Advertised nut width vs actual string spacing
 

I have two guitars, a Gibson with a 1.75" (measured) nut width and an EG-series Takamine with a 1 11/16" (measured) nut width which Takamine advertises as 43 mm, about .005" more than 1 11/16". The actual string spacing on the Gibson (measuring from the outside of E strings) is 1 9/16. For the Tak, it is 1 13/32. Both have light gage strings. The actual Tak string spacing is narrower than the difference in nut width would indicate. First position chords are a little cramped and I have small hands.

I know that 1 11/16" nut width is kind of the de facto standard for dreadnoughts. What I'm wondering is, is the actual string spacing on Martins or Larrivees or others with advertised 1 11/16' nuts as narrow as it is on my Tak or is it more proportional to the string spacing of my 1.75" nut width Gibson.

FWIW, I took these measurement with a steel tape measure graduated in 32nds. I could have used a Vernier dial caliper but I was too lazy to get it out of the garage.

The string spacing on an existing guitar is limited by two factors, as follows:

1. The width of the fingerboard/nut
2. The amount of clearance between the edges of the fingerboard and the edges of the two outside strings.

Notes:

1. The amount of clearance between the edge of the fingerboard and the edge of the string does not have to be equal for the first and sixth string - it is common to have more at the first string, to reduce the tendency to pull the string off the edge of the fingerboard.
2. The practical playing surface of the fingerboard - and hence width - may be reduced depending upon how the ends of the frets are finished - how much, if any, bevel they have.

If there is sufficient clearance, the strings can be spaced further apart in a new nut made for this purpose.

I have a Larrivee L03 with 1 3/4 nut. Actual string spacing is 1 9/16 outside to outside. Also a Guild GAD-F40 with a 1 11/16 nut. Actual spacing is 1 15/32.

I can see why your Tak feels a little cramped at 1 13/32.