For design purposes, what are the minimum dimensions of stardard wood that you get from Home Depot, etc.? For example, a 2x4 is really a minimom of, what, about 3.5 x 0.75??
I am interested in 1x4's, 1x6's, and 2x4's.
Sorry to sound so dumb...but I know that I am!
Thanks.
Unless there have been recent changes:
NOMINAL SIZE ACTUAL SIZE
1 X 1 3/4" X 3/4" 1 X 3 3/4" X 2 1/2" 1 X 4 3/4" X 3 1/2" 1 X 6 3/4" X 5 1/2" 1 X 8 3/4" X 7 1/4" 1 X 10 3/4" X 9 1/4" 1 X 12 3/4" X 111/4" 2 X 2 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" 2 X 4 1 1/2" X 3 1/2" 2 X 6 1 1/2" X 5 1/2" 2 X 8 1 1/2" X 7 1/4" 2 X 10 1 1/2" X 9 1/4" 2 X 12 1 1/2" X 11 1/4
Dunno about the others, but tubafors are now sometimes 1-3/8 x 3-3/8.
*sigh*Jim
I over the past 12 months, I am seeing more S4S/finished hardwood measure
11/16" thick at the BORG. If you stop at the BORG, be sure to measure the wood before you buy.
You made me go out to shop and measure ... the ones I bought at the BORG some two months ago are still 1 1/2" X 3 1/2", but I sure wouldn't have been surprised to see them smaller.
Like the 12 oz "pound" of coffee, I also wouldn't be surprised to wake up one day and see a tape measure change making the inch smaller.
Ya know, I might have had a crain-bramp there.
When I was framing up my house a couple years ago, we had a bunch that were the 1-3/8" variety. But I'm thinking now it might have been stock that was salvaged from the demolition and got recycled back with the new material. If so, normal shrinkage could have accounted for it.
All I remember clearly is having to futz with the framing in a few places because the studs weren't all the same thickness and width. "All I remember clearly..." Sheesh, what's the next thing that goes?! (G)
Anyway, I may have mistakenly attributed the size difference to "modernization." I use dimension lumber fairly often, and I pretty much still count on 1-1/2 inches.
Sorry for the confusion, if I was spreading misinformation.
Cheers!
Jim
Something for impressing the ladies....
4" is still a little on the short side.
If your question is so you can use the dimensions in a CAD program, beware. ALL of the responses I've seen ring true, but ... I personally have never seen a piece of wood measure EXACTLY, say, 0.075". They'll easily be +,-
1/64 or 1/32. I suspect CAD involvement because you used decimals, not fractions in your example. If you're using a CADD app, always do the design so that there is a "use-up" section where the variation won't matter. Otherwise, you'll never get the program to dimension things perfectly unless you set grid sizes at, say, a quarter inch or an eighth, and in that case the actual parts dimensions don't turn out perfect. You always have to plan a place for the "leftovers". .HTH
Pop
Snip
I gotta ask, what are you talking about? I use decimals and fractions and have no problems with dimensions coming out perfectly on the drawing. I think if you are using a snap to grid this could cause problems. I personally always use DDE and have no problems. I only use snap to objects.
I am getting faster at producing them, and actually build off my CAD shop drawings (mostly because of the thought process that goes into producing the drawing), but still have a long way to go with CAD ... what's DDE?
I just measured some 2x4s I got from the Borg 2 weeks ago. They are 1.5x3.5 within the margin of error I can determine with a plastic caliper. They are certainly as close as anything I am likely to cut on my table saw.
DDE is Direct Distance Entry. When starting or continuing a line from your last point, drag the mouse in the direction that you want the line to go and type in the distance and hit enter. The line will go exactly that direction and distance.
In 2D drawings with mostly vertical and horizontal lines, setting the ortho to "on" will let you simply drag the mouse in the general direction. The dimensions will show exactly the same if your accuracy is set fine enough. You can enter 1.5" or 1 1/2". The dimension results will reflect your set dimension format. Either 1.5" or 1 1/2". If you work in 1/16th's of an inch. I find that set your accuracy to 1/32" or 1/64" for dimensioning usually works very well.
Then don't waste your time worrying about it. You are concerned about rough carpentry, not cabinetmaking. You're allowed to fudge it.
Dan.
on screen it's trivial to make all of the parts fit exactly, and those pesky variables like humidity and temperature, differences between one measuring device and another and so on don't show up.
out in the shop, though it's a different matter. wood swells and shrinks and warps right before your eyes. the tape measure has discrete units, so if you need a different amount you have to approximate, and if you switch tapes or have cumulative dimensions you
*will* have errors. sanding a board makes it thinner by a tiny amount, and adding glue or a finish makes it thicker. one species of wood will compress, or bend, or break or whatever more easily than another.to borrow somebody's .sig line: in theory there is no difference between theory and practice. in practice there is.
QuickCAD must work differently ... it takes a couple of extra steps to do the same thing. AFAICT, I have to draw the line first, then enter the direction and distance to fine tune it. Took me days to figure that out. :)
I still have trouble with ALL the different types of "snap", but have worked around that for the most part by turning it off when it won't allow an action.
Oh well, I want to work wood, not CAD, and I've far exceeded my expectations with the program in past few months for the little time I've spent on it ... so much so that I now prefer it over paper and pencil. I am sure time will add even more proficiency.
Thanks for the explanation.
Yeah, I ran into programs like that many years ago. Then with introduction of Autosketh 2.1, DDE was offered and what a time saver. I am on my 4 version of AutoCAD LT now and probably in the last 19 years have owned 9 CAD programs.
I never liked the stap to grids. IMHO they are good for quick rough layouts but way too slow if you want to be accurate. I on the other hand could not live with out the "snap to points" on an object.
Otherwise,
I find it amusing that your original question was so simply stated as to sound newbie, and that this post sounds as though you not only have good grasp on the subject, but apparently knew the answer to your question before you started. So, based on THIS post, you already understand what I was talking about and the question wasn't rhetorical but rather was confrontational. Doesn't work with me - sorry. That makes you sort of a non-entity. It's amusing how slummy some of the posters on this previously great group have become. It's a pendulum, and it'll swing back eventually.
Pop
Slummy because I was unclear on your comment?
I still don't understand your comment...
"Otherwise, you'll never get the program to dimension things perfectly unless you set grid sizes at, say, a quarter inch or an eighth, and in that case the actual parts dimensions don't turn out perfect."
If CAD is relative new to you, I can understand they you may be a bit overwhelmed or your CAD program may be a bit basic and force you into less than desirable results. But there was no CAD program mentioned except by your speculation which could be correct. Indicating that some one will never get a program to dimension things perfectly unless you set grid sizes to a particular amount is incorrect.
Were you perhaps indicating that no CAD program can correctly compensate for the non uniformity of dimensional lumber? If so I agree. I did not mean to sound condescending or superior in any way, just trying to understand what you were trying to say.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.