Can't speak to the quality of the Weaver, but have had a Fat Wrench for a couple of years and it has been excellent. I checked it against a $300+ wrench and it was within 1/2 inch pound after about a year and a half of use. One of the better $45 or $50 I've spent on gun accessories. John
I have no doubt the Wiha is in a league of its own. For the money, it ought to be. For my occasional uses, the Weaver works just fine, and has for the five years I have had it.
I use the Fat Wrench, but I also have a Borka; Google it and see what you think.
24HCF in its entirety, is solely responsible for why my children do not have college funds, my mortgage isn't paid-off and why I will never retire early enough to enjoy the remainder of my life.
I know I have not, and I am sure its not entirely accurate. What I am sure of, though, is that it is fairly consistent. I feel that more than an exact amount of force applied, it is important that the force be consistent and repeatable.
I have checked it, out of nothing more than pure curiosity, against fasteners that I torqued with this exact driver on previous occasions. Accurate? Hardly...but enough so for my purposes.
Dixie_Rebel: For "actions" I much prefer my Snap-On inch/pounds torque wrench. For "rings and bases" I use my Wheeler. I am not familiar with the Weaver as yet. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
If its not accurate then I don't see what the point is. Testing an unproven device against another unproven device (itself) doesn't prove anything does it?
I'd be happy to calibrate that wrench for you. Send it to me and I'll create a cal-sheet for it and send it back. Along with repeatability test. Won't take long in my instrumentation lab.
If its not accurate then I don't see what the point is. Testing an unproven device against another unproven device (itself) doesn't prove anything does it?
I'd be happy to calibrate that wrench for you. Send it to me and I'll create a cal-sheet for it and send it back. Along with repeatability test. Won't take long in my instrumentation lab.
It proves that its doing the same thing it did last time, which is what I am after.
I appreciate the offer, but I am not sure its worth the time and trouble for a $60 wrench...is it?
No trouble on my part. I have calibrated fixtures at work. I test my torque wrenches on them that I use for automotive work. If that wrench you have tests well, I might buy one for my range bag. Just a data point for me, and calibration for you.
If the device is "hardly" accurate, and not "worth the time" to test, why use it? I sure as hell wouldn't pay $60 for something I have that little confidence in.
The offer was sincere. I'm interested in seeing how it does and would be happy to test it. Same goes for the other makes/models mentioned.
Ideally we'd get others to send the Wheeler and Wiha too. I could test all of them and report the results. Single samples of each, but better than nothing.
No experience with the Weaver but nuther guy here that's happy with the Wheeler FAT wrench so far after just 20 or so scope mountings. But it seems built to last a while hopefully it will.
This one is a winner. I have a wheeler and I usually set the torque below what spec sheets say because I simply don't trust screwdriver torque wrenches. I only bought it because it at least provides consistent tightening.
Seems like I got my torque wrench from a guy off snipershide. Everyone there raved about them so I got that one instead. I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head.
Good on you for testing these wrenches. I will definitely keep an eye on this post for your results. A good way to separate the facts from the hot air. Thanks.
4th point, That is an awesome thing you are doing. I have been searching for a torque wrench, but I am too poor to spend $60 on an unreliable one... and too cheap to pay more for a certified one . May need to borrow one, haha.
fwiw, Does someone here work for a torque certification/standards laboratory? Short of that it seems difficult to see what is going to be obtained that a factory certified tool does not already bring to the party.
Gentlemen: Again we have left out the obvious. Brownells.
Brownells has been listing an adjustable T handle torque screwdriver for the last few years that would seem to have all that is needed for gun work. It has a range of settings that is just right for both scope mounting, and action tightening repeatability. Most of those that you have listed would do for rings and bases, but not for action screws. I've seen action screws torques quoted to be around 60 inch pounds. I've kept looking at low value torque wrenches, and think that my 3/8 drive Craftsman with a 1/4 inch socket and the correct screwdriver bit in is all that I need.
Does anyone have a Brownell's T Handle that we can have checked?
I don't think I'd bother to spend my money on a cheap Wheeler. Too much like buying a used barrel, and having someone else rethread and chamber it.
