Chain sharpening Performance Tweaker

[lastradicaldude]

For years now I have sharpened my chains by hand. About 18 years ago I experimented and discovered that if I would use a file that was one 32nd smaller than the one called for by the mfg/book, that I could increase the cutting ability of the chain greatly. Incidentally for the smaller chain, I have to special order my one eighth inch files, as no one carries them.
Wear glasses so you can see everything well; position and work the file so that about 80% is below the top of the chain tooth. It is impossible to accomplish this 80% factor using the file suggested by the chain mfg. without cutting into the tie straps. On some profile chain it may be necessary to use the recommended file on the first filing or so. But as the teeth get shorter, they slope down, requiring a smaller file to avoid cutting the tie straps, while still maintaining 80% of the file below the top of the tooth. When I put new chain on I can hardly wait till its slightly dull so I can tweak its performance. My friends can't understand how my chain which appears to have worn out teeth can out cut their new chain but of course they want me to sharpen their saws.
Also sharpen on about a 37 degree angle with the handle of your file dropped about 5 degrees. This increased 2 degrees from the recommended 35 seems to increase performance. Most pro chain has a filing mark on 35 degrees and it is pretty easy to slightly estimate the other 2 degrees.
I also lay a straightedge on the top of the chain teeth and make sure that I have what appears to be about half the thickness of a dime clearance on the depth guages. I lower my depth guages using an air cut off tool with a three inch disc. Careful !!! Not too much !!
Tweaking chain in this manner makes it much more aggressive, so be sure your saw has the torque to handle the modification. If you go overboard you will have to hold the saw back as it will grab too much wood.

I use non-safety pro round chisel chain (Oregon) and I get all the life, and lots of life out of every chain. I can understand why the MFG would recommend the larger file as its continued use will invariably take off more of the top of the tooth while making it squarer in the process, as well as cutting into the tie straps setting you up for a broken chain that's only about halfway used. The way I sharpen gives a slight hawkbill look and style to the tooth, preserving the top longer, while at the same time filing a larger undercut. My customers sometimes comment, "fastest saw in the West." Or "what kind of chain do you run". Shop technicians often ask me, "do I want a new chain installed" when it looks like its 80 to 90% gone, to which I reply, "Still cutting better than a new one." I usually run the chains until at least two or three of the teeth break off.
f you have inexperienced groundies that are continually roto-tilling with the saw, the finer hawkbill edge will get knocked off sooner of course than the factory recommended edge which is more blunt.
I don't know if you can do this tweaking procedure using a file guide as I do all my sharpening freehand, and I am not familiar with all the adjustments on the guides. But filing by hand is an art that every sawyer should master.
If you cut a lot of dirty wood you might be better off staying with the chipper chain. You can still tweak the size of the file for better perfomance.
Experiment and have fun. If you like to cut fast and for fun, I think you'll like this performance tweaker.

 

[cord arrow]

yeah, i've always sharpened in the manner you describe....
however, only on my own chains, and on my own saws that no one else will be using.
had an experienced sawyer hand one back to me sayin' "no way."

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Did you ever set up a log and have somebody time you with a stopwatch in comparisons between a new chain and your chain? If so, what were the results?
I suspect what you are doing is judging the chain's performance based on how hard it pulls, not how fast it cuts.
Smaller files increase the hook angle on the side plate of the cutter, which is bad. And taking the depth gage down the thickness of a dime, which is more than your normal 20 to 30 thousandths, will slow you down too.
The other problem is the saw becomes very fatiguing to run.

 

[JimmyM]

And taking the depth gage down the thickness of a dime, which is more than your normal 20 to 30 thousandths, will slow you down too.
The other problem is the saw becomes very fatiguing to run.

He did say half the thickness of a dime.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

My mistake, sorry.
For about $2, you can go to almost any hardware or box store and buy a depth gage and flat file. The tools allow you to take the depth gages down to a predetermined height, .020", ,025", .030, whatever you want.
And more importantly every single depth gage will be exactly the same.
It take two or three strokes of the file on each depth gage and its done. No guessing with some stupid power tool, no progressively higher teeth like you get on a bench type saw chain grinder, no taking the chain off the saw, very simple, very easy.

