Silky Saws Rule!

[theonew]

HDW thanks for that test :thumbup: I was using a Gerber saw, which looks identical to the Fiskars Sliding Saw, this weekend for all my wood gathering chores on an overnight stay. It did seem to work best with only very little pressure applied, which did get frustrating but it nevertheless seemed like a fairly efficient means of cutting wood especially considering it weighs 3.5 ounces. But while using it I couldn't help but think that perhaps those Silky Saws I read about on BF would perform a lot better. Then of course I come home to this Silky Saws Rule! thread and now I just ordered one.

 

[Scott Free]

I HATE these kind of comparison tests! This one in particular is gonna cost me some money. I was perfectly happy with my Fiskars, and now... heck!

 

[1Tracker]

Well Mtn Hawk, this was fun, and the results contained some surprises. First, here's a pic of the three candidates:

Top: Fiskars Sliding Pruning Saw: bld length = 6 3/8 in; wt = 3.3 oz

Middle: Silkey Pocketboy 170: bld length = 6 15/16"; wt = 7.4 oz

Bottom: Fiskars Folding Pruning Saw: bld length = 7 in; wt = 7.9 oz

The (total) blade lengths were measured with the ruler in the pic and weights were determined with my postal scales.

First, I need to acknowledge some test conditions. A single piece of good quality 2x4 marked Hem Fir was used. Sections of about 1 1/2" thickness were cut from one end of the board, and no knots were present in the test material. Also, I have never used any folding saw before, so I am a rank amateur. Finally, I made no attempt to fudge the results, but it's necessary to admit that I did not want to discover I had wasted money on the more expensive Silkey. A double blind test for the two larger blades would have been more objective. But such an approach did not seem practical because I can identify the saws from the grips, and my wife was taking a nap. :yawn:

I started with the Fiskars 6" saw:

I was barely able to use this saw at all. It was very difficult to get the cut started, and when I did get it going there were numerous instances of the blade binding in the cut. Still, I never felt like I was going to break or bend the blade. The key seemed to be to apply as close to zero pressure to the saw as possible. It took so long to make the cut (at least a couple of minutes) that I lost track of the time on my watch. This was not a valid test except to say I found the Fiskars 6" sliding saw very difficult to use on a 2x4.

Next, I tested the Fiskars Folding Pruning Saw:

Now we're talking. For this saw and for the Silkey, I went ahead and established a notch before beginning the test. The folding Fiskars started right up and went through the 2x4 w/o hesitation. Elapsed time was 37 sec.

Finally, the Silkey Pocketboy was put through its paces:

I found this saw to be the easiest to use and the fastest. It went right through the 2x4 in 19 sec. This result is probably party due to the finer, more uniform teeth on the Silkey, and partly due to the fact that, towards the end of the test, my technique was improving.

So, there's room here for everyone to make their own decision. But for me, if I take a saw into the woods, it will be the Silkey Pocketboy 170. And I would never rely on the Fiskars sliding pruner unless extensive practice yielded better results.

Cheers,

Bill, thanks for taking your time to use your saws. Now, that said, I'd like you to do the test once again with real pieces of wood using branches/ small 3-6" logs as one would encounter in the woods. I don't know about you but the last time out i had no 2 x 4's to build my shelter with Also, I've used the 'sliding Fiskers saw' without issue for a few years now; so it could be it was binding due to excess pressure IME. It's subjective I know, so the feel of the saw is one you get used to. I understand it's a bit much to ask for a passaround of your 3 saws. Hopefully others attending the April WSS in CT will bring their saws so a larger group can compare them side by side:thumbup:

 

[HighDesertWalker]

Bill,

Nice to see a great comparison test. Thanks for sharing that! :thumbup:

You bet Brian. Lots of fun. :thumbup:

 

[HighDesertWalker]

Bill, thanks for taking your time to use your saws. Now, that said, I'd like you to do the test once again with real pieces of wood using branches/ small 3-6" logs as one would encounter in the woods. I don't know about you but the last time out i had no 2 x 4's to build my shelter with Also, I've used the 'sliding Fiskers saw' without issue for a few years now; so it could be it was binding due to excess pressure IME. It's subjective I know, so the feel of the saw is one you get used to. I understand it's a bit much to ask for a passaround of your 3 saws. Hopefully others attending the April WSS in CT will bring their saws so a larger group can compare them side by side:thumbup:

You raise some good points 1Tracker. I use 2x4s for these tests at home because I can get close to completely consistent comparisons from one blade to the next even when there is a large time gap involved. I've done tests like the one reported for almost every chopping tool I own. The downside is that a dry 2x4 is harder to chop or saw than most materials you will deal with in the woods.

Still, I tend to believe that anything that can chop or saw through a 2x4 quickly and easily will make a pretty good woods tool. I do want to try the Fiskars sliding blade pruner in the woods though. I'm into SUL backpacking, and there's a lot to be said for a saw that weights only 3.3 oz.

 

[Mtn Hawk]

HighDesertWalker--

Wow, great test and photos! :thumbup:

I also tested the Fiskars Sliding Pruning Saw and wasn't as impressed with it as I was with their Folding Pruning Saw, so my results with those saws are similar to yours.

I'm almost positive I used the Silky Pocketboy with large teeth because I wanted to keep all saws as similar as possible. I thought that finer teeth would work better on green wood and larger teeth better on dry wood, but I might have been wrong about that. Now that I'm curious about this again I'll probably buy another Pocketboy, this time with finer teeth, and see how that works.

As I mentioned, I mostly chop and saw dead fir and pine, which is very hard wood. I've never directly compared this with 2x4s, so can't comment on the similarities or differences but, since they are both dry wood and cut across the grain, I wouldn't think there would be too much difference. However, I didn't have as much difficulty cutting through a tree branch with the Fiskars Sliding Pruning Saw that you did with the 2x4, so 1Tracker brought up a good point. If you use this saw in the woods I'd like to hear what you think. It would be great if a saw comparison could be done at the CT WSS, as 1Tracker mentioned, although I'm sure wood hardness, and other characteristics that affect cutting, vary considerably from one region of the country to another.

A factor which neither one of us tested for, and couldn't in a short test, is long-term durability. It would be interesting to know which saw would come out ahead in that, especially considering that the Silky costs almost 3X more than the Fiskars. Of course, if the Silky saw is consistently and substantially faster, the time and energy savings would be a major factor and would outweigh the cost difference, at least for me.

Thanks again!

 

[DWK2]

You may be able to simply buy a spare fine tooth blade for your Pocketboy. I was able to do that for my Super Accel 210. I plan to try the fine blade as a bone saw for field dressing wild game.

DancesWithKnives

 

[Mikel_24]

...I thought that finer teeth would work better on green wood and larger teeth better on dry wood, but I might have been wrong about that...

I might be completly wrong but I think it goes the other way arround:
Big teeth for green wood
Smaller teeth for dry wood

I read it somewhere and it does make sense. Green wood is easier to cut/chop/saw so you can take bigger chunks with less effort than you can do in dry wood. That is why bigger teeth make sense!

Great test you guys are doing here. Not long ago I bought a Rinho brand folding saw for very little money... and I am happy with it. I am sure there is a lot of saws out there that are way better but this is the one I could find locally. I had the Fishkars sliding saw in hand (both sizes) but didn't quite like it. Now I know that I am probably better off trying out other brands.

Mikel

 

[dantzk8]

I might be completly wrong but I think it goes the other way arround:
Big teeth for green wood
Smaller teeth for dry wood

Mikel

You are completly right, big for soft, small for hard. that's why hacksaws have so small teeth.

Highdesertwalker,

Thanks for this informative test, i use a Bahco Laplander, the teeth seem different and i can say it works. If i can find a Silky dealer i will give it a try.

dantzk.

 

[Mtn Hawk]

DWK2-- Thanks for the info. I no longer have the Pocketboy but that would be less expensive than replacing the whole saw.

Mikel 24 and dantzk8-- My logic was that large saw teeth would tend to shred green wood instead of cut it, and take larger "bites" out of hard wood, but thanks for correcting me. I don't have reason to saw green wood so don't know much about this. Next time I order a Silky saw I'll call them for their recommendation, as they make a few different teeth sizes.

What puzzles me is that my Fiskars Folding Pruning Saw has 7 teeth per inch, which is normally considered "large", and the saw cuts hard wood fine.

 

[mymindisamob]

It has just as much, if not more to do with the set of the teeth as it does tooth size. On Silky's website you can read more about it.

 

[koyote]

Just for noting- hem fir is hemlock under a trade name made to make you think it's something it isn't. Does it matter to the test? Dunno. It would to me- I have one area I poke around in that's full of manzanita and madrone, with some ponderosa and oak. My corona works pretty well up there, I generally get through a 1 to 1.5 inch manzanita chunk in under a half minute. Would the silkey be faster? probably, maybe. Would it be faster enough to spend the extra money on ----- especially since I have lost one corona saw in the past couple years---?? mmmmmm, probably not. If I had $5000 a month in extra income, I'd buy everything custom and The Best, but functional and a good value matter.

Now, I'll put the silkey on my wish list, but I won't be mad at my poor little corona. I never have had cutting wood be that time binding.

 

[norcalblacktail]

IMO the Silky is the better deal. Its gonna stay sharper WAY longer than the Corona. It has a better build quality to it. I guess it depends how much you use it and your opinion on expensive. I have had and seen many inferior products break 3 months into use. I feel spending the little extra money is actually saving you money in the long run. My Silkys have already paid for themselves 10 times over.

