smallest saw for milling?

[agg221]

A lot depends on your expectations.

 

A small saw - one with a maximum 18"-20" bar specified will work well enough with a small log mill to:

 

a) tell you whether you enjoy milling.

b) make a few boards for hobby use.

 

It's best to try to keep cuts narrow where possible, but in practice if you cut an 18" log in half, then take cuts the other way you get a good amount of timber of 4" to 9" which will suit most projects.

 

Above about 70cc on the powerhead the Alaskan starts to become the best option, increasing in size with power.

 

The real key to enjoyable milling is a very finely tuned chain. This means having all teeth absolutely sharp and absolutely identical in length and angle. In hard wood (as opposed to hardwood) this is pretty much essential and I don't believe you can do this well enough except with a precision filing jig or grinder, with positive depth stops and angle setting. This is the difference between taking ages, using a lot of fuel and getting nowhere and a reasonably pleasant experience.

 

Bigger is definitely better on saws, but you would get a long way with 90cc and upwards unless you specifically want to mill big timber. I use an 066, 070, 076 and 090 and to be honest I pretty much stick to the 076 for general milling and the 066 on a mini-mill (very useful for making beams for construction). I generally use bars up to around 48" but can go longer if needed. I generally work single-handed, although when Burrell pushes the other end of the mill through a 48" oak butt it does make it easier!

 

Re. construction with your own timber. Check the latest, but certainly a couple of years ago this was possible but for the structural bits you need take a bit of care in how you go about it to comply with the rules (assuming you are building England of course).

 

I suggest sticking to hardwood (oak is easiest because it is high strength, naturally durable so the lack of pressure treatment doesn't matter and your engineer will have figures to hand to calculate for it) because the grading system is visual, whereas for softwood such as larch it is mechanical, which makes it expensive to get a sample from every site tested. It is a good idea to comply with the visual grading requirements but they don't formally apply to timber above 20% moisture content when installed. This means that you can technically install what you like when it's green and building control can't say anything about it, but your house might fall down so it's probably not a good idea!

 

The visual grading system was certainly findable through a google search and is easy to use. You need to be qualified to formally apply it, ie to sign off timber as passing, but since it doesn't formally apply to green timber in practice you can do your own if you install your timber above 20% mc. It is a good idea to inform your engineer though if you are doing this, as they can over-specify the timber to ensure it is the lowest grade in strength calculations which gives you some leeway.

 

As I said, check that the above hasn't changed, but it was certainly the case fairly recently.

 

Alec

Edited September 15, 2015 by agg221

[Eddy_t]

Having been milling with an ms880 and my 362xp (it's been converted to 75cc and ported) running a 24" b&c, you'll definitely need a 90+cc saw if you want to do anything substantial (over 20"), anything less would require a minimum of 70cc

[Woodworks]

A lot depends on your expectations.

 

 

 

The real key to enjoyable milling is a very finely tuned chain. This means having all teeth absolutely sharp and absolutely identical in length and angle. In hard wood (as opposed to hardwood) this is pretty much essential and I don't believe you can do this well enough except with a precision filing jig or grinder, with positive depth stops and angle setting. This is the difference between taking ages, using a lot of fuel and getting nowhere and a reasonably pleasant experience.

 

 

 

Alec

 

If that last bit was aimed at me my slow experience was with a brand new Gradenberg milling chain

[agg221]

If that last bit was aimed at me my slow experience was with a brand new Gradenberg milling chain

 

Wasn't aimed at anyone, but I have seen some interesting efforts at sharpening milling chain and was guilty myself before I got the grinder

 

Alec

[Woodworks]

Wasn't aimed at anyone, but I have seen some interesting efforts at sharpening milling chain and was guilty myself before I got the grinder

 

Alec

 

Surprised a man of your skills goes for a grinder over a hand filing. I have done little sharpening on the milling chain but experience with regular chains is that you get a better edge with a file. Yes it takes a bit of practice to keep things even but a vernier gauge comes in handy for this.

