To work out the weight of a stainless steel rectangular tube, multiply the metal cross-sectional area by the density of the grade. For 304 stainless steel, that is, weight (kg/m) = 2 × t × (A + B − 2t) × 7.93 ÷ 1000, where A and B are the outside sides in millimetres, t is the wall thickness in millimetres, and 7.93 is the density in g/cm³. A 50 × 30 × 2 mm 304 tube therefore weighs 2.41 kg/m.
That single line answers the question, and it’s the fastest way to audit any stainless steel rectangular tube weight chart you come across. Here’s why that matters: the tables you’ve already looked at almost certainly disagree with each other. Almost none of them tell you what density they used. That’s the reason they disagree.
We’ve spent the last two decades welding and finishing rectangular tube on our own lines in Wenzhou. In the UK, this product is a box section; in structural work, it’s RHS, for rectangular hollow section. So we do two things on this page. We give you the numbers, and we show you the method and the density basis behind them, so you can check our work and reproduce it for any size.
This is a data reference, not a design manual. The full dimensional size chart lives in our stainless steel rectangular tube size chart, and the wider subject sits in our complete stainless steel rectangular tube guide. The tolerance rules live in the ASTM A554 guide, and the structural engineering is your engineer’s call.
Key Takeaways
- The formula is fixed geometry, not opinion: weight (kg/m) = 2 × t × (A + B − 2t) × ρ ÷ 1000, with ρ = 7.93 for 304/304L and 7.98 for 316/316L (g/cm³).
- Density is the reason published tables disagree: the same size is quoted at different weights because different tables use different density assumptions. This page states its basis openly (304 = 7.93 g/cm³), so the numbers are auditable.
- A 50 × 30 × 2 mm 304 tube weighs 2.41 kg/m, and an 80 × 40 × 3 mm 304 tube weighs 5.42 kg/m (32.5 kg per 6 m).
- Section properties (Ix, Iy, Sx, J) depend on geometry only, not grade. An 80 × 40 × 3 section is exactly as stiff in 304 as in 316L. Only weight and allowable stress change.
- Theoretical weight is not the weight on the scale. Corner radius, wall tolerance, weld bead, density basis, and cut length each move the real figure by a little. We explain the direction and when it matters.
How to Calculate Stainless Steel Rectangular Tube Weight
Calculating stainless steel rectangular tube weight means working out the area of metal in the cross-section, then multiplying by the density of the grade. For a sharp-cornered rectangular hollow section the metal area is the outer rectangle minus the inner rectangle, which collapses to 2t(A + B − 2t) mm². Multiply by density and divide by 1000 to get kg/m.
For a buyer, the working form is the one that needs only the numbers on the drawing:
Weight (kg/m) = 2 × t × (A + B − 2t) × ρ ÷ 1000
- A = outside long side (mm)
- B = outside short side (mm)
- t = wall thickness (mm)
- ρ = density of the grade (g/cm³)
The grade constant that makes it a one-line sum
Because ρ is fixed per grade, the front of the formula collapses into a single constant:
- 304 / 304L (ρ = 7.93): weight (kg/m) ≈ 0.01586 × t × (A + B − 2t)
- 316 / 316L (ρ = 7.98): weight (kg/m) ≈ 0.01596 × t × (A + B − 2t)
For most quoting and freight work the two constants are close enough that the grade barely moves the answer. It changes weight by about 0.6%, and it changes corrosion resistance enormously. Knowing which lever is which is the whole point of the grade decision, which we cover in 304 vs 316L rectangular tube.
Worked example: 80 × 40 × 3 mm, grade 304
Run the numbers on a size that sits in the middle of our range:
- Metal area = 2 × 3 × (80 + 40 − 2×3) = 2 × 3 × 114 = 684 mm²
- Weight per metre = 684 × 7.93 ÷ 1000 = 5.42 kg/m
- Weight per 6 m length = 5.42 × 6 = 32.5 kg
- Same size in 316L = 684 × 7.98 ÷ 1000 = 5.46 kg/m, about 0.6% heavier
Four lines, and you have the number for quoting, for a packing list, or for a container load. Swap in any A, B and t and it works the same way. That’s the real value of a formula over a table: the table only holds the sizes someone chose to print, and the formula holds every size.
