MS362 vs MS391

[mountainlake]

the 362 and 391 shouldn't even be mention in the same sentence. Steve

 

[sbhooper]

I have an MS362, MS500i,
Makita 7900 and occasionally use a colleagues MS390. IMO forget the 390. The 500 is too expensive for the wife, the 7900 is way more saw than the 362 and can be gotten for about the same or less (here in the UK at least). I never pick up the 362 anymore, it’s a fine saw but the others are all better. I run a 22” bar on the 7900 and it’s like a laser in any type of wood I cut. Looking at a 7900 would be my suggestion

I believe that Makita is going out of the chainsaw business.

 

[Andyshine77]

25 actually. The Jonsered sitting there is 18”.

You bought the right saw. When you recover from the dent the saw put in you're wallet, grab a 28" lightweight bar, you'll never use the one that's on the saw ever again. When you get used to the reach of longer bars you'll never go back.

 

[Volund]

I believe that Makita is going out of the chainsaw business.

Makita is, but the manufactorer of the chainsaws is Dolmar.

 

[bwalker]

Makita is, but the manufactorer of the chainsaws is Dolmar.

Are they still being sold in the US?

 

[sbhooper]

Are they still being sold in the US?

I don't think so. My kid's fire crew was running them and not this year, because they will no longer be available. They are glad to get rid of them. Nothing but issues. Makita and Dolmar are the same company. They merged years back. Makita took over US sales, so who knows where it will finally shake down.

 

[bwalker]

I don't think so. My kid's fire crew was running them and not this year, because they will no longer be available. They are glad to get rid of them. Nothing but issues. Makita and Dolmar are the same company. They merged years back. Makita took over US sales, so who knows where it will finally shake down.

The issues dont suprise me. I logged for a short period with a 7900 when they first came out. Had problems and parts distribution was a huge issue. Never bought another and wont.

 

[tremblingwaters]

Great choice going with the 462. I made the mistake of 60cc saws and learned the best combo is a 50/70. The 462 is also perfectly paired with a 261.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HumBurner]

Hi mate, he never said he fells 48” oak, he said he cuts up 48” oak. Let’s just say he fells it, so when it’s on the ground he gets out a bigger saw to cut it up? Or does he really section up a whole tree coming from both sides with an ms 290

Why wouldn’t he use the bigger saw to fell it?

If he uploads a video of him falling and then bucking a 48” section of tree with a 20” bar (which isn’t possible) on a 290 and I’ll eat my words. Why would anyone be tackling 48” trees with an ms 290 anyway? The whole thing doesn’t make sense..

I agree here. Even if no dogs on the saw, there's an 8 inch post all the way inside that the saw physically cant reach from any angle.

Unless you rip cut the logs then cut the post.


But now your spending three times as much time on a log, as well as running the motor and chain harder ripping the log, assuming no heart-rot, using more fuel/oil and so on.


Clearly we aren't talking production by any means. This is another thing to consider when bringing up these comments, production versus casual cutting.



So yea, I'm still intrigued on a few levels.....

 

[bwalker]

I agree here. Even if no dogs on the saw, there's an 8 inch post all the way inside that the saw physically cant reach from any angle.

Unless you rip cut the logs then cut the post.


But now your spending three times as much time on a log, as well as running the motor and chain harder ripping the log, assuming no heart-rot, using more fuel/oil and so on.


Clearly we aren't talking production by any means. This is another thing to consider when bringing up these comments, production versus casual cutting.



So yea, I'm still intrigued on a few levels.....

You can indeed cut a 48" if you had to with a 20" bar. You just have to cut out a pocket to get it done.

 

[dmb2613]

The 462 is a hell of a saw, nothing out there to compete with it either

 

[HumBurner]

You can indeed cut a 48" if you had to with a 20" bar. You just have to cut out a pocket to get it done.

By "pocket" do you mean a "V" or rectangular block out of the wood large enough to fit the motor head through?

If so, yea okay, but that's an extreme waste of time and energy, both human and petrol. Makes 0 sense why anyone would do that with any kind of regularity as opposed to acquiring the tool for the job also known as the path of least effort.

 

[sb47]

By "pocket" do you mean a "V" or rectangular block out of the wood large enough to fit the motor head through?

If so, yea okay, but that's an extreme waste of time and energy, both human and petrol. Makes 0 sense why anyone would do that with any kind of regularity as opposed to acquiring the tool for the job also known as the path of least effort.

Only a fool spends a grand on a saw they might only use ones or twice a year.

 

[HumBurner]

Note the word regularity.

 

[86 350x]

I read the word “often” that word is not the same meaning as once or twice a year

 

[Jasent]

I got a 391 that just sits. It’s got good power but heavy for the power imo. I’d grab my 361 of the 391 any day of the week!

 

[bwalker]

By "pocket" do you mean a "V" or rectangular block out of the wood large enough to fit the motor head through?

If so, yea okay, but that's an extreme waste of time and energy, both human and petrol. Makes 0 sense why anyone would do that with any kind of regularity as opposed to acquiring the tool for the job also known as the path of least effort.

Yes. Or you could make an open face notch such that you could easily bore cut that 8" out.
My point is there are things you can do to make what you have work. I think we have all BTDT at one time or another. And the fact if the matter is the average guy wont be running into 48" trees very often. As such it doesnt make a lot of sense to gear uonfornthat size wood when the average stick you cut is much smaller.

 

[sb47]

Yes. Or you could make an open face notch such that you could easily bore cut that 8" out.
My point is there are things you can do to make what you have work. I think we have all BTDT at one time or another. And the fact if the matter is the average guy wont be running into 48" trees very often. As such it doesnt make a lot of sense to gear uonfornthat size wood when the average stick you cut is much smaller.

Remember I said I can cut a LOG 48'' with a 20'' bar. I'm not felling trees that size. It's very simple. If you cut a log that size to your desired length your gonna have to noodle it down to quarters just to be a size you can put on the average splitter. You simply cut down one side then across the top and down the other side. Then noodle it from the end just off center. I have done it many times.

 

[MagraAdam]

I paid $800AUD for my 391 and just got a 361 for $520AUD and while I haven't used it heaps, it's already a much better saw. Better balanced, quieter, slightly more power, better features. It was a steal! I prefer the filter on the 391, but that's about it. I run them both with 20 inch bars with 063 3/8 full chisel chains in Australian gum.

 

[HerdBull99]

It’s the usual east coast west coast nonsense. 40cc with a 32” or 120cc with a 16”.

Well I was a pro timber feller, limber, bucker in MOLALLA, ORE. And we were running Stihl
O90- 60" 075-48" back in late
70's --74--80 I've ran STIHLS &
HUSKY'S, There both good saws, if you keep them up.
But now we have good saws,
Good power, much lighter.
But as far as bar length, It is
Really to each there own. If you
Love A long bar cool, if you love A short bar cool. So many
Guys think for example that say stihl-ms361-28-30- is to
Long for 64.01 CC-SAW, BUT
It depends on each person's
Experiences, some of us guys
Can knock a 6'-Stick Down with
A 24"- BAR, So bar length really
Comes down to common sense, if your cutting small fire