Maybe not, eh.
OJ's article compared (among other things) numbers or specs. I bet many readers are a lot like me and skip to those comparison tables first for a quick skim of the "vital statistics".
Now- if I go to my Stihl Chainsaw dealer and explain that I'm looking to clear some saplings out of my back yard they might send me out the door with chainsaw "X". And to the dealer's credit if he doesn't sell me anything more than what I need based on the scope of work I've described.
It would be sloppy journalism for a professional forestry magazine to not consider Stihl's vast product line, but to expediently accept my little backyard chainsaw to review alongside Husqvarna's top-of-the-line powerhouse and compare their features on a chart.
It's not saying Stihls are bad saws and it's not saying my sawshop didn't sell me the perfect thing. But it's a sloppy review. It misleads loggers who may come away thinking Stihl Chainsaws don't measure up in the big timber (nonsense, of course).
To some (probably small) extent Hellroaring will lose out because of this article. And to some (likely greater) extent OJ readers have been miseducated.
Count me as another who, having discussed my needs with Mike at HRT, was sent away with their best selling 95300B.
Last edited: