Sawstop, Which Version Industrial or Professional

[Steve Kohn]

In the last several months my wife has come aware (not thru me) of three tablesaw accidents. Two of these accidents resulted in amputations of thumbs, and the third resulted in a minor scratch because the Sawstop worked. So last night my wife laid the lumber on me. No more new tools until my perfectly good, well dialed in, and fully tricked out PM66 is replaced by a Sawstop.

I have recently retired from my former full time employment (not wordworking) and now am primarily a hobbiest. I have done some work for pay, but generally find that to be less fun than finding my own projects.

So today I went to the local merchant for aforesaid Sawstop company and learned there are two versions, the Industrial and the Professional. I have been told the Industrial is the original Sawstop design, while the Professional was introduced to compete with the PM2000 and that class of saw. The pricing I got was for the Industrial at $4500 and the Professional was $3500. I am looking at the 3HP version with 52 inch rip fence. These prices are also inclusive of an extra cartridge, an 8 inch dado cartridge, another insert for the dado, delivery fees, and sales tax (8%).

I did notice that the Industrial model has a larger table size than my PM66, while the Professional has a slightly smaller table size. Does this make any difference to anyone? Does anyone have and use the Professional and will they comment on it?

I understand the Industrial is much heavier duty but is this worth $1000? I can afford either saw, but don't wish to spend unnecessarily or alternatively be kicking myself next year for not getting the saw I really needed.

[Mike Heidrick]

$1000 will not add the larger table (3" additional depth), heavier trunnions and bearings, or the overall extra mass and weight of industrial saw to the PCS at a later date.

[David Hawxhurst]

for that kinda of money i would look one of the euro type sliding saw. i think they are a lot nicer and safer then cabinet style saws. just my 2 cents.

[Mike Henderson]

I have the professional and have never found it wanting. I think I paid less than $3K for mine. But whatever I paid, it's worth it. Let's say I paid $1K more than I would have paid for another brand - I look at that $1K as a one time insurance payment that will keep me from damaging my hands. And I don't have to make an insurance payment every year, like I would for life or medical insurance - it's paid up.

Oh, yeah, and it's a very good saw.

Mike

[mreza Salav]

I have the industrial version and very happy with it. I have looked at the PCS version and it is very nice too. I think the bigger table is the only major difference of the two (beefier guts shouldn't matter to a hobby shop). So if you think it's not worth the extra $1000 I'd say go with the PCS version. If you are not a production shop that runs this machine 10 hours a day every day it won't make a difference.

[David Malicky]

We have the Industrial at work and I've found it to be overall an excellent saw, with some minor flaws. On the table size, note that once you add an outfeed table, that 3" difference gets a lot smaller: the PCS and ICS are only 3/4" different from the front of the table to the front of the blade. Behind the blade, it's 2 1/4" of cast iron vs another 2 1/4" of outfeed table. Yes, that 3/4" is still nice.

Sawstop's specs say the main bearings are the same sizes for PCS and ICS.

Note I've found some minor flaws in ours (2010 model): the blade elevation screw "groans" unless it is greased weekly, the power cord at the lower back is just the right height to be squeezed by a push broom, and the clear blade guard didn't ride over boards smoothly (some polishing fixed it). The phenolic blade insert has two flaws when ripping thin stock: it has a large cutout for the blade guard/riving knife that can swallow thin stock, and it tends to tip/flex disturbingly (some JB weld strategically placed at the rear stabilized it). Overall it's still an excellent saw, but for top $ I was expecting closer to perfect. I don't know if the new ICS or PCS are any better on those.

[Tom Hintz]

I have the PCS and while I was very impressed with it right out of the box, that has grown now with experience using it. This is a really well made saw that performs very well in every way I have been able to use it. I have a review with photos and video and maybe some more details at the link below. Incidentally, if you make the T to include the blade guard dust control the PCS is as close to 100-per-cent as I have seen. I still have to dust the top off a little after cutting a bunch of wood but that is about it!

