Husky mid-size saw for climbing

[Redbull]

I would like to get a mid-range saw for larger wood when climbing. I have a Partner S-65 which has enough power, but weighs a ton. I also have a 385 which is a little overkill for what I do. So, would I be better off with a 372 with a little more power, or go with a 359 for a lighter saw. Stihl is not an option here, my Stihl dealer sucks and my Husky dealer is great, so he gets my business.

 

[kf_tree]

what size bar do you want to run? i don't know what you use as a climbing saw ms200 i hope. i'd go 372 with a 24in bar. i have a a modded 346 and 357 and i run a 16in bar on the 346 and a 20 on the 357.

i just picked up a dolmar 7900 but i haven't even put fuel in it yet so i can't comment on it. the 372's are tried and true good runners. on a 359 anything more than a 16in bar is too much, they just don't have the torque to pass through vertical wood. i currently have a stock and modded form of most current husky models with bar lengths from 16-36in, so ask away with questions.

 

[Redbull]

I want to run a 20-24" bar. My climbing saw is an Echo 300 (don't say it, it works for what I need it to do and is very reliable). When doing pruning jobs, I rarely use my Echo, but when I do removals, I'd like to haul something a little lighter than my Partner S-65.

 

[Simonizer]

I want to run a 20-24" bar. My climbing saw is an Echo 300 (don't say it, it works for what I need it to do and is very reliable). When doing pruning jobs, I rarely use my Echo, but when I do removals, I'd like to haul something a little lighter than my Partner S-65.

372XP is a nice machine. Cheers.

 

[skwerl]

There's a heck of a lot of saws suited for climbing removals in between a dinky lil Echo 300 and a Husky 372. And after 20 years of climbing, I must admit that the times I've needed a 24" bar in a tree are but a tiny percentage of my removal work. And I like Echo's, I ran the 340/3400 for many years as my primary climbing saw. It was good for up to 8" stuff or so. I now run the 200T which easily handles everything up to 12". Then I switch to a 3 cube saw with 18" bar (was a Stihl 026 and now a Husky 346XP). It's a rare day when I need a bigger saw in order to get the tree reduced to the point where it can be dropped from the ground.

 

[kf_tree]

I want to run a 20-24" bar

go with a 372 and you'll be happy......skwerl must be 4ft8 and 78lbs.........he likes those little saw's

 

[Redbull]

Skwerl, you're right, I could get away with an 18" bar for 99% of the removals that I do. Do you like the 346? Would it be worth moving up to a 357 for a little more get-up-and-go?

 

[Redbull]

I do have that male complex though where I NEED to have a bigger saw even if I don't really NEED it. My dealer tried to convince me that all I needed was a 372 but I insisted he order a 385. I'm glad he did!

 

[artwood]

I don't do too much climbing anymore. But, since more time is spent getting from cut to cut, wouldn't you want to go as light as possible to get the job done? The 346 will easiliy handle a 16 or 18" bar. Save the beef for steady on the ground cutting.

 

[skwerl]

For aerial work, I want to be as lightweight and efficient as possible. All my saws except my 200T's are ported, I wouldn't own a stock saw today. The ported 346 is a nice lil screamer although sometimes I wish it had just a little bit more. Typical male, never satisfied and always looking for more power! If I were you, I'd pick up a 357 and compare the weight in your own hands. I've never owned a 60cc range saw.

If I were gonna buy another saw today, I'd be looking hard at the Dolmar 5100. Power of the 60cc saws with the weight of the 50cc saws. That's me, all about power to weight. :thumbsup:

 

[kf_tree]

a stock 357 is best kept with a 16in bar they just don't have the torque for chunking wood. i use the 346 and 357 out of the buckt more than when in the tree. when i'm in the tree i want the most grunt to chunk wood that will get my feet on the ground quickest.

on a decent size removal alot of times i'll go from the ms200 right to the 395. why bother with a mid range saw only to switch 5or 6 cuts later. i like to run the balls off of 372's and 395's in the tree. the 385 to me is kind of a middle saw that should not exist. we have a stock one but i hardly ever use it.

