# What length bar is best for dropping a 50" diameter tree?



## TreeandLand (Aug 16, 2011)

I will be dropping a very big pine, tensioned with a line to the truck of course. My Husky 372 has a 20" bar, and so far I haven't needed anything longer. But with a 50" diameter trunk, the face cut and the back cut, I'll be making a 10" hinge, which we don't want. What is a good length bar for a job like this? Thanks.


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 16, 2011)

28" to 30"


----------



## BlackOakTreeServ (Aug 16, 2011)

TreeandLand said:


> I will be dropping a very big pine, tensioned with a line to the truck of course. My Husky 372 has a 20" bar, and so far I haven't needed anything longer. But with a 50" diameter trunk, the face cut and the back cut, I'll be making a 10" hinge, which we don't want. What is a good length bar for a job like this? Thanks.



A 50" bar will work ..lol...had to say it

I have a 42" on my 660 with FULL SKIP chain, which does a great job on big stuff, but you could probly get away with a 36" bar to get that big boy down, mabey smaller with a bit more work, depends on your skill level.


----------



## tree md (Aug 16, 2011)

I use a 36" on my 660 for trees that size.


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 16, 2011)

Bigger saws for bigger trees makes sense, you will get no argument from me. However, if you don't have 90cc or better, a five cube saw with a bar at least 28 inches of bar will work. Can you match your cuts?

Five cube, 60" Pine.


----------



## CNBTreeTrimming (Aug 16, 2011)

woodsman44 said:


> A 50" bar will work ..lol...had to say it
> 
> I have a 42" on my 660 with FULL SKIP chain, which does a great job on big stuff, but you could probly get away with a 36" bar to get that big boy down, mabey smaller with a bit more work, depends on your skill level.



Agreed. This is my setup as well.


----------



## DavdH (Aug 16, 2011)

36"


----------



## TreeandLand (Aug 16, 2011)

woodsman44 said:


> A 50" bar will work ..lol...had to say it
> 
> I have a 42" on my 660 with FULL SKIP chain, which does a great job on big stuff, but you could probly get away with a 36" bar to get that big boy down, mabey smaller with a bit more work, depends on your skill level.


 
My saw is 71cc, if a 36" bar is too much for it to power, what is a good compromise? Also, what does full skip chain look like....I've never bought it.


----------



## tree md (Aug 16, 2011)

You should be good up to a 32" bar with that saw I believe. A 30" would run better on it though and should be adequate for that cut.


----------



## BlackOakTreeServ (Aug 16, 2011)

TreeandLand said:


> My saw is 71cc, if a 36" bar is too much for it to power, what is a good compromise? Also, what does full skip chain look like....I've never bought it.



I run a 32" bar on my stihl ms 440 70.7cc and it pulls it good, but wouldnt go bigger.

A full skip is minus a cutter every 2 links for better chip discharge in big wood...recomended on long guide bars 28" and bigger.

If you own your tree service it would pay off in the long run to get 90cc or bigger saw with long bar...it would only take a big tree or two, to pay it off.


----------



## the Aerialist (Aug 17, 2011)

*Get a bigger saw with a bigger bar ...*

I have a pair of 122cc 084s and a 42" bar that I use mostly for stump cuts. Running a 404 skip chain on it helps quite a bit when in full contact with the wood. Makes it seem like a much smaller bar. I also have a 460 Mag that I run a 32" bar, also with a skip chain, that I use in big wood for the felling cuts. It weighs about half of the 084 and actually cuts faster than the bigger saw, plus I can actually pick it up for the cuts.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Aug 17, 2011)

Aerial_Arborist said:


> I have a pair of 122cc 084s and a 42" bar that I use mostly for stump cuts. Running a 404 skip chain on it helps quite a bit when in full contact with the wood. Makes it seem like a much smaller bar. I also have a 460 Mag that I run a 32" bar, also with a skip chain, that I use in big wood for the felling cuts. It weighs about half of the 084 and actually cuts faster than the bigger saw, plus I can actually pick it up for the cuts.


 
If he can't handle this tree with a 372 and a 32" bar, a bigger saw and bar is not the solution. 

In fact, if you haven't the skills to get it done with a 32", a 42" is likely to only make matters worse. Even if I had a bigger saw than the 372, I wouldn't go over 36" anyway, and would probably prefer a 32".