If you would rather not run the arithmetic by hand, a rectangular tube weight calculator applies exactly this method. The one thing it usually hides is the density, so set that yourself.
Working in inches and pounds
Imperial buyers use the same logic with inches and lb/in³. The density of 304 is about 0.2865 lb/in³, so weight (lb/ft) = 2 × t × (A + B − 2t) × 0.2865 × 12, with A, B and t in inches. If you already have a metric figure, convert it directly: 1 kg/m = 0.67197 lb/ft, and 1 lb/ft = 1.48816 kg/m.
A note on what this number actually is. It’s the theoretical, or nominal, weight. It assumes sharp corners and a wall sitting exactly on nominal.
Real tube has rounded corners that add a little metal, a weld bead on the seam, and a wall that falls somewhere inside the permitted tolerance band. The next sections cover all of that. For a rough quote it doesn’t matter. For a container plan, or an order priced by the kilogram, it does.
Stainless Steel Rectangular Tube Weight Chart (kg/m)
The table below gives the stainless steel rectangular tube weight per metre for the common sizes and walls across our range, computed on a stated basis: 304 stainless steel at a density of 7.93 g/cm³, sharp-corner geometry. Use it as a lookup. Use the formula above when your size is not in it.
| Size A × B (mm) | Wall t (mm) | Weight (kg/m) | Weight per 6 m (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 × 10 | 1.0 | 0.44 | 2.7 |
| 20 × 10 | 1.5 | 0.64 | 3.9 |
| 25 × 13 | 1.5 | 0.83 | 5.0 |
| 30 × 15 | 2.0 | 1.30 | 7.8 |
| 30 × 20 | 2.0 | 1.46 | 8.8 |
| 40 × 20 | 1.6 | 1.44 | 8.6 |
| 40 × 20 | 2.0 | 1.78 | 10.7 |
| 40 × 25 | 2.0 | 1.93 | 11.6 |
| 50 × 25 | 2.0 | 2.25 | 13.5 |
| 50 × 30 | 2.0 | 2.41 | 14.5 |
| 50 × 30 | 2.6 | 3.08 | 18.5 |
| 60 × 30 | 2.0 | 2.73 | 16.4 |
| 60 × 40 | 2.0 | 3.05 | 18.3 |
| 60 × 40 | 3.0 | 4.47 | 26.8 |
| 80 × 40 | 2.0 | 3.68 | 22.1 |
| 80 × 40 | 3.0 | 5.42 | 32.5 |
| 80 × 40 | 4.0 | 7.11 | 42.6 |
| 90 × 50 | 3.0 | 6.38 | 38.3 |
| 100 × 50 | 3.0 | 6.85 | 41.1 |
| 100 × 50 | 4.0 | 9.01 | 54.1 |
| 100 × 50 | 6.0 | 13.13 | 78.8 |
| 120 × 60 | 4.0 | 10.91 | 65.5 |
| 120 × 60 | 6.0 | 15.99 | 95.9 |
| 150 × 100 | 5.0 | 19.03 | 114.2 |
| 150 × 100 | 6.0 | 22.65 | 135.9 |
| 160 × 80 | 4.0 | 14.72 | 88.3 |
| 180 × 100 | 6.0 | 25.50 | 153.0 |
| 200 × 100 | 4.0 | 18.52 | 111.1 |
| 200 × 100 | 6.0 | 27.41 | 164.4 |
Values computed on 304/304L at ρ = 7.93 g/cm³, sharp-corner section. For 316/316L, multiply by 1.0063.
You’ll see charts elsewhere that run two to five percent lighter for the same tube. That’s not because the tube is different. It’s because the table used a different density or a rounding factor and didn’t say so.
Ours states the basis, so you can compare like with like. This chart covers the weight dimension only. For the full range of wall thickness and corner radius combinations, see the stainless steel rectangular tube size chart.
Priya, an estimator at a fabrication shop in Rotterdam, learned this the hard way. She quoted a balustrade job off a free online weight table that ran about four percent light on the 80 × 40 × 3 sections she was using. The quote itself was fine.
The problem came later. She’d booked freight against her own figure, and the packed bundles came in heavier than planned, pushing the pallet over a road-transport weight bracket. She re-quoted the carrier and absorbed the difference. Now she runs every job off one documented density basis, not whatever table is open in the next tab.
