I recently bought a new place with a wood stove which needs the Fire Bricks replaced. I have read they reduce heat generation in the room and might not be needed. (More efficient without but possibly more dangerous?)

What is the communities thoughts on this matter?

I have a few theories but I'm to noob to know and want an unbiased feedback from the SE community.


Some google reads...




Stoves designed for firebricks should have them.

Stove metal can be corroded and burn through if incorrectly used.

This can be caused by poor combustion due to wet wood or poor draught.

As the OP needs more...

I have bought and fitted 4 wood stoves (2 small and 1 cooking range which all came with firebricks as standard) and looked after several others, some of which were heavy cast iron without firebricks but had a longer path for the gasses to get proper combustion.

This youtube video shows one similar to some I used:

Jotul stove

And the hunting scenes always give character...

As for burning wet wood, it is the fastest way to damage a woodstove - I had to rebuild one for someone after two seasons - the gasses are seriously corrosive.

This is why everyone who knows what they ate talking about suggest that the wood is dreied for two years before burning. Also, knowing what type of wood you have is crucial : elm is poor to burn while oak (well seasoned) is pure gold.

Here is a list (easy to find others), which defines wood types:

burning woods

  • 1
    Also, stoves that are not designed for brick do not need it. Danger is in the eye of the beholder; hot iron stoves heat spaces very efficiently... Jun 29 '19 at 3:48
  • I'm not ready to accept an answer, two reasons, I want to give more time for alternate answers and B) I feel your answer seems based on opinion. Can you back up your statements? Jun 29 '19 at 5:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.