57:52 -0500, Ramsey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>To me, I believe that I notice a LOT of difference in accuracy. I
>expect that it is beacuse it is "easier" to make a cut with 3 HP than
>1-1/2 hp. That in its self makes a difference.

I've noticed that the quality and condition of the blade makes more
difference than the horsepower on anything equal to or less than 5/4.

Barry

That's what the manual says to do. Honestly for me I would probably
try loosening it all from underneath first and see if I could do it
without flipping it over. I think I can actually reach the 4 bolts
from the back by snaking my hand in there anyway (power off obviously
;) -- it might work. Fortunately I haven't had to yet, if I ever do,
I'll post here with how it went.

Mike


nuk <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> Interesting take on it. From where I stand (dealing w/ the aggravation
> of a Sears Craftsman 10" CS, and eyeballing something more) it makes
> a reasonable amount of sense. What I don't get is why you have to flip
> the top off to align the saw? Am I missing something here in the
> overall picture of things? I figured a person would just stick a socket
> on a long extension up from below, loosen the trunnion mounting bolts a
> tad, and nudge the mount around a tad, either w/ a lever of some kind
> (i.e. 2x4) or something like the PALS system, and then tighten things
> back down. Might be a little tricky if you've put the saw in a mobile
> base/bench setup, but still not sure I see the need for flipping it
> over?
>

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:53:56 -0500, Ramsey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Beg to differ but I think i can see a difference. I put a junker blade
>onmy unisaw when ripping/crosscutting waste 2x4's or 2x6's and it
>never slows down. I KNOW it is dull; that's why I use it. Like I said,
>it is a junker. But it'll cut nails and stuff and you never know it.
>I also use a Bies splitter.

I never said there was *no* difference. Of COURSE there is,
especially when cutting nails! <G>

What I wrote was: "I've noticed that the quality and condition of the
blade makes more difference than the horsepower on anything equal to
or less than 5/4."

Now, how thick are those waste 2-bys?

Also, what's the moisture content in typical construction lumber?

Barry

>Questions:
>1. One of the differences in the catalog description is that the G1023SL
>says it has triple V-belt drive. However, the photo of the G1023 also shows
>three belts. Is there any difference? If so, how much difference would it
>make to me?
Triple drive is more than likely 3 belts.
>
>2. The extra 4" of cast-iron table can't totally explain why the SL and Z
>are 100 pounds heavier than the S. (If it were 100# per 4" of table, the
>table alone would weight 1000#, whereas the entire unit is 460#.) What
>else would account for the weight difference?
>
>3. The Z says it has "tilting arbor". Does this really mean that the S and
>SL don't? If so, it is important? Why?
My hunch is S is right-tilt and SL is left tilt.
>
>4. Any sound reasons to prefer the Shop Fox fence (on the Z) rather than
>the Biesemeyer clone on the S and SL?
Personal preference.

>5. Given the things I've read about the benefits of left-tilting, it seems
>to me the best options are the S and the SL. I would choose the SL because
>of the left-tilt. If I were to choose the S over the SL it would be because
>it's $100 cheaper. (I'm assuming the difference in fence on the Z is not
>compelling.) Does that thinking sound reasonable?
Yes, left tilt is usually preferable.

>6. Any other advice and wisdom?
Don't buy a contractors saw. Start out with a good saw. Most of us
learned the hard way or couldn't afford the cabinet saw.

7. Would anyone try to argue me down to a contractor's saw since I'm
a newbie? I.e., am I being foolish spending this much on a first
purchase?
Nope. Best move I've seen someone make here in a long time. Some of
us learn to buy the best once-up front . Happy cutting!!!

PS- Order a Forrest WWII blade and a Bies splitter . The stock saw
comes with a cheap piece of junk guard and splitter that are more
hazard than safety feature.

>Many thanks.
>
>
>

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's a prejudiced and elitist opinion of the "front only locking fence"
> group. The fact that front only locking fences have the majority of the
> market only amplifies that elitist opinion. It's just like Microsoft; they
> may or may not have a better product, but they do have a superior
marketing
> machine.

No, most Craftsman TS's have a front and back lock fence and there are
probably more Craftsman TS's out there than any thing else. Their double
lock fences are notorious for not locking down parallel to the blade.

B a r r y B u r k e J r . wrote:
> You're going to need a LOT of stuff as a newbie. Sit down and really
> think out where all of your near term dollars are going before you
> drop the dough on this saw.

Shhhhhh! If he does that, he may run screaming back to stamp collecting!

--
************************************
Chris Merrill
[email protected]
(remove the ZZZ to contact me)
************************************

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
better.
>
> If you need a lock on the rear, the fence is not very strong or the saw is
not
> properly set up.

Last reply to this thread. I don't agree with that last line. Assume that
someone is not feeding a piece of wood through a bies style fence with front
only locking. The inherent weakness is that if there's too much sideways
pressure against the wood, the fence is going to skew. Ok, the massiveness
of these rails and fences usually precludes that, but it's still a weakness
and entirely possible. Misaligned blade, stock feed not parallel to the
fence, pressure against the tail end of the bies style fence and it's there
happening right in front of you. Front and rear locking fences would be less
prone to that kind of skewing. It's an added safety or control mechanism if
you will.

I'll admit to you that for me anyway, all of this is hypothetical in the
sense that I've never owned any type of tablesaw that didn't have front and
back locking mechanism. I might change my mind at some point, but it's
mostly logic and specific example that drives me, not rhetoric such as
"notorious" accounts.

Good discussion. Apologies if I came off too strong at some point.

