I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that 
"backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not 
be correct.

[To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw 
terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the 
stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire 
inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".]

The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring 
method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, 
that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found.

I'm not sure that's correct.

First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, 
code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired 
bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the 
building codes tend to err on the side of caution.

My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed 
connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a 
house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was 
called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no 
current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any 
history of any such problems.

I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed 
connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal 
evidence, or just speculation and personal preference.

I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as 
tempting as they are (a lot faster than 
stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer 
the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad 
rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them 
(replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, 
on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this 
to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to 
automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, 
and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone.

Let the brawling commence.


-- 
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> 
> First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, 
> code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired 
> bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the 
> building codes tend to err on the side of caution.

They are allowed by the NEC because they are listed by UL.

UL used allow #12 wire in backstabs. Not anymore. Apparently their 
original standard was flawed. (How about the #12 backstabs in use?)

Seems like several failures come up here in this rather limited forum 
each year. IMHO they have minimal contact area, minimal clamping 
pressure, and in slightly adverse environments are subject to chemical 
deterioration. You will probably have no problem with backstabs. You 
also probably won't need the pressure relief valve on your water heater. 
I don't see any reason to take the chance.

-- 
bud--

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:44:23 GMT, s...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <4a85b217$0$7446$8...@news.adtechcomputers.com>, David Nebenzahl <n...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that 
>>"backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not 
>>be correct.
>>
>>[To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw 
>>terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the 
>>stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire 
>>inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".]
>>
>>The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring 
>>method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, 
>>that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found.
>>
>>I'm not sure that's correct.
>>
>>First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, 
>>code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired 
>>bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the 
>>building codes tend to err on the side of caution.
>
>Note that it is no longer approved for anything except AWG 14 conductors. Code 
>once permitted the use of AWG 12 conductors in backstabbed connections, as it 
>once permitted aluminum conductors in branch circuits and various other 
>practices and materials that have proven in experience to be less safe than 
>originally believed.
>>
>>My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed 
>>connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a 
>>house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was 
>>called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no 
>>current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any 
>>history of any such problems.
>
>If installed properly _and not disturbed_ it's unlikely they'll have much 
>problem. OTOH, if a backstabbed receptacle or switch is removed for any 
>reason, simply the act of moving the device can loosen the connections enough 
>to cause trouble.
>>
>>I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed 
>>connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal 
>>evidence, or just speculation and personal preference.
>
>I'd consider the de-listing of AWG 12 conductors to be sufficient evidence.

Solely anecdotal, but seems like quite a coincidence that I've had
problems with them staying connected, particularly in receptacles that
received frequent use (not taking out and working on, simply plugging
and unplugging of appliances). As a previous respondent said, if done
correctly and not disturbed... But if "anecdotally", merely using the
receptacle a lot in the manner intended is enough to cause such
disturbance, well, then it's not functioning as intended. 

Now, I don't have non-backstabbed ones with which to compare them, but
I can't fathom that a non-backstabbed receptacle would have done the
same. 

My amateur and anecdotal .02 worth.

"David Nebenzahl" <n...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message 
news:4a85b217$0$7446$8...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that 
> "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not be 
> correct.
>
> [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw 
> terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the 
> stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire 
> inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".]
>
> The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring 
> method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems, 
> that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found.
>
> I'm not sure that's correct.
>
> First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly, 
> code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired bad 
> as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the 
> building codes tend to err on the side of caution.
>
> My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed 
> connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a house 
> built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was called to 
> add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no current problem 
> with any device that I could see, nor was there any history of any such 
> problems.
>
> I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed 
> connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal evidence, 
> or just speculation and personal preference.
>
> I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as 
> tempting as they are (a lot faster than 
> stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer the 
> "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad rap. 
> Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them (replacing 
> backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them, on the theory 
> of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this to others. 
> Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to automatically 
> suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault, and to imply 
> that they should all be ripped out and redone.
>
> Let the brawling commence.
>
>
> -- 
> Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism


Turning a wire on a screw provides more surface area and more pressure on 
the connection. An installer can see how well the connection is made, unlike 
the blind connection of a backstab. I personally have used backstabs 
thousands of times without any issues. I have the experience to feel when 
the conductor is not fitting correctly in the blind clamp and needs to be 
redone. The bulk of my business is electrical repair, and a large number of 
open circuit problems turn out to be backstabbed outlets. I think some 
manufacturers make better backstab connections than others, as there have 
been times when I unscrew an outlet and pull it out of the box, leaving four 
wires, unattached in the box 

So, all the people who have had bad backstap experiences, 
we're all just random chance, and not evidence of a problem? 
Scuse me while I go barf.

-- 
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  www.lds.org
.


"David Nebenzahl" <n...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message 
news:4a85b217$0$7446$8...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets 
here--that
"backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to 
failure--may not
be correct.

[To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using 
screw
terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and 
switches, the
stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs 
the wire
inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".]

The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an 
inferior wiring
method that must always be suspected when there are 
electrical problems,
that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if 
found.

I'm not sure that's correct.

First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most 
importantly,
code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as 
all-fired
bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? 
After all, the
building codes tend to err on the side of caution.

My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown 
backstabbed
connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently 
worked on a
house built in the 1960s in which all devices were 
backstabbed. I was
called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There 
was no
current problem with any device that I could see, nor was 
there any
history of any such problems.

I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of 
backstabbed
connections. Everything I read here is either based on 
anecdotal
evidence, or just speculation and personal preference.

I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed 
connections; as
tempting as they are (a lot faster than
stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw 
connections), I prefer
the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an 
unfairly bad
rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting 
them
(replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I 
see them,
on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I 
suggest this
to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad 
advice to
automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source 
of a fault,
and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone.

Let the brawling commence.


-- 
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism 

I've seen several problems with backstab sockets, but few or 
none with wrap around the screw types.

-- 
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  www.lds.org
.


"albee" <a...@a.com> wrote in message 
news:l...@4ax.com...

Solely anecdotal, but seems like quite a coincidence that 
I've had
problems with them staying connected, particularly in 
receptacles that
received frequent use (not taking out and working on, simply 
plugging
and unplugging of appliances). As a previous respondent 
said, if done
correctly and not disturbed... But if "anecdotally", merely 
using the
receptacle a lot in the manner intended is enough to cause 
such
disturbance, well, then it's not functioning as intended.

Now, I don't have non-backstabbed ones with which to compare 
them, but
I can't fathom that a non-backstabbed receptacle would have 
done the
same.

My amateur and anecdotal .02 worth. 

"bud--" <r...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:e666b$4a85c95f$cde8d592$1...@DIALUPUSA.NET...

> They are allowed by the NEC because they are listed by UL.
>
> UL used allow #12 wire in backstabs. Not anymore. Apparently their
> original standard was flawed. (How about the #12 backstabs in use?)

The practical point is that (in many jurisdictions) the Fire Safety Code
is the only part of the Building Code that is retroactive, i.e. when
the FSC is updated (some) property owners may be obligated to
retrofit (some) structures or fittings so that they comply with the
current code.   (I do not know the American system, viz. whether
part or any of the NEC is also in the Fire Safety Code.   But codes
are periodically revised, so code authorities may require this
in future.)

