Pre-purchase question about Scott 20-2000 reel type mower

[trpublicaddress]

I've been using a hand-pushed reel mower for some time. It's a Husqvarna, and I like it in all respects except one.

The design of the roller doesn't work for me. It fails in two ways. First, the way it mounts is weak. I've replaced it once and it's currently surviving on electrical tape.

Secondly, I often want to push it forward and then pull back and mow at a different angle to cover small, oddly shape areas. When I do this, it often tilts up on the roller as I pull back.

I'm attracted to the Scotts design because the "training wheels" would seem to help it roll backwards well. Can any owner comment on this? Actually, if lot's of owners could, that would be good, because at least with my Husqvarna the height of the operator seems to matter. It's a problem for me (5'10"), but it's a much bigger problem for my son (6'3").

Thanks!

[Ron Hardin]

The cutting bar on my Scotts 20" was slightly bent, showing up as an inability to adjust it to cut easily everywhere at once - it's either missing the edges or it binds too tightly in the middle.

Great States makes it, or perhaps called American Lawn Mower Company. Looking at the construction, they made my leaf sweeper too. The same idea implemented all over the place. They sell under their own name a 16" and an 18".

All of these rise up over difficult grass rather than cutting it, which makes it easy to push but misses grass, in case you've let it grow too long, or have let the blades grow too dull. (The sharpening instructions work, but neglect to suggest spending a full hour or so getting all traces of valve grinding compound off the cutting components with repeated paper towelings and hosings, without which it will quickly go dull again.)

I put them all in the basement and went to a scythe for the whole lawn, and said the hell with it.

I don't remember having any trouble with backing up the Scotts; I think the others were capable of overturning as you say.

[trpublicaddress]

Thanks much for the response, Ron.

I'm familiar with the problem with cutt> [e-mail] wrote: