I prefer to start by identifying requirements. Then the specifications of candidates can be compared to eliminate any that aren't 'Fit for Purpose'. Finally from the shortlist of 'Fit for Purpose', I select 'Value for Money'. Value for Money isn't just the cheapest purchase price – include running costs, maintenance, transport, space needed etc.
I don't buy influenced by notions of 'quality', brand reputation, or country of origin etc because engineering decisions should be evidence based, not emotional or outdated.
On the face of it, the requirement isn't demanding – 'It will mainly be for small projects using timber and aluminium.' No mention of anything special, like lots of hard-work, or accuracy, or anything other than general purpose drilling. If so, almost any hobby drill would be fit for purpose, and value for money is easily achieved by buying cheap. Not cheap and nasty, but the drill only has to be 'good enough' for light duties.
If a hobby drill really does meet Martin's requirements in full, then the Meddings and Axminster both fail my Value for Money test. Don't buy either, and spend the money saved on other workshop goodies.
Assuming hard-work justifying a beefy drill is on Martin's agenda, the Meddings and Axminster are both candidates. Therefore, is there anything in their specifications suggesting one is more 'Fit for Purpose' than the other?
In terms of size, power, chuck and capacity the machines appear similar, but there is a difference that might matter. The Axminster supports speeds between 210 and 2580rpm, whereas the Meddings spins faster – 500 to 4000rpm. Thus the Meddings is tuned for small diameters and larger holes in fast materials like Wood or Aluminium, while the Axminster is tuned for drilling larger diameters in hard materials. So, a predominant need to drill lots of 1" holes in steel favours the Axminster, but wood, Aluminium, and small diameter holes in steel point to the Meddings.
Neither is fast enough to be good at drilling 1mm holes in Printed Circuit Board, but if that's an occasional need, 4000rpm does much better than 2580.
Is there a requirement to start work as soon as the drill arrives? If so, buying second-hand is a problem. No matter how reliable a tool was when new, second-hand machines have unknown history. Condition could be anything between 'as new' and 'badly worn with parts missing'. A second-hand Meddings is riskier than a new Axminster because it can't just be replaced if it turns out to be a lemon. Many Model Engineers enjoy repairing damaged machines, but this isn't acceptable when the owners requirement demands instant outputs. Then buying a new Axminster is safer, because it can be replaced or refunded.
Is there a requirement for a Milling Machine lurking in the background? If so, quite likely the money is better spent on that instead. Mills make excellent drills. Owning a WM18 mill (50-2500rpm) made my bench drill redundant. But note the mills RPM range – it's on the low side for some purposes.
If the only choice was Meddings versus Axminster, money was no object and I wasn't worried about second-hand, the Meddings looks good and, provided it's in reasonable nick, they have a solid reputation. It's also a good match to timber and Aluminium. In practice, I worry about second-hand, my needs are hobby-level, I don't drill much timber, and I have plenty of other things to spend money on. I'd almost certainly buy the Axminster, simply because it's a better match to my definition of 'Value for Money'.
Final point, apply the 'so what' test. Although thinking hard about Requirements is a good thing, it's all too easy to slip into 'Paralysis by Analysis', confused and unable to decide. As paralysis is caused by inexperience, better to get on with it. Nothing like using a machine in anger to find out what's wrong with it! I started with a mini-lathe, which turned out to be 'not quite good enough', but the learning experience it provided was worth every penny.
Dave