# Chunking a big cedar



## Greener (Nov 2, 2012)

I am getting ready to top and chunk down a big cedar (western red) that is about 40 inches or so DBH. But it is old growth and stays pretty big around most the way up. I have to take it down in sections to about the midpoint and most of the trunk I will cut is about 24-30". I don't want to haul the heavy 460 up with a 28" or 32" bar if I don't have to. Can I get away with a 036 with a 24" bar and walk through it down further when the trunk gets bigger to about 28"? Or should I just go with the heavier saw so I can cut straight through? The wood is super soft and a chisel chain powers through pretty quick. Thanks.


----------



## B Harrison (Nov 2, 2012)

Sounds like you need a new saw too?

Now that I have CAD, I feel alone and want others to suffer with me.


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 2, 2012)

Greener said:


> I am getting ready to top and chunk down a big cedar (western red) that is about 40 inches or so DBH. But it is old growth and stays pretty big around most the way up. I have to take it down in sections to about the midpoint and most of the trunk I will cut is about 24-30". I don't want to haul the heavy 460 up with a 28" or 32" bar if I don't have to. Can I get away with a 036 with a 24" bar and walk through it down further when the trunk gets bigger to about 28"? Or should I just go with the heavier saw so I can cut straight through? The wood is super soft and a chisel chain powers through pretty quick. Thanks.



If you know how to run a saw, you should be able to cut down a 47-48" diameter piece with that 24" bar.


----------



## Guran (Nov 2, 2012)

In extreme situations it's possible to cut even more than twice you bar lenght.
A picture of how that is done below....

View attachment 260496


----------



## thepheniox (Nov 2, 2012)

I would use a bigger saw just to make the cutting faster. Trade off weight on saddle vs time on saddle. When it comes to chunking down pieces I want to get down as fast as possible.


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 2, 2012)

thepheniox said:


> I would use a bigger saw just to make the cutting faster. Trade off weight on saddle vs time on saddle. When it comes to chunking down pieces I want to get down as fast as possible.



When i am climbing, I will use a smaller saw a little longer, then when i am in the bucket.


----------



## Greener (Nov 4, 2012)

B Harrison said:


> Sounds like you need a new saw too?
> 
> Now that I have CAD, I feel alone and want others to suffer with me.



I have gotten by with a 192t, 260, 460 and 660. I did go with the 200t for a while but have found it the extra weight not worth it and I just go to the 26 when the wood gets bigger. I am realizing I need to invest in a 36 because it is more versatile with the power/weight ratio.


----------



## Greener (Nov 4, 2012)

2treeornot2tree said:


> If you know how to run a saw, you should be able to cut down a 47-48" diameter piece with that 24" bar.



Amen. You are right on, and I think you just confirmed what I may have known already. Especially because I usually cut softwood. In hardwood, it isn't just the diameter, but the amount of time it takes to get through it with the shorter bar and less cc's. Thanks.


----------



## beastmaster (Nov 5, 2012)

Greener said:


> Amen. You are right on, and I think you just confirmed what I may have known already. Especially because I usually cut softwood. In hardwood, it isn't just the diameter, but the amount of time it takes to get through it with the shorter bar and less cc's. Thanks.



I have doubled cut a lot of trees and I hate it. It means you have to travel to both sides of the tree for each cut, that takes twice as long, you have to line up the cuts, bla, bla and so on. If you can get a bigger saw get it. use your smaller saw while you can, then switch to the bigger saw when the diameter gets bigger. You could maybe get away with just getting a longer bar for the saw you have if all you cutting is soft wood.


----------



## Carburetorless (Nov 5, 2012)

Fewer cuts = safer, faster, and easier.


----------



## no tree to big (Nov 6, 2012)

a 460 is not that heavy suck it up :msp_razz: 660 still not that bad now if you need to climb with an 880 then you can whine WHILE your doing it


----------



## Greener (Nov 8, 2012)

no tree to big said:


> a 460 is not that heavy suck it up :msp_razz: 660 still not that bad now if you need to climb with an 880 then you can whine WHILE your doing it



I was waiting for a "no bs" response, and yours is it! Lots of good feedback here on the "speed through the wood vs. weight in the tree" argument. You are definitely a "speed through the wood" proponent. I like it.


