# Score!



## BobL (Jan 29, 2009)

In case you missed this over in the CS forum.

I went to have a look at a never used 6 month old MS880 yesterday and it turned out that there was a whole lot of other "stuff" that went with it.

The following gear has never been used.
- MS880 with Stihl 60" sprocket nose bar
- 56" Granberg mill
- pair of Stihl chainsaw trousers and pair of Stihl chaps
- Granberg electrical Sharpener
- Stihl Helmet/visor with H10A Peltor Muffs
- 1 gallon of Stihl 2-stroke oil
- 5 Gallons of Stihl chain and bar oil 

There was also a virtually new 441 that had been used to cut a couple of trailer loads of firewood. 






As I said before, the gear belonged to an organization and apart from the 441 was not being used. Given the normal type of activities undertaken by the organization and the potentially dangerous nature of the gear, it was clearly never going to be used and they just wanted to get rid of everything in one shot asap.

I said I would think about it and I left it for a couple of days. I was about to call them yesterday and offer them 70% of the RRP for everything except the 441, for which I was going to offer 60% of RRP. Before I could call they called me and made me an offer I could not refuse so I went straight around and picked it up about 30 minutes ago.

Effectively the MS880 with the 60" bar/chain cost me US$1000 ! The remainder of the stuff came out to be a little less than half RRP!

I will probably sell the 
- Grandberg Mill as a "never used mill" (they are too flimsy for my liking), 
- the Grandberg Electric Sharpener
- and may consider selling the 441 once I have had a bit of a play with it.


----------



## FELLNORTH (Jan 29, 2009)

beautiful score, you robed them blind...:wave:


----------



## Zodiac45 (Jan 29, 2009)

Nice score Bob! Let us know how that 880. Should be comparable too your older saw but higher revs?


----------



## carvinmark (Jan 29, 2009)

Great deal.:biggrinbounce2:


----------



## BobL (Jan 29, 2009)

Zodiac45 said:


> Nice score Bob! Let us know how that 880. Should be comparable too your older saw but higher revs?



Thanks Guys. Yeah I'll be interested to see he difference between the 880 and the 076. I have some extra big logs coming up mid year so hopefully it can show its worth on those logs.


----------



## dustytools (Jan 29, 2009)

Nice score Bob!! Congratulations.


----------



## woodshop (Jan 29, 2009)

Congrats Bob... although I don't need any more saws, I would have jumped on that deal pronto. Sometimes it just pays to be in the right place at the right time.


----------



## BobL (Jan 29, 2009)

Cheers guys. Yeah I got a sniff on this deal before Xmas but was only able to make a direct contact this week. Should be a fun exercise adapting the 880 to the BIL Mill.


----------



## excess650 (Jan 29, 2009)

Quite the haul there Bob! Good for you!


----------



## DRB (Jan 29, 2009)

Sweet  

We need to see some action pics :chainsawguy:


----------



## BobL (Jan 29, 2009)

DRB said:


> Sweet
> 
> We need to see some action pics :chainsawguy:



Trigger finger is really itching but there is quite a bit of prep ahead.
I really want to run the 880 in properly by running a few tankfuls of fuel while cross cutting first. 
Then I want to mod it to suit the mill so I can swap the 076 and 880 over anytime I like.

This involves
- turning up some overlength bar bolts for the 880. I have these already on the 076 but they are loctited in and don't want to be swapping bar bolts every time I swap powerheads.
- Making an wrap handle throttle, same as on my 076 - might see if I can go direct to the carby this time
- adapting the BIL mil to suit the 880, eg chain tension hole needs to be drilled and anti twist support located and constructed.
- whatever else pops up.

I'm also itching to make a dedicated mill for the 880 in light of what I learned from making the BIL mill but I have a heap of logs to mill and if I do it right swapping the power heads over should not be such a big deal. Can't say it's not rolling about in my head though  

While I'm at it, does anyone have experience in swapping/changing replaceable nose sprockets on Stihl bars. It looks like one can just grind of the rivets and pull the nose out? 

Cheers


----------



## dancan (Jan 29, 2009)

I saw the title this am and I knew I didn't want to look but curiosity got the better of me .
Ya got a nice haul !!
I'm jealous .
But what a great acquisition , why did I have to look ?


----------



## irishcountry (Jan 29, 2009)

Couldn't happen to a better guy great deal can't wait to hear the feedback!! Merry Christmas to you!!! Lets us know what you think of the new saw/saws.. Take care irishcountry


----------



## Brmorgan (Jan 30, 2009)

BobL said:


> While I'm at it, does anyone have experience in swapping/changing replaceable nose sprockets on Stihl bars. It looks like one can just grind of the rivets and pull the nose out?
> 
> Cheers



I haven't done Stihl bars per se, but have done a few single-rivet Oregons. I prefer to just drill the rivet out if possible, or set the rivet over a small gap such as the jaws of a vise 1/2" apart, and give it a good whack with a pin punch. Only problem with the latter method is that you have to know which side of the rivet is the head end. Make sure to get replacement rivets with a new nose, pop 'em in and peen them over with a hammer & you should be good to go.


