Finishing strong- the story of the Porter-Cable finishing sander
Some time ago, a fellow member approached me about taking a look at a finishing sander, a Porter-Cable 509. At the time, it was determined that the sander was in poor shape. It had three failed pad posts, a counterweight that had long since worked loose and damaged the transmission shaft, and a bodged-together on/off switch that had been poorly soldered into a window hacked into the escutcheon. As the 509 doesn't really share most of those parts with any of the other sanders, I decided that the best move was to dig out a Porter-Cable/Sterling 1000 ( the sander the 509 is based on), rebuild that, and send him on his way with an objectively better sander. Problem solved, right?
Thing is, the 509 was now sitting in the tool morgue in my garage, and the decrepit remains were praying on my mind for all the world like the Tell-Tale Heart. I mean, 509 sanders are pretty uncommon, as most of them, if used to any extent, died a similar death to our boy here ( minus the truly awful switch "repair"). Sometimes, when I have a tool or machine that's really just plain shot, I could almost swear I hear a quiet, Ringo Starr-like "help" every time I walk by it.
Recently, I was rooting through my finishing sander parts, looking for a better pad for a 145, when I looked at a box of 106 pad posts. These posts are longer than the ones used on the 509, and both the stud on the top and the threaded hole on the bottom are different sizes, but the thought occurred to me that I could pick four damaged ones, cut them to the appropriate height by removing the stud end, drill and tap the female end for the larger 509 hardware, replace the upper stud with a sheetmetal screw going through the bearing plate... for the limited use the sander would see in the shop, and with my usual vigilance about keeping my workers healthy, I felt it would work well enough to bring the 509 back into the land of the living.
What about the counterweight? the stub shaft and the offset blind hole on a 509 have a very shallow fit, and are only held in place by one tiny set screw ( this system didn't last too long, which is fortunate because it's horrible), and the 509 had a great deal of wear from slipping. Still, I could knurl the stub spindle, press it into the counterweight, drill out the set screw hole deeper, and voila, a repair of reasonable strength is made. I may go back and actually weld the two parts together if it doesn't hold. I don't have anything to lose.
With these repairs, and the bequeathing of an original, unused Sterling switch escutcheon, the 509 was revived, and with it, my collection of Porter-Cable finishing sanders was complete.
Oh wait, I don't own a 105. However, those were terrible sanders, so no great loss, I suppose.
In 1949, Porter-Cable purchased the Sterling Products Co. of Chicago, Ill. in order to add a line of finishing sanders to their line of abrasive machines. Having had a great deal of success with developing belt sanders, it may seem odd that they wouldn't design a sander in-house, but the sanders in question ( at least, two of the three) were so beyond reproach that they were the only match to the likes of the A-3 and BB-10.
There are three Sterling sanders: the pneumatic 1512,
Heavy, a bit clumsy to change paper on ( using the same type of spring-and-bar retainer found on many an automotive DA sander), but essentially indestructible. There is also the comically inadequate 105, a "buzz-box" sander that looks better than it works. Most importantly, we have the progenitor of all Porter-Cable/Rockwell finishing sanders, the legendary 1000.
The 1000 is a truly remarkable design. Running a gear set in an oil bath ( the transmission of a 1000 is sealed in a heavy rubber cover, and oil is added through the cutest lil' fill cap you ever saw) and featuring both air filtration for the motor and quick-change pads allowing sandpaper swaps in seconds, the 1000 was forged by the Old gods in the heart of a dying star. Provided that the oil is topped off and the hardware snugged up now and then, there's every likelihood that this sander will join Keith Richards and the lowly cockroach at the heat death of our solar system.
However, the 1000 was extremely expensive to make ( the kit, with air filters, oil, extra pads, and a case, retailed for 142.00 in 1951, or 1,522.00 and change in today's coin), and while it couldn't be beat for production finishing, a less expensive sander that would be purchased in greater numbers was an attractive idea to Porter-Cable.
Enter the 106.
Appearing in Guild catalogs by 1950, this sander was essentially a low budget machine that differed from the 1000 in the method of transmitting motion to the pad, the complex but adamantine oil-bath design being simplified into the four-posts-and-a-counterweight system that every successive sander would sport. This system has a few drawbacks, the largest being dust ingestion into the bearings and, in the case of the execrable three-piece counterweight found on the 509 and early 106's, prone to shaking itself to pieces. Nevertheless, the 106 worked well, sanded a little faster, and cost a lot less, being 49.95 in 1954 ( a mere 517.00 or so today). As is often the case with Guildtool designs, this sander was built for economy but was so well made for the price that it would be the second most popular of the finishing sanders, being made in some form into the Rockwell years. Less successful was the ill-starred 509, new for 1953. While the 509 has a great deal more 1000 DNA than the 106, the replaceable pad design of the 1000 was dropped, and the new sander used a captive spurred roller to hold the paper. The 509 did, however, retain the air filtration feature, albeit with a lower airflow, but much stouter front grille. I've always felt that the 509 looks a bit like a short man in a jousting helmet, what with the eye-level slot in the grille. This gallant fellow retailed for a cool 89.00 in 1954, or something like 920.00 dollars if bought today ( if only you could buy such a machine now...).
Over the years of production, the 106 had grown up a bit, having had the counterweight system redesigned into a much stouter affair, with twin sealed bearings and none of the stub-spindled,expansion-wedged tomfoolery of the earlier layout. Power was still transmitted via a round belt, made by Hoover in a factory less than five miles from where I grew up, though the later 106a would be retrofitted with a timing belt arrangement that was less prone to slippage with age and wear.
