Tutorial: make your own raker depth gauge supported by software tool

[chipper1]

Ok, feedback time!

I will sort-of double post here, since the feedback regarding the diamond file came from this topic, but the depth gauge feedback from another topic....

Anyway, having filed the half-used 3/8 Stihl full chisel chain (which cut very well to begin with), I finished each tooth off with a couple of swipes from the Trend Diamond File in 600#. The teeth were "sticky" sharp. I then used Hannes69's progressive depth gauge to drop the depth gauges to their new level (in order to maintain that constant cutting angle of around 6 degrees). This chain ate wood like a pitbull in a Barbie Doll store!

I literally could hardly "feel" the cutting taking place. The best way to describe the sensation would be that the chain "melted" its way through the wood. Admittedly, I only took down a small bluegum (around 8 inches ion diamteer, and about 20' tall), so the wood was really soft (as opposed to the more mineralized fibres in m,ore mature trees), but the chips were flying! My BIL commented that he had never seen such nice big chips flying like that. And to top it all off, the chain was very well behaved - not "grabby" or rough at all! I did not try a bore cut (this normally exposes a too-low depth gauge setting better than normal cross-cutting), since the tree diameter was too small, but I am convinced it will be really well-behaved!

I was initially rather cautious about the large depth gauge setting (this chain is past its halfway mark), but my fears proved unfounded - it really cut without issues!

Thanks to all who helped get me here!

Mike

That's great to hear .

 

[chipper1]

Operator grabs pull cord, spins around three times like an Olympic discus champion and launches the saw off the hillside...

Sounds familiar, Saw Chucker is that you .

type 2 is a 'garage production' of some German guy, so ....

That's all good, in the arb industry many things come about as a solution for or a modification of a product that performed just not to an individuals standards or needs. Most all the SRT devices had their start in climbers garages .

On a tiny tiny little very short side note, if I may:
I use 4 different file sizes ranging from 3/16 to 1/4
It was very common for me to
have new files in three sizes in my bag. I like to take the time before the first days work to file a few new chains from factor grind in regards to coast falling. Its easier to lower the gullet in stages from the smallest files, especially on the one side as it has a higher factory gullet with the exception of Husqvarna chain only, I believe.
With different activities and area's with combination work of slashing and falling dominantly dead tree's (Danger tree's/ snag falling) then commonly, I will just start with the 3/16 file instead of the 7/32 spec size.
I will just stay with that size as long as its convenient and when its not, then the next size up will fix the cutter edge damage very fast and get you going in two minutes. Next time you sharpen, then you can cut another stage of the gullet to accommodate it for the right depth . After I fix the danage by going up a size to 7/32 then I can carve back in with the 3/16 on the next round and repeat

Great tip.
A nice tutorial with pictures would be great for those new to saws or new to filing, it would also be beneficial to many guys who have not seen this technique.
Sure makes for a quick touchup in the woods!

Especially "a dining room table (for showing off newly purchased saws)"

Where else would you take pictures of your saws .

...not often I am the third longest poster in a thread?

That ain't no joke .

but if it works better for me, maybe I don´t care that much about the 'why' ".

Somehow I don't believe you .

Where did the biggest critic go, he could have seen the awesome tool made by @Mike Kunte , Nice job BTW Mike.

@hannes69 Way to stick with it in this thread, great work too.
As Rob @Stihl 041S was saying earlier in the thread that he would wear his white collar clothes in with the engineers and his blue collar garb with the guys on the floor, this would have helped tremendously to get the thread to take off as you had hoped, basically speaking understanding the end user a little better.

Being someone who likes to make/modify tools I enjoyed that aspect of the thread although I can appreciate the technical aspects as well, at least when I'm not out taking a couple extra swipes of the rakers to make the husky progressive gauges work lol. For the most part these days I just hand file one or two of the rakers and then put the chains on the raker grinder, if they don't cut well I'll take a swipe or two off and the chain is good to go. If that doesn't work much like you I'll grab another chain and lower the rakers when I get home on the grinder, I hate filing rakers. That being said I'm quite proficient at hand filling a chain and I can get the rakers lowered without a gauge and cutting without a guide if I start with a new chain, but I have a lot of used chains come to me so I spend a fair amount of time on the chain grinder as well as the raker grinder, and my elbows thank me. So even for a guy who can file without the gadgets(that's what many hand filers call them) I prefer not to hand file if I don't have to. I can also, contrary to what most hand filers teach, grind a pretty mean chain that cuts well and is smooth.
Thanks for the thread.
Brett

 

[hannes69]

Where did the biggest critic go, he could have seen the awesome tool made by @Mike Kunte

The big critics only show up when they have the opinion and mood to find something to critisize. In this case with Mike presenting his awesome new tool there was nothing to critisize, so no need to show up

As Rob @Stihl 041S was saying earlier in the thread that he would wear his white collar clothes in with the engineers and his blue collar garb with the guys on the floor, this would have helped tremendously to get the thread to take off as you had hoped, basically speaking understanding the end user a little better.

