LumberJocks

Craftsman 113 arbor issues

  • Advertise with us

« back to Power Tools, Hardware and Accessories forum

Forum topic by MaxBishop posted 08-28-2016 06:11 AM 876 views 0 times favorited 21 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 127 days


08-28-2016 06:11 AM

Topic tags/keywords: tablesaw question

My Craftsman 113 arbor bearings slide easily into the casting and one of them slides on the shaft. Has anyone experienced this? If you’re interested, all the details are below.

I’m currently trying to get my father’s old Craftsman 113 back in action and use it until I find/can afford something a bit more substantial. When checking the blade with dial indicator I was getting almost .010” at the teeth while rotating the blade. I put on a Diablo blade and no change. Indicating the arbor in the saw showed .002-.003” while turning. Considering the saw sat for probably 20 years I decided to change the bearings before going further. While removing them I discovered once the bearing nearest the pulley was broke free it could be moved by hand on the shaft. The bearing nearest the arbor was very hard to remove and will not slide by hand – not even close. I went ahead and took the arbor shaft to a shop, had them chuck it in a lathe and check it. It read less than .001” at the blade mount surface while turning. We installed the old bearings and recreated the same run-out as when mounted in the saw so I felt new bearings would do the trick. I purchased SKF 5/8×1 3/8×7/16 bearings hoping they would be the difference since I did not know the make of the other bearings. Again, I am able to slide the rear bearing around on the shaft. Furthermore, I can slide both bearings into the casting – very easily! Has anyone experience this?

-- Max Bishop | KC MO


21 replies so far

View MrUnix's profile (online now)

MrUnix

4234 posts in 1665 days


#1 posted 08-28-2016 06:28 AM

I purchased SKF 5/8×1 3/8×7/16 bearings hoping they would be the difference since I did not know the make of the other bearings. Again, I am able to slide the rear bearing around on the shaft. Furthermore, I can slide both bearings into the casting – very easily! Has anyone experience this?
- MaxBishop

A complete model number would help confirm (Emerson made a lot of saws, from bench top to cabinet), but almost every Emerson table saw I’ve seen uses metric bearings with a 5/8” bore… so trying to use imperial measurements to size them isn’t the way to go. What is most common is a pretty standard 6202-5/8… it’s a standard 6202 metric bearing but has a 5/8” bore instead of 15mm. Measures 35mm OD (1.378”) which is a hair bigger than 1-3/8 (1.375”). Width is 11mm (0.4331”), which is just a bit smaller than 7/16” (0.4375”). Check the parts list for your saw and you can cross reference them to verify.

Sliding on the shaft, as long as it’s not real loose, should not be a problem – an interference fit should be sufficient. If it’s excessive, you can apply a little bearing retainer to keep it in place, or knurl the arbor shaft a bit to give it a slightly larger diameter where the bearing seats. Sometimes, just a few strategically placed ‘divots’ made with a center punch is all that is needed.

Cheers,
Brad

-- Brad in FL - To be old and wise, you must first be young and stupid

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 127 days


#2 posted 08-28-2016 09:29 AM

Thanks MrUnix. It’s a 113.298032 and I bet you’re right! There seems to be some debate over metric vs standard. I didn’t consider metric and standard. The old bearing ID measured just under 16 mm and dead on 5/8 so my parts guy determined i needed the 5/8×1 3/8×7/16. What you’re suggesting makes sense. Cant wait to try it tomorrow. Hopefully I wont have to ding up the casting with the slightly larger OD. I was nervous to mention trying loctite out of concern of looking like a newbie but that’s something I had to do with a couple car projects so I’m comfortable doing it. Well, thanks for the good info. I’m feeling a lot better about what progress tomorrow may bring!!! Heck, I might be making first cuts! Thanks again.

-- Max Bishop | KC MO

View JIMMIEM's profile

JIMMIEM

39 posts in 307 days


#3 posted 08-28-2016 12:11 PM

If that doesn’t work for you let a bearing shop replace them. I have a SEARS 113 also and recently had to replace the bearings. I drove myself crazy for a while and then took it to a bearing shop. $40 to get the old ones off and new ones put on. $ well spent.

View MrUnix's profile (online now)

MrUnix

4234 posts in 1665 days


#4 posted 08-28-2016 08:34 PM

According to the manual for that saw, the arbor bearing is sears part number 3509… which does indeed cross reference to a 6202-5/8 bearing.

Cheers,
Brad

PS: Never heard of any debate over metric versus imperial… bearings (particularly those used in light machinery) are almost all universally measured in metric with very few exceptions.

-- Brad in FL - To be old and wise, you must first be young and stupid

View Rick M's profile

Rick M

7929 posts in 1846 days


#5 posted 08-28-2016 09:45 PM

My ‘58 Craftsman lathe had bearings that were mixed metric and standard. I thought it was odd they were using metric bearings in 1958 but mixed unit bearings, WTF? Why would anyone ever make such a thing.

-- http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View MrUnix's profile (online now)

MrUnix

4234 posts in 1665 days


#6 posted 08-28-2016 10:23 PM

My 58 Craftsman lathe had bearings that were mixed metric and standard. I thought it was odd they were using metric bearings in 1958 but mixed unit bearings, WTF? Why would anyone ever make such a thing.
- Rick M.

Emerson is one of the few manufacturers that use these bearings… my guess is that it’s cheaper and easier to source bearings with the proper bore for the arbor (5/8”) than to machine the arbor to fit a standard bearing. The 6202’s (actually, the entire 62xx series) are about the most common bearing size you will find on light machinery, and you can get them with 5/8”, 1/2” and 16mm bore sizes in addition to the standard 15mm.

