Why the resistance to metric calibers? Instead of a 7x64 we have the 280 Remington? Instead of a 6.5X57 we have a 260 Remington etc. Why a 338-06 when we could have a 9.3x62? I don't get it.

I don't know about the others, but we do have the 9.3X62. I think getting American made cases is the only problem with it since there are American companies that produce bullets for it, Barnes and Nosler come to mind. Also, there is a difference between the 338-06 and the 9.3X62. The 338-06 is obviously .338 caliber and the 9.3X62 is a .366.

Unless of course you just want everything to be metric.

1. A lot of the so-called "metric cartridges" are just the metric dimensions of cartridges designed in England or the USA.

2. There is nothing inherently good about the metric system. It is an arbitrary base 10 system devised on the orders of Napolean for his plans to conquer the world. As a devout Francophile, he did not want to use the English system, which was actually a binary system descended from surveying and architectural ratios worked out by the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks.

What do Liberia, Burma, and the United States have in common?

They are the only three countries on the planet that have not officially adopted the metric (SI) system of measurement.

We reloaders are truly anachronisms: Who else on the planet still uses grains for powder and bullets, or dram equivalent for shotshell charges? I still half expect muzzle velocities to pop up expressed in furlongs per fortnight.

its under 900 miles from my front door to Colorado Springs.........1,400 kilometers just sounds depressing

BMT

But you get to drive 100 instead of 60.

Because this is the United States of God Damn America. We don't use metric, and we shouldn't have to push 1 if we want to talk in English

Here here.

denton, I believe the U.S. is now the only country not using metric.

Many countries adopted metric early on because their own measurement systems were corrupt or inconsistent. This was why the metric system was created in France. Measures of the same name represented different physical quantities in different provinces and even among different merchants in one town. The UK and the US had a more consistent system standardized across the country earlier on, which was why the metric system was slow to be taken up there. The UK Imperial system was quite regular, with a number of measurements inspired by the techniques of the metric system. The vast US market allows many manufacturers to market soley in the US, something not true of the UK, which is why the UK went metric sooner.

As it is, much (most?) of US industry has adopted metric. The rest of the country (the consumers) will change in time, but it may be some time, for traditions die hard when there is no pressing need.

With the US so dominant in firearms, the English measures are recognized worldwide, not that are liked. I see no reason to claim US shooters reject metric cartridges. The 7 Mauser, 6.5 Swedish, and even the native 7-308 are all popular.

A curious thing about the metric system: the arbitrary unit of length (which gives us the km) was based on the metric angular measure, which no country adopted. If consistent to the original plan, the correct unit of distance is that of the old mariner's, namely the nautical mile (which is used in international aviation to this day).

It's been proven that the 280 Remington will outperform the 6.5X5 in America. In Europe7 Who knows.

Personally, I can't get used to thinking in terms of milimeters, centimeters, etc.

The Metric System was invented by the French. 'Nuff said.

I think snap-on,crafstmen,and mac pay lobbyist to make us buy both types of wrenches lolol
FRANCE SUX too

Oh ya baby!!!!!!! Thats what I'm talkin about!!!!!!

Don't pour honey all over it.Tell it like it is!!!!!

Well, the 6.5x5 maybe, but the 6.5x55 is a much more potent round...

I think what will happen in the US is something very natural: The people will decide for themselves which system they prefer. Right now, the old system is so entrenched that a lot of people don't want to change.

Mechanics now have to keep two sets of wrenches, because cars have both metric and SAE bolts. You can buy beverages by the liter here. Because we have to do business with the rest of the world, some of us have to be fluent in metric.

If more people end up liking that system, we will change. If they don't, we won't.

Personally, I very much prefer the metric system, but, as I have noted, there are 5.5 billion people in the world, and most of them won't do what I tell them.

Make that: Not a dang one of them will do what I tell them.

A whimisical look at metric temperature:

30 is hot,
20 is nice.
10 is cold, and
0 is ice.

your 100 kilometers an hour speed limit up there is a pain in the rear...........i do that on gravel roads.......pavement starts at 75mph

Doesn't it have much to do with escaping to this country from the British by the founders of this country? If the metric system was devised by France, well, that's just a perfect reason to NEVER, EVER, EVER adopt it...

I hate the metric system. It has no reference points for me. I know what a foot, a yard and a mile look like. I couldn't care less about a meter or kilometer.

Even though many manufacturing companies actually do use metric bolts/nuts etc. in their machines..

I still hate it.

Another problem in going metric in America is all of our machinery is designed and operates on the English system. Just consider the huge cost of converting everything to metric.
I know all bearings are metric, and always have been as far as I know.

Don

Too stubborn.

Another good reason not to: America-hating whining butt-wipe Jimmy Carter wanted it.

Perhaps the best reason of all but, after using the metric system more and more, I've come to see that it's pretty easy. Everything is in multiples of 10 (I think).

