My Rikon 10-325 arrives tomorrow afternoon. w00t!
In addition to some new blades (thank you all for the input!), I am installing the Kreg fence.
The local Woodcraft displays this fence mounted with stand-off's on the Rikon 10-325 to simplify blade removal without having to slice a slot in the Kreg rail. This was my original plan. However, I am beginning to wonder if there is any significant downside to simply mounting the fence rail on the rear of the table. This would obviously leave the front edge wide-open (except for the table 'strap') for easiest-possible blade changes. Being lazy, this is quite appealing!
Although unorthodox, a "backwards" fence should work just fine with the rail on the rear; access for adjustment should be just as easy from the rear (/right) as the front (/left) any time the saw is in use. Other than convention, I can't see any compelling reason for mounting the fence on the front side of the table...
What am I missing? IOW, is this crazy?
In addition to some new blades (thank you all for the input!), I am installing the Kreg fence.
The local Woodcraft displays this fence mounted with stand-off's on the Rikon 10-325 to simplify blade removal without having to slice a slot in the Kreg rail. This was my original plan. However, I am beginning to wonder if there is any significant downside to simply mounting the fence rail on the rear of the table. This would obviously leave the front edge wide-open (except for the table 'strap') for easiest-possible blade changes. Being lazy, this is quite appealing!
Although unorthodox, a "backwards" fence should work just fine with the rail on the rear; access for adjustment should be just as easy from the rear (/right) as the front (/left) any time the saw is in use. Other than convention, I can't see any compelling reason for mounting the fence on the front side of the table...
What am I missing? IOW, is this crazy?
Comment