Brush Grapple Preferred Width?

[rkaufmann]

I have a Kioti DK45SE gear tractor with KL401 loader and Rimgard in the rear tires ( approx. 6,000# gross). Standard bucket width is 72". I'm getting ready to order a dual lid grapple primarily for brush and log work. For those of you using grapples, what width grapple and why would recommend for my set-up?
Thanks,
Rick

 

[4570Man]

As narrow as possible.

 

[David_Kb7uns]

The Bradco Grapple that I have on the Kubota GL3130 is the same width as the dirt bucket, no problems lifting.

David Kb7uns

 

[DT86]

I bought mine based on front wheel track and dirt bucket width. It works but at times I wish I'd went narrower. Not because it is too much added weight to handle but because it puts a lot of twist on things if it hits a stubborn root or whatever on the outside edge when pushing.

 

[oosik]

My bucket is 72" & the grapple is 60". I got the 60" grapple simply because I could see no logical reason for anything wider. Mine is used for brush, logs, large rocks & back dragging to smooth tilled land.

Other reasons - the 60" grapple is a little lighter than the 72" or 84", it was a little less expensive & it fits easily between trees etc where I go.

 

[sea2summit]

I got a 55" for my MX and it's pretty common for the rear tires to get light when I grab a pile of stumps because invariably one of them sticks straight forward out of the grapple putting a lot of weight forward (most of the time my BH is my ballast).

I don't have any reason for a bigger one, would probably go dual lid if I did it over...but I haven't broken anything yet so that may change my mind some day.

 

[SSdoxie]

The bucket that came with the loader is 68" and grapple is 60". When using it for loose brush it will grab enough with branches hanging over the sides to make it interesting weeing where your going heading to the burn pile.


Mine is a modified skidloader bucket with single grapple fork. If I was to buy new it would be as narrow as possible and still have dual lid/clamps.

 

[rd_macgregor]

Is there really that big an advantage to dual lid grapples? My single-lid, 48" Markham/Gator grapple has been very handy and I have never wished I had a wider one.

 

[Sawyer Rob]

I believe I now have the best system I've ever used, by far...

It's a set of "adjustable" pallet forks with a single grapple, ALO is the brand that I have, and the grapple is matched to these forks. With forks being thin, you can easily slide them on the ground and drive right under any brush or a pile of limbs, grapple it, and pick the whole pile up,

OR, carefully pick a single log to load or unload from a trailer,

OR unload and move a load of lumber,

I can even move them together and drive them into the ground to clear my fields of big rocks,

And load them,

OR move a box of firewood,

OR a thousand other chores, ALL without changing tools! I've yet to see or use anything better, it's one tool that replaces two!

SR

 

[rkaufmann]

Rob, that is impressive versatility no doubt. To be honest, I am still torn as to whether get a traditional brush type grapple or some form of pallet fork grapple such a cheap set of 48", 3000 or 4000# forks and the adjustable Add-A-Grapple shown in the link below for about the same or possibly less cost than a dedicated grapple and maybe have the best of both worlds. Or am I kidding myself that the pallet grapple compromise wouldn't sacrifice some functionality in certain cases as opposed to the function of dedicated attachments? Two separate units is out of the budget at this time for me and I have immediate need for the grapple function over that of conventional pallet forks. Anyone have any thoughts on the functionality question?

Model 339S27 Adjustable Height Pallet Fork Add-A-Grapple

It appears that the general consensus is to go narrower for the brush grapple. So I will tend that direction if I go with a dedicated unit. I'm currently looking at grapple made by a local Mennonite welding/fabrication shop. Their standard configuration is 72", but they said they could scale it down some by eliminating one or more tines and adjusting tine spacing a bit to either around 63 1/2" or 59-60". The 72" unit is pretty beefy, all 3/8" and some 1/2" material and weighs in around 600#. My loader can handle that weight but I can save some weight going narrower and probably induce less twisting forces on the loader frame. They offer a "killer" price of $1200.00 complete with cylinders (2.5 x 8"), hoses and flat face couplers for the 72" unit. They said they could knock of a little if I decide to go narrower. That sounds like deal too good to turn down so I might just go that route and just wait a year to get separate forks.

Thanks everyone for all your input thus far.
Rick