Cheers,
Brad

-- Brad in FL - To be old and wise, you must first be young and stupid

View Rick M's profile

Rick M

7929 posts in 1846 days


#7 posted 08-29-2016 03:38 AM

Doesn’t make sense to me but I have no better explanation.

-- http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 127 days


#8 posted 08-31-2016 04:32 AM



If that doesn t work for you let a bearing shop replace them. I have a SEARS 113 also and recently had to replace the bearings. I drove myself crazy for a while and then took it to a bearing shop. $40 to get the old ones off and new ones put on. $ well spent.

- JIMMIEM

Thanks JIMMIEM, I tried. I discovered we have a handful of bearing distributors in the area but I don’t know of any place I can get one on one personal interaction of solving a problem together. That’s what I think of when I hear the word “shop”.


According to the manual for that saw, the arbor bearing is sears part number 3509… which does indeed cross reference to a 6202-5/8 bearing.

Cheers,
Brad

PS: Never heard of any debate over metric versus imperial… bearings (particularly those used in light machinery) are almost all universally measured in metric with very few exceptions.

- MrUnix

Thanks MrUnix, You are correct. I should have done more homework. I was unaware (before this endeavor) of bearings mixing imperial and metric dimensions. Your input led me in the right direction. Also, “debate” was a poor choice of words. “Misinformation”, or “lack of detailed information” may have been better. Although, in the end it was simply not digging deep enough for the correct information. :-) A quick google search (and my ignorance of bearings) quickly led me to 6202’s. Which of course, are the wrong bearing.


My 58 Craftsman lathe had bearings that were mixed metric and standard. I thought it was odd they were using metric bearings in 1958 but mixed unit bearings, WTF? Why would anyone ever make such a thing.

- Rick M.

Thanks Rick M, I’m right there with you!!

-- Max Bishop | KC MO

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 127 days


#9 posted 08-31-2016 05:04 AM

Thanks everyone. I contacted Accurate Bearing based on the previous post from 11-28-15 copied and pasted below from MrUnix. I hope that is OK.

Great prices, quality bearings and fast shipping. Favorite of the OWWM crowd for their vintage machines. Ask for Lynne (see document above).

If you use the search tool on the Accurate Bearing web page you cannot (or, at least I could not…) find the bearing. However, if you talk to Lynne she will quickly get you on track for the proper bearing. On that note, I didn’t even have to ask for her. I simply stated I was looking for table saw bearings and the gentleman on the other end said, “let me get you over to Lynne”. Nothing to it! I inquired about the maker of the bearings and she informed me they supply, and have supplied, TTI bearings for years. Which, as she stated, falls under NTN bearings. She also told me I couldn’t find it with the search tool because it is considered a special, although popular, bearing. And finally, she added she ”has been taking care of the woodworking guys for years”.

So, all that said…thank you very much MrUnix, for your time, patience and quality information. It is much appreciated kind sir! With a little bit of luck I should get my bearings in the mail tomorrow. I hope to be firing up the saw by the weekend!

-- Max Bishop | KC MO

View Rick M's profile

Rick M

7929 posts in 1846 days


#10 posted 08-31-2016 05:08 PM

Thanks for the update. I always wondered what brands were sold by Accurate. I prefer to shop where I can see the options and prices available (catalogs/internet), never liked ordering over the phone.

-- http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 127 days


#11 posted 09-01-2016 03:45 AM

Thanks Rick M. That is my preference as well. In this case I felt OK with it as the good folks at OWWM do business with them. Also, it was nice to finally speak to someone that knew exactly what the bearings would be used for.

-- Max Bishop | KC MO

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 127 days


#12 posted 09-15-2016 04:11 AM

Hello all. I’m having a heckuva time with this arbor issue. The short version of the story is that I got the new bearings installed and no improvement. Still have >.010” at the blade teeth.

I will share the facts as I know them and would appreciate any input that may get me over the hump.

As I mentioned above the bearings are not a press fit; I can slide them on. It takes a fair bit of effort but once started on the shaft I can slide them. Once in place between the retaining ring grooves, both bearings move fairly easily and clearly would move if not for the rings. This, to me, is the start of my problem. Next, I discovered the inner arbor flange had moved and I couldn’t get the retaining ring back in the groove on the bearing nearest the flange. It took some time to figure out as I just didn’t believe I could’ve moved it but apparently did. I tapped it back in place with a hammer and sleeve. Once re-assembled the arbor run-out showed up in the same place as before. I marked the high and low side with the previous bearings. There is no change.

I have seen a couple write-ups where the arbor flange is “resurfaced” and trued up with an abrasive stove on a jig or a grinding stone in a router. I also read Unisaws used to be ground in the saw during assembly. Am I wrong to assume this is my next step? It seems risky. Are there any horror stories of ruining the flange? I’m actually eye-balling CL ads looking to score another Craftsman saw just for the arbor shaft. I’ve read about people bolting two tops together for work space and mass. Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks for your time and patience.

-- Max Bishop | KC MO

View Rick M's profile

Rick M

7929 posts in 1846 days


#13 posted 09-15-2016 06:05 AM

It seems likely. From my lathe experience I know that no matter how true you think something is, there will be some tiny amount of deviation once it’s in place and spinning and the final truing must happen then. So I would say definitely try truing the arbor face.

You can see on mine there is less than .0005 runout.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZkho7kPD4w

-- http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 127 days


#14 posted 09-15-2016 06:48 PM

Thanks Rick. Looks good! I’m envious. Did you have to true it up using one of those methods?

-- Max Bishop | KC MO

View Rick M's profile

Rick M

7929 posts in 1846 days


#15 posted 09-15-2016 08:34 PM

No, that’s factory on an almost 20 year old saw. It probably would benefit from a touchup. Even a piece of wood dust can throw you off half a thous.

-- http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

showing 1 through 15 of 21 replies

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com