I know what you mean. It´s not so easy for me to 'address' people. I simply wrote this thread in my commonly used language and out of my point of view of things. Maybe I look at tech things more like a person wearing the white collar
But like Mike Kunte showed, you can shrink the given information down to the necessary parts and start pretty soon with the practical part. The software part and explanations are for people with kind of indepth interests and for personal customizing needs. Maybe it would have been better to start with one simple practical example, showing to build your own 3/8 raker depth gauge with a given material and a commonly used cutting angle and then show in a second step the principle behind it and then the further possibilities to build a raker depth gauge for any given pitch, any specifically needed or wanted cutting angles and different given material thickness. Both sides are part of the opening posts in this thread, they simply aren´t separated. The whole bunch was maybe a little bit overkill for some of the community.
But hey, still proud that at least Mike found his way through it

 

[NSEric]

I made one of these too, for .325 chain and it works well.

 

[Rags]

Hello folks, just wanted to throw something out there that I have been thinking about.......

Has anyone thought about making a tool that would retreat rearward with the the cutter as it gets shorter? This would keep the set degree of angle for the depth gauge once you have settled on what degree you prefer for the type of cutting you do.

I have been thinking about a gauge that would have a slot in the end that would let it slide on top of the tie straps but instead of the gauge being slit forward to stop on the cutter side of the depth gauge it would slide rearward to stop against the cutter. If there is worry of dulling the cutter by pushing a piece of metal against the sharp edge, one could glue a small strip of plastic to the bottom of the gauge to be used as the stop which would contact the cutting edge of the cutter.

My thought is that a design of this type would very closely mimic using a DAF to set the depth gauges as it would actually be indexing off of the leading edge of the cutter to set the depth gauge height. The gauge setting would remain almost exact as the cutter gets shorter.

 

[NSEric]

This style raker gauge already does that, which is the whole point of it, your over thinking things.

 

[HarleyT]

If you keep refering to me as the great "critic", asking simple questions is "verboten"?

You keep endlessly keep mentioning this great critic, who is it?

 

[HarleyT]

If I am this great evil one,
I am flattered.....

But I have stopped making any posts, as I see you cannot deal with simple questions.
And you are here only to baste your own ego......

 

[Rags]

Hello Eric thanks for your reply, I think you may have missed something when reading my post, likely because of my vague description.
I'm not sure if you have made any of the gauge designs proposed by Hannes or not, I have made 1 for each for 3/8LP, 3/8 & .404. All of the gauges I made were fabricated from 1" steel banding used to secure packages of 21' steel pipe.
Anyway my point was the thought of making a gauge that does Not pivot as the cutter gets shorter. The design I am referring to would instead slide rearward as the cutter gets shorter. The design I proposed would Not rely on just laying on top of the cutter, it would rely on sliding rearward with a stop on the bottom side of the gauge which would butt up against the Cutting Edge so it would all but keep the exact angle you have chosen to use.

If you look at Hannes's design, which by the way I think is very clever and useful, the gauge stays stationary as the cutter gets shorter it just pivots and does not actually slide to the rear. The design I am referring to would actually slide to the rear with the cutter as it gets shorter with each sharpening.

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

That design would be entirely dependent on a specific and consistent shape to both the cutter and gullet along the entire chain to achieve any type of repeatable result from tooth to tooth. Would also seem overly complicated to fab up compared to the elegant simplicity of Hannes' approach and other progressive type gauges in general..., at least IMHO.

All of the gauges I made were fabricated from 1" steel banding used to secure packages of 21' steel pipe.

I've considered that as a practical source of gauge material as well. Just haven't gotten around to trying it yet. Glad to see someone else thinking along the same lines.

 

[Rags]

Hello Pogo thanks for your response.

I am missing something apparently when you refer to the shape of the gullet & cutter needing to have a consistent shape......

What I am proposing is a gauge with a slot that would capture the depth gauge similar to Hannes's design but would have a horizontal stop on the bottom side The stop would be 90 degrees (right angle) to the slot for the depth gauge as well as the tie straps. The stop would be very short, only approx. 1/32"or shorter, below the bottom of the gauge so it would only make contact with the very leading edge (point) of the cutter. The stop would protrude from the bottom of the gauge just enough to catch the top/front/leading edge of the cutter, not far enough to be effected by the gullet. I think this would take the gullet shape/depth & cutter shape as well as the sharpening degree of angle or pitch out of the equation.

I know it would be easier if I post pics. of what I am talking about but I will be working on a prototype to test functionality in the near future. If I can make a workable design I will take some pics. then to post.

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

I see. For some reason I was envisioning the 'stop' being at the bottom of the cutter..., essentially laying in (on?) the gullet.