That's a helluva deal you got - I paid way more than that for my used 395 and 36" Alaskan combo. I'm anxious to see how you like the 880 vs your 076 as I've seen that very question raised before. A few more CCs but not quite as torquey - it'll be interesting to see which will serve you better in the big hard stuff you work with all the time.


----------



## BlueRider (Jan 30, 2009)

I'm not sure why you think the granberg is flimsy but the one in the pic could use 2 more of the cross supports like the one the handle is attached to. I have been using my granberg since 1994 and it has held up very well. once it is bolted to my saw the whole rig is very solid with no flex. If I lived a bit closer I would buy it from you, unfortunately the shipping would put it at the same or more than a new one.

Your going to like that 441. I have an 038m which is within a cc or two of being the same saw. lots of grunt for triming logs. and bucking fire wood. It will pull a 32" bar, well at least on american wood.


----------



## BobL (Jan 30, 2009)

BlueRider said:


> I'm not sure why you think the granberg is flimsy but the one in the pic could use 2 more of the cross supports like the one the handle is attached to.



I guess some of this is perception, because on the BIL mill everything is a little chunkier, wider, taller, thicker etc, but I think in practice this does translate into a more stable and solid frame into which the saw is inserted. I have not used a granberg alaskan to cut more than a couple of slabs but I have used an Aussie mill called a westford (60" rails) extensively, like on that Husky 3120 I showed in my recent milling holiday pics. The westford looks like a granberg clone, same overall dimensions, same gauge of steel and Aluminium, and same profile rails etc. On the 3120 the 60" westford mill had one extra cross brace but you are right at these sizes in could use 2. I dunno what it is. When that big husky goes WOT on a big hardwood log the granberg alaskan type mill just shakes and wobbles more than I expect. I won't even say mine is rock solid but it does not feel like it will snap anytime soon but neither if I think about it would the granberg - like you say people have been using them for years and they haven't broken them yet. I am notorious for over engineering almost everything I make which is why I could probably not make as much money as other people on these sorts of things 

The other things on the granberg style mills that are not related to stability that irritate more than anything else include; 
1 the inboard clamp gets in the way of sawdust dispersal and bits of bark and big chips. I can now see the benefit of having a completely clear inboard bar area.
2 the inboard vertical support bogs down into the bark/timber and restricts forward motion when cutting the lower half of the log. I do not like this constant pulling back of the saw to un-bog it, or pushing harder, to make forward progress 
3 The bar has to be removed from the mill to change the chain.
4 After using all-thread adjustment and cam locks for height adjustment, the conventional bolts/clamps arrangement on the standard alaskans seems rather clumsy.
Anyway - these are my preferences and apart from 2) I acknowledge they wont change milling speed much.



> Your going to like that 441. I have an 038m which is within a cc or two of being the same saw. lots of grunt for triming logs. and bucking fire wood. It will pull a 32" bar, well at least on american wood.



I was thinking of putting a 24" bar on it as I have an 066 with a 36"/42" bars to buck up bigger stuff with itwill give it an honest try


----------



## BobL (Jan 30, 2009)

Brmorgan said:


> I haven't done Stihl bars per se, but have done a few single-rivet Oregons. I prefer to just drill the rivet out if possible, or set the rivet over a small gap such as the jaws of a vise 1/2" apart, and give it a good whack with a pin punch. Only problem with the latter method is that you have to know which side of the rivet is the head end. Make sure to get replacement rivets with a new nose, pop 'em in and peen them over with a hammer & you should be good to go.


Thanks Brad. The only bar tips I have changed are the GB ones that use metal tabs which are relatively straight forward. Anyway, your comments gives me the confidence to try the riveted type myself.




> That's a helluva deal you got - I paid way more than that for my used 395 and 36" Alaskan combo. I'm anxious to see how you like the 880 vs your 076 as I've seen that very question raised before. A few more CCs but not quite as torquey - it'll be interesting to see which will serve you better in the big hard stuff you work with all the time.



The 880 has more torque at higher RPM that the 076 so I'm hoping for an overall cutting speed improvement. The 076 also has a number of problems limitations etc I'm looking for the 880 to overcome. Oil Leaks and being able to refuel while it is on its side are a couple I can think of right now.


