# is this snap-cut technique acceptable?



## Plasmech (Oct 23, 2009)

Say I want to snap-cut a fairly large diameter branch or part of one. I'm worried about getting the saw pinched. So, I plunge cut into the branch at the desired under-cut depth and come "down" to about an inch away from the bottom. I then rev the saw and come up underneath to clip the remaining inch out. Then I back cut the "top" and away she goes.

Is this a good idea or a really, really bad one? Thanks!


----------



## blewgrass (Oct 23, 2009)

you'll get pinched finishing your bottom cut.


----------



## tree md (Oct 23, 2009)

Yup, I agree, a pinched saw would likely be your result. I mainly use snap cuts for chunking the spar.


----------



## tree md (Oct 23, 2009)

For what it's worth plas, I generally refer to a snap cut as a spar cut where I make a face cut a couple inches into the tree, make a back cut until the chunk starts to sit down on my bar, then pull my saw out of the tree and break the chunk over. I refer to the cuts I make on limbs when I am trying to get a little direction or flat drop one as a compression cut. Not sure if it is the right terminology or not. I mainly use compression cuts to flat drop limbs out of habit. Not really necessary with a 200T as it will cut through the limb fast enough to drop it flat without an undercut.


----------



## beastmaster (Oct 23, 2009)

I don't think you need to undercut it so much that you'd have to use a plunge cut. I like the snap cut when it works. Its really embarrassing to get a saw pinched doing that undercut, but it can be dangerous if the saw sticks in the downward cut and wants to go down with the branch, that sometimes happens on snap-cutting big branches if not careful.


----------



## Plasmech (Oct 23, 2009)

beastmaster said:


> I don't think you need to undercut it so much that you'd have to use a plunge cut. I like the snap cut when it works. Its really embarrassing to get a saw pinched doing that undercut, but it can be dangerous if the saw sticks in the downward cut and wants to go down with the branch, that sometimes happens on snap-cutting big branches if not careful.



I try to do a deep undercut in worry that I could get a partial barber-chair if it's too shallow.


----------



## Jovary (Oct 23, 2009)

why not cut perpendicularly to the fall. No top cut and bottom cut, 2 side cuts that way theres enough holding wood to keep it from pinching and snapping prematurely. Then you can just shake the piece it off laterally


----------



## outofmytree (Oct 24, 2009)

Plasmech said:


> Say I want to snap-cut a fairly large diameter branch or part of one. I'm worried about getting the saw pinched. So, I plunge cut into the branch at the desired under-cut depth and come "down" to about an inch away from the bottom. I then rev the saw and come up underneath to clip the remaining inch out. Then I back cut the "top" and away she goes.
> 
> Is this a good idea or a really, really bad one? Thanks!



A snap cut, consisting of an under cut 1/3 diameter and a top cut of 2/3 diameter is either inbound or outbound. Use the inbound cut to remove branch weight without trapping your saw before finishing the branch to collar as per standards.








Hope this helps.


----------



## outofmytree (Oct 24, 2009)

Jovary said:


> why not cut perpendicularly to the fall. No top cut and bottom cut, 2 side cuts that way theres enough holding wood to keep it from pinching and snapping prematurely. Then you can just shake the piece it off laterally



Not a good idea Jovary. Stick with under and over cuts and if the branch must be controlled rather than dropped then rig it down.


----------



## SINGLE-JACK (Oct 24, 2009)

A while back, SherrillTree sent out a mailer that included an illustration recommending a "new" method for "snap cutting" limbs. 

*Apparently under certain conditions the popular method of 'by-passing' the cuts can create a notch which could pinch the chainsaw such that the saw would be trapped in the falling limb. * If that should happen, it's easy to imagine the hazard to the climber (not to mention the saw) - especially if a break-away saw lanyard was not used.

