Doug Fir vs: Sitka Spruce

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

"D.W. Taylor" wrote in message ...
Frank Stutzman wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
[ generally good description regarding how Doug fir is not a true fir and
other things ]


If the wood you are buying or reading about is just called fir, it
probably is NOT Douglas Fir.


I think this depends upon where you are buying it. Here in Oregon 80% or so
(warning: unsubstantiated number) of the evergreens are Doug fir. I think
its pretty safe that the "fir" at my local lumber yard is indeed Doug fir.


Thanks Fred for those details. I once built an ultralight (SkyPup)
which was all Doug Fir. Here in the midwest you have to search for it
and it will always be more expensive than the other softwoods.
It is still used for wood scafolding and in stair construction.
The lumber yards around here know exactly which bins are
Doug Fir. We find mostly 2x4 and 2x6 up to 18 feet long.

Avoid any Doug Fir with conspicious pitch exuding out the ends.
Doug Fir can have hidden pitch pockets. Discard any board
which shows evidence. It should not be used in thick sections
such as solid spars for this reason. Use of laminates in thick
sections is preferable.

--dan grunloh






I was
remiss in not explaining more. There is an industry standards
organisation, the American Softwood Lumber Association that sets
standards for softwood lumber. They establish standards for species
groups, dimensions for standard lumber sizes etc.

There is a standard for Douglas Fir and a different standard for
Hem-Fir. A higher minimum strength is required for Doug Fir than
for Hem-Fir. If the lumber is just labeled 'Fir' and it really is
Doug fir then it is mislabeled as an inferior product. If it isn't
Doug Fir it almost certainly isn't as strong as Doug Fir.

Now, there is no requirement that anyone use the standards set by
the ASLA. Home Depot certainly does not. A friend in S.Cal had
a deck made with Doug Fir timbers. THere were paper tags with
bar codes on the lumber that said 'GRN FIR' (Green Fir) but the
inked stamp from the actual lumber company that milled the
lumber was the trademark triangle with 'DF' in it. IOW,
Home Depot was relabeling the lumber as an inferior product,
no doubt through ignorance or indifference.

I think Hem-Fir, S-P-F and few other designations are trademarked
by the ASLA, but a commonly used word or phrase cannot be a trademark
so 'Douglas Fir', or just 'Fir' cannot eb tardemarked and that's
why there are special symbols. I think there is a trade group
just for Douglas Fir, a Google search should turn them up.

So you may be right but you certainly shouldn't count on the
lumber having the properties of Douglas Fir unless it is clearly
waranteed as such.

...


FYI only a small fraction of the wood in any store in oregon comes from
here. And Doug fir only makes up a small part of our forest, Hemlock,
Pine and various hardwoods make up the bigger part. MOst of whats sold
aaround the country as "fir" is actually Hemlock and a lot of it
comes from Canada...

It ought to be labeled Hem-Fir. But maybe it isn't because the
supplier does not want to warantee that it meets the ASLA standard
for Hem-Fir. I've seen a lot of 'oak' furniture (without the
quotemarks around the oak) that is made from rubber wood. A fair
bit of 'maple' furniture is being made from beech these days and
it has often been a common practice to substitute ash for oak w
in places where the former is cheaper.


There are small millworks in Oregon that will make sure you get
what you ewwant for a fairly small premium. Even Sitka Spruce
is available if you do some looking.


Yep. The best (and cheapest) wood is bought direct from the
sawyer.

--

FF