I dont know why they have to lie about it. At $5/8ft board you’d think I paid for the full 1.5. Edit: I mixed up nominal with actual.

  • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
    94·
    7 months ago

    The 2x4s that have been sized this way do meet structural code. It was found that a full 2x4 is way over spec’d for what they were used for, so why bother wasting extra parts of the tree?

    Pretty much everything built with dimensional lumber in the last century has been done with undersized 2x4s, and it’s fine. The name stuck for historical reasons. Companies that build houses and order this stuff by the pallet all know what the real size is, and so do building inspectors.

    • GreyEyedGhostEnglish
      7·
      7 months ago

      Rough 2x4s were 2" x 4". Then we started finishing them for better consistency, taking about 0.5" from each dimension. Later we started using saws with narrower kerfs to have less loss due to saw blade width, better cutting and planing systems so the rough size could be smaller and still have the same finished size, then they lowered finished size some more.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      47·
      7 months ago

      Pretty much everything built with dimensional lumber in the last century has been done with undersized 2x4s, and it’s fine.

      It’s fine, folks. Nothing to see here.