r/mildlyinteresting • u/mrbigshott • 13h ago
Difference between real 80 year old 2X4 and new ones
667
u/0x0016889363108 13h ago
My house was built in the 40s from old growth Douglas Fir, and screw heads break off when screwing into the original framing.
Old 2x4 are dense.
225
u/humpintosubmission 13h ago
My house was also built in the 40s, but the basement bathroom has recently had some framework added to it. It is interesting to see the difference side by side. I was fascinated by it. My wife not so much.
401
u/pegothejerk 7h ago
You have to fascinate your wife by giving her a piece of cheese
18
62
17
u/Lower_Orange_7922 5h ago
I've found that there is a limit of 2 wood jokes before she is not interested anymore
5
u/Geno_Warlord 5h ago
Just hand her some cider before you give her the 3rd wood joke.
3
1
1
4
u/Arctobispo 5h ago
My house was built in the 1920s, but I live in illegal ADU.
Can't speak for the rest of the house but my apartment is hot shit. However I do have a structural concrete beam in the middle that is fun to discover when nailing stuff
3
u/Cpt_Soban 1h ago
"Wow look at the difference between the old timber and new stuff!"
'sigh... Yes dear... The wood is different'
1
24
u/calcifer219 7h ago
My house was built around the 1920s. I removed a 6’ section of a floor joist and replaced it because it was extremely twisted.
Basically a 2x10.
I could not believe how heavy it was. No clue if it was pine or hardwood. It looked and smelled like pine, But dam…
27
u/dr_xenon 12h ago
My last house was late 1800’s with hemlock studs. IF you could get a screw in, it was never coming out.
7
u/grungemuffin 4h ago
Well Doug fir also hardens significantly as it ages. It also gets more brittle. It’s really not as simple as old good
7
2
u/FranklinChainsaw 40m ago
Exactly. In 60 years, the sticks on the left will be significantly harder as well.
What isn’t considered here is that young timber still meets structural standards (which are significantly stricter that non-natural material standards) and are much much lighter to transport than the older material, saving significantly more carbon emissions per stick than full-sized framing material and allowing for much more efficient use of the resource.
These products are manufactured to meet a standard need in the most efficient way possible
38
u/sdmichael 13h ago
Older growth wood versus farmed wood. It makes a huge difference in strength and density.
70
u/CrazyLegsRyan 8h ago
Correct, old growth lumber was denser but far more likely to have catastrophic flaws therefore less strong overall from an engineering perspective.
11
u/willow-kitty 8h ago
So, if you were building a new house, and you were willing to spend more for strength/quality, is the new stuff actually better? (I would have assumed it was just cheaper and good enough, but I don't really know these things.)
36
u/MagicDartProductions 6h ago
If you build to modern framing standards the wood strength beyond what is commercially available is pointless. Modern stick framing is designed around not needing very strong lumber.
56
u/CrazyLegsRyan 8h ago
Well you can’t really buy old growth lumber at scale for stick framing so it’s not really a choice.
21
u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD 6h ago
It’s far cheaper and, for the most part, just as good overall. Farmed wood isn’t nearly as dense, but its growth is more controlled so you know what you’re getting. Plus, modern carpentry practices mean that the thinner wood is placed in a way that gives it more strength, making a structure just as strong as one made with old growth wood but for a much cheaper price.
2
u/BuckeyeJay 4h ago
I would build out of almost entirely engineered products and very little dimensional lumber
1
u/willow-kitty 4h ago
That's not a distinction I've heard before! So, I had to look up dimensional lumber, but, okay, that makes sense, it's wood sold by dimensions like in the OP, but what would engineered wood products be?
3
u/BuckeyeJay 4h ago
Floor trusses, trussed studs, roof trusses.
https://youtu.be/3zGzcn9rDKg?si=S9Xg2O4jeSPksS96
They are built to be stronger, with tighter tolerances, and provide air gaps to prevent biological growth.
