# Does anyone know the price of the new(ish) Baker 3638G mill?



## Coalsmoke (Nov 13, 2009)

Just thought I'd see if anyone has a somewhat recent pricelist from Baker and knows what their 3638G is going for?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## log master (Jan 3, 2010)

*Baker 3638G*

The Baker 3638G list price is $26,500 and $28,400 with a debarker. They will not put set works on this mill so that is the only real option available. If you call them they will send a video and give you a list of mills near you or phone #'s of people with that mill. My neighbor bought the first one they ever built. He had it for 2 months before he went to a show and saw the 3665D operate. He traded the 3638G in and bought the 3665D with the cummins, debarker and set works. I would love to own either mill. The list price on the 3665D is $41,900 with no options by the way.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 3, 2010)

Speaking of Baker, does anyone know how much the smaller 18HD sells for?

The 3638 is too expensive for my blood at this time...


----------



## Ted J (Jan 3, 2010)

TraditionalTool said:


> Speaking of Baker, does anyone know how much the smaller 18HD sells for?
> 
> The 3638 is too expensive for my blood at this time...



If I remember right the base price is $10,800.


----------



## log master (Jan 4, 2010)

*model 18*

That's right the 18D is $10,800 and another $1,600 for the power head option.
The 18M with the removable axle is $8,900, but it has a 2 piece track that's 2x4 tube instead of the 2x6 tube on the 18D.


----------



## Coalsmoke (Jan 4, 2010)

Thank you for the numbers. Those Bakers are more affordable than I would have thought. I'm just working up a revision to the business plan, looking at options, one of them being the WM LT40 super, but that big diesel Baker looks like it would eat a 40 for breakfast.


----------



## log master (Jan 4, 2010)

I saw the baker first and seeing a WM LT40 super made me laugh out loud. It is so impressive compared to the cantilever. The 4 post head is like 3x3 tube. They will set the mill to run on 1 1/4, 1 1/2, or 2 inch blades. My neighbor has it set up for 1 1/4 blades because he likes the price of the cheaper blades. If you talk to anyone at baker though they will tell you the mill cuts much better with 1 1/2 blades. Have you looked at the logmaster LM4. It weighs 1,000 lbs more, has more hp (85 hp cummins), and is cheaper than the Baker. Also it comes with a simple photo electric setworks included. There is a 90 day wait for them to build it, but I think it would be worth it.


----------



## Coalsmoke (Jan 4, 2010)

log master said:


> I saw the baker first and seeing a WM LT40 super made me laugh out loud. It is so impressive compared to the cantilever. The 4 post head is like 3x3 tube. They will set the mill to run on 1 1/4, 1 1/2, or 2 inch blades. My neighbor has it set up for 1 1/4 blades because he likes the price of the cheaper blades. If you talk to anyone at baker though they will tell you the mill cuts much better with 1 1/2 blades. Have you looked at the logmaster LM4. It weighs 1,000 lbs more, has more hp (85 hp cummins), and is cheaper than the Baker. Also it comes with a simple photo electric setworks included. There is a 90 day wait for them to build it, but I think it would be worth it.



No I haven't but I will look into them now that you mentioned it. Thank you. I don't have a problem with the cantilevered head if its works as its supposed to, but I watched a 28 and a lt40 run and the 28 with the newer head design was a wobbler, the 40 was good though, much more solid. What concerns me is that I hear that the lt70 has the same head design as the 28 and the same issue.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 4, 2010)

Ted J said:


> If I remember right the base price is $10,800.


Thanks Ted, seems they are just a bit more than the Cooks MP-32. Both look kinda similar to me.


log master said:


> That's right the 18D is $10,800 and another $1,600 for the power head option.
> The 18M with the removable axle is $8,900, but it has a 2 piece track that's 2x4 tube instead of the 2x6 tube on the 18D.


The Cooks MP-32 uses 3x6 tubing. I have only looked at the Baker 18HD briefly, it looks stout enough, though.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 4, 2010)

Coalsmoke said:


> No I haven't but I will look into them now that you mentioned it. Thank you. I don't have a problem with the cantilevered head if its works as its supposed to, but I watched a 28 and a lt40 run and the 28 with the newer head design was a wobbler, the 40 was good though, much more solid. What concerns me is that I hear that the lt70 has the same head design as the 28 and the same issue.


One thing to remember is that there are a lot of satisfied owners of Woodmizer saws out there, and they seem to accepted as being about minimal in quality to look for.

I was looking for a used LT-15, it has a semi-cantilever head, but people cut tons of great wood on them.

When you say "wobbler", did it actually leave a non-straight cut? Or was it just that if you wanted to lean on the head you could make it move? Curious, since the LT-28 is a similar setup as the LT-40, AFAIK. In a way the Woodmizers have set the standards.

