I am now a well seasoned sawyer with in excess of 11 hrs on my new mill!
A few observations: Red oak has a lot of interior "holes" or rot spots. Cuts up awful rough, always has a lot of "bangs" like a little girls forehead, stinks, and is sopping wet.
White oak, OTOH, seems to mill better, seems not to retain moisture as well, easier to plane the bangs off, mills smoother, and seems to have far less internal knotholes.
The red might have prettier grain patterns, thus making a prettier table top surface. Strength wise, I aint sure, but would suspect the white to be stronger.
Candidates for the mill ought be at least 10" dia if straight, and more if not. I tried some 8-9 logs and by the time the bark is all off, I got nothin left but firewood! After removing the bark, its about imposs to secure whatever is left in order to actually mill usable lumber.
Would be interested in hearing the real scoop from those more seasoned than I. (IE, about 99.8% of the rest of the forum.)
Logs less than 12" have more % "juvenile" wood and more apt to react to stress than more mature 16"+ logs. At least that is my observance.
Nailing into any Oak will be a chore when it dries, which is why many prefer Conifers, Poplar, Aspen, etc. Get your air gun oiled up. ;D
I have used a lot of hardwood framing lumber because thats the trees I have. I use an 18 volt impact driver and deck screws to assemble hardwood together. As far was oak goes, white is stronger, harder, and more rot resistant. I actually think red cuts easier than white. Both should make good framing lumber as long as you stay away from the heart of the tree.
In addition to Owen and Jake's comments, the quality of the lumber is dependent upon the quality of the logs. Based upon your description of the red oak that you've sawn, you had some poor quality logs.
High quality red oak logs will produce clear lumber with minimal odor. Green moisture contents are similar between the two.
You need some larger logs...
What Scott said. Red Oak generally is easier to mill than white oak. The reason your red oak smelled bad, was because the logs were bad. None of what you are experiencing is the general thing to expect other than I do certainly agree that red oak grain is very nice when plain sawn, but white oak can be just as outstanding. Again, it all begins with the logs. Your log size is really closer to burning size than sawing size.
The longer you saw, the more generalities you'll come up with, but there will always be exceptions and adjustments to your way of thinking. That's experience, and no amount of reading can substitute for it. After a while, you'll notice things like a little discoloration or break in the bark and know to expect rot inside. And while some people like blue stain in pine, you'll learn to avoid it in oak. White oak and red oak are specific species, but the terms also represent the two groups of oaks. There are about 60 species in the white oak group, with widely varying properties. There are also about 50 species in the red oak group, which also vary in characteristics. Most of us on the Forum went through the same learning process you're experiencing, and we're all still learning. Enjoy, and keep sharing your ideas with the rest of us!
The small stuff (8-10") can be used to make posts and beams if they are really straight and clear. I get a lot of these in the second thinning that make really nice posts. When cut like that, the internal tension is balanced, so they usually don't move around that much. ;D
Most of the time, red oaks smell pretty good when cut. I'm guessing that you cut one with what is called wetwood, which is a bacterial infection. Those are MUY stinky... Doesn't seem to hurt the wood if it is ok otherwise, although I understand wetwood has a greater tendency to check and collapse when drying. ;D 8) 8) 8)
On those little logs try cutting a little over size then trimming down to actual size, especially the longer ones.
The orig log was 12'3" long, and I cut the 2x4s full length. Perhaps 1 5/8ths x 3 5/8ths. I need them to be somewhere around 9-0 to 9'6" long for the lean-to. So, I can cut excess from either this end or that, or both if there are ugly spots on both ends. The 2x4s will be the rafters, 24" o.c., supporting only a metal roof. If I am left with 22.5" waste, I may use it for blocking.
Oak will vary depending where it grows,are you sure you didn't confuse black oak with red.??I have cut some fine red oak.White is considered better for most use but not as abundant as red. Frank C.
All black oak is red oak.
All in all I like the white better
IMHO, I hope you don't cover all that Oak, red or white, in sheet-rock, that would be a shame :-\
DGD
If it is ugly lumber, why not cover it up? Good point if it is really nice. You could always sell the nicer hardwood and buy framing wood at the HD. ;D
Yeah, cheaper to buy 2x4's at the big box stores than to cut your own in most cases ;) and they're already planed smooth and generally straight, if you pick through the bad ones. I definitely see the attraction in cutting all of your framing lumber yourself though.
I usally cut three different oaks white oak [quercus alba] red oak [quercus rubra] and black oak [quercus velutina].The black oak is the least desireable and often has a pissy smell and loose knots.Black and red can and do hybridize in some areas.Common names can be a slippery slope when dealing with different sections of the country. Frank C.
Frank, black oak IS a red oak and there are two of those I know of, the california and eastern. Yours is most certainly the Eastern black oak Quercus velutina. Quercus rubra is a Northern Red Oak and both it and black oak are in the red oak group Quercus section Lobatae. There is no black oak group.
I don't think Frank was confused with regard to his oaks, although Red Oak is both a species name and the name of a specific sub species which can sometimes confuse those unfamiliar with nomenclature. In upstate NY, we cut black oaks for firewood. red oaks mostly went to the mills.