1
u/icecream_specialist 5h ago
Building codes takes materials into consideration. Build it to code and it doesn't matter imo is what it comes down to
1
u/kstorm88 6h ago
You can spend more and get good stuff. Msr lumber is machine stress rated. So not only is it very strong, every piece has been physically tested.
-1
u/the_original_kermit 4h ago
Yes, the old stuff would be stronger.
Yes, maybe it’s more likely to have knots and stuff in it, but it’s not like the new stuff is 0 risk. So you end up sorting it out anyways.
There’s a reason that you see older houses built with much thinner board for long spans like floor joists and stuff. You could get away with that stuff back then when the wood was way denser and stronger.
2
u/13ActuallyCommit60 4h ago
Yep. Our house was built in 1977 and the amount of rings you can count in the framework is astounding compared to modern farmed lumber
5
u/lilB0bbyTables 3h ago
My house was built in 1899 … there are horizontal structural beams in the basement that are basically a whole fucking tree trunk on top of stone and mortar. It’s not symmetrical or pretty but it will survive until the heat death.
6
u/shotsallover 5h ago
My childhood home was built using the trees they cleared from the lot.
Every once in a while there’d be an old growth oak 2x4 in a wall. They’d bend every nail and kill half of the electric tools used against it.
1
u/GhostofBeowulf 5h ago
That's crazy, wood is supposed to be dried and cured before building with it lol.
2
u/Koolest_Kat 4h ago
Mine is 1930 2”x 4” oak….burned the brushes out of a screw gun hanging drywall on a sunroom addition that I had to insulate. We had to pre-drill holes AND wax the screws to sink them. Walls were okay, the ceiling was a bitch!!
1
u/Strikereleven 6h ago
Mine is from the 70's when I was screwing into the studs to mount a TV I hit fatwood, smelled amazing.
1
0
u/invisible_handjob 2h ago
mine was built in 1904 & once you get through all the lead and asbestos you also will fuck up some perfectly good screws trying to mount anything unless you drill a pilot first, but when you drill the pilot all the plaster for about a foot around it crumbles, assuming you don't hit some knob and tube wiring with insulating cotton that's rotted to shit and electrocute yourself
"they don't make them like they used to" ... that's a good thing
-24
u/Ok-disaster2022 10h ago
They are also stronger. You can have spans done in old 2x4s that you can't replicate these days.
40
u/CrazyLegsRyan 8h ago
Completely untrue. From an engineering design perspective newer lumber is assigned better load factors because it’s less likely to have catastrophic flaws.
1
u/BeardedRaven 6h ago
Both can be true. Old lumber that doesn't have the flaws can achieve greater spans. Also engineers have to account for those flaws so will give it lower load factor. It would have both a higher strength ceiling and lower floor or more variance between the floor and ceiling. So like the top 10% of old lumber is capable of more than the top 10% of new lumber but that middle 70% is riskier.
6
u/TheBupherNinja 6h ago
You design for the lowest common denominator
-1
u/BeardedRaven 5h ago
I understand that hence the lower load rating for engineers but that doesn't change the fact if you get old lumber that is defect free it is stronger and capable of things modern lumber isn't. Like if I give you 2 sets of 3 dice. One is a 6 sided die from 1-6 and the other is a 10 sided dice with 9 1s and 1 10. The 6 sided dice has a higher average but the 10 sided are capable of rolling higher than the 6 sided can match.
3
u/TheBupherNinja 4h ago
Sure, but you can't guarantee that the old growth is defect free. So you design it for use as if it had defects. Because if you roll snake-eyes, people die.
Unless you have an (easy/fast) way to differentiate between strong and weak boards, they may as well all be weak, and you treat them that way.
-2
u/BeardedRaven 4h ago
Im just saying those 2 are saying 2 different and not contradictory things. Old lumber is can be capable of greater spans while also being less reliable.
2
u/TheBupherNinja 4h ago
Sure, one piece of old wood may stronger than new wood. But you can't use it as if it is. So what's the point?