I use mostly Seekonk presets. I would think that any measuring instruments (other than steel tapes, rulers, etc,) need to be calibrated on a regular basis. I have a nice collection of the Seekonk preset wrenches that will only tighten a fastener to one value (20 inch/lb only, 15 inch lb only...etc. again) that I have been buying over the years. They're danged expensive given that each wench will tighten a fastener to only one preset torque value.
I work for an ISO 9001 certified manufacturer. All of our equipment is calibrated and we have dedicated fixtures just for torque wrenches. Calibrating them is standard procedure for us.
And no offense, but I wouldn't trust ANY torque device based on the manufacturer's claim or calibration. It goes on the cal fixture no matter what
Put another way, ISO would not allow us to trust the claims. They'd yank our certification for such foolishness Your car/truck is assembled with calibrated torque devices, meeting ISO certification. They don't rely on supplier claims either.
My first career was in aviation and all of the torque wrenches we used had to be laboratory calibrated and certified on an annual basis.
Whether this applies or not ... I don't know. It is an apples to oranges comparison because of the different types.
In all the shops I worked in we used Snap-On/Blue Point ratcheting click torque wrenches and only once did a torque wrench fail to be within specs/calibration and require repairs.
Buy good stuff and have confidence. Torque wrenches that are factory calibrated and certified are calibrated and meet FAA requirements until a new certification is required. To put it into perspective you could send a torque wrench to Snap-On, have it factory calibrated and certified, and it would satisfy FAA requirements.
Ours get calibrated/certified once per year, and checked on calibrated fixtures before each use. When you check one out, you confirm that the setting you expect to use is accurate. Then after the job, you can double check.
The only way to ensure a fastener is torqued correctly and meets a very high standard (FAA requirements) is to check it on a calibrated fixture, for that torque setting, before and after each and every use.
It is EXTREMELY important to understand the difference between corporations which need to follow, say, ISO 9001 or whatever else set of procedures such corporations want (or must) to follow, and individual users of torque tools. In order to pass audits, corporations must renew stickers attached to tools every year (or two years, or whatever), even if these tools were not used at all. Which means doing calibrations, certifications, etc. no matter if it makes technical or practical sense at all. It's all about paperwork and formal compliance with regulations, and some of these regulations are nothing but waste of time. Had a lot of experience with all that stuff...
On the other hand, individuals have no need whatsoever to do the same things, individuals are not obligated to follow ISO procedures, have any "approved" type of paperwork, and can afford, which is really great, just use common sense. Which often does not dictate any need for annual calibration if torque tools are not used a lot. And because torque tools for firearms applications, limited to individuals, are hand tools, which means they are, very likely, not being used a lot (who, realistically, not being a busy gunsmith or somebody involved in manufacturing, is using torque tool 1,000s times a year?), all this obsession with need for calibration of torque tools, owned by individuals for their private use, looks a bit funny to me. The only practical case for calibration of privately owned torque tool is just to make sure that such tool is actually matching claimed torque output, if tool owner has a justified suspicion that it may be an issue.
I use an expensive Norbar 1/4" torque wrench which is accurate to 4%, only because I've had it for years. I can't see why either the Wheeler or Weaver is just as good as any out there for scope ring torqueing. It's not a critical application. Lubricating the screws is important though as dry screws will give high readings when they not properly torqued.
"The 257 Roberts, some people like to call it the “.257 Bob.” I think these people should be hung in trees where crows can peck at them." - David Petzal
I have two Nasco fixed torque drivers: a 22"lb and a 40"lb. These two cover most of my needs, the smaller 22 for tightening scope rings and the 40 for attaching rings to bases and torqueing receiver action screws. The drivers seem well made and even have a piece of paper certifying their accuracy. I suppose over time, the settings can gradually change and thus benefit from recalibration, but I haven't bothered to do so.
I also own an adjustable torque driver from Northern Tool. It seems to work OK, but I can't speak to its accuracy or repeatability.
It is EXTREMELY important to understand the difference between corporations which need to follow, say, ISO 9001 or whatever else set of procedures such corporations want (or must) to follow, and individual users of torque tools. In order to pass audits, corporations must renew stickers attached to tools every year (or two years, or whatever), even if these tools were not used at all. Which means doing calibrations, certifications, etc. no matter if it makes technical or practical sense at all. It's all about paperwork and formal compliance with regulations, and some of these regulations are nothing but waste of time. Had a lot of experience with all that stuff...