Dave

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> A little more lack of experience here. 95% of the time a front lock only
> fence is going to be the most accurate. Most front and rear lock fences
> will not lock down parallel to the blade every time. If you are having a
> problem with the blade forcing the fence to move, your saw is not set up
> correctly.
> Yours may be the only exception if you are getting shiney smooth cuts
using
> the front and back lock style fence.

You know, that's a CRAP STATEMENT if there ever was one. The KEY CRITERIA to
square cuts is having a quality saw fence and rails SET UP PROPERLY. I have
an Excalibur saw fence and guide (WHICH IS SET UP PROPERLY) and it gives
perfect cuts. It rides on the rail easily and the fact that it locks down at
the FRONT AND BACK means that there's no way in hell that the stock will
cause the fence to skew. UNLIKE THE POSSIBILITY OF IT HAPPENING WITH FRONT
LOCKING ONLY FENCES. The notion that the rear clamping force of a front and
back clamping fence is likely to pull it out of alignment is RIDICULOUS. You
could just as easily apply the same statement to front only locking fences.
In fact, it's MORE LIKELY THAT IT WILL HAPPEN. With front only locking
fences, any inconsistency will be magnified down the length of the fence.

And don't hand me any shit that Excalibur, or my Excalibur is the exception.
It's a matter of setup and nothing else. SO, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR STATEMENT AND
SHOVE IT.

And yeah, if you're wondering, YOUR CRAP STATEMENT is just that, C R A P.

"J&KCopeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> I had a 1973 Model, (Emerson Electric) Craftsman that I used for years.
> Granted, the fence was hard to adjust, but once it was fine-tuned, it
worked
> (and is still working )fine. My son uses it, now. The key was to
> completely release the locking mechanism, so that there was absolutely no
> drag on the away lock. If there was any drag, or heavy buildup of sawdust
> on the back rail, it *could* be locked out of parallel.

Mine was an 83 model and would be parallel unill the rear clamping finger
pulled the fence out of parallel.

>
> My father has a 1953 Craftsman Table saw with a micro-adjustable fence. I
> have NO idea who made the saw or the fence. The fence had a knob that
> engaged a toothed rail and made for absolutely minute adjustments. It's
> still working fine, today, and has stood up to fifty years of
> cabinet-making.

No doubt... the "OLD" Craftsman machines were pretty good.

>
> I don't buy in to this all-Craftsman-tools-are-crap "conventional wisdom".
> Because, it's not true.

Agreed. But most the new stuff in the last 20 years has not been up to par.

I had an 86 Craftsman jointer that was crap and have an 87 Band Saw that
holds it won although I would like to replace it.

"Bob G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > I have to differ with the Shop Fox fence opinions. I have the 1023Z
where
> > the fence locks front and back. Nothing better, the blade cannot
"force"
> > the back of the fence to move. Any fence that locks front and back is
> > obviously twice as good as one that only locks in front.
>
> HELL NO ! Honestly I would never (and that is a statement I do not
> normally make) ever go back to using a fence that locked front and
> back...NEVER ! And I do enough cutting of sheet goods on my tablesaw to
> tell you right off that my "real" Biesmeyer fence has never flexed
> during a cut...NEVER!
>
>

I have the 1023Z with the Shop Fox fence. It is smooth and works perfectly.
It is ALWAY true. That said, I do not have enough room for an outfeed table
and make due with the roller supports. IF, I ever get that separate shop
built, I'll switch to a Bessie style fence.

Until then, I can see no advantage to the Bessie or a clone.

My SIL just bought one of those Craftsman saws that folds up and rolls
everywhere. Since he is in the midst of remodeling his house, room by room,
the portability was a major consideration.

If the poster intends on doing carpenter-style work, buy a decent
contractor's saw, and Craftsman WILL DO. (It may not impress anyone here,
but you can set up and do acceptable cuts.) If the poster intends on going
for cabinet-making, where percision is paramont, spring for the cabinet saw.

James...

On Tue 12 Aug 2003 06:09:40p, "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Three belts vs. one belt.
> Larger hand wheels
> Larger and heavier trunion
> Stronger motor mount
> Heavier miter gauge.
>
> I kind of like the enclosed base as well.

The enclosed base means better dust control, I think.

One thing nobody's mentioned: do the better cabinet saws lock the height
and angle adjustments? I haven't had any trouble with my Griz 1022 losing
its height like my first saw, a used Craftsman would. I swear that thing
would move up and down when I tried to make a dado.

But I'd kinda like to have some sort of locking mechanism for the height,
now that I've had some time to think about it. Which saws, if any, do that?

Dan

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "J&KCopeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message> I don't think fence
> deflection is a problem in either case.
> >
> > However, *my* Shop Fox Fence locks down perfectly parallel every time.
> > What's your source for the astonding assertion that "most front and rear
> > lock fences will not"?
>
> Most are Craftsman. Need I say more.. LOL
>

I had a 1973 Model, (Emerson Electric) Craftsman that I used for years.
Granted, the fence was hard to adjust, but once it was fine-tuned, it worked
(and is still working )fine. My son uses it, now. The key was to
completely release the locking mechanism, so that there was absolutely no
drag on the away lock. If there was any drag, or heavy buildup of sawdust
on the back rail, it *could* be locked out of parallel.

My father has a 1953 Craftsman Table saw with a micro-adjustable fence. I
have NO idea who made the saw or the fence. The fence had a knob that
engaged a toothed rail and made for absolutely minute adjustments. It's
still working fine, today, and has stood up to fifty years of
cabinet-making.

I don't buy in to this all-Craftsman-tools-are-crap "conventional wisdom".
Because, it's not true. I dislike modern Craftsman routers, because they
are ungainly, unbalanced, ackward, and ugly. That said, I have TWO
20-year-old Craftsman routers (and Skill, and Bosch), that are quite
adequate.

James....

"BobAtVandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've just about decided to make a big leap and spring for a Grizzly
cabinet
> saw. I haven't done any serious woodworking before but everything I read
> here says to go for the best table saw you can afford and this is at
> (probably over, really) the most I can spend. Grizzly's current sale
> catalog expires 1-September, so I want to make a decision before then as
to
> which of 3 models and would appreciate advice. The 3 I'm considering are:
>
> G1023S -- their base cabinet saw. $795
> G1023SL -- left-tilting, and I think I understand the advantages of that.
> However, other than that, the specs seem to read the same as the G1023S
> except that the table is about 4" wider, it includes the dust port, and is
> 100 pounds heavier. $875
> G1023Z -- tilting arbor, "deluxe" model (whatever that means). Has 'Shop
> Fox' fence, whereas the above 1023S and the 1023SL have the 'Shop Fox
> Classic' (Biesemeyer knockoff). Table size also 4" wider and 100 pounds
> heavier. $895
>
> All cost another $75 for shipping.
>
> Questions:
> 1. One of the differences in the catalog description is that the G1023SL
> says it has triple V-belt drive. However, the photo of the G1023 also
shows
> three belts. Is there any difference? If so, how much difference would
it
> make to me?

They have the same belt drive. No difference.

> 2. The extra 4" of cast-iron table can't totally explain why the SL and Z
> are 100 pounds heavier than the S. (If it were 100# per 4" of table, the
> table alone would weight 1000#, whereas the entire unit is 460#.) What
> else would account for the weight difference?

My only guess is that catalog is not always correct. The wings are about 30
or 40 lbs each so no way that 4 inches more would be 100 lbs. The motor
cover thing can't be more than a five pounds or so. In any case the S model
is heavy enough.

> 3. The Z says it has "tilting arbor". Does this really mean that the S
and
> SL don't? If so, it is important? Why?

They ALL have a tilting arbor. Without it you can't rip at an angle.

> 4. Any sound reasons to prefer the Shop Fox fence (on the Z) rather than
> the Biesemeyer clone on the S and SL?

The shop fox supposedly clamps on both ends. Maybe that is an advantage if
you are hammering on the fence. I think it just makes things more
complicated and fussy. There is nothing wrong with the "classic" fence that
comes with the S and SL. It is very simple and sturdy.
You can lift it off the table easily to get it out of the way. I haven't
used it enough to notice any irritating qualities. It uses the same
principle as the Biesemeyer and is constructed solidly so I can't imagine
that it will be problematic unless a weld cracks. It was very easy to
install.

> 5. Given the things I've read about the benefits of left-tilting, it
seems
> to me the best options are the S and the SL. I would choose the SL
because
> of the left-tilt. If I were to choose the S over the SL it would be
because
> it's $100 cheaper. (I'm assuming the difference in fence on the Z is not
> compelling.) Does that thinking sound reasonable?

That is what I did, however I considered the justification for the left tilt
and found that the $ saved with the right tilt was compelling enough. I used
that $ for a mobile base. Check the archive for Leon's posts about Right vs.
Left tilt and see which advantages are important to you. I think that I
posted my response to those items a few weeks ago so you can find out why I
picked the right tilt despite the advantages of a left tilt.

Since then I have found that "Leon's Left Tilt List" has an additional item
that needs correction. Where he talks about having to use your left hand to
remove the arbor nut - well, actually if you stand on the outfeed side of
the table not only do you get to use your right hand, you also are closer to
the arbor so you don't need to reach as far. In this case the right tilt
gets the nod.

> 6. Any other advice and wisdom?

When you buy it have a razor scraper handy. It takes off the bulk of the
cosmoline so you only need a quick wipe with some mineral spirits.

I got the 240v model. It took me an hour or so to put in a new 240v circuit
and outlet, but it seems worth it. If you don't do that, you probably want a
dedicated 20A 120v circuit anyway, so why bother?
As for plugs and the like, ebay was the cheapest place. Grainger charges
something like $18 for a Hubbell L6-20 plug which I got on ebay for $4. I
also picked up a length of 10GA cord so I can move the saw out of the garage
if I want to work outside. The cord on the saw is a bit short.

Don't forget to buy a blade. You can't cut without one and the saw does not
come with one.

>
> 7. Would anyone try to argue me down to a contractor's saw since I'm a
> newbie? I.e., am I being foolish spending this much on a first purchase?

If you are a newbie and will get over your infatuation soon - leaving your
tools alone in a darkened garage forever, then save your money for a year
until you are over it. If you want something that is mobile (ie: you can
load it in a truck) then get the contractor saw.
Other than that, I'd say go ahead and get a tool which will allow you to do
good work. It takes more skill to get good work using poor tools.

-Jack

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> > If you want something that is mobile (ie: you can
> >load it in a truck) then get the contractor saw.
> >Other than that, I'd say go ahead and get a tool which will allow you to
do
> >good work. It takes more skill to get good work using poor tools.
> >
> >-Jack
> >
>
> If something is called a "contractor's saw", it's a poor tool? <G>

Barry,

I didn't say that a contractor saw is a poor tool did I? Maybe I didn't
write as precisely as I should have. Since you detail the importance of a
good blade, good alignment, a good miter gauge I can only assume that you
agree with me that poor tools make it hard to get good results. That is
independent of the type of tool or sometimes even the cost of the tool.

> Since "contractor saw" can cover anything selling new for $100 to over
> $900, that's a pretty ridiculous assertation.

One that I did not make... at least not intentionally.

> I have a 10" Jet contractor's saw, and it is NOT a "poor" tool.
> I've used plenty of cabinet saws and my cs gives up only a small
> amount of table size and some horsepower. The only time I've missed
> the horsies is when I'm ripping 8/4 or thicker hardwoods.

