If I might add...
I think you should also pay attention to the aspect ratio.
The stock inch sizes had an aspect ratio of about 95% or higher, despite any marking on the tire (with few exceptions). When metrics were introduced, the aspect ratio was added. Bike makers changed their bike geometry to account for this. The change was not made retroactive to older bikes already manufactured (like ours).
So, even if you manage to get the width of a metric tire exactly the same as an inch size, the aspect ratio (or tire height) will still be wrong for what the designers intended.
I often wonder if present day tire manufacturers give a rat's butt about aspect ratios of their modern manufactured Inch size tires.
I guess I'll have to go out and measure mine.... OK, here's the results:
(New - nubs still there)
Metzeler 3.25x19 Measures 3.5 OAW (89.6mm) and 3.4 Height (86.3mm). Aspect ratio = 3.4/3.5 = 97 %
(pretty new, but nubs gone <1000 miles)
Metzeler 4.00x18 Measures 4.2 OAW (108.9mm) and 3.7 Height (95.1mm). Aspect ratio = 3.7/4.2 = 88%
K591 120/90x18 Measures 4.8 OAW (122mm) and 4.033 Height (102.4mm). Aspect ratio = 102.4/122 = 88%
This tire looks new but certainly has some wear (no nubs). Even so, it is still taller than the 4.00 Metzeler.
(a 120/90 width tire should have a height of 108mm or 4.25 inches. A 4.00 tire should have a height of 3.8 inches or 96.5mm
And finally, a 3.25 inch tire would have a tire height of 3.25 inches, if it were a 100% aspect ratio. The Metzeler measures bigger than marked, but keeps the old style aspect ratio. I suspect the 4.00 rear does too, but I don't have a brand spanking new one to measure.
(Note: the above Height measurements are with them on the rim. I have to make an estimate where the bead actually sits on the rim inside.)
Cheers,