On the other hand, individuals have no need whatsoever to do the same things, individuals are not obligated to follow ISO procedures, have any "approved" type of paperwork, and can afford, which is really great, just use common sense. Which often does not dictate any need for annual calibration if torque tools are not used a lot. And because torque tools for firearms applications, limited to individuals, are hand tools, which means they are, very likely, not being used a lot (who, realistically, not being a busy gunsmith or somebody involved in manufacturing, is using torque tool 1,000s times a year?), all this obsession with need for calibration of torque tools, owned by individuals for their private use, looks a bit funny to me. The only practical case for calibration of privately owned torque tool is just to make sure that such tool is actually matching claimed torque output, if tool owner has a justified suspicion that it may be an issue.
Finally......somebody said it.......
Casey
Casey
Not being married to any particular political party sure makes it a lot easier to look at the world more objectively... Having said that, MAGA.
I use an expensive Norbar 1/4" torque wrench which is accurate to 4%, only because I've had it for years. I can't see why either the Wheeler or Weaver is just as good as any out there for scope ring torqueing. It's not a critical application. Lubricating the screws is important though as dry screws will give high readings when they not properly torqued.
If one lubes the threads of a fastener then the torque needs to be decreased. If you lube the threads on a ring-cap screw and tighten it to the specs given by the manufacturer you will be over-torquing the screw. I researched this subject after it was mentioned in a thread. If you Google it, you can find tables that give you dry-torque values and the corresponding lubed-torque values.
It is EXTREMELY important to understand the difference between corporations which need to follow, say, ISO 9001 or whatever else set of procedures such corporations want (or must) to follow, and individual users of torque tools. In order to pass audits, corporations must renew stickers attached to tools every year (or two years, or whatever), even if these tools were not used at all. Which means doing calibrations, certifications, etc. no matter if it makes technical or practical sense at all. It's all about paperwork and formal compliance with regulations, and some of these regulations are nothing but waste of time. Had a lot of experience with all that stuff...
On the other hand, individuals have no need whatsoever to do the same things, individuals are not obligated to follow ISO procedures, have any "approved" type of paperwork, and can afford, which is really great, just use common sense. Which often does not dictate any need for annual calibration if torque tools are not used a lot. And because torque tools for firearms applications, limited to individuals, are hand tools, which means they are, very likely, not being used a lot (who, realistically, not being a busy gunsmith or somebody involved in manufacturing, is using torque tool 1,000s times a year?), all this obsession with need for calibration of torque tools, owned by individuals for their private use, looks a bit funny to me. The only practical case for calibration of privately owned torque tool is just to make sure that such tool is actually matching claimed torque output, if tool owner has a justified suspicion that it may be an issue.
I agree totally with the above post. Certain uses don't require perpetual calibration. My expectation, more than actual accurate numbers within 0.05% of claimed, is that whatever setting I pick for action torquing remains accurate the next time I take it apart and put it back one. I guess if you use it 1000 times a year it may need to be recalibrated. I may be wrong, as I have been that one time in my life :), but ISO 9001 means certification of accuracy and standarization, so that someone in Japan can get repeatable results with someone in the Polynesian islands and someone in Subsaharan Africa. Does not mean that not having ISO9001 is bad, it just means you can't be totally sure.
By the way, I think 4th poit offer is not to criticize Wheeler, Weaver, Brownells or any other brand, just a scientific test and offer to dispel myth, provide information and see what they are all about. It is up to the consumer to decide what they will purchase, or not, based on the findings.
BE STRONG IN THE LORD, AND IN HIS MIGHTY POWER. ~ Ephesians 6:10
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. --Winston Churchill
By the way, I think 4th poit offer is not to criticize Wheeler, Weaver, Brownells or any other brand, just a scientific test and offer to dispel myth, provide information and see what they are all about. It is up to the consumer to decide what they will purchase, or not, based on the findings.
That's right Sponxx.