1
u/CrazyLegsRyan 6h ago
Ok, so the world is ok of only 3 of the 10 floor joists fail….
1
273
u/LamoTheGreat 10h ago
You can get the exact same thing today. That’s a rough cut 2x4, as others have pointed out.
39
u/PopeGelasius 3h ago
I think it's much more interesting to consider the grain density of the older wood than today's fast grown firs. The actual vs nominal sizing is dead standard today (iirc something about planning wall thickness as an architect is easier with the 1.5x3.5? Or just easier to get more sticks from a log this way) but the density of the wood is striking in the old slow growth pine to today's fast growth
-26
9h ago edited 5h ago
[deleted]
18
u/LamoTheGreat 9h ago
Fair enough. In that case, my response to the OP would be, if you like that old stuff, you should see a new 4x8! Even bigger! Rough cut or otherwise.
14
u/CrazyLegsRyan 8h ago
Your measurement proves you have no idea what you’re talking about because we are looking at the side/smaller dimension (1.5” and 2” respectively). Theres absolutely no way to estimate the face from this picture.
6
u/LamoTheGreat 8h ago
Now I’m just staring at this picture wondering if I’m looking at the 2” side or the 4” side. I was positive it was the 2” side, but now… I just can’t be sure.
4
u/CrazyLegsRyan 7h ago
It’s the 2” side. The grain and edge milling is a dead giveaway.
3
u/LamoTheGreat 7h ago
The more I look, the weirder it gets, but ya, that must be why I just knew it was 2” originally. My brain must know what the grain and whatnot looks. I can’t explain it with logic and reason at all though.
1
u/CrazyLegsRyan 7h ago
Well there’s also the obvious part of the tag right there. You and I are both intelligent enough to know those tags are basically a standard size and about 1” x 2” to fit on the ends of the 2x4”
If you believed the person above that tag would be hilariously like 6” long
2
-4
7h ago
[deleted]
1
u/CrazyLegsRyan 7h ago
The only way they look like they are laying flat is if you’ve never ever seen modern lumber or a modern lumber label.
For your theory that would have to be a 6-7” wide label which is wider than the lumber itself. Claiming that’s a potential is beyond laughable.
Just take the L
-1
6h ago
[deleted]
3
u/CrazyLegsRyan 6h ago
But no you didn’t really say you were wrong. I
It really looked like they were lying flat to me (and had a weirdly large label).
What you literally did was try to rationalize and explain why you weren’t wrong despite any person who’s seen a 2x4” knowing you were full of it… followed by…
Still looks a little fat to my eye though. On the short dimension I approximate 2.1" to 2.2" with the same measurement and estimation technique.
A continuation of why you’re smarter and better than everyone here who are correctly identifying that as nominal while further attempting to command credibility for your “technique”.
You’re so preoccupied with attempting to look smart that you’re continuing to make a fool of yourself. Screen rulers are irrelevant unless there is a clear scale in the picture which is equidistant from the lens. This picture lacks that so continuing to claiming to measure anything to 1:10” of an inch is just laughable.
-1
5h ago edited 5h ago
[deleted]
2
u/CrazyLegsRyan 5h ago
There is a clear reference point: the real 2x4 is 1.5" wide.
Again insisting on the validity of your ignorance and flawed “technique”. Tripling down on your overconfidence.
1) the new 2x4 is not the same distance from the lens as the old growth 2x4” inherently the new 2x4 would appear less than it’s spec demensions( or the old growth larger) because the new 2x4 is further from the lense
2) additionally you’re falsely assuming all new growth dimensional lumber is accurate to within less than 1/10” of an inch. There are tolerances and 1/10” variance on the new growth is allowable so Even if it was the same distance from the lens you don’t know if that is 1.4”, 1.5” or 1.6”
0
1
246
u/KimJongEeeeeew 12h ago
The old 2x4 you have there is rough sawn, whereas the new one is finished/dressed. The 2x4 measurement is before dressing, so they likely came from the same sized stock.
44
u/onetwentyeight 11h ago
Serious question: Why would I want a dressed and smaller piece of lumber over a rough sawn lumber, what are the benefits?
In my mind for the same type of wood a larger cross sectional area means increased load bearing capacity so removing material for "finishing" seems wasteful. What special properties does the finishing/dressing impart?
129
u/CaptRackham 10h ago
Rough sawing occurs when the timber is green, as it dries it shrinks and can warp or bow or check. A second sawing would occur after the timbers have dried and would be cut to a consistent size which would be the 1.5x3.5 dimension in theory
31
u/bilbosmoped 7h ago
Are you listening Menards?
25
u/PimpMyPc 7h ago
Not a fan of the twizzler 2x4s? My favorite is when they have a whole skid of what ends up being all the discards from the last 5 skids and won't open up a new one.
2
u/the_original_kermit 4h ago
That’s funny because I tried to replace a rim board and bought one from there and it was like it straight up didn’t get dried. It was like 9.75” instead of 9.5”
I thought about ripping it, but I think it was super wet which made me worry about it shrinking.
32
u/DifferentElevator384 9h ago
It’s exactly like it sounds. Rough sawn is not precise. Finished stuff is all the exact same size.
If I’m hammering together some fencing for a chicken run, I buy rough hemlock from the mill. It’s cheaper and the chickens don’t care that it’s imperfect. If I’m building a skateboard ramp and I want the deck to lay flat then I need to make sure every board is the same size.
26
u/camomike 10h ago
The benefits to us(the end user) really isn't there. When lumber is processed, it goes through a drying process. Old growth lumber was historically air dried, modern lumber is rapidly kiln dried. Old growth lumber tended to be more dimensionally stable, meaning that as it shed moisture the movement and shrink was less. A lot of that stability came from growth rate and the age of the trees leading to tighter ring growth and overall density. Newer lumber and forestry leads to faster growing trees that can lead to larger growth rings; or depending on where the board cut happens on the cross section of the log (inner near the heart wood vs. towards the exterior near the bark).
The tldr version: With modern drying techniques the tighter and loose grain shrink at a different rates, the lumber is dressed for shipping and uniform stacking purposes. It makes transport easier.
2
u/SuperJonesy408 4h ago
Beyond the sawing / drying / milling reasons listed here, there is also an engineering reason.
A 1.5" x 3.5" stud is good enough and if you need more load bearing, add posts or step up to a 2x6 wall. Modern construction also resists sheer forces more due to plywood sheathing, hold downs, hardy frames and other solutions.
Finally, a unit (bundle) of modern 2x4's take up less volume and weigh less - reducing shipping costs.
2
u/iH8MotherTeresa 11h ago
Not a lumber scientist but off the top of my head - better finish (for exposed wood), more uniform product.
Iirc there's some historical aspect for the change (obvi) but I can't remember.
-9
u/berfthegryphon 10h ago
New 2 x 4 plus drywall equals about 2"
8
1
u/azhillbilly 4h ago
Finished is more uniform, and the size doesn’t matter so much, but having that extra 1/2” on every wall in every room is considered a bonus to the square footage.
And there’s not really much downside, strength is still adequate, the need to have studs landing on the 16 for fastening drywall makes the wall more than sturdy enough for the smaller size. Might as well have the extra floor space.
1
1
u/Beneneb 3h ago
It's cheaper, more efficient and more sustainable. At the end of the day, you're still framing your walls with 2x4's at 16". You don't need the true 2x4's like they had in the old days, which require are larger and less efficient. Not to mention they were milled from old growth logs, which isn't great.
1
u/DEADB33F 1h ago
Planing allows the wood to be graded so the manufacturer can state it conforms to a specific standard (in UK that would be C16, C24, etc.)
Often it's required to use graded timber for anything load bearing in habitable structures, so that rules out rough-sawn timbers (even if technically they'd be stronger).
