Tractors and wood! Show your pics

[John_Mc]

That is a good guide set and another good one is the Husqvarna roller guide. The reason I like it better is that I can see what is going on at the tooth - seems to help me.

View attachment 828049

gg

I agree, those are great guides. You mentioned "and another good one is the Husqvarna roller guide." It appears that what you have pictured IS the Husqvarna roller guide, unless someone has started making clones?

Husqvarna sells two types of these roller guides: one is just the roller file guide, the other is their Combination Chainsaw File Guide. The latter includes a progressive depth gauge tool for setting the raker height. I find the progressive depth gauges give better results than the type that sits flat across the tops of several cutters.

 

[arrow]

I agree, those are great guides. You mentioned "and another good one is the Husqvarna roller guide." It appears that what you have pictured IS the Husqvarna roller guide, unless someone has started making clones?

Husqvarna sells two types of these roller guides: one is just the roller file guide, the other is their Combination Chainsaw File Guide. The latter includes a progressive depth gauge tool for setting the raker height. I find the progressive depth gauges give better results than the type that sits flat across the tops of several cutters.

The progressive raker gauge is especially good if you like to wear your chains down to get every bit of use out of them. A regular gauge just doesn't cut it at that point.
The truth be told, as a logger, I never wore my chains down that much as the chips got too small and I didn't think I was getting the efficiency in my cuts.
It could have been all in my head but to this day, I never keep a chain whose cutters are more than halfway gone.
When chains were $15-$18, that was ok but now that these same chains are now $35-$40, I may rethink this die hard habit.

 

[John_Mc]

The progressive raker gauge is especially good if you like to wear your chains down to get every bit of use out of them. A regular gauge just doesn't cut it at that point.
The truth be told, as a logger, I never wore my chains down that much as the chips got too small and I didn't think I was getting the efficiency in my cuts.
It could have been all in my head but to this day, I never keep a chain whose cutters are more than halfway gone.
When chains were $15-$18, that was ok but now that these same chains are now $35-$40, I may rethink this die hard habit.

That's an interesting take. I'd love to see a side-by side comparison of an Almost new chain sharpened using a progressive depth gauge and one that has been filed back more than half way. There are two main points to a progressive style depth gauge tool: One is that it customizes the depth gauge to the particular tooth being sharpened, rather than averaging between two or more adjacent cutters as the "traditional" tool does. (This makes the chain MUCH less sensitive to needing all of the cutters sharpened to the same length.) The other is to counter the gradual drop off in efficiency as the tooth is sharpened back if the depth gauges are set with one of the traditional tools.

Over the years, I've spoken with a couple of guys and one woman who do chainsaw competitions, and they all swear by using a chain that has been filed back a good bit (more than half from the look of the chains). Of course a chain optimized for racing is a different animal than an "all day in the woods" chain.

 

[arrow]

That's an interesting take. I'd love to see a side-by side comparison of an Almost new chain sharpened using a progressive depth gauge and one that has been filed back more than half way. Over the years, I've spoken with a couple of guys and one woman who do chainsaw competitions, and they all swear by using a chain that has been filed back a good bit (more than half from the look of the chains). Of course a chain optimized for racing is a different animal than an "all day in the woods" chain.

Yup
A smaller kerf should make for a faster cut.
There was just something about a worn down chain that just didn't seem as efficient when cutting the hardwoods around here.
Maybe had something to do with the leverage aspect of the cutter. As you file the cutter further back, there is more leverage for the wood to push the cutter upward.
I know it all happens in milliseconds but it all adds up when time is money I guess.
I would like to know the effects on a more worn down chain on the bar.
I could be wrong but I'm thinking that there may be a heat/wear increase on the bar itself.
I guess as a home owner, who gives a crap even if that be true.
I mean I went through a chainsaw every two years and then it was toast.
That same saw would last a lifetime for how I cut now.

Oh, and another truth...I never used a depth gauge. I'd file a raker by eye and had chains for hardwood and filed down rakers more for softwoods depending on the job we were at.
At night, I'd put my chains on the sharpener I had. Once the wheel was changed and the set point achieved on the bench mount, I breezed through the rakers in about 10 seconds.

 

[4570Man]

That's an interesting take. I'd love to see a side-by side comparison of an Almost new chain sharpened using a progressive depth gauge and one that has been filed back more than half way. There are two main points to a progressive style depth gauge tool: One is that it customizes the depth gauge to the particular tooth being sharpened, rather than averaging between two or more adjacent cutters as the "traditional" tool does. (This makes the chain MUCH less sensitive to needing all of the cutters sharpened to the same length.) The other is to counter the gradual drop off in efficiency as the tooth is sharpened back if the depth gauges are set with one of the traditional tools.

Over the years, I've spoken with a couple of guys and one woman who do chainsaw competitions, and they all swear by using a chain that has been filed back a good bit (more than half from the look of the chains). Of course a chain optimized for racing is a different animal than an "all day in the woods" chain.

The chainsaw competition guys take a new chain and file it down in one lick. That’s a big difference from a well used chain. In my experience the well used chains take some wear to the cutter side profile and can’t be sharpened to as crisp of a point as they once had. After being sharpened numerous times and likely hitting at least one gravel in its live inaccuracies have compounded. The saw competition guys are going to spend more time to insure uniformity than the average worn out saw chain will get. A slightly thinner kerf saw would cut faster but it will also get pinched faster. I’d rather spend an extra second or 2 in the cut then to spend 10 minutes getting my saw unstuck.

 

[Gordon Gould]

I agree, those are great guides. You mentioned "and another good one is the Husqvarna roller guide." It appears that what you have pictured IS the Husqvarna roller guide, unless someone has started making clones?

Husqvarna sells two types of these roller guides: one is just the roller file guide, the other is their Combination Chainsaw File Guide. The latter includes a progressive depth gauge tool for setting the raker height. I find the progressive depth gauges give better results than the type that sits flat across the tops of several cutters.

What I tried to say was that the Stihl guide set pictured by Dodge Man was very good but I like the Husqvarna roller guide better. But to each his own.

gg

 

[John_Mc]

What I tried to say was that the Stihl guide set pictured by Dodge Man was very good but I like the Husqvarna roller guide better. But to each his own.

gg

OK. I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the guide in your picture AND a Husqvarna guide.

 

[John_Mc]

What I tried to say was that the Stihl guide set pictured by Dodge Man was very good but I like the Husqvarna roller guide better. But to each his own.

gg

OK. I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the guide in your picture AND a Husqvarna guide.

I do also like the Stihl round file guide that clips on to the file (Oregon sells similar guides). I use both. I'm not really a fan of the Stihl depth gauge tool.

Oh, and another truth...I never used a depth gauge. I'd file a raker by eye and had chains for hardwood and filed down rakers more for softwoods depending on the job we were at.

My eyesight is just not good enough to file the rakers by eye anymore. When the thickness of a human hair is enough to make a significant difference, that's too fine a detail for me to spot with any consistency.

 

[Milo]

Usually I pull the splitter to the dead tree where I cut and split it. But a large, leaning, locust finally fell this summer when I didn't have much time to clean it up, so I sectioned it in 6' lengths and stacked them at my drive. Finally got around to setting them on horses for cutting to 16" lengths to split.

 

[4570Man]

My eyesight is just not good enough to file the rakers by eye anymore. When the thickness of a human hair is enough to make a significant difference, that's too fine a detail for me to spot with any consistency.

I’ve never used a raker depth gauge. I bump the rakers on a bench grinder. When the grinder marks start getting polished out I’ll bump them again.