I just offered to test torque wrenches for people since I have the equipment handy and am interested in the results. The owners get data for their wrench, and the rest of us get to see how the different makes/models compare. Maybe the Weaver and Wheeler are accurate and repeatable. Maybe they aren't. The only way we'll know is to test them. Same goes for a $180 wrench. Let's see how they do.
Nobody in this thread ever said that ISO certification is needed for a wrench for their scope mounting. I just made a genuine offer to test a wrench for some people and others rant about ISO. Wow! Now my feelers are hurt! Can I file a report with Rick?
I have the equipment to test the wrenches. On calibrated equipment, in an ISO certified facility. This just gives us a little confidence in the data we get. Rather than some unknown, uncalibrated measurement device.
Or we could just trust that Wanda had a good day in the factory and actually did her job calibrating our favorite brand of torque wrench. Or is it Pham, who has never seen a rifle or scope in her life? Who cares if its off by 10%, right? 10 minutes until lunch.
We've had all brands of torque wrenches schit-the-bed at work. Latest one for me was a 1/4" Snap-On. It was off by 20%.
On the other hand, I've seen several 1/2" wrenches from Harbor Freight do just fine. Good enough for casual use in the backyard garage for things like lug nuts. But its easy for us to check them periodically. I'd be more selective if I was rebuilding an engine though.
So if you're shopping for a wrench to use for scope mounting, you must be concerned with accuracy and repeatability. Especially for such dinky hardware. Too loose, and your rings/mounts may detach. Too tight, and you could crush a scope tube or affect tracking. Some say that they don't care if its accurate, just repeatable. Well, how do you know this?
I ask this because I've had several fish scales, kitchen scales, bathroom scales, etc. and they are not that accurate or repeatable. What makes someone think that a torque wrench is any different? Wanda or Pham did an uber-job that day, just for you!? And how can you make such a statement without data to back it up?
Paying more money might help ensure accuracy and repeatability.
Or just test them and see how they do. I'd rather do this.
I use an expensive Norbar 1/4" torque wrench which is accurate to 4%, only because I've had it for years. I can't see why either the Wheeler or Weaver is just as good as any out there for scope ring torqueing. It's not a critical application. Lubricating the screws is important though as dry screws will give high readings when they not properly torqued.
If one lubes the threads of a fastener then the torque needs to be decreased. If you lube the threads on a ring-cap screw and tighten it to the specs given by the manufacturer you will be over-torquing the screw. I researched this subject after it was mentioned in a thread. If you Google it, you can find tables that give you dry-torque values and the corresponding lubed-torque values.
You're quite correct. I always thought it was the other way around but Googled the tables as you suggested and about a 25% reduction in torque values should be applied to oiled screws.
Thanks for the information.
"The 257 Roberts, some people like to call it the “.257 Bob.” I think these people should be hung in trees where crows can peck at them." - David Petzal
Good on you for the offer, 4th point. I'm interested in results myself. My torque wrench of choice came with a certificate of calibration. Could it be wrong? Yes. In fairness though, I have no more reason to believe in your ability to check these instruments than Wanda or Pham.
Don't speculate when you don't know, and don't second guess when you do.
Wheeler FAT and Weaver adjustable torque screwdrivers accuracy rely on linear characteristics of the spring, which loads torque limiting clutch. They have identical principal design, with Weaver having a bit longer spring, which, both theoretically and practically, is a better way to ensure tool accuracy in mass production (1) and to make adjustment scale a bit longer for better readability by the user (2).
Initial adjustment (or calibration) is done at the factory for only ONE specific torque setting, typically the one in the middle of torque adjustment range. Accuracy within the whole adjustment range then depends upon linear characteristics of the spring, and nothing can be done about it. Typically, spring rate is found to be linear and may be reliably "synchronized" with adjustment scale if active spring load is between 20% and 80% of the maximum spring load. Which means that adjustable torque screwdriver may have decent accuracy if it is used for outputting the torque with adjustment ratio of 1 to 4 (from 20% to 80%) or so.
Wheeler FAT has an adjustment ratio of 10 to 60 inch-lbs. (1 to 6 ratio), Weaver has theoretically less favorable adjustment ratio of 10 inch-lbs. to 80 inch-lbs. ( 1 to 8 ratio), but has longer scale and slightly better scale resolution than FAT.
In my opinion, Weaver branded adjustable torque screwdriver supplied by Da-Jiun Co. from Taiwan is overall better made than Wheeler branded tool made in China (not sure which company in China makes this one).
Harbor Freight (from China) wrench with 20 to 200 inch-lbs. torque adjustment provides ratio of 1:10, which is really "pushing it" above proven technology,so do not expect any miracles of accuracy at low and high torque settings with that HF product.
Initial factory calibration to a single torque setting in the middle of the adjustment range, which is likely matches 45-50% of the spring load, is done with use of shim washers, which are typically custom made and installed during tool assembly at the factory.
Repeatability, in general, is ensured by the quality of parts used for assembly. If parts of the torque limiting clutch and spring itself are of high quality, means these parts are made from good materials/properly heat treated, then tool parts wear will be minimized to acceptable levels and repeatability will be preserved over considerable period of time. Repeatability also depends how well the tools user can see the scale markings and the scale pointer, which is, naturally, a subjective factor.
To summarize - adjustable torque screwdrivers like Wheeler FAT and Weaver can be re-calibrated, but only for ONE specific torque setting within the whole adjustment range. However, such re-calibration requires the use of the custom parts (shim washers), which are not likely to be easily obtainable by the individual owner of the tool or even by the test lab. This is because these shim washers, being of proprietary design, are not likely to be available from industrial supply companies like McMaster Carr and others.
These adjustable screwdrivers can be, of course, also checked (verified) for various torque settings within the range. If results of verification shows that torque output matches adjustment scale, say, in the middle of the range and does not match the scale at both ends of the same scale within claimed deviation, say, of no more than +/-6%, nothing can be done about it.
If parts used for torque limiting mechanism lack quality, repeatability will go to hell after some relatively short use, and nothing can be done about it.
And testing, say, of 10 adjustable screwdrivers, either Wheeler FAT or Wheeler, is not going to determine that, say, the other 100,000 of them are good or not, these tools are massed produced in Asia, where quality is typically hit or miss depending upon specific batch of tools. BTW, this happens not just with Asia made products, I've seen it done by some U.S. suppliers as well, but, statistically, on a lesser scale.
Yes, you can send your particular tool to test lab, but results of such test may not give sufficient info to determine which of the two tool brands is "better". In addition, results of such test may not help at all to fix potential issues with accuracy and repeatability, if any are found.
In my opinion, if testing is done without having an option to fix potential issues, it's useless waste of time. To make everything more practical and less stressful, just buy quality tools.
Good on you for the offer, 4th point. I'm interested in results myself. My torque wrench of choice came with a certificate of calibration. Could it be wrong? Yes. In fairness though, I have no more reason to believe in your ability to check these instruments than Wanda or Pham.
You're making it way too complicated. If you can tighten a nut with a wrench and read a display, you could do it. That is, to read the actual torque value vs the torque wrench.
I don't plan to re-cal anyone's wrench for them though.
You're quite correct. I always thought it was the other way around but Googled the tables as you suggested and about a 25% reduction in torque values should be applied to oiled screws.
I don't plan to re-cal anyone's wrench for them though.
Very honest answer of yours.
So, let's assume you get somebody's torque tool, use your company's equipment to find out that this somebody's tool is, unfortunately, no good, and give the bad news to the owner of the tool.
Then, what is, in your opinion, a type of corrective action which the owner of the tool can implement next, technically speaking? For example, tool owner may complain to the tool seller that torque tool is no good and demand refund or replacement, but unless tool owner gets some kind of paperwork from you to back up the claim, tool seller is likely going to disregard the claim. Will you be providing industry standard certificate of calibration per ISO 6789 to the tool owner?
Re-setting the tool if it reads incorrectly would void the warranty.
I don't know what the warranty is for the Wheeler or Weaver. Others like the Wiha mentioned earlier will have a full tool warranty. I suspect that cheap wrenches would just get pitched in the trash if they were really bad.