Sure, but then again the Grizzly is only a hundred$ more than Amazon wants
for the Jet JWTS-10CW2-JF so we aren't talking a big difference.

> Spend the time properly aligning a good contractors saw, put a
> high-end blade and a good miter gauge on it, as I have, and I'll bet
> you a keg of micro brew that I can cut just as accurately on my saw as
> you can with your cabinet saw.

No you can't. Please send me the microbrew immediately. Thanks.

> FWIW, I can afford a cabinet saw, and I have the room for one. I'm
> happy enough with my saw that I can't make myself write the check for
> a new cabinet saw. This is regardless of the free routers, $500 in
> free accessories, etc... offered over the last year or two by several
> manufacturers.

I'm sure if I had bought one I'd be happy with it too. I'm also too cheap to
buy something that I already have. So until this thing breaks it is it for
me.

> If I found a $700 PM66 in good shape, would I buy it? Heck yeah!
> Would I spend $2300 for one? Heck no! <G>

Me neither. But we weren't talking $2300 saws. You could almost get three
saws for that price.

-Jack

> This looks like as good a place as any to jump in and ask a question
> that has been nagging at me while following this thread...
>
> What about when the line starts getting a lot less distinct? I'm
> looking at say, a Grizzly 1023 cabinet saw vs a Grizzly 1022ProZ
> contractor saw. Both have cast iron tops, solid cast iron wings,
> basically identical fence options, etc. The 1022ProZ
> is pretty much already as tricked out as it gets for a CS, w/ Bies clone
> fence, machined pulleys, link belts, dust port, etc. so the normal
> 'upgrade' costs associated w/ a CS are minimized. Still need a better
> splitter/guard assembly, but so does the 1023.
>
> So what exactly is the benefit of the cabinet saw vs the contractor saw
> in this case? If a person needs to stay w/ 110v for whatever reason, he
> doesn't gain any power w/ the 1023, as it is also 2HP, just like the
> 1022ProZ. If 220 is an option, a jump from 2hp to 3 is available, but I
> wonder just how much difference that really matters for most people,
> judging by the number of people who can get by quite nicely on 1.5HP
> contractor saws. Similarly, how much accuracy are we really talking
> about as an improvement here? I'm currently having some accuracy
> problems w/ a Sears Craftsman CS, but thats a separate issue, and
> appears to be overcomeable w/o too much problem.
>
> Just wondering...
>
> TIA,
>
> nuk

Looks like these are the differences:

Three belts vs. one belt.
Larger hand wheels
Larger and heavier trunion
Stronger motor mount
Heavier miter gauge.

Certainly one can align it just as accurately. Perhaps it will stay in tune
for as long, but the heavier construction of the CS will limit vibration
more and an extra 50% more horse power will help no matter what you are
cutting.
I kind of like the enclosed base as well.

-Jack

> One thing nobody's mentioned: do the better cabinet saws lock the height
> and angle adjustments? I haven't had any trouble with my Griz 1022 losing
> its height like my first saw, a used Craftsman would. I swear that thing
> would move up and down when I tried to make a dado.
>
> But I'd kinda like to have some sort of locking mechanism for the height,
> now that I've had some time to think about it. Which saws, if any, do
that?
>
> Dan

I think every cabinet saw I've seen has a locking knob for the height/angle
The 1023 does and I think you could consider it a low end cabinet saw..

-Jack

BobAtVandy wrote:
> I've just about decided to make a big leap and spring for a Grizzly cabinet
> saw. I haven't done any serious woodworking before but everything I read
> here says to go for the best table saw you can afford and this is at
> (probably over, really) the most I can spend. Grizzly's current sale
> catalog expires 1-September, so I want to make a decision before then as to
> which of 3 models and would appreciate advice. The 3 I'm considering are:
>
> G1023S -- their base cabinet saw. $795
>

Buy the G1023S - it's a great saw. Spend the money you saved on a good
alignment tool, a good blade, and material to build a right-side
extension table and a "large" outfeed table (at least 4' square).
You'll never regret spending a little extra on a cabinet saw rather than
buying a contractor's saw. (I know. I started out with a contractor's
saw with a poor-excuse-for-a-fence. It was hard to align and impossible
to trust. I sold that and bought a Uni-Saw. Knowing what I know now
about blades and proper alignment, I would be very happy to have a
G1023S instead of the Uni-Saw.)

As far as right-tilt versus left-tilt goes, I prefer right-tilt so that
I can use the < $300 sliding table for cross-cutting. It works great.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > . SO, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR STATEMENT AND
> > SHOVE IT.
>
> Look slick you can ignore the the facts or continue to live in your dream
> world.

Leon,

Just pointing out that he can do both. :-)

Jack

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> better.
> >
> > If you need a lock on the rear, the fence is not very strong or the saw
is
> not
> > properly set up.
>
> Last reply to this thread. I don't agree with that last line. Assume that
> someone is not feeding a piece of wood through a bies style fence with
front
> only locking. The inherent weakness is that if there's too much sideways
> pressure against the wood, the fence is going to skew. Ok, the massiveness
> of these rails and fences usually precludes that, but it's still a
weakness
> and entirely possible. Misaligned blade, stock feed not parallel to the
> fence, pressure against the tail end of the bies style fence and it's
there
> happening right in front of you. Front and rear locking fences would be
less
> prone to that kind of skewing. It's an added safety or control mechanism
if
> you will.
>
> I'll admit to you that for me anyway, all of this is hypothetical in the
> sense that I've never owned any type of tablesaw that didn't have front
and
> back locking mechanism. I might change my mind at some point, but it's
> mostly logic and specific example that drives me, not rhetoric such as
> "notorious" accounts.
>
> Good discussion. Apologies if I came off too strong at some point.
>
> Dave

I don't buy your "safety" argument. In this case, logic would suggest that
if the wood feeding through the misaligned blade is producing severe
pressure against the fence that you would PREFER that the fence moves. The
alternative is that the blade bends, binds and BANG!