Stainless Steel Rectangular Tube Weight Chart (lbs/ft)
For US and export buyers working in inches, this is the same stainless steel rectangular tube weight chart in imperial units. Values use 304 stainless steel at 0.2865 lb/in³. Gauge references are given for the ornamental and architectural sizes, with the millimetre equivalent so nothing is lost in translation.
| Outside size (in) | Wall (in) | Wall (mm) | Weight (lbs/ft) | Weight (kg/m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 × 1 | 0.120 (11 ga) | 3.05 | 2.28 | 3.39 |
| 3 × 1-1/2 | 0.120 (11 ga) | 3.05 | 3.52 | 5.23 |
| 3 × 2 | 0.120 (11 ga) | 3.05 | 3.93 | 5.84 |
| 4 × 2 | 0.120 (11 ga) | 3.05 | 4.75 | 7.07 |
| 4 × 2 | 0.1875 (3/16 in) | 4.76 | 7.25 | 10.79 |
| 4 × 3 | 0.1875 (3/16 in) | 4.76 | 8.54 | 12.71 |
| 6 × 4 | 0.1875 (3/16 in) | 4.76 | 12.41 | 18.47 |
| 6 × 4 | 0.250 (1/4 in) | 6.35 | 16.33 | 24.30 |
| 8 × 4 | 0.250 (1/4 in) | 6.35 | 19.77 | 29.42 |
| 8 × 4 | 0.375 (3/8 in) | 9.53 | 29.01 | 43.17 |
Values computed on 304/304L at ρ = 0.2865 lb/in³. To convert lbs/ft to kg/m, multiply by 1.48816.
Can’t find your size in either chart? Send us the A × B × wall you actually need. Our technical team confirms availability across grades 304/304L, 316/316L and duplex, provides a documented weight, and quotes within 24 hours. Request a quote for your size
Density of Stainless Steel by Grade
The density of stainless steel depends on the grade, and it’s the single most important input in the weight calculation. For austenitic grades the spread is narrow: 304 and 304L are about 7.93 g/cm³, while 316 and 316L are about 7.98 g/cm³, because the molybdenum addition in 316 is heavier than the chromium and nickel it partly replaces. That’s a difference of roughly 0.6%.
| Grade | Type | Density (g/cm³) | Density (kg/m³) | Density (lb/in³) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 304 / 304L | Austenitic | 7.93 | 7,930 | ≈ 0.2865 |
| 316 / 316L | Austenitic | 7.98 | 7,980 | ≈ 0.2883 |
| 201 | Austenitic | ≈ 7.80 | ≈ 7,800 | ≈ 0.2818 |
| 2205 | Duplex | 7.80 | 7,800 | ≈ 0.2818 |
| 430 | Ferritic | ≈ 7.70 | 7,700 | ≈ 0.2781 |
Three points worth understanding, because they change real decisions:
- 316L is about 0.6% heavier than 304 for the same volume. That is negligible on a single length and visible on a container. If you are loading to a payload limit, price and plan in the grade you will actually run.
- Duplex 2205 is lighter than 304 and 316 for the same volume. A genuine and rarely-stated advantage of duplex sections, on top of the strength benefit covered in our duplex stainless steel grades guide.
- Ferritic 430 is the lightest of the common small sections, though its corrosion behaviour suits interior architectural work rather than aggressive service.
The design values published in BS EN 10088-1 set stainless densities at 7,900 kg/m³ (304), 8,000 kg/m³ (316) and 7,800 kg/m³ (2205). The British Stainless Steel Association (BSSA) publishes the same figures as reference data. We compute our charts on the precise values in the table above so the arithmetic is transparent, and we verify chemistry heat by heat before forming, so the density basis reflects measured material rather than a label.
Why Calculated Weight Differs From Actual Weight
The number on the page and the number on the scale are rarely identical. That’s normal and predictable. Once you know the five causes, you can decide whether the gap matters for your job.
1. Corner radius. Real ASTM A554 rectangular tube has rounded outer corners and an internal radius. Metal sits in those corners that the sharp-corner formula doesn’t count, so a measured length usually runs slightly heavier than the theoretical figure, not lighter. The geometry is specified in the ASTM A554 corner-radius requirements, covered in our ASTM A554 tolerances and testing guide.
