Its NOT C.O.AL. it is....

[sarge4318]

ft/lbs when meaning ft-lbs (admittedly I see it used less often since a certain airgun magazine mended it's ways)

Technically speaking, seeing as we are being pedantic, it is ft.lb (sometimes ft.lbs or ft.lbf), not ft/lbs or ft-lbs (or even ft/lbf or ft-lbf) and never in this context lbf.ft

[bhodge]

C.G.A.F
Personally, I couldn't give one.... I'd rather be shooting!

[Turnup]

Technically speaking, seeing as we are being pedantic, it is ft.lb (sometimes ft.lbs or ft.lbf), not ft/lbs or ft-lbs (or even ft/lbf or ft-lbf) and never in this context lbf.ft

Depends on which schools you went to. and I believe both are correct. The . and the - are interchangeable in this context and sometimes the - is preferable as in Newton-metre or kilowatt-hour. I think we are agreed that ft/lb is always wrong.

[junkyard dog]

Technically speaking, seeing as we are being pedantic, it is ft.lb (sometimes ft.lbs or ft.lbf), not ft/lbs or ft-lbs (or even ft/lbf or ft-lbf) and never in this context lbf.ft

Ah! but that depends on what you mean by pedantic

[Treebone]

While we are at it how about Would have, Could have and Should have, instead of, Would of, Could of, and Should of!!

TB