.325 Chain Advice

[My2cents]

I am looking for a couple of additional chains for my 346xp 18 bar.
I think for the mean time I want to stick with semi chisel.
I am looking for a fast aggresive chain. I looked at Carlton and the .325 / .50 K series C looked good. I want nice small easy to file rakers with out any saftey "anti kick bumps". Thanks.

 

[Crofter]

Originally posted by My2cents

I think for the mean time I want to stick with semi chisel.
I am looking for a fast aggresive chain. I looked at Carlton and the .325 / .50 K series C looked good. I want nice small easy to file rakers with out any saftey "

You say you want to stick with semi chisel yet want fast and aggressive. Full chisel will be slightly faster than semi if both cutters are about the same size. You say you want small easy to file rakers. I think that the larger cutters are easier to file accurately. Maybe that is because I can see the larger tooth easier. I did some timed cuts with two 325 chains.One a stihl and the other Oregon. The cutter profile was larger on the Stihl and it was consistently slightly faster than the Oregon. These are just my personal observations.

Frank

 

[timberwolf]

Yes if you want an agressive cutter why not full chisel. the Stihl and Carleton looks much the same in cutter size, but the carelton is a bit lighter in weight. That may make for some gains on a high rpm small/mid saw like the 346 or 026.

3/8 chain is run, but it's a bit of a load on that size saw.
likely best to stick to a 7 tooth sprocket, I have used 8 with a large cutter .325 chain but it is easy to drop the saw out of the powerband. On a 260/026 the cut times were much the same 7 or 8 tooth, but the 7 tooth spun up quicker and seemed a bit more user friendly.

Timberwolf

 

[jokers]

Good Lord Timberwolf, an objective opinion regarding the powerband of the 026, watch your back! Too many others around here seem to think that the 026 can handle a 32" bar in hardwood.

My2cents, I would concur with most of what Crofter said, but I think that he may be unaware of the Oregon .325 LP style chains. Oregon LG in .325 is an aggressive tooth with no bumpers, but the tooth size is small. LP on the other hand has a bumper of sorts, but it also has a large tooth, nearly identical to 3/8 LG. It is a fast cutting chain with decent plunge cutting ability. Search the archives for .325 chain threads and you will find a picture I posted showing the tooth sizes of 34LG, 21LP, and 73LG and you will see what I mean. I`d rather run chisel and have to knock some dirty bark off than run semi chisel for most jobs. Russ

 

[treeclimber165]

I've run both .325 LP and LG as a test on my 026. I normally run Stihl .325 RS.
The LG (with something that looks like a bumper but isn't high enough to interfere with the cut) has a harder metal in the tooth and holds an excellent edge about as well as the Stihl chain. The more popular LP chain has a softer metal and doesn't hold an edge for poop. I typically have to file every 8-10 cuts (and I DON'T cut dirt).
Both are chisel chain, with the tooth shaped more like a '7' rather than a '?'. I couldn't tell you about the semi-chisel since I haven't used it in years.

 

[timberwolf]

Jokers,

I save the 32" bar for the 066, I think they call this downward compatibility.

You can put a smaller bar on a bigger saw but not the other way round.

I actually tried the 16" .325 bar on the 066 with a 9 tooth, I was disapointed as I needed to push down on the saw to load it and get any speed. I might try again with a different chain sharpening setup.

TW

 

[bwalker]

Twolf, I know a 16" 3/8 on my 044 rwally eats wood. I think gypo runs small bars on his 088's.

 

[timberwolf]

It was a .325 chain that was set up for the 026 that I put on th 066, no doubt it out cut any 026 out there, but it was not harnesing the 066's power. A 3/8 chain on a 20" bar with an 8 tooth sprocket cut faster even with fewer, slower moving cutters.

I think I would need to take the rakers down a tiny bit on a .325 chain for a 066 to get more bite. Don't know if chip clearing would become the bottleneck.

TW

 

[jokers]

Here`s the pic of a few different Oregon chains for size comparison, and also so that you can see what type of bumpers they have. The top chain is 3/8 pitch 73LG, the middle chain is .325 34LG and the bottom chain is .325 21LP. I`m no expert on the Stihl chain so I don`t know how these Oregons stack up. I have had no problems with them and haven`t noticed any significant difference between Oregon chain and the occasional Stihl chain I run but I do value Brians opinion. I wonder if there is some subtle sharpening difference Brian normally runs and the Oregon that he didn`t like? 8-10 cuts is pretty poor performance. Bottom line is that chain is cheap enough to try them all and find what you like. Russ

 

[Tony Snyder]

The Carlton semi chisel come with all my new saws in the 41cc to 56cc size range. It does well and is a bit less particular on filing.

 

[bwalker]

Tony, How do you think Carolton chain compares with Oregon? I can get Carolton quit abit cheaper in my area.

 

[Tony Snyder]

I think they are closely comparable. I have had Carlton all along. I try to supply it to the customers that I think will take advantage of the file-O-plates. They work good.

I just hooked up with an Oregon distributor because of Tiltons non current application coverage on sprockets and bars. I will eventually go to exclusively Oregon sprockets and bars, but not chain. I will keep both Carlton and Oregon chain.

Carltons N1C is about the best 3/8 lo pro.

 

[treeclimber165]

You know, I find it humorous that there seem to be two distinctly different lines of thought on chain. There are the people who have no qualms paying $20-$25 per loop for Stihl chain and most would use nothing else. The other group dickers and argues about which of the 3-4 different 'cheap' chains are best and no two will agree.

I get 3-4 weeks out of the chain on my climbing saw (used daily) and 2 months out of the chain on my 026 (used 2-3 times per week). Since my saws make me $3000+ per month, I'm inclined to spend the extra $10 per month on the BEST chain.
:angel:

 

[Tony Snyder]

I see no "authoritative clarity" in your assumption that Stihl chain is better simply because it cost more.

Just kidding on the authoritive thing, Don't take offense, I was just having a little with some of the tick off things that have been thrown around.

Save your filings to send to beginner, he uses them to test saw durability with.

 

[treeclimber165]

Tony,
No offense taken but my observations are based on my personal experience over the last 12 years of doing tree work for a living. I've used Oregon and Stihll chains mostly, and a few loops of various cheap chain. As stated in my thread above I recently was asked to try a couple types of Oregon chain. I'm as honest as I can be with my observations and chain cost never entered into my opinion.
Based on the loop of Oregon on my 026 right now, I think they are using a softer, cheaper metal on their most popular style- LP. The LG is very similar in hardness to the Stihl chain and I may use it more in the future. But the LP is junk in my opinion- at any price.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Brian, what the heck are you cutting with your topping saw, that the chain is gone in a few weeks?
I hear palms are hard on saws.
Sometimes I wear out the topping saw before I wear out the chain. I might put an edge on the topping saw's chain after 10 or 15 tanks of gas.

 

[treeclimber165]

First of all, I do not use a 'topping' saw. That term grates on me like fingernails on a chalkboard.
I use my climbing saw for almost everything from palms to rock hard Live Oaks. I touch up my chain (2-3 strokes per tooth) whenever it isn't perfect, usually every 3-4 tanks of fuel. This is usually once per day or sometimes twice. Since I use a saw with less power than the 020T I need a razor sharp chain to keep my production at the same level. My lil Echo 3400 will keep up with the big boys as long as the chain is perfect. If it is slightly dull I might as well be using a bent polesaw blade.

Back to topic, I use my 026 for everything from 12" diameter and up. I could use a larger saw but weakness in my right arm necessitates my using a lighter saw. Same as my climbing saw, I need a perfect edge on my 026 because I use it more like an 044. I can cut the big wood as long as my chain is perfect. It gets touched up every 2-4 tanks of fuel or whenever it isn't perfect.

The Oregon LP chain is a softer metal than the LG or Stihl RS chains. My file cuts through the tooth like a hot knife through butter. I can take off twice as much metal per stroke compared to RS chain. Maybe I just got a bad chain but it is too soft of a metal to hold an edge for a long time.

 

[glens]

Tony,

I generally don't hold a grudge for more than a few hours.&nbsp; When I look back on what happened, I guess I could have left "authoritative" out of the statement, although it's entirely appropriate <i>within the immediate context</i> nonetheless.&nbsp; Perhaps I'd subconsciously put a "90-second-tickle" on my phraseology as a result of having my viewpoint (regarding a plausible explanation/fleshing-out of the generic drawing, which by itself, was being otherwise made to say way too much) not merely dismissed and ignored, but later called a "blind side" and compared to a certain individual's claim that an hour's worth of effort on an old loop of chain could compete with a top-quality, hand-crafted racing product.&nbsp; Dismissing and ignoring it was one thing (and easy enough to accept), but the subsequent characterization was totally uncalled-for and (seems yet to be) deliberately hurtful.&nbsp; If my attempted explanation was construed as being anything even approaching that boastful claim, then it had to have been completely misunderstood, for whatever reason.&nbsp;

I wasn't trying to mathematically solve the "puzzle" in all it's possible variations (which is an impossible task regardless the method used), but rather was attempting a generic median-case and vastly simplified solution for purposes of discussion.

I could have limited the "a. c." clause to cutter action, as it was intended to pertain, but it was no less specific than was Ben's statement to which it immediately applied.&nbsp; That "technicality" is probably my "tickle" on the reply.&nbsp; I apologize for that now, though I did subsequently qualify it.

Perhaps my perception is clouded by my self-known intentions, but when I re-read my various dialog with Art I see adequate respect, kindness, and politeness in my language.&nbsp; Am I wrong about that?&nbsp;

I don't see the quality of comparison, but I allow that Art could feel about my posts in reply to his statements as I do about "beginner"'s to mine.&nbsp; I have done my best to graciously leave the ball in Art's court in both of the threads in which we interact

Glen

 

[treeclimber165]

Glen-
What the heck are you rambling about? Your post made little sense and has virtually NOTHING to do with the topic. Go back and read the first post of the thread. Crofter is right, you have an irritating tendency to ramble on about technicalities which have nothing to do with anything.

 

[glens]

What the heck am I rambling about?&nbsp; How about<blockquote>[Tony @ 23:24 EST 1-13-03]

I see no "authoritative clarity" in your assumption that Stihl chain is better simply because it cost more.

Just kidding on the authoritive thing, Don't take offense, I was just having a little with some of the tick off things that have been thrown around.</blockquote>Are posts limited to solely discussing the points brought up in the original post, or can the thread flow a little bit?&nbsp; I'm confused.&nbsp;

By the way, technicalities, by definition, pertain to things; specific things.

I'm sorry I irritate you.

Glen