New saw advice.

[pdqdl]

the 880 didn't have the chain speed.

Eh. I disagree.

The operator was handling the saw poorly, cutting out near the tip of that long bar. Had he moved the engine in and used the bucking spikes to increase his cut speed and have better leverage and control, he'd have run away from the 500. As it was, he was wasting power and wearing himself out prematurely.

 

[TheJollyLogger]

And using a 48" bar just because he could...

 

[sean donato]

Eh. I disagree.

The operator was handling the saw poorly, cutting out near the tip of that long bar. Had he moved the engine in and used the bucking spikes to increase his cut speed and have better leverage and control, he'd have run away from the 500. As it was, he was wasting power and wearing himself out prematurely.

So the fair comparison should have had him heaving in the 880 because it can take it? He could have doged the 400 and 500 harder and not dogged the 261 quite so hard. Point being is its not apples to apples comparison.

 

[Section VIII]

I like to watch these types of chainsaw comparison videos but have yet to see one that is a true apples to apples comparison.

To get that, I think a contraption would need to be built that puts the same amount of force on each saw and the user is there to just make sure the chain doesn't hit the ground once the cut is complete. Or make a contraption that has a stop when the cut is complete.

 

[TheJollyLogger]

I think Brad Sneller used to do a pretty good job with his tests.

 

[pdqdl]

So the fair comparison should have had him heaving in the 880 because it can take it? He could have doged the 400 and 500 harder and not dogged the 261 quite so hard. Point being is its not apples to apples comparison.

Absolutely. Ever watch the chainsaw races? They don't play around with a saw cutting with the tip of a long bar then.

Let's call it apples vs apples, with a unseen bias. It is quite likely that the guy that made the video didn't realize he was handling it differently. As mere observers, we cannot discern whether the bias was deliberate or accidental.

Here is the bottom line, in my opinion: if the saw is racing along without slowing down the engine, then there is surplus horsepower going to waste. We all know that the 880 will dwarf the horses produced by the other saws, so it's a simple matter of making sure that horsepower is equally transferred into cutting wood. Many years ago, the technology of cutting trees with power saws was not nearly the same. Chainsaws were built for the greatest horsepower to weight that they could, then the slower running engines of the day used relatively huge, slow moving chain that took very deep bites into the logs. I have a Mall two-man saw at my shop that has gear reduction to pull a 3/4" pitch chain slowly through the wood at a really high torque from the final drive. I rather imagine that it would be impossible to control that saw when attempting to cut with the top of the bar. Kick-back would be instant.

Since then, we have learned that faster chain speed with a smaller bite leads to faster cutting with less horsepower and better control of the saw.

Here's an example of extremely fast cutting with a very slow saw speed:


You might guess that the torque on that saw is in the many thousands of foot pounds, though.

 

[sean donato]

Absolutely. Ever watch the chainsaw races? They don't play around with a saw cutting with the tip of a long bar then.

Let's call it apples vs apples, with a unseen bias. It is quite likely that the guy that made the video didn't realize he was handling it differently. As mere observers, we cannot discern whether the bias was deliberate or accidental.

Here is the bottom line, in my opinion: if the saw is racing along without slowing down the engine, then there is surplus horsepower going to waste. We all know that the 880 will dwarf the horses produced by the other saws, so it's a simple matter of making sure that horsepower is equally transferred into cutting wood. Many years ago, the technology of cutting trees with power saws was not nearly the same. Chainsaws were built for the greatest horsepower to weight that they could, then the slower running engines of the day used relatively huge, slow moving chain that took very deep bites into the logs. I have a Mall two-man saw at my shop that has gear reduction to pull a 3/4" pitch chain slowly through the wood at a really high torque from the final drive. I rather imagine that it would be impossible to control that saw when attempting to cut with the top of the bar. Kick-back would be instant.

Since then, we have learned that faster chain speed with a smaller bite leads to faster cutting with less horsepower and better control of the saw.