 

[Chainsaw Master]

I've always sharpened my saws to match the wood I'm cutting. A chain sharpened to cut cedar, is alot different than one sharpened to cut oak.

 

[manual]

I've always sharpened my saws to match the wood I'm cutting. A chain sharpened to cut cedar, is alot different than one sharpened to cut oak.

Yep, and the further or older the chain gets worn out start using the next file down in size. (sharp very sharp). And keep that gullet clean.
See i still remember.

 

[lastradicaldude]

Freehand advantages

Mike Mass wrote, "Did you ever set up a log and have somebody time you with a stopwatch in comparisons between a new chain and your chain? If so, what were the results? I suspect what you are doing is judging the chain's performance based on how hard it pulls, not how fast it cuts.
Smaller files increase the hook angle on the side plate of the cutter, which is bad. And taking the depth gage down the thickness of a dime, which is more than your normal 20 to 30 thousandths, will slow you down too.
The other problem is the saw becomes very fatiguing to run."'
Mike also wrote:
"It take two or three strokes of the file on each depth gage and its done. No guessing with some stupid power tool,..."


No Mike, I haven't timed my cuts. Maybe sometime I will get a round tuit. But I judge the performance by the size of the chip and the fact that after I sharpen it always outcuts a new chain that is ground at factory specs. this is enough proof for me. Most of the time my chain is outcutting new chain when only 1/8 of the top plate is left.
As far as "Smaller files increasing the hook angle on the side plate of the cutter", I don't accept this premise. Smaller files definitely modify the hook angle with respect to the top plate but unless the cutting angle is increased or decreased from the standard 35 degrees the side plate angle is undisturbed. As I stated however i do prefer a little increase to about 37 degrees.
I am sure that there are a lot of inexperienced cutters out there who may need the aid of a depth guage and if so then, by all means! But for the few who have mastered, or who hope to master the art of quickly sharpening and maintaining chain freehand, power tools are a great assist. Just be sure you are wearing proper eye equipment so as to avoid any serious miscalculations, as well as protecting your eyes.
By the way, not sure, but I would guess that half the thickness of a dime falls somewhere between 20 and 30 thousandths. I will check this out. Keep in mind that I realize there will always be those cutters who can't ever master sharpening freehand. For them the industry provides many aids. hope this explains things better. want a knife to cut meat, see a butcher with 10 years of experience maintaining his own knives. the same is true for chainsaws.

 

[manual]

lastradicaldude
Sounds like you can sharpen a chain.
Don't knock the raker gauge. for a couple bucks it is a great aid.
Try one out, First your way then put the gauge to it.
As for me I feel a raker gauge gives you even rakers and one less thing to think about if you are trying to perfect you filing abilities.
I like the carlton raker gauge.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

lastradicaldude, I'm sure you can sharpen a chain, and it cuts fine, but if you want to pee with the big dogs, you've got to lift your leg a little higher.
Judging how a saw cuts by measuring the size of the chips doesn't give any information. I've heard of guys measuring the volume of chips for a time cutting, but who cares about the size?
Do some timed cuts compared to a new chain and then come back and brag.
You've noticed that saw chain gets faster as the cutter gets filed back. There's an old race chain saying, "The thinner's the winner." As you file back the cutter it gets narrower, and cuts a thinner kerf, hence less wood to drag out (perhaps a hint to why big chips can be bad).
Did you know as the cutter gets filed back, to keep the depth gage cutting the same, you need to take more off?
If a new chain has an optimal depth gage setting of .020", then when the cutter is filed all the way back, the optimal depth gage is closer to .035. Carlton file-o-plate raker gages are unique in that they compensate for how many times a cutter has been filed, and takes more off as it gets filed back.
I don't care if your more of a machine than the terminator, you are not going to be able to adjust your depth gage as accurately by eye and free hand, as one can with the proper tools. Maybe good enough for you, but if I put a gage on your chain, it would not be perfect. And being as the tools to make the rakers perfect, are cheap, easy to get, and work, I see no point in free handing.
Smaller files have a sharper radius, that's geometry, you can't argue that. If you want fast cutters, you need to file square, so the side plate is straight. Then you get an optimal outside sideplate angle for the entire .030" or .040" of the cutter that is in the wood, instead of a radiused angle that you get round filing. If this goes over your head, I explain it better, just ask.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but once you start timing your cuts, you'll be thinking, "That Maashole sure is a smart feller."

