Is the 520 Pro Fence and Table System Upgrade worth it?

[reible]

Ed, you have made this comparison and negative evaluation of the 510 several times BUT you never quantify what you really liked or disliked about the 510 when compared to the 500.

You then make these negative comments about the 520 "fence" when compared to the 510 "fence". Why are you convinced that the fence is what you dislike about the 510. Maybe your dislike was really the rail system.

Now...to be honest with you about whatever you might answer, I already know I will disagree. Why? Because I have and use both on a regular basis. I have real time personal experience using both and while I do have preferences I find them both to be functional and equally accurate if used with their differences in mind. While different, they are both "T" fences.

The inaccuracies that might result with the 510 fence are eliminated if you take care to properly lock the fence in position against the rails.

Well Dusty I have on several occasions gone into more details on my issues with the 510 system and after all that is really what we are talking about when we say fence. The fence and rails make up the 510 just like the 520 fence and the rails make up the 520 system. We can't use either fence without the rest of the system.

Now as I have mentioned before I got my 510 used. I also got it after I had my 500 upgraded to a 520. So my comparison was between a 500 and an upgraded to 520 system and a 510r. The 510r was one that was a 500 retrofit by a previous owner to become a 510. The 510 was also in bad shape, the last owner had the blade mounted backwards and it was evident it had cut wood that way....

I've always tried to be fair and I do always mention that the 510 was used and it was a basket case. I spend several hundred dollars getting it back into shape with most of that going to buying missing parts.

I was able to get a decent alignment of the fence to the main table. The problems started when I would add an extension table, floating or fixed. After getting a sort of alignment with a fixed table it would OK while doing the alignment but as soon as I took it apart and then put it back together I had alignment issues. Now I did this many time and it amounted to me needing to do an alignment just about every time I needed to use it for cuts that required extension tables. To be fair I do move my shopsmith to the driveway to work a fair amount so it is subject to that ride, perhaps if it were just setting in a shop all the time it would be different??

The 520 system can go for years without need alignment again. If the 510 could have done that I might still have it rather then pay the price to get the upgrade.

Actually that is not quite true. After getting the 510 upgrade to the the 520 it made even more since because I now had more 520 parts to play with and could expand my 520 system even more so it was a win win.

I think that a lot has to do with the users. If you do a lot of cuts that can be made on the system without the extensions then just like the 500 it does fine. It is just that 510 was to expand the whole table system and for me it was more of a pain then a help. I had a lot of "helpers" for the 500 and with those it wasn't bad working with the small tables. In fact I have a couple of 500 still in use and sometimes prefer to use them on certain projects.

So why would I pick the 500 above the 510, well because I learned to work with the limitations of the 500 and it too would stay in alignment. The 510 just required to much effort to maintain the alignment. I don't want to have to worry every time I pull the machine out if I will have to spend 20 or 30 minutes getting it aligned again before I can use it. That issue broke the advantage of the larger table system.

Bottom line is that if you like your 510 that is fine, if how ever you have or had issues like I did then I would go for the 520 upgrade because it works.

Ed

[RFGuy]

The only negative thing I will say about my 520 fence system is having to do with the stainless steel tape measure with magnetic attachment. On mine, the stainless steel tape measure is a tiny bit wider than the rail ledge on the 520 table system. What this means is that on occasion I will bump it with my hand and it lifts up throwing off the alignment that I had with the tape measure relative to the saw blade position. I wish my stainless steel tape measure was just slight narrower in width so that I couldn't accidentally catch the edge of it and lift it like this, or I wish the magnet could be a rare earth magnet kind that has more holding force. I haven't seen any adhesive backed rare earth magnet tape though. Anyone else have this problem with the 520, or better yet anyone have any fixes or tips they can share? This problem doesn't happen often to me, but when it does it is annoying. Other than this one annoyance, I do love the 520 fence system, especially since I installed the Jessem Clear Cut Stock Guides.

P.S. Can't get the URL to work below in this post because it has a TM trademark symbol in it. Copy and paste to see the thread on the Jessem guides.
https://www.shopsmith.com/ss_forum/wood ... 22171.html

[dusty]

Ed, you have made this comparison and negative evaluation of the 510 several times BUT you never quantify what you really liked or disliked about the 510 when compared to the 500.

You then make these negative comments about the 520 "fence" when compared to the 510 "fence". Why are you convinced that the fence is what you dislike about the 510. Maybe your dislike was really the rail system.

Now...to be honest with you about whatever you might answer, I already know I will disagree. Why? Because I have and use both on a regular basis. I have real time personal experience using both and while I do have preferences I find them both to be functional and equally accurate if used with their differences in mind. While different, they are both "T" fences.