Here's an example of extremely fast cutting with a very slow saw speed:


You might guess that the torque on that saw is in the many thousands of foot pounds, though.

For whatever reason your link is not working.

 

[pdqdl]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZRNLDMpIQ0&t=197s

Or look up the Marshall tree saw.

 

[singinwoodwackr]

FWIW, you're not running a 2 saw plan. You just have an old saw as a backup for your 261, which is perfectly fine (an definitely not a bad idea). For what you're cutting, if you go to a 2 saw plan, I think the 400 or 500 would be fantastic depending on what you need for a long bar and how heavy of a power head you're willing to carry around. Either way, for the bigger saw I'd have at least 2 bars. One for big stuff when you need it, and another shorter bar in the 18" to 20" range that will rip through your firewood like lighting If you're sometimes doing 50 cord a year, IMHO, that's enough work to keep a 261 and a 500 plenty busy.

As far as the video goes, I think it was largely a waste of time. It showed that bigger saws cut faster so long as they aren't wearing a bar that's 4x longer than the wood actually needs.

I used to run one saw…066 flat top, red eye….for many years. I had bars from 24 to 42”. I got older…bought an 026 for limbing…was ‘ok’. Then I got. 346xp and shipped it to Dozer Dan. I became a 2-saw wood cutter
now I just collect saws but mainly use the same DD 346 and my MM 500i For firewood cutting and falling.
the others get pulled out for fun every now and then or as backup.

 

[singinwoodwackr]

Eh. I disagree.

The operator was handling the saw poorly, cutting out near the tip of that long bar. Had he moved the engine in and used the bucking spikes to increase his cut speed and have better leverage and control, he'd have run away from the 500. As it was, he was wasting power and wearing himself out prematurely.

Not really. The weight of the bar alone was plenty. No need to dog-in on that small a log. It would throw what little balance you have, off. Done that many times with the 42” bar on my old 066.
there is little, if any speed to be gained.
put an 8t sprocket on that 500 with the 24” bar and it will smoke the 880.

The 880 was never designed for speed, especially in small wood like that.

 

[pdqdl]

I guess Stihl should just discontinue all those bigger model saws, 'cause they don't seem to offer any advantages over the 500.

While there might not be a need to do so, the movie was supposed to be a side by side comparison. Using a different technique on the different saws somewhat nullified the value of the comparison.

 

[Bill G]

I guess Stihl should just discontinue all those bigger model saws, 'cause they don't seem to offer any advantages over the 500.

Sir, tell us about your experience with the "bigger model saws" and their advantages and disadvantages we could all gain from your vast experience.........

 

[singinwoodwackr]

I guess Stihl should just discontinue all those bigger model saws, 'cause they don't seem to offer any advantages over the 500.

They don't unless you are in really big wood. Even then a 661 with a 36" will blow through 5' logs.
The 500 with a 28 is all you need for small to 4' trees.

 

[pdqdl]

Sir, tell us about your experience with the "bigger model saws" and their advantages and disadvantages we could all gain from your vast experience.........

I have been running a commercially licensed and insured lawn and tree service for the last 41 years. I have been an ISA certified arborist, but I got tired of paying their dues. Other tree services hire me personally to do their technical removals that they fear to complete. I have a demolition contractor that hires me to drop the trees that their excavator cannot do. I do all the tree trimming and removal for the Kansas City Fire Dept and used to do them for the Police Dept. (I haven't heard from them for a few years... Don't know if they quit calling or didn't want any tree work done.) I used to run a small engine repair business for about 10 years, but just couldn't keep the mechanics productive, the customers happy, and the profits high enough to be worth all the trouble. I am still a dealer, however, for one Japanese manufacturer of 2-cycle power equipment.

Your turn. Tell us how you are qualified to question my credentials with your vast experience as a farmer.

