Thread: Any thoughts on a small bench saw for miters?

Originally Posted by 419

... I know this is probably heresy but I've found that the mitres I need, which admittedly are generally carpentry such as skirts and archs rather than box making but for me still need to be tight joints, come out fine on my radial arm saw and sliding compound mitre saw. ...

You're right; it is heresy!

But box making is about really tight joints as a craftmanship statement. I have never been able to achieve this on a table saw or a SCMS, but either plus two strokes on a shooting board is fine.

Have also got good results on a router table with a 45° chamfer bit or V-grooving bit.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Have also got good results on a router table with a 45° chamfer bit or V-grooving bit.

Thanks for another useful technique, in addition to the sanding disk.

Hi 419,

Alex S' post re mitres on a sander describes the process very well. (thanks for finding the link DJ's)

Just today I needed to cut mitres for a jewellery box tray restoration but I was away from my own workshop. A quick 45 degree cut on a piece of 4 x 2 and a G clamp and I had a jig ready to go.

As to your question about the agressiveness of a disc sander this isn't a problem. One is sliding the piece to be cut, with one face on the jig and one face on the sander's table so you can proceed very gently and sneak up on the cut a tiny amount at a time.

By making a knife cut (rather than a pencil mark) at each end of the workpiece you will find that as you reach the required mark the last little bit of waste flicks off along the cut line leaving a very crisp mitre. Much easier to do than to describe!

As Graeme says above, getting the opposite sides exactly the same length is critical - I knife mark both pieces at the same time by putting them side by side and using a good combination square across the two.

It's such a simple thing to do that it's worth just giving it a go. If you already have a disc sander there is no extra cost.

I do love my Stanley 51/54 chute plane combo but this approach is so simple I get a bit lazy.

Best regards,

Brian

Originally Posted by homey

... By making a knife cut (rather than a pencil mark) at each end of the workpiece you will find that as you reach the required mark the last little bit of waste flicks off along the cut line leaving a very crisp mitre. Much easier to do than to describe!

Really well said, Brian.

I, also, didn't quite know how to explain when that last 0.1 mm of fibre "pops up" and you know you have reached the line, perfectly. A very gentle hand is needed.

The same thing can happen when you are planing cross grain on a shooting board.

Originally Posted by 419

I know this is probably heresy but I've found that the mitres I need, which admittedly are generally carpentry such as skirts and archs rather than box making but for me still need to be tight joints, come out fine on my radial arm saw and sliding compound mitre saw. Both saws are carefully set up to be square in all axes and checked and adjusted as required from time to time (i.e. when mitres or other cuts start turning out wrong) and suitable blades are used for fine cutting. The other thing that I have found that's critical to get a really precise mitre is to clamp the workpiece very firmly to the fence as the saw blade will move it slightly during the cut if I do it just holding the workpiece to the fence by hand, which results in the mitre face not being flat.

You're quite right - setting up your machinery correctly will give you a nice, accurate mitre, and is essential. When I bought my inexpensive T/S I expected to have to fit shims and carry out all sorts of adjustments. I was pleasantly surprised at how accurate it went together straight out of the box.
One thing I found essential for cutting accurate mitres on the TS is an accurate mitre gauge. I like the Incra 1000.

Originally Posted by AlexS

You're quite right - setting up your machinery correctly will give you a nice, accurate mitre, and is essential. When I bought my inexpensive T/S I expected to have to fit shims and carry out all sorts of adjustments. I was pleasantly surprised at how accurate it went together straight out of the box.

This is probably another heretical opinion, but I'm inclined to think that many cheapish woodworking machines are capable of producing good results IF they're carefully set up AND in some cases important parts such as the supplied blade are replaced with quality items . For example, my $30 second – probably third or fourth or sixth – hand Ozito 10” saw table bought for rough resawing of red gum surprised me by being able to rip very accurately after I’d put a decent blade on it and corrected various deficiencies in the fence, table flatness, and table to fence squareness.


I think the difference between a bargain basement Ozito saw table and good quality contractor saws like Makita and de Walt and at the top whatever top level cabinet saw you want to specify is that, usually, the more you pay the less you need to correct and adjust the machine to overcome its deficiencies and the more accurate, reliable and repeatable it is on the ruler scale and fence squareness to the scale and table. I’ve never used anything better than a good quality contractor saw and my 40 – 45 year old de Walt radial arm saw, so I’m just guessing that things get better with expensive cabinet saws. If so, it’s probably not so much that the lower end of the market can’t produce good results in the hands of someone who can identify, correct and work around deficiencies but that the higher end of the market doesn’t produce machines with deficiencies that need to be corrected and there is a major benefit to the operator of those machines in reliable accuracy and efficiency, and that translates into dollars if they’re being used commercially.


