# Ripsaw mill or GB/Alaska CSM?



## Woodsrover (Jan 22, 2007)

Feeling guilty about blocking up a beautiful red oak for firewood this weekend I’m thinking it might be time for a mill of some sort.

I’ve seen lots of mention of the Alaska mill on this board as well as the GB mill. Both look like good units.

I’ve also seen talk about the Ripsaw bandsaw mill. That looks really nice too!

My biggest saw is an MS460 so if I bought a chainsaw mill I’ll have to buy a bigger saw…Probably a MS660 or a Husky 395. Either way it’ll be around $1100 for a saw, bar and chain, and $250 for the mill. I don’t really need a 95cc saw for the wood I cut but hey, you can’t have too big of a saw, right?

The Ripsaw is about $1700 delivered but I think it makes a nicer cut and I can run it with my 460.

What’s the conscience here? Should I shell out the extra money for the Ripsaw or just get a chainsaw mill and a new saw?

Thanks for your thoughts!

Jim

p.s. Here’s a picture of the oak I blocked up.


----------



## scottr (Jan 22, 2007)

*Ms460*

Jim , I have a 044 on my Ripsaw and I think it's over powered for the .050" kerf . The guys with the Ms361 seem to have a good power and torque for the small band mill .


----------



## oldsaw (Jan 22, 2007)

Each has advantages and disadvantages. The Ripsaw will not only give you a better cut, but uses less power, less fuel, and a smaller kerf, which means more wood for you. The downsides are the expense and and limited board width, meaning you will need something to make suitable cants from a log.

The CSMs can handle a much bigger log, can make their own cants from them, and make bigger boards if needed. The downsides is the size of saw, speed, kerf waste, and fuel consumption.

You really need both if you have a Ripsaw. Cool little unit though.

Mark


----------



## flht01 (Jan 22, 2007)

Nice looking red oak, I bet that crotch would have made a nice tabletop. It's hard to say which saw would be the best. A ripsaw will do a better job cutting up the cants but that tree would have been hard to cut up without a csm also.

I'd buy a csm and run the 460 on it to see if it's something you like first, it would keep the investment down until your sure. The 460 will handle a fair size cut if your patient and keep a sharp chain on it. I think it would handle tree's the size of the one in that picture.

As far as the ripsaw goes, I run a 361 and it has more than enough power. In fact, if I ever use mine again  , I'm going to try a ms260 on it and see how it does. The small kerf and 14" max cut just doesn't require a lot of hp as long as you keep a sharp blade on it and don't feed it too fast. I'll have to dust the cobwebs off mine and give that 260 a try.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Figured I might want to clairify wanting to try the 260. In a thread over on the chainsaw forum, there was talk about needing to run a saw at wot and get the rpm down in the max torque range by adjusting the feed rate in the cut. This was to make sure the fuel circuits were delivering the proper fuel rate consistantly. (hope I got that right) I usually run the 361 less than wot to keep from having to force the ripsaw thru the cut to keep the rpm's from getting to high. Maybe the 260 will have enough hp to run the ripsaw at wot and be able to keepup with a decent feed rate.


----------



## computeruser (Jan 22, 2007)

Like Oldsaw said, you will likely need a CSM, too, if you get a Ripsaw. So I'd probably go for the CSM first. This, of course, is coming from someone who has yet to buy a mill of any sort...one of these days. But in the absence of a CSM, I'm not sure how you'd render the logs into workable cants. Those BeamMachine-type things could work, but the good ones cost nearly as much as a CSM anyway and won't be as stable on large logs as the CSM.

As for saws for a CSM, there are LOTS of good options out there if you're willing to go with a used saw. $1100 for a new 660 is a lot of coin and I think that your money would be better spent on used or rebuilt saws. For that price you could have both of these saws, a few bars, _and_ take your wife out for a VERY nice dinner.


----------



## RatliffLogging (Jan 22, 2007)

Buy the ripsaw it will pay for itself quick. Plus the quality of lumber will be higher. And there are trick it using it on big logs.

KR


----------



## Woodsrover (Jan 22, 2007)

flht01 said:


> I'll have to dust the cobwebs off mine



It's not for sale, is it????

Jim


----------



## flht01 (Jan 22, 2007)

Woodsrover said:


> It's not for sale, is it????
> 
> Jim



Probably will be soon, it hasn't been used since I bought the bandmill. Actually, I'm thinking about selling both the ripsaw (without powerhead) and the 066/36" csm and getting a bigger powerhead/CSM, something like the one aggiewoodbutcher is running.


----------



## Woodsrover (Jan 22, 2007)

PM sent.....


----------



## wdchuck (Jan 22, 2007)

Woodsrover,

My milling setup from Dean at WHS : Stihl 075, 42"bar, GB 44" mill all came to waaayy less than $1K.