As a tool and die maker, I deal with the metric system daily.

The most used numbers on my pocket calculator are .03937.

I don`t know. Milimeters, centimeters and Kilometers sound like bugs to me.I can`t quite get myself to look at a steak and think of it as being 3cm thick......

That's one of my favorite theories too....

Casey

The only time I use metric is when I am dealing with map and compas because a unit of 10 makes it unnecessary for me to take off my boots to count. So long as ya don't even THINK miles it is easier. BUTTT 8 KM = 5 miles

In my line of work we constantly go back and forth...
grams to pounds, pascals to psi, BTUs to joules, etc.
Gets old sometimes!!

1 cubic centimeter equals one milliliter equals one gram of water, and it takes one calorie to raise one gram of water one degree.

It may be tough to admit, but if the French designed this system, then they got at least one thing right.

Oh, there is that kissing thing, and French toast, and French fries and a couple of cute actresses I can think of.

THIS IS AMERICA. WE HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE! Use the one you want and let the rest of us do the same!

GOD BLESS AMERICA

8mmwapiti

Being a Canuck born in the early 70's I have been fortunately forced to be relatively fluent in Metric and Imperial Measure.

Around the house I measure in inches utill the fractions get less than 1/8th, then I am down to millimetres. I will always drive xxKm at xxKm/hour. I will by gas at xx.x cents per litre $x.xx dollars per gallon scares me.

I have no idea why we measure fuel economy in Litres per 100 km. I think it's dumb.

I will always been xx lbs in weight and 5 foot 11 3/4 inches tall (and that missing 1/4 inch is a sore point with me).

I guess some will always stick solely to imperial, especially in the US because for some it is a point of pride. However when it comes to something really important the US is very metric, and that is money. Except for nickles, quarters and 5 dollar bills every thing is base 10 which is metric. Kind of funny eh?

It is a real joy navigating at low level when you maps are based on kilometers and your airspeed indicator reads knots. Stupid metric system.

I love combinations of measuring systems...example: European Shotgun Shells, i.e. 12/70, taking what amounts to a fractional/non-decimal measure of a Pound, and expressing its length in millimeters.



You would probably like a book by John Allen Paulos called Innumeracy. In it, he mentioned things such as expressing the rate of hair growth in miles per hour, and how many of his students are skeptical that such expressions can be made. Furlongs per fortnight.....I will resist converting my velocity figures to this. I hope.

The US is more metric that you are led to believe. All food products are listed in metric weights or measures. So, we still talk about miles and gallons, but who cares? The Canadians still think pounds and quarts when buying food and milk, after 25 years.

I function just fine in either system, but outside of the sciences, there really is no benefit to working in grams vs. pounds. So what if we go to metric. Are we all going to throw out our cup measures for gram scales? Heck, even the Europeans use marked measures to convert the weights in their cookbooks to volume quantities!

Then again, at the hatcheries, I have trained all my managers to work in grams on the small stuff, simply because the bone-heads can't remember if there are 12 or 16 ounces to a pound....... LOL!

In Europe we use the metric system, but we also talk about 30-06, 308win,375H&H.And americans also talks about 9.3x62 and 6.5x55.
When reloading almost everyone everyone talks about grains.But when I measure velocity I use most m/s, but also f/s .
And when talking about scopes everyone says a 40mm scope, I have never seen an american talking about a 11/2" scope.

So you can't say americans don't use the metric system, they use both.

The English system, having evolved from engineering practice, is a much more intuitive and has more meaningful units than the metric system, which was has some similar units (meter vs yard), but most of the rest are less useful. For example, a millimeter is still not fine enough for carpentry, much less cabinet making or metalwork. Neither is 0.1 millimeter. But 0.01 millimeter is too fine for fine woodwork, and not fine enough still for fine metalwork. So they have to use fractional metrics.

The metric system derives liquid measurements from the cubic centimeter, yielding the liter, which is close to a quart.

The English system starts with the volumetric measurements of gallon for wet and bushel for dry, and does not try to make them fit cubic inches. Again, the subunits are binary - you just keep halving the measure, which is very practical for a balance scale, and something that doesn't work in metric.

A calorie is a nice small unit of heat energy for a serving of food, but a Btu ( heating one pound of water one degree F ) is much more comprehensible and practical for engineering calculations.

Metric countries still use the English system of time, which relates directly to the English system of measurement.

metric sucks because when dealing with temperature a 3 degree change in celcius is a LOT of change. It tells me nothing of how hot or cold out it is. Unlike 60 degrees F is coolish and 75 degrees is warm. a 15 degree change in celcius is HOT to freezing! no wiggle room. I hate it.

Also for me there is no reference point for how long a meter is or a kilometer or centimeter.

