Face cut or back cut first?

[Joseph W Santora]

Hi Guys;
I've always cut the face first but I've seen some do the back cut first. Is there a reason why I might want to do the back first?

Joe

 

[EchoRomeoCharlie]

Hi Guys;
I've always cut the face first but I've seen some do the back cut first. Is there a reason why I might want to do the back first?

Joe

Back cut first is only useful in VERY specific situations. A back leaning tree that you can't get a line in that is fairly small diameter and will sit back on the saw before you can get the hinge thin enough to wedge the tree over.

There's very few situations where back cut first is necessary. Most people are doing it because they saw a guy on YouTube do it and think it's cool.


For example, I've been felling trees for over 20 years now and I've never needed it. I've done it just to try it...but it wasn't absolutely necessary. It's much more difficult to line up the face cut to an already placed back cut. So unless you need it, it's not something you should do just because.

 

[computeruser]

What ERC said.

 

[TheJollyLogger]

Yeah, mostly YouTube cuts, not going to say there isn't a place, but very rare

 

[Joseph W Santora]

Thanks guys.

 

[Exophysical]

Most of my firewood is made up of Birch that I selectively fell in thick bush. The diameter is generally not large, I need to be pretty accurate with my felling, and using a rope would be complicated. I use the back cut first method on back leaners all the time. With a larger diameter back leaner its not really neccessary, but neither is there any major downside.

As for being a U tube cut, I dunno, its a simple common sense cut that saves your wedges from getting chewed up, and its almost always easyer than running a rope. Nothing complicated or show boat about it, so not really what I think of as a "U-tube cut".

 

[ATH]

Unless the tree's diameter is less than about 2x the width of you bar, I cannot think of any example where a back cut first would be better than a face cut, then plunge, set wedges, finish cut from back.

 

[Exophysical]

Unless the tree's diameter is less than about 2x the width of you bar, I cannot think of any example where a back cut first would be better than a face cut, then plunge, set wedges, finish cut from back.

I'd like to see you actually demonstrate that cut on a tree 12" or less. Not saying its impossible, but it would be obvious to anyone watching said demonstration that its a far more awkward cut.

 

[ATH]

It's really not that hard at all 12". Once you get to 8", yes, that it's getting pretty close to 2v times the bar width. It requires using a shallow, wide open face cut... Which is really becoming standard face cut among professional fellers even on large trees... With the exception being the really really large trees on steep terrain where I'm pretty sure a Humboldt is still pretty much the norm? (We don't have those around here, so I'm not working directly with loggers cutting those trees and using a Humboldt notch)

 

[Exophysical]

It's really not that hard at all 12". Once you get to 8", yes, that it's getting pretty close to 2v times the bar width. It requires using a shallow, wide open face cut... Which is really becoming standard face cut among professional fellers even on large trees... With the exception being the really really large trees on steep terrain where I'm pretty sure a Humboldt is still pretty much the norm? (We don't have those around here, so I'm not working directly with loggers cutting those trees and using a Humboldt notch)

As far as I'm concerned, to a homeowner or firewood guy, a Humboldt is more of a U-tube cut than doing the back first. If that log isnt going to a lumber or plywood mill, facing off the butt isnt going to be an issue and getting your stump lower would be of more value. JMO.

So with your method, as you pointed out, you would have to be very careful to not over-do your face wedge. Then you plunge the back, so I'm assuming you would set two wedges angled in around whatever you left, then try to snip that out from between them? I heat a house in northern Canada with wood... but I'm no pro, and I would be way more likely to botch something with that cut.

 

[ATH]

Big Tree or small, I'm convinced a wide open face cut is the way to go. Aiming for 90°. That holds the hinge in place all the way until it hits the ground. Often one wedge is enough. If you're reading the lean of the tree well, you can come a little bit further around on one side of the plunge and leave a little bit more holding wood (sometimes called a trigger) around the other side which allows you to put a wedge in straight in the back. However, even if it's angled from the side it's still not terrible to get the tree to go forward because you have a good hinge directing it that way.

I would agree a plunge cuts is not a tool for an untrained user... But nor is a back cut first! With a plunge cut, it is my experience you have more control of the tree through the entire process. I say that, admittedly not having much experience going back cut first... But that's because I can't imagine a situation when I would.

(The only reason I threw Humboldt in there is recognizing it is still used in the West when I said most loggers are using a wide open cut... That's another discussion that doesn't have much relevance here ...just a qualifier)

 

[Exophysical]

Big Tree or small, I'm convinced a wide open face cut is the way to go. Aiming for 90°. That holds the hinge in place all the way until it hits the ground. Often one wedge is enough. If you're reading the lean of the tree well, you can come a little bit further around on one side of the plunge and leave a little bit more holding wood (sometimes called a trigger) around the other side which allows you to put a wedge in straight in the back. However, even if it's angled from the side it's still not terrible to get the tree to go forward because you have a good hinge directing it that way.

I would agree a plunge cuts is not a tool for an untrained user... But nor is a back cut first! With a plunge cut, it is my experience you have more control of the tree through the entire process. I say that, admittedly not having much experience going back cut first... But that's because I can't imagine a situation when I would.

(The only reason I threw Humboldt in there is recognizing it is still used in the West when I said most loggers are using a wide open cut... That's another discussion that doesn't have much relevance here ...just a qualifier)

I'm not scared of bore cuts, I just see more potential for misjudgement trying to cram a notch, plunge, trigger and wedges onto a small stump. Back cut first theres only one thing I need to worry about. Obviously, YMMV.