-- 
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> 
> I'm here to say that the conventional wisdom that one gets here--that
> "backstabbed" wiring is bad, evil, and always leads to failure--may not
> be correct.
> 
> [To the perplexed, "backstabbed" means that instead of using screw
> terminals to connect wires to devices such as outlets and switches, the
> stripped (solid) wire is pushed into a connector that grabs the wire
> inside the device. Very commonly used "in the field".]
> 
> The opinion one reads here most often is that this is an inferior wiring
> method that must always be suspected when there are electrical problems,
> that it should be avoided and that it should be corrected if found.
> 
> I'm not sure that's correct.
> 
> First of all, it is an approved, UL/CSA tested, and, most importantly,
> code-approved (US building code) wiring method. If it was as all-fired
> bad as folks here claim, why would it still be allowed? After all, the
> building codes tend to err on the side of caution.
> 
> My own experience, as limited as it might be, has not shown backstabbed
> connections to be the source of any trouble. I recently worked on a
> house built in the 1960s in which all devices were backstabbed. I was
> called to add a circuit, not to correct any problems. There was no
> current problem with any device that I could see, nor was there any
> history of any such problems.
> 
> I'd like to see some more evidence for the badness of backstabbed
> connections. Everything I read here is either based on anecdotal
> evidence, or just speculation and personal preference.
> 
> I will say that I personally don't like backstabbed connections; as
> tempting as they are (a lot faster than
> stripping/bending/screwing/crimping using screw connections), I prefer
> the "old-school" method. But I do think they've gotten an unfairly bad
> rap. Furthermore, I refrain from automatically correcting them
> (replacing backstabbed connections with screwed ones) when I see them,
> on the theory of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and I suggest this
> to others. Especially newbies and DIYers; I think it's bad advice to
> automatically suspect backstabbed connections as the source of a fault,
> and to imply that they should all be ripped out and redone.
> 
> Let the brawling commence.
> 
> --
> Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

I've seen a number of problem push-wire / back-stabbed devices
personally, and they represent a sizable percentage of the number of
problem devices I've dealt with.

I have a house that happily has all 20A circuits with 12ga copper wire
(other than the larger dedicated circuits of course), and has many 12ga
push-wire connections that are no longer allowed. 

I've not had specific failures of these connections as the devices seem
to be of reasonable quality, however where I have had opportunity to
replace these devices for other reasons (adding GFCIs or changing to
Decora style devices) I have seen evidence of less than optimum
push-wire connections, i.e. discolored area at the connection point from
heating.

The devices I have used for replacement have generally been the "spec
grade" variety and have had the much better clamp type back-wire
connections. These back-wire connections allow the same convenience of
inserting the stripped wire in a hole without the need to wrap around a
screw, but instead of relying on a feeble spring connection the wire is
captured between full size metal plates that clamp around it with screw
pressure, not a spring. 

These back-wire devices also work nicely in my shop where I have
stranded wire pulled through conduit. Stranded wire doesn't work well
wrapped around screw terminals and not at all with the push-wire type
devices.

On 8/14/2009 6:05 PM Pete C. spake thus:

> The devices I have used for replacement have generally been the "spec
> grade" variety and have had the much better clamp type back-wire
> connections. These back-wire connections allow the same convenience of
> inserting the stripped wire in a hole without the need to wrap around a
> screw, but instead of relying on a feeble spring connection the wire is
> captured between full size metal plates that clamp around it with screw
> pressure, not a spring. 

You're talking about the kind of back-wire connections found on GFCI 
outlets, right? To me, that's the best of both worlds: the convenience 
and speed of back-wiring plus the positive connection offered by a screw 
clamp. I think I'll start using those outlets instead of the el cheapo 
Home Despot ones.

> These back-wire devices also work nicely in my shop where I have
> stranded wire pulled through conduit. Stranded wire doesn't work well
> wrapped around screw terminals and not at all with the push-wire type
> devices.

Being able to use stranded wire is definitely a plus.


-- 
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On 8/14/2009 6:18 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

> You're talking about the kind of back-wire connections found on GFCI 
> outlets, right? To me, that's the best of both worlds: the convenience 
> and speed of back-wiring plus the positive connection offered by a screw 
> clamp. I think I'll start using those outlets instead of the el cheapo 
> Home Despot ones.

Follow-up to my own reply: Do those "spec-grade" outlets come in 
non-Decora style? I generally don't like Decora outlets when installing 
in older houses.


-- 
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism