LumberJocks

All Replies on Craftsman 113 arbor issues

  • Advertise with us
View MaxBishop's profile

Craftsman 113 arbor issues

by MaxBishop
posted 08-28-2016 06:11 AM


21 replies so far

View MrUnix's profile

MrUnix

7478 posts in 2706 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 - In Dog I trust... everything else is questionable

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 1168 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

45 posts in 1348 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

MrUnix

7478 posts in 2706 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 - In Dog I trust... everything else is questionable

View Woodknack's profile

Woodknack

12904 posts in 2887 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.

-- Rick M, http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View MrUnix's profile

MrUnix

7478 posts in 2706 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 - In Dog I trust... everything else is questionable

View Woodknack's profile

Woodknack

12904 posts in 2887 days


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

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

-- Rick M, http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 1168 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 1168 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 Woodknack's profile

Woodknack

12904 posts in 2887 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.

-- Rick M, http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 1168 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 1168 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 Woodknack's profile

Woodknack

12904 posts in 2887 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

-- Rick M, http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 1168 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 Woodknack's profile

Woodknack

12904 posts in 2887 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.

-- Rick M, http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/

View smitdog's profile

smitdog

442 posts in 2612 days


#16 posted 09-15-2016 10:24 PM

Hi Max, I trued up my arbor flange on my old 113 and it helped significantly. Sorry for the long response if you know how to do this already but I didn’t and it helped me greatly!

First thing I would check before that is if the arbor shaft is bent. You can check it with a dial indicator with the blade off, clamp the indicator so it’s pointing straight down onto the arbor shaft on a non-threaded portion. See if there is any movement when you spin the shaft by hand. Do it gently with the belt off using the pulley because you can actually induce tiny shaft deflections by pulling on the belt. If you have more than .001” movement on the shaft I’d scrap it and get another one.

Next, check the flange. Tilt the arbor to 45 degrees and clamp your dial indicator at 45 degrees to the table so that it is pointing directly at the “rim” of the arbor flange, that little part at the outside of the flange that actually contacts the blade. I did this by clamping together a 45 deg square with a couple of pieces of scrap wood and my miter gauge. Looked hillbilly but worked just fine! anyway, check for movement while you gently spin the pulley again by hand. If you get more than .001 there then you can swap your dial indicator for a grindstone. Put your belt back on and turn the saw on, then lightly touch the stone to the flange while keeping it against your 45 guide you put together for the indicator. It will make a few sparks and depending on how coarse your stone is you may only need a couple seconds :) just be gentle, you don’t want to grind off the whole “lip” area. Go back and forth from checking with the dial indicator and grinding until you get under .001”. Put everything back together and check your blade runout again and hopefully you will be in business!

-- Jarrett - Mount Vernon, Ohio

View TheFridge's profile

TheFridge

10859 posts in 1993 days


#17 posted 09-16-2016 02:33 AM

I’ve done the same

-- Shooting down the walls of heartache. Bang bang. I am. The warrior.

View dschlic1's profile

dschlic1

459 posts in 2476 days


#18 posted 09-16-2016 05:00 PM

You really cannot check run out with the blade on. All blades have some distortion and will show run out when there really isn’t. You need to check the run out on the arbor and or the flange. One potential issue is that the flange moves on the arbor. I highly suspect that the arbor shaft is too small and needs to be replaced.

View Cneilan's profile

Cneilan

2 posts in 1763 days


#19 posted 09-17-2016 12:42 AM

For what it’s worth, the arbor is still available from sears. Just installed one a few months ago. It come with the front arbor bearing already installed.

View MaxBishop's profile

MaxBishop

24 posts in 1168 days


#20 posted 09-22-2016 02:42 AM

Thank you smitdog. I have read up on it and seen a couple videos but hearing from someone firsthand always helps. Would you mind sharing where you got your grindstone? I bought a stone on a shank and put it in my router per the method as seen here—> http://lumberjocks.com/vipond33/blog/31802 However, it was obvious the shaft was not centered in the stone. I touched the flange a couple times but didn’t push my luck and there was no change.

Thanks dschlic1. I checked the flange first and was hopeful. When I checked the blade, even as crude a method as it is, it is consistent with the high and low “side” of the arbor. I too thought the arbor shouldn’t be moving with some pretty serious effort. I’m pretty much at the same point Cneilan is suggesting.

Thanks Cneilan. Did you buy direct from Sears? They list for $124. I’m really trying to keep the cost of this thing as low as possible considering fences are in the $300 range these days. Have you checked arbor run-out on the new one?

-- Max Bishop | KC MO

View smitdog's profile

smitdog

442 posts in 2612 days


#21 posted 10-18-2016 01:34 PM

Hi Max,
Sorry for not checking back in earlier. Did you end up fixing your issue or getting a new arbor? I just used a cheap Harbor Freight sharpening stone

Made up a little jig with my 45 degree speed square so I could hold the long edge of the stone against the square to keep it aligned. Turned the saw on (with the blade, nut and washer removed for a clear path to the flange) and slid the stone down the square so the end of it just barely touched the outer lip area of the flange. Very light pressure and it only took two tries to get it perfect.

-- Jarrett - Mount Vernon, Ohio

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