Silky 130 vs 170

B

bigox

Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
201
I am currently obsessing over what Silky Pocketboy to get.

For those of you that have each how do they compare?

Is the 170 worth the extra bulk and weight over the 130?

Also for 99 percent usage on green wood what size teeth are best?

I assume the bigger the better?

Thank you.
 
I don't have the 130. I've got the 170 and the Big Boy. The 170 is great for packing. It IS a little more weight, but it will handle just about any camp-sawing I can imagine throwing at it. That big boy would do fine building a log cabin. Damn those saws rock.
 
I went through 2+ inch branches in seconds with a Pocketboy 170. I didn't find it too big for a pack, so I didn't consider getting a smaller one :)
 
I got the 170 first and found it beats the larger Fiskars 7" blade hands down. I went ahead and got the 130 too because I am into SUL backpacking. Haven't used the smaller model yet though.
 
I have the 130 XL-teeth, and it is a very impressive piece of equipment. Like HighDesertWalker said, hands down beats the Retractable Gerber I have.
I carry it in my pocket, sans the included belt-sheath/case. Pocketable in the front pockets of BDU's, for example, ime.
I purchased the 130, because the store didn't carry the 170, which was what I was initially looking for.
The slightly added weight of the 170, and longer length influences packability slightly, while allowing you to go through thicker material (assuming without multiple-angle cuts); price difference seems negligible, if memory serves correct. In short, you can get a larger blade/utility with very little trade-off. Keep in mind, I have only handled the 130, and not the 170(!).
I would go with the 170, if I were to do it again & all things being the same, but I love the 130, and am not in the slightest bit disappointed! i.e. no rush to 'upgrade'. For the record, I am a fan of notching & breaking, when possible; allowing me to get away, sometimes, with less sawing/chopping, as well as less binding/twisting of the saw blade. Habits from always carrying a SAK, I guess.
I also have a BigBoy2000, which although not very heavy or unpackable, is really overkill for hiking or packing, imho. It works so well, that I feel I would spend all my saw time just prepping the cut vs usage; if that makes sense lol.
Either way, both are high-quality products, and the differences don't seem like deal-breakers; I don't think you can go wrong with either!:D;):thumbup:
 
I'm glad this question was asked, because I've been wondering the same thing. I guess I'm just looking for a reason to replace a perfectly good saw (Bahco Laplander) with another new toy. Yes, I have a sickness...
 
Get the large teeth for best all around. And as far as 130 or 170 it all depends if you like to carry minimal type stuff. If you dont mind the little extra size in your pack then get the 170. I usually carry a 170 because I dont mind the extra size. Better yet get both.

Heres a couple comparison shots.
silk1.jpg

silk3.jpg
 
It's not a pocket saw, but I've been carrying the Super Accel 210. It is only an ounce or two heavier than a 170 and handles thick stuff easily. For ultralight backpacking I might try the 130 or the saw on my SAK Rucksack. However, if you don't need ultralight you'll be very impressed with the SA 210.

For anything but the hardest dry wood, the largest teeth are the way to go.

DancesWithKnives
 
I keep a 130 w/ Large/Coarse teeth in my pack. I haven't run into anything I couldn't handle with it (firemaking & shelter building).
 
Thanks for everyones help!

I pulled the trigger on a 170 with extra large teeth.

The 130 probably would have been big enough but the 170 definitely will and it doesn't look like it will take up that much more room.

It didn't hurt that I got it for a few dollars cheaper than I could find a 130.
 
norcalblacktail said:
Get the large teeth for best all around. And as far as 130 or 170 it all depends if you like to carry minimal type stuff. If you dont mind the little extra size in your pack then get the 170. I usually carry a 170 because I dont mind the extra size. Better yet get both.

Heres a couple comparison shots.
silk1.jpg

silk3.jpg
Click to expand...


Hey I've been interested in these for a while. Could you let me know the differrent models of your foldable saws?
 
Is it everyone's opinion that the BIGBOY is a bit to big for hiking? I've been looking at getting a 130 but... my eyes keep being drawn to the big saw :eek:
 
BoxANT,

If you want a saw with a longer blade, I have a slight preference for the non-folding Zubat 330mm over the Big Boy size folding saws. I like the ergonomics and compactness of the pistol grip a little better. Even with the sheath, the Zubat 330 doesn't weigh much more than the folders of similar blade size.

DancesWithKnives
 
I have the big boy with medium teeth and pocket boy 130 with large teeth.

I'm thinking about getting a 170 for hunting, which will be cutting hard, dry wood.

I wonder if small teeth or large teeth will be better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top