----------



## ForTheArborist (Aug 17, 2011)

Yeah, no more than 32" on the 372. As long as you're cutting to the middle from the left and right side.

The crafty me could drop that tree with the 20" and a truck. Take absolute caution if you were to give that a try. Some people are just shooting themselves in the back or other people by trying some of the stuff only some people in the world are capable of.


----------



## r&r (Aug 17, 2011)

You could plunge cut into your notch first then make your other cuts and remove enough fiber to get the tree down with a 20" bar. But come on you've got an excuse to buy a longer bar better take it.


----------



## Tree Pig (Aug 17, 2011)

ForTheAction said:


> Yeah, no more than 32" on the 372. As long as you're cutting to the middle from the left and right side.
> 
> The crafty me could drop that tree with the 20" and a truck. Take absolute caution if you were to give that a try. Some people are just shooting themselves in the back or other people by trying some of the stuff only some people in the world are capable of.


 
I just have to say this

If you have any idea what your talking about, your not very good at putting it in words.

Just my opinion


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Aug 17, 2011)

Stihl-O-Matic said:


> I just have to say this
> 
> If you have any idea what your talking about, your not very good at putting it in words.
> 
> Just my opinion



Seemed clear enough, to me. 

Note: you're=you are, your=possessive adjective. If you want to complain about the clarity of posts, in here, you might want to make sure that you strive for grammatical clarity, as well.


----------



## Tree Pig (Aug 17, 2011)

Sunrise Guy said:


> Seemed clear enough, to me.
> 
> Note: you're=you are, your=possessive adjective. If you want to complain about the clarity of posts, in here, you might want to make sure that you strive for grammatical clarity, as well.


 

Well I still am not 100% sure what he was saying but I do see my mistake thanks for your :msp_rolleyes:correction. Your/you're being one of the more common grammar errors I am sure most understand the intended statement. 



ForTheAction said:


> Yeah, no more than 32" on the 372. *As long as you're cutting to the middle from the left and right side.*


Lets start with the above statement (not going in to the rest of the jibber jabber of that post)... So when you are dropping a large tree (wider then bar length) you cut from the outside edge and in towards the middle of the tree? Then again maybe I misunderstood what he meant since he did not explain clearly what he was describing. Hence my reply to his post. I am not trying to bust balls just for the fun of it. I also was not complaining about his grammar. I was posting my grammatically incorrect reply because though I am pretty sure I know what he meant, his advice may not be as clear to everyone that reads it. 

You have to remember not everyone in here that reads this stuff has an extensive knowledge base. So when you attempt to give advice, it should be as clear and concise at possible. Otherwise someone may misinterpret such advice and end up getting hurt.


----------



## newmexico (Aug 17, 2011)

*pictures*

I'm not real good at drawing things and these aren't perfect, or even perfectly to scale. but they are pretty close.

I tried to make a little allowance for dawgs. but probably isn't exactly right.

one picture is what could be done with a twenty inch bar without getting highly creative and notching the backside of the tree.

the other is of a 32 inch bar with a bore cut behind your holding wood and walking the powerhead around the backcut.-- just one way it could be done, but for sure the easiest to draw.

I wouldn't want to try a fifty inch tree with a 20 inch bar. A twenty-eight could do it, but a 32 in my mind would be the best length- realativly readily available and not so long that it doesn't work for everything else you need to do once the tree's on the ground.

View attachment 194775
View attachment 194776


pologies for not having the time to figure out how to insert the actual images into this post. gonna have to figure that out again some other time.


----------



## robfromaz1977 (Aug 17, 2011)

Here ya go NM.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 17, 2011)

If you know how, a 'coos bay' could work well.
Jeff


----------



## Bermie (Aug 17, 2011)

Using a 20" bar, you'd have to make sure your 'fan cut' through the centre of the hinge goes deep and wide enough to remove enough wood so when you cut around the back you are overlapping the 'fan'.
Your picture appears to show uncut wood between the fan and the backcut.

Also when cuting the face, cut it in two sections so it's 40" across or so, not just a dinky 20" face!t

Be sure to set wedges as you go, regardless what cut you use and even if you have a line in the tree

A tree that big, a bit bigger than 20" would make the job a lot easier, it's possible with 20", just got to know what you are facing!


----------



## tree MDS (Aug 17, 2011)

jefflovstrom said:


> If you know how, a 'coos bay' could work well.
> Jeff


 
That would have to be an awfully big coos' .. lmao.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Aug 17, 2011)

Bermie said:


> Using a 20" bar, you'd have to make sure your 'fan cut' through the centre of the hinge goes deep and wide enough to remove enough wood so when you cut around the back you are overlapping the 'fan'.
> Your picture appears to show uncut wood between the fan and the backcut.
> 
> Also when cuting the face, cut it in two sections so it's 40" across or so, not just a dinky 20" face!t
> ...


 

Pardon the pun, right? 

That second pic isn't really to scale. The sketch I drew up with a ruler for precise measurements (I was curious exactly how deep a 40" face would be on a 50" tree) looks alot different, there shouldn't be much wood between the fan and backcut. Largely depends on the angle of the face and how deep you can actually go with the fan as a result.

It can be done, but that doesn't mean that it should be, IMHO. I can get it with a 16" bar for that matter. 

Just depends on the situation, but I'd much rather have the 32"-36" and have a better hinge.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 17, 2011)

The real problem is not what bar you need to cut down the tree. You could do that with a 16" Homelite if you had enough patience.

Let's face it, when that tree hits the ground you will need something much bigger than 28" to cut it up efficiently. Despite the fact that a 28" bar can make it past the 1/2-way point in the log, you can't get to all sides of the log when it is laying on the ground. Particularly with your bucking spikes stealing inches from the effective length of the bar. Furthermore, you ain't gonna be able to roll that tree over to finish the cut, so you had better come to the job properly equipped to cut it up.

I recommend at least a 36" bar.

I have a 50" bar on a big saw. It doesn't get used very often, but it sure turns a dreadful job into a pretty fun tree removal. _Big logs are fun to cut up when you have a big saw._


----------



## newmexico (Aug 17, 2011)

Bigus Termitius said:


> That second pic isn't really to scale. The sketch I drew up with a ruler for precise measurements (I was curious exactly how deep a 40" face would be on a 50" tree) looks alot different, there shouldn't be much wood between the fan and backcut. Largely depends on the angle of the face and how deep you can actually go with the fan as a result.
> 
> It can be done, but that doesn't mean that it should be, IMHO. I can get it with a 16" bar for that matter.
> 
> Just depends on the situation, but I'd much rather have the 32"-36" and have a better hinge.



yeah that 20 inch bar in a 50 inch tree sketch is pretty skewed it was quick; and I'm not too good with radius and diameter -- probably got the math buggered somewhere in the mix-- it does, I think though, illustrate that it's going to be difficult to get all the wood out of the middle of said tree. Good points on angle of the face. a [ sort of face would be ideal for getting maximum wood out of the middle, but making said face cut takes time and time is money so sometimes it's better to spend that money on bigger bar.

disclaimer, I'm still learning. Appreciate all that you guys that know and share.


----------



## MarquisTree (Aug 19, 2011)

robfromaz1977 said:


> Here ya go NM.


 
nice, that would have taken a page of babble to explain to that method too someone who hasn't seen any type of bore cut before.


----------



## TreeClimber57 (Aug 21, 2011)

TreeandLand said:


> My saw is 71cc, if a 36" bar is too much for it to power, what is a good compromise? Also, what does full skip chain look like....I've never bought it.


 
I would not go to 36" on that saw; but my own opinion. I run 28" max on saw that size.. but may go up to 32". I have 32" and 36" bar for 90cc saw.. and 48" for 122cc saw.

Full skip; essentially missing half the cutting teeth.


----------



## millbilly (Aug 21, 2011)

Who makes a saw with a power head that thin, that you can slip it in the the notch and make a fan cut. Do you have to take the top handle off the saw to make it fit in the notch?


----------



## treeclimber101 (Aug 21, 2011)

I run 25" on everything from a 41 to a 66 , the 261 and smaller usually 20" or so , I can cut just about anything with them except the occasional flush cut ....


----------



## Bermie (Aug 21, 2011)

millbilly said:


> Who makes a saw with a power head that thin, that you can slip it in the the notch and make a fan cut. Do you have to take the top handle off the saw to make it fit in the notch?


 
You just cut a nice wide open notch...


----------



## Bermie (Aug 21, 2011)

...like this...