I would easily go for the PCS again if I had to. VERY nice piece and one that will keep on working for a very long time if you can avoid hitting it with Buicks or something.

http://www.newwoodworker.com/reviews/sawstoprv.html

[johnny means]

I have an ICS in my shop and am really happy with it. I disagree with the previous poster about the throat plate. IMO, it is very well designed and when someone bothers to use all the available adjustments it is rock solid and will stay put for years. Also, when removed and reinstalled it aligns perfectly without any fiddling. The quick lock lever is also a treat.

I like the extra solid feel of the larger ICS, but I can't honestly say that it performs any better than the smaller Unisaws and PMs thst I've worked with.

[Prashun Patel]

I have the PCS. I think it's fine for any hobbyist. I've never found it lacking. 3hp is pretty darn strong.

[Victor Robinson]

Also have the PCS and can vouch for never needing/wanting more. The larger table is attractive, especially if it adds several inches in front of the blade (not sure how many), but if I were doing it over again I'd still pocket the extra grand and spend it on something else, like a bigger bandsaw. :)

[David Malicky]

I disagree with the previous poster about the throat plate. IMO, it is very well designed and when someone bothers to use all the available adjustments it is rock solid and will stay put for years. Also, when removed and reinstalled it aligns perfectly without any fiddling. The quick lock lever is also a treat.
It wasn't an adjustment issue; that was done, of course. When using a push block or Grr-ripper on a narrow rip like 1/4", the phenolic under the push block flexed downward on ours, which can cause the work to hit the rear of the cast iron opening. Unlike most tablesaw blade inserts, the blade cutout extends all the way to the rear--that is, the left and right halves are not connected except at the front. That does make it convenient to pull the insert out, but it also leaves the inner edge of the right half unsupported, especially at the rear. Ours needed some JBW on the inside of the cast iron to support that rear inner corner. Other than that and the large cutout, it works well, as does the riving knife lock.

[Salem Ganzhorn]

I bought an ICS used. My saw before it was a G0691 which only cost a little more then the difference between the PCS and the ICS new :).

As another poster said the elevation wheel starts to grumble if you dont keep the innards waxed. Also although the table is a little larger then my old saw the distance from the front of the table to the blade is inches less!

That is about it for negatives.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the mobile base is excellent. Don't forget to factor that into the price. The fence is pretty nice too. I have a Wixey digital scale on mine and the combo is great.

As for which saw to buy I am cheap and would pocket the 1k difference. But I was happy with my G0691 (except for he throat insert!!).
Good luck!
Salem

[Peter Aeschliman]

I haven't used the ICS, but I have the PCS. It does everything I need it to do. I haven't once thought I needed more power or weight. As a previous poster said, I don't understand the advantage of the larger cast iron table since most of it sits behind the blade. If it was in front of the blade, I would understand since it would allow you to use your miter gauge with wider stock. But once you attach an outfeed table, it's a difference that makes no difference.

Also the larger ICS table makes it harder to find an off the shelf router table extension. I don't know of any cast iron versions that would fit the ICS.

I have no doubt the ICS is a nicer saw, but I don't know that it would be worth another $1k for a hobbiest.

[Mike Heidrick]

Peter, you mean mounting the RT on the right of the ICS or the left?

[Roger Feeley]

I have a Sawstop and agree with you generally but I try to avoid absolute faith in the safety system. I am convinced that somehow, some way, someday the system will fail and there will be a serious accident. That said, I still like my odds. In part, I force myself to remain skeptical so that I don't get careless.

[Roger Feeley]

I am a hobbyist. I bought the ICS and never regretted it. Ask me again when I move and have to pay someone to cart it out of my basement. Going down those stairs, gravity was with us. Going up???? My reasoning was that this will be my last table saw ever.

One thing though. I've heard rumblings that SS might be coming out with a saw where the brake doesn't wreck the blade. I guess maybe it interacts with some sort of sprocket or something.

I pimped mine out a bit.
-- I modified the dado throat plate ala Wood Dynamics to accommodate zero-clearance wood inserts.
-- I used a ground fault relay to turn a light on over the saw when the main power is on. Helps me remember to turn it off when I leave the shop.

