Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Torque wrench tests

This was Fat Wrench #2, the one that CTSMITH sent. This was off by up to 20%. I used the center of the black mark to select a torque setting. Although the results were ~linear, and one could figure out where to put the mark for more "accuracy", CTSMITH agreed to a dissection of the wrench. Given that it is so far off, I'd be leery of it possibly going even more wonky overtime. I'll take this sample apart and post pics. Thanks CT!

Of interest is the fact that this wrench appears to be older than Fatty #1, above. The handle was a different shade of yellow, and the scale is different.

And now the darling of the test thus far...

A beam-type wrench, the Park Tools TW-1, sent by SWARF. Park makes tools for working on bicycles, but I believe that Swarf found that this tool was actually made for Park by another company.

At any rate, this baby was dead-nuts accurate. There was zero error for the entire range... none... zip... zilch... zero. I like beam-type wrenches as you gradually apply the torque and can "feel" it. Once at your desired setting, you can hold it. Clickers hold the torque momentarily, and then break.

A downside to a beam-type wrench is that you need to "see" the wrench scale. Not a problem for installing bases or rings, but clickers are handy for working on cars where you can't "see" the wrench. And you must look at the scale at a perpendicular angle to avoid parallax.

The ball handle on the Park is also a neat feature. Overall, its a joy to use this tool. And maybe best of all... its made in the US. I don't know the warranty or customer service, but this is a great start being made here instead of off-shore.

Even though I really like the Park TW-1 and beam-type wrenches in general, I still see value in simple clickers especially for range bags.

If ya gotta wrench, and want it tested... send me a PM. Only condition is that you allow the results and pics to be posted so we can all learn. And don't worry if your model has already been tested. More samples is actually better.

Looking for a Weaver to test next. Anyone have one?

For the Wheeler Fat Wrench, the top of the bar is where you set it. i.e. align the top of the bar to the desired setting.

Which version... newer one or older one?

Pretty certain that I checked the instructions for the new version and it read, "middle of bar". But I could be wrong and don't have that wrench with me anymore.

Can you post a pic with this "top of the bar" instruction from the manual?

Thanks,

Jason

If "top of bar" is the proper procedure, this would help CTSMITH's wrench, but make the results from Fatty #1 worse.

Newer I think? That's what the directions on mine stated and it matches these. Also, the bar is 5 in-lb wide.

http://media.midwayusa.com/pdf/reference/fat_wrench_instructions.pdf

Thanks PRM.

Those look like the instructions for the older model, which is what CTSMITH has.

Here are the instructions for the newer model where they don't say anything about upper and lower edges.

I'll re-test Fatty #2 with the indicator set to the upper edge.

Based on the first test, it looks like it'll still be off by more than 2 in*lb (spec for new one) but I'll post results and cancel dissection for now.

Mine is like the first with the fatter bar. It's only 6-7 years old so I assumed it was newer. Apparently not. Definitely a thinner bar and different tics (up to 65) on the newer one.

Both set to 30 in-lbs. Appears it won't change your first and will help the second. Thanks for testing. Good to see they do work.

Fat bar


Thin bar

I had a brain lapse...

If I test CTSMITH's wrench with the upper edge aligned with the tick mark, the actual torque will be even lower than what I already recorded (i.e. make the results WORSE). I used the middle of the mark, which puts the edge ABOVE the tick mark.

My opinion, but I want my torque wrench to follow common sense... middle of mark to align with tick mark. I don't want to remember how far above or below it needs to be in order to be close to what I want. Or how far off it is from what I was guessing at?

I'm wondering if Wheeler went with the lowest bidder on this generation of Fatty?

Unless there is another set of instructions where the bottom edge needs to be set to the tick

PRM,

I'd love to get another sample of this generation Wheeler. Please send me a PM if you're willing to submit it for a test.

Thanks,

Jason

You're right, it will be worse. I will be on travel all next week, but I'd consider sending it.

Look carefully and you will see a fine indented line, approximately in the center. Seems like this would be the mark and that they would make it more visible.

CT,

That bit adapter is on its way. Sorry for the delay.

Jason

Jason. I had completely forgot about it anyway. Certainly no big deal. Appreciate the work you are doing. May send you my Wiha. Only problem is that I use it often.

No sweat CT.

The Wiha would be great. If you want to do it, we can work out a timeframe where I test and return ASAP... possibly in one day... two at the max. Just let me know, and thanks again for helping out with the experiment.

Jason

Gentlemen:

FYI: I found and purchased the "Park Tools TW1" on Amazon. Its cost plus shipping was $36.00. I just checked.

I have no connection to Park Tool Company. They are located in St. Paul, MN. I wish that our tester had pictured a ruler alongside the Park TW-2. I just measured it. Its OAL is 11 and 1/4 inches. The size and scale of these things is important.

Also note that the small fasteners that we use in firearms and their low torgue requirement is the most critical thing that we test. Repeatability at low values is the key for gun work. Think number 6 and 8 ring and mount screws. 35/40 inch pounds can be done with adequacy with many tools.

I think that for we mechanical rifle looneys who do our own gun work this testing is great, and we should all send 4th_point enough funds for a coffee and a donut on us.

We are lucky to have him.

4th,

for the Wheeler, how about going at it from the other end of the equation?

Set the check tool at a figure say 20, and then adjust the Wheeler until it is clicking right at 20. Then take a photo of the bar position. That should answer the question of position.

From there, then you can check to see if it tracks at other settings.

Even if 18 does not exactly equal 18 on the bar, having something even close to prevent over tightening is really the key for any of these.

The Park looks great, but does not appear that it will not fit conveniently in my tool box where the Wheeler or similar does. Much of my usage is at the range installing or adjusting scopes and rings, so the ability to have it fit in the toolbox is important.

What is the size of the Park? Does it come in some sort of protective case?

Which of the more compact models would you recommend that will fit conveniently in a tool box or range bag?

Thanks for running this test. Very interesting.