I made one for the BT, and it worked great, for about 2 days. The issues is that without the other miter slot the right hand side is cantelevered, and can shift, even with 2+ screws on that side. I think in general that it's a good idea to have runners on both sides of the blades.
Rod, there are some cuts that are easier on a sled than with a SMT, like cutting loose tenons to size, for instance, where you don't have much material on either side. The SMT is great (when it's aligned and stays that way, which doesn't seem to be often in my experience), but a sled is also very useful.
I wouldn't want to build a dado sled, that's a great SMT job, but likewise there are cuts that go better on a sled.
One way to do it is attach a runner so it just hugs the table on the right side. You can also move the accessory table just short of squeezing that runner if you want extra stability. In fact, no miter slot table needed - one can use SMT to form the other runner.
Here's a crude pic:
scorrpio, you are assuming that the blade is parallel to the saw body, with the BT3, that's not necessarily the case. If you luck out and it is, then this will work, but the alignment method of this table saw makes it unnecessary that the blade be parallel to the saw body, so I wouldn't assume that it actually is.
I asked the same question a few months back and built a sled using only the runners on one side. As to the slots being parallel to the blade, the adjustment to the fence furthest from the blade corrects that. You square the blade to the fence.
George AKA Rounder
"Amarillo Slim, the greatist proposition gambler of all time held to his father's maxim; You can shear a sheep many times, but you can skin him only once."
I wonder if you could use the fence as a "runner" on the right side?
Keith's comment re: the saw not being parallel to the housing should be read as a red letter warning. That being said, one could attach some shim material on either side of the housing for the sled runners to ride against.
One good reason to use the miter slots is that with a single runner on the sled, you could have a "two kerf" sled. Use the right slot for 90 degree cuts, and the left slot for bevels.
I wonder if you could use the fence as a "runner" on the right side?
I flashed on this earlier and dismissed the idea, on the grounds that it violated the cardinal rule about not mixing crosscut operations with ripping operations. But on further review, the face of the fence would be providing exactly the same function as a second miter slot. No reason at all this wouldn't work.
How come we don't have a Smilie icon that means "Duh! <slap forehead>"? []
One good reason to use the miter slots is that with a single runner on the sled, you could have a "two kerf" sled. Use the right slot for 90 degree cuts, and the left slot for bevels.
Well, aren't you the clever boy? I'd have stared at my two DMSTs for a hundred years and never thought of that.
drumpriest: yes, it does assume blade parallel to table. Miter slot table is easier to wiggle into parallel.
Things to try:
1. align your SMT and make a sled that clamps to it.
2. miter slot table has two slots, albeit close to each other. Put two runners on your sled so they go into both slots. This should stabilize the sled some.
3. get a length of aluminum channel (or T-track) and mount to the right side of table. Should be cheaper than biying another miter slot table.
You can make the second miter slot table yourself without buying. My DSMT from accesory kit is mounted to the right of the blade. I have made a wooden version of a miter slot myself and mounted it on the left also. Wooden version without an aluminum track will work just fine with wooden runners. Don't use miter fence or other metal runners in a wooden miter slot - it will wear out and loose precision. The sled you want to make is likely to have wooden runners anyway.
Comment