[Larry Frank]

I will just climb on all the other statements. I am retired and a hobbyist. I had a Jet Xacta table saw that was just great but started looking at the SawStop and considering it. As normal in my house, I had to discuss this with the CFO (Chief Financial Officer - wife) and expected a no. I was surprised when after I told her what I wanted to do and why she insisted that I buy it as soon as possible.

I looked at both the PCS and ICS and ended up with the PCS and have never been sorry about the choice. I think that you will be happy with either. I would recommend the industrial base which has a small hydraulic lift for making it easier to move the saw.

[Roger Feeley]

David, have you thought about filling part of the gap in a throat plate with epoxy and making a 90 degree only zero clearance plate? Another idea might be to do what I did with my dado plate and mill it out to accept wooden inserts like the old Wood Dynamics throat plates. I did that and made about 20 inserts to start. Each time I change my stacked dado to a new width, I mark it on a new insert. I basically have a throat plate for every width of dado.

I haven't done the zero insert standard blade insert but I don't see why not.

[Robert Chapman]

I have the PCS and it is the finest table saw that I have encountered. I also recommend the Industrial base. The hydraulic action is smooth and very easy to operate.

[Mac Cambra]

I have the ICS, paid about what you quoted and have no regrets, it really is a great piece of well built equipment. All of that said when I bought the PCS wasn't an option, had I bought when the PCS was introduced and being a hobbyist I think I would have bought the PCS instead, I think the tradeoffs associated with the that saw make the cost savings to the buyer a no brainer. My two cents.

[David Malicky]

Roger, Good ideas, thanks!

[Van Huskey]

I own a PM 2000 and there is only one cabinetr saw I would trade it for.... a SS ICS. The PCS is a lightwieght compared to the new Uni, PM 2000 and ICS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the the PCS but it competes with the Uni and PM 2000 on price only. Its draw at the 3K price point is safety not beef. I would have no problem with having a PCS in my shop but from a purely function (not safety) related point of view I would see it as a demotion from my PM 2000.

[Thomas L. Miller]

Steve,
I have the ICS. My wife made the decision for me. I'd decided to upgrade from a Craftsman contractor saw after a "kickback incident" and we went to Woodcraft to make the purchase. The ICS and PCS were sitting next to each other. Her response to the question of which one was "go big or go home". Decision made.
Tom

[Karl Fife]

Not to NecroPost (to an old thread), but...

There were a few incorrect statements about ICS's cast-iron table. It was said that most of the extra 3" of cast iron is BEHIND the blade. Turns out that's incorrect. Because I was curious I called SawStop, and spoke with a tech. In fact, the ICS has an additional 2.5" in FRONT of the blade, and an additonal .5" BEHIND the blade, a total of 3" more table depth than the PCS. So, if you want more infeed for better fence registration, and/or more room for your miter gauge and work piece to be supported for crosscut, that would be an argument for the ICS over the PCS

Other table differences:
The ICS and PCS have the SAME table width (not talking depth anymore). HOWEVER, the ICS has narrower 8" bolt-on WINGS, and the PCS has wider 10" bolt-on wings. That's because the primary table on the ICS 4" wider than the PCS, and the PCS is 4 inches narrower. Thus the wings are sized accordingly. Is there any practical difference? Almost certainly not. Technically, the ICS is stronger, so If you want to stack barbells or ingots of depleted uranium on your extension wings, the ICS might be the way to go, but otherwise they're probably equivalent. On the other hand, if you remove a wing to attach a sliding table, the sliding table assembly will live about 2" closer to the blade on the PCS vs. the ICS. I don't have enough experience with a sliding table to know if that's of any significance.

So, my conclusion are:

Cost and duty rating aside, the primary practical advantages of the ICS are:
- More infeed support.
- Usable storage space under the LEFT and RIGHT wings of the table (vs. Right only). The space on the left may be especially useful for storage where accessibility from the side of the table is desirable.
-The sheer weight of the ICS means you can completely remove the support legs on the 36" table without ANY concern about support, strenght, tipping etc.. SawStop confirmed this. Maybe don't put a router table and lumber rack on the end of the saw after removing support legs, but going legless makes it easier to store things under the table without interference.
-The ICS has a door on both sides, allowing access to the arbor, brake, etc from the side if needed (though it's not needed).