THe mill was under $200 shipped. The big difference between the Alaskan and the GB mills is the way they mount near the powerhead, the Alaskan clamps on the bar, and the GB bolts on to the powerhead-thus supporting the powerhead, makes for a nice rigid setup.

One note, should you get the GB csm, before using it, change out the cpvc in the push handles to something made of metal, they had the heads up their whowho's on that idea.

If cutting for firewood gets yer blood goin', wait till you mill the first log.

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=42874 for pics of my GB mill on a MS460, just used a 24" bar because the log was only 12"dia., the mill is 44" though.


.


----------



## Husky137 (Jan 22, 2007)

I'd start with the csm if it were me but that's the way I did it.

What river is that behind the oak?


----------



## Woodsrover (Jan 22, 2007)

That's the Housatonic River in Cornwall Ct. We own 900' of it including an island that hasn't been logged for charcoal 100 years ago like everywhere else. There are some HUGE tulip, white pine and oak out on the island. There are a few very large tulip trees elsewhere on the property too. Nice looking trees.

Thanks everyone for the great info!

Jim


----------



## lmbeachy (Jan 22, 2007)

I take it that is your girl friend, sure got a good picture in a beautiful setting.


----------



## Husky137 (Jan 22, 2007)

That's what I thought. I grew up in Torrington and can remember going over the Cornwall bridge.Been 25 years since I've lived down there. I hope things are still as beautiful as I remember.


----------



## Woodsrover (Jan 22, 2007)

My wife, actually. Thanks. She's got her PhD and teaches college but still likes to get out in the woods and sling firewood with this $hitkicker! I'm a lucky guy!

You're right Husky. That spot on the river is about 1 mile downstream from Cornwall Bridge. A nice part of the world. We saw an adult bald eagle there Sunday.


----------



## Sawyer Rob (Jan 22, 2007)

Did it look like this one? 

Rob


----------



## woodshop (Jan 22, 2007)

Woodsrover said:


> What’s the conscience here? Should I shell out the extra money for the Ripsaw or just get a chainsaw mill and a new saw?



woodsrover... the ideal situation, as others have siad, is to have a csm to mill the large logs into cants, and then slice them into boards with the Ripsaw. That is what I have been doing for several years with great success. If you havn't read the following thread yet, it explains that in great detail.

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=19709

However, even though you are limited to a 14" wide cut, you CAN attack up to a 20" dia tree with just a Ripsaw and nothing else. I have done it. It will be a slower process as you take slabs off the outside of the log, rotate and slab another. You do waste a little of the wood as you tend to end up with slabs that resemble large wedges in the beginning. But that is minimal, and the least of the downsides to not having a csm. The worst is that extra time it takes on a very large log. Set up, make a cut, then rotate and set up again, make a cut, rotate again etc etc. With a csm, you generally do that only three or four times as you quarter or slab into huge cants for the Ripsaw. Also, the bandmill blades tend to dull much faster in bark than a chain does. With a csm, you can slab the log down to bare cants with no bark to saw through, thus saving blades. Having to add a csm to the mix after buying a Ripsaw though, is only a matter or less than 200 bucks more (36" Mark IV alaskan from baileys) if you are willing to swap saws back and forth from the two mills. A 460 on the Ripsaw is overkill, but not a problem using it other than the extra weight of that big saw. Swapping mills is a somewhat tedious process that takes about 15 minutes, but then you do have the best of both worlds. Large 32" capacity for the big logs, and then when gotten into cants, smoother boards, less waste and less gas/oil if you use a smaller 60cc sized saw for the Ripsaw, which is all it actually needs. Oh, and the Ripsaw is also bit faster going down the log than the csm.


----------



## TedChristiansen (Jan 22, 2007)

Woodsrover,

You might also want to investigate Logosol (www.logosol.com) M7 or Woodworkers Mill. Though costlier than an Alaskan, it is less stress on the body than an an Alaskan style mill.

Ted


----------



## oldsaw (Jan 22, 2007)

woodshop said:


> woodsrover... the ideal situation, as others have siad, is to have a csm to mill the large logs into cants, and then slice them into boards with the Ripsaw. That is what I have been doing for several years with great success. If you havn't read the following thread yet, it explains that in great detail.
> 
> http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=19709
> 
> However, even though you are limited to a 14" wide cut, you CAN attack up to a 20" dia tree with just a Ripsaw and nothing else. I have done it. It will be a slower process as you take slabs off the outside of the log, rotate and slab another. You do waste a little of the wood as you tend to end up with slabs that resemble large wedges in the beginning. But that is minimal, and the least of the downsides to not having a csm. The worst is that extra time it takes on a very large log. Set up, make a cut, then rotate and set up again, make a cut, rotate again etc etc. With a csm, you generally do that only three or four times as you quarter or slab into huge cants for the Ripsaw. Also, the bandmill blades tend to dull much faster in bark than a chain does. With a csm, you can slab the log down to bare cants with no bark to saw through, thus saving blades. Having to add a csm to the mix after buying a Ripsaw though, is only a matter or less than 200 bucks more (36" Mark IV alaskan from baileys) if you are willing to swap saws back and forth from the two mills. A 460 on the Ripsaw is overkill, but not a problem using it other than the extra weight of that big saw. Swapping mills is a somewhat tedious process that takes about 15 minutes, but then you do have the best of both worlds. Large 32" capacity for the big logs, and then when gotten into cants, smoother boards, less waste and less gas/oil if you use a smaller 60cc sized saw for the Ripsaw, which is all it actually needs. Oh, and the Ripsaw is also bit faster going down the log than the csm.



Yeah, what he said....in a much clearer and more thorough way.

Mark


----------



## flht01 (Jan 22, 2007)

oldsaw said:


> Yeah, what he said....in a much clearer and more thorough way.
> 
> Mark



'ol woodshop has a way with words  

I'm doing good if I spell close enough for the spellcheck to figure out what they should look like, much less using correct grammer :biggrinbounce2:


----------



## Adkpk (Jan 22, 2007)

woodshop said:


> woodsrover... the ideal situation, as others have siad, is to have a csm to mill the large logs into cants, and then slice them into boards with the Ripsaw. That is what I have been doing for several years with great success. If you havn't read the following thread yet, it explains that in great detail.
> 
> http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=19709
> 
> However, even though you are limited to a 14" wide cut, you CAN attack up to a 20" dia tree with just a Ripsaw and nothing else. I have done it. It will be a slower process as you take slabs off the outside of the log, rotate and slab another. You do waste a little of the wood as you tend to end up with slabs that resemble large wedges in the beginning. But that is minimal, and the least of the downsides to not having a csm. The worst is that extra time it takes on a very large log. Set up, make a cut, then rotate and set up again, make a cut, rotate again etc etc. With a csm, you generally do that only three or four times as you quarter or slab into huge cants for the Ripsaw. Also, the bandmill blades tend to dull much faster in bark than a chain does. With a csm, you can slab the log down to bare cants with no bark to saw through, thus saving blades. Having to add a csm to the mix after buying a Ripsaw though, is only a matter or less than 200 bucks more (36" Mark IV alaskan from baileys) if you are willing to swap saws back and forth from the two mills. A 460 on the Ripsaw is overkill, but not a problem using it other than the extra weight of that big saw. Swapping mills is a somewhat tedious process that takes about 15 minutes, but then you do have the best of both worlds. Large 32" capacity for the big logs, and then when gotten into cants, smoother boards, less waste and less gas/oil if you use a smaller 60cc sized saw for the Ripsaw, which is all it actually needs. Oh, and the Ripsaw is also bit faster going down the log than the csm.





The man's a genius I tell you.  Glad he's on our side.


----------



## scottr (Jan 22, 2007)

flht01 said:


> Nice looking red oak, I bet that crotch would have made a nice tabletop. It's hard to say which saw would be the best. A ripsaw will do a better job cutting up the cants but that tree would have been hard to cut up without a csm also.
> 
> I'd buy a csm and run the 460 on it to see if it's something you like first, it would keep the investment down until your sure. The 460 will handle a fair size cut if your patient and keep a sharp chain on it. I think it would handle tree's the size of the one in that picture.
> 
> ...



Kevin , I'll bet the 260 will work fine . I remember a 026 having 3.6hp . Did you adjust the H needle richer on your 361 to lower the rpm ?


----------



## flht01 (Jan 23, 2007)

scottr said:


> Kevin , I'll bet the 260 will work fine . I remember a 026 having 3.6hp . Did you adjust the H needle richer on your 361 to lower the rpm ?



Haven't made any adjustments to the 361, it's still unmolested 
Just recently picked up a tach to set my saws with so I should be able to get a few before/after readings with both saws. I never pulled wot with the 361 until it was in the cut, and then throttled it to keep the rpm in the range that sounded about right.


----------



## Railomatic (Jan 23, 2007)

For speed, ease of use and much less waste, the Ripsaw all day.

For tired arms but bigger cutting capacity the Alaskan CSM.

For the best of both worlds, both units are needed to do just about any size of tree, use the CSM to convert the big stuff down to a managable size for the Ripsaw.


----------



## stihladdicted (Jan 23, 2007)

*Alaskan or ripsaw?*

Get both.... Pick up a used 066 on ebay 400-$500. This will save you 500.00. I think the ripsaw and the Alaskan compliment each other. Ripsaws guide beam system is pretty sweet (a little expensive). I actually use it for the guide beam for my Granberg works better than the upright 2x4's that Granberg recommends.


----------

