What\'s your favourite chainsaw?

[mikepepler]

I chose a Husqvarna 346XP, but other people like Stihl. What\'s your preference - one of those two or another make?

Mike

[tracy]

Does anyone have a nice light chainsaw that is perfect for a somewhat weak armed (!) lady?

I am considering doing a course and getting one, but Mikes is so heavy...

[mikepepler]

We\'re wondering about the Husqvarana 339XP - has anyone used it, or the similar 338XP (a top-handled version of it)?

[Chris]

Husquvarna are not noted for being lightweight. Try Stihl or Echo. We have an Echo and find this useful for laying hedges, coppicing hazel and other light jobs.

Chris W

[mikepepler]

We already have one Husqvarna though, so I\'m inclined to get another so they can share some spare parts, chains, tools, etc. The 339XP seems to be the only one that\'s a bit lighter. Simiar story with Stihl, with just the MS200 being light (only a tiny bit less than the 339).

Mike

[Alan]

The Husq 346 has the best power to weight ratio of any chainsaw I know of. Its also capable of dealing with medium size tree\'s & light enough to do general daily coppice work with too. If I\'m doing several weeks or months work coppicing I use a Stihl 023 as it is a bit lighter. But its not as powerfull. I wouldn\'t use Echo or any of those other makes of chainsaw. They are simply not up to it. Stick to a Husq, Stihl or possibly Jonsered.

Top handle saws should only be used when doing aerial work & NEVER on the ground.

[tracy]

Yeah, we would not use a top handled one on the ground, thanks though!

Mike was looking at the 339xp to get the lightest possible one for me. I believe that one is for on the ground.

I find his 346 heavy enough just carrying it up the track!

[mikepepler]

I agree Alan - the XP series really do put out a lot of power for their weight. But I guess that\'s why they cost a bit more! I only mentioned the top-handled 338XPT because it is the engine form it that is used in the rear-handled 339XP. Don\'t worry, we\'re not about to use a top-handled saw on the ground :-)

Mike

[MattB]

I'm a Stihl man myself, as many tree surgeons seem to be. I've been using the ms260 with a 16" bar for 6 years now and for general work I cant fault it. I've only used Husky saws on a couple of occasions and have found them to be slightly heavier for not much increase in power, though that may just be my personal bias.

It all depends on how much work you're doing though, theres a saw on the market for every task. It's just a matter of trying things until you find one that works for your situation.

[wood troll]

Hi Mat, good to have you on board (sounds very nautical... must think of a more woody phase).

I agree with you on Stihl. I used a Husq (354 I think) for about 2 years and had no end of break downs as well as it being under-powered for the size of blade (45cm). I traded it in for a Stihl and although I have had a few problems it has been far more reliable.

At the moment I have two Stihls MS170 & MS660 obviously for completely different jobs. The 170 is now about 7 years old and has been brilliant, though I am thinking of trading it in for a MS200 as I have lots of pruning up trees to undertake. Being a tool-hound I will also probably end up buying one in the upper 200 range for light woodland work.

One thing I do not like though in the Stihl range are the "hobby" C-BE range. The extras (easy open oil and fuel caps and a chain tightening system for dumbies) are too flimsy for large amounts of work... I even broke a friend's fuel cap trying to open it by hand!

wood troll