Sliding miter saws have come a long way since Hitachi created the category in 1988 with its 8 1/2-inch slider. At the time, it was a trim carpenter’s dream tool. Today, carpenters can buy a dual-bevel sliding compound miter saw in a variety of blade sizes: 7 1/4-, 7 1/2-, 8 1/2-, 10-, or 12-inch. And now, some of those saws are available in either cordless or corded options (so far, DeWalt offers the only 12-inch model—it can be powered by a cord or by batteries). And while more cordless 10-inch options are likely to be coming to the market (Milwaukee and Makita already offer one), the category is still dominated by corded power.
There are more 10-inch sliding compound miter saws on the market than the ones I tested here. As for the ones I did include, I looked for the highest-end model from each of the manufacturers, and requested them. When I began this test, Hitachi asked if I would include its new C10FSHC, which at the time hadn’t hit the market yet (I’d requested the older C10FSHPS), and I agreed. Most of the saws tested run in the $500 to $600 range, with two coming in well under—at $350—and one coming in at triple the price: $1,475. Most, but not all, perform at the expected value.
Tested and Reviewed
Each of the saws was tested in a shop environment over the course of several months. I used new blades provided by Diablo on each saw to keep testing consistent. Tests were performed with a variety of materials, using the proper blade for each material type: 12-inch-wide-by-1 7/8-inch LVLs; 2x10 spruce and 2x8 PT framing; 1x8 poplar, MDF, and finger-jointed pine crown, casing, and baseboard; 1x8 rough-sawn pine; 3/4-inch MDF ripped to various widths; and 4x4, 4x6, and 4x8 Douglas fir, 1x12 cellular PVC, and 5/4 Trex decking.
The process was part scientific testing and part user-review based on my experience in the field. I noted ergonomics, ease of using the saw’s settings, power, accuracy, quality of cut, and dust collection. I also noted the saw’s reported features, including cut capacity, table and fence alignments, and the ease of tuning miter and bevel settings for when the saw needs recalibration. (All saws, especially ones that get hauled from jobsite to jobsite, will eventually need to be recalibrated.) In addition to these features, I tested each saw for blade wobble as well as the accuracy of its bevel detent settings.
No Perfect Miter Cut
Because these miter saws can bevel to both sides and the blade can move along an axis, any inaccuracies in any direction will compound. So setting the saw up to cut square to the fence and square to the table is an essential first step in having it perform as designed. Blade alignment to the fence and table at 90° are two relatively easy, quick adjustments (depending on the saw, but more on that later). I used a try square to check the alignment of the blade to the fence and adjusted as needed until the saw blade and the square read true. Then I did the same to check and adjust the squareness of the blade to the table. If you take your time with both of these adjustments and use a high-quality square, you can get excellent results.
But how accurate does the saw cut at its full sliding capacity when the blade is set square? And how well does it do as a traditional “chop” saw?
I tested the accuracy of the chop cut on a 4-inch-square piece of 3/4-inch MDF (the “chop test”). Then I tested the sliding accuracy on a 12-inch-square piece of MDF (the “slide test”). In both instances, I used the four-cut method, which is as follows: I made four cuts around the square and measured the variation of the fourth cutoff from one end of the cut to the other using a digital caliper. I divided the caliper reading by four to find the result.
Chop-test result. The Festool, Hitachi C10FSH, and Makita were the most accurate in the 4–inch chop test, with no measurable variation. All of the other saws cut within 1/256 inch over 4 inches, which equates to .0039 inch over the length of cut and is completely acceptable for a miter saw.
Slide-test result. In the slide test, the Festool and Hitachi C10FSH produced the best slide accuracy with excellent results: off by 1/256 inch (.0039 inch) in 12 inches (in his YouTube video “Four Cut Calibration,” Gary Katz notes that 16/1000 or .016 is acceptable accuracy for a slide saw). I found the Bosch, Delta, DeWalt, and Ridgid saws to have very good accuracy—off by 1/128 inch (.0078 inch) in 12 inches—while the Hitachi C10FSHC at 7/256 (.0273 inch) and Makita at 1/32 (.0313 inch) had poor accuracy.
Note that this four-cut method is often used as a means for truing-up a saw in lieu of, or in conjunction with, a square (I prefer a try square, though theoretically, any true square will work). As you can tell, the tolerances on these saws are very good—and you’d be hard-pressed to tune anything beyond 1/128 inch in 12 inches. But in the case of the Hitachi and Makita, because these saws were cutting near-true in chop mode, I can’t help but surmise that the inaccuracy is in the slide mechanism and not the blade’s relation to the fence. See the saws’ individual write-ups for more on that.
Miter accuracy was tested by making opposing miters in chop-mode on two pieces, then putting them together in relation to a square. Here, I noted the quality of the miter joint as well. Festool and the Hitachi C10FSH came out on top again with equally excellent cuts, while the DeWalt and Ridgid cuts were very good. The Bosch, Delta, Hitachi C10FSHC, and Makita joints were fair in quality, but accurate.
Sliding miters were tested on 8-inch MDF and yielded similar results, though the Bosch, Delta, and Hitachi C10FSHC showed some minimal sway in the cut’s straightness. This could be a function of some head deflection, blade deflection, head vibration, or something to do with the slide mechanism itself.