I have a few Silkys that I have had for about 4 years now and still havent had them sharpened or replaced the blade. I take care of trees for a living and make hundreds of cuts every week and as long as I clean and take care of the saw its good as new the next day. Alot of it is in the technique and choosing the right saw for the right job.

I have been in a couple sticky situations while hunting and my Silky has saved the day on numerous occasions. It is a saw I rely on everyday whether it be for a job or recreation. Do yourselves a favor and spend the extra $10 or whatever it may be and get a Silky. The Japanese have handsaws and pruners down to an art.

ARS is also a company I would HIGHLY recommend. They make the best pruners and their handsaws are just now starting to make an impact. Check out their stuff here ---> http://www.growtech.com/

 

[dantzk8]

DWK2-- My logic was that large saw teeth would tend to shred green wood instead of cut it, and take larger "bites" out of hard wood,

I see what you mean, but a saw is a cutting tool, each tooth is a blade. You don't want a knife to shred and you don't expect to make larger cuts on hard stuff than on soft stuff with a knife.

It has just as much, if not more to do with the set of the teeth as it does tooth size.

Very interesting point. A saw is a sophisticated tool, maybe a bit underrated among the knives and axes users. I can't find information about "how works a saw", what set, what teeth for such or such purpose?

I have a few Silkys that I have had for about 4 years now and still havent had them sharpened or replaced the blade.

If i well remember you are an arborist, nothing is better than a professional's advice. Even if my Bahco works fine, durability is a concern. It's not so easy to feel the wear of a saw. Cuts after cuts we do with.

dantzk.

 

[HighDesertWalker]

Bill, thanks for taking your time to use your saws. Now, that said, I'd like you to do the test once again with real pieces of wood using branches/ small 3-6" logs as one would encounter in the woods. I don't know about you but the last time out i had no 2 x 4's to build my shelter with Also, I've used the 'sliding Fiskers saw' without issue for a few years now; so it could be it was binding due to excess pressure IME. It's subjective I know, so the feel of the saw is one you get used to. I understand it's a bit much to ask for a passaround of your 3 saws. Hopefully others attending the April WSS in CT will bring their saws so a larger group can compare them side by side:thumbup:

Because the sliding Fiskars had such a hard time with a 2x4 I took it along on my next hike to see how well it worked on branchs.

The area I'm hiking in has only two kind of trees: pinon and juniper. Both are high density woods that are used as firewood in the area. Walking in I found a dead juniper stump and decided to try the fiskars on one of the branchs.

I sawed through a branch of about 2" diameter in 20 sec with no hesitation or binding. The Fiskars was perfectly adequate for the task, but I have no doubt the silkey would be much faster. Still, the Fiskars weighs about half as much as my silkey 170, so it will see action in the wild.

 

[coop1957]

I had a great job and lost it. Now at 51 yo I've done grass cutting/lawn work for the last 4 years to suplement my not so great regular job. As a result of this thread I bought a Silky Pocket Boy. It is a truly amazing product. First time I used it to cut a 3" pine branch I was amazed. I looked at it like it was a laser beam cutting butter. Another example of extreme quality.

 

[HighDesertWalker]

I had a great job and lost it. Now at 51 yo I've done grass cutting/lawn work for the last 4 years to suplement my not so great regular job. As a result of this thread I bought a Silky Pocket Boy. It is a truly amazing product. First time I used it to cut a 3" pine branch I was amazed. I looked at it like it was a laser beam cutting butter. Another example of extreme quality.

Was that the 170 or the 130 coop?

 

[kdstrick]

Cool thread here... I don't own one of these (yet) and am growing increasingly envious...

Who has the best deal on a Silky? Any recommendations???

Thanks

 

[DWK2]

kdstrick,

I e-mailed you some suggestions on where to buy. If you don't get the e-mail, let me know.

DancesWithKnives

 

[DWK2]

I went to a relative's house this morning and got a little carried away with the Zubat 330. Slaughtered a whole backyard full of overgrowth. [Wish I'd picked a day when it wasn't 101 degrees in that part of Left Angeles!]

I finally found the limit of what I personally want to cut with a Zubat 330. There was a large, dead, and dry branch of an old fruit tree (probably pomegranate or persimmon) about six inches thick. I didn't think to time myself but it took several minutes and a couple pauses to work through it. The saw functioned fine but I'm just not in great shape. When I further break down that branch, I think I'll use a 36" Bahco bowsaw.

Pruned some smaller branches with a Super Accel 210 and it handled dry fruit wood up to a couple inches with decent speed. However, the longer stroke of the Zubat made that work easier.

DancesWithKnives