The next step in the evolution of the finishing sander was dust collection.
Joining the team in 1953, the 127 was, in essence, a 106 with a skirt and a fanny pack. The addition of a dust chute above the base frame that led to a rear-mounted bag was yet another stroke of genius from Art Emmons, and adding a pivoting dust skirt that could be lifted up out of the way for paper changes completed a very tidy bit of retrofitting. The 127 worked as well as its sister sander the 106, and production only ceased in the late '60s.
The Post-war boom in home handyman-type activities led to the development of a number of lower cost, lighter duty tools, and the finishing sander was no exception. Bonus points were given to tools that could pinch-hit in a number of rolls, and Porter-Cable had ideas about that, too.
Just in time for Christmas of '55, the 145 is the logical conclusion of building a low-budget finishing sander; in fact, the 145 is such an ephemeral design that it only has one ball bearing, the balance of moving parts running in bronze bushings. It's not a bad sander for all that- the 145 is so small that ( like the A-2 belt sander) it lends itself to the sanding of surfaces that are already assembled, making it handy for furniture refinishing. In addition, it's a good fit for people of small stature, and ideal for the grade school-aged shop boy or girl ( one can't help but wonder how many birdhouses, doll beds and pinecars the humble 145 has smoothed out over the decades). This design, while hardly suitable for industry, was popular enough to be offered until April of 1964.
Then there's the Routo-jig.
Marketed as a router, jigsaw, plane, and finish sander, it was mostly a router. While it wasn't all that great at routing ( except for laminate trimming, at which it triumphed), failed to inspire much confidence as a plane, and was downright useless as a jigsaw ( equipped with a sort of burr bit, it cut through sheet goods in any direction, hence jigsaw? How this is different from routing through sheet goods escapes me at the moment), it actually worked just dandy as a finishing sander since the sanding attachment was just the lower end of the tried-and-true 106. While the greater height is somewhat annoying, the amount of speed and power is comparable, and the 140 gives a credible performance for something that looks like it should be mixing cake batter.
It wouldn't be until 1963 that the ne plus ultra of finishing sanders was reached. By the end of that year, the two longest-produced finishing sanders of all time would blow everything else out of the water becoming the gold standard for finish work in cabinet shops all over the nation in the era before random orbit sanders and gel stains. I'm speaking, of course, of the iconic 330/505 sander platform.
The first point of departure was pad size. Instead of the conventional 1/3 sheet pattern, Rockwell offered a choice of the 1/4 sheet 330 or the 1/2 sheet 505. With a change in size came a change in fastening hardware; the roweled roller that had been used since 1949 was upgraded to the mousetrap style, a spring-loaded clamp that made changing paper faster and tool-free ( there was a key for the 330 to improve leverage. While I've seen them wired to the cords of many a 330, I've never known anyone who used it habitually). Both of these sanders were instant hits, the 505 being especially prized for the great speed with which it could prepare a cabinet side or drawer front for finish.
While the ROS is king these days, it does have one drawback; due to the greater movement of the pad ( which gives the ROS its speed at sanding), it's often necessary to sand a piece to a much finer finish to remove the sanding marks of previous grits. This tends to affect the ability of the material to take stain, since the wood fibers are, in effect, nearly burnished. I own a ROS, and American -made Porter-Cable 333, and while I do use it frequently, it's almost always for something that is to be painted; for all else, the 505 is the sander of choice. While I generally prefer the products made before the Rockwell years, the 505 was an inspired design that took the best of its ancestors and supercharged them, and I can honestly say that after having worked on a couple of hundred 505 sanders, I've never actually seen anyone ruin one, not even kids in shop class.
Production of the 505 was moved to Mexico ( my guess is that they were assembled, rather than fully manufactured, but that's speculation) after Black and Decker sunk their filthy claws into Porter-Cable's flank, but production of the last Porter-Cable finish sander ( the 1/4 sheet attempts currently marketed do not count. Not in this shop) ceased in 2009.
The vital statistics-
1000-8 lbs, 3/16" orbit, gear drive ( oil bath), 5,000RPM,1/3sheet
1512 ( Speed-Bloc)-8 lbs,5/8 stroke ( reciprocating), 3000SPM, 1/3 sheet
106-6lbs,1/4" orbit, belt drive, 4300RPM (idle), 1/3 sheet
509-8 lbs,3/16" orbit, gear drive, 6,000RPM, 1/3 sheet
127- 6 lbs, 10 oz, 1/4" orbit, belt drive, 4300RPM (idle), 1/3 sheet
145-5 lbs, 6 oz,3/16" orbit, gear drive,3500RPM (idle),1/3 sheet
140 (Routo-Jig) with 5026 sander attachment-6 lbs,1/4" orbit, belt drive,5,000RPM (idle),1/3 sheet
505-9 lbs,1/8" orbit, direct drive,10,000RPM ( idle), 1/2 sheet
330-3 3/4 lbs,5/64" orbit,direct drive, 12,000RPM (idle),1/4 sheet
While the cost of these sanders was a consideration in their ultimate demise, another factor is skill. For decades, people did their stock removal/heavy lifting with a belt sander and finishing with, well, finishing sanders. However, both of these tools require some experience to operate well ( the belt sander more than the finishing sander) and get the best results. The impulse of most users is to rush through finish sanding, but a slow, steady pace works much better, leaving less in terms of swirly little trails of scratches to obliterate with finer paper later. In the hands of an experienced user, any of these sanders can make a glassy smooth surface in a short time and still leave some pores in the wood to soak up the finish of your choice. I know several people who prize these sanders; I'm one of them, and I bet if you try one, you'll be too.
