# Inline small square baler ... recomendations



## blueriver (Oct 19, 2009)

I'd like to get some input on inline square bales for small squares ... what mfg and model are you using and how do you like it? I'm considering buying one ... I looked around the internet have no particular brand in mind.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Bought a MF 1839(Hesston) inline a few weeks ago......have not used it yet, but researched inlines and sidepulls for 3 years and just came to the conclusion that the positives outweigh the negatives in favor of the inline(for me). Will be baling grass and alfalfa. Hesstons make beautiful looking bales, most gentle on alfalfa, and takes half the HP to operate (operate with more fuel efficient tractor) than some of the sidepulls. I own equipment by John Deere and New Holland, so I had no pre-conceived prejudice against either one.

Regards, Mike


----------



## blueriver (Oct 19, 2009)

The 1839 is a good looking machine ... I'm searching as said for a square baler and like what I read about the inlines ... gonna wait till off season.


----------



## Hand&Hand Farms (Feb 5, 2011)

_We have an MF1835 and have had zero problems. Wish we had the heavier model but price was right on this one. Will never go back to an offset._


----------



## davang (Apr 7, 2010)

A baler mechanic said they are much harder to work on. I don't know if thats true or not. If they are more reliable and need "less" repairs over the long haul I guess it evens out.


----------



## blueriver (Oct 19, 2009)

hay&litter said:


> _We have an MF1835 and have had zero problems. Wish we had the heavier model but price was right on this one. Will never go back to an offset._


A dealer told me today that the 1835 is a good baler for a small operation ... what classifies a small operation? My goal is 10K squares a year.


----------



## OhioHay (Jun 4, 2008)

I would atleast go with the 1837. It should have a wider pickup and more strokes per minute. We have run the inlines since 2001 and don't plan on changing. We bought a new 1839 this year. Hopefully it will get its first workout on Friday.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

blueriver said:


> A dealer told me today that the 1835 is a good baler for a small operation ... what classifies a small operation? My goal is 10K squares a year.


Agree with OhioHay, at least get the 1837 if for no other reason than the wider pickup and it is a little faster.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

I recommend a Hesston or a Massey of any sort for an inline baler. Why? Because they are the only ones that make them.


----------



## Hand&Hand Farms (Feb 5, 2011)

We got the 1835 because of price. It had baled 400 bales, was 3 years old and 10 less than new. It baled 9k without any problems.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

hay&litter said:


> We got the 1835 because of price. It had baled 400 bales, was 3 years old and 10 less than new. It baled 9k without any problems.


Thats the very best reason for buying something!









Regards, Mike


----------



## jd-tom (Jun 15, 2010)

I bought a new MF 1839 last year. I do 10-12K bales a year and the 1837 probably would have been good enough for that volume. But I wanted the heavier-duty features of the 1839 and some posters on this forum that I researched last year said that the feeder augers on the 1839 turn the opposite direction than the 2 smaller ones and overall this was a better way to feed this baler. I don't know if this is true or not as I haven't run either of the smaller ones for comparison. But I did not have any feeding problems last year so there may be something to that. I had a JD 338 before this and in certain conditions when baling straw it would wrap around the auger and not feed into the baler. With one year's experience on this MF baler, I'm sold on it. Do you plan on pulling any type of accumulator behind your baler?


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

jd-tom said:


> I bought a new MF 1839 last year. I do 10-12K bales a year and the 1837 probably would have been good enough for that volume. But I wanted the heavier-duty features of the 1839 and some posters on this forum that I researched last year said that the feeder augers on the 1839 turn the opposite direction than the 2 smaller ones and overall this was a better way to feed this baler. I don't know if this is true or not as I haven't run either of the smaller ones for comparison. But I did not have any feeding problems last year so there may be something to that. I had a JD 338 before this and in certain conditions when baling straw it would wrap around the auger and not feed into the baler. With one year's experience on this MF baler, I'm sold on it. Do you plan on pulling any type of accumulator behind your baler?


Tom, great minds thinks the same! I purchased a 1839 for many of the same reasons as you and I also pull a Kuhns 10 tie end accumulator behind the baler. I really am enjoying mine so far and am thrilled by the very aggressive and wide pick-up. Used a Deere baler before also.....really is nice having the cutside flat instead of on the side.....lets the bale breath easier in the stack. The slip plate graphite you told me about a couple of years ago has been a life saver on the accumulator. Keep your fodder dry!

Regards, Mike


----------