I gather the pivot point would need to be the tops of the tie straps for this approach (like a Husky or Carlton gauge) vs. the rivet as in Hannes' design? Either way still uses the working corner of the cutter as the 'reference' point for how much adjustment is applied to the raker. One just uses the top while the other uses the front. Either one will allow/require the depth gauge to move backward (relatively speaking) on the tip of the cutter (as a variable fulcrum in the case of of Hannes' tool) as the tooth gets shorter in both length and height. The only difference being one pivots on a rivet while the other maintains an angle by physically moving on the tie straps in reference to the working corner. That said, I believe there will probably be some discussion (if anyone is still interested here on page 25!) about the consistency of angle over the length/life of the tooth between using the top of the tie strap or the rivet as the pivot point -- along with whether your version of a moving gauge is simply a different way of obtaining the constant differential effect as the typical non-progressive tools already do. After all, their functionality is essentially based upon using the front of the working corner as a 'stop' combined with tooth height to a lesser degree as reference points to maintain a constant relative distance (as designed into the tool) between the cutter and raker..., which is achieved by moving the tool backward against the tip of the cutter for each new adjustment. The difference is in the lack of a pivot point for the tool to 'adjust' for the changing characteristics of the tooth as it becomes shorter in both length and height as would otherwise be the case with a progressive type tool. Your idea seems to be a combination of both to some degree. It'll certainly be interesting to see how it develops if you indeed move forward with it. I know I'm curious about it.

 

[NSEric]

Hello Eric thanks for your reply, I think you may have missed something when reading my post, likely because of my vague description.
I'm not sure if you have made any of the gauge designs proposed by Hannes or not, I have made 1 for each for 3/8LP, 3/8 & .404. All of the gauges I made were fabricated from 1" steel banding used to secure packages of 21' steel pipe.
Anyway my point was the thought of making a gauge that does Not pivot as the cutter gets shorter. The design I am referring to would instead slide rearward as the cutter gets shorter. The design I proposed would Not rely on just laying on top of the cutter, it would rely on sliding rearward with a stop on the bottom side of the gauge which would butt up against the Cutting Edge so it would all but keep the exact angle you have chosen to use.

If you look at Hannes's design, which by the way I think is very clever and useful, the gauge stays stationary as the cutter gets shorter it just pivots and does not actually slide to the rear. The design I am referring to would actually slide to the rear with the cutter as it gets shorter with each sharpening.

Have you used the gauge you made on a worn chain?
I have one like the one hanes designed and a husky one. They both maintain the same angle for the depth gauge as the chain wears so the chain cuts like new until the cutters are so small the start breaking off.
I find the gauge slides down the cutter as it wears automaticly lowering the depth gauge to the right amount as the cutter wears, the gauge doesn't pivot.
IMO, this is all you need.

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

the gauge doesn't pivot.

The gauge does technically pivot (gets lower as the cutter gets smaller) at the contact point where it rests on the tie straps (as in the Husky gauge) or on the rivet (as in the Hannes gauge).

 

[waynedb]

Hi all,

This is my first post on this great forum. I have recently gotten into chainsaw milling. I put together an alaskan style mill with an MS660 and a 50" bar specifially to mill a ~4' diameter redgum (very hard hardwood) which fell on my in-laws property a few years ago in a quite difficult to get to and challenging location at the bottom of a gully. I've done one session on it so far and it seems I've caught the bug!

I've been trawling the threads here for tips and tricks, hoping to improve my setup and technique and came across the concept of progressive raker filing in some posts of BobL's...which led me here.

Raker depth may not be all that important to some, but when milling very hard and somewhat dry aussie hardwood, I need my saw and chain to be working at their best.

Well done Hannes for coming up with the type 2 approach and putting together the software to support it.

I've aquired myself a stack of 25mm x 100mm x 1.2mm stainless plates (see pic attached) and intend to make some gauges in the next few weeks before my next milling session. I'll report back with my Carlton semi-chisel skip chain measurements, some feedback on the gauge and some pics.

 

[Mike Kunte]

Welcome, Wayne!

Please start making space in your garage for the new saws you are going to acquire!!!!

Mike

 

[waynedb]

Thanks for the welcome Mike...

...and please don't encourage me!

 

[waynedb]

Below are the measurements from my Carlton 3/8 .063 semi-chisel skip chain and a screenshot of what the raker angles will look like with a 47 mil (1.2mm) thickness gauge (all seem reasonable?)

Average of 5.5 degrees is perhaps a touch low...? 39 mil (1.0mm) thickness plate brings the average to 6.5...

As I mentioned, my current milling project is a very large partially dry redgum (quite hard Australian hardwood), maybe the 5.5 raker angle isn't such a bad idea...?

BobL's post here is informative on raker angles.

In any case, I'll aim to get some gauges made up with the 47 mil (1.2mm) stock that I have and see how it goes.

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Out of curiosity, what is your top plate filing angle?

 

[waynedb]

I have two loops of the Carlton A3EP. I changed one to 10 degrees for ripping and the other is stock 35 degrees (used once for cross-cutting, not yet sharpened - I used this one for the measurements above).