Holmatro Vs. Hurst

[Chris Deyerle - FF]

Which Rescue Tools do you prefer Holmatro or Hurst and why? In my opinion holmatro is faster then the hurst tools. Just looking for some feed back. Thanks

------------------
Chris Deyerle - HSFD
Keep It Safe!!

[MetalMedic]

PLEASE check the archives... there have been several posts with this same question during the past year.

If you don't have time to dig through the archives. At least be aware that you are comparing apples and oranges as far as hydraulic tools are concerned. Both will do the job, but the Hurst is a low-pressure tool while the Holmatro is a hi-pressure tool. You indicate that the Holmatro appears faster, but looks may not mean they work faster. Be sure to do a comparison with each while they are actually working. You might be in for a surprise.



------------------
Richard Nester
Orrville (OH) Fire Dept.

[smokeeater51]

Cough, Cough, Co-AMKUS-ugh, Cough.....
Our department, as well as several surrounding communities use Amkus. I am very happy with the performance of this tool, and all it has to offer. I attended an advanced auto extrication class, and while there, had an opportunity to use several tools, including Holmatro, and that battery powered P.O.S. I take that back, it does have it's place....somewhere. The one tool they didn't have, was Hurst, which is too bad because I wanted to see it in action.
The department my father is A.C. on has switched from Hurst to Amkus, (not sure why)
and they still have the old Hurst Jaws in the station. When I say old, I mean one guy to hold it up, and one to operate the jaws old. That was a heavy tool. Everyone is going to have their own opinions on tools, and thats just fine. Hydraulics are hydraulics, it's how you use and manipulate it to get the job done.

Lt.

[JAMESBENNETT]

I have used the Hurst tool for 14 yrs. and have no complaints. I will not claim it to be better than the rest, because I have never used any other tools. I have heard stories about some of the others, but like was said before, the tool is not as important as the job. If you can save lives with it than that is all you need.
Smokeeater51 I know the tool that you are talking about. It weighs 80lbs. and takes a whole lot of a** to operate. The newer tools by Hurst are down to about 56lbs. for the big speader and one man can work them, but they will still take their toll after awhile.

------------------
SERVING FOR PRIDE
PROUD TO SERVE!

[smokeyben1]

I have only used Holmatro and can say it is excellent rescue gear. Apparently our department had the Hurst spreaders[hernia tool it was called] at HQ station but I did not see them in action.

[Splatter]

I recently attended another extrication course and had a chance to try a "Champion" (I think) mini spreader.
WOW, weighed like 5 kilos (around 12 lbs) gave a 30 cm spread, and _fast_! just perfect for opening hoods or popping doors, most times.

BTW, anyone who wants to get rid of their Hurst Hernia tools, we'd happily pay the shipping ;-)

[86Rescuetech]

One thing missing is the fluid. My former department hurt a few guys when a return cell in a Hurst ram broke. It sprayed fluid on their face and neck. Yes they had glasses and full protection. The obvious difference is the Holmotro has a higher pressure (10,000) as compared to Hurst. (5,000) The Holmotro has a "second stage" which provides more force at a lower speed. The tools are lighter than Hurst, and the rams have many attachments to change the tips. I still use both Hurst and Holmotro, both get the job done. It is all a matter of what you need to cut. Be safe.

[Nick SBFD 6]

Well we run HURST on our Dept. and it works great, we are in the process now of upgrading our current system. I have taken a few advanced extrication classes where the local vendors let you go wild with the latest and greatest they have to offer, the AMKUS worked alright but was not all that much lighter than or more efficient than the HURST tool, it was also akward to handle, I can't see spending the extra money when Holmatro offers the same specs for less $$$
I think if you stay with a respected name you won't go wrong with any of the tools.

[larescue]

86Rescuetech,

Hurst uses only MCS-2361 Fire Resistant Hydraulic Fluid, a formulation of phosphate-ester with performance additives, in their rescue systems. The benefits of using MCS-2361 phosphate-ester include its non-corrosive, non-toxic nature and neutral pH. It is 100% synthetic. In addition, these aerospace fluids do not conduct electricity and are fire resistant. They dissipate heat four times faster than mineral based hydraulic oil. Because phosphate-esters are heavier than water, water sits on top of them allowing the water to evaporate off rather than sitting at the bottom of the reservoir. Because they are high quality aerospace fluids, phosphate-esters have the highest quality lubricant and rust inhibiting properties. These fluids maintain their viscosity from 220 degrees F to -60 degrees F.

Because of its non-corrosive, non-toxic nature, the hydraulic fluid used by Hurst is similar to detergent when it comes in contact with skin and eyes. With all the positive benefits MCS-2361 phosphate-ester provides, it would be hard to discredit it for causing a skin irritation equivalent to that seen with soap. The carcinogenic effects of gasoline and motor oil that rescue personnel come in contact with on a daily basis are of much greater concern.

It was fortunate for your personnel that the incident you mention occurred with a system of only 5,000psi. If indeed these individuals were "hurt", could you imagine what would have resulted had they been using a 10,500psi system?

The main causes of fluid spray from hydraulic tools are loose connections and lack of maintenance. For these reasons, fluid spray can occur with any hydraulic rescue system.

Hurst has been in business for 30 years and has had "two-stage" pumps since the beginning. In addition, Hurst has had rams with multiple tip attachments for over 10 years and for the spreaders since the 1970s. Hurst products are field-proven and time-tested.

Addressing the weight issue, Hurst's 32-inch spreader is lighter at 52 pounds than Holmatro's which weighs in at 56.

