28" .404 chain test - Tree Monkey 661

[Redbull661]

Thought it would be fun to try some tests with some .404 chains. I had to make the semi skip RS and semi skip Sq. (taking apart RS and RSLF chains apart and putting them back together in semi skip sequence)

tree monkey 661 - 28" tsumura , 32:1 honda hp2 91eth free. 8pin .404 chains

 

[mdavlee]

Is the semi skip smoother or rougher?

 

[Redbull661]

imo - smoothest or as smooth as full skip. watch the vids you can see it.


semi skip is my favorite chain.

left cutter makes a cut
right cutter makes a cut
open DL/space clears the chips.
repeat

 

[mdavlee]

imo - smoothest or as smooth as full skip. watch the vids you can see it.

I'll try. Phone screen is a little small to see a lot of stuff like that.

 

[angelo c]

Thought it would be fun to try some tests with some .404 chains. I had to make the semi skip RS and semi skip Sq. (taking apart RS and RSLF chains apart and putting them back together in semi skip sequence)

tree monkey 661 - 28" tsumura , 32:1 honda hp2 91eth free. 8pin .404 chains



small log and bigger log...

"Vertical" cuts

Oregon AL .404 x .063

man you would have to assume some sort of anomaly with such a difference in one chain...
nice work as always.


(Julian, I think the woodshop guys would call it "cross cut" and "rip cut"...)

 

[Redbull661]

man you would have to assume some sort of anomaly with such a difference in one chain...
nice work as always.


(Julian, I think the woodshop guys would call it "cross cut" and "rip cut"...)

how about "vertical ripping"!?!?!

 

[RI Chevy]

Excellent testing as always!

 

[mdavlee]

From my little screen the Oregon and semi skip seem smoother. The RS I hated. Felt like an xl12 running that stuff

 

[drf256]

Very nice again Julian.

Thanks for taking the time to share.

 

[MustangMike]

I'm baffled by the results, which are not the same as I got using 3/8.

First, I don't understand why the full comp square was slower than full comp round, this would seem to defy conventional stuff.

Second, full comp round was faster than semi round, but full comp square was slower than semi square???

Perhaps there is some anomaly with this saw, pin, wood, etc.

My testing with 2 044s, in 19" Red Oak, the full comp square was about 2 seconds faster than semi square (one saw was 15 & 17, the other was 17 & 19, respectively). (All Stihl chain)

FYI, I have never run 404, but it also baffles me that the full comp round was faster than square, but the semi square was faster than semi round!!!

Finally, any idea why the Stihl full comp was so much better in the vertical cut than Oregon??? Must be something different with the cutter (crosscut was no so different). Maybe the tougher the cut (big log or ripping), the better the Stihl chain did?

 

[Moparmyway]

First, I don't understand why the full comp square was slower than full comp round

Full chisel square was Oregon
Full chisel round was RS (Stihl)

 

[MustangMike]

Full chisel square was Oregon
Full chisel round was RS (Stihl)

My bad, I saw "full skip" as "full comp". Thanks for the correction.

Maybe the Stihl Square is just better than the Oregon. I would like to see the same test with some Stihl RSL (full comp).

So, Stihl round beats Oregon square, and Stihl Semi Skip Square beats Stihl Full Skip Square, so I'd like to see Stihl full comp square for the win!

 

[Moparmyway]

Maybe the Stihl Square is just better than the Oregon. I would like to see the same test with some Stihl RSL (full comp).

So, Stihl round beats Oregon square, and Stihl Semi Skip Square beats Stihl Full Skip Square, so I'd like to see Stihl full comp square for the win!

Some rolls are great, others ................... well ...........................
You know how it goes Mike, sometimes you get a roll that wont hardly scratch a paper, let alone cut wood. They have all put duds out there !

 

[MustangMike]

Yep, I have had a few poor Stihl off the roll, but it is rare.

 

[Redbull661]

Just what I have observed. Not saying it's fact...


- Oregon chains been slower in my other tests vs stihl as well. See attached. Yes I know no stihl RSL

- Limited data, But Square has been faster for me in pine and red oak then Round. While round has been faster in maple and ash. Then you add in factors like full comp, semi skip, full skip, power band of the saw, sprocket size. Gives me a headache!