Both White and red oak can make good framing lumber, But it's a lot heavier than S-P-F. You'll have Popeyes arms in no time. ;) Member Paul case has done a lot of oak framing and seems to have had great results. With regard to hardness, The two types of Oak are similar in hardness. Not all oaks in the Red group are the same hardness as is true for the white oaks, although for marketing purposes, quercus alba (1360) is used for all the white oaks and quercus rubra (1290) is used for all the red oaks.
Frank...How would you ID a Hybridized oak? I know it happens among elms and walnuts. but I've never heard of natural crosses in oaks.
I do not believe there to be a species with the simple name "red oak" other than as a shortening of the name of an actual species, such as Northern Red Oak. If you say a black oak is not a red oak, or try and separate it from the red oaks you are then mistaken.
I am not trying to clarify this for Frank. Frank can refer to wood any way he wants, just like all of us do, but it needs to be clarified for people here that do not know, that may end up here while searching. They should not go away from this topic thinking black oak and red oak are two different classifications, when one is a species, (black) and the other is a classification (red). When you live in the land of many oaks as we do, it can be important to differentiate the species beyond calling them simply red oak and white oak.
On a different note, I've sawn some black oak over the years that was of very good quality, and once sawn, you would not have been able to visually distinguish it from Northern red in the same lot, but for the most part, Black oak is not normally near the quality of Northern Red Oak.
I used to buy logs in the Crossville, TN area. White Oak from there is generally of very high quality but the Red Oak from that area can have lots of issues;especially the Scarlet Oak. I suspect the Cumberland Plateau bedrock. We used to send a lot of Scarlet oak logs to the chip mill or mulch grinder.
Scarlet oak is more of a dry site species that does well on the drier, poorer soils. That is one reason that the wood quality is below par.
Many of the oaks have documented hybrids. In my woods there is a Quercus imbricata X Quercus rubra. It has big round leaves and at the very top you can see a few leaves that look like red oak.
Local customs and common names for trees vary,the folks I deal with know white ,red and black.There are members here that know much more than I,no more oak talk from me. Frank C.
mesquite buckeye...That's interesting. is there anything distinguishing about the lumber? is it sterile or can it reproduce?
I think you know plenty Frank... ;)
Frank, please try and understand the big picture here if you would. There is no reason to be that way. This forum potentially reaches everyone in the world. Not just your little corner or mine. I'm not trying to reeducate you or prove you wrong. You are not wrong. However you seem to be to stubborn to simply also agree that Black oak, IS a red oak, and that is all I am trying to make sure that people that come to this topic, named "Neophyte Opinion: White Oak Better Than Red Oak For Framing Lumber" realize, that when we mention black oak, it falls into the second of the two categories mentioned in the title of the topic and not a third.
Oaks are notoriously promiscuous. The crossing seems mostly limited within red oak group with other red oak group members, white oak group with other white oak group members. In the case of my hybrid, seems to me the tree has acorns that look like red oak acorns, but only half as big. If you look at your forest carefully, you may find "funny" looking oaks scattered about. If they seem halfway between two species, good chance they are hybrids between those species. The oak genus (really probably two genera from the crossing behavior) is still actively evolving, with gene transfer apparently pretty easy between species at least within the same group. ;D That is a good thing, with all the diseases and insects getting introduced from the rest of the world, we need all the genus diversity we can get to respond and keep oaks a part of our forests. :snowball:
To add to your point, Mesquite, northern red oak and shumard oak are very similar. The only difference is the depth of lobes on the leaf and the site they grow in. The acorns are exactly the same and the bark is almost exactly the same, too. Shumard is a high quality bottomland oak in the Coastal Plain while northern red oak does not venture below the Piedmont Plateau. He is a fine shumard oak in the swamp.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14370/Newshumard2.jpg)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14370/Newshumard1.jpg)
It was just shy of 5 feet in diameter and 141 feet tall. It was the Georgia state champion. Sadly, it blew over in a storm.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14370/oldshumard1.jpg)
Everything goes eventually. Hopefully some fabulous wood came from it.
Nope. Food for the worms. Too deep in the swamp to economically salvage.
That is very sad. I'm sure the worms and fungi don't agree.
That is too bad. Was rotten in the middle?
Soil types and location seem to make a lot of difference. I have had loggers want to mix in black oak with northern red oak on me for grade logs that come out of eastern Kansas. Both are classified red oaks, but the black oaks always had more knots, and a more red color. Then a guy I did business with in Nebraska wanted to bring me down some of his black oak logs. I said no, its never as good. He said trust me, these are. He had a sawmill, and never treated me wrong, so I said, bring it down. You couldn't tell the difference between that and a northern.
When I heard about the smell, the first thing that crossed my mind was pin oak. Which is in the red oak category technically. I don't know if it smells like that the country over, but you could swear every dog in the country stopped by and used that tree.
Lots going on here, my only thought, for what its worth, if one is using oak for framing lumber either one is fine, so long as it is not rotten or structurally defective, the ole timers used what was available and worked with it to a practical end. Many structures are still standing because of their use and techniques of oak, david
Quote from: WDH on August 13, 2013, 07:50:24 AM
Nope. Food for the worms. Too deep in the swamp to economically salvage.
This almost brought a tear to my eye :(
Ray,
Yes, some heart rot was present.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/14370/oldshumard2.jpg)
If it wouldve been easier to salvage, it probably wouldnt have got so big.
Yes, there is a reason that it was there.