*So, the new recommendation showed making the bottom cut and the top cuts in-line so no notch was created to grab the saw with the falling limb.*

I've asked Sherrill, on their forum, to post the illustration. I've never had a saw trapped that way but *kudos (again) to Sherrill for pointing out a potential safety issue.*

Anyway, beware - be safe.
Jack


----------



## tree md (Oct 24, 2009)

SINGLE-JACK said:


> A while back, SherrillTree sent out a mailer that included an illustration recommending a "new" method for "snap cutting" limbs.
> 
> *Apparently under certain conditions the popular method of 'by-passing' the cuts can create a notch which could pinch the chainsaw such that the saw would be trapped in the falling limb. * If that should happen, it's easy to imagine the hazard to the climber (not to mention the saw) - especially if a break-away saw lanyard was not used.
> 
> ...



I have never had my saw caught with an outbound cut (according to outofmytree's diagram) but I have had it caught with an inbound cut. For what it's worth.


----------



## treeclimber101 (Oct 25, 2009)

A snap cut is the proper pruning cut as well . to prevent tearing the bottom of the branch collar. The snap cut is the only way I deal with trunk wood , it's safe and very manageable when dealing with a leaning tree


----------



## lego1970 (Oct 25, 2009)

I've always considered a snap cut to be when you are chunking out pieces of wood by cutting perpendicular and/or on both sides of the limb slightly overlapping the cuts. Then you put your saw away, and with a little wiggle or push with the hand, it snaps off, hence the name snap cut. That only works on pieces that you can handle, but it allows you to throw the piece any where you want. Otherwise if I'm just dropping a limb I make an undercut, then the top cut a couple inches out. If it's a big limb, then I make the top cut directly over the undercut so the bar doesn't get caught in the kerf, (which I've seen a guy loose his saw that way). I never really considered cutting it that way to have a name, just that's the way you do it, so you don't peel off the bottom. I always thought if you reverse the cuts, make a undercut then make the top cut a couple inches in, it was considered a jump cut but I've never messed with that, so I'm not sure about the jump cut stuff. Then there is the hinge cut where you just slowly make a top cut. That's how I've always interpet it, and only called a snap cut where you snap the branch with two perpendicular cuts. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that's how I've always made my cuts (depending on branch size, type of tree, etc, etc.) and how I've called it.


----------



## capetrees (Oct 25, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> A snap cut, consisting of an under cut 1/3 diameter and a top cut of 2/3 diameter is either inbound or outbound. Use the inbound cut to remove branch weight without trapping your saw before finishing the branch to collar as per standards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I always use the outbound snapcut as described but make the undercut first and back from the overcut by 3-4". That way the branch won't strip out the bark underneath and a clean flush cut follows after the branch drops. Avoid the pinch by cutting the underside first.


----------



## beastmaster (Oct 25, 2009)

I have always used the in-bound cut, but I think I'll try the out-bound cut the next time I need a snap cut if it decreases the chance of it grabbing the saw. Doing your top cut over your undercut as recommended by sherrill, I wonder if you'd still get that snap effect? The 1/3 undercut rule can't always be done if the branch is really long with lot of end weight( I,m thinking coulter pine) I some time use a narrow wedge for my bottom cut on really large long branches with lots of end weight .


----------



## Jovary (Oct 25, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> Not a good idea Jovary. Stick with under and over cuts and if the branch must be controlled rather than dropped then rig it down.



Why is this no good? This is what I've always referred to as a snap-cut. Maybe my definition is wrong but its seems Lego is talking about the same way. I'm not suggesting this is the only way, but it definitely has its place. Obviously you can't always cut at the 90 degrees but the more vertical it is the less chance it will hinge and snap on its own. I find that if i have a 4 foot stub that is tossable and I have a safe target this is the best method.


----------



## randyg (Oct 25, 2009)

Jovary said:


> why not cut perpendicularly to the fall. No top cut and bottom cut, 2 side cuts that way theres enough holding wood to keep it from pinching and snapping prematurely. Then you can just shake the piece it off laterally



This works very well, but not usually for an entire limb. The more vertical the limb, the better it works.

