MC to EMT fitting

Status
Not open for further replies.
acrwc10

acrwc10

Master Code Professional
Location
CA
Occupation
Building inspector
I know this subject has been discussed a lot, about can you run MC into EMT with out the use of a J-box in between. I don't know it this Bridgeport fitting was shown but I just saw it and thought it was a cool idea.
View attachment 2671
 
acrwc10 said:
I know this subject has been discussed a lot, about can you run MC into EMT with out the use of a J-box in between. I don't know it this Bridgeport fitting was shown but I just saw it and thought it was a cool idea.
View attachment 2671
Click to expand...
I've not used that fitting, but I've seen it in use lately. Surface mounted panel, pipe to just above the dropped ceiling, then MC from there to where ever. Makes for a slicker looking install. You just need to skin out the MC another 5 feet longer to go down to the panel. I don't know how much that fitting is, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't 5 bucks a piece.
 
mdshunk said:
I've not used that fitting, but I've seen it in use lately. Surface mounted panel, pipe to just above the dropped ceiling, then MC from there to where ever. Makes for a slicker looking install. You just need to skin out the MC another 5 feet longer to go down to the panel. I don't know how much that fitting is, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't 5 bucks a piece.
Click to expand...

Still, Supplie and Demand, it may start at $5 but this isn't like the "Kearny Scam Clamp" they will want to move these things and the price will come down.
 
acrwc10 said:
Still, Supplie and Demand, it may start at $5 but this isn't like the "Kearny Scam Clamp" they will want to move these things and the price will come down.
Click to expand...

How much is an EMT connector a conduit coupling and a MC duplex? I bet half of $5 or less.
 
iwire said:
How much is an EMT connector a conduit coupling and a MC duplex? I bet half of $5 or less.
Click to expand...

I doubt the fitting is $5, that is just a number Marc threw out there. I would still rather carry 1 fitting instead of 3.
 
acrwc10 said:
I doubt the fitting is $5, that is just a number Marc threw out there. I would still rather carry 1 fitting instead of 3.
Click to expand...

that may seem to be the logical track; however, if you are doing other tasks, it may be more productive to have the other three fittings on hand than the one, since you might be able to accomplish 6 tasks with the 3 fittings, but only 1 task with the one fitting. If you have a limited amount of storage (say your truck), then opting for the 3 fittings would be the more logical solution.
 
nakulak said:
... however, if you are doing other tasks, it may be more productive to have the other three fittings on hand than the one, since you might be able to accomplish 6 tasks with the 3 fittings, but only 1 task with the one fitting. If you have a limited amount of storage (say your truck), then opting for the 3 fittings would be the more logical solution.
Click to expand...
That's very true, but I'd still like to try them out on a job sometime. I don't really have anything coming up where they'd make sense to try, but they've been on my list of things to try since I first saw them maybe 6 months ago. It'll probably be one of those deals where I'd need to buy a box to get 6, and I'd have the other 44 left for the next 20 years.
 
From my understanding:
If I were to strip back about 5' of the MC jacket, install an MC connector, then thread on a rigid coupling then thread on an EMT connector and slide the wires into the emt to my next accessable JB or opening, the connections that I made to go from MC to EMT must also be accessable?
 
aftershock said:
From my understanding:
If I were to strip back about 5' of the MC jacket, install an MC connector, then thread on a rigid coupling then thread on an EMT connector and slide the wires into the emt to my next accessable JB or opening, the connections that I made to go from MC to EMT must also be accessable?
Click to expand...
No, that only applies to stuff like greenfield and sealtite when you're doing that with a 90 degree connector.
 
aftershock said:
From my understanding:
If I were to strip back about 5' of the MC jacket, install an MC connector, then thread on a rigid coupling then thread on an EMT connector and slide the wires into the emt to my next accessable JB or opening, the connections that I made to go from MC to EMT must also be accessable?
Click to expand...

This was the gist of the Debate, is it listed to be used that way, Now I personally think it is safe and fine. I would rather use a fitting made for the purpose to avoid the argument with an inspector that may see it differently. I know Joe T has an issue with that type of use and he is not alone in his oppion so I am glad to see a fitting that makes it possible avoid these conflicts. Now Bridgeport can lobby the CMP to make it an out right violating to use the 3 fitting method.:D
 
aftershock said:
From my understanding:
If I were to strip back about 5' of the MC jacket, install an MC connector, then thread on a rigid coupling then thread on an EMT connector and slide the wires into the emt to my next accessable JB or opening, the connections that I made to go from MC to EMT must also be accessable?
Click to expand...


Take a look at 300.15(F), pay attention to the last sentence.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Take a look at 300.15(F), pay attention to the last sentence.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the Handbook commentary.

(F) Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation.
Where a cable system makes a transition to a raceway to provide mechanical protection against damage, 300.15(F) permits the use of a fitting instead of a box. For example, where nonmetallic-sheathed cable that runs overhead on floor joists and drops down on a masonry wall to supply a receptacle needs to be protected from physical damage, a short length of raceway is installed to the outlet device box. The cable is then inserted in the raceway and secured by a combination fitting that is fastened to the end of the raceway.
Click to expand...
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Take a look at 300.15(F), pay attention to the last sentence.
Click to expand...

(F) Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation.

That's why I would think it would need to be accessible, but we have done it alot and the inspecters either dont catch it or dont know. Heck,, I didnt even know until I came across this forum. In all honesty I dont see why it would need to be accessible but like always, I am probably overlooking the obvious.
 
If it may need to be "re-pulled" in the future it needs to be accessible if not cover it up. It is like using a 90 degree connection on MC to a box in the wall "cover it up" you won't need to re-pull it later, on the other hand a flex 90 you meed to have access to so you may not cover it under "finish".
 
acrwc10 said:
If it may need to be "re-pulled" in the future it needs to be accessible if not cover it up. It is like using a 90 degree connection on MC to a box in the wall "cover it up" you won't need to re-pull it later, on the other hand a flex 90 you meed to have access to so you may not cover it under "finish".
Click to expand...

I agree,, but when you read this:

(F) Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation.

How do you interpret it?
 
acrwc10 said:
If it may need to be "re-pulled" in the future it needs to be accessible if not cover it up. It is like using a 90 degree connection on MC to a box in the wall "cover it up" you won't need to re-pull it later, on the other hand a flex 90 you meed to have access to so you may not cover it under "finish".
Click to expand...

why would it matter if it needed to be repulled? you cant repull romex or mc...?
 
NEC definition.

Fitting. An accessory such as a locknut, bushing, or other part of a wiring system that is intended primarily to perform a mechanical rather than an electrical function.
Click to expand...
An EMT coupling performs a mechanical function. Can I bury one in a wall?
 
aftershock said:
I agree,, but when you read this:

(F) Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation.

How do you interpret it?
Click to expand...
A flex 90 is being used in lieu of a box.
tonyou812 said:
why would it matter if it needed to be repulled? you cant repull romex or mc...?
Click to expand...

Romex or mc was in the hand book commentary not the NEC code, commentary is opinion, and only applies when it agrees with me. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top