:agree2:
yes, but his video was against Stihl so a lot of people get their panties in a knot when they see it. The Stihl's slower, it must be him and his crappy work and inexperience....
Stihl MS660 vs Husqvarna 390xp (vid)
- Thread starter Tree Sling'r
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
:agree2:
yes, but his video was against Stihl so a lot of people get their panties in a knot when they see it. The Stihl's slower, it must be him and his crappy work and inexperience....
:agree2:
yes, but his video was against Stihl so a lot of people get their panties in a knot when they see it. The Stihl's slower, it must be him and his crappy work and inexperience....
Agreed. I run Stihl mostly because I'm used to them, I can work on them a little, I've got a great dealer, and I know what to expect of them.
Nothing wrong with Husky, though, and if I weren't on my last saw (when it's through, I'm through
) I'd probably be running one.When Bark Bluster gets dry behind the ears and builds up some actual experience instead of just running his mouth about stuff he doesn't know anything about maybe we can start listening to him and taking him seriously. That should be in about ten or fifteen years.
Burvol
Bullbuck
Agreed. I run Stihl mostly because I'm used to them, I can work on them a little, I've got a great dealer, and I know what to expect of them.
Nothing wrong with Husky, though, and if I weren't on my last saw (when it's through, I'm through
When Bark Bluster gets dry behind the ears and builds up some actual experience instead of just running his mouth about stuff he doesn't know anything about maybe we can start listening to him and taking him seriously. That should be in about ten or fifteen years.
Well that 660 will probably go a decade, so nice to see you around for a while Bob!
Agreed. I run Stihl mostly because I'm used to them, I can work on them a little, I've got a great dealer, and I know what to expect of them.
Nothing wrong with Husky, though, and if I weren't on my last saw (when it's through, I'm through
When Bark Bluster gets dry behind the ears and builds up some actual experience instead of just running his mouth about stuff he doesn't know anything about maybe we can start listening to him and taking him seriously. That should be in about ten or fifteen years.
It says Stihl on it so don't plan on retiring!
StihlyinEly
Addicted to ArboristSite
Wow, this has been a cool thread to eat popcorn and drink beer over. Just saw it today. I love it when big long involved threads like this that started before I was an AS member come back up. Helps me to get to know the folks here.
ZG, it ain't what BB said initially about the test not mattering in certain ways. It's HOW he said it, and his subsequent postings maintained the same prickish attitude. IMO he deserves whatever butt kicking he gets.
parrisw
Tree Freak
It was a good comparison between two saws, nothing more nothing less. Some people are just PRICKS and have to pick at anything you do.
Please let this die.
Please let this die.
MR4WD
ArboristSite Guru
And this is why I bought a 390 off of him.
did barkbuster finaly tuck his tail and head on out 
Burvol
Bullbuck
Ah, so you got the 390 I was looking for about two weeks ago? LOL
Curlycherry1
Addicted to ArboristSite
My only (current) saw is an Stihl 051AV that I got in 1981 or 1982. Still running and still servicable according to my local dealer. So you are right, they do not retire.
StihlyinEly
Addicted to ArboristSite
My 028 AV is from 1979-83. Still cutting like a banshee. Got it for $20 at a garage sale this summer. It could very well outlive me.
Curlycherry1
Addicted to ArboristSite
I am not defending BB here but firewood cutting is more cuts per day than felling and bucking. I used to fell and top one day and skid to a landing and then on day 2 I would do nothing but buck logs sunup to sundown solid all day long. Cut after cut after cut after cut with nothing but gas breaks for the cutter and the saw. No way felling and topping is putting as much chain through wood in a day as compared to what a firewood blocker is. Simple math. That was why I slugged an 051 all the time. I wanted that saw through the wood so I was moving to make my next block cut. Speed is everything because my saw spent a good 60-80% of its running time cutting wood, not being carried from stump to top and then on to the next tree. Sorry, but firewood cutters can make close to a thousand cuts per day in a good pile of logs.
Metals406
Granfodder Runningsaw
'Tis true, less cuts falling timber. . . Less skill in firewooding though.
Although, falling dead wood adds another element to the game. . . Brittle hinge-wood offers less control of the tree.
opcorn:
parrisw
Tree Freak
True, but what does that have to do with this saw comparison? Ummmmm oh that's right. NOTHING.
Tree Sling'r
Addicted to ArboristSite
Never fails, LOL. The haters can bag all they want, Happy Holiday's.
-Jasha.
-Jasha.
Last edited:
parrisw
Tree Freak
ha ha. See what you started Slinger!
MR4WD
ArboristSite Guru
Possibly! This one's been a long time coming. I'm out of town, but I guess it finally showed up. Can't wait!
BarkBuster20
Addicted to ArboristSite
Basically what i think about the comparison wood used, is if i were working, i would be using a 70cc class saw, i would pull out a 90 cc saw if i had to remove some big stumps or fall or buck an exceptionally big tree. so basically in this part of the world a 70cc saw will handle anything a 90cc class saw will if the bar length is 32 inches on both using 3/8 chain.
I do understand that in areas with really hard wood, a 90 cc saw is pretty much needed to pull a 30 inch or better bar, that's just not how its done here, a 90 cc class saw around here is better suited with at least a 36 inch bar and as big as 42 inches.
I also understand that in the particular wood being used, the 390 does slightly better, and therefore abiding by many of your logic, proves the 390 to be better, but had the saws been dipped in hardwood using the same B&C setup, the 660 likely would have won. Had the saws been using a larger test bar with a .404 chain as would be typical for use in the PNW the 660 also would have likely won.
What this tells me, is that a hardwood setup was used in softwood, also many of the arguments have been centered around the B&C being equal with both saws, and test wood being same, therefore the winning saw is simply superior... Wrong, if they had been using a bar of at least 36 inches using .404 chain (identical) then the 660 would have won, so that being true defeats the whole argument saying the test was valid.
I do understand that in areas with really hard wood, a 90 cc saw is pretty much needed to pull a 30 inch or better bar, that's just not how its done here, a 90 cc class saw around here is better suited with at least a 36 inch bar and as big as 42 inches.
I also understand that in the particular wood being used, the 390 does slightly better, and therefore abiding by many of your logic, proves the 390 to be better, but had the saws been dipped in hardwood using the same B&C setup, the 660 likely would have won. Had the saws been using a larger test bar with a .404 chain as would be typical for use in the PNW the 660 also would have likely won.
What this tells me, is that a hardwood setup was used in softwood, also many of the arguments have been centered around the B&C being equal with both saws, and test wood being same, therefore the winning saw is simply superior... Wrong, if they had been using a bar of at least 36 inches using .404 chain (identical) then the 660 would have won, so that being true defeats the whole argument saying the test was valid.
