imho, they create more hazard than they "prevent"
somebody did a stupid and hired a good lawyer - and that's the result.
I kind of wondered if that was the case. Especially when they moved to a cash payout of $100 in lieu of the new blade guard. It made me wonder if someone injured themselves with the new blade guard, and sued Sears or Emerson again.
Then again, I read posts in the archives from members who have gone to a great deal of trouble to make moveable blade guards for radial saws that did not come with them, and for which the recall did not apply. So I was curious, 10 years later, if those home made blade guards were still on the saw, or if they were good in theory, but cumbersome or useless in actual practice.
Then again, I find it curious that some radial saws qualified for the recall, and some did not. For example, the 12" radial saws of the same generation did not. Why not? Especially if the model of non qualifying 12" saw did not originally come with the blade guard either. Exclusions like that sound like legal maneuvering, where the fix has nothing to do with the greater good to resolve an actual problem, and more to do with what models happened to be specifically identified among the class of plaintiffs, and if not mentioned by model, or considered "different" by virtue of blade diameter when all other material aspects and functions of the machine are the same... it still doesn't qualify as it was not identified in the complaint. That kind of typical legalese BS makes me wonder about the merits of the mitigation.
btw, the instructions call for removing 'shipping screws' and make mention that 'pliers may be required'
screws . . . pliers . . . come again?
are those pins of a size to fit the 'shipping screw' holes?
The pins fit perfectly in those holes, with just enough interference fit to not only require pliers, but to permanently muck up the threads in the motor housing, which I understand are there for securing other accessories to the radial saw motor, like mounting a router attachment utilizing the threaded accessory shaft on the opposite end of the blade arbor.
Therefore, it doesn't seem likely that Sears would call the shipping screws "screws" if they were press to fit "pins" that would foul up the aluminum threads that Sears sold accessories to attach to. Sears makes plenty of use of the noun "pins" in their parts description, as well as the noun "screws", and in so doing Sears established a pattern of distinguishing non threaded pins from threaded screws, which leads me to believe that they would be consistent in describing the shipping screws (pity I do not remember where I put what ever I removed per the instructions... but that was many years ago).
The final factor in ruling out those perfectly friction fitting pins in the threaded holes under the saw motor is that every time I use the saw, I crouch down low, with my head below the motor, so that I can have line of sight to the blade interface with the material at the cut line. I found some soft wood dowels the same size as these metal pins, and wrapped them in aluminum foil tape to simulate the metal look, and inserted them into the threaded holes to model the presence of these metal pins protruding out from underneath the saw motor, as if I never bothered to remove them. They stuck out like two sore thumbs. There is no way that I would have missed them, for the way that I constantly crouch down and sight my cut lines like a long range marksman.
So I don't think that these pins are the shipping screws, but I do agree that this possibility was worthy of suspicion due to the quantity and diameter of the mystery pins.