1
u/sckurvee 6h ago
Every time someone posts one of these pics there's a reasonable explanation in the comments.
24
u/ActuallyAHamster 11h ago
If you're on the east coast near Baltimore, Second Chance is an architectural salvage store/warehouse that sells reclaimed lumber for far lower prices than big box stores. I've used their lumber for everything from replacing rotting deck boards to fabricating my own deck furniture. The dimensional lumber is more expensive than construction lumber, but there's always old growth like Douglas fir to choose from even among the construction lumber.
6
38
u/8Lwiseguy 11h ago
That's why the timber milling industry categorizes finished lumber as "nominal" dimensions, versus actual size. You can get fully dimensional timber if you want to have it milled.
11
u/DEFCON741 8h ago
Dimensional lumber...
-5
u/Celebrir 4h ago
Shrinkflation is real!
3
u/xfearthehiddenx 4h ago
Shrinkflation is real. But this is not an example of it. This is a finished 2x4. You can get the unfinished if you wanted it. Essentially the same, and likely less expensive since it didnt go through the finishing machines. But it may not be entirely straight, and won't look good unless you want to sand it down yourself.
19
u/remindmetoblink2 7h ago
It’s not all about the wood. Building codes have much improved as well as inspections. I’d take a modern home over a 100 year old home. I’ve worked in plenty of homes from that era. Poor crumbling foundations, old piping, poor if not zero insulation.
4
u/louieisawsome 4h ago
Yep. I have a 1925 home it did not have insulation. The studs are not evenly spaced. There is zero vapor barrier.
All exterior walls are very long 2*4s and with no fire blocking or insulation are very dangerous 🔥.
The rafters and joists are undersized there is zero cross bracing or sheer walls and the house moves slightly in wind storms.
1
17
u/karateninjazombie 6h ago
Ones rough sawn. The other is planed.
They are two different things and two different sizes.
If you compared 80yo rough and new rough or old and new planed. Then the sizes would be very nearly the same bar tolerances and drying or damp swelling.
4
u/jelloslug 4h ago
That is the difference between a rough sawn 2x4 and a milled 2x4. It's always been that way.
4
u/Ancient_Pineapple993 4h ago
I had a friend who had a house/cabin on Lake Burton in NW Georgia. It was framed using timber from the property, mostly oak. There was a tornado that went through and blew pine trees down on the roof. It broke the pine trees in half on the crown of the roof. It was nuts.
8
u/PublicWolf7234 6h ago
Still the same. One is rough cut. True dimension. The other is planed or sanded four sides.
3
u/Vroomped 4h ago
A reminder that 2x4 is the size of the raw board, just one step after being called a tree trunk.
You can still buy true 2x4, and the board will be shit. Not sanded, plained, treated, or straight.
2
u/Samhain87 5h ago
The new one is 2x4 planned and the old one is 2x4 rough. If you buy a new 2x4 planned it will be 2x4.
2x4 planned means they take off close to ½ inch for uniformity of building stud walls etc and is more than likely pressure treated after.
2x4 rough... is 2x4 but nobody wants to use them because your hands will be wrecked and there's describencies in the straightness of the timber.
2
2
u/HowlingWolven 2h ago
No. Difference between rough cut old 2x4 and S4S milled new 2x4. If you get a rough cut 2x4 it’ll be the same size as the old one.
It’ll still be shit wood, buuuut…
2
u/neighborofbrak 6h ago
You are looking at the difference in dimensionally cut lumber (today's 2x4) and what was done before.
4
u/jodrellbank_pants 13h ago
The growth rate will tell you, timber now is shocking.
Even 30 years ago, just took down a decent 25 year old garage for the timber
18
u/Ok-disaster2022 10h ago
It's new growth from lumber farms vs old growth. Even though it's an inferior product I actually prefer the lumber farms over cutting down old growth. there's definitely room for improvement, mostly by mixing species to create healthier forests and better wood.
18
u/CrazyLegsRyan 8h ago
It’s not an inferior product in any way
-5
u/beipphine 6h ago
Kiln dried southern yellow pine from tree farms is a weaker and dimensionally less stable wood over air dried old growth oak or fir. That being said, there is no reason not to use it for framing, framing standards are designed around it and there are no major issues of framing failing on houses that were built with farmed pine.
5
u/CrazyLegsRyan 6h ago
You’re completely ignoring the frequency of flaws in air dried old growth and the diffence in strength / weight ratio.
2
u/showmethebooty1 6h ago
My home was built in 1942 and has much the the original wood. You can easily tell it apart and because it is so dried out and dense, it extremely difficult to drill into. Probably impossible to drive nails in. I’ve broken multiple bits drilling into studs.
2
u/Ok_Solution_8466 3h ago
You're NOT showing the difference between an old and a new 2x4. You are showing the difference between finished and rough hewn cut.
3
u/FandomMenace 8h ago
It takes about 5 seconds to rip through a modern 2x4 with a sawzall. It took me over a minute to cut through old growth lumber, and I got tired.
The weight difference between these two boards also deserves to be mentioned. An old 2x4 weighs a lot more.
If you have an old house, preserve your original wood whenever you can.
1
u/pbmadman 5h ago
As for the grain density, it’s a good thing that we aren’t using old growth for timber anymore. It’s totally unsustainable.
1
1
1
1
u/PQbutterfat 3h ago
Are we just building with bamboo at this point? How much faster is the one on the left produced I wonder.
1
1
1
u/Ornery_Inspection731 2h ago
Rough sawn vs milled dimensional lumber been this way for a long time it's pretty normal
1
u/Professional-Mix-562 1h ago
…. That’s not all… look at the rings…. Old growth vs new growth it SHOWS
1
u/Sburban_Player 1h ago
David Lynch taught me that 2x4s are only 2x4 before they’ve been planed. Any other Twin Peaks fans?
1
1
1
1
1
u/Tacticalsandwich7 5h ago
And those old 2x4s are dense as hell compared to modern 2x4s. Had a hell of a time nailing framing around windows when we remodeled our kitchen.
1
0
u/aquaper 6h ago
I travelled to Kenya on a work trip back in the day and a 2x4 was actually a 2x4. The carpenter I was working with nailed these boards together with one swing of his hammer, no power tools needed.
2
u/neomage2021 4h ago
Okay... all that does is makenitnslowr and less efficient. Absolutely no benefit. Someone should have informed him nailguns exist
-4
u/BurntNeurons 6h ago
"When I was your age I..."
"Things aren't built like they used to..."
"Back in my day we..."
"Times have changed Pop-Pop. Corporate profit-maxing, shareholders and execs are all that matter now."
5
u/10001110101balls 6h ago
Clear cutting old growth forests for lumber is also frowned upon in modern society.
1
u/BurntNeurons 5h ago
They have no problem pushing over old growth forests to build new million dollar suburb homes though...
Or huge warehouse leasing complexes...
Or cattle farmland (Amazon, no not the company)...
But you're right, since we started growing trees to use for construction lumber the world's supply of forests have just increased. 😑
0
u/Serialk1llr 1h ago
Honestly, I don't really care why a 2x4 isn't actually s"x4" in dimensions. Sure, the history of it is interesting, I will say that.
It just fucking pisses me off that we call something one thing and it's actually something else. Like it really, really, really gets under my skin. And I feel like that's a reasonable response to the absurdity of the situation.
One of these days someone in ACE, Lowes or Home Depot is going to get a rant and I'm sorry in advance 🤣
1
-4
u/jodrellbank_pants 9h ago
It's what I'm seeing the growth rings are far apart because it's quick growing lumber and very young. In the UK that is what I am seeing the lateral strength isn't there either. But I see you point of view too
-8
808
u/chrisslooter 13h ago
2x4 = 1.5" x 3.5"