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 21, 2011)

Bermie said:


> You just cut a nice wide open notch...


 
Give the Lady an umbrella drink.

Part of my formal training was to practice falling trees that were far over twice the length of the bar. The block or step undercuts allow you to bore or plunge cut the center. The knowledge gained came in handy when I graduated and used 48" to 60" bars on truly large timber. The OP would be better off using an appropriately long bar or finding someone else to fall that tree. Block cuts are not for casual use.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 21, 2011)

OK. So you cut down a 10' diameter tree with a 60" bar. Truly an imposing tree, huge potential for bad results.

How are you going to buck up the tree after it hits the ground? It seems impractical to me to consider felling a tree with an undersized saw, then bring in something bigger to cut it up. I'm pretty sure that nobody works that hard making face cuts, boring the center, and then rolling the log over just to cut up the fallen trunk.

Honestly, I'm not being a wise guy here; I really don't know how modern lumberjacks would dice up a really big tree after it hits the ground. Having a big enough saw to start with seems like the best method. Obviously, controlling a saw with an 8' bar would be pretty tough, too.


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 21, 2011)

pdqdl,

60" twice is ten feet. To answer your question, there were falling saws and bucking saws in the big timber. Falling saws were generally direct drive, big inch McCullochs or Homelites with 48" to 60" bars. Bucking saws were gear-drives for the most part, again big inch Macs or Homies with 60" to 72" bars. For the really big stuff, there were the two-man saws, 8 to 10 foot bars. Bucking large diameter logs requires far more expertise than falling. Cuts have to be precise, and inch or two off can mean a loss of $100s, then we have slabbing, you could get fired for that. Reading tension is a fine art.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 21, 2011)

I know a bit about the old saws; I still have one of the old two man saws with gear drive.

I was asking about modern methods of working a big tree...or is it the case that those trees are never encountered anymore?

Sure, twice a 5' bar is 10'. But you _cannot_ cut up a log on the ground with a 1/2 diameter bar length, unless you sacrifice a big percentage of the wood you were trying to harvest.

...or unless you can roll the log over to finish your cuts.


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 22, 2011)

pdqdl said:


> I know a bit about the old saws; I still have one of the old two man saws.
> 
> I was asking about modern methods of working a big tree...or is it the case that those trees are never encountered anymore?
> 
> ...


 
First off, very few oversized trees are being felled these days, if they are encountered, I'm sure there will be a big enough saw to buck it. It is no big trick to buck a log twice the size of the bar, I have done it 1000s of times, so have many 1000s of loggers. it takes knowledge and experience. Rolling logs over is for the firewood guys.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 22, 2011)

I have no doubt that you have extensive experience, and that you are fully capable of doing the big timber stuff. I freely admit that I am just a flat-lander arborist that only occasionally runs into a 5'-6' cottonwood.

_I still have have to call BS on that last claim you made._ A 1/2 diameter bar does not reach all the parts of any circle, unless it has full 360 degree approach to the log. ...or you make notches to get to the center.

No amount of experience trumps physics.


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 22, 2011)

pdqdl said:


> I have no doubt that you have extensive experience, and that you are fully capable of doing the big timber stuff. I freely admit that I am just a flat-lander arborist that only occasionally runs into a 5'-6' cottonwood.
> 
> _I still have have to call BS on that last claim you made._ A 1/2 diameter bar does not reach all the parts of any circle, unless it has full 360 degree approach to the log. ...or you make notches to get to the center.
> 
> No amount of experience trumps physics.



LOL!!
Don't know why I bother.
Making a 360 cut on a cylinder is required.

Think about it, I mean really consider what you said. 10 feet divided by two=5 feet.
Play it out, use a ruler if you need to.


----------



## tree md (Aug 22, 2011)

I fell and bucked trees twice the size of my bar forever out of necessity. Nothing like out West but I do some of the biggest Eastern trees out here. Wedges come in real handy when your bucking big wood. And you really don't have to get all the way through the logs and into the dirt with you bar and chain. If you are using equipment to skid with they will break right off at the kerf as long as you get through most of the cut.

Makes me appreciate having the large saws I do today.