[MetalMedic]

Originally posted by larescue:
86Rescuetech,

Hurst uses only MCS-2361 Fire Resistant Hydraulic Fluid, a formulation of phosphate-ester with performance additives, in their rescue systems. The benefits of using MCS-2361 phosphate-ester include its non-corrosive, non-toxic nature and neutral pH. It is 100% synthetic. In addition, these aerospace fluids do not conduct electricity and are fire resistant. They dissipate heat four times faster than mineral based hydraulic oil. Because phosphate-esters are heavier than water, water sits on top of them allowing the water to evaporate off rather than sitting at the bottom of the reservoir. Because they are high quality aerospace fluids, phosphate-esters have the highest quality lubricant and rust inhibiting properties. These fluids maintain their viscosity from 220 degrees F to -60 degrees F.

Because of its non-corrosive, non-toxic nature, the hydraulic fluid used by Hurst is similar to detergent when it comes in contact with skin and eyes. With all the positive benefits MCS-2361 phosphate-ester provides, it would be hard to discredit it for causing a skin irritation equivalent to that seen with soap. The carcinogenic effects of gasoline and motor oil that rescue personnel come in contact with on a daily basis are of much greater concern.

It was fortunate for your personnel that the incident you mention occurred with a system of only 5,000psi. If indeed these individuals were "hurt", could you imagine what would have resulted had they been using a 10,500psi system?

The main causes of fluid spray from hydraulic tools are loose connections and lack of maintenance. For these reasons, fluid spray can occur with any hydraulic rescue system.

Hurst has been in business for 30 years and has had "two-stage" pumps since the beginning. In addition, Hurst has had rams with multiple tip attachments for over 10 years and for the spreaders since the 1970s. Hurst products are field-proven and time-tested.

Addressing the weight issue, Hurst's 32-inch spreader is lighter at 52 pounds than Holmatro's which weighs in at 56.

I wouldn't want to drink MCS-2361 phosphate-ester or mineral oil based fluids... but that is another argument. Good point about the 10,500psi vs. 5,000psi. Chris Deyerle - FF, if you are now becoming confused, send me an e-mail and I will give my opinion on some other tools you might want to consider. I try not to do too much "cheer leading" on here since all tools have their good and bad points.

------------------
Richard Nester
Orrville (OH) Fire Dept.

[86Rescuetech]

We could sit here and debate which tool is better, safer, lighter and more effective. The fact is that whatever tool you use, in your eyes, is the best. Mainly because most of us CAN'T dish out 35,000-$40,000 for a new system, which may be better. It is up to everyone who is looking for tools to try them all and get a comfort level with them. For the purpose of this forum, each tool has it benefits and drawbacks. I can only speak from experience and I wrote them. If a dog bites you, you might be a little afraid to go near that dog anymore. I left the company who uses Holmotro and now I use Hurst again. They still work! We have the original beast, not the new stuff. Again, poor. LArescue, good info on the fluid. I looked at our MSDS sheets last night. And yeah I couldn't even imagine a 10,500psi burst of a tool. They actually found a defect in the tool on the ram return tube inside the casing that burst. Our systems were maintained correctly according to Hurst back then. BE safe.

[This message has been edited by 86Rescuetech (edited 01-05-2001).]

[mike m]

I WORKED WITH THE HURST SYSTEM MY ENTIRE CARRER AS A FF.I TAUGHT EXTRICATION IN MY DEPT. FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND DO PREFER HURST OVER HOMATRO.MY DEPT. WAS THINKING OF PURCHASING HOMATRO,WE WHERE GIVEN THEIR COMPLETE SYSTEM FOR EVALUATION.I DID LIKE THE WEIGHT AND SPEED OF THE TOOL AND THE CONTROLS WERE ERGOMONICALLY BETTER.BUT IN THE EVALUATION I FOUND THE THE UNIT SPEED WAS TO FAST THUS THE VEHICLE WE WOULD WORK ON ,THE SHEET METAL WOULD RIP FASTERTHAN THE SLOWER SPEEDS OF THE HURST TOOL.I LIKE THE HURST TO ALSO BECAUSE IT MAY BE HEAVIER THAN THE HOMATRO,AT THE SLOWER SPEED I COULD TEACH A BEGINNER HOW TO FINESE THE TOOL BETTER.ALSO I LIKE THE 4 CYCLE POWER UNIT,I COULD GET ALOT MORE POWER WHEN USING MUTIPLE TOOLS EITHER IN SERIES OR WITH THE MANIFOLD.AS PER THE HYDRAULC FLUID I HAD SOME CASES WHERE LINES BROKE AND SOME FFs GOT IT IN THEIR EYES AND ON THEIR SKIN,SO I WOULD HOPE THE MANUFACTURER COULD CHANGE THAT ASPECT OF THE SYSTEM.UNTIL THE CHANGE TAKE PROPER SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. STAY SAFE

[BayRidge60]

Holmatro...lighter and easier to use.

------------------
Glenn Ralston
Firefighter/EMT-D
Bay Ridge Fire-Rescue
[email protected]

[tfd603]

Before you buy check out what American Rescue Technology has to offer might just change your mind. Keep in mind safety features, NFPA compliance, Warranty, and last but not least emergency service and just service over all. Good luck

[jfoster313]

I have used both Hurst(old)and Holmatro systems, and found that with the proper training you can be effective with either tool. The Holmatros lighter weight and better maneuverability make it my choice of tools during an extrication, however, I have not used the newer Hurst tool, and as noted in a prior posting I am probably biased towards the Holmatro system we currently use.