Somehow this reminded me of my younger days when I used to annoy sideshow operators by using the first, sometimes the second, lot of four air gun slugs on the ‘flatten the metal ducks’ tents, where the duck has to be shot in the head to flatten it, to adjust for the invariably bent foresight and or excessively elevated, depressed and or bent sideways rear sight. If you knew what you were doing you could still make these corrupted guns perform satisfactorily. I think the same can apply to lower end woodworking and other machines, which offer the opportunity for people who can’t afford or justify the cost of more expensive machines to produce decent work but with more effort and time than they would if they had better machines.

Originally Posted by AlexS

One thing I found essential for cutting accurate mitres on the TS is an accurate mitre gauge. I like the Incra 1000.

I use table saws mostly for ripping, but I have the same need for mitre accuracy on radial arm and sliding compound mitre saws. As far as I’m aware, there isn’t an equivalent to the Incra TS gauge for these saws. Generally I use speed squares to square the blade vertically and roofing squares horizontally, but unfortunately some squares often aren’t square, just like many spirit levels aren’t level. I’ve learnt to check speed and other squares, and spirit levels, in the store before buying them. I prefer metal roofing squares for the horizontal adjustment as the noise of the blade teeth on the square is more precise than a visual alignment.

I agree with AlexS and 419 in that lower price point machinery can at times offer relatively good performance on a budget, but only if the bones are good to start with. If there are significant design flaws, under specification critical components i.e. say a weak cast trunion etc, then they are difficult to compensate for, or are erratic (slop), will eventually fail and will never perform adequately. Some only require a blade upgrade, a decent fence and an alignment tweak, good to go.

With so many clones of the same basic design coming out of China it is nigh on impossible for the average wood worker to discern what are the real differences in machine specification and hence the in service performance of the machine "out of the box." My Woodfast BS500 is a case in point, with standard Euro guides (well the Chinese manufacturers crap version) it's terrible, replaced with a decent set of Carter after market bearing guides totally transformed its performance.

My Woodfast TS250 (older design version of the sliding panel) is a budget machine but has reasonably good bones. It performs very well in terms of accuracy and precision of cuts of very small components for making inlay banding, however that took considerable time (3 days) and effort to align critical components. It also has a number of deficiencies that could be improved and I'm still learning ways to compensate for some of its failings. Only just the other day, whilst contemplating another design improvement, I discovered that I could adjust the fence alignment more easily on the mount itself - not mentioned in any manual of the various clones I have seen. After literally tens of thousands of cuts for small components it still performs satisfactorily, with the occasional tweak.

Are other more expensive "brand" machines any better? A. probably ..... though from my limited access to physical display stock and my experience I have come to the conclusion that it is perhaps a better option to refurbish and older Australian made "solid" machine than to purchase a "new" clone.

But not every wood worker has the knowledge, experience or skills, to coax the best performance out of them.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

... My Woodfast TS250 (older design version of the sliding panel) is a budget machine but has reasonably good bones. It performs very well in terms of accuracy and precision of cuts of very small components for making inlay banding, however that took considerable time (3 days) and effort to align critical components. It also has a number of deficiencies that could be improved and I'm still learning ways to compensate for some of its failings. ...

That is a really good point, and it is stark when you remember that time is not free. It is our scarcest resource!

Mobyturns spent three days, 24 hours, compensating for some of the weaknesses in his TS250. If we cost his time at $100 per hour then this is a remdial cost of $2,400 - not chicken feed.

But the retail price of a current model TS250 is around $2,700. His time sink almost doubled his investment in his machine. Would he have been better off looking for a slider in the c.$5,000 range?

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

That is a really good point, and it is stark when you remember that time is not free. It is our scarcest resource!

Mobyturns spent three days, 24 hours, compensating for some of the weaknesses in his TS250. If we cost his time at $100 per hour then this is a remdial cost of $2,400 - not chicken feed.

But the retail price of a current model TS250 is around $2,700. His time sink almost doubled his investment in his machine. Would he have been better off looking for a slider in the c.$5,000 range?

Don't worry I'm fully aware of that. Sure I lost 3 days that I could have been doing other tasks but I gained a lot of confidence in the setup of the saw. Most of the lost time was because the manufacturers recommended setup procedures are quite frankly crap! i.e. adjusting the sliding table rollers - pure BS!

It was a case of the "least worst option" for me. My requirements for cutting small components i.e. triangles cut from 2.4mm thick boards (70 x 2.4 x 450 mm is typical stock for me) is way out of the norm for a 10" table saw. (note I use sleds extensively)

Could I find a better option - to be very frank NO.

Every saw I could get my hands upon had failings that would affect my application, sadly even very pricey machines. I even looked at the Byrnes modelers table saw and equivalents, and for (and still look at them if / when the pop up) Douglas compositors saws, older Woodfasts etc. I compiled a wish list of must haves, and instant fails and set about a process of elimination. Small issues like arbor float, almost impossible to compensate for, not present in my Woodfast. Two prime considerations were footprint & cost! It's most significant failing - the lack of a miter guide track in the cast iron portion of the table, oh and it is significantly under powered for the more demanding ripping tasks.