----------



## BlueRider (Jan 30, 2009)

BobL said:


> 1 the inboard clamp gets in the way of sawdust dispersal and bits of bark and big chips. I can now see the benefit of having a completely clear inboard bar area.
> 2 the inboard vertical support bogs down into the bark/timber and restricts forward motion when cutting the lower half of the log. I do not like this constant pulling back of the saw to un-bog it, or pushing harder, to make forward progress



These are very valid points and ones I too have noticed and spent some time trying to come up with a solution. since I started using a twist tie on the throtle and using my left hand on the upright closest to the mill the inboard verticle support dosen't bog down as much and it is easier to clear it when it does. 

[/QUOTE]
3 The bar has to be removed from the mill to change the chain.
4 After using all-thread adjustment and cam locks for height adjustment, the conventional bolts/clamps arrangement on the standard alaskans seems rather clumsy.
Anyway - these are my preferences and apart from 2) I acknowledge they wont change milling speed much.[/QUOTE]

You are correct about #3 and I saw in the Maloof book he converted his grandberg to mount similar to a yours and then added some coupling buts so he could still use the lower bar clamps to protect the chain when setting the mill on the ground. kind of like having your cake and eating it too. I don't like trying to sharpen the chain while the saw is clamped to the mill and I use a file so I end up unclamping the saw to sharpen. the grandberg is actually very easy to unclamp so for me not being able to take the chain off is a marginal issue.

I don't find the height adjustment on the grandberg clumsy and instead see it as a simple and elligant solution. I like your clamping mechanisim but it needs both ends to move at the same rate or it would bind, hence the allthread. to me that is unnessesary weight

[/QUOTE]
I was thinking of putting a 24" bar on it as I have an 066 with a 36"/42" bars to buck up bigger stuff with itwill give it an honest try[/QUOTE]

I rescently replaced a bent 32" bar on my 038 and came very close to also buying a 20" bar for cutting firewood. I don't like changing bars but yesterday I would have liked having a shorter bar for clearing out the branches. My dad was with me and cutting fire wood with his new 57cc huskey. it sounded really restricted so much so that my 038 was almost 2x as fast. Like I said your going to like that 441.


----------



## Brmorgan (Jan 30, 2009)

BobL said:


> The other things on the granberg style mills that are not related to stability that irritate more than anything else include;
> 1 the inboard clamp gets in the way of sawdust dispersal and bits of bark and big chips. I can now see the benefit of having a completely clear inboard bar area.
> 2 the inboard vertical support bogs down into the bark/timber and restricts forward motion when cutting the lower half of the log. I do not like this constant pulling back of the saw to un-bog it, or pushing harder, to make forward progress
> 3 The bar has to be removed from the mill to change the chain.
> ...



Re: #2 on the list - I picked up an extra post clamp piece (the piece that goes between the U-bolt and the depth post) and am going to build a secondary guide shoe system out of UHMW as I've noticed the same problem. It's especially bothersome with the big Douglas Fir logs that I frequently mill, because their bark can be extremely thick - 6" or more on really big trees - and deeply furrowed, so there are a lot of places that the square corner of the post can hang up on. It's not that easy to hold an 090 back so that the post isn't contacting the bark! At least not for very long, anyway. I should have time to work on that shoe pretty soon, once I do I'll post my progress if it actually works out well. It'll be an extra depth adjustment to make, but hopefully will save enough milling time to be worth it.


----------



## BobL (Jan 30, 2009)

BlueRider said:


> You are correct about #3 and I saw in the Maloof book he converted his grandberg to mount similar to a yours and then added some coupling buts so he could still use the lower bar clamps to protect the chain when setting the mill on the ground. kind of like having your cake and eating it too. I don't like trying to sharpen the chain while the saw is clamped to the mill and I use a file so I end up unclamping the saw to sharpen. the grandberg is actually very easy to unclamp so for me not being able to take the chain off is a marginal issue.


I didn't like to sharpen on the mill either and used to swap out chains to sharpen back at home but when milling big slabs of hard stuff the chain needs touching up (just 2/3 strokes) after every slab, and taking the chain off to do this just takes up too much time. Now I feel quite comfortable sharpening on the mill. Another problem with the granberg design is the tubular handle that runs all the way across the mill is too low, ie close to the mill rail and gets in the way of filing on the mill. One way around this is to increase the cutting thickness of the mill which moves the bar away from the mill but constantly adjusting this back and forth for a simple chain touch up is a right PITA. On my mill the tube handle is about 3" higher than the granberg which less bending over when using the mill and makes it easier to file on the mill

