I have read this a few places but I'm failing to see how that would cause the bar to "bind up". If the sprocket is no longer supporting the chain then wouldn't it still function like a hardnose bar?
New Ripping Chain Issue
- Thread starter Ayatollah
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Ah sorry I was unclear about what I was saying, I went off on a tangent unrelated to the sprocket thing. I meant when you file the cutting teeth back, at some point they supposedly get no wider than the bar and the bar binds in the cut. This has never happened to me as I've yet to wear out any lo pro chains at all from filing the teeth way back, but I was told my someone who runs standard bars that this occasionally happens to him on chains he's nearly worn out the teeth on. Another thread I posted on today I started checking all my bar widths with calipers, and found my 36" GB lo pro bar was the same width as my 42" Stihl .063 Rollomatic ES bar, and most all my regular 3/8 or. 404 bars, so there isn't actually a difference there. I think BobL did some tests years back on actual kerf produced in cuts, and 3/8LP was producing a kerf of .28-.29", where the bar width is .19", so I can't see you ever being able to file the cutting teeth back so much they're only at bar width.
The issue is more significant when cross-cutting as opposed to ripping. When cross-cutting or cutting against the wood grain the fibres pertrude a lot further from the cut face of the wood so (to prevent binding), you need "x" amount of additional clearance. "x" depends on wood type & condition, bar thickness, cutting conditions, etc
That makes sense, I assumed there was always some additional clearance needed beyond actual bar width. The interesting thing is my 72" GB bar is .26" thick and BobL said he got a kerf of only something like .33 with .404 chain, so it seems like the really big bars might be the ones which need full length full size teeth the most.
To the OP:
I think Coralillo hit on your problem in his first post.
Husky 460 Ranchers usually come with 0.058 bars and chains. The chain you purchased is 0.050, hence you likely have lots of play between the bar and chain. Check your bar to see if it is labeled 0.058.
I think Coralillo hit on your problem in his first post.
Husky 460 Ranchers usually come with 0.058 bars and chains. The chain you purchased is 0.050, hence you likely have lots of play between the bar and chain. Check your bar to see if it is labeled 0.058.
This Thread Has been a VERY GOOD (and informative) READ.
THANKS to Everyone
THANKS to Everyone
This thread kinda went off on so many tangents and replies to other people chiming in, I kinda forgot what the OP's issue was. I would agree that the OP's was likely chain gauge mismatch, but for the fact that Maine had similar issues with new Granberg so I thought the custom grinds of Granberg might have been coming out bad lately. But I never got clarification from either poster about exact bar and chain setup they're using now compared to what worked before and if they had definitively ruled out chain gauge mismatch. Until that's provided, any speculation beyond chain gauge mismatch is pointless.
Just bought another second hand Granberg mill rather than China knockoff junk with useless hardware, so don't want to badmouth a good American company without knowing their chain is the issue. But I've heard this happen too many times specifically with Granberg, and have always had concerns about the consistency of any kind of small batch custom regrind of a stock produced chain. Would rather see that chain manufactured in that style from the start, rather than adapted from existing chain. Though imo, I think it's an overly complex grind to resharpen that's not worth the hassle, but that's just me and my lo pro ways.
Your wasting your time classifing all that. If the wood changed then it all basically means nothing. Just 5° change on the top plate face could smooth out a super loose setup in the gauge.
Yeah, but still need to know all details of what they're doing, including tooth angles, etc. Cause if they're not paying attention to all of it they'll never get consistent results.
Personally I understand the only difference between crosscut chain and ripping chain is the shallower top plate angle - <10 degrees or so. Personally for milling, having tried a shallower angle, I've now gone back to a normal angle. I should say I hand file all chains and I mostly cut knotty hardwood. I found shallow angles a bit slow in the cut, temperamental and hard to get good results. But maybe that's just me and hand filing. Crosscutting angles seems to have more bite and ability to power through hard/grainy/branchy/inclusions of hardwood (I guess it is sort of crosscutting here). Plus you have the same muscle memory and consistency.
To paraphrase the wise BobL, the best chain/grind is the one you're happy with. Not to say some don't provide objectively better results in a controlled environment, but our own quirks/techniques in sharpening, etc, make some things work better for us than others. Odd that you find shallow angles temperamental. As you say, may be to do with your filing technique. I mill the hardest of hardwoods w odd burls and branchy sections and never have an issue powering through anything with 5-10 degree angles w evenly sharpened chain.
Yes wise words indeed. Im sure it is just my technique and that I am better at sharpening more normal angles, because I do this much more frequently.
I've had a bugger of a time hand sharpening properly, to be honest. Tried about everything and finally the Stihl/Pferd 2 in 1 sharpeners have worked the best for me. Even still, I'm good starting with new chain and filing from there, but altering tooth angle or trying to even out uneven chain, rarely do well by hand. What I finally learned was unless I had a proper gullet filed in semi chisel chain, I was never actually getting the file on the tooth edge or at least not at the correct angle to create a good edge. Learned the same even with the electric sharpener. I do find cross cut chain easier to hand sharpen. You're scooping much less of a gullet out of the outside edge of the tooth at that filing angle. Everything seems to line up better.
We’re getting off topic, but I really dont like those 2 in 1 sharpeners or guides in general. They cover up the teeth so I cant see whats happening and I like to sharpen depth guides independantly. Guides can be useful to show you what you are doing wrong (but so is comparing to a new chain) and I like to return to using a bare file afterwards.
