Stihl 441 R C-M vs 660 for alaskan slabbing?

[nerdmanpap]

I've been a long time lurker here on the forums and was hoping to ask a question about my next chainsaw choice. I own (2) MS180C-BE, (1) MS290, (1) MS391 chainsaws. I've never had a problem with stihl, so I'm looking to buy another.

I do a lot of woodworking as well as tree removals and I am looking to put together a setup so that I can mill my own boards. In particular I plan on milling slabs for tables, bars, etc. I'd like to be able to mill 36" wide slabs MINIMUM.

According to Bailey's online store, the Granberg MK-III 36" mill can only handle 32" boards, but the 48" mill can handle up to 44". So I intend to buy the 48" chainsaw mill.

The max *recommended* bar for the MS441 is 32" but I could put a 36" bar on it, but the MS660 max bar is 36" so hopefully I could push larger. One thing I am not quite sure of is how well the oiler will be able to keep up with a larger bar, especially since milling wood with a chainsaw can be quite taxing on it.

I'd like to buy the 441R C-M as it not only has the wrap handle I want, but it also electronically adjusts the carb settings on its own. The only real disadvantage to the 660 is additional cost and manual carb adjustments. Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on which of these two saws would be best for my milling application?

 

[sawfun9]

When milling you get the biggest saw you can. Granberg recommends this and with a 44" bar even a 660 isn't going to do well. You really need a 120cc or bigger saw for that size of wood.

 

[s219]

I would not want to cut 36" slabs with either saw.

 

[Mad Professor]

Bigger is better. 088/880

 

[timmcat]

When using a Granberg there are two things to remember, 1. The biggest saw you can afford isn't big enough. 2. The chain is never sharp enough.

That being said, if the 660 is your largest option for a saw then look into the auxilary oiler attachment for the tip of the bar, I use mine on a 36" mill with a 394xp powerhead and it works quite well.

 

[Officer's Match]

I'm one of the biggest M-Tronic lovers around, but I would even THINK of asking a 441 to do that. You need a LOT bigger saw, 395 at the minimum.

 

[WidowMaker1]

Displacement & torque is King on the mill, bigger saws can take the punishment way better than smaller saws

 

[mikefunaro]

A 36" bar on an alaskan mill really only lets you mill like 30" tops; you lose effective bar length due to the way there is a radius guard and where the posts actually clamp down onto the bar. You cant clamp near the nose of the bar because you'll lock up the sprocket tip....same thing on the power head end there's simply a loss of distance from where you attach to the bar.

THat said, your oiling concern is for the actual bar length, not for the diameter of wood cut with the bar. To actually mill 36" wide you need like a 42 or 48" alaskan mill. And therefore a bar that size. For a bar that size you need either a 395 or 3120 or 880. Maybe you can put an HO oiler on a 660 and have it come close.

Either way take your time. It's fairly expensive to get into a setup like that you're talking 600+ for a saw, 200+ for the mill, 100+ for a bar and a chain (and you'll need multiple loops), extra money for wedges to plug the kerf so you don't bind, etc, etc. By the time you add everything in buying a bigger saw doesn't cost that much more.

If you can stick to 30" logs then you can get away with a 660 is my guess. Either way it's a slow process. The other reality of the matter is if you start slabbing 36"+ diameter trees its pretty hard to get the slabs to cure and dry without some serious end check. Maybe you can find something that's dead that's kinda cured in place, but the heft weight and ultimately fragility of those huge slabs makes them a pain to process.

 

[Justsaws]

660 pretty much done at a 30" cut milling, yeah it can do bigger but it moves into being a crappy experience pretty quick.

Not sure how long of a slab you are looking a milling but slabs 36" wide 1 1/2 to 3" thick are HEAVY, put at +6' long and the crappy milling experience with the 660 will be far more enjoyable than moving them without powered equipment. I know this because I use a 660 and do not have any equipment to move the slabs that is not powered by me.

 

[SCHallenger]

Chainsaw milling

I used to have a Jonsereds920 (87.9cc) & did a lot of milling with it using a ripping chain. It was a slow process, especially in white oak between 24-30in wide. There was someone, I don't remember his name, who used two 090 powerheads on a 60in bar! He did it for a few yrs. then advertised his equipment for sale when portable bandsaw mills became available. Long story short, chainsaws are not efficient for milling, but, if you're going to do it, I would suggest the 880.

 

[nerdmanpap]

Bit of an update - I took everything into consideration and redefined my choices.

Based on the feedback I changed my setup decision to mill a maximum of a 26" wide slab. This should be plenty ample for what I want to do, plus it will be easier on the saws, the slabs will be much lighter in weight, and the drying will be easier as well.