[/QUOTE]I don't find the height adjustment on the grandberg clumsy and instead see it as a simple and elligant solution. I like your clamping mechanisim but it needs both ends to move at the same rate or it would bind, hence the allthread. to me that is unnessesary weight
[/QUOTE]
I agree the granberg adjustment is simple, but I find it awkward to get the exact same height on both sides - I seem to always move it 1/8" over or under what I want. My work around for this is using pairs of wooden blocks of set thicknesses, eg 1/4" 1/2", 1", 2", 3" etc placed between the bar and mill while adjusting the height. This seems to work OK but I can move the allthread height adjustment on my mill independently by about an inch and a half without it binding on the verticals. My height adjustments are a quick flick of the cams, place both hands on the cranks and turn the cranks in synch, counting 20 turns per inch, lock cams. Sure it is a bit slow going from say 1" to 5" but 1" - 2" adjustments are a breeze. Another advantage of the all-thread is they back-up the operator forgetting to tighten the locking (cams or) bolts for the height adjustment on the mill. Yep it's all extra weight but I think it's worth it. If I was going to build another mill, some form of screw based height adjustment would be on my top 10 requirements list.

I guess it all depends on what one is used to.



> I rescently replaced a bent 32" bar on my 038 and came very close to also buying a 20" bar for cutting firewood. I don't like changing bars but yesterday I would have liked having a shorter bar for clearing out the branches. My dad was with me and cutting fire wood with his new 57cc huskey. it sounded really restricted so much so that my 038 was almost 2x as fast. Like I said your going to like that 441.



I don't like having too my different length bars simple because that means needing too many different chain lengths. I have sort of settled on 24, 30, 42 and 60 but in practice I find I would like about 2" more for the first 3 lengths but then probably I would find I would like another 2 more inches etc........


----------



## BobL (Jan 30, 2009)

I don't want to make a big deal out of this but sometimes it's interesting to see something side by side with another. Direct comparisons are limited because one is a custom made device and the other is a commercial design that needs to be kept simple and low cost. 

Here's the 64" BIL lined up side by side with the 56" Granberg.






Here's some detail. The difference in the height of the full length tubular handle above the bar can be seen in this shot.





And here is the X-section of the rails.




BTW both of these profiles are shown in many ally catalogs as standard highway sign profiles. There is not that much of a difference, but my 64" rails cost me US$30 from a local ally supplier whereas here in Oz the 56" granberg rails cost US$140 - ouch!


----------



## irishcountry (Jan 30, 2009)

No doubt Bob you sure did it right thats a tough looking rig. I like the 2 post design on the saw side. I have a GB that has 4 posts but like I mentioned before it also has some shortcomings the major one being the locking mechanism for the posts it rattles loose and is at the least annoying but I will say its a hunk of metal for sure!! I can see why some appreciate the simpler design of the granberg too and i'm sure for some it has worked out well in truth I have thought that maybe I should have went that route too after fighting with the GB. One day I will mod it some but now is not the time its half way there at least if theres a brightside!!?? Your design looks like you pulled out all the stops and you could run it over and still go mill some wood!! Thanks for all the pics very nice stuff you guys have on your side of the pond. I won't ramble any longer its Fri. and time for a "barley pop" or two so CHEERS irishcountry


----------



## BobL (Jan 31, 2009)

Cheers IC, 

The 2, 3 and 4 post mills all have their advantages and disadvantages. 

The two post mills have the greatest potential ability to negotiate around obstacles but much of this is lost if bar clamps are used since clamps and accompanying skids effectively lengthen the gap through which the log as to pass and makes a mill narrower for negotiating any curves or bumps. In terms of greatest maneuverability using a drilled bar and very short skids would be the best but like the standard clamping system this also reduces cutting length. 

4 post mills potentially provide the greatest stability but if they clamp direct to the bar they have the same problems as 2 post mills with wide skids. If the 2 inboard posts are connected to the saw via the bar bolts instead of standard inboard clamps some gain in cutting length is obtained. But the problem on the outboard clamps still remains.

This is why I went with 3 posts. The two inboard posts are like the GB, ie mill connected to the bar bolts. These posts are set as far back as possible so the full length of the bar can be use. At the outboard end a single nose clamp with narrow skids probides good maneuverability around objects.

Are we nit picking yet or splitting hairs yet?  you bet, but isn't much of what goes on here in that category.



irishcountry said:


> I won't ramble any longer its Fri. and time for a "barley pop" or two so CHEERS irishcountry



I just had a couple myself, If you have one for me, I'll have one for you


----------



## irishcountry (Jan 31, 2009)

Yep had on for you last night!! Cheers back at ya! Have a good weekend and enjoy that nice weather---irishcountry


----------



## cjtreeclimber (Jul 3, 2012)

I'd like that 088 in my collection. Make my cs 8000 look small


----------

