Full house 3/8lp for pole saw?

[el33t]

This chain was designed for smoother cutting of smaller limbs and branches: the reduced kickback performance was a surprise result (!).

It is interesting to note that the original Type 91 had neither bumper tie straps nor bumper drive links.

I don't want my bar bouncing around, or vibrating, 10’ in the air.

I prefer the 3/8”, low profile over 1/4” or ‘Nano’ chains, because it takes a bigger bite, and there is more cutter to sharpen.

I'm probably starting to get boring in this thread, but is your comparison about full 1/4 or 1/4 extended pitch. IMHO a chain with a smaller pitch with the rest of the same parameters will run smoother. 3/8 LP was introduced to cut costs. Of course a nice side effect is fewer cutters to sharpen.

I have tried them, side-by-side in conventional saws.

A true, ‘full house’ sequence would not clear chips as well as standard (‘full complement’), and cut slower: hard on the arm and shoulder muscles.

View attachment 437100

Here I would not be so sure. That would have to be checked. I don't think Techtronic would go to the trouble of equipping their most premium saws of this type with “full-house” chains (Ryobi uses standard chains) if it didn't make sense for this application.
Such chains, due to the higher number of cutter links, are certainly more expensive. I have seen '(full) skip' chains used in cheap saws, both petrol and electric. In my opinion, just to cut costs a bit.
PS
I noticed that you probably meant only “conventional” chainsaws. Here, I agree. There is no point in using 'full-house' chains on such saws.

 

[Philbert]

It is interesting to note that the original Type 91 had neither bumper tie straps nor bumper drive links.


I'm probably starting to get boring in this thread, but is your comparison about full 1/4 or 1/4 extended pitch. IMHO a chain with a smaller pitch with the rest of the same parameters will run smoother. 3/8 LP was introduced to cut costs. Of course a nice side effect is fewer cutters to sharpen.



Here I would not be so sure. That would have to be checked. I don't think Techtronic would go to the trouble of equipping their most premium saws of this type with “full-house” chains (Ryobi uses standard chains) if it didn't make sense for this application.
Such chains, due to the higher number of cutter links, are certainly more expensive. I have seen '(full) skip' chains used in cheap saws, both petrol and electric. In my opinion, just to cut costs a bit.
PS
I noticed that you probably meant only “conventional” chainsaws. Here, I agree. There is no point in using 'full-house' chains on such saws.

Type 91 applies to all of Oregon’s 3/8”, low profile, 0.050” chains. ‘S’ in their retail packages.

1/4” pitch chain cuts; I don’t like it because there is so little ‘meat’ on it. A few passes of the file and its gone.

I have run 3/8” low profile, 1/4”, and ‘Nano’ chain side-by-side. There might be measurable performance differences, but not significant, practical differences in my opinion. So I prefer the Type 90 or 91 which are easier to find, easier to sharpen, and have a longer service life.

The tie strap bumpers are an asset for small diameter limbs and branches.

My understanding was that 3/8” low profile was developed for smaller, lower power saws, when people did not like 1/4” pitch.

Originally, designed as lower height cutters on standard, 3/8” pitch chassis; engineers determined that it was a waste, and inefficient, to supply such heavy drive links and tie straps for such small cutters.

Yes, less expensive to make, but also less expensive to buy, and more efficient to run.

I have seen ‘full house’ sequence chain promoted for chainsaw carving, and cutting bamboo.

Philbert

 

[el33t]

Type 91 applies to all of Oregon’s 3/8”, low profile, 0.050” chains. ‘S’ in their retail packages.

I was referring to the original “Low-Profile” (91). It didn't have bumper tie straps or drive links at the beginning. It had specially shaped depth gauges.

1/4” pitch chain cuts; I don’t like it because there is so little ‘meat’ on it. A few passes of the file and its gone.

I have run 3/8” low profile, 1/4”, and ‘Nano’ chain side-by-side. There might be measurable performance differences, but not significant, practical differences in my opinion. So I prefer the Type 90 or 91 which are easier to find, easier to sharpen, and have a longer service life.