 

[Brushwacker]

I havent timed my cuts either but I always felt I was cutting faster using a size larger file then recomended and I keep up with the depth gauges or go some extra on most my saws. Go to deep and it is rough cutting sappling type brush. I was under the impression the larger gullet the larger file makes allows for better chip clearence which helps clear the way for the cutter. If chain doesn,t get to stretched I keep using it until teeth brake or other damage. With semi-chisel I dont file for 10 degrees and its easier to stay out of the sidelink. Have to watch it closer with chisel chain and 10degrees. When I get way back in the chain I sometimes use a size smaller file to keep out of the sidestrap and keep a little more meat on the cutter.
I may give the smaller file a try for an experiment but I am skeptical judging from my experiance.

 

[lastradicaldude]

lastradicaldude, I'm sure you can sharpen a chain, and it cuts fine, but if you want to pee with the big dogs, you've got to lift your leg a little higher.
Judging how a saw cuts by measuring the size of the chips doesn't give any information. I've heard of guys measuring the volume of chips for a time cutting, but who cares about the size?
Do some timed cuts compared to a new chain and then come back and brag.
You've noticed that saw chain gets faster as the cutter gets filed back. There's an old race chain saying, "The thinner's the winner." As you file back the cutter it gets narrower, and cuts a thinner kerf, hence less wood to drag out (perhaps a hint to why big chips can be bad).
Did you know as the cutter gets filed back, to keep the depth gage cutting the same, you need to take more off?
If a new chain has an optimal depth gage setting of .020", then when the cutter is filed all the way back, the optimal depth gage is closer to .035. Carlton file-o-plate raker gages are unique in that they compensate for how many times a cutter has been filed, and takes more off as it gets filed back.
I don't care if your more of a machine than the terminator, you are not going to be able to adjust your depth gage as accurately by eye and free hand, as one can with the proper tools. Maybe good enough for you, but if I put a gage on your chain, it would not be perfect. And being as the tools to make the rakers perfect, are cheap, easy to get, and work, I see no point in free handing.
Smaller files have a sharper radius, that's geometry, you can't argue that. If you want fast cutters, you need to file square, so the side plate is straight. Then you get an optimal outside sideplate angle for the entire .030" or .040" of the cutter that is in the wood, instead of a radiused angle that you get round filing. If this goes over your head, I explain it better, just ask.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but once you start timing your cuts, you'll be thinking, "That Maashole sure is a smart feller."