Cost and duty rating aside, the primary practical advantage of the PCS are:
- A sliding table would be closer to the blade,
- The lighter weight makes it easier to move IN to your basement and OUT to your next basement should you ever move.
- Motor on the right means there is MORE storage under the RIGHT wing of the table (but not the left).

I hope this helps someone else make a decision.

[Ken Krawford]

I replaced my Unisaw with a PCS and didn't notice any changes. Plenty of power and first rate construction. I made a 48" outfeed table and it handles just about anything I can throw at it.

[David Kumm]

The real differences are inside. The ICS is built more like a heavy Unisaw or PM 66 equivalent ( even though PM and Delta used different designs. ) The PCS has lighter duty guts. Dave

[glenn bradley]

$1000 will not add the larger table (3" additional depth), heavier trunnions and bearings, or the overall extra mass and weight of industrial saw to the PCS at a later date.

Like others, I have the 52" PCS and have been quite happy. Mike is correct though, if you will ever want any of the aspects of the larger machine, now's the time.

[Jon Nuckles]

As Karl pointed out when he revived it, this thread is over three years old. The OP has likely made his choice by now.

[David Malicky]

Not to NecroPost (to an old thread), but...

There were a few incorrect statements about ICS's cast-iron table. It was said that most of the extra 3" of cast iron is BEHIND the blade. Turns out that's incorrect. Because I was curious I called SawStop, and spoke with a tech. In fact, the ICS has an additional 2.5" in FRONT of the blade, and an additonal .5" BEHIND the blade, a total of 3" more table depth than the PCS. So, if you want more infeed for better fence registration, and/or more room for your miter gauge and work piece to be supported for crosscut, that would be an argument for the ICS over the PCS

It was a while ago, so I don't remember if I also measured a PCS in the store, but the table depth specs are from their site: http://www.sawstop.com/support/product-comparison


Saw:

Table in front of blade (max. elevation):
Contractor

10 5/8"
PCS

10 1/4″
ICS

11″


Table behind blade (max. elevation):
7 1/8″
7 1/2″
9 3/4″


It'd be surprising if their specs were wrong for all this time, but maybe someone can confirm with actual measurements.

[Steve Kohn]

This is the original poster of the question. To date I've done nothing about replacing my PM66. This is primarily due to inertia. It would be a significant amount of work (overarm dust collector, outfeed cabinet, storage cabinets, etc.) to replace the saw with either of the Sawstops.

Having said that is anyone in the Chicago area interested in purchasing a used PM66?

[Karl Fife]

I suspect I'm wrong and Dave Malickly is right. Most likely the tech on the phone gave me bad info.
I'm driving out to my Chicago area dealer this afternoon. I'll grab a tape and measure it myself.

For reference, the Delta Unisaw has 12" of infeed. If Steve Kohn (or someone else) wants to measure their PM66, it would be an interesting comparison. The PM66 and Unisaw are *literally* the saws by which all others are measured.

[Daniel Shnitka]

ICS=Industrial Cabinet Saw, LIS=Life is short, POO=Pride of Ownership

[Steve Kohn]

All measurements were made with the blade fully extended.
From front tooth to front edge is 12 3/16 inches.
From back tooth to back edge of top is 6 5/8 inches.
Overall length of the top is 28 1/8 inches.

[Karl Fife]

So it turns out Dave Malickly is right, and the web site is right. The tech on the phone gave me bad info.
I drove out to a dealer today and measured it myself.

So that means the ICS has an extra 3/4" of infeed support, not two and change as I'd suggested. That's a step in the right direction, but it's no 2+". The ICS is fully 1" less than the old Unisaw at 12", and 2-1/2 less than the new Unisaw (which shows 13 1/2 inches in front of saw at max depth). Thanks to Steve, we now know that the PM66 has a smidgen more than the old Unisaw. Good to know. I suspected this 'migration' of blades forward may have something to do with the mechanics of riving knives, but the new Unisaw disproves that.

Other noteworthy observations.

