Tiny bars on big powerheads. Why?

[chiselbit]

so I’m curious why people do this. Someone on here mentioned using a 661 with a 20” bar to chunk down a tree. That just boggles my mind as to why someone would want that big of a saw to do something that small. I have seen it done in several videos and it seems to me to be more of an east coast thing but not exclusively so. Am I missing something? Do some people have just one saw and lots of different size bars to put on it rather than a stable full of saws? Personally I have saws tiny and large and everything in between, my 660’s never run anything shorter than a 36”, 576’s get 32”, 562’s are 28” and occasionally 32”, and a couple little 353’s that kick ass with a 20” bar. Like I said, just curious, not trying to pick a fight.

 

[theatertech87]

If you're doing lots of firewood cuts to chunk something down, it's a lot faster with a 660 and 20" bar than say a 362 with the same size bar. Don't do it myself, but I know someone that does and that's their mind set behind doing it that way.

 

[colb]

I typically run a 20" bar on my ms 661. It cuts up to 40" wood. It cuts *very* fast.

It's a beast for crane climbing. Makes every cut feel like butter, and even makes most stump cuts.

I worked storm damage all day today with it and my echo cs271t. There was nothing they couldn't handle, and all of it without having to go to the other side to cut.

36" just gets in the way a lot of the time. I did a pine removal with 36" on the spar and ended up accidentally cutting a vibernum stem in a hedge...

When I need it, I put the 36" on. Generally, I'm telling or milling. Rarely, climbing.

 

[flyingsquirrel25]

I much rather the shorter bars when I can get away with them. Less weight, better balance and much better cutting ability. Another great bonus is less to file. Case in point We had 2 multi stem river birch stumps the other day... we all know what’s inside them. One was cut mostly with a 24” on a 372. Twice that saw hit something (no fault of the operator) inside the stump to the point where it really didn’t cut anymore. We ended up just tickling it with the 3’ bar and the stump popped. I would have been upset filling 2 3’ Chains for that stinking stump vs the 2 24”ers. The other stump was 32-34”. My 562 with 18” bar cut it off with no reach issues, just dull when done.
We preemptively did the same thing with the large maple we removed in October. We knew there was concrete all over, just didn’t know where. We looked silly running an 18” bar around a 5 foot diameter piece of wood. Then a 24, and then the 36. But sitting down to fix the 18” chain vs the 36” I was ok looking silly!

 

[southsoundtree]

Less length to mess with... Less leverage and strain.
Rarely do I need a 36". Double cutting an occasional piece is no big deal.
Sometimes I run an 8 pin sprocket for higher chain speed, less torque.
Less to sharpen.
Cheaper bars and chains.

 

[chiselbit]

And you’re out here on the west coast so there goes my east coast theory

 

[southsoundtree]

Leverage of a bar/ chain makes a big difference. A top-handle 200t is much less wrist-strain with a 12" than 16". We kept both in the stable for bucket-work.

Small increases in ergonomics add up.

 

[chiselbit]

I agree. I tend to match the bar length to the diameter of the tree I’m cutting but I go with small power heads

 

[Treespotter]

so I’m curious why people do this. Someone on here mentioned using a 661 with a 20” bar to chunk down a tree. That just boggles my mind as to why someone would want that big of a saw to do something that small.

I'm with you chiselbit.
On all my machines are the maximum advised bars. When up in the tree I like my saws featherlight. A few seconds longer in the cut doesn't bother me. Unnecessary rounding a tree just because the bar is too short really bugs me.
I really don't think there is a measurable time advantage in the cut between a big saw with a to me normal length bar and a short bar cutting a 20 inch log.

Wolter

 

[chiselbit]

Yes, that’s my thought too. I just kept seeing vids of people doing the short bar thing and thought I’d see if I could find out why. I’m not convinced there’s any advantage therefore it shall be decreed that all short bar guys are judgement impaired and not to be trusted.

 

[Treespotter]

Nah, they're just half a bar short of a real saw. [emoji38]
O I know, I know. I don't have to bend over while cutting the trunk into pieces.

Wolter

 

[Treespotter]

Nah, they're just half a bar short of a real saw. [emoji38]

That's my version of one sandwich short of a picknick. [emoji6]

Wolter

 

[RopeShield]

when chasing the hinge to avoid a barber chair/splitting or fast flat drop, or to land butt heavy . miliseconds can add up to help avoid something disastrous.
personally 24" on 660 and 36 "rarely, 201 has rips faster than 261, the mid size saws for what they are I still prefer 660.
I will be 50 this yr so will take a look at the upper midrange saws to be honest 660 if not completely clean of gunk and stuff can be tuff in an awkward position but in our hardwoods 660 is preferred.

 

[tc262]

I'm with you chiselbit.
On all my machines are the maximum advised bars. When up in the tree I like my saws featherlight. A few seconds longer in the cut doesn't bother me. Unnecessary rounding a tree just because the bar is too short really bugs me.
I really don't think there is a measurable time advantage in the cut between a big saw with a to me normal length bar and a short bar cutting a 20 inch log.

Wolter

I'm with you guys too! I run the largest bar combos approved by the manufacturer with skip tooth on everything. Stable of rear handles is 550xp with a 20", 372 with a 28", and a 3120 with a 36" or 42." I would like to add one between the 372 and 3120 tho. I'm more interested in weight savings with the lightest saw for the job, and I know the 3120 doesn't fit that bill but I got a hell of deal on it a long time ago and can't justify spending the money on a smaller big saw.