Mike, I not only think it, I would bet that "That Maashole sure is a smart feller." Judging by the 5000 plus post you have contributed to this site you would either have to be a smart feller or the other members would have laughed you off of here long ago.
I will be the first to concede that if you are one who needs perfection when dropping the guages, a raker guide is your ticket. But if you would read my original post a little closer you would find that the thrust of my performance tweaker is not the resust of dropping the rakers, though I do mention that incidentally, but rather the thrust of my advice centers around using a smaller diameter file that would allow about 80% of the file to create a hawkbill gullet below the top of the chain. it is this additional hawkbill effect that gives the chain its superior cutting ability, though it is, admittedly, very important to keep the rakers lowered properly as the tooth size decreases. Your posts however have primarily taken issue with the aspect of dropping the depth guages, and I did mention that incidentally, whereas my Tweaker advice is primarily a suggestion concerning file size to enhance performance and make chains last longer.
Further I would agree with you Mike, that if you are looking mostly for speed that "filing square", or for the newbies reading this post, utilizing square ground chisel is superior to the round chisel pro chain that I and a majority of others utilize in this industry. Furthermore filing square freehand is a little more tricky than freehand filing round ground chisel chain, and most of us like to be able to do it on the job.. From my experience, I would venture to say though, that the tweaker, (that is the slight reduction in file size), would be beneficial whether one utilizes round or square chisel. But for most of those on this Chainsaw forum, round chisel chain will be their industry choice, if for no other reason the fact that this is what is most commercially avaliable. As far as understanding the "geometry" involved in you explanation, I understand that completely. And a slight reduction in the size of a triangular file for square filing will both enable the top of the tooth to remain longer while both increasing the gullet and at the same time avoiding the tiestraps.
Now BRUSHWACKER has recently posted that "I (BRUSHWACKER) always felt I was cutting faster using a size larger file then recomended ". I dont know if he meant to say a size smaller or if he actually uses a size bigger. A size bigger will either risk cutting into the tie straps or blunting the top of the tooth as the tooth shortens progressively by subsequent filings. Maybe he will clear this up.
MANUAL recently affirmed my technique where he stated, "Yep, and the further or older the chain gets worn out start using the next file down in size. (sharp very sharp). Opinions are of course as varied as our personalities, and I appreciate yours. I just don't totally agree with it, as you have taken issue with only a portion of my post that was included incidentally, whereas I had hoped to make it clear that the thrust of my suggestion was about file size.
With regard to your latest suggestion of using a file o plate on the rakers, let me say that years ago I filed my rakers with a flat file but discovered that particular linear sections of the file were quick to wear out due to the fact that the file was forced to lie between two teeth without much side play, not allowing the user to utilize the entire surface of the file.. . Good flat files are expensive and sometimes hard to come by. Sometimes chain rakers that have metalurgically crystalized can quickly ruin a good file. A die grinder is much more economical and quicker. Maybe the new tools you mention that aid in this filing process utilize some type of file unknown to me that can be totally utilized without destroying linear sections of the same. If so explain.?? Otherwise I will use my trusty die grinder and a good pair of reading glasses.
By the way a dime is about 50 thousandths and my eyeball suggestion of "half the thickness of a dime" just happens to fall right within the guidelines you sugested in one of your earlier posts. How about that? See we agree again. So if you take into account my concessions mentioned above, unless you are opposed to using a smaller size file in order to obtain a gullet having a greater hawkbill style when utilizing round chisel chain as most of us do, and without destroying the tiestraps, then I suppose you and I agree more than we disagree.

 

[Justsaws]

Wow, you really like typing. A lot.

 

[lastradicaldude]

I hate typing. But I hate being misunderstood more. :bang:

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

The bulk of my posts is a result of being here a long time. I only average 2 or 3 posts a day. I have been laughed off a few times along the way.
I picked on you for adjusting your depth gages by hand because it's so clearly wrong. Which makes you loose credibility for the rest of your post.
Flat files are cheap and last a long time. The File-o-plate allows you to use the whole file surface, unlike some of the other raker gages. But if your doing it with a machine to save money on files, I have to wonder.
The hawk beak you speak of, the metal left at the bottom of the cutter's cutting edge, is what most filers want to get rid of. It impedes the flow of chips through the chip channel. Another benefit of large round files.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

On the raker subject, the least you could do is to check your grinding with a gage when your done and smooth off the surface with a file.
I don't have any advivce for when you take too much off.

 

[lastradicaldude]

The bulk of my posts is a result of being here a long time. I only average 2 or 3 posts a day. I have been laughed off a few times along the way.
I picked on you for adjusting your depth gages by hand because it's so clearly wrong. Which makes you loose credibility for the rest of your post.
Flat files are cheap and last a long time. The File-o-plate allows you to use the whole file surface, unlike some of the other raker gages. But if your doing it with a machine to save money on files, I have to wonder.
The hawk beak you speak of, the metal left at the bottom of the cutter's cutting edge, is what most filers want to get rid of. It impedes the flow of chips through the chip channel. Another benefit of large round files.

Mike Mass also stated in his last post, "On the raker subject, the least you could do is to check your grinding with a gage when your done and smooth off the surface with a file. I don't have any advivce for when you take too much off. "