Based on a max cut of 26", I will need the 30" alaskan mill setup, and a 32" bar. This may still require auxiliary oiling depending on how much is flung off the tip. At any rate, I'm going to go with the MS441 for this setup, and I can always upgrade to a 660 in the future.

Looking at the MS441, there are two versions that interest me: 441 C-M and 441R C-M

Rumor has it the "R" or wrap handle version has a higher output oiler, stiffer AV springs, and it comes with dual saw dogs rather than single.

Can anyone confirm whether or not the oiler on the "R" version has a higher output oiler?

 

[excess650]

I started with a 24" Alaskan and 272xp with 28" bar. It didn't take too long to realize that the 272xp wasn't what I wanted, and neither was the 24" Alaskan. I bought an 066 and put in a Bailey's big bore kit. Keep in mind that when you mill you need to tune the saw rich on the top end so as to limit rpm and run cooler. It isn't a bad idea to run more oil as well, and I run a 40-1 mix. The extra displacement allows you to "detune" and still have power. I bought the 36" bars for the Alaskan and a 36" B&C for the 066. I've cut 30"+ wide and as long as 10', but its hard on a saw. They really weren't intended for those long duration cuts, so a sharp chain is a must. Ripping chain is best, and I run 3/8" x .050" full comp. 2nd choice chain for milling would be Stihl RM, believe it or not.

Regarding my 066BB, The only part I've had fail was a clutch. The clutch spider broke, and luckily, it didn't damage the threads on the crankshaft. The stock oiler works OK, but is no oil slinger. The higher volume oil pump or auxiliary oiler wouldn't hurt. The beauty of the 066/660 is that it isn't terribly heavy and can be used off the mill. This was my thought, but then I bought a 660 basket case and rebuilt it with OEM cylinder and Meteor piston. It was to be the "backup saw", but has never been used on the mill.

IMO, you need more displacement than the 441. 90cc+ would be my recommendation. Other guys seem to love the Husky 385, 394/395s, 3120s, and 088/880s for milling.

You are correct, those 2-3" thick slabs 30" wide and 5-10' long are HEAVY. I've cut 'em in oak, elm, Douglas Fir, and walnut.

 

[William Balaska]

I'm not nockin ya so don't take offense, but pass on the 441 as your going to hurt it trying to mill lumber. Remeber your chain is going to be ground at 10 degrees versus 30 so notw it cuts super slow and you have to push it fairly hard. Milling is extremely hard on a saw. Look at an old o51 or 075 or 084-880 that's in good shape. An 051 wll flat out spank the 441 in the mill.

 

[XSKIER]

The MS441RCM comes with the high output oiler. It is differentiated by a T shaped adjusting screw opposed to the standard I shape. Be careful with it though, as the manual warns of running empty on oil before fuel when set on higher levels. Good luck!

 

[chainsawnut460]

660/880 is my vote or the huskys with similar displacement

 

[bplust]

Only chainsaw mill if your lumber cannot be accessed by a truck + whatever length of chain/cable you have. If you can get the logs to the truck, than just run some sort of portable mill. You can buy new Briggs (and other brands') motors for a fraction of the cost of either of those saws, that and with some metal stock, bearings, bar & chain, and a little ingenuity, you can have a 4 stroke mill easily. Milling is hard on a saw, and big saws are expensive in whole and in replacing parts.

But if you have to chainsaw mill, 660, hands down.

 

[computeruser]

441 is not an appropriate powerhead for milling. Go ahead and buy it if you insist, but you might ought to listen to the answers you got here.

 

[s219]

I still think you're asking too much from a 441 -- dropping from 36" to 26" doesn't change that.

Note the big felling dogs on the R models will need to be taken off when you mount up to an Alaskan mill if you want to maximize the cut width. So keep that in mind.

We have been milling cypress (a soft wood) with my 461 and it does fine with a 20" bar running rip chain for cuts about 14-15" wide (I have the 24" Granberg mill). That's a comfortable ripping scenario for a 461. I wouldn't want to mill much bigger (or harder) wood with the saw. The long duration high RPM cuts work the saw (as evidenced by the fuel consumption) and I want to stay in a range where the saw is having an easy go at the wood.

I have run a 441 CM before I got the 461, and it lacks the torque the 461 has. So I would not recommend the 441 as a milling saw based on my experience.

 

[nerdmanpap]

Wow - thanks a ton for all the feedback guys. I'm really glad I asked here before just heading off and buying a saw.

I'm scratching the 441 off the list for sure. I plan to grab a 660 per multiple recommendations in this thread.

Again - thanks a ton for all the feedback. You've all helped me out tremendously

 

[bplust]

If you can, definitely go bigger. But a 660 will produce lumber, no doubt.

Remember that when milling, weight isn't really a factor, so ignore that number, look at the displacement-to initial cost- to replacement parts availability/cost ratio. Just my $0.02, have fun!