woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
Willard, since you told me about the 262, I have been on a ceaseless prowl at the auction here. I see the 162, but the later model so far proves elusive.
Seems Husky stepped in it again.
- Thread starter sawinredneck
- Start date
- Replies 75
- Views 25K
HolmenTree
Banned
Yes the 262XP would be a good find, they're out there you just gotta be in the right place and the right time. The 162 which was introduced in 1976 is still a very similar design that todays Huskies are still based on.
Here's some more pics of my Husqvarna 272XP alongside my 372XP. As a joke inside the blue Husqvarna cardboard box is a new 576XP AutoTune.
Attachments
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
Get it out of the box mang and expose it to the world!
HolmenTree
Banned
You owe me big time Jay. I just took a picture of the 576 in the box, in my shed, in the dark, neighbors are wondering what the heck I'm doing, late on Halloween night.:roll:
Attachments
Magnus
TreeHouser
The 272 ran ruffer than the 372. A beast of a saw and one of my favorites.
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
Thanks Willard. It's all very hush hush. 
HolmenTree
Banned
Yes my spring AV mount 346,372, 395XP's are alot smoother then my rubber AV mount Stihl 044 and 066. But I don't hear any complaints from the Stihl owners. If anything the Husky spring mounts are way too sloppy , floppy. Especially on the 346XP........ The 576's springs seem to be firmer but runs smoother then the 372 .
I'm going to run the 272XP for its first time tomorrow, seeing I have a all day job grinding stumps today.
I have a 16" b/c with 8 T 3/8" rim sprocket on the 272. With a aluminum bumper on it replacing the 2 heavy steel dogs the saw should be the same weight as the 372XP if not lighter, seeing by the book the 372 weighs 13.4 lbs and the 272 weighs 13.7
The 272 is more compact in size then the 372 and with its narrower centered b/c and outboard clutch the 272 is a better balanced handler then the 372, [just like what the outboard clutch 346 was designed to do]. Plus more precise cutting with the firmer rubber mounts. Making it the ultimate small wood, limbing and cleanup saw with the 16" b/c. I will then probably just retire my 346-16".
Magnus
TreeHouser
There are better saws than this for limbing with 16" bars. Its little brother 266 for example.
I think it showed its true color best with 20-24" in hard wood cutting up trunk and felling.
This family of saws is based on 162. That is why there was no alternative to clutch.
The few integrated chain brakes at the time did not perform very well and as "Tvärniten" (Instant stop) was new and worked great there was no reason to change anything and redesign crank and clutch on this family.
Husqvarna liked outboard clutch design and had it as much as they could.
I think it showed its true color best with 20-24" in hard wood cutting up trunk and felling.
This family of saws is based on 162. That is why there was no alternative to clutch.
The few integrated chain brakes at the time did not perform very well and as "Tvärniten" (Instant stop) was new and worked great there was no reason to change anything and redesign crank and clutch on this family.
Husqvarna liked outboard clutch design and had it as much as they could.
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
I can't exactly figure why you guys like having that much muscle on a limbing saw with a 16" bar. I mean if it is light enough, ok, but it just seems overkill to me. I can move down a tree quite quickly with my modded 242xp, or even the rear handled 020 or MS200 does decent if you like a little scenery when cutting. I mean I am all for moving up the saw ladder, but over 70ccs for limbing.....cough....
Burnham
Woods walker
I would tend to agree, Jay. The 361 I have, at 60cc, seems like plenty of power for that job.
The ones we are falling right now, we are using the 441 with an 18" bar.
That is a bit overkill on the limbing but fine for felling and bucking.
We did stick 8hole rims on them to speed things up a bit.
That and a full comp chain and it goes through those limbs like the proverbial hot knife through butter.
That is a bit overkill on the limbing but fine for felling and bucking.
We did stick 8hole rims on them to speed things up a bit.
That and a full comp chain and it goes through those limbs like the proverbial hot knife through butter.
Burnham
Woods walker
Always a wonderful feeling.
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
I couldn't help noticing that Jerry and his mates in the felling instruction set vids were using their larger felling saws for limbing as well. One can only defer to their expertise with that.
Burnham
Woods walker
You only haul one saw around the harvest units, that's for certain.
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
"Harvest units", that's a great name for those guys! 
Burnham
Woods walker
gf beranek
Old Schooler
It's pack in and pack out every day. Seldom is the truck near.
Burnham
Woods walker
Yessir.
HolmenTree
Banned
Jay I believe you and Magnus missed what I was trying to say about the 272XP-16" being a good "small wood ,limbing and cleanup" saw. I intend the 272 to do the work in small timber of felling, limbing and blocking the stem into firewood length blocks.
Sure the smaller saws would make a better limbing saw, but put it to the log bucking... I'll take the 272XP.
Like Burnham and Gerry said one saw -one job.
16" b/c = less in the dirt and easier faster to maintain with the file and ease of handling.
woodworkingboy
TreeHouser
Thanks for clarifying, Willard. I would concur that doing a lot of bucking takes precedent. Bucking with too small a saw is pretty boring.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
+1 only mine is an 036......18"
Burnham
Woods walker
Probably. And I was looking at it more as a limbing, cleanup at the chipper sort of work saw, not really for felling and bucking in a logging show. Surprisingly capable, even so.
Tucker943
Bamboo Plantation Owner
Im not mad at Husky. What these saws manufacturers face is tough. They have to keep coming up with newer, cleaner saws. We all know that. Its not easy. Look at diesel trucks for example. Ford for instance. The 7.3 International was legendary. They were faced with the challenges of providing that same power, reliability, and durability, but cleaner. It was a tough road since to get the bugs worked out in the engines that replaced that 7.3. Husky and Stihl face the same challenge. Its not as easy as making a new awesome replacement that works like the old one. Same with Stihl. Sure I know some of you all rant and rave about 441s and 261s and brand new 660's, but honestly, I think they are junk compared to the benchmark saws that Stihl once produced (044, 046, 066 etc.) I dont think that its Stihls fault. Theyre just doing the best they can.
As far as Im concerned, the days of outstanding chainsaws are over. Period. Blame each manufacturer until you are blue in the face, but its the government(s) that did this. Husky and Stihl are just scrambling to churn out great tools, with the rules they are given, and by the time they start working the bugs out of something, they're forced to make something newer and cleaner.
As far as Im concerned, the days of outstanding chainsaws are over. Period. Blame each manufacturer until you are blue in the face, but its the government(s) that did this. Husky and Stihl are just scrambling to churn out great tools, with the rules they are given, and by the time they start working the bugs out of something, they're forced to make something newer and cleaner.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
361 is also a good thinning saw for me as most the stems, hardwood or soft rarely exceed 18" since you often leave the parent trees. Now if you need to... that 18" bar and some short bar felling technique will still put a good size tree on the ground and you need not hike back to the truck Just no sense in carrying too much weight ...
Just no sense in carrying too much weight ...
