Thread: Alaskan Mill - opinions?

They are perfect for the occasional user. I have slabbed several cubic metres of hardwood with mine. I am currently building a kitchen with some bloodwood that I milled a couple of years ago with my home made Alaskan mill.

If you're only doing the odd log, I don't see why you would need anything more. Highly recommend it.

logs2.jpgslabs.jpg

WARNING - don't start, you will get hooked on the process and not do anything else for a long time.

Originally Posted by BobL

WARNING - don't start, you will get hooked on the process and not do anything else for a long time.

And you will be building yet another shed to store the slabs in like me

By alaskan I assume you mean a chain saw mill that is held at both ends of the bar.
I strongly recommend these over the mills that hold the bar at one end.

If you want to support an Aussie mill you might want to take a look at these.
http://www.westfordmills.com.au/index.htm

I have used one and they are solid mills, as good as the Granberg mills, although I seemed to remember they were both overpriced for what they are and they could be made for much less if you can weld or have access to someone that can.

If you don't want a backache then don't take advice from the Westford site as I reckon they are expending far more effort than necessary.

For a good introduction to chainsaw milling I recommend visiting this website and read the sticky
http://www.arboristsite.com/communit...-saw-mills.62/

Another good source is the Book on Chainsaw Milling by Sam Malloff. It was written in the 1980's and although a few small things have changed since overall I reckon it is the best reference out there.
The diagrams and info in that book make it really worth having.

By alaskan I assume you mean a chain saw mill that is held at both ends of the bar

This is an Alaskan mill:

pic82b.jpg

Originally Posted by silentC

This is an Alaskan mill:

pic82b.jpg

Thats it. Or a variant on the basic idea.

The ones Ive seen are: https://www.atraes.com.au/granberg-e...-alaskan-mk111 and are about $400

I'm nowhere near needing a Lucas - money, room or need. They are very lovely indeed and for the last 3 years been watching the demo at the CWWWS and viewing the site.

The odd tree to make boards to fitch and dry is the limit of my needs right now. (besides, I'm a bit stuck and also a city slicker!). This in a box in the trailer and a quiet word for a few new arborist friends and I'm set for riches.

They're not too hard to make if you can weld. But $400 is OK considering the effort involved in making one yourself and the money you save on buying wood. The only other thing you need is a flat platform to work from for the first cut. I made up a sort of ladder type thing from some 4x2 hardwood that sits on top of the log and gives you a flat face for the mill to register with. Then subsequent cuts just register off the last cut face.

It's nice to have a long bar for large logs but you can get away with a shorter bar by rotating the log after the width of cut has become too wide for your saw. I've broken down some quite big trees that way. You also need a rip chain for the saw. A cross cut chain will take forever and need a lot more sharpening.

Originally Posted by Evanism

Thats it. Or a variant on the basic idea.

Variants run from this basic wooden model from Sam Malloffs book

To this 4 poster (the wheels are only for moving it around and are taken off during cutting)


Cross cut chains will work just fine but turn a bit more wood into sawdust. All my chains start out as cross cut chains and I convert the top plate filing angle during successive sharpening.

I use log rails for every cut as it reduces the transference of errors to subsequent cuts.

What sort of a chainsaw dow you you have?

Cross cut chains will work just fine but turn a bit more wood into sawdust. All my chains start out as cross cut chains and I convert the top plate filing angle during successive sharpening.

Yes they will work, just slower and need more sharpening. Once you've 'converted' the top plate, it's no longer suitable for cross cutting, so what I'm saying is that in my experience it's best to have a chain for ripping and a chain for cross cut (at least). Unless you are only going to use the saw for milling.

Personally I couldn't be bothered setting up the rails for every cut. The slabs that I've cut don't stay perfectly flat anyway so it's a wasted effort as far as I'm concerned. I take care of any discrepancies when I break the slabs down into boards after they've air dried for a couple of years. You would probably be disgusted at the state of my slabs but the planer and thicknesser take care of it.

Originally Posted by silentC

Yes they will work, just slower and need more sharpening. Once you've 'converted' the top plate, it's no longer suitable for cross cutting, so what I'm saying is that in my experience it's best to have a chain for ripping and a chain for cross cut (at least). Unless you are only going to use the saw for milling.

The reason for the greater top plate filing angle (TPFA) on chain cutters using for cross cutting is to make a kerf that is slightly wider than the chain This is because the torn ends of wood fibres hang in the kerf and can interfere with sawdust clearance. On end grain milling the fibres are parallel to the sides of the kerf so lower TPFAs can be used. This is supposed to take a bit more load off the power head but its not something I have experienced.

Maybe it just doesn't matter when using a Stihl 880.
On my Stihl 441 with the 25" bar I run lopro chain which is a low profile chain and that also makes no difference wether it's ripping or cross cut chain cutter profile.
This chain is usually set up with low TPFA. It has a narrower profile than regular chain so it cuts a 25% narrower kerf than regular 3/8 chain. I use this saw interchangeably for milling and cross cutting without any problems.
The main reason I use low TPFAs for milling is because there is less vibration as the chain does not dive from side to side so much in the cut

The other supposed reason for lower TPFAs is for a better finish, but I reckon finish is as much operator dependent than anything else.
The pics below are for cuts on LSG using the same cross cut chain with a light touch up of the chain between the two cuts on the same log.
On the LHS cut the mill is pushed with my arms and the bands can be seen between where I take steps or ease up on the saw pressure.
The RHS is where I apply alternating light smooth pressure with my arms on the mill and with my knee/thigh on the wrap handle.

Personally I couldn't be bothered setting up the rails for every cut. The slabs that I've cut don't stay perfectly flat anyway so it's a wasted effort as far as I'm concerned. I take care of any discrepancies when I break the slabs down into boards after they've air dried for a couple of years. You would probably be disgusted at the state of my slabs but the planer and thicknesser take care of it.

Effort wise it's swings and round a bouts. There is far less effort needed during the cut as the mill rides on smooth steel runners and will even ride down a sloped log on its own.
And then fewer passes needed through the thicknesser.

I rarely, if ever, put a full-width slab through the thicknesser. What I usually find myself doing is breaking it down into smaller boards with the circular saw or bandsaw first, then I flatten one face on the jointer before thickessing. My jointer is 8" so that would be the widest board I ever work with. During this process, the boards warp and carry on, so I very rarely would find myself making a dressing pass on a chainsaw cut face. But anyway, fair enough and whatever works for you.

Re. the chain, I don't know the physics and geometry of the thing I just found that when I learned there was such a thing as a ripping chain (or that you could file a chain to make it more suited to ripping) things got a lot easier. Maybe I just got better at sharpening in general

But they do sell rip chains, so I assume there is a perceived benefit.

I have a westford on a 3120Husky, it has allowed me to breakdown logs that otherwise I wouldn't have been able to do or have done due to the costs of getting other people involved; transport to mill and back just for starters.
My basic process is cut thick slabs 100+ and then cut them into boards on the bandsaw, works out well as I have minimum loss from kerf thickness plus other benefits, means more equipment tho, lifting gear and bandsaw sled infeed/outfeed etc..
For the odd log go for it.



Pete

I typically cut mine around 2 1/2". The rule of thumb is one year per inch for drying, so that means I leave them around 2 years before doing anything else with them. When I have a project for them, depending on what I want, I can get quarter-sawn 2x4 or 2x1 or 8x1 flat sawn etc. I just roughly dimension them with the circular saw (by hand) and/or bandsaw, leave them a few weeks, then joint and thickness to finished size. Sometimes I cut to length roughly too, which helps when a board has bowed.

There is a lot of waste though, so I maybe should give some thought to thicker slabs. Only thing is it will take longer to dry. But 4" is marginal for getting 4 3/4" boards if it moves a bit, so I'd probably go a bit thicker again. 2 1/2" gives me two 3/4" boards easily. Sometimes I get a 1/2" board for panels too.

I'm sure someone like Bob has a formula and I'd be interested to hear.

Originally Posted by silentC

. . . . . I'm sure someone like Bob has a formula and I'd be interested to hear.

I haven't processed much of my stuff into boards but what I have processed I follow more or less what you describe.