# Big box stores meteric sized materials



## roofner (Aug 1, 2010)

What are your standard size materials ? Examples 1X4 x 8 first 2 numbers are inches last is feet. Lengths 8,12,14 and 16 feet Widths increase by 2 inch,

up to 12. Thickness is 3/4 inch widths for planning vary from 1/2 to 3/4 inches. Then you have the 2x stock.


----------



## DaninVan (Jan 1, 2012)

Gary; what were the metric sizes you were referring to?
Up here, N. of 49, the plywood is marked as metric but is in fact the traditional Imperial sizing...
http://cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Plywood-Sizes.pdf


----------



## JOAT (Apr 9, 2010)

Standard size of materials, eh? Any size I can get, then I plane it to the size I want, or glue it up. Or use it on a different project.


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

Imperial measure still calls board sizes as 2 x 4, 6, 8, etc which is the rough sawn dimension as it would have been years ago on early mills. Our code is now in metric according to Canadian law and the actual size is listed in metric, such as 38mm x 89mm for a 2 x 4. I`ve seen sheets of things like melamine listed as 1220 by 2440mm instead of 4 by 8 so it`s probably a matter of time before the Imperial size stops being referred to. The US exports in things like sheet goods is already metric because they have to do that if they want to sell in world markets.


----------



## mgmine (Jan 16, 2012)

So tell me again why is metric better than imperial? They were able to land a man on the moon using imperial so to me that means it's good enough for the everyday Joe. Just like a rose by any other name is still a rose, an inch by any other name is still an inch. I can't imagine telling someone to go cut me a 2x4 4 feet 2 and a half inches long.


----------



## CharleyL (Feb 28, 2009)

mgmine said:


> So tell me again why is metric better than imperial? They were able to land a man on the moon using imperial so to me that means it's good enough for the everyday Joe. Just like a rose by any other name is still a rose, an inch by any other name is still an inch. I can't imagine telling someone to go cut me a 2x4 4 feet 2 and a half inches long.


Actually not quite right. All of the Apollo Program blueprints had both Imperial and Metric dimensions on them. However, most of the pieces were made to common imperial dimensions. It was transition time and some vendors were working in Metric and some (most) were working in Imperial. Fortunately for me, the electrical work required very little of either dimensional measurements. Volts, Amps, and Ohms remained the same.

BTDT

Charley


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

roofner said:


> What are your standard size materials ? Examples 1X4 x 8 first 2 numbers are inches last is feet. Lengths 8,12,14 and 16 feet Widths increase by 2 inch,
> 
> up to 12. Thickness is 3/4 inch widths for planning vary from 1/2 to 3/4 inches. Then you have the 2x stock.


Gary, 1"x 4" x 8' = 25 x 100 x 2400 mm*

1/2"=12.5mm, 3/4"=19mm, 1"=25mm and 2"=50mm

*2400mm=2.4meters

I hope this helps.


----------



## sunnybob (Apr 3, 2015)

I spent 60 years working in imperial measurements.
I moved to a metric country, and after 10 years here have almost completely converted, even in my mind.
I now have 4 metric tape measures and only 1 very old one showing imperial
I can now guesstimate metric sizes up to a foot much easier than before.
But I'm 6ft 2" and I dont think I will ever consider myself to be 1.879 metres.

however, working with metric measures is amazingly simple compared to numbers like 3/64ths and I am happy to stay metric.


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

mgmine said:


> So tell me again why is metric better than imperial? They were able to land a man on the moon using imperial so to me that means it's good enough for the everyday Joe. Just like a rose by any other name is still a rose, an inch by any other name is still an inch. I can't imagine telling someone to go cut me a 2x4 4 feet 2 and a half inches long.


Not true. NASA switched to metric way, way back. They found it was less prone to make math errors since everything is a multiple of 10. There was an official date when they announced it but insiders said that it was actually years earlier. When I studied physics at the University of Alabama between 68 and 71 everything was taught in metric. The engineering students were still using Imperial units I was told.

By the way, the inch was set to 25.4mm in length officially somewhere around 1939. When Britain went to war with Germany the US helped by making parts for .303 rifles but there was just enough differences between their inch and the US inch that if the parts were at maximum out of tolerance limits in opposite directions the parts wouldn`t work. So they got together and decided to standardize the lengths at 25.4mm. You`ve been working with a metric inch all your life Art.

And that highlights another issue with Imperial measure, namely there isn`t just one of them. For example, the British and Canadian gallons were 20% larger than the US one with 160 ounces vs. 128 (4.55 L vs. 3.79 L). Both were 4 pints but 40 vs. 32 ounces each. 