----------



## TreeGuyHR (Nov 10, 2012)

If it was me, I would definitely use a small topping saw and then switch to my Stihl 361 or 046. Also, you say "chunking", but given that it is old growth cedar, why not cut longer (say 8.5 ft. or 10.5, or whatever length shingle mills might take) ? Take a loggers tape up with you so you don't have to guess; a log that is too short could be useless.

Someone would want the short logs, and you make fewer cuts. Logs this size can be easily moved with a bumper winch and line, if run through a block (pulley).

Have your ground crew send up a line so that they can help to pull over the logs. Also remember to move the logs to the side as you go -- one hitting another can cause the top log to "launch" into a nearby target. Of course, if you can't impact the ground with big pieces, it may be a no-go. You might tell the owner that the logs could be sold, which would more than cover the cost of a little sod or a squashed laurel.


----------



## Greener (Nov 11, 2012)

TreeGuyHR said:


> If it was me, I would definitely use a small topping saw and then switch to my Stihl 361 or 046. Also, you say "chunking", but given that it is old growth cedar, why not cut longer (say 8.5 ft. or 10.5, or whatever length shingle mills might take) ? Take a loggers tape up with you so you don't have to guess; a log that is too short could be useless.
> 
> Someone would want the short logs, and you make fewer cuts. Logs this size can be easily moved with a bumper winch and line, if run through a block (pulley).
> 
> Have your ground crew send up a line so that they can help to pull over the logs. Also remember to move the logs to the side as you go -- one hitting another can cause the top log to "launch" into a nearby target. Of course, if you can't impact the ground with big pieces, it may be a no-go. You might tell the owner that the logs could be sold, which would more than cover the cost of a little sod or a squashed laurel.



Good call on the mill length thing. Ironically, this lady lives in a rural county that is loaded with mills and loggers and no one wants it. Definitely marketable timber too. Drop zone is big and just a brush area, so easy money. And the pieces will just sit and rot. I will leave some lengths, though, just in case.


----------



## Greener (Nov 11, 2012)

no tree to big said:


> a 460 is not that heavy suck it up :msp_razz: 660 still not that bad now if you need to climb with an 880 then you can whine WHILE your doing it



Yeah, 460's are great. It's adding the 30 plus inch bar that gets heavy after 4 or six cuts in big wood.


----------



## no tree to big (Nov 11, 2012)

Greener said:


> Yeah, 460's are great. It's adding the 30 plus inch bar that gets heavy after 4 or six cuts in big wood.



idk maybe join a gym? this is only over 4-6 cuts? we just did a tree where the climber was up for think it was 7 hours with a 660 with a 36" bar in a monster cottonwood, for just the logs, was brushed out the day before by another crew to get it ready for us the "A team" haha we are "crew A" so you know A team sounds better


----------



## Stayalert (Nov 11, 2012)

I am puny and weak I like my 192....I'm wondering if I could even start my 660 off the ground


----------



## TreeGuyHR (Nov 11, 2012)

Greener said:


> Yeah, 460's are great. It's adding the 30 plus inch bar that gets heavy after 4 or six cuts in big wood.



Gets a wee bit heavy over time the same day, but done on enough days, it gets lighter! Funny, that. Benefit : you can enjoy cream pie and beer, for a snack, and not gain weight.

I got a dirty look from a woman recently in the supermarket: i was holding a chocolate cream pie and trying to make a selection in the beer aisle; I snagged a 12 pack of IPA and she said: Beer and pie!? I said, sure, why not? This really did happen!

pics of me with my 200T and 046 up a fir tree:

View attachment 261843


View attachment 261842


----------



## beastmaster (Nov 12, 2012)

no tree to big said:


> idk maybe join a gym? this is only over 4-6 cuts? we just did a tree where the climber was up for think it was 7 hours with a 660 with a 36" bar in a monster cottonwood, for just the logs, was brushed out the day before by another crew to get it ready for us the "A team" haha we are "crew A" so you know A team sounds better