Mike you notoriously only remember only about half of what I post. I have had many groundies like that. :hmm3grin2orange: Hear just what they want to hear. Now, Mike if you hadn't been so intent on picking on me, and had scrutinized my first post more closely you would have picked up on the fact that I specifically stated, "The way I sharpen gives a slight hawkbill look and style to the tooth, preserving the top longer, while at the same time filing a larger undercut" . The emphasis here is on the adjective SLIGHT. And I also pointed out in that same post that, "On some profile chain it may be necessary to use the recommended file on the first filing or so. But as the teeth get shorter, they slope down, requiring a smaller file to avoid cutting the tie straps, while still maintaining 80% of the file below the top of the tooth." But Mike it seems you completely misunderstood what I was trying to convey, as is now proven by your recent statement, "The hawk beak you speak of, the metal left at the bottom of the cutter's cutting edge, is what most filers want to get rid of. It impedes the flow of chips through the chip channel." Now Mike I hope you are the only reader of this thread that confused both my original explanation of the hawkbill and that posted on 08-29-2006, 11:28 PM where I stated "the thrust of my advice centers around using a smaller diameter file that would allow about 80% of the file to create a hawkbill gullet below the top of the chain. ", with what you now describe as "the metal left at the bottom of the cutter's cutting edge". Now Mike I totally agree that there shoudn't be any metal left at the bottom of the cutters cutting edge, as I agree this will clog the channel, and it was for this very reason that I stated in my first post that "On some profile chain it may be necessary to use the recommended file on the first filing or so", until the teeth are shortened and lower. Now do you remember? Go back and read Mike and then before you pick on somebody you will know what you are picking about. This will help your credibility.
And while I am on this subject I will explain the hawkbill a little better. Shoot for 80% of the file below the top of the tooth and 25-30% of the file under the top of the tooth. It is this slightly enlarged undercut gullet that gives the tooth the enhanced cutting capability.
Have you ever purchased a pocket knife only to learn that it needed sharpening from the outset. Chain Mfgs. are like knife manufacturers; the mfg. cost would increase disproportionately if care was taken to machine every tooth on chain with the finer edge that filing can provide. Anyone who has ever used chain resharpened on a commercial sharpening grinder knows that the edge and performance is inferiior to that obtained with a file.
With respect to your recent claim that "Flat files are cheap and last a long time", I don't know what side of the world you live on. I consider today's prices on good quality flat files to be quite expensive, but you should remember that expense wasn't the only reason I choose to use a die grinder. In my third post on this thread, I stated there, "A die grinder is much more economical and quicker". Can you say 'AND QUICKER' ?
If you intend to pick on me, you better learn to read my posts a little closer, and pack a lunch. I only submitted this original thread to contribute to this site, not to get into a pissing contest, but just maybe your misunderstanding has aided others to comprehend more clearly the technique I originally suggested.
By the way, today I dropped the rakers on one of my saws with my grinder and decided to take your advice and guage the clearance afterwards. Clearances ranged between 24 and 30 thousandths, with the majority being around 26. Now I know this isn't perfect, but it falls within the 20-30 thousandths that you posted earlier; but more importantly it works for me as I prefer a little more clearance. Maybe when someone develops an inexpensive guage lowering attachment that will utilize a die grinder cutting wheel, I just might try it. But due to the additional expense, and personal energy output required in utilizing flat files, I think I will stick with my grinder.
I hope you know that all my remarks are in good fun. LOL

 

[SmokinDodge]

Dude, (never thought I would address someone as such) would you set up a test, your chain vs a brand spankin new one of the same type? Three cuts in the same wood, same operator. I very curious as to the outcome of a test like this and maybe it would save some typing. :hmm3grin2orange:

My brother in law works for a small engine shop and taught me to sharpen a chain in a very similar manner in which you describe. It seems like it cuts faster, but now I'm not so sure. :help:

I hear what you are saying on dropping the depth gauges with a grinder though, by the time you lower two whole chains with a file it just is shot.

 

[lastradicaldude]

Chain testing

I plan to compare in the near future. Not sure exactly when, but the next new chain I put on either the 625 jon or the 120 dolmar will be timed while new and then again after the first sharpening. I also want to compare new chain time with an older chain that is cutting with the last 25% of the tooth.
Thanks for the interest.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

It's helpful if we use standard terms for what we are talking about. The gullet is the lower part of the cutter between the depth gage and the cutter side plate. You want to keep it as clean as you can without weakening the cutter too much.
What you are talking about (I think) is changing the outside side plate angle by using a smaller file. Essentially you're add more hook, using a sharper angle. Doing this will make the chain feel like it's fast, because it's grabby, but will really slow it down.

http://www.madsens1.com/angles.htm

I don't know what you guys are doing to your flat files to wear them out so fast. I have files that are years old that still file fine. I've got one file that came with a cheapo oregon raker gage for about $3, that I bet I've used fifty or a hundred times.
When you check your depth gages and they are inconsistent, that gives you an idea of what your cutter angles are like, inconsistent.