I think Plas is talking about either entire or large part of "larger" diameter horizontal limbs.

Now I know that the MS200T is about "THE MOST POWERFUL TOP HANDLE SAW KNOWN TO MAN" but it still can NOT out cut the barber split on larger dia. say 10" and up limbs most of the time.

If you don't want to call up a bigger saw just yet, here is a way to pull it off with that top handle. On 10" dia. limb, under cut around 3 inches. (Sometimes I will cut 2 inches and then quickly drop the bar out of the cut. If the end of the limb holds steady, I'll get back in the kerf and get another half inch and then drop back out again, checking the limb for movement. Once the tip drops a bit, stay out of that undercut or you WILL get stuck) Then go directly above that undercut with a plunge cut, leaving an inch or two of wood between cuts, and also leaving that last 2 inches or so on the top. (You now have tension on that top strap, and compression on the bottom strip.) At full RPMs, cut from the top down. The top strap will pop, and about the time your saw hits that bottom strip, compression wood turns into tension and with very little cutting it too will pop. Bit of an adrenaline rush the first couple times you get this to work right. Good cut to have in the 'bag of tricks'.

Don't try this with a dull or loose chain.

ENJOY!

randy


----------



## outofmytree (Oct 26, 2009)

Jovary said:


> Why is this no good? This is what I've always referred to as a snap-cut. Maybe my definition is wrong but its seems Lego is talking about the same way. I'm not suggesting this is the only way, but it definitely has its place. Obviously you can't always cut at the 90 degrees but the more vertical it is the less chance it will hinge and snap on its own. I find that if i have a 4 foot stub that is tossable and I have a safe target this is the best method.



Assuming we are talking about a horizontal limb like the ones I drew previously, vertical cuts on this sort of limb create a vertical hinge. Firstly this hinge will either close toward or away from you and can easily pinch your chainsaw bar. Secondly if you successfully join the two cuts and the branch does break you have a much greater chance of bark tearing inward towards the trunk as the action will be more a tearing away rather than snapping. Thirdly it is much more difficult to make vertical cuts on horizontal branches and still keep the saw between your shoulder and your knee where you are strongest and safest. 

I hope this answers your questions Jovary.


----------



## Plasmech (Oct 26, 2009)

randyg said:


> This works very well, but not usually for an entire limb. The more vertical the limb, the better it works.
> 
> I think Plas is talking about either entire or large part of "larger" diameter horizontal limbs.
> 
> ...



Thanks for all the replies guys. Yes Randy, I was talking about let's say for example a 12" diameter branch shooting off at a 90ish degree angle to a very large tree. Lot of wood, lot of forces to recon with.


----------



## outofmytree (Oct 26, 2009)

beastmaster said:


> I have always used the in-bound cut, but I think I'll try the out-bound cut the next time I need a snap cut if it decreases the chance of it grabbing the saw.



Taking aside personal experience for a moment, the reason an inbound cut reduces the risk of having the branch take your saw is that should the gap between cuts be too large then the branch MAY break as shown below on an outbound cut.






The issue is the gap between cuts. Keep this gap say less than 1/10th the branch diameter and gravity will do the work for you. 

IMO if you are removing branches of 12" diameter or more then a scarf on the lower side is a better choice than a step cut. Even a wedge of 15 degrees will give you more control over fall and ensure you have time to remove the saw before it can become stuck.


----------



## Plasmech (Oct 26, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> What is being discussed here is not even called a snap cut! We've got off on the wrong foot, IMO.
> 
> Here's what I posted in another thread. The purpose of a snap cut is to hold the piece in place until the climber shakes it and it snaps....allowing the climber to toss or push the piece the direction they want it to go.
> 
> http://arboristsite.com/showpost.php?p=1790561&postcount=6



Hmm I really thought it was called a snap cut. OK well then what is the "instant release" cut I speak about called?