Don't want to get in no pissing contest, but I recently spent over 10 hours in a big ass pondarosa on spikes with a 660 not even breaking for lunch. I'm a weak old man too. :msp_biggrin:What the mind can conceive, the body can achieve. Worse part of that job was having to double cut the last 10 cuts or so. Having to switch sides to finish the cuts with those gaffs hurting like hell on my legs was pure torture. Man up and get that 660 with a long bar up that tree, believe me you can do it. It's like weight lifting if you don't increase the weight, you won't get stronger. 
Your doing some nice sized trees, you got that down, now match the saw to the tree your cutting.


----------



## St. John (Nov 12, 2012)

no tree to big said:


> a 460 is not that heavy suck it up :msp_razz: 660 still not that bad now if you need to climb with an 880 then you can whine WHILE your doing it



I have climbed with an old 084. How old?? It had the oiler at the thumb. we ran a 60 inch bar for big stuff. Not fun chunkin, but I would agree with the "take the biggest saw you can" approach.

You don't want to be up in a tree whittling stuff down to a toothpick for ever.


----------



## TreeGuyHR (Nov 12, 2012)

beastmaster said:


> Don't want to get in no pissing contest, but I recently spent over 10 hours in a big ass pondarosa on spikes with a 660 not even breaking for lunch. I'm a weak old man too. :msp_biggrin:What the mind can conceive, the body can achieve. Worse part of that job was having to double cut the last 10 cuts or so. Having to switch sides to finish the cuts with those gaffs hurting like hell on my legs was pure torture. Man up and get that 660 with a long bar up that tree, believe me you can do it. It's like weight lifting if you don't increase the weight, you won't get stronger.
> Your doing some nice sized trees, you got that down, now match the saw to the tree your cutting.



I hear you on the gaffs. I got over-sized pads for my hooks, but I still would lose skin until I started wrapping my shins with ace bandages. 

Works like a charm !


----------



## Greener (Nov 17, 2012)

no tree to big said:


> idk maybe join a gym? this is only over 4-6 cuts? we just did a tree where the climber was up for think it was 7 hours with a 660 with a 36" bar in a monster cottonwood, for just the logs, was brushed out the day before by another crew to get it ready for us the "A team" haha we are "crew A" so you know A team sounds better



Probably was up there so long because he had that big saw and bar. Overkill. Especially in that soft of wood. I ended up using the 36 with a 24" bar in this 54" dbh cedar that stayed pretty fat most the way up. No problem. About 5-10 seconds through each chunk.


----------



## no tree to big (Nov 17, 2012)

Greener said:


> Probably was up there so long because he had that big saw and bar. Overkill. Especially in that soft of wood. I ended up using the 36 with a 24" bar in this 54" dbh cedar that stayed pretty fat most the way up. No problem. About 5-10 seconds through each chunk.



ya ok tell that to me after you have to rig down a real tree in a day or do you recommend a 192 with a 48" bar???? your telling me he would have made it through 48" LIMBS faster with a tiny saw? don't think so this tree was freakin huge. it was a tree we were the only ones they could find who would bid the damn thing! toting the saw around didn't slow the climber down moving around we were never waiting on him 

5-10 seconds a cut? on a 54" tree? do you mean 5.4"??? I know cedar is soft but come on man 5-10 seconds?


----------



## peetar (Nov 21, 2012)

I think most stuff around here is over-the-top with the safety stuff, but this is a big deal.

You have to be able to put a running saw into cutting position, and cut it right. It's wrong to tell someone (who has their hands full anyway), to take big sections for milling sake, with a saw outside their comfort zone.

Take as big of stuff, with as little saw as you can, as long as you are sure you have the cut covered. The bigger the saw, the worse job your gonna do making the cut. Fact.

The difference between using a top handle and a 60-70cc saw in a tree is huge. Respect that.

Don't go with the bigger saw until you've done it a few times with smaller saws,, and you know the cut is going to be easier with a bigger saw.