Basically it got down - the Woodfast ticked the most boxes with the least amount of effort, or more like my highest confidence in "correcting" failings. Very sad to say but true imho.

Sure, I would love a Martin, SCM, Robland etc but who has the space for one or the minister for finances approval, plus an overkill. I'm sure I would tire very quickly with a massive table saw.

There is not much about in the new market that is suitable for my application, or at least offers significantly more benefits in a cost / benefit scenario.

ps to add further insult I have a $100 GMC "table saw" I purchased many years ago that is frankly a dangerous machine as offered to an unsuspecting public, but the motor / arbor is as accurate as any machine I have encountered. One of my "get a roundtuit" tasks is to figure out a chassis to carry a linear bearing supported sliding table - one day.

No disagreement at all, MT.

But not everyone, amateurs especially, has the skill base to do the analysis that you have prescribed and then to take cost effective enhancment steps.

Getting back to the OP's issue, I would seriously recommend constructing and using a "donkeys ear" type table saw sled. It is an adaption of the traditional "donkeys ear" shooting boards.

When cutting mitres on box sides holding the stock vertical (on edge) with a vertical blade (short sides) or truly square to the tilted blade (wide sides) then controlling it maintaining its position and also an accurate length during the cut is a difficult task for most hobbyist wood workers especially with modest equipment & resources.

With a donkeys ear TS sled the TS blade can be left vertical with the stock always being on face on the sled. This permits the stock to be securely and accurately held in position with toggle clamps or small F clamps etc. Because the cut is always long point down it also permits the use of very accurate beveled stops that register on the face of the mitre (outboard end), not the long or short face "points." Small adjustments to squareness & length can also be achieved by adjusting the sled fence, stop and guide/s. The (sled) fence is simply attached to the face of the sled at one point initially, adjusted for square with test cuts on scrap then fixed securely in position. The toggle clamps are attached to the fence. My sled is designed so that I can easily replace the sacrificial face and fence/s so I can maintain "zero clearance" on both. The top waste block also assists in maintaining even distributed pressure from the toggle clamps to keep the board stock as "flat" on the surface of the sled as is possible taking out minor concave / convex cupping and works very well for thin stock, 2.4 mm thick etc.

I cut up to 21mm thick stock with ease on my sled.

There are limitations of course -

1. sides need to be "pre-cut" to near length.
2. it cannot support long sides as the unsupported weight works against us especially on mitre track guided sleds, and making a larger more robust sled defeats the purpose.
3. the face of the sled must remain "true" and not deform when the clamping force is applied.
4. it must register well in any "guide" i.e. the mitre track, or in my case on the sliding panel.
5. sled design and blade height determine maximum stock thickness (not really an issue for box sides).
6. sides of the stock must be truly parallel
7. one end of each side board must be cut before installing length stops. (also a good idea to sneak up on the length.)
8. a sled is required for each cut angle, 22.5, 30, 45 degrees etc.
9. the outside face (show face) is always down - so a zero clearance sacrificial face is a very good idea!!!

Once setup correctly it is a simple task to place the sled on the TS adjust blade height and start working - no setup, check, test cuts, adjust, double check etc each time you use it. With a little practice grain matching can be maintained as well as most TS techniques.

The attached image is a cross section, no plan view drawn.

Bridge City Joint Maker Pro. A bit expensive but accurate.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

That is a really good point, and it is stark when you remember that time is not free. It is our scarcest resource!

Mobyturns spent three days, 24 hours, compensating for some of the weaknesses in his TS250. If we cost his time at $100 per hour then this is a remdial cost of $2,400 - not chicken feed.

But the retail price of a current model TS250 is around $2,700. His time sink almost doubled his investment in his machine. Would he have been better off looking for a slider in the c.$5,000 range?

This assumes that Mobyturns displaced work available at $100 an hour to work on his table saw.

If he didn't then, depending on how one wants to view it, it's cost him nothing or he's made / saved a notional $2,400.

The calculation also assumes that Mobyturns had funds available to buy a more expensive machine.

I work on the basis that if I can do work on my own account in my own free time that would cost me to pay someone else to do, then I'm ahead by whatever I didn't have to pay to someone else.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

ps to add further insult I have a $100 GMC "table saw" I purchased many years ago that is frankly a dangerous machine as offered to an unsuspecting public, but the motor / arbor is as accurate as any machine I have encountered. One of my "get a roundtuit" tasks is to figure out a chassis to carry a linear bearing supported sliding table - one day.

There is a surprising number of GMC machines popping up on Facebook Marketplace. Table saws, router tables and sundry bits a pieces maybe 20+ years after GMC went bust or whatever caused it to disappear.

I think the only GMC item I bought was a cordless drill which had an impressively poor run out on the bit, which put me off GMC.

I'm wondering if the stuff that's popping up now is good stuff that's survived because these were better made items, and might even be worth considering.