Ms-200 Pro

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Erik you never used one, yet you know it will hurt the industry if they are available, interesting.
I hate sheep with closed minds.

 

[NeTree]

Who said it would "hurt"? I just don't see the need for "insurance industry pressure"...

open ears and eyes...

 

[TREETX]

Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel
Nate,
be sure to take mental notes of just how effective all those regulations are.

Trust me, I plan to. A lot of regs do just the opposite of their intention.

I notice they have Tree Protection Ordinances protecting trees over 16"dbh. End result? More trees? Nope, just cutting them before they hit the dreaded 16". The neighborhood here with the biggest trees is the one with no TPO. Coincidence? I think not.

Regulations seem like most knots, they are either correct or 100% wrong.

Mike, sign me up for that rear handled climbing saw. More tools in the box, the better.

 

[NeTree]

While we're at it, anyone ever try the Echo CS3450 (the rear-handled version of the 3400/340)?

 

[TREETX]

Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel
I think what will hurt the industry is if regulations strip us of our choices and mandate use of this type saw.

It pains me to say it, but AMEN!

 

[MasterBlaster]

Back on topic, I think it will be a neat little saw. I only ask for a TH saw for trims, a RH saw would be fine for TD's and light groundwork.
The RH aspect lends itself toward better leverage for doing that type of cutting, just the way a TH saw's balance works best for making clean, trimming cuts.

I might get me one of them puppies!

 

[NeTree]

I used a 3450 for a day, and while not particularly powerful, it was real easy to handle, light... sweet!




Besides, Mike....

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you...

 

[SilverBlue]

So they build an idiot proof saw…then they build bigger idiots. Who says that the accident prone won’t one hand the news versions?

 

[wiley_p]

I thought there was already a rear handled tree saw isnt it a 346 modified as in PP KD etc?

 

[Bill G]

A month ago I talked with a local Stihl dealer about this. He is a avid carver and mentioned taht he would like to see the RH MS200 here in the US. He said it would never happen though because of the "cost of testing" they would have to do to allow it to sold here. He said Stihl would not sell enough of them to justify the cost. I am not saying I agree or disagree with him I am just telling you what he said. This is the same guy that told me 090's have not been available in the US for 20 years. Take it all with a grain of salt.

Bill

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Here it is, enjoy...

 

[MasterBlaster]

It looks like a decent ground saw.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Now, can someone explain why a rear handled saw suddenly become an awkward piece of junk once it's used in a bucket or tree?

 

[rahtreelimbs]

That new Husky that Mike Maas posted a pic of looks like something that got thrown into a chipper only to be pulled out before it got totally ate!!!

 

[NeTree]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
Now, can someone explain why a rear handled saw suddenly become an awkward piece of junk once it's used in a bucket or tree?

It depends on what yer using it for...

I like one-handing my Echo....

 

[xander9727]

Why does Davey need a specially designed saw for their bucket trucks. Wouldn't one of the available rear handled saws fulfill the requirement? Seems counter productive to me but, I'm sure it made sense to someone.......If they bought 10,000!

Mongo is only Pawn in game of life.....

 

[Lumberjack]

It would seem to me that a current small RH saw would fill the niche of a RH 200. What would make that so great? I know power and weight, but doesn't still already make a petite RH saw with the same power?

If not then I could settle for my 025.

Carl

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

The saw is nothing like the 025, it's smaller, lighter and cuts fast. It can be held out with one hand by the rear handle, try that with an 025.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Originally posted by netree
In other words, if they say it it must be true...

Here's an example:




Motorcycle helmet laws were pushed by insurance companies as a way of "saving lives", based of the number of head-trauma fatalities in relation with the number of total accidents.


The fact is, the fatality % per accidents hasn't changed at all... You'll die from "internal injuries" instead of "head injuries"... which is exactly what happened. The numbers stayed the same, they just shifted columns.

Bad example. Have a look:http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/helmet_use.htm#1
Notice the head injury accidents are also much lower with a helmet, something a death statistic might not show. Those really expense, long, drawn out, head injuries, which rider's insurance doesn't completely cover and taxpayers get to foot the bill for.

 

[NeTree]

Nevermind, Mike... you missed the point completely... as usual.