----------



## Plasmech (Oct 26, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> ....and this cut I'd call 'if I ever pulled a cut out of my ass, cut'.
> 
> 
> 
> /



It's kind of like the forum is a big game of musical chairs. The music however stopped a long, long time ago and you're the only one standing without a chair, still.


----------



## tree MDS (Oct 26, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> I've heard the term 'pop cut' called that because of the way it releases.
> 
> 
> If you were doing the cutting though I'd call it 'the theoretical if I ever were to cut a branch in a tree' cut.



Lol. Be nice to your grandson treeco.


----------



## lego1970 (Oct 26, 2009)

I'm with TreeCo and Jovary on this one, but for the sake of compromise, lets call this cut a inoutunderabovesidebysidebore1/3rd,1/10th,25% snap cut. Yea, something like that.


----------



## tree MDS (Oct 26, 2009)

lego1970 said:


> I'm with TreeCo and Jovary on this one, but for the sake of compromise, lets call this cut a inoutunderabovesidebysidebore1/3rd,1/10th,25% snap cut. Yea, something like that.



How about "jump cut", havent heard that one for a while.

Pop cut is good too.


----------



## lego1970 (Oct 26, 2009)

tree MDS said:


> How about "jump cut", havent heard that one for a while.
> 
> Pop cut is good too.




Damn, did I forget to include those? I'm slacking


----------



## tree md (Oct 26, 2009)

In reference to the limb peeling or tearing. I never cut a limb close enough to the trunk for that to be a concern. On large limbs I will cut them about 4 feet out then make a collar cut on the stub. If I am lowering a limb from over the house I will either take the limb in small enough pieces to not risk damage to the house and lower them from the limb itself or from a preset lowering point or I will balance it out with two ropes or two chokers if I'm using a crane. On smaller limbs I will make my cut about a foot out from the trunk and finish with a collar cut at the trunk.


----------



## Jovary (Oct 26, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> Assuming we are talking about a horizontal limb like the ones I drew previously, vertical cuts on this sort of limb create a vertical hinge. Firstly this hinge will either close toward or away from you and can easily pinch your chainsaw bar. Secondly if you successfully join the two cuts and the branch does break you have a much greater chance of bark tearing inward towards the trunk as the action will be more a tearing away rather than snapping. Thirdly it is much more difficult to make vertical cuts on horizontal branches and still keep the saw between your shoulder and your knee where you are strongest and safest.



Makes sense. I agree with the safety precautions. I feel like I'm safe enough doing it this way so I cant say Ill change my method that much but Ill keep those things in mind.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 26, 2009)

*Plasmech, use this:*

Popcut=jump cut

Undercut the horizontal limb deeply until it begins to close the gap. _STOP CUTTING BEFORE YOU PINCH THE SAW!!_

Then finish with your top cut, straight down to the undercut. If you really want to make sure that the butt falls faster than the leafy outer branches, you can taper your cuts so that the butt fall directly down without sliding or hanging up on any part of the stub.

If you really want to be extreme with this cut, ream the cut with your saw as the gap begins to close, so that you can finish the cut (unpinched) by lifting the undercut through the branch until it separates. Wedges can help do this without as much risk of pinching, but you will be chasing the wedge when it falls out of the tree.


----------



## TreEmergencyB (Oct 26, 2009)

lego1970 said:


> Damn, did I forget to include those? I'm slacking



comon guys its a Shelf cut....i heard that before too.


----------



## SINGLE-JACK (Oct 26, 2009)

Plasmech said:


> Say I want to snap-cut a fairly large diameter branch or part of one. I'm worried about getting the saw pinched. So, I plunge cut into the branch at the desired under-cut depth and come "down" to about an inch away from the bottom. I then rev the saw and come up underneath to clip the remaining inch out. Then I back cut the "top" and away she goes.
> 
> Is this a good idea or a really, really bad one? Thanks!





TreeCo said:


> What is being discussed here is not even called a snap cut! We've got off on the wrong foot, IMO.
> 
> Here's what I posted in another thread. The purpose of a snap cut is to hold the piece in place until the climber shakes it and it snaps....allowing the climber to toss or push the piece the direction they want it to go.
> 
> http://arboristsite.com/showpost.php?p=1790561&postcount=6





Plasmech said:


> Hmm I really thought it was called a snap cut. OK well then what is the "instant release" cut I speak about called?



From _To Fell A Tree _- Jeff Jepson





Illustration by Bryan Kotwica

*REGARDLESS of what it's called ...
"Snap Cut" ... "Pop Cut" ... "Jump Cut" ... "'instant release' cut" ... "cut out of my ass, cut" ... 

If you turn Jeff's Snap Cut on its side you get the risky cut Sherrill is recommending NOT to make.*






If you make the "new" cuts as shown in Sherrills illustration (and everything is perfect) the limb will break loose ("snap"?) and drop fairly horizontally. If the bottom (up cut) is made like and open face scarf cut then the limb will "hinge" down (not "snap"?) and drop fairly vertically. That is, if everything is PERFECT and you climb down happily, get paid a lot of money, go home drink a lot of beer and make a lot of AboristSite posts about how cool it all is.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Oct 27, 2009)

If you do the 'outbound' or the olde way (that i was taught never to do 20 yrs. ago); at finish; the saw is in the moving piece of wood (as shown in the drawing by out of my tree). Sherill i believe had another illustration calling such a "saw catcher".

It takes a quick hand, pulling out at a rotating angle, to retrieve expen$ive saw from a 'saw catcher', before it is taken away with the limb. It is a good practice on the ground also; when bucking, to appraise as to what piece is going to move at finish of cuts, and not have the saw in it at finish(IMLHO).

i originally/locally L-earned that a snap cut was when the limb slammed shut, then snapped/popped off; and dropped straight down, maybe popped out away some (from the sudden slam down) as a snap cut(as opposed to limb kicking back more towards trunk than away); and the other way was that you cut it and you snapped it off by hand. But, once hitting the internet, and the confusion; i yielded to the majority...


----------



## arbor pro (Oct 27, 2009)

TheTreeSpyder said:


> If you do the 'outbound' or the olde way (that i was taught never to do 20 yrs. ago); at finish; the saw is in the moving piece of wood (as shown in the drawing by out of my tree). Sherill i believe had another illustration calling such a "saw catcher".
> 
> It takes a quick hand, pulling out at a rotating angle, to retrieve expen$ive saw from a 'saw catcher', before it is taken away with the limb. It is a good practice on the ground also; when bucking, to appraise as to what piece is going to move at finish of cuts, and not have the saw in it at finish(IMLHO).
> 
> i originally/locally L-earned that a snap cut was when the limb slammed shut, then snapped/popped off; and dropped straight down, maybe popped out away some (from the sudden slam down) as a snap cut(as opposed to limb kicking back more towards trunk than away); and the other way was that you cut it and you snapped it off by hand. But, once hitting the internet, and the confusion; i yielded to the majority...



'Jump cut' was the term I was taught in arboriculture school. As Spyder pointed out, the reason for either the 'inbound' or 'outbound' cuts is final placement of the branch once it releases or snaps away. If your top cut is further out on the limb than your undercut, the branch will tend to jump inward towards the trunk of the tree. This cut works well when the drop zone is minimal and when the branch being cut does not have too much weight hanging on it. In my experience, it has a tendency to grab the saw just as Spyder mentioned.

If the top cut is closer in than the undercut, the branch will tend to jump outward away from the tree. This works well if you want to get the branch away from the DZ - perhaps to clear plants or a sidewalk below. I have the fewest instances of pinching a saw when using this cut.

Each species and density of wood is going to react differently using each type of cut so there is no hard rule of thumb for using them. However, as a guideline, I usually make my top cut about 2" in front or behind my undercut which is usually about 1/4 to 1/3 the diameter of the branch (less for big wood, sometimes more for small wood).


----------

