510 Table Saw - looking for tips setting depth & fence width

[Hobbyman2]

I may disagree to some point , I have used a piece of tape on the fence and table as a reference , my old fence has marks however they are not in 32'nds that said I also agree with you that there is no substitute to double checking . so far when it comes to saw cuts I haven't found the ss to be any less accurate then any other saw ? JMO

[dusty]

ANY depth,width,height graduation on the fence, quill etc. are at best approximate(use your own definition of approximate). The SS is not a calibrated CNC machine. Manual setting is required(even initially on CNC machines). Test cuts etc. are required. Get used to that.

Sorry to be so blunt, but it was necessary IMO.

You are correct when you report that the SS is not a CNC machine. However, general woodworking does not demand that sort of accuracy and the SS is very capable of providing the accuracy typically required (IMO 1/32").

When I find it necessary to make "test cuts" it is because I doubt my performance during setup and not the machines accuracy.

[RFGuy]

Well, my post on this thread certainly triggered a lot of feedback. I appreciate all of the responses and agree with a lot of what was said. I think though that the point I was making got lost here on this thread. The OP mentioned that he was setting blade height (depth of cut for a rabbet) using a combination square. While I love my combination square and have used it for several decades, I suspect the OP's choice to set blade height using a combo square "may" be causing some of his source of error in setting his blade height. I say this because of the difficulty in holding a combo square perfectly square to the table top in trying to set the blade height. Does anyone agree with me, or can you offer your tips for setting the blade height as precisely as you can to assist the OP? Do you use a straight ruler or a setup block of a known height? Please comment on what tool you use to set blade height.

I am not suggesting anyone buy expensive gadgets for doing this, in fact, I pointed out how Woodpeckers came up with a ridiculously expensive set of gauges for setting blade height or router bit depth of cut. I haven't used the Wixey tool that I suggested, but it is only $25 and shouldn't break anyone's bank if they wanted to try it out.

[dusty]

First of all, I utilize a ZCI almost all of the time that I am employing the table saw function. Dados and bevel cuts being exceptions.

With the ZCI in place, I can verify depth of cut every bit as accurately as I ever need. If precision is required (hardly ever) I can use something more precise (digital caliper comes to mind).

[RFGuy]

First of all, I utilize a ZCI almost all of the time that I am employing the table saw function. Dados and bevel cuts being exceptions.

With the ZCI in place, I can verify depth of cut every bit as accurately as I ever need. If precision is required (hardly ever) I can use something more precise (digital caliper comes to mind).

Yes, but what are you measuring it with? Do you use a straight ruler next to the sawblade and measure to the top tooth, or a block of wood that has been marked? If the latter, what is your reference point to set the depth of cut?

[JPG]

My CNC comment was to point out that SS scale markings are not very accurate and to expect them to be so not likely considering parallax etc..

I wonder how the combination square was being used. Placing the base flat upon the table with the sliding blade bottomed out on the table would allow visual setting by positioning the square base as described and sighting across the top of the blade as it's highest point should be reasonably accurate. But for critical depth, I consider a test cut to be best.

[RFGuy]

My CNC comment was to point out that SS scale markings are not very accurate and to expect them to be so not likely considering parallax etc..

I wonder how the combination square was being used. Placing the base flat upon the table with the sliding blade bottomed out on the table would allow visual setting by positioning the square base as described and sighting across the top of the blade as it's highest point should be reasonably accurate. But for critical depth, I consider a test cut to be best.

Yeah, I agree with the whole discussion about it being best to make test cuts and to not implicitly trust your measurement system, etc. I don't know how the OP did his measurement for sure, but his post seemed to imply using the combo square to do it. I just wanted to point out, from my perspective, that I think the combo square could be causing him some error if he is using it like I think he is. Like a lot of things in the shop, there are many, many tools to get the job done. I love my combo square and use it for certain things, but I wouldn't trust it for setting the blade height. Just my 2 cents. Hopefully the OP (original poster) can chime in and let us know what he is seeing and if any of this is helpful to him or not...

[RFGuy]

I love combo squares so much that I own two of them. One is an inexpensive one I picked up decades ago and I have used and abused it for years. A few years ago, I picked up a Starrett one. Between the two, if I expect precision, I would lean towards the Starrett. It is not that I don't trust the inexpensive one, but rather that the contrast of black hash marks against a stainless ruler makes for a better contrast for my eyes to see and adjust to (sorry my picture doesn't do it justice). I have had good success in marking and layout on wood with these two combo squares, but I don't trust them for setting the blade height using the square part on it...simply because I don't trust myself to hold it perfectly orthogonal to the tablesaw. Now, I could use just the ruler part only (like any other ruler) and adjust the top sawblade tooth to it, or similarly use a block of wood of known dimension to do the same. If the OP isn't using his combo square like I described, then I apologize for this tangent on the thread.

P.S. The Starrett slides like a warm knife through butter, whereas the inexpensive combo square can be a little jerky in its movement when you adjust it. Just silky smooth to adjust the Starrett. Unfortunately it cost a pretty penny though...

IMG_3269_2.jpg (97.8 KiB) Viewed 22185 times

[BigDanS]

Thanks all for the participation and responses. As a new SS user, I am learning my tool and at the same time learning its pluses and limits.

First, it seems illogical that the table height adjustment has no indexing marks. I agree with test cuts to check any setting prior to a cut on a project. However in the case of horizontal boring, if I want the table set to 3/4 inch to drill the center of a 2x4 it requires too much fiddling around. Perhaps this is an improvement opportunity for SS. The quill has depth markings, the table has angle adjustment markings, but the table height has nothing.

I think SS ought to have the the height adjustment knob marked at least to know how much the table height is adjusted for each turn of the knob. It does not need to be micrometer accurate, but 1/8th to 1/16th would be great. Ideally it could zero at the saw blade top, and the horizontal boring bottom.

I have had a similar problem with my unmarked reloading dies depth adjustment. I scribed quarter marks and measured the change in depth per turn and made a chart, so I knew how much depth change was made per turn. Similarly, I am going to measure the height adjustment per turn and scribe either 1/8’s, 16ths, or 32nd marks on the wheel and calculate the table height change.

In my opinion, you should be able set the table height to zero with the saw, turn the height adjustment to whatever height, like 3/4” test and then micro adjust. I like the micro adjusters shown earlier in this thread.

It’s not a CNC machine, but setting accurate table heights would be a definite improvement in my humble opinion.

[BigDanS]

I love combo squares so much that I own two of them. One is an inexpensive one I picked up decades ago and I have used and abused it for years. A few years ago, I picked up a Starrett one. Between the two, if I expect precision, I would lean towards the Starrett. It is not that I don't trust the inexpensive one, but rather that the contrast of black hash marks against a stainless ruler makes for a better contrast for my eyes to see and adjust to (sorry my picture doesn't do it justice). I have had good success in marking and layout on wood with these two combo squares, but I don't trust them for setting the blade height using the square part on it...simply because I don't trust myself to hold it perfectly orthogonal to the tablesaw. Now, I could use just the ruler part only (like any other ruler) and adjust the top sawblade tooth to it, or similarly use a block of wood of known dimension to do the same. If the OP isn't using his combo square like I described, then I apologize for this tangent on the thread.

P.S. The Starrett slides like a warm knife through butter, whereas the inexpensive combo square can be a little jerky in its movement when you adjust it. Just silky smooth to adjust the Starrett. Unfortunately it cost a pretty penny though...
IMG_3269_2.jpg

FWIW, my square was my fathers, and I am 59 years old.