The inaccuracies that might result with the 510 fence are eliminated if you take care to properly lock the fence in position against the rails.

Well Dusty I have on several occasions gone into more details on my issues with the 510 system and after all that is really what we are talking about when we say fence. The fence and rails make up the 510 just like the 520 fence and the rails make up the 520 system. We can't use either fence without the rest of the system.

Now as I have mentioned before I got my 510 used. I also got it after I had my 500 upgraded to a 520. So my comparison was between a 500 and an upgraded to 520 system and a 510r. The 510r was one that was a 500 retrofit by a previous owner to become a 510. The 510 was also in bad shape, the last owner had the blade mounted backwards and it was evident it had cut wood that way....

I've always tried to be fair and I do always mention that the 510 was used and it was a basket case. I spend several hundred dollars getting it back into shape with most of that going to buying missing parts.

I was able to get a decent alignment of the fence to the main table. The problems started when I would add an extension table, floating or fixed. After getting a sort of alignment with a fixed table it would OK while doing the alignment but as soon as I took it apart and then put it back together I had alignment issues. Now I did this many time and it amounted to me needing to do an alignment just about every time I needed to use it for cuts that required extension tables. To be fair I do move my shopsmith to the driveway to work a fair amount so it is subject to that ride, perhaps if it were just setting in a shop all the time it would be different??

The 520 system can go for years without need alignment again. If the 510 could have done that I might still have it rather then pay the price to get the upgrade.

Actually that is not quite true. After getting the 510 upgrade to the the 520 it made even more since because I now had more 520 parts to play with and could expand my 520 system even more so it was a win win.

I think that a lot has to do with the users. If you do a lot of cuts that can be made on the system without the extensions then just like the 500 it does fine. It is just that 510 was to expand the whole table system and for me it was more of a pain then a help. I had a lot of "helpers" for the 500 and with those it wasn't bad working with the small tables. In fact I have a couple of 500 still in use and sometimes prefer to use them on certain projects.

So why would I pick the 500 above the 510, well because I learned to work with the limitations of the 500 and it too would stay in alignment. The 510 just required to much effort to maintain the alignment. I don't want to have to worry every time I pull the machine out if I will have to spend 20 or 30 minutes getting it aligned again before I can use it. That issue broke the advantage of the larger table system.

Bottom line is that if you like your 510 that is fine, if how ever you have or had issues like I did then I would go for the 520 upgrade because it works.

Ed

Ed, OKAY. This means that I would disagree with you as well. As previously stated, I currently have and use both and I am equally satisfied with both.

I do believe that many who complain about the fence simply do not pay adequate attention to the detail required and as you have of yourself I have learned to work with the limitations.

If I needed another Shopsmith, I would not hesitate to consider a 510.

[RFGuy]

I do believe that many who complain about the fence simply do not pay adequate attention to the detail required and as you have of yourself I have learned to work with the limitations.

Dusty,

I left the door open for this in my posts. I am not one of the experts on this forum, but I do have multiple decades of experience using a Shopsmith off and on those years. I fully admit that maybe back during my 510 days that I didn't pay proper attention to fence position during clamping or maybe didn't have my fence properly "tuned" as needed. I also wonder if the problem isn't a manufacturing variation in the fence during its production run. Having said all of this, there are the technical aspects of what each fence can and can't do that can be debated. However, beyond this, there is the subjective, i.e. how does the 520 fence "feel" compared to the 510 fence to each of us? This will be personal for everyone. I like the feel of my 520 fence over the 510 fence. It is beefier (heavier) and tends to stay put when I set it on the table. I could sneeze and my 510 fence could move a bit. However, my 520 fence glides easily back and forth on the rails when I adjust for my cut width. Conversely my 510 would tend to bind and often had to be picked up and placed back down to move it left or right.

I shared my opinion as more of an average user since I am not an expert on this forum. As such, the 520 fence upgrade has been the single best upgrade/addition to my Shopsmith system for me. Everyone uses their Shopsmith in slightly different ways based on their experience, but also based on what they are cutting and building. If the 510 fence is working great for you, then I am happy for you, especially since you don't have to pay the high price to upgrade to the 520. For me as an average user, I just know that out of the box, the 520 fence was easier for an average user like myself to use compared top the 510, but maybe my experience is unique.

[reible]

Ed, OKAY. This means that I would disagree with you as well. As previously stated, I currently have and use both and I am equally satisfied with both.

I do believe that many who complain about the fence simply do not pay adequate attention to the detail required and as you have of yourself I have learned to work with the limitations.

If I needed another Shopsmith, I would not hesitate to consider a 510.[/quote]

Perhaps not all 510 are created equal. I have had only one to use and it was flaky. I might buy the pay attention to detail stuff but if that were the case what did I do differently with the fence on the main table then when clamping it to either the floating of fix extensions?? Besides I'm a "detail" sort of person so if it were a "detail" that I missed it had to be a pretty difficult one to find.

Had I only worked on smaller projects and then mostly using the main table I might have been happy too. And it wasn't that I was new to shopsmith, I've had one since 1976 so plenty of time learn and know what I like and what I don't about them. Had the 510 worked out for me then I might be on your side but well it just didn't. Could have just been mine but then as soon as the 520 system was installed it worked fine and with a lot of the same parts.

Which machine do you have the 510 on the shorty or the full size machine and how much larger work have you done with the 510, you know where you have to use the tubes and extension tables with the fence mounted outboard?? That outboard mounting of the fence is what soured me on the system.

Ed

[WileyCoyote]

I love my 510 and ranking it worse than my greenie or any 500 for that matter is just wrong. Their is no comparison between the two, with the 510 winning out significantly. On the flip side, if I had a chance to pick up a 520 for a reasonable price, I would jump on it.

I have never had an issue with the fence on my 510 but mine is the older version with the thumbscrews on the rails. Moving the fence like Dusty recommends ensures the fence stays square. I have had all kinds of issues keeping the greenie fence squared up.

I believe the video below is the technique Dusty was talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09gXRyN1K4s

[JPG]

I believe(and highly recommend) that Dusty was referring to MANUALLY pushing the fence into square prior to setting the front clamp.

That works regardless of which version you have(10,5,VII,500,510,520,brand x)

That relieves the front clamp from performing that squaring function 'automatically'.

The fence should NOT move when tightening the rear clamp.

[jsburger]

I believe(and highly recommend) that Dusty was referring to MANUALLY pushing the fence into square prior to setting the front clamp.

That works regardless of which version you have(10,5,VII,500,510,520,brand x)

That relieves the front clamp from performing that squaring function 'automatically'.

The fence should NOT move when tightening the rear clamp.

Absolutely correct JPG. I just gently use the rear lock mechanism to do the same thing.

The in feed fence rail is the reference. If you loosen the fence and slide it back and forth it will not stay parallel to anything. Nor would I expect it to. It is loose. It is supposed to be parallel and at the right dimension when you tighten it down.

If you just move your loose fence to a dimension and tighten it down it will be wrong. Move the fence and measure. Then very gently tighten the rear rail lock. That will square the fence and then re measure. You will find the dimension is off. Just tap the fence without releasing the lock to get the right dimension and the tighten the in feed lock and then the out feed lock.

The BIG fence on my 10" PM2000 cabinet saw does the same thing. When the fence locks are loose nothing is parallel or square.

[RFGuy]

Well said JPG and John. Your words are more elegant than mine and clearly describe the problem and the solution to using any fence. That's why I highlighted the Doug Reid tip in my original post, but did not explain it well. Thank you for your excellent explanations here and getting to the heart of the issue.

One of the gripes that I always had with the 510 fence was that it seemed like I always had to measure on the front and back side of the blade and carefully clamp the fence to try to get an accurate cut. Of course, this was before I saw this Doug Reid tip (YouTube video below - excellent tip). Perhaps if I had seen/known this before I might have been 90% happy with my 510 fence system.

...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8puBVjC ... qMjcnAbcx4

[JPG]

I believe(and highly recommend) that Dusty was referring to MANUALLY pushing the fence into square prior to setting the front clamp.

That works regardless of which version you have(10,5,VII,500,510,520,brand x)

That relieves the front clamp from performing that squaring function 'automatically'.

The fence should NOT move when tightening the rear clamp.

Absolutely correct JPG. I just gently use the rear lock mechanism to do the same thing.

The in feed fence rail is the reference. If you loosen the fence and slide it back and forth it will not stay parallel to anything. Nor would I expect it to. It is loose. It is supposed to be parallel and at the right dimension when you tighten it down.

If you just move your loose fence to a dimension and tighten it down it will be wrong. Move the fence and measure. Then very gently tighten the rear rail lock. That will square the fence and then re measure. You will find the dimension is off. Just tap the fence without releasing the lock to get the right dimension and the tighten the in feed lock and then the out feed lock.

The BIG fence on my 10" PM2000 cabinet saw does the same thing. When the fence locks are loose nothing is parallel or square.

Ain't what I said John!