[Woodworks]

Not doubting the speed of a good grinder on a large chain just find on a regular chain you get a better edge from a file.

 

When you say you grind freehand I am presuming that's Gradenberg or one of similar style?

Edited September 16, 2015 by Woodworks

[ucoulddoit]

The issue of strength grading timber is potentially a real problem if not approached in the right way and in my opinion starts with selection of suitable logs and milling to produce 'structural' timbers, not just milled timber. I worked as a structural design engineer for many years, including a fair bit of timber engineering and green oak framing, and would have been quite wary of accepting timbers that weren't certified - the potential consequences and liabilities were just not worth taking a risk..... For instance, large section timbers for beams and columns are often milled by 'boxing the heart', but you can't check this once the structure is up and trust, built up over time and successful projects often has to be relied upon rather than detailed checks of every millimetre of wood. If a piece of graded timber is sawn along its length into two pieces, they may become different grades to the original piece. And there are other potential problems.

 

Having said that, timber framers worked for centuries without regulations and with some care and knowledge I don't see any major barriers to using self milled structural timbers for your own use. But I think it would be advisable to start by learning about green oak framing, the construction issues and have a completed frame design before starting to mill. Also, I'd recommend having the timbers independently graded if they are being used in a major investment such as a house.

 

I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that I've just completed construction of a frame for an outbuilding using green larch. As Alec mentioned, published guidance on strength grading green softwoods is limited, but I'll look over my notes from when I designed the frame and post a few notes about my approach which might be of interest to others.

 

One other thought that this thread raised is the difference between chainsaw milling through and through boards for joinery and furniture making, compared to milling large section structural timbers. I don't have anywhere near the experience of many of the others who have added to this thread. But from my limited experience it seems to me that a large chainsaw is a major advantage when milling through and through boards, often from quite large logs. After a bit of time spent setting up and making the first cut, the subsequent cuts are quickly made (and even quicker with a big saw). Whereas a large section structural timber, requires setting up to remove the top from the log. Then (assuming like me you have just one chainsaw) remove the Alaskan mill from the chainsaw and fit the mini mill. Set up the guide board and cut off one side of the log at exactly 90 degrees to the first cut. Re-attach the Alasken mill and cut off the bottom of the log. Rotate the log and cut off the fourth side. And all done single handedly....! So a lot more time spent setting up and proportionately less actually milling? I wondered if others find milling structural timbers more time consuming than T+T boards? Working alone, on a good day, on a steep slope, after a bit of practice, I could complete two large section beams/columns...... Final thought that others might want to comment on is that logs milled for structural timbers are often small/medium sized and yield just one beam/column with the heart boxed, or perhaps a couple of joists, one each side of the heart?

 

Andrew

[agg221]

Andrew - All good points on grading, where your experience is significantly greater than mine. My engineer inspected my logs before milling and satisfied himself of the quality of my material. He also took the view that I was going to live there and it would be my problem if I didn't do it properly! I am an engineer, although not civil, so I work to the same general approach - I tend to err very much on the side of caution with tolerancing as I know I don't have the experience to know how far out of tolerance I can go (my blockwork is +/-1mm across 3.6m x 3.6m x 4m height). I took the same approach with my structural timber - it was milled for the job and would all pass visual grading at the next class up. Structural timbers were specified to a dimension for the calculations but most of them are installed oversize (e.g. rafters needed to be 4" x 2" for structural calcs but are 4" x 3" for aesthetics). I discussed this with my engineer who took it into account for weight allowances, but it gives me yet more leeway. Beams were milled boxed-heart to get maximum strength but calcs assumed they are not. I pre-slit the biggest beam which needs a flitch plate installing so that the slit widened rather than getting additional cracking as is inevitable in the drying of a boxed-heart beam. The excess gap will be filled with a wedge, bolted through alongside the flitch plate. Specs are also available in building regs for non-structural timbers such as battens, but given that this applies to softwood with the consistency of cheese rather than cleft oak or chestnut heartwood I must admit I took a slightly more lax approach to the specification here on things like the odd waney edge Every step was agreed with my engineer.

 

I agree that smaller timbers are often suited to construction - for boxed heart there isn't much advantage in having an oversize log as the outer parts are so far from quartersawn that they will cup badly so tend to go to waste. However, I think there might be a skewed view from this forum which is much more at the speciality end of milling and furniture construction than production of standard joinery softwood and Ikea style furniture where a lot of small softwood is used.

 

Breaking down a log for construction timbers other than beams, I would tend to take say an oak butt with 18" of heartwood and mill two 3" slabs out of the centre to lose the pith and get a near quartersawn 6" joist out of each side of each slab (4 in total), then mill a 4" slab from each half which would get split the other way to get two near quartersawn rafters out of each. My log would therefore yield 4 joists and 4 rafters. Slightly bigger (20") and I would take a third set of joists out of the middle, slightly smaller (16") and I would take a joist and a rafter out of each of the two centre slabs. You always need more rafters than joists so I sometimes took a 4" slab from near the centre and ripped it into 3off 4"x4", then split them into pairs, changing the direction of the cut to keep them near quartered. All the remaining bits would then get ripped down at 2" or 1" depending on location. I would get some poor grade 4"x2" (flat sawn or waney corners) for stud walling but mostly 2"x1". I also needed a number of counter-battens for warm roof construction. These were made from the cleanest, straightest lengths as 2" x 1.25". All the small ripping down was done using a circular saw with a guide fence to keep the kerf narrow.

 

I used a slightly different cutting sequence to you when making a single boxed-heart beam from a log - most of the time went on the set up and first cut, then I took a second cut at the required depth for the beam. That gave me a slab which I could edge. I didn't even have a mini-mill at the time so did this by rolling up it up by 90deg and using a spirit level on the side to get it vertical, propped using offcuts, and then levelling the rail horizontally. With a mini-mill I would just edge it before rolling. This sequence reduces the amount of rolling and means you are rolling a lighter section. You are also rolling/sliding the slab off the bottom section which means it drops a bit, making it easier as gravity is on your side. I could probably process 3 15"-18" butts in lengths of around 15' average in a day but would still want an 066 or similar for this.

 

Alec

[ucoulddoit]

Thanks for the comments Alec and I realised ages ago that you had milled the timber for your house. Sounds like you found a good engineer to work with who had a pragmatic attitude to this sort of project. Have you ever posted pictures of it?

 

Sounds like my milling rate is a bit slow, and I'm conscious that I am probably a bit of a small saw fanatic! But it stems from my suspicion that buying a big saw might be a barrier to getting started with milling for many people who, like me have daydreamed about milling timber and seasoning it themselves to make stuff for the family which they can enjoy for years..... Although my milling rate is a bit slow, in terms of enjoyment, it has been fantastically fulfilling to start with logs that were free and destined to either be left to rot or turned into firewood, and now have an 'engineered' structure! Albeit in my daydream it was an oak frame, not larch, but it should outlast me.....

 

Andrew

[pyro_John]

Regarding the smallest saw - I've got an MS260 with a 16" bar. I originally bought it for logging up tree surgery waste into firewood. Some time later I bought a logosol timberjig and use it a couple of times a year with the ms260 to cut boards out to make into blanks for turning the odd bowl or platter.

 

I go pretty easy on the throttle as I don't want to bugg%r the saw and the cutting speed is sometimes incredibly slow. The maximum I can go is about 11" which is OK as the lathe has a maximum of 12" diameter over the bed. The smallest stuff I cut up is 5 or 6 inch diameter and it goes through that a bit faster. Spock would have said "Its milling Jim but not as we know it."

 

Yes I'd love an MS660 or 880 but for very the very occasional use "milling" I just can't justify spending that sort of money, even for a decent second hand saw. If you are just cutting up small bits to get some pretty blanks for turning - and you are willing to be incredibly patient - you can get away with a smaller saw. It has rescued some lovely pieces from the firewood pile.