----------



## pdqdl (Nov 21, 2012)

thepheniox said:


> I would use a bigger saw just to make the cutting faster. Trade off weight on saddle vs time on saddle. When it comes to chunking down pieces I want to get down as fast as possible.



:agree2:

I was chunking down a hackberry last week with a 460mag and a 36" bar. I wouldn't think of gnawing all day long when I can whistle through in one pass. That big saw is only heavy until the cut is well started. Then...just keep rolling through.

Even though the saw might be twice as heavy, you will only be on the cut less than 1/2 as long. When I am carrying a saw in the tree, the biggest burden is ME, not the saw, so 1/2 as much time on rope is a big improvement.


----------



## TreEmergencyB (Nov 24, 2012)

Once its in the cut the 'weight' of the saw really isnt an issue.


----------



## Kottonwood (Nov 30, 2012)

no tree to big said:


> ya ok tell that to me after you have to rig down a real tree in a day or do you recommend a 192 with a 48" bar???? your telling me he would have made it through 48" LIMBS faster with a tiny saw? don't think so this tree was freakin huge. it was a tree we were the only ones they could find who would bid the damn thing! toting the saw around didn't slow the climber down moving around we were never waiting on him
> 
> 5-10 seconds a cut? on a 54" tree? do you mean 5.4"??? I know cedar is soft but come on man 5-10 seconds?



I do a lot of cottonwoods... not all are giants but some are... never had one with 48" limbs though. I use the 460 with a 36" bar and SHARP full skip chain, works great and it's not to heavy. But hell, if you got the guns for it and want to sling a 66 power to ya. In cottonwoods it is the undercuts on horizontal limbs that'll get ya, that is where the 46 with big dogs is nice. In your cedar that is probably what I would bring up, 46 with a 36.


----------



## Kottonwood (Nov 30, 2012)

peetar said:


> I think most stuff around here is over-the-top with the safety stuff, but this is a big deal.
> 
> You have to be able to put a running saw into cutting position, and cut it right. It's wrong to tell someone (who has their hands full anyway), to take big sections for milling sake, with a saw outside their comfort zone.
> 
> ...



If you can't sling a 46 in a tree and take 8 foot logs with a tag line to the ground then you have no business cutting down a 40" old growth cedar. JMO. Use the right saw for the job.


----------



## no tree to big (Dec 1, 2012)

PatriotTreeCO said:


> I do a lot of cottonwoods... not all are giants but some are... never had one with 48" limbs though. I use the 460 with a 36" bar and SHARP full skip chain, works great and it's not to heavy. But hell, if you got the guns for it and want to sling a 66 power to ya. In cottonwoods it is the undercuts on horizontal limbs that'll get ya, that is where the 46 with big dogs is nice. In your cedar that is probably what I would bring up, 46 with a 36.



yea a 46 with a 36" would be a good setup but we can only work with what they buy us O and I don't think they ever heard of skip chain... and this tree was freakin ridiculous! and believe me the leads that split off the main trunk were every bit of 48" I wheeled them out on a log cart trust me


----------



## Greener (Dec 2, 2012)

no tree to big said:


> ya ok tell that to me after you have to rig down a real tree in a day or do you recommend a 192 with a 48" bar???? your telling me he would have made it through 48" LIMBS faster with a tiny saw? don't think so this tree was freakin huge. it was a tree we were the only ones they could find who would bid the damn thing! toting the saw around didn't slow the climber down moving around we were never waiting on him
> 
> 5-10 seconds a cut? on a 54" tree? do you mean 5.4"??? I know cedar is soft but come on man 5-10 seconds?



Ok, ok. I apologize for being a bit judgy on that. I respect the skills on that big cottonwood. I respect the feedback.


----------



## Greener (Dec 2, 2012)

PatriotTreeCO said:


> If you can't sling a 46 in a tree and take 8 foot logs with a tag line to the ground then you have no business cutting down a 40" old growth cedar. JMO. Use the right saw for the job.



What about with no tag line. Would that change your opinion?


----------



## Greener (Dec 2, 2012)

Stayalert said:


> I am puny and weak I like my 192....I'm wondering if I could even start my 660 off the ground



You can start it, but the fatigue causes your cuts to be less quality and less concise. You just don't notice how the fatigue affects how effective you are.