- Stihl 404 RSL - doesn't exist. You'd have to cut a round chain. Which Tree Monkey did for the big oak cant. 36" 404 RS vs 36" 404 "RSL" RS cut square on his silvey. IIRC It was something like RS 41.5 seconds RSL like 40.3...it was faster, not by a lot. But it also depends on angles you choose on the square grinder. And then one might think, is it fair that you didn't round grind the RS...so both have been ground on a grinder? Because I haven't found any round grounded angle to be factory RS...and those apparently can't be duplicated. Gives me a headache! Lol


- I have observed the RS rolls to be super super consistent. YMMV and not so much on stihl's square cut chain. Sometimes fast sometimes slow.


- also one thing with oregon is the chains I've used so far all have given me slow times on the first cut and then the 2nd and or 3rd got faster. One thing I noticed with all the oregon I've had so far is that the drive links have a grey? coating on them...they have a finish of some sort. I'm thinking maybe that is causing friction on the first cuts and as it wears off = less friction. I stopped using oregon chain for my tests because I couldn't get super close consistent times like I can with Stihl RS. The Stihl chain has no visible coating on the drive links.

 

[mdavlee]

Just what I have observed. Not saying it's fact...


- Oregon chains been slower in my other tests vs stihl as well. See attached. Yes I know no stihl RSL

- Limited data, But Square has been faster for me in pine and red oak then Round. While round has been faster in maple and ash. Then you add in factors like full comp, semi skip, full skip, power band of the saw, sprocket size. Gives me a headache!


- Stihl 404 RSL - doesn't exist. You'd have to cut a round chain. Which Tree Monkey did for the big oak cant. 36" 404 RS vs 36" 404 "RSL" RS cut square on his silvey. IIRC It was something like RS 41.5 seconds RSL like 40.3...it was faster, not by a lot. But it also depends on angles you choose on the square grinder. And then one might think, is it fair that you didn't round grind the RS...so both have been ground on a grinder? Because I haven't found any round grounded angle to be factory RS...and those apparently can't be duplicated. Gives me a headache! Lol


- I have observed the RS rolls to be super super consistent. YMMV and not so much on stihl's square cut chain. Sometimes fast sometimes slow.


- also one thing with oregon is the chains I've used so far all have given me slow times on the first cut and then the 2nd and or 3rd got faster. One thing I noticed with all the oregon I've had so far is that the drive links have a grey? coating on them...they have a finish of some sort. I'm thinking maybe that is causing friction on the first cuts and as it wears off = less friction. I stopped using oregon chain for my tests because I couldn't get super close consistent times like I can with Stihl RS. The Stihl chain has no visible coating on the drive links.

Exactly right on the RSK and RS being consistent. Seen half of rolls of RSL be horrible and need ground to be able to use it. Way back I tested some and RSK was fastest.

 

[MustangMike]

Julian, agree with you 100% about the wood and the saw & set up will not always produce the same results.

I have been at GTGs where someones saw seems faster than mine in one log, but not in another.

I guess the best we can do it try to tailor our set up to what we cut most.

That said, when you combine cross cut, ripping and milling, I find square to be far more versatile. It just seems to do it all well.

The type and size of the wood will often dictate if skip is better than full comp, or not (in addition to the power head attributes). Larger wood with chips that are hard to clear will generally favor skip. I run half skip on my 36" bar, but not on the shorter ones (28" & less).

I do appreciate your testing, it is informative, and gets you thinking.

 

[huskyboy]

Julian, agree with you 100% about the wood and the saw & set up will not always produce the same results.

I have been at GTGs where someones saw seems faster than mine in one log, but not in another.

I guess the best we can do it try to tailor our set up to what we cut most.

That said, when you combine cross cut, ripping and milling, I find square to be far more versatile. It just seems to do it all well.

The type and size of the wood will often dictate if skip is better than full comp, or not (in addition to the power head attributes). Larger wood with chips that are hard to clear will generally favor skip. I run half skip on my 36" bar, but not on the shorter ones (28" & less).

I do appreciate your testing, it is informative, and gets you thinking.

Remember the New York gtg? The cotton wood was some wet almost spongy stuff. Wet swamp maple is almost like the cottonwood too. Not hard wood but easy to stall a saw in. Wondering if skip or semi skip do well in those types of wood?

 

[mdavlee]

Remember the New York gtg? The cotton wood was some wet almost spongy stuff. Wet swamp maple is almost like the cottonwood too. Not hard wood but easy to stall a saw in. Wondering if skip or semi skip do well in those types of wood?

Yes

 

[Frank bierce]

Always enjoy watching your tests Julian.