Somewhere, there was an LT-28 owner that was really happy with his saw. Could have been over on another forum before the Grandmother that runs it banned me for having my own opinions that were different from hers.

BTW, have you looked at the Cooks AC36?


----------



## Coalsmoke (Jan 4, 2010)

The 28 and 40 have different head structures in my opinion. Not saying the 28 is a bad mill, just very surprised how much the new ones bounce. 

Th Cooks AC3651 looks like a nice machine, but after looking at the specs of a Logmaster LM4, I'd really like to see one of those in person over a Cooks (sorry Cooks).


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 4, 2010)

Coalsmoke said:


> The 28 and 40 have different head structures in my opinion. Not saying the 28 is a bad mill, just very surprised how much the new ones bounce.
> 
> Th Cooks AC3651 looks like a nice machine, but after looking at the specs of a Logmaster LM4, I'd really like to see one of those in person over a Cooks (sorry Cooks).


Coal, no reason to apologize to Cooks, I haven't really checked out the Logmaster too much but was just over there and the LM15 looks like a decent alternative for me as well. It has 30" wheels on it which sounds nice, the Cooks MP-32 only has 19" wheels. The LM1 is similar to the MP-32 as it has 19" wheels, but the bed is slightly less at 3x3 tubing. Cooks uses 3x6.

BTW, I have NO affiliation with any of these companies, and just a potential customer. I will look into the Logmaster stuff some more, thanks for pointing them out!


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 4, 2010)

Coalsmoke said:


> but after looking at the specs of a Logmaster LM4, I'd really like to see one of those in person over a Cooks (sorry Cooks).


I see they have a special on the LM4, get an engine upgrade for free.

I must say, the LM15 does look good for me, and even the LM1 could work.

I just got off the phone with Herman at Logmaster. Their prices are better than Cooks in most regards, and the units look heftier.

(just in case others are interested)

LM1 w/trailer (price INCLUDES shipping)
$6255 - 13HP Generac
$7300 - 25HP Kohler
$8595 - 30HP Kohler

LM1 ground mount version (price INCLUDES shipping)
$4155 - 13HP Generac
$5200 - 25HP Kohler
$6495 - 30HP Kohler

LM15 w/trailer
$11500 - 25HP Kohler
$11900 - 30HP Kohler (just $400 upgrade)

LM16-25J (same headrig/extensions as LM2/LM4/LM5)
$15500 - 25HP Kohler (basically $4k more than the LM15)


----------



## log master (Jan 4, 2010)

When I talked to Logmaster last summer they sent me a 10% off the purchase of a mill if you pick it up at the factory. Business is business and I would ask them to give me the 10% even though the deal ran out. All the Logmaster mills have the photoelctric set works with 14 presets. It uses a laser and holes in a black board. All their mills have the siding maker built into them also. The LM16-25J uses the same frame as the big mills and you can add hydraulic bed features in the future. Their mills are all clean side cut mills also just like Cooks and Baker. The LM4 is 37.5' long 8.5' wide 11.5' tall and weighs 7500lbs! The Logmaster edger weighs more than an LT40. When I build something if I have the choice between 1/4 and 3/8 I use 1/2 plate, but that's just me.


----------



## Coalsmoke (Jan 4, 2010)

log master said:


> When I talked to Logmaster last summer they sent me a 10% off the purchase of a mill if you pick it up at the factory. Business is business and I would ask them to give me the 10% even though the deal ran out. All the Logmaster mills have the photoelctric set works with 14 presets. It uses a laser and holes in a black board. All their mills have the siding maker built into them also. The LM16-25J uses the same frame as the big mills and you can add hydraulic bed features in the future. Their mills are all clean side cut mills also just like Cooks and Baker. The LM4 is 37.5' long 8.5' wide 11.5' tall and weighs 7500lbs! The Logmaster edger weighs more than an LT40. When I build something if I have the choice between 1/4 and 3/8 I use 1/2 plate, but that's just me.



This is a tough industry, it is tough on men and equipment. I used to work for a company running a saw and then later an excavator in a forestry environment and it is amazing what will break thanks to the weight of wood.


----------



## log master (Jan 4, 2010)

Have you looked at the Turner mill? It's not really in the same category as a Logmaster, but it is very innovative. Think of it like what you would build if you wanted to keep it simple. It uses tires to drive the band and all off the shelf parts. It gets hard to justify a big mill when the fully hydraulic Turner is $14,500. It's super simple, but since I feel like I could build one myself That doesn't bother me. My first mill was a Norwood and I learned a lot with it, but now I am ready for something hydraulic. I guess you have to ask yourself do you want to make boards or payments? I would love to saw full time, but would much rather spend my days on the farm with my kids.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 4, 2010)

log master said:


> It uses tires to drive the band and all off the shelf parts.


I certainly can't say if that is better or not, I am not very fond of tires for the wheels. On the site it says "more forgiving", but what does that mean? It sounds as if the blade will deflect easier to me. He uses 20" tires. The Logmaster LM15 uses 30" wheels, that seems like a slight edge, but probably requires longer blades but that doesn't cost much more. For a full hydraulic mill, the price is cheap though, I agree with you. The Cooks MP-32 is only $12,587 when fully outfitted with Hydaulics, and the Logmaster seems like the prices are lower than Cooks.


log master said:


> My first mill was a Norwood and I learned a lot with it, but now I am ready for something hydraulic.


Are you looking to sell your Norwood?


----------



## Coalsmoke (Jan 4, 2010)

T.Tool, I will say this, when it comes to bandmills, precision matters. You will be kicking yourself if you have to deal with something that is cobbled together or is of poor design.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 4, 2010)

Coalsmoke said:


> T.Tool, I will say this, when it comes to bandmills, precision matters. You will be kicking yourself if you have to deal with something that is cobbled together or is of poor design.


Coal,

Do you mean in regards to using tires for the wheels?


----------



## Coalsmoke (Jan 5, 2010)

TraditionalTool said:


> Coal,
> 
> Do you mean in regards to using tires for the wheels?



I mean this in every aspect of the mill. Whether the bed sags under a 4500lb log, or the blade tracking system sucks, or the band wheels are untrue, etc etc. Band mills work under close tolerances. From the set in the blade, to the saw assembly to the carriage and bed assembly, it all counts. Any one major design flaw is enough to discount a machine from a potential lineup of choices. 

As for using tires in place of proper band wheels, I think its a poor idea.


----------



## mountainlake (Jan 5, 2010)

The new Timberking B2000 looks like a good mill for $22500

All of the goodies, 32" between the guide rollers, No 100 chain turner, computer setworks and it's built simple with a lot of over the counter parts unlike some mills that are over engineered and complicated. Steve


----------



## Can8ianTimber (Jan 5, 2010)

I like the B2000 but I don't know why it is so much better than the 1600. You can get the 1600 for 15k and add hyd log turner and log loader for 2k. So having the computer set works would be nice and a couple other options but it does not seem to be worth the price dif. 

It does not seem to add up to me.


----------



## mountainlake (Jan 5, 2010)

I think the B2000 is built a little heavier , also by the time you add all the hydraulics and computer setworks the price would be close. The 1600 is a nice but but after running a B20 for 7000 hours I'm spoiled and the B2000 is a much improved mill at a great price. Besides the hydraulic feed and up and down the 2000 will have the loader, chain turner, toe boards ( Wouldn't be without them) log stops up and down, 2 plane clamp and the setworks which really speeds things up. I think to get that other brand with all the features and capacity it would cost well over $30000. Steve


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 5, 2010)

Coalsmoke said:


> I mean this in every aspect of the mill. Whether the bed sags under a 4500lb log, or the blade tracking system sucks, or the band wheels are untrue, etc etc. Band mills work under close tolerances. From the set in the blade, to the saw assembly to the carriage and bed assembly, it all counts. Any one major design flaw is enough to discount a machine from a potential lineup of choices.
> 
> As for using tires in place of proper band wheels, I think its a poor idea.


Coal,

I agree, but was just not sure what you were referencing specifically in this thread. Most of the logs I'm working with are 28' and 32' long, since that is the size of my house. The logs are 16"/24" tip to butt, and weigh approx 3,000-4,000 lbs. This is with the sides milled off, they are 8" thick.

So, yes I agree with what you say.

My logs have had the sides milled off them already, but in the future I would like to be able to do the same thing to do.

I used a heft mill that was built by an Amish guy, which has a 30HP diesel engine on it. This is what the results look like:







On this home I have the wall logs all milled, but I still need the rafters (6x10 doug fir is spec'd by the structural engineer), and I also need the rafters for the porches also, the t&g for the ceiling and inside walls, 2x6 t&g for the 2nd floor, etc...as you probably know there is a lot of wood in a home.

This is what drove me to start looking for a mill. Truth be told, the biggest factor for this type of work is the length that the mill can handle, 32' is pretty long for most sawmills.

The above picture was the work I completed last May/June, and I just got the timber out west, and working to get it setup soon.

Here's what I would like to be able to do, produce these type of logs, the top 2 logs were done last May/June, but the 4 underneath are 28 footers. Those top logs are a part of what you see in the top pic.






Weight is an important factor.