1. Holy crap the ICS is big. It makes the PCS look small. Let me rephrase that. It makes that PCS look small in the same way that Godzilla's younger brother looks small. The size and mass of the ICS are more enticing than I expected.

2. T-Glide fences are DIFFERENT between the two saws. Both are LONGER than their respective tables, but the ICS T-Glide fence is longer still, overhanging the deeper table by about 7" (IIRC). The PCS T-Glide is overhangs the table, but only by about 4" (IIRC). I don't understand the benefit of having so much extra lenght PAST the end of the blade (and table). Can anyone explain the rationale for this? One downside is obvious, which is that if you have an ICS, butting up against a walkway, the fence will be extending considerably into that space. This "fence overhang" can be seen on many non-Sawstop saws too, but I have always assumed it was about an "ideal" fench length which happened to be longer than many tables. The sawstop observation suggests longer is better, and even longer is even better (even when it's behind the blade). For fun, I took the fence from the PCS, and put it on the ICS, and it looked more appropriate, extending maybe 3 inches past the end of the table.

3. The ICS mobile base is precisely infinity times better than the (excellent) base for the PCS. If you buy a PCS, buy the ICS mobile base.

4. the PCS comes with a nifty knife/fence holder on the side of the frame. No such holder is found on the ICS. No doubt this is because the only place to put it would be on the metal door.

5. The PCS was fitted with the SS sliding table accessory. When it's attached you can no longer swing open the motor cover because it bumps into the leg. Maybe it's still removable even though it won't swing. The latch for the motor cover door on the PCS is cheesy in my opinion. You press on the plastic shell until it deforms enough that its molded 'catch' flexes clear of the metal cabinet.

[Karl Fife]

So it turns out Dave Malickly is right, and the web site is right. The tech on the phone gave me bad info.
I drove out to a dealer today and measured it myself.

So that means the ICS has an extra 3/4" of infeed support over the PCS, not 2.25" as I'd suggested. That's a step in the right direction, but less than I'd hoped for. By comparison, the ICS is fully 1" less than the old Unisaw (at 12"), and 2-1/2 less than the new Unisaw (which the web site shows at 13 1/2 inches in front of saw at max depth). Thanks to Steve, we now know that the PM66 has a smidgen more than the old Unisaw.

Other noteworthy observations when I saw them side-by-side.

1. Holy crap the ICS is big. It makes the PCS look small. Let me rephrase that. It makes that PCS look small in the same way that Godzilla's younger brother looks small. The size and mass of the ICS was far more enticing than I expected it to be. Damn my lizard brain, cro-magnon instincts.

2. The "same" T-Glide fences on the two saws are actually DIFFERENT (pictured). Both are LONGER than their respective tables, but the ICS T-Glide fence is even longer still, at 42.5" measured usable fence length. It overhangs the deeper 30" ICS table by about 8 1/2". The PCS's shorter T-Glide (about 35" usable fence length) overhangs its 27" table too, but only by about 4". Just for fun, I took the fence from the PCS, and put it on the ICS, and thought it looked more appropriate, extending an inch or two past the end of the table.

327952

I don't understand the benefit of having so much extra lenght PAST the end of the blade. Can anyone explain the rationale for this? The downside for me is that my saw will butt up against a walkway, thus the fence will be extending considerably into that space. I notice that this "fence overhang" can be seen on many non-Sawstop saws too, but I have always assumed that saw fences were an "ideal" length which happened to be longer than many of the tables they found themselves on. The sawstop observation suggests longer is better, and even longer is even better (even when it's behind the blade).

3. The ICS mobile base is precisely infinity times better than the (excellent) base for the PCS. If you buy a PCS, buy the ICS mobile base. Don't even think about it.

4. The PCS comes with a nifty knife/fence holder on the side of the frame. No such holder is found on the ICS. No doubt this is because the only place to put it would be on the swinging metal door.

5. The PCS was fitted with the SawStop sliding table. When the sliding table is attached you can no longer swing open the plastic motor cover because it bumps into the leg. I would hope it's "removable" somehow (without removing the sliding table) even though it won't swing open. The latch for the plastic motor cover on the PCS is a bit cheesy in my opinion. You press on the plastic shell until it deforms enough that its molded 'catch' flexes clear of the metal cabinet.

