Is there a 16" lightweight bar for a Stihl 201 c-em (that's a REAR handle ms201)?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GoneChopping

New Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2022
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Location
Pennsylvania
This basically a "money is no object" purchase (c'mon, within reason fellas, not looking for the chainsaw equivalent of Saddam's AK-47 or a Kardashian's diamond studded iphone here).

I'm not a pro (but like pro things, naturally) and I don't see a tree on the property that can't be handled by a 16" bar & chain (and I have a ms261 w/ 20" NK chain should I ever need it).

I really want something lighter than the 261 (already a great weight to power ratio), and I'm really leaning toward an Ms 201 c-em (it's a rear handle 201, just to clarify, I already have a top handle, echo CS-2511t, handy little sucker). I think a 16" bar would make it basically my main saw. However, I'd really like to go the extra mile and get a lightweight bar, possibly even 0.043 kerf instead of 0.050". That said, Stihl's Rollomatic E Mini Light bar only goes from 10-14". Are there any 16" lightweight bars that would mount to the ms 201 (I believe it's a 3005 mount)? Also, do you think it would be ideal to go for something narrow like 0.043" considering 16" is at the maximum of the recommended length range?
 
My two fav saws at 66 are my cem 201 (14) and ms261 (18). I think the 201 would easily handle the 16 for what we do. Does the bar in the Baileys link bolt on without any modifications?

BTW 6 mos after purchase carb had to be replaced for 201. Had only run 7-8 tanks. Waited 6 weeks for part availability.
 
My two fav saws at 66 are my cem 201 (14) and ms261 (18). I think the 201 would easily handle the 16 for what we do. Does the bar in the Baileys link bolt on without any modifications?

BTW 6 mos after purchase carb had to be replaced for 201. Had only run 7-8 tanks. Waited 6 weeks for part availability.

It should, it's still the same pitch (3/8lp) as stock, just a narrower kerf (.043 vs .050.) So the stock sprocket still works.

While they do weigh less than the stock bars, the main reason to run them is because the cutters are narrower and have less drag in the cut. That's the main reason I went with it on the 2511t, it allowed me to upsize to a 16" on that tiny powerhead.
 
This basically a "money is no object" purchase (c'mon, within reason fellas, not looking for the chainsaw equivalent of Saddam's AK-47 or a Kardashian's diamond studded iphone here).

I'm not a pro (but like pro things, naturally) and I don't see a tree on the property that can't be handled by a 16" bar & chain (and I have a ms261 w/ 20" NK chain should I ever need it).

I really want something lighter than the 261 (already a great weight to power ratio), and I'm really leaning toward an Ms 201 c-em (it's a rear handle 201, just to clarify, I already have a top handle, echo CS-2511t, handy little sucker). I think a 16" bar would make it basically my main saw. However, I'd really like to go the extra mile and get a lightweight bar, possibly even 0.043 kerf instead of 0.050". That said, Stihl's Rollomatic E Mini Light bar only goes from 10-14". Are there any 16" lightweight bars that would mount to the ms 201 (I believe it's a 3005 mount)? Also, do you think it would be ideal to go for something narrow like 0.043" considering 16" is at the maximum of the recommended length range?

I'm going with the Stihl 18" maybe mess with it later on my 200, 020 and 020AVE. You'll find the 0.043 setup for single rivet tips in NK chain on 16" bars. I bought new 12, 14 and 16" Stihl bars in mini style x2. I didn't use one 16" 0.043.

I do have a new 043lp 16" Stihl single rivet mini if your interested. Last one in 16" here. I don't need it. It's brand new NOS.
 
I run Stihl's Rollomatic E Mini Light bar in 16" on my MS200 rear-handle.
Part number 3005 000 7413. With 3/8Pico chain and .050 guage.
I expect the MS200 and MS201 have the same oiling port configuration on the bar, but it might be smart to get that confirmed by some of the experts "nearby".
For reference - https://www.ebay.com/itm/233879349694
And it is listed as an optional bar at the bottom of the MS201T description page https://www.stihlusa.com/products/chain-saws/in-tree-saws/ms201tcm/ so it is likely to have the same oil port configuration as the MS200.
 
I run Stihl's Rollomatic E Mini Light bar in 16" on my MS200 rear-handle.
Part number 3005 000 7413. With 3/8Pico chain and .050 guage.
I expect the MS200 and MS201 have the same oiling port configuration on the bar, but it might be smart to get that confirmed by some of the experts "nearby".
For reference - https://www.ebay.com/itm/233879349694
And it is listed as an optional bar at the bottom of the MS201T description page https://www.stihlusa.com/products/chain-saws/in-tree-saws/ms201tcm/ so it is likely to have the same oil port configuration as the MS200.
Outstanding info! I’ll pursue this. Thank you.
 
This basically a "money is no object" purchase (c'mon, within reason fellas, not looking for the chainsaw equivalent of Saddam's AK-47 or a Kardashian's diamond studded iphone here).

I'm not a pro (but like pro things, naturally) and I don't see a tree on the property that can't be handled by a 16" bar & chain (and I have a ms261 w/ 20" NK chain should I ever need it).

I really want something lighter than the 261 (already a great weight to power ratio), and I'm really leaning toward an Ms 201 c-em (it's a rear handle 201, just to clarify, I already have a top handle, echo CS-2511t, handy little sucker). I think a 16" bar would make it basically my main saw. However, I'd really like to go the extra mile and get a lightweight bar, possibly even 0.043 kerf instead of 0.050". That said, Stihl's Rollomatic E Mini Light bar only goes from 10-14". Are there any 16" lightweight bars that would mount to the ms 201 (I believe it's a 3005 mount)? Also, do you think it would be ideal to go for something narrow like 0.043" considering 16" is at the maximum of the recommended length range?