Bevel accuracy. I tested bevel cutting accuracy in a similar way. I cut opposing 45° bevels, then assembled them and noted the joint for crispness, straightness, and angle accuracy.
The Festool, Hitachi C10FSH, and Ridgid came out ahead here with near-perfect results. The cuts were straight, and the jointed miter was a perfect 90°. The DeWalt cut straight with no gaps (no head deflection) but was a hair proud of 90°, while the Makita was a perfect 90° but the joint was a hair open in the middle. The Bosch, Delta, and Hitachi C10FSHC all had enough head deflection that it was difficult to get better than paint-grade results.
Dust Collection
I tested dust collection by making a series of cuts in a consistent variety of materials and gathering the sawdust with an extractor. Using a combination of doubled-up 3/4 MDF (x70), 4x6 Doug fir (x12), 1x6 poplar (x12), and 1x8 pine (x12), I made a total of 106 square cuts with each saw, and then weighed the bag for the amount of sawdust captured. I used a Festool CT extractor equipped with a HEPA filter and the new 1 1/16-inch (27mm) flex hose; I installed a new fleece bag for each saw. Once the cuts were complete, I weighed the fleece bags, yielding weights from 2 lb. 13 oz. to 3 lb. 2.2 oz. of dust.
It’s important to note here that while the results seem close to one another, they really aren’t. Here’s why: An ounce of MDF sawdust is about two handfuls. That’s a fair amount of dust. I’ve seen some folks test the amount of dust captured and the amount of dust not captured. While I think that’s a fair and very accurate test, it was beyond the scope of this review. My goal was to find out how the saws fared in comparison to one another.
None of the saws captured all of the sawdust—but a few did stand out. While my test methods were consistent, it is possible to achieve some variation of the results given different setups. For example, cutting nested crown or cutting long miters may yield some variation in these results, but I believe they would be relatively consistent with my findings when comparing one saw with another.
In my testing, the DeWalt collected 1.7 ounces more dust than the runner-up, the Kapex. The shrouds on the Kapex and the Makita got hung up on taller material like 4-by, and I didn’t have this problem as much with the DeWalt, which has a thinner shroud. The Kapex does have a removable shroud, which is nice because it gets hung up on nested crown and other taller material.
All of the saws with the exception of Ridgid and the two Hitachis have 1 1/16-inch-diameter vacuum ports. The hose was slightly sloppy on the Ridgid, which accepts 1 1/4-inch wet/dry vac adapters. The Hitachis both have a 2 1/2-inch-diameter port, which is huge for a miter saw. While the larger port may account for the decent dust extraction results of both saws, it’s cumbersome to use a hose that size on a miter saw. I used the same 1 1/16-inch-diameter hose with reducing couplings to maintain consistent results.
Makita has devised a newer extraction setup that pulls dust from behind the workpiece and at the blade as well. In theory, when you look at it, you think it’s an ingenious design and should capture everything. It didn’t, though it did OK compared with the others. But of all the saws, this was hands-down the loudest when running with an extractor; the configuration of this port creates a whirring sound that’s so loud it sounds like a jet engine.
Blade Wobble
I tested each saw’s blade runout just above the gullet, noting the highest reading. For this to have been a purely scientific test, I would have needed to use a machined plate on each of the saws. But I didn’t have one available, and I also wanted to get real-world results that matter to carpenters. I tested blade wobble after the dust extraction test—when each saw was equipped with a 60-tooth Diablo blade. It can be argued that any given blade could have some variation in it. But the results were all so close and completely corroborated by visual observation that my method felt justified as a comparison.
All in all, they did quite well—with a couple of them not doing so well. Both Hitachis, the Kapex, and the Makita had no measurable wobble. This was confirmed in test cuts and in kerf cuts that I measured. The DeWalt had slight (.006 at the gullet) wobble but produced clean, perfect cuts. The Bosch and Delta had measurable and visible wobble, which showed in most test cuts.
Top Picks
Choosing the best saw was not easy. While all of the saws performed as expected, a few rose to the top.
Best overall. To pick the winner, I factored in the saw’s performance in testing, its overall features, ergonomics, and ease of use, as well as the saw’s price: Does the saw provide good value? With those factors in mind, the DeWalt DW717 (see page 52) won top honors. It was a solid performer, was consistent and easy to adjust and maintain, was built with professional remodeling contractors and trim carpenters in mind, and at $500, is fairly priced. A close second was the Makita LS1019L. Had it performed better on the slide accuracy and not been banged up due to poor packaging, it would have tied with the DeWalt.
Best value goes to the new Ridgid R4210 (see page 52). At $350, it’s packed with features and performed very well. While it’s 4 pounds lighter than the DeWalt, its footprint is large, so it’s not a great option for a small shop. But it’s a strong performer for the money.
The saw that seemed least accurate in terms of quality cuts and head deflection was the Bosch CM10GD, which was a disappointment to me. I also think the Delta Cruzer needs a bit more internal refinement for it to be a go-to trim saw, but it is a solid performer overall.
In summary, professional carpenters will get good results with any of these saws. If your main line of work is trim, then the DeWalt DW717, Hitachi C10FSH, and Ridgid R4210 would all be money well-spent. Decking, framing, siding, and general contractors would do well with almost all of the saws in this test, although the Kapex, which has so many bells and whistles, might be overkill for a lot of rough work.
