Sheet Metal Gauge Thickness Chart (Steel, Aluminum, Brass)

27 thoughts on “Sheet Metal Gauge Thickness Chart (Steel, Aluminum, Brass)”

1. Abu hamza alnaser

   November 10, 2019 at 3:46 pm

   Thank you very much. It is clear now about steel.
   But how i can get the thickness for aluminum sheet.

   Reply
   1. MachineMfg

      November 10, 2019 at 4:09 pm

      You can check out the aluminum thickness chart in this article.

      Reply
2. Zairul Hazreek Ya'acob

   November 14, 2019 at 5:53 pm

   I bookmarked it and even printed it hardcopy for easy future reference

   Reply
3. Mehul rao

   November 23, 2019 at 1:56 pm

   Sir i don’t know how to convert gauge to point in copper cercal plz give me idea

   Reply
4. tapan

   January 10, 2020 at 2:12 pm

   how gauge to mm is different for different material

   Reply
   1. MachineMfg

      January 10, 2020 at 2:52 pm

      we will soon update this article with the history of gauge, then you will understand, so stay tuned.

      Reply
5. PSdesign

   January 21, 2020 at 11:47 am

   This is the best explanation of gauges I’ve ever seen. Just when I would think I understood this, I’d end up questioning everything all over again, which is how I ended up here. So, thank you for the “Okay, NOW I get it!” moment! Makes perfect sense why it made no sense before, because it’s subjective, like lots of other American empirical systems. Again, thanks so much!

   Reply
6. Steve Surridge

   February 15, 2020 at 8:35 am

   Thank you for the informative information.
   But surely the most logical solution is for the US & Canada to change to the metric system?

   The UK & Europe have been metricated since 1969.
   This would surely save a lot of messing around as there are different thickness for different materials with the same gauge.

   Reply
7. Eric Palmer

   June 6, 2020 at 4:41 am

   The US is metric, and has been since the beginning of the metric system. Prior to the invention of the metric system the world was in chaos, with dozens of strange and incompatible and incommensurable systems of measurement in use. None of them were well-defined. Many countries, including the United States, saw the need in both commerce and in science for a single well-thought-out system of measurement. It took a long time, (France began working on it before 1700) but eventually a far superior system of weights and measures was worked out and entered into by treaty.
   In 1875, an international agreement, known as the Convention of the Metre, set up well defined metric standards for length and mass and established permanent mechanisms [commitees] to recommend and adopt further refinements in the metric system. This agreement, commonly called the ‘Treaty of the Meter’ in the United States, was signed by 17 countries, including the United States.
   So it can be said with complete correctness that the United States has always been “metric.” (The one unresolved dispute is the American insistence on using “.” as a decimal mark, whereas the Europeans prefer a “,” .)
   Why, then, is the U.S. civilian population still using the inch-pound and statute mile systems of units, when the rest of the world, including the United Kingdom, has converted to metric? Because American businesses three generations ago didn’t want to go to the expense of re-tooling, the American people two generations ago believed rumors (that the metric system was a subversive European plot) instead of looking at the science, and their legislators were not willing to force the issue. Still, among scientists, the metric system is used almost exclusively. It is simply better. All the “English” units are now defined in terms of metric primary standards. So for the public it will take longer, but we will get there. Nobody is forced to do anything they don’t want to. Get used to it at your own pace, but familiarity with all systems now in use will be an advantage to you.

   Reply
8. John Joyce

   June 7, 2020 at 12:56 am

   So, if I follow you correctly regarding how Gauge originated, the reason that the thickness of a given Gauge of different metals varies is a result of the different physical properties of a given metal. That is, how much of a size reduction can be made in a given pass through a die. As gold is an extremely ductile metal, I would expect that for a given wire diameter the Gauge of a gold wire would be less than for the same given diameter of an iron wire. That is the numeric value of the Gauge thickness of a gold wire would be smaller than for an equivalent diameter iron wire because you can have a greater diameter reduction with gold wire for a given draw because it is much more ductile than iron. Am I following your logic correctly or have I gone astray somewhere?

   If the Gauge is determined by the number of pulls, wouldn’t that mean that the diameter of different steel alloy compositions for the same Gauge would vary or has the use of Gauge now separated from the number of draws and that for a type of material, such as iron or steel over a fairly broad alloy range, the same thickness is assigned a “standard” Gauge number, even if the reality was that it might require a significant difference in the number of draws to get to the same diameter?

   Also, is the starting diameter of a stock rod standard over different metals? If it is not, then what is a Gauge value of zero. That is, it hasn’t been drawn at all? If you don’t have a standard starting diameter, it would seem that the same Gauge number could correspond to vastly different thicknesses depending on the diameter of your starting stock.

   Sorry, I’m not trying to be picky, as this was an informative post. I just find it fascinating and want to make sure that I correctly understand how this scale was developed and used.

   Thanks,

   John

   Reply