2. Wall-thickness tolerance. The delivered wall isn’t exactly nominal. It sits somewhere inside the permitted tolerance band, and weight moves linearly with wall thickness, so a wall at the top of tolerance is heavier than one at the bottom. This is the largest controllable variable in a large order, and it’s governed by the standard, not by the mill’s mood.
3. Weld bead. An ERW or TIG seam adds a small amount of metal along the length. For a good weld the contribution is minor, but it’s real. Our welded rectangular tube manufacturing guide explains how the seam is formed and controlled.
4. Density basis. This is the big one, and the reason two published charts can differ by several percent for the same tube. If one table used 7.93 g/cm³ and another used a rounded 7.85 or an average carbon-steel factor, they’ll disagree before any real tube is even made. A table without a stated density is a table you can’t audit.
5. Cut length. A “6 m” length isn’t exactly 6.000 m. Piece weight depends on the delivered length, and a few millimetres across a bundle adds up.
When the gap matters: container and freight planning, orders priced by the kilogram, and anything with a hard payload or lifting limit. When it does not: a first-pass budget quote, a rough bill of materials, or a sanity check on a supplier’s figure. For freight-critical orders, ask for the weighed bundle weight on the packing list, and plan against that figure.
Rectangular Tube Section Properties: Ix, Sx, J and Radius of Gyration
Weight tells you what a section costs to move. Section properties tell you what it does under load, and they’re the reason this page is more than a table.
Here’s the insight that most buyers have never been told: section properties are pure geometry. They depend on A, B and t only, not on the grade. An 80 × 40 × 3 section is exactly as stiff in 304 as it is in 316L. Grade changes weight by a fraction of a percent and corrosion resistance enormously. It doesn’t change stiffness by a single percent.
For a sharp-cornered RHS, with the long side A vertical and the short side B horizontal:
- Metal area: Aₘ = A·B − (A − 2t)(B − 2t)
- Moment of inertia, strong axis: Ix = [B·A³ − (B − 2t)(A − 2t)³] ÷ 12
- Moment of inertia, weak axis: Iy = [A·B³ − (A − 2t)(B − 2t)³] ÷ 12
- Elastic section modulus: Sx = 2·Ix ÷ A and Sy = 2·Iy ÷ B
- Radius of gyration: rx = √(Ix ÷ Aₘ) and ry = √(Iy ÷ Aₘ)
- Torsion constant (thin-walled closed section): J = 2t(A − t)²(B − t)² ÷ (A + B − 2t)
The table below gives the computed values for a representative set of sizes. Some references label the elastic section modulus as Wx/Wy or Zx/Zy; the convention here is the elastic modulus, Sx and Sy.
| Size A × B × t (mm) | Aₘ (mm²) | Ix (cm⁴) | Sx (cm³) | Iy (cm⁴) | Sy (cm³) | rx (mm) | ry (mm) | J (cm⁴) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 × 20 × 1.6 | 182 | 3.69 | 1.84 | 1.21 | 1.21 | 14.2 | 8.2 | 2.81 |
| 40 × 20 × 2.0 | 224 | 4.45 | 2.22 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 14.1 | 8.0 | 3.34 |
| 50 × 30 × 2.0 | 304 | 10.16 | 4.06 | 4.51 | 3.01 | 18.3 | 12.2 | 9.51 |
| 60 × 40 × 2.0 | 384 | 19.32 | 6.44 | 10.23 | 5.11 | 22.4 | 16.3 | 20.24 |
| 80 × 40 × 3.0 | 684 | 55.85 | 13.96 | 18.43 | 9.21 | 28.6 | 16.4 | 42.72 |
| 80 × 40 × 4.0 | 896 | 71.13 | 17.78 | 23.01 | 11.50 | 28.2 | 16.0 | 53.47 |
| 100 × 50 × 3.0 | 864 | 112.12 | 22.42 | 37.44 | 14.98 | 36.0 | 20.8 | 86.60 |
| 100 × 50 × 4.0 | 1,136 | 144.13 | 28.83 | 47.37 | 18.95 | 35.6 | 20.4 | 109.87 |
| 120 × 60 × 4.0 | 1,376 | 255.20 | 42.53 | 84.77 | 28.26 | 43.1 | 24.8 | 196.27 |
| 150 × 100 × 5.0 | 2,400 | 754.50 | 100.60 | 399.50 | 79.90 | 56.1 | 40.8 | 790.63 |
| 200 × 100 × 6.0 | 3,456 | 1,793.91 | 179.39 | 599.03 | 119.81 | 72.0 | 41.6 | 1,385.63 |
All values are geometric and therefore grade-independent. Aₘ = metal cross-sectional area. Section modulus in the elastic convention (Sx, Sy).
