When I run the program below, the debug shows: 50.58 and 50.57

I then physically measure the 6 columns and get 9.5 centimeters

and then measure column 10 and get 8.5 centimeters.

Does anybody know what's going on here?

My point is: it says that they are equal 50.58=50.57 but they
are N O T 9.5 cm < 8.5 cm.

I see what OssieMac is saying. After you run his subroutine, column J (which
is number 10) will (supposedly) be set to six times the width of a
non-expanded column (say, column A, B, C, etc.). Take a ruler and physically
measure the width of column J after running his subroutine and then measure
the combined widths of columns A through F (that is, six contiguous,
non-expanded columns)... the two measurements won't be equal, they will be
noticeably different. I don't get as much variation as OssieMac does (may
have something to do with fonts; I have my sheet set to a font size of 12
instead of the default of 10), but I do get a measureable difference (4.8
inches for columns A through F and only 4.5 inches for column J). I am
guessing OssieMac's question is why don't the six contiguous column
physically measure the same as the one column that is six times as wide as
any single column; especially when Excel reports their width to be within
0.01 character units?

Rick