----------



## expertech (Dec 7, 2012)

thepheniox said:


> I would use a bigger saw just to make the cutting faster. Trade off weight on saddle vs time on saddle. When it comes to chunking down pieces I want to get down as fast as possible.



I'm with you. You don't have to keep changing positions to stay safe and comfortable or properly positioned for the cut and it's much easier to drop the chunks on a dime, and if you're good, make them land flat. I have done some giant cedars and other grandfather conifers and I always preferred to drag a big saw up with me as opposed to pulling it up on a rope or using a smaller saw. My rule is: Big wood=Big saw. I guess it's up to personal preference. Any other big tree veterans out there, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.


----------



## expertech (Dec 7, 2012)

Greener said:


> What about with no tag line. Would that change your opinion?



Tag lines? I have wedged huge chunks off big Firs and other conifers where I couldn't even see the ground through the canopy. Take your big saw, a heavy hammer and a wedge pouch up with you and get er done!!!


----------



## expertech (Dec 7, 2012)

TreeGuyHR said:


> Gets a wee bit heavy over time the same day, but done on enough days, it gets lighter! Funny, that. Benefit : you can enjoy cream pie and beer, for a snack, and not gain weight.
> 
> I got a dirty look from a woman recently in the supermarket: i was holding a chocolate cream pie and trying to make a selection in the beer aisle; I snagged a 12 pack of IPA and she said: Beer and pie!? I said, sure, why not? This really did happen!
> 
> ...



Man, I would be dumping bigger chunks than that off that tree. Cut em big and finish on the ground, it's safer.


----------



## expertech (Dec 7, 2012)

beastmaster said:


> Don't want to get in no pissing contest, but I recently spent over 10 hours in a big ass pondarosa on spikes with a 660 not even breaking for lunch. I'm a weak old man too. :msp_biggrin:What the mind can conceive, the body can achieve. Worse part of that job was having to double cut the last 10 cuts or so. Having to switch sides to finish the cuts with those gaffs hurting like hell on my legs was pure torture. Man up and get that 660 with a long bar up that tree, believe me you can do it. It's like weight lifting if you don't increase the weight, you won't get stronger.
> Your doing some nice sized trees, you got that down, now match the saw to the tree your cutting.



That's what I'm talking about!!! I too have done some gigantic ponderosas. The big tree veterans know what's up! I have dragged the biggest Stihls on the market up big wood. It's just the way to do it!


----------



## beastmaster (Dec 7, 2012)

Its not so much the size and weight of the saw that's difficult, once you stick those dogs in the tree the weighs gone for the most part. But starting that bit** up in the tree over and over can really wear you out. The last job I did I used a 066 that wouldn't Idel, and when it died it was hard to start up again. Felt like tossing it out the tree.


----------



## RandyMac (Dec 8, 2012)

expertech said:


> That's what I'm talking about!!! I too have done some gigantic ponderosas. The big tree veterans know what's up! I have dragged the biggest Stihls on the market up big wood. It's just the way to do it!





a water bucket with no bottom


----------



## TreeGuyHR (Dec 8, 2012)

expertech said:


> Man, I would be dumping bigger chunks than that off that tree. Cut em big and finish on the ground, it's safer.



Looking at that pic again, yea, I could have taken a bigger chunk. I think I had the rest down in two.Coming from high up, you get an appreciation of the energy imparted to chunk when it falls 60 or 80 ft. The top slid off nicely, but still managed to travel around 20 ft. downwind (around 25 ft. top). I did have a curb, paving, a fence, shrubs, and a man hole cover to deal with. The shrub lost...


----------



## bootboy (Dec 8, 2012)

I'm 5'8" and about 155lbs. I climb with my 460 frequently when blocking down trunks. I have a 30" bar on it and while a little heavy, once in the cut, all you have to do is let it cut. I could climb with a smaller saw to do the same work. But it's so easy to just get it done in fewer cuts, all the way through. In the long run, it's more efficient because you don't have to fuss with a smaller saw and reposition several times for each cut.


----------