Reading the numbers: orientation decides performance
Take the 80 × 40 × 3 mm worked example. It has Ix = 55.85 cm⁴ and Iy = 18.43 cm⁴, a ratio of about 3:1. The section is three times stiffer bending about its strong axis than about its weak axis. Orient it with the long side vertical and it behaves like a much deeper beam. Turn it on its side and you lose nearly all of that advantage while paying the same weight.
That ratio is the number behind a claim you may have read elsewhere, that a rectangular tube resists bending with a far higher section modulus than a square tube of the same weight. Here it is in figures. The selection argument, when to use which shape and why orientation matters, belongs to our square vs rectangular tube comparison, which this data supports.
Tom, a structural drafter in Manchester, saw this first-hand. He was sizing guardrail posts from a square hollow section because it was the stock item on the drawings. He re-ran the numbers with a 100 × 50 × 3 rectangular section at the same weight per metre, oriented long-side vertical. The strong-axis stiffness rose past anything the square section could offer at any wall in the range, and the posts stopped deflecting under the test load. The weight didn’t change. The orientation did.
Need the full property sheet for a section you are evaluating, in your own units? Ask our technical team for Ix, Iy, Sx, Sy, rx, ry and J on the sizes you are comparing. We supply the geometry data your engineer needs. The structural design under the governing code remains the engineer’s responsibility; the Steel Construction Institute and AISC Design Guide 27 set out the member design process for stainless steel sections. Talk to our technical team
Using the Stainless Steel Rectangular Tube Weight Chart: Freight, Price and Lifting
A weight per metre is only useful once it maps onto the task in front of you. These are the four jobs it actually does.
Container and freight planning
A container is limited by payload, not by volume, so the number you need is total kilograms. Total the weights for every length in the order, compare against the container payload limit for the route and carrier, and work back to how many lengths fit.
A 6 m length of 200 × 100 × 6 weighs 164 kg, while a 6 m length of 40 × 20 × 1.6 weighs 8.6 kg. The answer is entirely size-dependent, which is why this page gives you the method rather than a fixed “lengths per container” figure. Such a figure would be wrong for all but one size.
Price per metre versus price per kilogram
Buyers are quoted both ways, and the weight chart is what converts between them. If a supplier quotes per kilogram and your purchase order is per metre, the multiplication runs through this table. If a supplier quotes per metre and you report cost per kilogram to your own management, the same figure runs the other way. Publishing an auditable weight basis is what makes that conversion defensible when someone audits the order.
Lifting and handling
Bundle and lift weights decide the handling method. A 6 m bundle of 200 × 100 × 6 is well beyond a two-person lift, so the weight chart feeds straight into your lifting plan and crane or forklift selection. Get this wrong and it becomes a safety issue, not a costing issue.
Strength per kilogram
This is where rectangular tube earns its place against heavier options. With Sx and Ix in hand, you can compare two candidate sizes on stiffness per kilogram, not on weight alone.
The lighter section isn’t automatically the better one, and the heavier one isn’t automatically safer. The properties table tells you which section does the most work for the metal it contains.
Sourcing Weight-Documented Rectangular Tube
The last step is turning a calculation into material you can trust. When you send an enquiry, give our team the size you calculated, in the form the mill and the engineer both read:
- A × B × wall × length (for example, 80 × 40 × 3 mm × 6 m)
- Grade (304/304L, 316/316L, or a duplex grade)
- Finish (mill, brushed, polished; finish doesn’t change weight, but it changes the line)
- Quantity and application, so we can flag anything the specification misses
Alongside the quote you can request the documentation that makes the weight and the material verifiable:
- Mill test report (MTR) with measured chemistry and mechanical properties
- EN 10204 Type 3.1 certification where your project requires it
- Third-party inspection support (SGS, TUV, Bureau Veritas)
- Packing list with weighed bundle weights, so your freight plan uses real kilograms, not theoretical ones
Zhongzheng manufactures rectangular tube to the ASTM A554 welded stainless mechanical and ornamental specification, with GB and EN equivalents run on the same lines. Every heat of material is spectrographically verified before forming, and finished sections are dimensionally gauged at final QC, so the geometry behind the properties on this page is the geometry we actually hold. You can see the full range on our stainless steel rectangular tube product page.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you calculate the weight of a rectangular tube?