I do not question your choice, and even agree with it. On the other hand, I was just curious if you were comparing 3/8 LP with 1/4 or 3/8 LP with 1/4 LP, since you wrote that 3/8 LP takes a bigger bite. Theoretically, the 3/8 LP teeth should be similar in size to (full) 1/4, while 1/4 is about as close to 1/4 LP as, say, 3/8 is to 3/8 LP. It seems that many people do not distinguish between the two chain families/trade sizes. Oregon's contemporary 1/4 chain is 25 AP, while the 1/4 LP is the 24 AP introduced quite recently.
The 1/4 Extended Pitch (Picco) was introduced by Stihl somewhere around 2010 for their cordless chainsaws, and the kerf width was 4.7-4.8 mm. Nowadays, such chains have become popular, due to the proliferation of hatchet pruning saws (GTA 26 etc.).

The tie strap bumpers are an asset for dmall diameter limbs and branches.

My understanding was that 3/8” low profile was developed for smaller, lower power saws, when people did not like 1/4” pitch.

Perhaps they were unhappy. I don't know that. But that's how Oregon described it:

As pitch increased or decreased, so did all other dimensions. Because pitch is important to match saw chain to drive sprockets, pitch became the term used to measure saw chain size. Thus, whereas a number of years ago a popular sized saw chain for hand chain saws was 3/4 inch pitch chain, this was reduced down in stages, e.g. to 5/8 inch pitch chain, 1/2 inch pitch chain, 3/8 inch pitch chain and more recently to 1/4 inch pitch chain. This reduction in pitch has had a number of effects. A most significant effect is the increased number of parts required for the same length of chain. A foot of 1/4 inch pitch chain includes many more parts than even a 3/8 inch pitch chain and the cost of making the smaller chains has, accordingly, increased.

It is an object of the present invention to produce smaller size chain while maintaining a larger pitch and fewer saw chain components.

Originally, designed as lower height cutters on standard, 3/8” pitch chassis; engineers determined that it was a waste, and inefficient, to supply such heavy drive links and tie straps for such small cutters.

Does this mean that the 91 chain from 1975 is incompatible with modern 3/8 LP drive sprockets and guide bars?

 

[Philbert]

Does this mean that the 91 chain from 1975 is incompatible with modern 3/8 LP drive sprockets and guide bars?

Type 91 chain would be compatible.

I have a few pieces of the ‘old’ 3/8 low profile than ran on standard 3/8” sprockets. Have to look up the number. Listed as’NLA’ or ‘obsolete’in some older Oregon catalogs.

I think that STIHL had a version too (?).

Hard to keep up with all the new chains and variations, among the different manufacturers.

Philbert

 

[Nutball]

The .043 chains at least have very short cutters, some .050 have very long cutters, and the 1/4 .050 I've seen does not appear to have teeth that are any shorter than most 3/8 chains. I think for as small of wood I cut with the pole saw, the full house should work well. I could keep a standard chain handy in case I need different performance on big wood. I was at HD today looking for a milwaukee product and forgot to check for the chain

 

[el33t]

Type 91 chain would be compatible.

I have a few pieces of the ‘old’ 3/8 low profile than ran on standard 3/8” sprockets. Have to look up the number. Listed as’NLA’ or ‘obsolete’in some older Oregon catalogs.

I think that STIHL had a version too (?).

Hard to keep up with all the new chains and variations, among the different manufacturers.

Philbert

It is probably Type 76 (or 77 and 78 - other 2 gauges), which was introduced in 1976, so a little after the introduction of the 91 (1974).
They recommended a 3/16'' (4.8 mm) file to sharpen it.

Stihl, on the other hand, along with Rapid and Picco, had a 3rd chain family called Topic. They existed in 2 pitches: .325'' and 3/8''. For sharpening the 3/8 version, they recommended a 4.5 mm (11/64'') file, while for the .325 one they recommended a 4 mm (5/32'') file. Keep in mind that for sharpening Picco they recommended a 3.5 mm (9/64'') file at the time.
Not long ago I still saw one Topic loop on sale in one of the online stores.

Also, it is likely that other manufacturers had similar chains back then, and certainly McCulloch.

 

[Nutball]

It works. 2 chains made a 56dl 16". It acts like low kick chain around the tip, cuts small stuff fast and smoother than standard chain. I haven't tried it on big stuff, but I may start having chip clearing issues cutting larger than 6".

 

[EFSM]

Thanks for the update!