The fact that its favored by an opinionated U-tube weirdo shouldnt be a factor.

 

[HumBurner]

Hi Guys;
I've always cut the face first but I've seen some do the back cut first. Is there a reason why I might want to do the back first?

Joe

To insert wedges on a heavily back leaning/weighted tree.

 

[EchoRomeoCharlie]

I'm not scared of bore cuts, I just see more potential for misjudgement trying to cram a notch, plunge, trigger and wedges onto a small stump. Back cut first theres only one thing I need to worry about. Obviously, YMMV.

The fact that its favored by an opinionated U-tube weirdo shouldnt be a factor.

It is a big factor, because a bunch of people that rarely touch saws see this guy going on and on about a cutting sequence in multiple videos that is only applicable in <1% of trees and all of a sudden because they have this proverbial hammer, every tree looks like a nail to them. This is why I bring it up to smart people that ask about it before attempting it. Most of the time it makes them understand that just because they saw it on YouTube doesn't mean it's a good choice. For ever smart one that asks here, there are 100 that don't ask...

If he (the YouTuber in question) had a series explaining, in detail, all the different felling cut sequences and explaining better when and why they should be used, I would be fine with him including it in that series. However, he's really just a lifestyle Youtube channel. He attracts mostly non-fallers that fantasize about being fallers. He doesn't really make how to videos, but then he tries to, in the middle of them, teach how to do something that random guys with saws don't understand they probably shouldn't be doing.

He keeps hitting on it because he knows that videos about him explaining that cut sequence get views. He wants views because views = money. So he keeps on with the BCF stuff. If you google search back cut first, 4 videos pop up first result with 'back cut first' in the title and guess who all of them are from? He does this because videos with that in the title make him more money.

I'm not saying he shouldn't make videos that make him money. He should. I'm not telling people to not use this cut sequence. It is useful in certain situations. However, it's definitely not as useful as he likes to make it look. Explaining why it's not that useful and making people aware that it's that prevalent on YouTube because of monetary reasons is absolutely valid.

 

[Exophysical]

It is a big factor, because a bunch of people that rarely touch saws see this guy going on and on about a cutting sequence in multiple videos that is only applicable in <1% of trees and all of a sudden because they have this proverbial hammer, every tree looks like a nail to them. This is why I bring it up to smart people that ask about it before attempting it. Most of the time it makes them understand that just because they saw it on YouTube doesn't mean it's a good choice. For ever smart one that asks here, there are 100 that don't ask...

If he (the YouTuber in question) had a series explaining, in detail, all the different felling cut sequences and explaining better when and why they should be used, I would be fine with him including it in that series. However, he's really just a lifestyle Youtube channel. He attracts mostly non-fallers that fantasize about being fallers. He doesn't really make how to videos, but then he tries to, in the middle of them, teach how to do something that random guys with saws don't understand they probably shouldn't be doing.

He keeps hitting on it because he knows that videos about him explaining that cut sequence get views. He wants views because views = money. So he keeps on with the BCF stuff. If you google search back cut first, 4 videos pop up first result with 'back cut first' in the title and guess who all of them are from? He does this because videos with that in the title make him more money.

I'm not saying he shouldn't make videos that make him money. He should. I'm not telling people to not use this cut sequence. It is useful in certain situations. However, it's definitely not as useful as he likes to make it look. Explaining why it's not that useful and making people aware that it's that prevalent on YouTube because of monetary reasons is absolutely valid.

What percentage of trees do you fall that are back leaners? It can effectively be used on exactly that percentage of trees. Its not dangerous so long as you dont take out your hinge, and if you're legitimately worried about that happening... you probably shouldn't be messing around with back leaners to begin with.

I'll agree that Buckin' probably shouldnt be presenting some of his material as instructional, but I also think its become fashionably edgy to critique BBR over any handy excuse. BCF is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.

 

[TheJollyLogger]

On small back leaners I've always made a shallow face cut, bored through the face to the back, set my wedge, and then cut both sides above the wedge to set a hinge on each side... tough to describe in words , but easy in practice.

 

[Exophysical]

On small back leaners I've always made a shallow face cut, bored through the face to the back, set my wedge, and then cut both sides above the wedge to set a hinge on each side... tough to describe in words , but easy in practice.

I used to do that, I still use that cut on side leaners. I'd like to start a thread about side leaners, I'd be interested in knowing lots more about taking them down. Any suggestion which forum to put it in for best responses?

 

[TheJollyLogger]

I used to do that, I still use that cut on side leaners. I'd like to start a thread about side leaners, I'd be interested in knowing lots more about taking them down. Any suggestion which forum to put it in for best responses?

101

 

[muddy42]

Its always traditional face cuts first for me. I'll use wedges on all bigger trees whether leaning or not. Yes with a small lean I just use more wedges to "wedge it over" but there is a limit to this technique, eventually you have to fell with the lean or use ropes, or pass. This was how I I was taught to fell 15 years ago and its worked well so far. I am generally making firewood so the Humboldt is unnecessary and I find the upwards cut awkward.

 

[HumBurner]

Its always traditional face cuts first for me. I'll use wedges on all bigger trees whether leaning or not. Yes with a small lean I just use more wedges to "wedge it over" but there is a limit to this technique, eventually you have to fell with the lean or use ropes, or pass. This was how I I was taught to fell 15 years ago and its worked well so far. I am generally making firewood so the Humboldt is unnecessary and I find the upwards cut awkward.

By sawing lean and undermining the center of gravity most trees don't need wedges or ropes. This takes practice to determine safely.