If the USA converted to metric, it would mean virtually everybody would have to inventory both metric and standard parts and tools for many many years. Overlap for repairs of older equipment would be very costly unless everybody agreed to not fix anything older than the metric conversion date.

In time the US will be converted whether they want to or not. Examine any new car and see how many of the components are now metric due to the sale of vehicles all over the world.
We have had metric in Canada for about 35 years now. I am still more comfortable working in Imperial measure. My children, however, who are in their forties don't understand what I am referring to when I mention temperatures in Imperial.
Most in the US forget their government reneged on their word to go metric with the rest of the continent back in the 70's. If they had done so the confusion would mostly have been gone within the next 10 or 20 years. Like it or not the change will come.

Obviously, some of them were brought up on the Troy system....or maybe they are just boneheads.

"What do Liberia, Burma, and the United States have in common?

They are the only three countries on the planet that have not officially adopted the metric (SI) system of measurement."

Not quite.

The metric system was instituted in France in 1795 and made mandatory by King Louis XVI.

Napoleon did not become Emperor until 1805.

In 1812 Napoleon suspended the mandatory provisions of the metric system making its use optional.

In 1840 France once again made it mandatory.

In 1866 the US made use of the metric system optional while making it unlawful to refuse to trade or deal in metric quantities.

We hate what we don't understand.

"...French toast, and French fries ..."

French fries and french toast are NOT french.

I beg to differ. The metric system is MUCH easier to use; you just move a decimal point and you've got a new descripter. With fractions and decimals, it is more difficult. The metric system is a logical system that makes scientific sense; the English (or American) system) requires the use of mathmatics to convert fractions of an inch into inches, inches into feet, feet into yards, yards into miles, ounces into pounds, etc.

I was employed at the US Department of Transportation 30 years ago and worked on the metric conversion program. The resistance came from the public (too difficult to learn - not true, but an objection) to local public agencies (all land measurements, such as real estate records are English and conversion would be expensive).

All other countries have adopted the metric system, as have all companies that sell in the international market (e.g., GM, Boeing, IBM, Catipiller, etc.). This is important if they are to remain competitive and keep jobs at home (well, some of them).

I still say that converting all of our machines and tooling to metric would be a huge cost, for every industry using heavy machines.

Don

Strange how the 264 Winchester fizzled and the 7mm Magnum caught on in a big way? A fluke I guess. I think my 35 Whelen is actually a 9x63, either way I like it best of all. Although the 9.3X64 Brenneke would have suited me just as well for bear and moose. I don't think you could buy shells for that at Fleet Farm though.
whelennut

I believe there's a certain amount of inferiority complex involved in the metric/US standard measurement system debate.

Yes, sometimes the arithmetic is easier for the metric system. But sometimes its easier with the US or British systems (they're not the same; its an amusing read as to why, and you'll find out why there is more than one standard US Foot). The "King's anatomy" system makes it easy to divide by 2, 3, and 4. A 4x8 ft sheet of plywood can be divided into thirds nicely without fractions for example.

But folks in Britain and then America managed to dominate the world economy using the King's anatomy, so how bloody hard is it really? If your lathe operator can't convert 13/64" to 0.203125", do you really want him operating a somewhat dangerous power tool? Ironically, while we Americans keep dumbing down mathematics education in our public schools, countries like Singapore are teaching statistics and probability to their high schoolers so they can step right into statistical quality control class in their workplace. If a foreign customer demands products or parts in standard metric sizes, we can do that. But converting to the metric system isn't going to make us cost competitive with Asia, so the export thing is a very weak argument IMHO. BTW, the differential drain plug on my old Toyota pickup had a really obscure English head size, something like 27/32". Not close to any standard metric socket, plus there was a protective lip welded around the bolt head to prevent use of an adjustable end wrench. Thus a special trip to Sears to buy an SAE socket that had one and only one use. I will admit that Toyota designed the thing so that 95% of all routine maintenance and component replacements could be done with a middlin' sized Phillips screwdriver and two 12mm box end wrenches. Something Detroit still hasn't figured out obviously.

But in the US I think much of the drive to convert comes from this persistent notion that if its European, its better. This concious or subconcious mindset appears in all sorts of arenas, from culture, politics, fashion, cuisine, walnut, you name it. There's rarely any data or analysis to back it up, its usually a case of proof by assertion. Supersonic flight, manned missions landing on the moon, development of the Internet router, multimode fiber optic data transmission, all done by we poor, ignorant Bible-thumping colonials. But we're still expected to drop what we're doing and go Euro, because its better.

Except the 6.5mm and 7mm bore sizes. And really the prediliction of those pesky Euros for high sectional density. Its those long 140 grain bullets which makes the 6.5 great, and likewise the prevalence of 140 grainers for medium and 175 grainers for big game in the 7mm. Once you get above 7mm, there's nothing a metric caliber does that is any better than English equivalents. Lots of love lately for the 9.3, but the .358 bore ain't got warts on it, nor the .375. And for purpose built dangerous game rifles, .416 and .458 do what needs doin'.