There really shouldn't be enough sideways force against the fence to deflect
it unless you are supplying it.
It is under your control.
I think that one is more likely to forget to lock the fence tightly than
they are to feed wood with enough sideways force to skew the typical bies
style fence.

In general simpler is better.

That said, I once built a table and a fence for a bench type saw. The fence
was a t-square type, but because it was made out of aluminum angle stock and
was 4 feet long it REQUIRED that the tail end be clamped down. Not to get
good alignment, but to make sure it was not going to move around. It was
rather whippy. This points out that each type has it's merits.

-Jack

To me, I believe that I notice a LOT of difference in accuracy. I
expect that it is beacuse it is "easier" to make a cut with 3 HP than
1-1/2 hp. That in its self makes a difference.


On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:53:05 +0000 (UTC), nuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:44:58 GMT, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "jcofmars" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lurking for a while I have seen lots of specific reasons why a
>>> benchtop saw is not as good (quality of materials, construction,
>>> size). However, not much detail about why a cabinet saw is so much
>>> better than the contractor's saw. Any further detail is appreciated. I
>>> know a better motor and better dust collection are positives, but what
>>> is different about the two saws that makes the quality and work
>>> results better? Any opinions about how much better? Thanks.
>>
>> Because it's much heavier, a cabinet saw is usually not as prone to
>> vibration as a contractor's saw. It's more likely to have longer guide
>> rails, cast iron table top, longer extension wings, often made of cast iron,
>> and not the lighter stamped metal that many contractor's saws have. The
>> fence is also more likely to be solid and of better quality. A 3hp motor is
>> much more common on a cabinet saw. Of course, there's exceptions to all
>> these things, but they are mostly true in my opinion.
>>
>
>This looks like as good a place as any to jump in and ask a question
>that has been nagging at me while following this thread...
>
>What about when the line starts getting a lot less distinct? I'm
>looking at say, a Grizzly 1023 cabinet saw vs a Grizzly 1022ProZ
>contractor saw. Both have cast iron tops, solid cast iron wings,
> basically identical fence options, etc. The 1022ProZ
>is pretty much already as tricked out as it gets for a CS, w/ Bies clone
>fence, machined pulleys, link belts, dust port, etc. so the normal
>'upgrade' costs associated w/ a CS are minimized. Still need a better
>splitter/guard assembly, but so does the 1023.
>
>So what exactly is the benefit of the cabinet saw vs the contractor saw
>in this case? If a person needs to stay w/ 110v for whatever reason, he
>doesn't gain any power w/ the 1023, as it is also 2HP, just like the
>1022ProZ. If 220 is an option, a jump from 2hp to 3 is available, but I
>wonder just how much difference that really matters for most people,
>judging by the number of people who can get by quite nicely on 1.5HP
>contractor saws. Similarly, how much accuracy are we really talking
>about as an improvement here? I'm currently having some accuracy
>problems w/ a Sears Craftsman CS, but thats a separate issue, and
>appears to be overcomeable w/o too much problem.
>
>Just wondering...
>
>TIA,
>
>nuk
>
>

"J&KCopeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I don't think fence deflection is a problem in either case.
>
> However, *my* Shop Fox Fence locks down perfectly parallel every time.
> What's your source for the astonding assertion that "most front and rear
> lock fences will not"?

It's a prejudiced and elitist opinion of the "front only locking fence"
group. The fact that front only locking fences have the majority of the
market only amplifies that elitist opinion. It's just like Microsoft; they
may or may not have a better product, but they do have a superior marketing
machine.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 02:09:59 -0000, Dan <[email protected]> wrote:

> And maybe some lumber.


Let's not forget about that! <G>

Barry

"Lewis Dodd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip

A cabinet saw is great if you get into that much cabinet or carcass
> work.

OK your newbyness is really showing here... ;~)
A cabinet saw was not named for the type work it is used for. You can build
cabinets with any TS. A cabinet saw's name describes the CABINET that
surrounds the guts of the saw.

> I have to differ with the Shop Fox fence opinions. I have the 1023Z where
> the fence locks front and back. Nothing better, the blade cannot "force"
> the back of the fence to move. Any fence that locks front and back is
> obviously twice as good as one that only locks in front.

A little more lack of experience here. 95% of the time a front lock only
fence is going to be the most accurate. Most front and rear lock fences
will not lock down parallel to the blade every time. If you are having a
problem with the blade forcing the fence to move, your saw is not set up
correctly.
Yours may be the only exception if you are getting shiney smooth cuts using
the front and back lock style fence.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:26:04 -0700, "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I didn't say that a contractor saw is a poor tool did I? Maybe I didn't
>write as precisely as I should have. Since you detail the importance of a
>good blade, good alignment, a good miter gauge I can only assume that you
>agree with me that poor tools make it hard to get good results. That is
>independent of the type of tool or sometimes even the cost of the tool.

Right-o!

>> Since "contractor saw" can cover anything selling new for $100 to over
>> $900, that's a pretty ridiculous assertation.
>
>One that I did not make... at least not intentionally.

Many folks seem to think of contractor's saws as more towards the low
end, so I was making the point in general. Some contractor's saws ARE
poor tools, like the direct drive models with 12x12 tables. <G>

>> I have a 10" Jet contractor's saw, and it is NOT a "poor" tool.
>> I've used plenty of cabinet saws and my cs gives up only a small
>> amount of table size and some horsepower. The only time I've missed
>> the horsies is when I'm ripping 8/4 or thicker hardwoods.
>
>Sure, but then again the Grizzly is only a hundred$ more than Amazon wants
>for the Jet JWTS-10CW2-JF so we aren't talking a big difference.