Post the ISO 6789 standard and let's look it over.
if you do torque tools calibrations, you must, by procedure, follow ISO 6789 and therefore, should be familiar with basic provisions of this document, related paperwork and how certificate of calibration should look like. Obviously, there is no need to post it here, as it would take lots of space, and, as you know well, any ISO document is really boring to read for anybody who is not deeply involved, by occupation, into this kind of stuff. Here is, however, a hint for you - certificate of calibration included, for example, with Wheeler FAT wrench does not comply at all with ISO 6789 requirements, and, therefore, from both legal and technical point of view, is not a valid certificate of calibration or even, validation of the tool. Does not mean Wheeler FAT wrench is somehow all that bad, just means that attached paperwork is no good and is not proving anything about the tool itself by just being included with the tool.
What is the specific, in your opinion, criteria for "cheap wrenches" to be really that bad that they should be pitched in a trash?
I do feel you have certain knowledge related to torque tools calibration, and agree with some of your statements, that's why I'm interested in what you got to say...
if you do torque tools calibrations, you must, by procedure, follow ISO 6789 and therefore, should be familiar with basic provisions of this document, related paperwork and how certificate of calibration should look like. Obviously, there is no need to post it here, as it would take lots of space, and, as you know well, any ISO document is really boring to read for anybody who is not deeply involved, by occupation, into this kind of stuff. Here is, however, a hint for you - certificate of calibration included, for example, with Wheeler FAT wrench does not comply at all with ISO 6789 requirements, and, therefore, from both legal and technical point of view, is not a valid certificate of calibration or even, validation of the tool. Does not mean Wheeler FAT wrench is somehow all that bad, just means that attached paperwork is no good and is not proving anything about the tool itself by just being included with the tool.
What is the specific, in your opinion, criteria for "cheap wrenches" to be really that bad that they should be pitched in a trash?
I do feel you have certain knowledge related to torque tools calibration, and agree with some of your statements, that's why I'm interested in what you got to say...
What is the point of your posts? To debate over semantics, or expound on your great knowledge of calibration?!
How about a friendly discussion and offer to test some common tools to help others make a buying decision?
If you want to turn this into an ISO pissing match, start by posting the standard.
Seems like I got my torque wrench from a guy off snipershide. Everyone there raved about them so I got that one instead. I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head.
It's a Borka; I've got one...love it.
24HCF in its entirety, is solely responsible for why my children do not have college funds, my mortgage isn't paid-off and why I will never retire early enough to enjoy the remainder of my life.
Look forward to the findings, if you are up for it.
Jason
Jason,
ISO 6789 is easy found by using Google. To help you get to it even quicker, w/o you spending any time for typing "ISO 6789" in a search bar, here is one of many links:
O.K., I think I got it - in your opinion, because I supposedly know too much about torque tools being discussed here, I should not reply to your posts. No problem, Jason, I was just curious about technical side of your kind offer to test other people's tools. Sorry for asking questions and trying to communicate with you, it should have never happened. My mistake.
So far, you came up with initiative to test other people's tools. Your latest idea of delegating the execution of your initiative to me is very much appreciated, but I got to refuse. It's all yours, you got it all figured out and you should certainly stick with your idea and plan as originally offered to participants of this interesting discussion.
Wishing you good luck with testing, and I'm looking forward to your findings, and even more important, your conclusions about three brands of torque tools mentioned above.
Are you saying now that you're not sure how to run the test? Then why did you offer to run the test yourself in the first place? One of your posts indicated that you know it very well, something like take the wrench, tighten the nut and look at the monitor, right?
Anyway, now that you have a direct link to download of ISO 6789, which is 15 pages, I see no reason whatsoever to personally read this document to you or post all 15 pages here.
I suggest you stop paying any attention to me personally, and start testing various brands of torque tools, as you've offered to other people. I promise not to ask you any more silly questions, which appears to distract you from executing your initiative, and will not be sharing any more of my personal knowledge on the subject, so that it would not irritate you any more. As I said, it's all yours, my friend, I'm out...
Just post your findings and conclusions, when you're done. We're interested to hear from you.
You're not getting off the hook so easy with your hit-n-run attacks. Spill the frijoles with the test plan. Or are you just going to go around and around with your pointless posts?
You stated that you're an expert with torque measurement devices and repeatedly quoted the ISO standard.