How come nobody bellyaches about shotgun gauges? If metric is inherently superior, lets throw out 12, 16, 20, and 28 gauge, and use 70/60/50 millimeters or whatever.

I'm with you there, Bristoe. I run a metrology lab.

My $0.02 on this thread:
The 7mm-08 is my favorite cartridge, and
I also, hate having to hit 1 for English! That frys my arse!

I believe in maximun choice. With cartridges we have our American cartridges mostly in inches, still a few British cartridges in inches, plus all those Metric rounds. Why go all metric and reduce our choices?

Let's face it, we can work and think in either system with no problems.

The problems come up when we must change from what we are used to doing, or convert units and measures from one system to another.

The only thing worse is trying to work in a mixed system as we do now.

KenO

Neither am I, but I still like the style of kissing we call "French"





And how is this different than today?

In our industry, most of the machines in our factories have been built in Europe. But our Store room still insists on stocking SAE bolts to clamp that machine to the deck, or to install pipe flanges.

A total conversion to metric would be a lot cheaper, and it would not take long to realize the savings.

The only confusion results from the continued mixing of the two systems, and the converting of units between them.

Even if America sometimes in the future would change to the metric system people over the whole world will still say 30-06 and 375H&H. And we will still used grains in reloading.

What I don't understand ;americans use the imperial(I would call it english) system for measuring, but you drive at the right side of the road. Not left like the british and many Commonwealth countries.

Damned right!

When I was a kid back in the 1960s, they tried to push the metric system on us in school. It was a big push too. Since our parents didn't use it, though, and it wasn't used anywhere else in our regular day to day lives, it didn't stick, and I think they basically gave up. The only way for it to work would be to require by law that the old system not be used on anything by companies doing business in the US, and require schools to teach it, and nothing else. But we don't live in a dictatorship like the rest of the world does, and that's why we still use the system passed to us by our parents.

Everybody okay with metric currency?

Anybody here want to switch to a dollar with 20 dimes? Twelve pennies to the dime?

That's the system we had before the Revolution. Worked good. Wasn't broken and it didn't need fixing.

I blame that Frenchman, LaFayette, for meddling.

- TJM

Poor me that live in a dictatorship.
Wait a minute! In my country we can use dogs when hunting big game, but not in America. What sort of free country is that?
Perhaps a country with laws is not a mark of dictatorship?

Unless I'm mistaken, hunting with dogs is a State by State matter, not a uniform Federal law imposed on all. Some States use dogs for hunting big game. Our hunting laws are largely based on our local hunting traditions. Some States have a strong tradition of using dogs for hunting, and some don't. The laws reflect the local traditions. I don't call that dictatorship.

My point is that you can't call other countries dictatorship just because they have laws you don't like.I'am sure there are many ridicolous laws in America, just as in many other
countries.
And metric systems in many countries have of course a lot to do with tradition.

Your sentence:"But we don't live in a dictatorship like the rest of the world does...." What shall we say abou that?

America does not use the Imperial measurement system. The correct name is U.S. customary units. Imperial was a reformed English measurement system devised after the metric system. The Imperial gallon weighs (I recall) 10 pounds of water exactly. The U.S. pint is derived from an older English volume measurement, and there is roughly--but not exactly--8 pounds of water in a U.S. gallon.

As for which side of the road, America was settled by many different European groups. However, if I recall, the selection was more to be different from the British, just to flaunt our independence.

My point was that I am fairly certain that when European countries adopted the Metric System, most people would have preferred to continue using the system their parent's used. The fact that they changed to the Metric System is evidence, I contend, that this system was forced, by some powerful elite class, on the majority against their will. Am I mistaken? If that's not dictatorship, what is?

Of course it would be a huge cost, though the rest of the world has already been there.

I wonder how much it affects the US's ability to sell its products overseas.

This debate is of course turning OT.
Just because a country have laws we don't like that's not dictatorship. I'am sure not all americans like all the laws in the USA. Does that make it OK to call it dictatorship?
If the US goverment wants to raise to taxes (not that they are going to) many people will of course not like it, but they still have to pay the taxes. Is that dictatorship?

BTW in my country we use the metric system, but I have never seen a law forbidden me to use the US og english system.And of course we can buy tools using the "inch scale".

In aviation almost every country use feets not meters. What if some countries suddenly said ;now we are going to use the metric system. "Because we won't let other countries decide what we should use.We don't like dictatorship." That would mean a lot of trouble.

We don't need to use the same measuring systems for everything, but it makes somethings much easier.And it is possible to agree about one standard, just think about the NATO caliber 7.62x51 or for hunters better known as 308win(even if they are not 100% equal).