Right. However another issue comes up. I don't have any Grizzly
tools, so I'm going by what I get here about them. I understand the
general consensus as Grizzly is very good about correcting problems
and shipping damage, but this damage seems to reach the end user more
than tools purchased through normal retail channels. My guess is that
it happens to all brands, but the retailer weeds them out on the
others.

As a newbie he is unlikely to have the alignment tools we discussed
above, nor is he likely to know how the saw *should* work. I usually
don't recommend used tools to newbies for this same reason.

If he's going for the Grizzly, I'd jump on the Grizzly $400
contractor's saw, which I'll bet would easily fetch $275-300 used if
he decided he really wanted a cabinet saw a few years down the road.

Also, the saw, good miter gauge, and some good alignment tools, would
come in at about the same price as the cabinet saw. He's going to
need the miter gauge and alignment stuff no matter what is chosen.

>No you can't. Please send me the microbrew immediately. Thanks.

Yes, I can. <G> I've used PM66's, Unisaws, a General, and a Jet. If
I couldn't, In 10 seconds I would have one of those saws in my shop,
as I'm pretty anal about my results.

The only differences I've noticed in 6 years of owning my saw, are the
size limits imposed by my 30" fence and ripping hardwoods over 8/4.

The latter is easily overcome cutting oversize, and jointing and
planing the part. I don't do it often, so I keep my saw.

Barry

;~)

Lewis,
Many thanks for your thoughts and advice.
I've been looking for a good used contractor's saw for 6-8 months to no
avail, so am surprised when you say they are abundant and can be had for
$100-$125. I must be looking in the wrong place, so I'd appreciate any
advice you have as to how to find such a deal.
I live in Savannah, GA. I've frequently checked eBay, but anything that
is half-way across the country costs so much to freight that I could just as
well buy new. I also watch (via the Web) the classified ads for papers
north to Charleston, west to Atlanta, and south to northern Florida, even
down to Tampa and Savannah. The only place I've found a couple that were
interesting was in Sarasota (there seem to be more ads for saws there --
perhaps more older retired woodworkers giving up the hobby), but by the time
I get a truck and cover fuel and food it's again a marginal proposition. I
did find a very old Grizzly locally, but it was $200 with non-solid wings
and a totally worthless fence. After I'd upgrade to a good fence, I'm back
in the $500 range again but with a very old saw. If I could find a good
contractor's saw for $100-$125, as you suggest, I'd snap it up. I could
even afford to replace the fence and still come out ahead verus buying new.
So, I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on how I might find
such a thing.

Thanks .... Bob

"Lewis Dodd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My penny's worth:
>
> As a newbie, I would probably reccomend you buy the contractors saw. You
> can always sell it and get the cabinet saw later. I have four contractors
> saws and have used them well for over 25 years plus. Yes, there are some
> nuances, but the money difference was well applied to other well needed
> tools. A cabinet saw is great if you get into that much cabinet or
carcass
> work. Most table saws are used for ripping anyway. I use my radial arm
saw
> or miter saw for cross cutting. I have the other table saws set up for
> different cuts with different blades, comes in real handy in a large
> project.
>
> I have to differ with the Shop Fox fence opinions. I have the 1023Z where
> the fence locks front and back. Nothing better, the blade cannot "force"
> the back of the fence to move. Any fence that locks front and back is
> obviously twice as good as one that only locks in front.
>
> BTW, the 3 hp motor is a bonus also. It makes up a lot of the weight
> difference! I think on the end wings, the 1023 is metal and the 1023z
they
> are cast, more weight. Used contractors saws are all over the place for
> $100-$125. Try e-bay or pawn shops, but check the bearings and trundle
> alignment.
>
> The Woodworker II blade is good advice.
>
> E-mail Grizzly, they will get into vast detail on differences for you.
> Their website even has a link to compare all their saws.
> Regards,
> Lewis
>
>
>

"David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message The risk in
> this however is if you get something that doesn't work well and then
> decide you don't like woodworking because of all the fiddling around
> or the poor results. Oh, well, I guess I didn't help much, huh?

LOL! Couldn't have said it better myself. Help him make up his mind so he
can think about it some more. Hurry up and wait, eh? :)

On 12 Aug 2003 10:27:22 -0700, [email protected] (jcofmars) wrote:


> However, not much detail about why a cabinet saw is so much
>better than the contractor's saw. Any further detail is appreciated. I
>know a better motor and better dust collection are positives, but what
>is different about the two saws that makes the quality and work
>results better? Any opinions about how much better? Thanks.

Compare them on a one by one basis, as there are wide variations
between saws labelled as contractor's saws.

Some contractor's saws have the same cast iron wings, Bessy fences,
etc... as cabinet saws. However, these guys will set you back
$700-800, maybe more.

The dust collection issue is easily helped by a velcro mounted
hardboard plate over the back, with clearance holes as required. The
plate gets removed to tilt the blade. With a zero clearance insert,
_all_ table saws spray a lot of dust out the top.

Vibrations can be minimized on a contractor's saw with a link belt,
and sand bags over the legs. Without the sandbags, I can stand a
nickel on edge while my Jet is running, so I didn't bother with them.

I have not seen a contractor saw with more than 2 HP, most are 1 1/2
HP, so the horsepower contest clearly goes to the 3-5 HP cabinet saw.

Barry

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'd wager to say that
> > many or most people here in this group still have their first tablesaw,
so
> > really don't have the comparison experience that cause "notorious tales"
> > like you've heard to be fact.
>
> When I have read the complaint over and again for the last 4 years, IMHO
it
> becomes notorious.

