Nano

[166]

Oregon 80TXL SpeedCut Nano
.325 Pitch .043 Gauge

Anybody seen this chain yet?


This is designed for cordless chainsaws. Faster, smoother, longer run time, and loads the saw less.

 

[166]

https://www.oregonproducts.com/speedcutnano

 

[CR888]

I love oddball chain. .325/043!! wth! I want some, but obviously a bar to match is needed all my .043 bars are 3/8. I wonder if there NK cutters or full size .325? Where's Philbert! I think this would only be good for top handles, pole saws or sub 40cc powerhaeds. My ported 50cc saws would give them little drive tangs a butt kicking in hard wood. Its gotta be a NK chain. I ran .325 on my ms200t for a while, nice smooth chain platform.

 

[nohoff]

Looks a lot like the Stihl 1/4" .043" Chain for their cordless saws

 

[CR888]

Yeah so being a lo-pro .325 you would need a special lopro sprocket not a conventional .325 one. And the bar sprocket would have to be lo-pro too. I've always thought .325 is a better platform to make a low profile chain due too its reduced cutter spacing, 3/8 is to far between cutters for smooth precise cuts. Of coarse 1/4" is super smooth but not the best in all situations. Carvers would like this chain I bet. I wonder if they will offer it in 050 as well as .043. I'd love this chain for pole saws & TH's.

 

[Philbert]

Got a chance to compare the Oregon 80TXL 'Nano' chain (.325, low profile and narrow kerf, .043 gauge), side-by-side with some 91PXL (3/8, low profile, .050 gauge), and also some 91PS 'PowerSharp' (3/8, low profile, .050 gauge) on identical, Oregon, 15 Amp, corded electric saws, cutting the same wood samples. All are Oregon reduced kickback chains.

These photos show 80TXL (left), with .325 narrow kerf (Type 95VP - not in this test, middle), and the 91PXL (right) for comparison:





I cut well over 100 test 'cookies' in hard, dry, ash, cedar, and maple, as well as some fresh maple and spruce, of different diameters:



Also, tried a little 'noodling':




While I did collect some subjective cut times ('1 Husqvara', '2 Husqvara', . . . ), the interesting thing to me is how similar these performed. As a practical matter, the differences in cut times would not be significant to a casual user. Subjectively, the 'Nano' chain appears to perform slightly better than the 91PXL in smaller diameter wood, as well as softer wood. While the Nano chain did 'noodle', it produced relatively short 'noodles' and cut slower. The PowerSharp chain noodled best, in this test, with the 91PXL coming in a close second.

Differences may be more significant with lower powered (e.g. battery or pole) saws, and maybe some top handled saws used for pruning. Since the Nano chain requires unique sprockets (drive and bar nose), I would not be in a hurry to change over a saw that is satisfactorily running more conventional chain. But I am pretty sure that I would prefer it over 1/4-inch chain on those other saws. 1/4-inch chain always cuts slower for me, and does not have a lot of cutter material for filing / sharpening. This might be it's best niche.

Philbert

 

[kneedeepinsaws]

Got a chance to compare the Oregon 80TXL 'Nano' chain (.325, low profile and narrow kerf, .043 gauge), side-by-side with some 91PXL (3/8, low profile, .050 gauge), and also some 91PS 'PowerSharp' (3/8, low profile, .050 gauge) on identical, Oregon, 15 Amp, corded electric saws, cutting the same wood samples. All are Oregon reduced kickback chains.

These photos show 80TXL (left), with .325 narrow kerf (Type 95VP - not in this test, middle), and the 91PXL (right) for comparison:

View attachment 252020

View attachment 252021

I cut well over 100 test 'cookies' in hard, dry, ash, cedar, and maple, as well as some fresh maple and spruce, of different diameters:

View attachment 252014

Also, tried a little 'noodling':

View attachment 252013


While I did collect some subjective cut times ('1 Husqvara', '2 Husqvara', . . . ), the interesting thing to me is how similar these performed. As a practical matter, the differences in cut times would not be significant to a casual user. Subjectively, the 'Nano' chain appears to perform slightly better than the 91PXL in smaller diameter wood, as well as softer wood. While the Nano chain did 'noodle', it produced relatively short 'noodles' and cut slower. The PowerSharp chain noodled best, in this test, with the 91PXL coming in a close second.

Differences may be more significant with lower powered (e.g. battery or pole) saws, and maybe some top handled saws used for pruning. Since the Nano chain requires unique sprockets (drive and bar nose), I would not be in a hurry to change over a saw that is satisfactorily running more conventional chain. But I am pretty sure that I would prefer it over 1/4-inch chain on those other saws. 1/4-inch chain always cuts slower for me, and does not have a lot of cutter material for filing / sharpening. This might be it's best niche.

Philbert

looking at the photo that seems to be quite a small cutter compared to the NK.
How does the nano compare to 1/4” chain for cutter size?

excellent review and post btw!

 

[Philbert]

Nano vs. 1/4" Pitch

How does the nano compare to 1/4” chain for cutter size?

@kneedeepinsaws asked me to compare the .325" 'Nano' chain (top chain: both photos) against 1/4" pitch chain (bottom chain: both photos). This is a quick photo comparison only, not a cutting comparison.





Note that the cutter top plate length and width appear very similar for both chains. The side view, however, shows a much taller cutter on the Nano chain, potentially poised to take a deeper bite. The tooth spacing is impossible to miss: the 1/4" pitch chain has approximately 30% more cutters for the same length (2,400 drive links per 100' roll for 1/4" pitch, compared to 1,840 for .325"). The smaller chain should give a smoother cut, especially on smaller branches, but has more cutters to sharpen.

Philbert

 

[mcginkleschmidt]

Good information to know on the chain. A young girl running a chainsaw is sexy. The girl, Shawdaleigh Baxter, is seen several times in the video.