It should, it's still the same pitch (3/8lp) as stock, just a narrower kerf (.043 vs .050.) So the stock sprocket still works.

While they do weigh less than the stock bars, the main reason to run them is because the cutters are narrower and have less drag in the cut. That's the main reason I went with it on the 2511t, it allowed me to upsize to a 16" on that tiny powerhead.


Guys, you have kerf confused with gauge.

The numbers you’re referencing are the drive link gauge. That is, the thickness of the drive links.

Kerf is literally defined as “slit made by cutting with a saw”. Since the slot in the bar is either a byproduct of lamination, or the result of a slotting cutter on a mill, kerf most definitely is incorrect.

The Kerf on a chainsaw is primarily determined by the distance between the outer edges of a left and right cutter. This is generally larger than ¼” (0.250”), but usually narrower than ⅜” (0.375”). You’ll also struggle to find a published kerf for any given chain.

Not trying to be a grammar nazi here, but this stuff can be confusing for someone new, when proper terminology is used - no need to make it harder by mixing in the wrong terminology.
 
Guys, you have kerf confused with gauge.

The numbers you’re referencing are the drive link gauge. That is, the thickness of the drive links.

Kerf is literally defined as “slit made by cutting with a saw”. Since the slot in the bar is either a byproduct of lamination, or the result of a slotting cutter on a mill, kerf most definitely is incorrect.

The Kerf on a chainsaw is primarily determined by the distance between the outer edges of a left and right cutter. This is generally larger than ¼” (0.250”), but usually narrower than ⅜” (0.375”). You’ll also struggle to find a published kerf for any given chain.

Not trying to be a grammar nazi here, but this stuff can be confusing for someone new, when proper terminology is used - no need to make it harder by mixing in the wrong terminology.

It was bad verbiage on my part, but the chain I'm talking about is referred to as "narrow kerf"...the 3/8lp chain normally has a gauge of .050...the 3/8lp with a gauge of .043 is the narrow kerf chain. It has a narrower cutter profile compared to the stand 3/8lp, hence giving it a narrower kerf.
 
It was bad verbiage on my part, but the chain I'm talking about is referred to as "narrow kerf"...the 3/8lp chain normally has a gauge of .050...the 3/8lp with a gauge of .043 is the narrow kerf chain. It has a narrower cutter profile compared to the stand 3/8lp, hence giving it a narrower kerf.
So far as I’m aware, ⅜”LP or picco in Stihl speak, is available in 0.050 and 0.043 gauge, and generally speaking, has the same, more narrow kerf. “Extra” narrow kerf (micro, mini, etc) also appear to be available in both gauges. So you can’t go by gauge to determine kerf.

There’s a good chart here:
https://workshoppist.com/narrow-kerf-chains-and-bars/
Probably the only “advantage” with 0.043” gauge, is a very slightly lower chain weight. I’m HIGHLY doubtful that difference would be quantifiable in actual performance and usage.

Most likely, the only reason there are different gauges, is just a manufacturer choice.
 
Something that would be interesting to look into, is if the gauge corresponds to and equal change in kerf. For example, would a chain that produces a 0.250” kerf with a 0.050 gauge, produce a 0.243” kerf with a 0.043 gauge? Or are the cutters and links changed to maintain the same kerf?

Now, the stated example only corresponds to a 3% difference in kerf width- something I have a feeling, would be statistically insignificant, as different cutter profiles, chain tightness, and bar wear would all likely be able to give a similar difference.

I’m also curious if bar thickness changes as well.

But none of this is likely to actually matter. I’m just curious from a design and production standpoint.
 
So far as I’m aware, ⅜”LP or picco in Stihl speak, is available in 0.050 and 0.043 gauge, and generally speaking, has the same, more narrow kerf. “Extra” narrow kerf (micro, mini, etc) also appear to be available in both gauges. So you can’t go by gauge to determine kerf.

There’s a good chart here:
https://workshoppist.com/narrow-kerf-chains-and-bars/
Probably the only “advantage” with 0.043” gauge, is a very slightly lower chain weight. I’m HIGHLY doubtful that difference would be quantifiable in actual performance and usage.

Most likely, the only reason there are different gauges, is just a manufacturer choice.

Umm...I've run the .050 and .043 on my small climbing saw...the .043 was advertised as narrow ker and had a narrower top plate. It does cut faster, after all it is having to remove less material to reach the same cut depth...IDK what's so hard to understand about this.

The downside to the narrow kerf is that it's just doesn't stand up to quite as much abuse as normal 3/8lp.
 
Umm...I've run the .050 and .043 on my small climbing saw...the .043 was advertised as narrow ker and had a narrower top plate. It does cut faster, after all it is having to remove less material to reach the same cut depth...IDK what's so hard to understand about this.

The downside to the narrow kerf is that it's just doesn't stand up to quite as much abuse as normal 3/8lp.

Narrow kerf is available in both gauges, as is low profile. IDK what’s so hard to understand about this.

Again, the point is, this stuff is confusing enough to someone new to this, when all terminology is properly used. Using 0.043 gauge as shorthand for narrow kerf would lead someone to believe all 0.043 gauge is narrow kerf. That is factually incorrect.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top