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

[WileyCoyote]

I thought it had more to do with the way you position the fence. If you move the fence to a measurement by grasping the fence somewhere in the middle and then lock it down it will be off. If you move the fence by only pushing on the head of the fence before locking it down it comes out square if aligned properly.

[BuckeyeDennis]

I do it like John does. The 520 fence is heavy, and the rubber pads that grip the front face of the rail don’t slide easily if I’m pushing them against the rail. Here’s my process in detail:

1. Slide a thin scale beneath the fence, until the end of the scale contacts a saw tooth.
2. Move the fence close to the desired rip width.
3. Snug the front clamp lever enough to pull the fence square.
4. Sighting down the side of the rip fence onto the thin scale, determine the required position correction.
5. With the fence unclamped, place your thumb on the front rail and against the fence base. While watching the magnetic scale, roll your thumb toward the fence base, nudging it over until it has moved the desired amount.
6. Lock down the front fence clamp.
7. Lock down the rear fence clamp.
8. Verify correct fence position on the thin scale.

That process is a lot faster to do than it is to read. Probably 90% of the time, one or two passes through the process gets the rip width as close I could expect when using a scale to measure. That’s around +/- 0.005” on the actual rip width, as determined by measuring the ripped workpiece with dial calipers.

I almost never use the magnetic scale for absolute measurements, mostly because I don’t trust it to stay calibrated. But it’s real handy for gauging incremental corrections, and it’s in almost the ideal location for that.

[Ed in Tampa]

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.

Dusty
I have detailed my dislike of the 510 many times!
First I view the model 500 as a precision piece of equipment, excellently planned and excellently executed.

I loved my model 500!

The 510 to me is poorly designed and even worst executed. The fence rail system on the 510 changes every time you tear down and setup unless you play abnormal attention to setting it up in the exact same sequence you first setup.

The parts on my 510 was disgraceful! The table was out of flat by an 1/8, the replacement table was out about the same amount and the third replacement was slightly better.

The connector tubes were rusty, I had Shopsmith replace them and got a set The was discolored, tarnished.

The rail tubes were all discolored, tarnished and looked absolutely terrible. Shopsmith replaced them with an equally bad set.

Fence was bent about 1/8. Replacement was out slightly but I managed to bend it straight.

My 520 parts came and all were “perfect”!

I can set up my 520 make a cut tear it all down and then reset it up make another cut the duplicates my first. I do not have to lift tables, push down on tables, apply English to tables to get them that way. I can use my connector tubes on the front or back, use my aux table on the right or left and I have no alignment required. To me that is how it should be.

Now to the 520 fence I do not like the two lever method. I much prefer the 510 method with a tightening screw and rear lever. Yes I know if I remember to push and shove the 520 fence it will always line up correctly but the 510 and old 500 fence did not require this, place it were you want the cut, tighten the knob which pulled it into perfect parallelism and make the cut.

I will admit the initial setup adjustment of the 520 fence is superior to either the 510 or 500 fence but you only make that once the adjustment to cut width is done on nearly every rip cut.

These are just some of the reasons that in my opinion the 510 upgrade should have never made it out of the factory. Truthfully if given a choice between a 500 and a 510 I would take the 500 every time.

In fact I still at times Long for my old 500. To me it was a piece of precision machinery that has stopped being manufactured in this country. Besides that it looked good. Everything was manufacture from quality parts that were properly cared for and stored. No blemish, no tarnish, no wayward mill marks. Everything fit together very precisely no slop, no required twerk, no push here pull there.

Dusty I understand your position but you must admit you love the setup almost as much as the actual cut. While I on the other hand I view any setup as just a extra step to get the part I need.

[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.

Ain't what I said John!

I know but I believe the results will be the same. At least it works for me.

[JPG]

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!

I know but I believe the results will be the same. At least it works for me.

I simply do not 'see' the REAR lock being effective in pulling the fence square to the front rail(granted front/rear s/b parallel).

[BuckeyeDennis]

Ain't what I said John!

I know but I believe the results will be the same. At least it works for me.

I simply do not 'see' the REAR lock being effective in pulling the fence square to the front rail(granted front/rear s/b parallel).

Ten to one that John meant the FRONT rail lock! . I know that’s how I read it.

[JPG]

I know but I believe the results will be the same. At least it works for me.

I simply do not 'see' the REAR lock being effective in pulling the fence square to the front rail(granted front/rear s/b parallel).

Ten to one that John meant the FRONT rail lock! . I know that’s how I read it.

"Move the fence and measure. Then very gently tighten the rear rail lock. That will square the fence "

How come?

[BuckeyeDennis]

I simply do not 'see' the REAR lock being effective in pulling the fence square to the front rail(granted front/rear s/b parallel).

Ten to one that John meant the FRONT rail lock! . I know that’s how I read it.

"Move the fence and measure. Then very gently tighten the rear rail lock. That will square the fence "

How come?

Because that’s what I expected him to say — John’s a smart guy! Which obviously means that I wasn’t reading very carefully.

Not to mention that front/rear locks map to the lower/upper levers, further increasing the chances of confusion. I think that the lower lever actuates the front lock, but I wouldn’t swear to that without testing my fence. But when I actually use it, my “muscle memory” always grabs the correct lever.

[jsburger]

Ain't what I said John!

I know but I believe the results will be the same. At least it works for me.

I simply do not 'see' the REAR lock being effective in pulling the fence square to the front rail(granted front/rear s/b parallel).

My bad. I think the rear lock is on the operators side. The front lock is on the side of the table in front of me. So, as Dusty said, push the fence into the rear (front) rail and lock it down and then lock the front (rear) lock all is well.

All I do is use the front (rear) lock handle to move the fence and slightly tighten to adjust the square and re measure.

[jsburger]

I know but I believe the results will be the same. At least it works for me.

I simply do not 'see' the REAR lock being effective in pulling the fence square to the front rail(granted front/rear s/b parallel).

Ten to one that John meant the FRONT rail lock! . I know that’s how I read it.

YES!!!