----------



## log master (Jan 5, 2010)

Sorry I sold my Norwood mill before we moved last year. (900 miles one way) As for the Cooks MP32 there is no hydraulics it is all electric options. Have you looked at the MSG mills. They have a sawhead that spins around and cuts both ways. You can even set it so it cuts siding in both directions. They have electric chain log turner and clamp set up on the bed. You run it with a joystick that looks like it cam straight off a fisher v plow. It drives with electric and will stop itself after the cut and even has set works. It looks good if your going to be stationary.


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 5, 2010)

log master said:


> Sorry I sold my Norwood mill before we moved last year. (900 miles one way) As for the Cooks MP32 there is no hydraulics it is all electric options. Have you looked at the MSG mills. They have a sawhead that spins around and cuts both ways. You can even set it so it cuts siding in both directions. They have electric chain log turner and clamp set up on the bed. You run it with a joystick that looks like it cam straight off a fisher v plow. It drives with electric and will stop itself after the cut and even has set works. It looks good if your going to be stationary.


Ah, I hadn't realized that on the Cooks, but good point, electric vs. hydraulic. That slipped by me. I haven't looked at the MSG mills.


Coalsmoke said:


> I mean this in every aspect of the mill. Whether the bed sags under a 4500lb log, or the blade tracking system sucks, or the band wheels are untrue, etc etc.


Coal,

Been thinking about this today, and this was one of the reasons I had been shying away from some of the sawmills that use angle iron for the bed. It seems that having tubing is much stronger, even if the angle iron is welded to the top of it. All angle iron is not created equal either.

In that regards, several of the sawmills mentioned in this thread have stronger beds, like the Bakers, Cooks, and Logmaster. The Logmaster uses pretty hefty tubing for the bottom of the trailers.

Would appreciate any advice on working with logs as I'm working with, mostly in the 3000-6000 lb. range, the higher being before milling the sides off, and the lower being after the sides are milled flat.

For discussion, I saw a thread here where SawyerRob bent the cross member on his Norwood mill, and potentially these logs could do more damage than the smaller log he was working with. Maybe the Norwood bed is too light for this type of work?


----------



## Coalsmoke (Jan 6, 2010)

Actually, it was on my mill that I bent that bunk. I am using my LM2000 in a commercial application. Does it work, yes, is it ideal, no. I'm sawing 10 - 15,000 board feet a month on my Norwood LM2000, which is more than most Norwood owners put on in a year. I am convinced that the Norwood is a good homeowner mill, equal to any manual mill in its class. I had a real heavy log with a knot protruding from it and bent the bunk when I turned it as the 3000 lb log was pushing down on that one bunk. It has been a month and a half since I contacted Norwood and they have yet to give me an answer on whether this is a warranty item, since its a new bunk and the only one that has bent, all the old bunks have been fine with previous knots and large logs, sort of seems like the steel quality may have gone down over the last couple years. I suspect they hope I will not pursue this further, and honestly, I don't have the time to worry about it much more.

In regards to metal strength, my previous business was a metal fab company, and what most people know is that square tubing is stronger than angle or channel due to its design properties, but what most people do not realize, is that square tube also uses stronger steel (16,000psi higher tensile strength), so square tube over channel or angle iron frames can really be a big deal. 





TraditionalTool said:


> Ah, I hadn't realized that on the Cooks, but good point, electric vs. hydraulic. That slipped by me. I haven't looked at the MSG mills.
> 
> Coal,
> 
> ...


----------



## TraditionalTool (Jan 7, 2010)

Coalsmoke said:


> Actually, it was on my mill that I bent that bunk.


My bad, I thought it was SawyerRob.

I just got the brochure from Logmaster today. Their brochure is actually more impressive than their website, and a complete price list is included.


Coalsmoke said:


> In regards to metal strength, my previous business was a metal fab company, and what most people know is that square tubing is stronger than angle or channel due to its design properties, but what most people do not realize, is that square tube also uses stronger steel (16,000psi higher tensile strength), so square tube over channel or angle iron frames can really be a big deal.


The Logmaster stuff sure does look sturdy. It looks like he puts angle on top, but the angle forms an upside down V for the carriage to ride on. The mills sure do look impressive. Thanks for mentioning them.


----------



## log master (Jan 7, 2010)

The Logmaster and Cooks both use the upside down angle iron for track. The Baker uses 1/2" by 1/2" solid steel for the track. The Logmaster and Cooks both use a chain and sprocket set up to move the carriage. The Baker uses a stationery chain that use to drives up and down the track. There is a lot less moving parts on the Baker. The Logmaster is awesome and I would love to have a LM4 in my yard, but it's still a lot of money. I am from the school of think big, but stay small.


----------