No, we're interested in determining if our torque wrenches are accurate. You're interested in stirring up schitt and I wish you'd stop. If you continue Jason may decide not to kindly help us out as he has offered initially. That'd piss a lot of folks off.
2. Yet Mishka doesn't want to help test the tools we've discussed.
3. And Mishka has no advice on the testing.
Am I missing anything? Where did my troll detector go? I thought I had it a moment ago.
Jason, unfortunately, you got nothing straight.
1. I never said I'm an expert. You have to provide reference to prove that I specifically mentioned myself as being an expert. If you made this conclusion by yourself, it's your choice.
2. I never said I'm willing or interested to help. In fact, I can not help, I have no necessary equipment(1) and free time to do it for fun (2). When my business needs something related to torque tools tested, I send it to specialized testing lab, and I pay for the service, and it's not cheap. They do it in accordance with ISO 6789, like everybody else in torque tools testing business. This is all I know about testing. My primary business in in torque tools design and manufacturing, and testing is always being outsourced. According to your posts, you know much more, than I do, about testing, as tou personally do it all the time. So, I conclude that you got to be an expert, not me.
3. I can not give you advice on testing, except a friendly suggestion to familiarize yourself with ISO 6789, which, to my knowledge, is used by professional testers, so that your findings are supported, desirably, by some kind of commonly used procedure. What's wrong with this particular advice? However, if you think ISO 6789 set of procedures is of no importance, and do not want to use ISO 6789 guide lines, just do it your way, deal? You're the boss.
I'm out of your way, 100%. And don't use me as an excuse not to do testing. I smell that this excuse of yours is coming, with consideration to Magnumdood's post. Several posters seem to be seriously relying on your kind offer to do testing for them, so don't let them down on your promise,O.K.? It's now all about your personal credibility, you can not turn back, because I, who is certainly nobody to you and other people, made a few posts, which you may not like. Just forget about these posts, according to some people here they are made by the troll, so they should not be taken seriously by design. These posts should not change anything in regard to your intentions to do testing.
It's obvious I'm wasting time trying to help you with your project to test tools. Do not bother to reply to me. With this post of mine, I'm done replying to you. It's high time to forget about me and to start helping people who are interested to know if their torque tools are accurate.
You stated that you're an expert with torque measurement devices and repeatedly quoted the ISO standard.
Let's see it.
Oops, forgot to reply to this one.
You got to be one of those dudes who like to make things up...
Yep, let's see it. Jason, go ahead and find my post stating "I'm an expert with torque measurement devices."
Why do you say all these things which never took place?
In regard to ISO standard - you did state that you work for ISO 9001 company. Do you guys over there sometimes quote (and possibly, sometimes use) ISO standards, to comply with ISO 9001 certification? Then, what is your problem with me quoting ISO standard, which is applicable to your initiative of testing torque tools?
I know you're not going to find any of my posts with statement that you've attributed to me, and I suspect you know nothing about ISO, so just drop all these attempts, and simply do testing of torque tools, as you've promised to do to some of forum members, in your own Jason's way.
You stated that you're an expert with torque measurement devices and repeatedly quoted the ISO standard.
Let's see it.
Oops, forgot to reply to this one.
You got to be one of those dudes who like to make things up...
Yep, let's see it. Jason, go ahead and find my post stating "I'm an expert with torque measurement devices."
Why do you say all these things which never took place?
In regard to ISO standard - you did state that you work for ISO 9001 company. Do you guys over there sometimes quote (and possibly, sometimes use) ISO standards, to comply with ISO 9001 certification? Then, what is your problem with me quoting ISO standard, which is applicable to your initiative of testing torque tools?
I know you're not going to find any of my posts with statement that you've attributed to me, and I suspect you know nothing about ISO, so just drop all these attempts, and simply do testing of torque tools, as you've promised to do to some of forum members, in your own Jason's way.
Mishka,
You keep reiterating that you are "out of it" and will no longer respond to Jason's posts, yet, your posts directly follow Jason's posts at least 4 times after you said you would cease and desist that precise activity. The way I see it you have absolutely no grounds to criticize Jason's kind gesture to his fellow board members. Further, you should just shut the [bleep] up. You're not contributing anything to the thread topic; you've got some sort of problem with Jason and his offer to check our torque wrenches. If you must argue with him take it into a PM and keep the monkey poo-fights off of the public board.
