Help in deciding between Stihl MS 462 and 500i Chainsaw

[lone wolf]

I don't mind it as much on the smaller saws(like the 241 and down), or the larger saws, but for limbing and falling I prefer the huskys and dolmars, climbing and bucking just hand me a saw with a sharp chain and full of fluids.

Pretty sure I've got more stihls than you have . You should know this by now .

You try a 500I?

 

[ElevatorGuy]

I know that @chipper1 however your fellow Michigan neighbor can eat a bag of dix.

 

[chipper1]

You try a 500I?

I ran a ported one with a 20" bar and a square chain, it was kinda hard to make a judgment call on it's power. It still felt like a stihl in hand, and fairly light though.
At least they have put an angle on the top handlebar, I like that much better than the straight handlebars of the past, still prefer the handling of a husky/dolmar.

 

[chipper1]

I know that @chipper1 however your fellow Michigan neighbor can eat a bag of dix.

Not sure who that is.

 

[Sierra_rider]

Too bad the stihls are so screwed up ergonomically

I used to think the Huskies were the perfect west coast saws, as they always balanced nicely with long bars. Even when it was in its XT configuration, my 372 felt as light as my 044s, even though it was over 1lb heavier...now in lighter OE configuration, it's an easier saw to run. The handlebar is further forward on the chassis compared to the 044s, so it has better balance with a 28 or 32" bar.

However, my 400 and 500i(and the 462R I use at work) seem to have taken this approach. The wrap handles are now in the way of the bar nuts, just like Huskies...that part is annoying, but the saws do handle better in that configuration. If there is any balance issue with the Stihls nowadays, it's because they are so light. My ported 400 can run a 32" bar no problemo, but the powerhead is still only 60cc weight, so it feels a bit weird with longer bars. I run a 28" lightweight on it 99% of the time and the saw is a dream with that combo. That 400 is my go-to when I need a rear handle for climbing.

 

[chipper1]

I used to think the Huskies were the perfect west coast saws, as they always balanced nicely with long bars. Even when it was in its XT configuration, my 372 felt as light as my 044s, even though it was over 1lb heavier...now in lighter OE configuration, it's an easier saw to run. The handlebar is further forward on the chassis compared to the 044s, so it has better balance with a 28 or 32" bar.

However, my 400 and 500i(and the 462R I use at work) seem to have taken this approach. The wrap handles are now in the way of the bar nuts, just like Huskies...that part is annoying, but the saws do handle better in that configuration. If there is any balance issue with the Stihls nowadays, it's because they are so light. My ported 400 can run a 32" bar no problemo, but the powerhead is still only 60cc weight, so it feels a bit weird with longer bars. I run a 28" lightweight on it 99% of the time and the saw is a dream with that combo. That 400 is my go-to when I need a rear handle for climbing.

I run the 24(84dl for the stihl guys lol) on the 462 with the short dogs, still dont like the ergonomics even thoughit balancesjust fine for me. Sometimes I run a 28 on them, and have ran the 32s on them, fine for bucking, but that's about all I want to do with them. Limbing hardwood is a bit different than softwoods, but I still like a husky limbing softwoods. I guess bad habits die hard .

 

[ColinNS]

I wouldn't call 372s junk...they were great saws in their time and are still good saws. I like the 462 better only because it's more modern... mostly just the lighter weight.

Until the 462 came along, I thought the Husky 70cc options were much more compelling than the Stihl offerings. I've got a couple 044s, and my 372 is a much better saw IMO. I'd also argue that the 441 was a downgrade from the 044/440.

Interesting. I am/was a diehard Husky guy. Local dealer really soured me, along with 2 bad 550 experiences. I have had a few 372 and a 044 10 mil. I actually like the 044 better than 372. I now have a 400 and 462. They are both lovely saws, I'm sending the 462 out for a port, does not run a 28inch bar like I feel it should.
Not arguing by any means, I enjoy reading people's honest real world comparisons. I must say though I do think the 372 is more versatile. It is a hell of a saw, I like the 272 more.

 

[ColinNS]

I used to think the Huskies were the perfect west coast saws, as they always balanced nicely with long bars. Even when it was in its XT configuration, my 372 felt as light as my 044s, even though it was over 1lb heavier...now in lighter OE configuration, it's an easier saw to run. The handlebar is further forward on the chassis compared to the 044s, so it has better balance with a 28 or 32" bar.

However, my 400 and 500i(and the 462R I use at work) seem to have taken this approach. The wrap handles are now in the way of the bar nuts, just like Huskies...that part is annoying, but the saws do handle better in that configuration. If there is any balance issue with the Stihls nowadays, it's because they are so light. My ported 400 can run a 32" bar no problemo, but the powerhead is still only 60cc weight, so it feels a bit weird with longer bars. I run a 28" lightweight on it 99% of the time and the saw is a dream with that combo. That 400 is my go-to when I need a rear handle for climbing.

My 400 balances perfect with a 24. 462 is front heavy with a 24. I'd love to run a ported 400, my stocky is amazing I love that saw. Can't wait to have the 462 ported. I find the 24 is about max on the 462, but feels like a little tuning would be a monster with a 28. I'm cutting almost 100% hard wood. Tried my 32 skip tooth on the 462 but it did not care for it too much.

 

[Evan]

I agree 441 was a down grade.

I wouldnt say the 372 is better than the 044. Its for sure different.

Done most all my cutting in the last 5ish years with the 372 before it was 44s and a 46 and few 66s.
The 372 is now paird with a 44ish saw my two favorites.
Neither is very stock both pull a 32 well and just flat out get done what i need done.
Theyre both very fun saws to run the pair cost about half what a 500i cost. Im sure they'll both spank the 500 in the wood.
I can see Sierra rider shaking his head laughing.