The_Real_Hawkeye, I must disagree. In countries such as France which adopted the metric system, there often were no standards of measure valid across the country. The UK and the US did impose standards for their units--dictatorship if you like. If you don't believe me, go try selling gas with gallons of your own definition, say 120 ounces to the gallon instead of 128. You'll find yourself in a US prison. France before the metric system was chaos. Their equivalent of the gallon varied across the country. One gallon in this province wasn't the same amount as in another. That's what lack of "dictatorship" gets you. In part, metric succeeded because it was different. It favored no one nation over another. It failed (in part, and so far) in the US because uniform standards had already been imposed across the land.

I understand metric quite well. I just don't want to pay the price for all the double inventory and tooling that will be required for converting. Just cause the rest of the world is doing it, don't make it right ! So there !

So for those who know, if I live in London and need a bolt to replace an existing bolt, can I just go to the nearest hardware and pick one out? I heard that the bolt threading convention, for an example, in the metric system is a huge headach.

Why would someone who is anti-metric or anti-european pick a name like HUSQVARNA?

I remember the posting here a few years ago about how the space shuttle's dimensions are related back to the width of the average horse's backside, and that the process of going from standardizing the width of a standard cart axle to the shuttle has been going on since Roman times.

It's going to be a long time. I mean a LONG time before the US is fully metric. Look at your walls, your windows, your floors. Everything around you is built on standards like the 2X4 and the 16 inch-on-center stud. All that half-inch and three quarter inch copper pipe is gonna have to go. All those 4X8 sheets will have to rot away. . .

Besides I have a great deal of trouble envisioning myself as a grandpa, a great-grandpa, or even a great-great-grandpa sitting my little one down and saying:

"But.....ain't many troubles that a man caint fix
with seven hundred dollars and his seven six two by sixty three."

No sir, just caint see it.

Reading this, why do I think of paranoia and American stubborness.

Fact is, the metric system was a heaven's present.
Around 1800, URP was a mess concerning trade units etc. Every city, every landlord, heck every bishop had and forced his own units.
When we Germans - Germany as a State was not really born before that date - defeated the French in the 1871 war, we already had adopted the metric system (which, by the way is not really French but goes back much longer).
That means something, adopting a system that was at least "institutionalized" by the Arch Enemy.
Think of it when you stupidly condemn anything you dislike in an unchristian manner.
By the way, in the US Army they are in the middle of changing to metric, read your FM's, it already goes Meter instead of yard!

roe

There really isn't any huge cost associated with any "metric conversion" of machinery, the old ones work just as well making a metric part as a US standard part. With the new CNC machines it's just programing and many holes are not fractional or metric but rather totally different scales like AWG and machine, i.e 6x40 a #6 machine screw, not a 1/6th or 6mm screw.

Aviation was primarily US standard, it's not so much so now as there is an expansion of non US manufacturers. Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Cessna, Beechcraft labeled Raytheons, Bell and MD helos are all built US standard, EADS, SOCOTA, Airbus, Embraier, Canadair and such are built metric. Pratt and Whitney Canada and Pratt and Whitney, Lycoming/Honeywell/Garrett turbines are all US standard. Rolls Royce, Turbomecca and Tumanskys are not.

And some are both like older Hawker and Falcon biz jets.

American cars have been metric for decades

For the guy having problems with the kilometers to nautical miles/nots problem, use the JOG-air graphic or the GPS

I too have used those digits many times, before I learned to use the units of volts, amps, hertz, and bytes. The number 0.03937 represents the approximate number of inches per millimeter. I say "approximate" only because the actual number extends to smaller fractions of an inch, but those smaller fractions are insignificant in the tool and die trade.

I have seen reference in this thread to "American stubbornness." Well mister, you are right. Americans are stubborn, and I'm stubborn too. I'm proud to be an American, and proud to use the American standard of weights and measures. It is part of our unique identity, and unique identity is important to Americans. So we remain stubborn and we stay alive. For how long, only God knows. I will tell you this: I am glad that the strength of America is controlled by Americans. Imagine what the world would be like if, somehow, osama bin laden suddenly wielded the power of the American military.

Here's a uniquely American measure for all you proud, stubborn, American infidels out there: There are 27,154 gallons in an acre-inch of water. How many of you knew that one? I used it when I worked in the irrigation business "in a different life."

And another thing (edited into the above post 'cause I'm on a roll): The American standard of weights and measures IS based on factors of 10. The term 0.1" is one tenth of an inch, and 0.001" is one thousandth of an inch. The term 2oz is two ounces, and 0.2oz is two tenths of an ounce. Now, is that so hard to figure out? There is that "ounces by weight" and "ounces by volume" thingy, but most things that are measured in ounces by weight are so marked on the label. Just remember that fluids are generally measured in ounces by volume, and dry goods are generally measured in ounces by weight, and you'll make very few mistakes.