Mishka, Jason: Let's not make this a pissing contest. The way I read it was Jason proposed to check on the accuracy of the tools provided, with equipment he uses to certify/verify other schitt. Consumers could decide which company they decide to purchase on and owner's can decided to use them again or not.
I am a doctor, if I examine someone I do not have to send a copy of my certifications to anyone, the fact that I own have privileges to work at certain institutions, hold a medical license and have passed however many board exams I have taken tells the patient that I meet the minimum requirements of medical knowledge. (I did overpenetrate the national means though hehehe)
That is not a guarantee that I will be accurate 100% of the time, or make me better or worse than the competing Drs somewhere else. Just that I meet a certain standard. And patients and families don't ask me if I can provide reports of competence everytime. They trust the institution hiring me has done due diligence evaluating my skills and track record. Could I do brain surgery? maybe, most likely will botch it, so I won't do it despite having access to tools and books that tell me so. I agree with Mishka that a sample of one tool does not reflect a company, but I think it is a start to shed some light. I always appreciate reading from devil's advocates, but it is delivery that can make less pleasant.
Sorry for the delay fellas. Been busy at work and home lately. I'll PM those with wrenches to send. If anyone else wants to help by sending a torque wrench, that would be great. Even if its another Wheeler or Weaver, the more the merrier.
PM's sent to the 3 dudes that offered to send wrenches.
I'll try to get the ISO standard this week at work. I don't work in the lab and don't have access to the records at home. We'll reference the document for the testing.
Just some observations, from someone who owns torque wrenches, and occasionally uses torque testing equipment.
1. I've always steered toward simple beam-type torque wrenches, even if they aren't always convenient. The clicker or dial type wrenches have much more complex mechanisms. They may indeed check fine when calibrated, but any corrosion or wear, and suddenly they can go on the fritz, and may do so without warning. The beam type units are unlikely to change over time, unless they are greatly damaged. As long as you buy a quality unit with guaranteed accuracy, they are unlikely to ever cause problems.
Granted, the beam type are less convenient, especially when you're doing something like F150 lug nuts at 150 ft-lbs, but screws on guns normally require much less torque, and requires only moderate hand strength.
2. Always apply a smooth, increasing effort to the wrench. If you yank or jerk the wrench you may get it to click, but the torque won't necessarily be accurate.
A couple engine builders told me that they always use a beam-type torque wrench for installing heads or any time there is a gasket to compress. They thought the clickers "broke" too soon, and liked to hold the torque longer with the beam-type.
Just this afternoon a fella at worked grabbed a 1/4" Snap-on to install a mount and scope on his new Tikkler. I told him he'd better check it first. He set it to 25 in-lb, and the test fixture read 45 in-lb. He came back shocked that it was 20 in-lb off. He ended up taking a dial-type, that read exactly 25 in-lb. True story.
I have always used the short end on the wrench supplied with the rings and turned the screw as tight as I could with thumb and index finger. Never a problem over many years. Calibrated hands I suppose.
I have 6 torque wrenches and several pressure gauges that get FAA certification every year. Have not had one of mine fail in 15 years, but I do not loan them out. Seekonk, Snap-on/CDI, Craftsman.
For things that counts you generally need to measure the running torque of the threads and add the desired value to get the final torque, ie connecting rod bolts with locking nuts. This is difficult to do with other than a dial type wrench. A click type wrench works more conveniently on lubed thread applications such as spark plugs, oil filters and cylinder hold down nuts.
My choice for scope mounting, and to set torque limiting screw drivers for delicate electronic stuff:
For mounting actions, bases and rings...which torque wrench is better: Wheeler Fat Handle or Weaver?
I realize you are asking an either or question, but I hate both of your options. My preference is to use a Felo torque driver for the applications you note. They are a favorite of mine.
Last edited by GaryVA; 02/15/15.
�I've never met a genius. A genius to me is someone who does well at something he hates. Anybody can do well at something he loves -- it's just a question of finding the subject.�
.
I actually never have used them on guns. 
