I'm a bit uncertain if I like this patent or not. It sure works GREAT for small diameter stuff, but moving up to say 4" the triangular handle will hit the log when you're halfway through. This limits the length of the cut: You cannot use long strokes anymore, just short strokes with the middle part of the blade.
I used it to clear some land a few weeks ago including stuff over 10" in diameter. I just had to change the angle of attack occasionally. It went through willows and Chinese tallow trees like butter.
-Blast
Then I guess your saw is bigger than the triangular saws I've tried. A 10" log would be close to impossible with the ones I've tried because the triangular handle would bump into the log, making long efficient strokes impossible. Any cut deeper than 3-4" quickly became a frustrated exercise.
I still like the triangular patent because it's simple, very strong and packs small.
And frankly, with a little forethought you don't _*have to*_ do big saw work unless you're clearing land or something. Being able to do smaller diameter stuff is plenty good enough for camping or survival. So a small, triangular saw is still a good choice for most applications. The buck saw shown above (quite similar to the "frisport" saw I linked to) has an advantage because the only limitation to saw depth is the distance from the main (lower) horizontal beam to the saw teeth. Down to this depth you can do full length, efficient strokes. This comes at the cost of a more complex construction which either is weaker or heavier (or both!) than the triangular ones. But it doesn't have to be super strong to work: It just has to be strong enough to keep the blade under sufficient tension. So I still prefer the collapsible buck saw construction to the triangular versions.
Previous Topic
Index