Another "thing" I have not yet seen in this thread: The "official" measure of an inch was the length of three barleycorns laid end-to-end. Why, I don't know, but them's the facts.

I use the name Husqvarna because three of my pet rifles are of that make. I am not anti-European or anti-metric. I just don't think the metric system of cartridge designation is truly superior. For example: there are at least two 6.5 X 54's. Bore diameters vary widely with the same nominal diameter: 8MM's from .318 to .330. Mostly, I think we are doing OK with our current mixed system and going all metric would eventually decrease our choice of cartridges.

Russia, I believe, is the only nation using strictly SI units for aviation. Of course there's the subsequent problem of communicating with ATC in the rest of the world, combining language & accent differences with the added task of converting and deconverting altitude & speed back and forth.

Actually, I believe the US federal government is required to operate using the metric system, unless it is uneconomical to do so. Hypothetically all civil servants and contractors should be doing their paperwork on A4 or whatever. Good luck finding it in the govt's office supply system, however.

And if Americans weren't stubborn, we'd still be British subjects. And if England had America's population, natural resources, and economy to throw around, all of western Europe would be speaking English and using Imperial measures. And we wouldn't be arguing about American cartridge designs, because we all would have been disarmed in the 1930s.

I work for a state Department of Transportation. Several years ago it was mandated by the Federal Highway Administration that we switch to the "metric system." So we did at great expense and a large amount of hair-ripping. About 3 or so years later they came back and said, "Never mind, you can switch back." So we did....with relief! I started my career in the USMC and everything we did was metric so it was no big deal for me, but the traveling public, not to mention all the engineering and construction contractors just never seemed to really embrace it.

Going metric would spoil some things...36" 24" 36" for example

The Russian navy also uses radians (400 per circle) as opposed to degrees (360) for describing direction. I believe their intention was when they got into a battle with the US, they would just steer 390, and our torpedos would miss because they could only go up to 360. Fortunately, the cold war ended before this hypothesis could be tested.

"A lot" ? Could you give many examples please ?

Lee you are in the wrong on this one. The Metric System pre-dates Napoleon by quite a few years. It was first adopted in France by a law of August 1st, 1793.

After various developments : over a century and a half, it culminated as the International System of Units in 1960 and as pointed out by denton only 3 countries have failed to adopt it officially : USA, Liberia and Myanmar. I am afraid this is not the best of company to be associated with in industrial and scientific matters.

Your statement "There is nothing inherently good about the metric system." would not get support from any scientist nor anybody with some knowledge of the fundamentals aspects of systems of units. Similarly the practical value of the Metric System and its inherent simplicity make it the system of choice. One obvious aspect is the absence of coefficients in physics formulas.You would almost certainly agree if you had used both systems.

As a matter of fact, the qualities of the Metric System are well recognized in the USA and many people use it and like it in science and industry. This is shown by the messages posted in this thread by people with a working knowledge of the subject.

If the quasi universal adoption of the Metric System is not proof enough of its inherent qualities, the fact that it has been freely adopted by many Americans should tell you that it has distinct superiorities over the "old" US system.

6mm, 7.62 x 51 (.308) 5.56 (.223) there are three. The .22 Hornet is also popular and expressed in metric, as is the .22 Highpower, though obsolete.

I don't like it, but the metric system is the dominate one and has a constant standard by which to measure. For example, an "ounce" is based on a weight housed somewhere in the government office responsible for weights and measures. An "inch" is the same thing...it's artificial.

THe metric system tried to use logic (it was developed in the Age of Reason). A meter is 1/40,000,000 of the earth's polar circumfance. A kilogram is the weight of one liter of water.

And these are based on a system of ten. The dollar was sort of a mathematical adoption of the metric system, as it's also based on ten. In fact, so far as I know, it was the first monetary system based on ten.

The oldest measuring systems were based on 12, because 12 has more multipliers (2,3,4,6) than ten (2,5). Which made distributing goods easier for an illiterate or tribal culture.

If all we had to do was measure the length of things, then one system doesn't have much advantage over the other.

If you're making any kind of calculations, the metric system is much easier. Volume is defined in terms of length, so a liter (volume) is 1,000 cubic centimeters. There is no conversion like you would use for gallons to quarts and pints. Mass is linked to volume, with one cubic centimeter of water being one gram.

There are times when I'm doing something for a US audience, and will take all the traditional numbers, convert them to metric, do all the calcs, and convert the final result back to traditional, just because it is easier.

The other thing is The Burea of Standards and Weights." I was looking through info on the metric system and found that in 1760 or os, their equivelent of that office in England burned down.

So, there was no standard, and it was estimated that it would take 60 years or so to re-establish what officially was an ounce, (for example.) When dealing with precious metals, this is far more important than dealing with, say, a pound of fish.

I some disaster were to strike OUR Bureau of Standards, we'd be in a similar crisis. We'd almost certainly switch to the metric system, since it's already in place and is based on a scientific principal instead of arbitrary figures.

As much as I hate to say it, it's probably a matter of time before we start using it officially, instead of unofficially, as we do so many times now.

So we're not being stubborn by sticking to English units, we're being proactive is what you are saying Gene?

English standards were established by Edward I. He made a foot a foot, (based apparently on someone with a 12" foot) and a grain a grain (based on the weight of a single grain of wheat.)

He made a dozen a dozen, and because bakers used to cheat customers who couldn't count, he imposed the death penalty on bakers who cheated their clients who couldn't count. Thus, the "baker's dozen."

He standardized a furlong (a furrow long, in plowing) and a mile.

He was forward looking, but didn't know the polar circumferance of the earth, I guess.

Gene, I don't think recovery would be anywhere near as difficult today as it was back then. Most standards today are defined as so many wavelengths of light, or some such thing, which are then converted to the units of interest. Any good lab, anywhere in the world, can reproduce them.

The one and only primary standard at NIST that is in native units is the kilogram. That one would be more of a problem.

Since there is no true standard pound, I guess NIST is already metric.

You're probably right. But still, somewhere in Washington, D.C. there is a sealed 1 oz. weight, and I'm sure others as well. Plus we have accurate weighing instruments, although no so accurate as those at the Bureau of Weights and Standards.

I read bout this some time ago. These things are vaccuum sealed so as to not get a mote of dust on them.

And since our economy is based on paper money, unlike England in 1760, it wouldn't be nearly as important as knowing what a true ounce of gold was really a true ounce.

Time is another thing the English took liberties with. About that same time, the Gregorian calendar was adopted, which accounted for leap year. It had gone so long, the months and seasons were out of whack with the date. The British refused to adopt the calendar because it was done at the behest of Pope Gregory, and the Catholics were being more or less on the outs at that time. Plus, France adopted it.

But they finally relented. I'm not sure when. To clear up the confusion, in period literature you'll see references like "This event occurred March 23, 1707 OT" which means "Old Time." Meaning the English calendar.

Why not metric here?

Americans like to think of things in feet, inches, and miles.

We might get used to Kilometers. The Army likes Klics since it translates better to moving on foot.

Who wants to be 1 meter .78
when you can be 6 ft tall?

Of course, men might like to brag about a 15,25 cm root.

Gene, I beg to disagree on all counts :
- 6 mm is a nominal diameter and not a cartridge. There are lots of metric and American cartridges with 6 mm in their name : 6x57 Mauser is a metric example and 6 mm PPC is an American example. Thus "6 mm" is not a valid example of an American cartridge wrongly presented as a metric cartridge.
- 7.62x51 is not an expression that I have ever heard of or read from the Europeans, The complete expression is 7.62x51 NATO, but because of the well known 308 Winchester civilian version, nobody in Europe uses the NATO designation and everybody knows that it was an American design. Thus the NATO round, being called 308 Winchester, is not an example of a cartridge which would pose as a metric one.
- 5.6 is also a diameter and not a cartridge.
- The 22 Hornet is the 22 Hornet on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe I have never heard anybody use the metric equivalent ; people do not even know what the equivalent is.
- 22 Savage High-Power (also called 22 High-Power or 22 Imp) was designed by Charles Newton and there is no metric designation in use.

I am not saying that one cannot find a few American or British cartridges that are also called by their metric equivalent, (the 5,6x35R Vierling / 22 WCF is one) but they are not numerous.

On the other hand there are a few British or American cartridges that originated as metric cartridges. Some examples :
- the 275 Rigby is in fact the 7x57 Mauser
- the 500 Jeffery was in fact a Schuler development : the 12,7x70 Schuler
- the 375 Rimless NE is in fact the 9,5x57 Mannlicher-Schoenauer.

I still do not understand why Lee stated that there was "a lot" of "so-called "metric cartridges" that are just just the metric dimensions of cartridges designed in England or the USA".

6mm Remington...7.62 x 51 (NATO) designed in America and called the .308 Winchester (also a nominal diameter) over here, 7mm Remington Magnum, 6.5 Remington Magnum, and the 5.6 x 52R as designated on Norma ammo boxes but a.k.a. the Savage High Power.

That's not a lot. But it's some.

Also, the Hornet is known as the Hornet, but it came from the .22 Winchester Centerfire, which is known in Europe as the 5.6 x 35R Veirling. The 25-35 Winchester is known as the 6.5 x 52R in Europe.

Gene, I have never seen a Norma box of 22 Savage High Power but if you say they also mention 5,6x52R I believe you and concede the point.

Regarding the 7,62x51 NATO I have made my point above.

As for the 6mm, 6.5mm and 7mm Remington, these are the original names of these cartridges, a combination of nominal (metric) diameters followed by the name of the American maker. Thus these cartridges are NOT "metric equivalents of American cartridges", they ARE American cartridges.

As you have found yourself, it is not easy to find "a lot" of examples which support Lee's assertion.

That being said, I find the point rather academic and it probably does not deserve more elaboration.

I recently discovered the 5.6x52R is not the same as the .22 Savage and the 6.5x52R is not the same as the .25 WCF. CIP specs call for a slightly smaller case and chamber for the metric variants. I imagine there was some round-off error at whichever European ammo company first adopted the US cartridge. The minor differences may explain why some modern shooters of the .22 Savage report problems with bulged brass near the base.

As you probably know, the High Power does not shoot a .224 bullet, but a .228. This may account for the buldged cases.

As for the other information, it came from Cartridges of the World, but it was an old edition.

No, America doesn't seem to be in love with metric cartridges that are home grown, with the exceptions noted above. The 6mm Rem has never sold really well, and the 6.5 even less. The 7mm Mag is a winner, though.

Added to favorites is the 7.62 x 39, which is getting harder to find at reasonable prices.

BTW, most Russian 7.62 x 39 has a mild steel case. Try a magnet on the bullet. While I'm sure it's softer than the barrel, it is, still, steel-jacketed.

The old measurements,weither Russian,Japanese,French or Imperial were based on the human body. Yard,a arm's length,inch,a thumb width. The Japanese were smaller than the Russian.I wonder why.Certainly good enough in middle ages,we all have arms and feet.

The first Russian bolt rifles (still used till WW II) were marked for caliber in the Russin word for "lines." In other words, the 7.62 caliber was the dimension in width of a certain number of lines. I suppose a "line" was the width of a line made with a pen. Rather arbitrary, but so long as there was a "standard" it worked fine.

This was of course before Russia adopted the metric system.

400 gradients per circle. 2 pi radians per circle.



It is, for them. The fact that we're still the largest and strongest economy in the world is quite pertinent. Whether Myanmar uses SI, Imperial, or US Standard units is completely irrelevant. Consensus, in fact, has no place in science. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions is worthwhile reading particularly with respect to consensus and progress in scientific theory.



And a British nautical mile is defined to be exactly one minute of latitude. No logic there, eh?



Literacy had nothing to do with it. Decimal notation for fractions was not brought to the Middle East and Europe until the 10th century in the Muslim world and the first known use of decimal fractions in Europe was, I believe, in the late 15th century. Folks might be interested to learn that the Babylonians used a base 60 number system which of course offers wonderful leverage of whole fractions. Some of their mathematical advances diffused into the Greek world, and thus later into Europe and Arabia. Ironically the Babylonians had a positional number representation but 2+ millennia later the Romans didn't.



Not even remotely gonna happen. There are standard weights and measures stored securely in a number of locations, in fact I believe efforts have been made to preserve US standards in the event of nuclear war. But with the help of a $5 calculator and access to a metric standard somewhere, the US standards can be reproduced in a straightforward manner.

Ironically, all you SI fanatics are ignoring the one measure that is critical out to 6+ significant figures; time. Time definition and measurement has a big impact on astronomy and astrophysics, as well as being critical for radionavigation systems like GPS.

Thanks for the correction! Not being a Russian or in the navy anymore I'm a little rusty in that area.

Thanks, CouchTater, for the clarifications and facts.

Literacy had nothing to do with it. Decimal notation for fractions was not brought to the Middle East and Europe until the 10th century in the Muslim world and the first known use of decimal fractions in Europe was, I believe, in the late 15th century. Folks might be interested to learn that the Babylonians used a base 60 number system which of course offers wonderful leverage of whole fractions. Some of their mathematical advances diffused into the Greek world, and thus later into Europe and Arabia. Ironically the Babylonians had a positional number representation but 2+ millennia later the Romans didn't.

Well, yes. Twelve is also the root of the Babylonian system of 60, as 60 has far more dividers than 50. It was to their system what ten is to ours. That is the point I was trying to make.

Which seems illogical, because we have ten fingers for counting, so ten would seem to be the "natural" way of counting things, and probably was, until there came a greater need to parcel things down in smaller units...or parcel thing up in larger units, which could then be subdivided.

When I said "literacy" I mean math literacy, which may be an oxymoron. Some societies never developed it because they didn't need it. A hunter-gatherer society saw no need for math because the had no need to count more than they could immediately use. So, in most Native American tribes, after ten, or maybe 20, it became "many."

I have trouble in the Summer with reports of forest fires burning "780,000 acres," or some such. Yeah, I can get out my calculator and divide by 640 to get square miles, but why not report smaller numbers in the first place? Square miles will work, but I'll even take hectares...

Jaywalker