Metric is the same everywhere in the universe since it`s based on a few physical constants such as the length of a specific wavelength of light and the mass of a liter of water which is also equal to 1000 cubic centimeters in volume. The US standards are kept in an underground vault in Washington and they`ve had to convert to metric equivalents anyway as they found out that those standards have been losing mass over the decades so aren`t reliable anymore.


----------



## Gene Howe (Jul 10, 2007)

In my shop, neither are used. If it fits, nail it. Well, that might be a slight bit of over simplification. However, I do try to avoid any measuring device with numbers. But then, I don't build space craft or even pianos.


----------



## JFPNCM (Dec 13, 2009)

@Cherryville Chuck

It may “have been less prone to errors” but don’t forget what happened to one of the Mars missions when the two measures were confused.


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

Search for Gimli glider while you`re at it. That`s why I only use tape measures with one or the other but not both. Metric will completely replace Imperial. It`s just a matter of time.


----------



## MEBCWD (Jan 14, 2012)

I grew up using Imperial inch measurements. Then in drafting classes, we also did some drawings in metric.

Then I worked for 15 years in land and construction survey where we used decimal feet for measurement. I got where I used decimal feet for projects like fences and decks and home repairs and still do for outside projects.

I was a partner in a furniture business for 8 years and used Imperial inches to build and repair furniture. 

Went to work building one of a kind custom aircraft cabinetry where we used decimal inches and that is what I use in my shop for projects now. My triangles and scales or rulers are 16r scale which is hundredths and fiftieths on one side and 32nds and 64ths on the other side. Also works out great for CNC design software. I still use decimal feet for outside projects.


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

MEBCWD said:


> I grew up using Imperial inch measurements. Then in drafting classes, we also did some drawings in metric.
> 
> Then I worked for 15 years in land and construction survey where we used decimal feet for measurement. I got where I used decimal feet for projects like fences and decks and home repairs and still do for outside projects.
> 
> ...


It`s easy because it`s in units of ten, same as metric.


----------



## Stick486 (Jan 4, 2013)

here we go again...
or is this a continuation???


----------



## TenGees (Sep 12, 2012)

How's that saying go? The great thing about standards is that there's so many of them.


----------



## MEBCWD (Jan 14, 2012)

Cherryville Chuck said:


> It`s easy because it`s in units of ten, same as metric.


That is exactly why I use them. Just makes life easier.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

Stick486 said:


> here we go again...
> or is this a continuation???


I'm sure it will be a continuation until the whole world goes metric.


----------



## Danman1957 (Mar 14, 2009)

Certain Industries are still using the Imperial system and the 2 that I am quite familiar with are steel and lumber. I sold steel for more than 35 years and although some imports are in Metric, most domestic mills use Imperial. I now sell and all log handling equipment to sawmills, paper mills panel mills, Biomass and wood pellets. They all use the Imperial system and the Government can't stop them for one good reason, Canadian mills sell MOSTLY to US customers. They won't keep dual inventories for products that are literally the same. So lumber is still referred to as 2 x... or 1 x ... etc...
The Metric system is easier to work with and more precise, but for some people who were educated in Imperial, the conversion of thinking is not so easy. (myself included, still more comfortable with Imperial but can use and understand Metric.) As long as the USA remains Imperial, Canada will follow to insure we keep the trade flowing !


----------



## DaninVan (Jan 1, 2012)

It's not for nuthin' that they call them '*yarders*'...


----------



## Gene Howe (Jul 10, 2007)

DaninVan said:


> It's not for nuthin' that they call them '*yarders*'...


Not familiar with that term. Those logs look a bit longer than 36" .


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

Yard as a verb as in `to pull`. Also called high leads. The type of logging most suitable for steep ground.

Danman I`ve heard that Tolko Lavington mill sometimes cuts metric sized wood for the Japanese markets. Three brothers started that mill, one was the money manager, one was a forester, and the third was an engineer. I knew the forester one and he told once that his engineer brother designed that mill so that it could be quickly changed to cut specialty products and there have been times when the Japanese markets were quite lucrative. One of the reasons they went from a small local operation to 3rd largest in Canada in about 60 years.


----------



## JOAT (Apr 9, 2010)

harrysin said:


> I'm sure it will be a continuation until the whole world goes metric.


You can count on one thing, the world can't go 100% metric until after I shuffle off this mortal coil, 'cause I ain't changing.


----------



## harrysin (Jan 15, 2007)

You're going to be very lonely Theo.