If anyone wants to talk about fence lenght, I'd appreciate it. I kinda like the idea of the PCS fence on the ICS saw.

[David Malicky]

Thanks for measuring those! That's interesting that even the ICS is shorter than other big saws.

The longer fence helps in a long rip, to keep the end of the cut a little straighter, esp when feeding completely past the blade. Ideally the fence would extend even further (like a jointer bed), but that's usually impractical. It also helps for a long workpiece that has concave contact against the fence (using a tablesaw like a jointer), so the workpiece keeps moving in a straight line. But a longer fence could always be attached to a shorter one.

An extended outfeed table is really helpful, if you have room. After that's added, the longer ICS fence won't stick out at all.

[Karl Fife]

Thanks Dave. Well described. I totally get it.

In my case I'll end up with a fold-down outfeed irrespective of which saw I buy. The larger ICS table is attractive in that respect, because it would have more support prior to 'needing' to lift the table, thus offering some safety. OTOH, some fold-down outfeed table designs are clever in that they are two-part, offering some support between the end of the cast iron, and the beginning of the hinge point. An outfeed like that on the PCS accomplishes the same thing.

Thanks for the good explanation!

[David Kumm]

Actually a short fence was the standard for many years in many countries with the fence just extending past the front teeth. I still put an add one extrusion on my saws so I can pull the fence forward for a long rip. I prefer the support in front rather than in back on a long rip. I only extend the fence back when ripping short stock with a grripper.327974327975327976 Last is stock Wadkin short fence, blue one is modified Whitney. Dave

[David Malicky]

Karl, Glad it was helpful! Maybe a PCS-length fence with a longer add-on/overlay-fence would give the most accuracy in the smallest space. Yes, the two-part outfeed tables are clever.

David, My understanding is that the very short fences prioritize safety (especially when there isn't a riving knife), since the workpiece cannot be pinched. Still, I'm not seeing how they would be best for straightness of cut. Also, the Wadkin is a sliding table saw -- I think short fences are normal for those because the slide is the guide.

[David Kumm]

The old fixed table saws used the short fence as well. Idea is to push straight until the front teeth are cleared and then move the stock to the right to clear the blade. Old saws ran 16-18" blades so there is lots of distance to the back teeth. Takes some getting used to but I have both types and find the fence extended towards the front and stopping just after the teeth is what I prefer unless running short stock. If you read posts on old machine forums the fence length argument is second only to the bandsaw tension fights. Dave

[David Malicky]

Thanks, Dave, that's interesting history. So, how do you keep the cut straight near the end of a long rip? Just experience and skill?

[David Kumm]

Good wood helps a lot. Anything questionable goes to the bandsaw but I also compromise and will move the 44" extrusion so it is just behind the blade and since the blade is large, there is still 12-18" of fence after the front teeth. Dave

[Charles P. Wright]

3. The ICS mobile base is precisely infinity times better than the (excellent) base for the PCS. If you buy a PCS, buy the ICS mobile base. Don't even think about it.

I've got the ICS base on a PCS and am super happy with it. The PCS in the store had a PCS mobile base and it wasn't great for moving it straight front and back. The ICS mobile base can go straight front/back very well, because it has four casters that rotate. One of the nice things about buying local (from the Tool Nut in Yorktown Heights, NY) is I was able to avoid any shipping charges.

[Ben Rivel]

I've got the ICS base on a PCS and am super happy with it. The PCS in the store had a PCS mobile base and it wasn't great for moving it straight front and back. The ICS mobile base can go straight front/back very well, because it has four casters that rotate. One of the nice things about buying local (from the Tool Nut in Yorktown Heights, NY) is I was able to avoid any shipping charges.
Oh yea, the ICS base on the PCS is def the way to go! For the extra $128 its well worth it.

Regarding shipping costs though, there are several online retailers who will ship for free. I bought my entire Sawstop setup from Acme Tools via eBay and it was free shipping, no sales tax and I got almost $200 in eBay Bucks on top of that! And Acme Tools is listed on Sawstops website as an authorized online reseller. Best deal around that I could find.