But Leon, people are much more likely to complain about a product than
promote its merits. It's obvious that there's going to be many, more
complaints than praises. They have to be taken with a big grain of salt. The
fact that the front mount type is so popular doesn't mean that it's better.
It might mean that, but it could just as easily mean that is what the
manufactures have decided to advertise. ala ~ Microsoft. Front clamping only
fences require less material to construct and simpler, cheaper technology to
design.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:54:58 -0700, "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote:


> If you want something that is mobile (ie: you can
>load it in a truck) then get the contractor saw.
>Other than that, I'd say go ahead and get a tool which will allow you to do
>good work. It takes more skill to get good work using poor tools.
>
>-Jack
>

If something is called a "contractor's saw", it's a poor tool? <G>

Since "contractor saw" can cover anything selling new for $100 to over
$900, that's a pretty ridiculous assertation.

I have a 10" Jet contractor's saw, and it is NOT a "poor" tool.
I've used plenty of cabinet saws and my cs gives up only a small
amount of table size and some horsepower. The only time I've missed
the horsies is when I'm ripping 8/4 or thicker hardwoods.

Spend the time properly aligning a good contractors saw, put a
high-end blade and a good miter gauge on it, as I have, and I'll bet
you a keg of micro brew that I can cut just as accurately on my saw as
you can with your cabinet saw.

FWIW, I can afford a cabinet saw, and I have the room for one. I'm
happy enough with my saw that I can't make myself write the check for
a new cabinet saw. This is regardless of the free routers, $500 in
free accessories, etc... offered over the last year or two by several
manufacturers.

If I found a $700 PM66 in good shape, would I buy it? Heck yeah!
Would I spend $2300 for one? Heck no! <G>

Barry

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:O6q_a.183848

> You know, that's a CRAP STATEMENT if there ever was one. The KEY CRITERIA
to
> square cuts is having a quality saw fence and rails SET UP PROPERLY.

No that is a true statement. While I agree that a key to making good clean
cuts is having a quality fence properly set up, may I remind you that
Craftsman probably has sold more TS's than any one and their fences for a
very long time have been rear locking also.. The fences were crap and did
not consistantly lock down parallel to the blade.


>I have an Excalibur saw fence and guide (WHICH IS SET UP PROPERLY) and it
gives
> perfect cuts. It rides on the rail easily and the fact that it locks down
at
> the FRONT AND BACK means that there's no way in hell that the stock will
> cause the fence to skew. UNLIKE THE POSSIBILITY OF IT HAPPENING WITH FRONT
> LOCKING ONLY FENCES.

Well, Excaliber makes up some of the other small percentage of rear locking
fences that do work the way they should. But, there are very few Excalibur
fences out there compared to the rear locking Craftsman fences.


The notion that the rear clamping force of a front and
> back clamping fence is likely to pull it out of alignment is RIDICULOUS.

I agree, they should not pull the fence out of alignment but they do.


>You could just as easily apply the same statement to front only locking
fences.
> In fact, it's MORE LIKELY THAT IT WILL HAPPEN. With front only locking
> fences, any inconsistency will be magnified down the length of the fence.

WHAT?


> And don't hand me any shit that Excalibur, or my Excalibur is the
exception.
> It's a matter of setup and nothing else. SO, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR STATEMENT
AND
> SHOVE IT.

Look slick you can ignore the the facts or continue to live in your dream
world.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:44:58 GMT, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> "jcofmars" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lurking for a while I have seen lots of specific reasons why a
>> benchtop saw is not as good (quality of materials, construction,
>> size). However, not much detail about why a cabinet saw is so much
>> better than the contractor's saw. Any further detail is appreciated. I
>> know a better motor and better dust collection are positives, but what
>> is different about the two saws that makes the quality and work
>> results better? Any opinions about how much better? Thanks.
>
> Because it's much heavier, a cabinet saw is usually not as prone to
> vibration as a contractor's saw. It's more likely to have longer guide
> rails, cast iron table top, longer extension wings, often made of cast iron,
> and not the lighter stamped metal that many contractor's saws have. The
> fence is also more likely to be solid and of better quality. A 3hp motor is
> much more common on a cabinet saw. Of course, there's exceptions to all
> these things, but they are mostly true in my opinion.
>

This looks like as good a place as any to jump in and ask a question
that has been nagging at me while following this thread...

What about when the line starts getting a lot less distinct? I'm
looking at say, a Grizzly 1023 cabinet saw vs a Grizzly 1022ProZ
contractor saw. Both have cast iron tops, solid cast iron wings,
basically identical fence options, etc. The 1022ProZ
is pretty much already as tricked out as it gets for a CS, w/ Bies clone
fence, machined pulleys, link belts, dust port, etc. so the normal
'upgrade' costs associated w/ a CS are minimized. Still need a better
splitter/guard assembly, but so does the 1023.

So what exactly is the benefit of the cabinet saw vs the contractor saw
in this case? If a person needs to stay w/ 110v for whatever reason, he
doesn't gain any power w/ the 1023, as it is also 2HP, just like the
1022ProZ. If 220 is an option, a jump from 2hp to 3 is available, but I
wonder just how much difference that really matters for most people,
judging by the number of people who can get by quite nicely on 1.5HP
contractor saws. Similarly, how much accuracy are we really talking
about as an improvement here? I'm currently having some accuracy
problems w/ a Sears Craftsman CS, but thats a separate issue, and
appears to be overcomeable w/o too much problem.

Just wondering...

TIA,

nuk




--
I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.