----------



## Danman1957 (Mar 14, 2009)

They are a key player in the west Chuck, and I saw on the maps that they have plants in my territories, I will be visiting Tolko and Weiyerheuser and many more when I travel out west. For now I am only about half way through Quebec. Ontario and Quebec have at least 375 potential and clients to visit. I love my new job, this week I saw two herds of Deere near a river in Coaticook Quebec, beautiful country. And to think, they are paying me to do what I love, traveling !!! and meeting new people.


----------



## roofner (Aug 1, 2010)

That's interesting that material basically still imperial measure with all complaints. Metric would be more accurate . Because I work in 1/16 or .o62 of an inch. Millimeters is 1/25 of an inch would be .040 of an inch .


----------



## Stick486 (Jan 4, 2013)

simple..
don't mix...
don't convert..
work in one or the other..
but not both unless you own a Ford..
keep it KISS/MISS..


----------



## JFPNCM (Dec 13, 2009)

@Stick486

You mean one of the Fix Or Repair Daily vehicles.


----------



## Stick486 (Jan 4, 2013)

Found On Road Dead...


----------



## mgmine (Jan 16, 2012)

CharleyL said:


> Actually not quite right. All of the Apollo Program blueprints had both Imperial and Metric dimensions on them. However, most of the pieces were made to common imperial dimensions. It was transition time and some vendors were working in Metric and some (most) were working in Imperial. Fortunately for me, the electrical work required very little of either dimensional measurements. Volts, Amps, and Ohms remained the same.
> 
> There has been a lot of talk about the moon recently and metric was not used to get there in 1969. NASA has agreed to use metric not because it is better but because the rest of the world uses it and they want to keep things standard. But I still use my argument that a rose by any other name is still a rose. For every imperial measurement, there is a metric one. Tear a piece of paper out of a notebook and measure it in inches. Then measure it in metric. Has the size changed? So is it easier to ask for a 2x4 6 feet 2 and a 1/2 inches long or the same thing in metric size? Imagine that you had to pay based on the amount of numbers that something measured,
> https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/08jan_metricmoon/


----------



## firesurfer (Nov 9, 2018)

Umm, not to throw any wrenches around, but the US doesn't use the Imperial system. We use the "customary" or "standard" system. I'm not going to explain, the wiki does it better. There are several key differences. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

From that Wiki article:

"The NAD27 was replaced in the 1980s by the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), which is defined in meters. The SPCSs were also updated, but the National Geodetic Survey left the decision of which (if any) definition of the foot to use to the individual states. All SPCSs are defined in meters, but seven states also have SPCSs defined in US survey feet and an eighth state in international feet: the other 42 states use only meter-based SPCSs.[10]

State legislation is also important for determining the conversion factor to be used for everyday land surveying and real estate transactions, although the difference (2 ppm) is of no practical significance given the precision of normal surveying measurements over short distances (usually much less than a mile). Twenty-four states have legislated that surveying measures should be based on the US survey foot, eight have legislated that they be made on the basis of the international foot, and eighteen have not specified the conversion factor from metric units.[10] "

And all you inch guys wonder why Harry and I make fun of your reluctance to let go.


----------



## firesurfer (Nov 9, 2018)

US does not use the imperial system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

"There are anecdotal objections to the use of metric units in carpentry and the building trades, on the basis that it is easier to remember an integer number of inches plus a fraction than a measurement in millimeters, or that foot-inch measurements are more suitable when distances are frequently divided into halves, thirds and quarters, often in parallel. The metric system also lacks a parallel to the foot."

The Metric Conversion Act is an Act of Congress that U.S. President Gerald Ford signed into law on December 23, 1975. It declared the metric system "the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce", but permitted the use of United States customary units in all activities. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Conversion_Act
Sorry for the double post.


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

"There are anecdotal objections to the use of metric units in carpentry and the building trades, on the basis that it is easier to remember an integer number of inches plus a fraction than a measurement in millimeters, or that foot-inch measurements are more suitable when distances are frequently divided into halves, thirds and quarters, often in parallel. The metric system also lacks a parallel to the foot."

That statement, wherever it came from is absolute nonsense. Trying to remember an integer-fraction combination and then divide it by any other integer is far more difficult when none of the systems they fall in are mathematics to the base 10. Inch fractions are normally in base 16, inch feet are to base 12, and feet yard is base 3. There is nothing simpler about that. That's why the French Royal Academy changed it to something that did make sense in 1792.


----------



## JOAT (Apr 9, 2010)

harrysin said:


> You're going to be very lonely Theo.


No I'm not, I don't let anyone in my shop anyway, it's no one else's business what I measure with anyway. So it's Imperial all the way.


----------



## JOAT (Apr 9, 2010)

Cherryville Chuck said:


> And all you inch guys wonder why Harry and I make fun of your reluctance to let go.


