mud ring

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anthony001

Member
recently I was getting a rough inspection on a small office building and had an inspector that wanted me to change out all of my mud rings to what I knew as tile rings. he said that the rings that I had on were only for plaster and that they needed to be flat and straight on the sides. I tried to find the code on this but was unsucessful. I hope I'm being clear, if anyone can tell me where I can find this I'd really appreciate it. thanks in advance.
 
I've never heard of mud rings that were designed"just for plaster". If any exist in warehouses around the country, they should be piled full of dust as drywall replaced 99% of plaster work many many years ago. What you call a "tile" ring is most likely what is commonly used in masonry walls. Thes are built with flat face and squared corners simply because the stamping machines in the factories cannot create more than 1-1/4" rise so 1-1/2" and 2" rings are folded and spot welded. If I am wrong, someone please post a picture of a "plaster only" ring
 
I saw some in someones catalog. They had some indents on each side. They kind of looked like fish scales.
 
tkb said:
I saw some in someones catalog. They had some indents on each side. They kind of looked like fish scales.
Click to expand...


I have some of them pilled up in a crate in my garage. But even if they had some indents why would this make them unsuitable for drywall?
 
these mud rings had no indents on them. basically they are the rough in plates that I've been using for ten years and have never hear this before. is there a place in the code book which will give me a response.
 
I would look in the ring manufacturer's literature or even on the box they came out of for the (and I use this word very loosely) "listed" purpose. show this to the inspector. And since it was mentioned, I do remember seeing rings with the little indents on them but I think it was when I was doing demo work on a remodel.
 
The real question is why does the inspector even care? Are the rings that you used functionally different than the ones he thinks that you should be using?
 
the inspector said, being that the rings were rounded and they are used for plaster and the flat ones were for sheetrock. I pretty sure he's just outright wrong but I don't want to cause any future problems with the man.
 
Last edited:
They are used in MA on every job. (not the fish scales)
I have used the 2" tile rings with a 4" sq box for in block work.
Drywall gets plaster rings.
I like to use 3/4" rings with 5/8" drywall. They come flush with the drywall.
 
I heard that before from one inspector. We use plaster rings (rounded one) all the time. The inspector just wanted to tell me that he could red tag it because the plaster ring are listed for plaster only. The mud rings are square and they are listed for drywall and block work. He let it go but just wanted to inform us.
I think someone told him and he just wanted to let me know how smart he was.
I never looked into the listing on them and maybe someone should.
We still use plaster rings in drywall and have not heard anything from any other inspector.
The only way you could solve it is by getting the listing on both styles.
 
you know... this adresses an issue i have had with sheetrock work for a while now...

suppose you put in (like everyone does) a mud ring on a 4/s box. the ring has somewhat sloped sides so that the hole in the sheetrock must be larger than the front of the ring for it to flush out with the face of the sheetrock...

no sheetrocking mexican i have ever seen will create a bevel in the holes they cut so that our 'mud rings' will sit flush...

I believe that 'somewhere in the code' that i am not motivated enough to find tonight it says that the device you install upon trim-out must actually sit against the box when installed.. not 1/4 to 1/2 inch away like most installations are put in..

i think a ring that had no taper to it would fit much better in the sheetrock and you wouldnt have to rely on things like Stainless trim plates to keep receptacles from collapsing into the wall when you plug things into them
 
izak said:
I believe that 'somewhere in the code' that i am not motivated enough to find tonight it says that the device you install upon trim-out must actually sit against the box when installed.. not 1/4 to 1/2 inch away like most installations are put in..
Click to expand...
We must goto different churches:
314.20 In Wall or Ceiling.
In walls or ceilings with a surface of concrete, tile, gypsum, plaster, or other noncombustible material, boxes employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be installed so that the front edge of the box, plaster ring, extension ring, or listed extender will not be set back of the finished surface more than 6 mm (1⁄4 in.).

In walls and ceilings constructed of wood or other combustible surface material, boxes, plaster rings, extension rings, or listed extenders shall be flush with the finished surface or project therefrom.
Click to expand...
 
izak said:
i think a ring that had no taper to it would fit much better in the sheetrock and you wouldnt have to rely on things like Stainless trim plates to keep receptacles from collapsing into the wall when you plug things into them
Click to expand...
ummm...relying on the plate would be a violation.

BUT..there is a simple solution:
1409.jpg
1408.jpg


[Caddy RLC]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top