Multiply the metal cross-sectional area by the density of the grade. The metal area of a rectangular tube is 2t(A + B − 2t), where A and B are the outside sides and t is the wall, all in millimetres. Weight in kg/m is that area times density (g/cm³), divided by 1000. Every figure in the stainless steel rectangular tube weight chart on this page is built this way.
What is the weight of 40 × 20 stainless steel rectangular tube?
It depends on the wall. A 40 × 20 × 1.6 mm 304 tube weighs 1.44 kg/m and a 40 × 20 × 2.0 mm 304 tube weighs 1.78 kg/m, both computed on ρ = 7.93 g/cm³. Rather than pull a single row from a table, apply the formula: 2 × t × (40 + 20 − 2t) × 7.93 ÷ 1000.
Does 304 or 316 weigh more?
316 weighs slightly more. At 7.98 g/cm³ against 7.93 g/cm³ for 304, 316 and 316L are about 0.6% heavier for the same volume, because of the molybdenum addition. For a single length the difference is trivial. For a container load it’s worth including in the plan.
Why is the calculated weight different from the actual weight?
Five predictable reasons: rounded corners add uncounted metal, the delivered wall sits somewhere inside the tolerance band, the weld bead adds a little, the density basis may differ from the table you used, and a nominal length isn’t exact. The measured weight usually sits slightly above the sharp-corner theoretical figure.
What is the section modulus of a rectangular tube?
The elastic section modulus Sx is 2·Ix divided by the section depth A, and Sy is 2·Iy divided by the width B, where Ix and Iy are the second moments of area about the strong and weak axes. For an 80 × 40 × 3 mm section, Sx is 13.96 cm³ and Sy is 9.21 cm³, both independent of grade.
How much does a 6 m stainless steel rectangular tube weigh?
Multiply the kg/m figure by six. A 80 × 40 × 3 mm 304 tube at 5.42 kg/m weighs 32.5 kg per 6 m length; a 200 × 100 × 6 mm 304 tube at 27.41 kg/m weighs 164.4 kg per 6 m length. Always total the order before planning freight or lifting.
How do I convert rectangular tube weight from kg/m to lbs/ft?
Multiply by 0.67197. So 5.42 kg/m becomes 3.64 lbs/ft, and to go the other way multiply lbs/ft by 1.48816. The conversion factor is fixed, so it applies to any size and any grade.
Is a rectangular tube lighter than a square tube of the same strength?
Not automatically, but it can be. For bending about the strong axis, a rectangular section oriented long-side vertical delivers more stiffness per kilogram than a square section of equal weight. Oriented the other way, it delivers less. The shape and orientation decision is covered in our square vs rectangular tube comparison.
Conclusion: The Number, the Method, and the Mill Behind It
A stainless steel rectangular tube weight chart is only as good as the basis behind it. This page gives you both. The formula is fixed geometry: 2 × t × (A + B − 2t) × ρ ÷ 1000, with a stated density of 7.93 g/cm³ for 304 and 7.98 g/cm³ for 316L. The charts carry the common sizes in kg/m and lbs/ft. The worked example, 80 × 40 × 3 mm in 304 at 5.42 kg/m, shows you how to run any size yourself. And the section properties, Ix, Iy, Sx and J, turn a lookup into a design input, with the reminder that stiffness follows geometry, not grade.
Two things to take away. First, a lighter table isn’t a better table. State the density, or the number can’t be trusted. Second, the real weight will differ a little from any theoretical figure, and the causes are all predictable, so plan freight and lifting against documented, weighed figures.
Tell us the size you calculated, or the size you need, and how many lengths you are after. Our technical team confirms availability against the stainless steel rectangular tube weight chart above, documents the weight, and responds within 24 hours. Ask for a sample MTR first and check us before you commit. Send us your size and get a documented quote