On 11 Aug 2003 14:53:15 -0700, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The question is why would I want one if my current saw does all I
> need? Well, the reasons are hypothetical. Out of the box my Grizzly
> was within tolerance when I went to align it. If I ever have to align
> it though I've got to take the top off and flip it over, apparently
> this is much easier with cabinet saws. Another reason that some
> people quote is dust collection, but my dust hood on the bottom works
> great and the only stuff coming out of it is on the top and a cabinet
> saw won't change that (especially since I use a zero clearance
> insert).

Interesting take on it. From where I stand (dealing w/ the aggravation
of a Sears Craftsman 10" CS, and eyeballing something more) it makes
a reasonable amount of sense. What I don't get is why you have to flip
the top off to align the saw? Am I missing something here in the
overall picture of things? I figured a person would just stick a socket
on a long extension up from below, loosen the trunnion mounting bolts a
tad, and nudge the mount around a tad, either w/ a lever of some kind
(i.e. 2x4) or something like the PALS system, and then tighten things
back down. Might be a little tricky if you've put the saw in a mobile
base/bench setup, but still not sure I see the need for flipping it
over?

TIA,

nuk


--
I know more than enough *nix to do some very destructive things,
and not nearly enough to do very many useful things.

"jcofmars" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lurking for a while I have seen lots of specific reasons why a
> benchtop saw is not as good (quality of materials, construction,
> size). However, not much detail about why a cabinet saw is so much
> better than the contractor's saw. Any further detail is appreciated. I
> know a better motor and better dust collection are positives, but what
> is different about the two saws that makes the quality and work
> results better? Any opinions about how much better? Thanks.

Because it's much heavier, a cabinet saw is usually not as prone to
vibration as a contractor's saw. It's more likely to have longer guide
rails, cast iron table top, longer extension wings, often made of cast iron,
and not the lighter stamped metal that many contractor's saws have. The
fence is also more likely to be solid and of better quality. A 3hp motor is
much more common on a cabinet saw. Of course, there's exceptions to all
these things, but they are mostly true in my opinion.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:13:41 GMT, Bob G <[email protected]> wrote:


>
> Got to go pull up the spread sheet and redo the "retirement"
>budget...1st thing to go is my wives clothing budget...

Maybe you can get her to foot the materials for a project _she_ wants.
I'm sure she wouldn't know that her new nightstand didn't need 250 bf
of lumber. <G>

Barry

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:04:58 -0400, "BobAtVandy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>7. Would anyone try to argue me down to a contractor's saw since I'm a
>newbie? I.e., am I being foolish spending this much on a first purchase?
>

If you've got the spare cash, the higher horsepower of the cabinet saw
is good to have. Keep in mind a few things:

The Grizz may not carry the same resale percentage as a Unisaw or
Powermatic, should you decide you're not a woodworker. I'm not saying
that it isn't as good a saw, only Grizzly lacks the brand recognition
that's often necessary when selling a used item.

You're going to need a LOT of stuff as a newbie. Sit down and really
think out where all of your near term dollars are going before you
drop the dough on this saw.

Barry

"Dan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upscale wrote:

>The Biesemeyer, not because it's a front-only lock but because
> it's the only one I know of that doesn't need a rail on the back side.
> If there are others of similar quality that wouldn't have a rail to get
> in the way of outfeed tables, I wouldn't mind hearing about them.


Actually you are going to have a rear rail with a Bies fence. A Bies fence
needs a smooth right table to support the fence and almost always a rear
rail is needed to help support the weight of the right table and fence.
This is especially true with the wider 50" capacity fences. That said, the
rear rail falls below the table surface and cannot be seen from the front of
the saw and the fence does not ride on the real rail.

As far as out feed tables go, there should be no problems with a Bies style
rear rail. I personally have the Jet version of the Bies fence and it too
has the rear rail but is a non-issue for the out feed.

"BobAtVandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

snip

> 7. Would anyone try to argue me down to a contractor's saw since I'm a
> newbie? I.e., am I being foolish spending this much on a first purchase?
>


I think you are on the right track. I was in your position when I started
and spent the $600 for a contractor saw. While it is a good saw, I wish now
I would have spent another $300 and got the grizzly SL plus a mobile base.

BTW, don't forget to budget for a good blade. I recommend the Forrest WWII
(It's around $115 now I think and worth every penny)

Frank

BobAtVandy wrote:
> 7. Would anyone try to argue me down to a contractor's saw since I'm a
> newbie? I.e., am I being foolish spending this much on a first purchase?

I'm not going to argue...but I'll give you my thoughts...

I have a Delta CS (circa 92) with 28" Unifence. The fence is
accurate. The saw runs smoothly. I can cut through 2 1/2" of
oak without hesitation with a cheap carbide blade. It is not
the weak link in my workshop and probably never will be.

I used a Unisaw for the first time yesterday (taking a class).
While it is clearly a heavier-duty saw, I don't think it would
improve my results.

my 2cents
Chris

--
************************************
Chris Merrill
[email protected]
(remove the ZZZ to contact me)
************************************

"J&KCopeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message> I don't think fence
deflection is a problem in either case.
>
> However, *my* Shop Fox Fence locks down perfectly parallel every time.
> What's your source for the astonding assertion that "most front and rear
> lock fences will not"?

Most are Craftsman. Need I say more.. LOL

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lewis Dodd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Snip
>
> A little more lack of experience here. 95% of the time a front lock only
> fence is going to be the most accurate. Most front and rear lock fences
> will not lock down parallel to the blade every time. If you are having a
> problem with the blade forcing the fence to move, your saw is not set up
> correctly.
> Yours may be the only exception if you are getting shiney smooth cuts
using
> the front and back lock style fence.
>

I don't think fence deflection is a problem in either case.

However, *my* Shop Fox Fence locks down perfectly parallel every time.
What's your source for the astonding assertion that "most front and rear
lock fences will not"?

James...