 

[Sierra_rider]

I agree 441 was a down grade.

I wouldnt say the 372 is better than the 044. Its for sure different.

Done most all my cutting in the last 5ish years with the 372 before it was 44s and a 46 and few 66s.
The 372 is now paird with a 44ish saw my two favorites.
Neither is very stock both pull a 32 well and just flat out get done what i need done.
Theyre both very fun saws to run the pair cost about half what a 500i cost. Im sure they'll both spank the 500 in the wood.
I can see Sierra rider shaking his head laughing.View attachment 1049760

Depends on the 500i lol.

 

[Evan]

You sir have been holding out. You never said you had one of those sexy covers.

 

[Catfish044]

Depends on the 500i lol.

Now I really want a 500!

 

[Sierra_rider]

You sir have been holding out. You never said you had one of those sexy covers.

I've had the Max-flow for awhile and then dyed the top cover to match. One of my coworkers calls this saw "Lord Vader."

 

[Evan]

Thats awesome

 

[Müller]

I'm planning to buy 500i now, since it's only 200 more than 462 here in Europe. I don't get one thing though, the husky vs stihl thing. It's never ending. I have husky 120 and I have ms291, I love both. They are plastics but anyway. I bought 120 because 291 needs a new piston, I actually love the 120. Smallest there is and yet enough power for small ashes, pines and alder. I worked with 440, I really like the huksy style filter cover, really handy to get off and on. I love Stihl because I don't have to pump it. I have many Stihl bars, so I could use another Stihl...so you see where I'm going. They are both great saws, for me the problem is I really like 562XP, even more maybe than 500i. For me it's never ending, I think I'm bipolar.

 

[GrizG]

I'm planning to buy 500i now, since it's only 200 more than 462 here in Europe. I don't get one thing though, the husky vs stihl thing. It's never ending. I have husky 120 and I have ms291, I love both. They are plastics but anyway. I bought 120 because 291 needs a new piston, I actually love the 120. Smallest there is and yet enough power for small ashes, pines and alder. I worked with 440, I really like the huksy style filter cover, really handy to get off and on. I love Stihl because I don't have to pump it. I have many Stihl bars, so I could use another Stihl...so you see where I'm going. They are both great saws, for me the problem is I really like 562XP, even more maybe than 500i. For me it's never ending, I think I'm bipolar.

From your writing, your self assessment may be accurate. That said, I discount the Husky equipment mostly due to the weak local dealer base whereas I can get Stihl support (for me that means parts) a mile from my home. As such I have 8 pieces of Stihl equipment including 4 chainsaws and a pole saw. The 462 and 500 are both fine saws. My suspicions are, however, that if this is a "life time saw" that the 462 would likely survive with fewer and less expensive maintenance and repair issues. This as at it's heart it's got a regular carburetor that would be relatively inexpensive to replace if need be whereas the fuel injection system of the 500 is not inexpensive.

 

[Hendog]

I’d go for a 661. That’d be a better 2 saw plan. Big 90cc and the 60cc for the small stuff. Love my 661. Go big and don’t look back

According to the WCS site, a bark box will add 6-10% hp. If that's the case, at 10 % increase, the 500i would be 7.3 hp slightly above the 661. I recently installed the Bark Box on my 500i and I love it so far but definitely need earplugs.

 

[GrizG]

Perhaps this question should be addressed in the context of the region and the local conditions where the saw is to be used… For example, the Pacific NW vs upstate N.Y. or PA. This as they present different demands…

Me… I’m in upstate NY. Hardwoods dominate. The majority of my cutting is with an MS261 with an 18” bar. The second most used saw is an MS461 which currently has a 20” bar. My least used saw is an MS661 with a 25” bar. I have a 36” bar that can be used on the 461 or 661.

I rarely encounter a tree over about 24”. I like it when I do so I can run the 661 and not feel like it’s too much saw.

I wonder how responses here would look to folks if the regional conditions were included?

 

[EchoRomeoCharlie]

Perhaps this question should be addressed in the context of the region and the local conditions where the saw is to be used… For example, the Pacific NW vs upstate N.Y. or PA. This as they present different demands…

Me… I’m in upstate NY. Hardwoods dominate. The majority of my cutting is with an MS261 with an 18” bar. The second most used saw is an MS461 which currently has a 20” bar. My least used saw is an MS661 with a 25” bar. I have a 36” bar that can be used on the 461 or 661.

I rarely encounter a tree over about 24”. I like it when I do so I can run the 661 and not feel like it’s too much saw.

I wonder how responses here would look to folks if the regional conditions were included?

Maybe. Sometimes people do things a certain way because that's the way they've seen it done and just go with it.

I live in WI (like you mostly hardwoods in the <24-30" range) and I run a 500i with a 28" bar pretty much all the time. The only time I get the 261 out is if I'm going to be doing a LOT of limbing or work in smaller trees. Even if I'm in fairly small wood, I still run the 28" bar because the 500i cuts through that stuff a LOT faster than my 261 with an 18" bar. I'm all about getting stuff done faster with less fatigue.

Most people around here think anything over 20" bar is overkill. I was raised that way; my grandfather told me any bar over 20" is just a waste of money. Then I started doing things different ways to see what worked better....long bars are great even if you're in modest sized trees. Standing up and cutting with the tip is a lot easier on your body than bending over with a 20" bar all day. My grandpa also taught me to angle back cut...and several other things that simply weren't a good way of doing things...

I think people tend to get set in their ways and refuse to believe that the way their grand pappy did it isn't necessarily the best or most efficient way...or maybe it was back in the 60's, but not with today's technology.

Obviously what tree's you usually cut and your geography does play a part in your equipment choices, however, I think if more people gave longer bars a legit chance, more people would use them. The only thing I don't like about longer bars is all the teeth to sharpen lol