Good lighting, new file and having the bar raised up and clamped in a vice makes a huge difference.
Good lighting, new file and having the bar raised up and clamped in a vice makes a huge difference.
Surfer2
New Member
Opinion on Granberg Rip Chain. Please note that I provided a similar review on Granberg site, but they did not post it. So what you will see is only high level reviews - or marketing reviews.
Been a wood worker for over 40 yrs in multiple professional capacities. I have produced custom tooling for a few plants where I was employed. The concept behind the Granberg rip chain is fine, but the implementation is wrong. If you research saw blade tooth design you will find a few designs for this analogy. First the Alternating Top Bevel (ATB) and second is the Tripple Chip Grind (TCG). In both cases, each tooth has their unique job and load. In the ATB, each left and right tooth cuts it own path, not shared by the opposite tooth. A square raker cuts the center, but NOT as high as the side cutters. This is the same concept with the TCG. There is NOT one tooth that cuts the full kerf. The load is shared by all teeth evenly.
In the Granberg design, they take a normal chain and remove cutter material from every other left and right chain cutter, resulting in 4 unique cutter (two left and 2 right). But here is the rub...Since the now-ground teeth were cut from the same left/right cutters, they do not have a unique or independent cutting path -their cutting path follows the main cutter path. These now-ground cutters do not share the load. Their cutting capacity is reduced. If done properly, the now-ground cutters would be higher to cut the sides a bit deeper leaving less wood for the main cutters (sharing the load). Consequently, the main cutters now have increased work load as the now-ground cutters follow the exact same kerf path.
The result is the main cutters bear the load, the heat, dull faster, while the now-ground side cutters do limited work (the primary cutting edge is removed). These now-ground cutters actually add to the friction due to the rubbing of the non-cutting components on the chain. Some might think this is similar to skip chain, but the result is not the same. The waste wood expelled is dust and not chips. In my tests, I found Oregon 72RD (3/8” .050) and the complimentary 27RX (404 .063) chains to be superior with even load on each tooth, good chips, last longer, less heat, and less wear on the bar.
I run MS 661 and MS 881 on 36 inch mills. Cut red oak, white oak, beach, maple...with occasional walnut and cherry.
I do find the MS 881 with 404 chain produce more of the wash board effect. Did not see this on the MS 661 with the 3/8” pitch .050 gauge. I will be running some tests after converting my MS 881 to 3/8” pitch sprocket and using the bars and chains from the MS 661. The kerf will be slightly less, but the teeth more per inch, which may be equal in load. The .050 gauge may allow a bit less oil to travel, but will have more side plate material, which may strengthen the groove. Note, had too much chain to bar groove slop in the MS 881 404 bar. The bars from MS 661 and MS 881 are the exact same thickness. The .063 slot leaves less material on the sides of the groove.
Been a wood worker for over 40 yrs in multiple professional capacities. I have produced custom tooling for a few plants where I was employed. The concept behind the Granberg rip chain is fine, but the implementation is wrong. If you research saw blade tooth design you will find a few designs for this analogy. First the Alternating Top Bevel (ATB) and second is the Tripple Chip Grind (TCG). In both cases, each tooth has their unique job and load. In the ATB, each left and right tooth cuts it own path, not shared by the opposite tooth. A square raker cuts the center, but NOT as high as the side cutters. This is the same concept with the TCG. There is NOT one tooth that cuts the full kerf. The load is shared by all teeth evenly.
In the Granberg design, they take a normal chain and remove cutter material from every other left and right chain cutter, resulting in 4 unique cutter (two left and 2 right). But here is the rub...Since the now-ground teeth were cut from the same left/right cutters, they do not have a unique or independent cutting path -their cutting path follows the main cutter path. These now-ground cutters do not share the load. Their cutting capacity is reduced. If done properly, the now-ground cutters would be higher to cut the sides a bit deeper leaving less wood for the main cutters (sharing the load). Consequently, the main cutters now have increased work load as the now-ground cutters follow the exact same kerf path.
The result is the main cutters bear the load, the heat, dull faster, while the now-ground side cutters do limited work (the primary cutting edge is removed). These now-ground cutters actually add to the friction due to the rubbing of the non-cutting components on the chain. Some might think this is similar to skip chain, but the result is not the same. The waste wood expelled is dust and not chips. In my tests, I found Oregon 72RD (3/8” .050) and the complimentary 27RX (404 .063) chains to be superior with even load on each tooth, good chips, last longer, less heat, and less wear on the bar.
I run MS 661 and MS 881 on 36 inch mills. Cut red oak, white oak, beach, maple...with occasional walnut and cherry.
I do find the MS 881 with 404 chain produce more of the wash board effect. Did not see this on the MS 661 with the 3/8” pitch .050 gauge. I will be running some tests after converting my MS 881 to 3/8” pitch sprocket and using the bars and chains from the MS 661. The kerf will be slightly less, but the teeth more per inch, which may be equal in load. The .050 gauge may allow a bit less oil to travel, but will have more side plate material, which may strengthen the groove. Note, had too much chain to bar groove slop in the MS 881 404 bar. The bars from MS 661 and MS 881 are the exact same thickness. The .063 slot leaves less material on the sides of the groove.