 

[Bill G]

I have been running a commercially licensed and insured lawn and tree service for the last 41 years. I have been an ISA certified arborist, but I got tired of paying their dues. Other tree services hire me personally to do their technical removals that they fear to complete. I have a demolition contractor that hires me to drop the trees that their excavator cannot do. I do all the tree trimming and removal for the Kansas City Fire Dept and used to do them for the Police Dept. (I haven't heard from them for a few years... Don't know if they quit calling or didn't want any tree work done.) I used to run a small engine repair business for about 10 years, but just couldn't keep the mechanics productive, the customers happy, and the profits high enough to be worth all the trouble. I am still a dealer, however, for one Japanese manufacturer of 2-cycle power equipment.

Your turn. Tell us how you are qualified to question my credentials with your vast experience as a farmer.

Well fine sir I do believe you missed my question. Not a problem, here it is again

You said

I guess Stihl should just discontinue all those bigger model saws, 'cause they don't seem to offer any advantages over the 500.

I kindly asked

Sir, tell us about your experience with the "bigger model saws" and their advantages and disadvantages we could all gain from your vast experience.........

Is it more clear now?

 

[singinwoodwackr]

 

[pdqdl]

Well fine sir I do believe you missed my question. Not a problem, here it is again

You said

I kindly asked


Is it more clear now?

Perfectly clear. You are being an annoying little snot, and deliberately overlooking the obvious. Just to spite me.

I've owned and run just about everything. Lots and lots. I've chunked down trees big enough prevent my Husqvarna 3120 from finishing the cut in one pass with a 50" bar mounted, done at about 30 feet up a tree, standing on spurs and a buck strap with rigging in place to catch the chunks. I've removed Missouri champion trees after they died, and I didn't do it with any dinky 24" saw, either.

Now don't bother me with your credentials. You are a farmer/ex-teacher/janitor with a great fondness for chainsaws. You also have an antipathy for me, the moderator responsible for allowing you to remain active on this website. Let us make that perfectly clear for all the readers of this thread. Shall we also discuss why you are in this uncomfortable position?

Let's drop this now, and get back to the topic that the OP is interested in: whether to upsize from his old tired saw, or stick to a little saw that works reliably. He's not interested in anyone puffing out their chest to see if they are qualified to criticize some silly YouTube video.

My advice to the OP: Buy the Stihl 400. You will love it. Then take your old tired saw and rebuild it yourself with a new piston & cylinder kit. It won't cost nearly as much as a similar saw, and you might just have fun doing it.
Don't be afraid to give it a try! You can get tons of advice from the Chainsaw forum pro's, and then you will have your trusty favorite back like it was for the last 17 years. Then, when you get into the bigger wood, you'll still have that 400, ready and waiting. Furthermore, you will be much happier with that 400 when you dig into a 20" log. Myself, I almost never go to a tree removal with just one saw.

CAD is a common affliction: Chainsaw Acquisition Disease. Most of the folks at this site have at least a touch of that problem, and we think everyone needs at least two chainsaws. My constant critic Bill G claims to have hundreds of saws. The method I suggest lets you keep your old favorite, but puts you back in action right away with a very nice improvement.

 

[Bill G]

Now back to the question at hand...... There is no single person on this site that can tell you what saw to buy. That is 100% a personal choice. No one saw is perfect for everyone. If there was then there would only be one saw built. My personal choice is a 044 or 066 Stihl but of course those are old saws. If I was to buy a new firewood saw it would be a 372 Husky, Once again 100% personal choice. I like the 395 Husky saws and will be getting 4 more soon but they are heavy for firewood use.

As for a fine member posting about "dinky 24" saws" it all comes down to how to use the tool. All these were cut with a "dinky 24"



We all have opinions and that is why the world is so great

 

[TheJollyLogger]

Update: the OP bought a 261 and is happily cutting wood...

 

[Bill G]

Update: the OP bought a 261 and is happily cutting wood...

They are a great saw and no matter what the naysayers cry about that saw will take care of most all firewood needs. I have a ton of 026 saws and love them.................of yeah I run 20" 3/8" also