I am 78, used inches all my life. I would only wonder if you guys actually thought I would change now.


----------



## DaninVan (Jan 1, 2012)

Not me Theo; Imperial has worked just fine for me.
When was the last time you heard someone say "Give him a centimeter and he'll take a kilometer." 
Or "centimeter worm'.


----------



## Herb Stoops (Aug 28, 2012)

I use Imperial 99% of the time. I do use metric for setting up cuts of fractions of an inch a lot of the time. But I am like Gene Howe, I mark and cut ,no measuring involved, when ever possible.

I could never build a house in metric, that is for certain. I could never do concrete work in metric. But setting grades in .1or .01 of a foot is not a problem. Doing metal work in .001" is a no brainer either. 
Herb


----------



## Geoff Sims (Dec 27, 2018)

*I use Metric*

I was raised on Imperial but changed over to metric during my teens. Nothing can be simpler than units in multiples of ten. Anyway, to me metric is natural. If we were designed to use imperial we'd have six digits on each hand instead of five.


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

Herb Stoops said:


> I use Imperial 99% of the time. I do use metric for setting up cuts of fractions of an inch a lot of the time. But I am like Gene Howe, I mark and cut ,no measuring involved, when ever possible.
> 
> I could never build a house in metric, that is for certain. I could never do concrete work in metric. But setting grades in .1or .01 of a foot is not a problem. Doing metal work in .001" is a no brainer either.
> Herb


I often switch over to metric for dividing up pieces too because it's so much easier dividing tenths instead of odd fractions. And I also transfer measures when possible. Machinists have to work in decimal. There's no accurate way to divide fractions to get down to 1000ths or 10,000ths accuracy.

As far as concrete goes it's much easier to calculate in metric and it's sold here in M3 already. They'll do the conversion for you if you don't know what that works out to in Imperial. An average slab would be 100mm thick. If you were going to have heavy traffic over it you might want to go 150mm. A footing would be 150 to 200mm thick. A pad for a weight bearing column should be around 300 thick. A cubic meter (actually metre) is 1000 mm by 1000 mm by 1000mm so I don't know how to make it more simple than that.


----------



## DaninVan (Jan 1, 2012)

Yeh, but eveyone uses common lumber for forming grade level slabs, ie 3 1/2 or 5 1/2 inches thick.


----------



## Herb Stoops (Aug 28, 2012)

Cherryville Chuck said:


> I often switch over to metric for dividing up pieces too because it's so much easier dividing tenths instead of odd fractions. And I also transfer measures when possible. Machinists have to work in decimal. There's no accurate way to divide fractions to get down to 1000ths or 10,000ths accuracy.
> 
> As far as concrete goes it's much easier to calculate in metric and it's sold here in M3 already. They'll do the conversion for you if you don't know what that works out to in Imperial. An average slab would be 100mm thick. If you were going to have heavy traffic over it you might want to go 150mm. A footing would be 150 to 200mm thick. A pad for a weight bearing column should be around 300 thick. A cubic meter (actually metre) is 1000 mm by 1000 mm by 1000mm so I don't know how to make it more simple than that.


It sounds complicated to me, LOL. I would go crazy ordering snap ties and rebar,and figuring proper pick points and pick point inserts for tilt ups,aggregate mixes, in metric, phew, makes me tired already,time for a nap.

Herb


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

DaninVan said:


> Yeh, but eveyone uses common lumber for forming grade level slabs, ie 3 1/2 or 5 1/2 inches thick.


3.5"= 90mm
5.5"= 140mm

Not hard at all.


----------



## Herb Stoops (Aug 28, 2012)

Cherryville Chuck said:


> 3.5"= 90mm
> 5.5"= 140mm
> 
> Not hard at all.


Why is everything MM? what about CM. or DM? Do they notate fractions of a meter,or what is smaller than a mm? I would go bongers trying to remember hundreds and thousands of mm.
Time for another nap to recuperate from my brain strain.
Herb


----------



## jw2170 (Jan 24, 2008)

Stick486 said:


> Found On Road Dead...





Found on Rubbish Dump.....:wink:


----------



## jw2170 (Jan 24, 2008)

From my observations, US uses mainly metric in Govt circles anyway.... Even the cops measure drugs in grams/kilos.....And Winnbeago use metric on their assembly line....


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

Herb Stoops said:


> Why is everything MM? what about CM. or DM? Do they notate fractions of a meter,or what is smaller than a mm? I would go bongers trying to remember hundreds and thousands of mm.
> Time for another nap to recuperate from my brain strain.
> Herb


Decimeters aren't commonly used, at least not anywhere I've been where metric was used, but millimeters, centimeters and meters are all common and of course we measure road distances in kilometers and meters and speed in kph. If you only need about 3/8" accuracy then centimeters and meters are good enough. If you need better than that then you need millimeters too which gets you down to 1/25th of an inch which is good enough for woodworking. I ran a CNC beam saw in a cabinet factory for a while where all the cuts were metric and the machine was programmed in metric and that was it's accuracy limit.


----------



## DaninVan (Jan 1, 2012)

Cherryville Chuck said:


> 3.5"= 90mm
> 5.5"= 140mm
> 
> Not hard at all.


My point is, the conversion is pointless in forming grade level slabs. The forming lumber almost always dictates the actual thickness.
What a waste of time and material trying to make a 100mm sidewalk!
Of course one could make a screed of the metric thickness and level the base material to the measured depth, but in the case of a sidewalk you'd need to use 2x6" forming material rather than 2x4". Why would you?
Oh right, 'cause the Architect (who's never personally formed anything) called for a 100mm sidewalk thickness...):surprise:


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

Dan your argument reminds me of a member we had who joined into Harry's "Stupidity of Imperial Measure" thread who complained that 11 mm was .433" instead of the .435 that 7/16 equaled.

In Imperial you have to first calculate how many cubic inches you have. That means you may have to convert your width and length measurements to inches also otherwise it doesn't work. Now that you have all your cubic inches measured you divide by 144 to get cubic feet. But concrete (was sold here) by the cubic yard so you need to divide the cubic feet by 9 to get cubic yards. (When you go through all the steps and SAY THEM OUT LOUD it really does sound stupid doesn't it?) Why don't you just move the decimal point around instead and make the calculation in metric. Far less room for error.

I suppose you could convert every Imperial measure to feet plus decimal inches which would maybe make the calculation a bit simpler but not much.


----------



## JFPNCM (Dec 13, 2009)

And don’t forget those that work in hundredths of a foot. I remember well those days working on Bureau of Reclamation jobs. Not bad once you had a tape of your own to work with.


----------



## Herb Stoops (Aug 28, 2012)

JFPNCM said:


> And don’t forget those that work in hundredths of a foot. I remember well those days working on Bureau of Reclamation jobs. Not bad once you had a tape of your own to work with.


We still do laying out buildings and setting benchmarks and elevations. But they are still in feet so converting them to inches is not hard.

I have never figured conc in meters, not sure how hard/easy that might be.

Meters are easier to figure maybe, but when you are raised in imperial ,metric is hard to visualize. I can tell by a glance if something is out of level by 1/8", but could not tell you how many mm it is off. The same with distance, I can visualize how many feet something is, but never how many meters it is.

Herb


----------



## DaninVan (Jan 1, 2012)

Charles; for sidewalks I just use .33 as a depth factor (1/3 of a foot with fudge factor) L in ft. X .33' X W in ft. (normally 2, 2.5, or 3 = cu. ft./27 = cu. yds.


----------



## Herb Stoops (Aug 28, 2012)

Better to be a scoop too much than a shovel full shy.
Just saying,
Herb


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

Herb Stoops said:


> We still do laying out buildings and setting benchmarks and elevations. But they are still in feet so converting them to inches is not hard.
> 
> I have never figured conc in meters, not sure how hard/easy that might be.
> 
> ...


1/8"= a bit more than 3mm so 3 is close enough for estimation. Same goes for meter and yard. A cubic meter is about 10 1/4 cubic feet instead of 9. 15 meters is pretty close to 50 feet. 100 meters is about 110 yards, a little longer than the US football field. Close to the same as the Canadian field. Not hard at all.

When I worked hauling water in the oil patch everything was metric. When a rig supervisor asked me how much water I had on he wanted to know in cubic meters (cubes for short). The tandem I was driving would hold 16 cubes which was about 3600 gallons, but I don't remember whether that was our gallon or yours.


----------



## DaninVan (Jan 1, 2012)

*Stretching Concrete*



Herb Stoops said:


> Better to be a scoop too much than a shovel full shy.
> Just saying,
> Herb


Been there...paid the bill! :crying:


----------



## mgmine (Jan 16, 2012)

Geoff Sims said:


> I was raised on Imperial but changed over to metric during my teens. Nothing can be simpler than units in multiples of ten. Anyway, to me metric is natural. If we were designed to use imperial we'd have six digits on each hand instead of five.


Start counting your fingers backwards on your left hand 10,9 8 7 6. Now count your right hand 1,2,3,4,5. add them together and you get 11 so now we have a problem. Do you have 5 or 6 fingers?:grin:


----------