----------



## Bermie (Aug 22, 2011)

I'm only saying its is possible to fell big trees with short bars, whether it is practical is another matter entirely and the dismantling of the trunk becomes...interesting. 
If the OP only has one tree this size to cut, and plenty of time then he can piddle away at it, if trees of this size or comparable are part of his regular work then investing in a big saw would be practical for the very reasons you mentioned.


----------



## imagineero (Aug 22, 2011)

pdqdl said:


> _I still have have to call BS on that last claim you made._ A 1/2 diameter bar does not reach all the parts of any circle, unless it has full 360 degree approach to the log. ...or you make notches to get to the center.


 
It's not that hard, but it is hard work ;-) Still beats the crap out of lugging a massive bar around all day though. Big logs end up standing high off the ground, so you _do_ have access to most parts of the log. Bucking a log double the size of your bar is about where I sign off an leave it to the big boys, but double is definitely doable, even without cutting from both sides. You'll want a nicely dressed bar, and a chain with cutters all identical length, angle, raker height, so you get a good straight cut.

With a log nicely on the lay and no tension or compression you can start off from the top, maybe 20% of your bar length below the top of the log. With the bar facing downwards start your cut so you are bucking well below the halfway point of the log. Work upwards and over, get down on the near side and work it all the way down, then from near the ground you can reach where you started over on that far side, having never gone over there. I'm sure thats clear as mud to anyone who hasn't done it before ;-) Make sure that big boy doesn't roll on you!







This one I did last week (sorry about the awful photo) was getting up there somewhere near 60", probably a little shy. I had a 36" bar and it was still comfortable. Bucked it up once it was on the ground with the same bar. If I had a bigger bar it would have been nice, sure, but there's other factors too. Now I'm a lowly tree worker I can bring a whole truck full of gear to my jobs, so I make sure to have at least 4 saws on hand... but when I was out in the woods you don't want to carry more than one saw, and it can be a long walk back to the truck. If one has to do it all, I'd want the smallest lightest saw I could get away with.

Shaun


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 23, 2011)

Ok. You are all right...if your bar reaches 1/2 way to the middle of a log, of course you can cut it up. No problem. I was rude and impatient to claim otherwise. _My apologies to all!_

I guess I failed to go back and remind everybody about my earlier claim that a bar won't cut as much as it claims to. By the time you subtract for bucking spikes and other features that may be present on a saw, that 28" bar won't cut off but 27". I have checked every saw in my inventory, and not a one of them will actually reach quite as far as the official length of the bar.

So..._if you need 24" to cut up a 48" log, you had better have more than a 24" bar, or you had better plan on working real hard at it._

Here is a pic of my recently acquired MS-460 with a 36" bar. It tips the scale at only 34 1/2" cut, which *clearly* won't cut up a 6' log without extra effort.


----------



## treeclimber101 (Aug 23, 2011)

The moral of the story is thats why I don't cut down big trees , cause I can't figure out what size bar I would need ....


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 23, 2011)

pdqdl said:


> Ok. You are all right...if your bar reaches 1/2 way to the middle of a log, of course you can cut it up. No problem. I was rude and impatient to claim otherwise. _My apologies to all!_
> 
> I guess I failed to go back and remind everybody about my earlier claim that a bar won't cut as much as it claims to. By the time you subtract for bucking spikes and other features that may be present on a saw, that 28" bar won't cut off but 27". I have checked every saw in my inventory, and not a one of them will actually reach quite as far as the official length of the bar.
> 
> ...


 

There is something to that. This old logging saw's bar measures 50" from the case and only 46.5" from the spikes.


----------



## no tree to big (Aug 23, 2011)

reminds me of the time when I cut down a ugly beast of a silver maple about 48" with a 16" 32cc mcculloch. fell and bucked it all into firewood, what can I say I was 16 and made 300 bucks + fuel, went well too! 

I think I used an oversized saw though I could have eaisly done it with a 14":dunno:


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 23, 2011)

no tree to big said:


> reminds me of the time when I cut down a ugly beast of a silver maple about 48" with a 16" 32cc mcculloch. fell and bucked it all into firewood, what can I say I was 16 and made 300 bucks + fuel, went well too!
> 
> I think I used an oversized saw though I could have eaisly done it with a 14":dunno:


 
Pic's or it did not happen.
Jeff


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 23, 2011)

30cc Echo, 14" Bar, 42" Tanbark.


----------



## no tree to big (Aug 23, 2011)

jefflovstrom said:


> Pic's or it did not happen.
> Jeff


 
that tree is long burnt, and no pics of the action when I was falling it it looked like a stair case for a notch took alittle off the sides a little off the back and by the time I was done I had a 20" tree to fall :eek2: good thing it was not a windy day and was solid through out! then when I bucked it up I made a cross cut from both sides of the big stuff then noodled a couple lines in the end of the log then the "edges" fell off leaving me with a big rectangle then I cut that off the trunk and repeated, a lot. you dont believe me, find me a tree and fly me to cali and hand me a 16" saw its gonna be ugly but it will hit the ground and turn into blocks

EDIT: or you could do what was done in the above pics... much more professional looking lol


----------



## DangerTree (Aug 29, 2011)

RandyMac said:


> 30cc Echo, 14" Bar, 42" Tanbark.


 
Randy Mac that's funnier than sh.. I'm trying to find a photo of a 65" cotton that I killed with an ms200 you more or less wittle em' down like a beaver! Ha freakin Ha!!


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 29, 2011)

I helped my boss whittle a 22' Redwood with an old Homelite.


----------



## DangerTree (Aug 29, 2011)

RandyMac said:


> I helped my boss whittle a 22' Redwood with an old Homelite.


 
Now that I would like to have seen. How many months did that take?


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 29, 2011)

9 hours.

Here is a big one, my buddy Vestal is on the right.


----------



## DangerTree (Aug 29, 2011)

RandyMac said:


> 9 hours.
> 
> Here is a big one, my buddy Vestal is on the right.


 
I'd like to see you take that down with a homie.


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 29, 2011)

Some Homelites were big, very big.


----------



## DangerTree (Aug 29, 2011)

RandyMac said:


> Some Homelites were big, very big.


 
No I mean a little homie after all we were talking about how big a tree can you nuke with a whittler.


----------



## DangerTree (Aug 29, 2011)

DangerTree said:


> No I mean a little homie after all we were talking about how big a tree can you nuke with a whittler.


 
Oh and Randy Where did you find that safety gear. I love it it looks like regular street clothes kinda urban camouflage style.


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 29, 2011)

They took down giants with handtools, I imagine you could fall any tree with any saw. 

PPE wasn't in the vogue back then, although in the logging woods, hardhats, gloves and boots were required.
I did use knee length chaps when I had to, they were leather reinforced canvas/fiberglass, good for soaking up bar oil.


----------



## tree md (Aug 29, 2011)

DangerTree said:


> Randy Mac that's funnier than sh.. I'm trying to find a photo of a 65" cotton that I killed with an ms200 you more or less wittle em' down like a beaver! Ha freakin Ha!!


 
I took a 68" Cottonwood down with an 029, 20" bar about 7 or 8 years ago... Climbed most of it but had to drop a good 60' pole... Had to cut 6" wide cookies with the 029 that were chest high and roll them through a 36" gate and out to the front... Took us 4 days... Wouldn't want to attempt that again...


----------



## teatersroad (Aug 29, 2011)

RandyMac said:


> 9 hours.
> 
> Here is a big one, my buddy Vestal is on the right.


 
What is Mr. Skaggs holding there?


----------



## RandyMac (Aug 29, 2011)

teatersroad said:


> What is Mr. Skaggs holding there?


 
Gun Sticks aka Gunning Sticks. A device to accurately place undercuts on large diameter trees. You stand in front of the tree, in the direction of desired fall, and your second saw marks the trunk. Often used in conjunction with a plumb-line.


----------



## 056 kid (Aug 31, 2011)

pdqdl said:


> i know a bit about the old saws; i still have one of the old two man saws with gear drive.
> 
> I was asking about modern methods of working a big tree...or is it the case that those trees are never encountered anymore?
> 
> ...


 
lmao. .


----------



## stihl.logger (Sep 8, 2011)

kinda surprised that i haven't seen it posted on here yet, so i'll be "that guy"...

with the proper amount of your kids M-80's you can take any tree down, no saw needed!

on a professional note... i'm not real big into using Huskies but on a 372 i'd throw a 32" bar and a skip tooth on it and never look back. i have a buddy with a 372 and a 36" bar with full chisel and it's... we'll say less than impressive. but with the proper skill and right amount of time anything is possible! good luck!


----------

