four square box nailed to wood stud

[infinity]

It's the name of the box not the installation method. Call it whatever you want. The photo speaks for itself.:roll:

I guess that I should have used the code description and called this a device box.

 

[kbsparky]

That box is missing its "ears" -- it ain't an old work box without `em: (notice the nail holes are there nevertheless)

 

[e57]

Old work box? How does that work?

Works just fine - but I often like bigger boxes with less fill - I do the same with 4sq's (as described in the OP) - there are two holes at the front on all 4 sides - then I drill a hole at a back corner. I do this when in a pinch or if a bracket just wont work due to having knotched a stud for precise placement.

Is it a violation? IMO no.... The screws or nails are within 1/4" from the back or ends.... The back is easily defined on most boxes - try to define the "ends"....

 

[macmikeman]

When inspectors clobber you for that , its like picking fly poop out of pepper in my opinion. On the other hand, a 4" square box fastened to a stud using the two little holes on one side needs an additional support, such as the commonly referred to "far side support". Missing that is a good way to get a red flag and rightly so.

 

[e57]

When inspectors clobber you for that , its like picking fly poop out of pepper in my opinion. On the other hand, a 4" square box fastened to a stud using the two little holes on one side needs an additional support, such as the commonly referred to "far side support". Missing that is a good way to get a red flag and rightly so.

How or why should an inspector clobber for use of the holes put there for the purpose? Even then drilling an additional hole for more support is not a violation so long as it is 1/4" from the back... There is no use for a "far side support" since the box is held rigidly against the stud, with counter-levered pressure at the back... This "far side support" you speak of was created by the complaints of brackets like the one below - a flimsy bracket that allows one to push the whole box into the wall...

Or this...

However - sans the flimsy bracket - it is no longer an issue...

 

[electricmanscott]

On the other hand, a 4" square box fastened to a stud using the two little holes on one side needs an additional support, such as the commonly referred to "far side support". Missing that is a good way to get a red flag and rightly so.

That is just a bizarre and false statement. You must have never mounted a box using those holes. It's as secure as any other mounting method. What article would you use to back up your statement?

 

[iwire]

That is just a bizarre and false statement. You must have never mounted a box using those holes. It's as secure as any other mounting method. What article would you use to back up your statement?

If you try to use 4" squares on metal studs without the 'far side support' you will likely be red tagged.

 

[electricmanscott]

If you try to use 4" squares on metal studs without the 'far side support' you will likely be red tagged.

Not being a metal stud guy is there a code ref?

 

[iwire]

Not being a metal stud guy is there a code ref?

I will look when I drag myself out of bed.

 

[electricmanscott]

I will look when I drag myself out of bed.

You'll be looking before I do no matter how long it takes.

I'm dragging my self out to run for a couple of hours. Nothing like a run when it's 4 dgrees to get the day rolling. :roll:

 

[iwire]

I'm dragging my self out to run for a couple of hours. Nothing like a run when it's 4 dgrees to get the day rolling. :roll:

Guy .......... I am not that far, if you need a ride someplace just ask. No sane person will be running today. :grin:


BTW 314.23(A) 'rigidly and securely' will be up to the inspector to determine.

 

[infinity]

If you're mounting a box with no holes in it do you only drill them in the back or a 1/4" from the back? Sounds silly to me.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If you try to use 4" squares on metal studs without the 'far side support' you will likely be red tagged.

Bob,
Cite the code section please. I think it would be a stretch of any code section that I can think of to cite the lack of a 'far side support". That being said the lack of that support may lead to a problem with the "far side" set black that may result in a red tag, but that would depend on how the drywall is being installed. If they don't use the router method there will not be an issue

 

[iwire]

Bob,
Cite the code section please.

IMO 314.23(A) 'rigidly and securely' covers it.

 

[Buck Parrish]

f you have conduit 3 ft or less above the box and it is strapped securely. This will help to make the box rigid.
This is esspecially important in a fire wall.

 

[macmikeman]

IMO 314.23(A) 'rigidly and securely' covers it.

Thats how the local marshals around this county see it as well. They want far side support every time.

 

[macmikeman]

Too early in the morning for this .......

 

[don_resqcapt19]

IMO 314.23(A) 'rigidly and securely' covers it.

I don't ....it is as rigid as the structural member that it is attached to.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

On second though, I don't even see where 314.23(A) enters into this...that section is for a surface mounted box.

 

[jwjrw]

Ive seen 4 squares used with brackets and without. Ive seen them screwed thru the holes in the side or the back. Never had an inspector turn a job down for that. I regularly take the nails out of a plastic box and use sheetrock screws to attach it to stud instead of buying smart boxes. Our inspectors here have no problem with it.