 

[kf_tree]

For aerial work, I want to be as lightweight and efficient as possible.

that statement does and doesn't make sense to me when talking saw's. lets say were both standing on the same size sticks chunking wood. your running a ported 372 and i'm running a ported 395.

i'd bet my feet would be on the ground faster, so wouldn't i be the more efficient climber?

 

[skwerl]

Ken, what size chunks are you typically chunking? I suspect that you may be dealing with taller, larger diameter trees than me and you may be cutting smaller chunks (for smaller working area).

Here in Florida we have lots of really big, fat trees but they aren't fat for more than 20'-30' up. We have hurricanes here so the long lasting trees grow fatter and lower (like our Live Oaks). By the time I'm done cutting 18" leads, the trunk is ready to flop. Pines may be fat for a long ways up but those are a soft wood and I can easily slice through 24" pine with an 18" bar on the 346.

If I were cutting a 60' stem of 30" hardwood into 18" chunks, I'd have a big saw also. But I'm typically moving a bit between cuts so the weight of the saw is more critical.

 

[Redbull]

I'm in the same boat as Skwerl as far as wanting to carry less weight, but, I am willing to carry a little extra weight for a little more power. I would also use this saw on the ground since limbing with a 385 witha 36" bar isn't real safe or practical. Remember, I live in NW Missouri, so the trees aren't what they might be elswhere.

 

[kf_tree]

Ken, what size chunks are you typically chunking? I suspect that you may be dealing with taller, larger diameter trees than me and you may be cutting smaller chunks (for smaller working area).

Here in Florida we have lots of really big, fat trees but they aren't fat for more than 20'-30' up. We have hurricanes here so the long lasting trees grow fatter and lower (like our Live Oaks). By the time I'm done cutting 18" leads, the trunk is ready to flop. Pines may be fat for a long ways up but those are a soft wood and I can easily slice through 24" pine with an 18" bar on the 346.

If I were cutting a 60' stem of 30" hardwood into 18" chunks, I'd have a big saw also. But I'm typically moving a bit between cuts so the weight of the saw is more critical.

skwerl
i agree with you on those pines a 346 is pretty much all you need. i usually end up chunking the wood down pretty small because of the tight area's i work in. i prefer big power heads with bars on the short side.

 

[kf_tree]

I'm in the same boat as Skwerl as far as wanting to carry less weight, but, I am willing to carry a little extra weight for a little more power. I would also use this saw on the ground since limbing with a 385 witha 36" bar isn't real safe or practical. Remember, I live in NW Missouri, so the trees aren't what they might be elswhere.

were on totaly different page's about what is expected of a saw. the longest bar i would run on a 385 is 28in.

 

[Redbull]

This is what the dealer said I could run. I took his word for it. It has no prob going through hardwoods with a 36" bar. So you're saying I shouldn't run the 44" bar and sprocket that he threw in? Let me know if I shouldn't cause I don't want to tear up my saw.

 

[Redbull]

I was just looking at the Bailey's catalogue and they list the 385 as being able to run up to 42" bar. Can someone give me some advice on what is safe to run on this saw?

 

[skwerl]

Red, it has as much to do with the operator as the length of the bar. Are you skilled enough to run a 42" bar on a 385 and not burn up the saw? A real crackerjack could burn up that saw with a 28"!!

 

[SawTroll]

...., I'd like to haul something a little lighter than my Partner S-65.

If that is the case, the 372 isn't an option - it should weight slightly more than the S-65.
Huskys adverticed weight is very optimistic both for the 372 and the 359, and even worse for the 357, according to test reports from DLG and KWF.

The Stihl MS361 has both notisably less weigh and more power than the S-65.

If Stihl isn't an option, I suggest that you take a close look at the Dolmar PS-5100 which is even lighter, and still should have more power than the S-65.

Edit; Last paragraph deleted, as it was based on bad info! :taped: