First up is an Armstrong 64-031.

1. Thanks to Logger for sending the wrench. Armstrongs are nice wrenches. I've used one of their 1/2" models a good deal.

2. The actual torque values measured were plotted along with the settings on the wrench. This was done to make it easy to see the difference between the Actual vs Desired (i.e. setting on the wrench itself). On the chart below you can see the torque values on the left axis. The bottom axis is simply the setting count and has no real meaning other than it allows the data to be plotted for easy viewing.

3. The wrench was tested 10x at each setting and was extremely repeatable.

4. Since there was some error, I used a curve-fit with the actual data and created a correction table for Logger.

5. A Snap-On calibration fixture was used for the test.

Here's the data and correction tables for the Armstrong 64-031.

Good report. Thank you. I've been thinking about getting a torque wrench for some time. Your reports will help make the buying decision easier.

I have accumulated several torque wrenches over the years; all of them being dedicated to working on my rifles.

IIRC, you will be testing several wrenches in the future. Perhaps we could make this a sticky or at least keep the results in a continuous running thread.

Thank you for your time.

Have you tested a Borka? It takes a little practice to use, but I like it. No idea how accurate it is though.

Some other members have expressed interest in sending a Weaver and Wheeler Fat Wrench for comparison. If so, I'll post the results.

I haven't used a Borka but would like to try one!

After all of this discussion I started to do a bit of looking on line.

I found an old fashioned deflective beam type wrench on Amazon. It is a Park Tool TW1. It is made by the Park Tool company in St Paul, MN. The price was less than $40.00. It came from a bike shop.

The pointer was off of zero by about two inch pounds. Easy fix. Put the square shank in a padded vise, and deflect the pointer until it returns to "0."

When I was a young fella every toolbox around had a beam type torque wrench. Clickers are all the rage now, but it seems that fewer people have a torque wrench of any type these days. I don't know what changed but it seems less fashionable to have a beam type.

I like beam wrenches.

Send it, and I'll test it and report the results.

I've Got a Older Snap-On TQ-1 Torqometer That I Picked Up Years Ago At a Flea Market. Guy Wanted $10. And Me. Being Me. Offered $8.Have To Say It's Been Well Worth The Money. Hard To Do Things With Out One..

Next up is a 1/4" Pittsburgh Pro...

Thanks to SenderoMan for sending the 1/4" Pittsburgh Pro from Harbor Freight Tools. Got to say that he and Logger have been good guys to work with on this little project.

I was running low on time and to keep things apples-to-apples for firearms-use I'm only posting data up to 50 in*lbs for now. Range for this torque wrench is 20-200 in*lbs. I'll try to post results for the entire range at a later date.

Same test procedure and reporting as before. The x-axis is meaningless but makes it easier to plot and show how the actual torque matches the settings on the wrench.

On with the results... and its "PittsburgH".

Thanks for specifying, in* pounds as opposed to, ft. pounds.
Not uncommon to see folks mixing the two and not realizing the difference.
Quote "stock screws were less than 40ft/lbs" from today's posts

The Pittsburgh Pro did much better than I expected. In the 20-50 in*lb range it did fairly well. At higher ranges the first click after making a setting change would be higher than subsequent uses. If this were my wrench and I wanted to be very precise I would exercise the wrench at least once after setting the wrench. In other words... set the wrench to the desired torque value, put square drive in vice (or similar), click a few times, then use. In the 20-50 in*lb range this was not needed, but wouldn't hurt.

Inconvenient? Maybe, but I think you can get this wrench for $20.

Jason

Dang. Still havent sent the wheeler, but I will.

First all, thanks for taking the time to do this.

Second, I'll pick up one of those Pittsburgh wrenches, seems like a deal for $20.

No rush CT. Hoping to get a Weaver too.

Dave,

I had a HFT 1/4" wrench that was off by a lot. Went to look for it for this test but I must have pitched it since it was nowhere to be found. I told this to SenderoMan and he still wanted to send his wrench. I'm glad he did.

I think we need to be careful since I've only got one sample for each/make model. But, if you want to send your wrench, I'll test it for you. Just send a PM.

Jason

Jason,
Thanks for testing these wrenches out and yes I'm glad I did send it! I was a little worried about its accuracy after talking with you and wonder if they are consistent from wrench to wrench. Just glad that I ended up with an accurate one!

If you watch for sales, these can be had for way less than the $20.

My experience with two HF Pittsburgh 1/4" drive torque wrenches was a little different. I wanted a 1/4" torque wrench to torque the intake manifold bolts on my truck. These are critical fasteners that have to be torqued correctly and evenly to avoid problems.

I went to HF and bought one. It did not function. It was totally defective and I returned it for another one. That one functioned but I tested it on a random bolt on my truck, at a couple of different settings, and it didn't feel right. So I tested it it against my calibrated Snap-On 3/8" drive and it did not produce the same torque values.

I returned that POS also. I ended up using my Snap-On, at just below it's normal torque range, and it went together right and tight.

Just MHO but I don't believe HF torque wrenches are tested or calibrated. They're the cheapest of cheap "looks like a torque wrench" chinese crap. You might get lucky but ...

SenderoMan,

No problem. Thanks for sending it.




Fish Head,

I think you get what you pay for. Sometimes you can find a bargain or get lucky. I still think the 1/4" HFT torque wrench is hit/miss. I've seen a few 1/2" versions that have been pretty good for occasional home use. I wouldn't trust any of them without checking first.

You make a great point about paying attention to the "feel". I think that people who don't wrench small fasteners would have a hard time judging this. The average 1/4" torque wrench has a lot of leverage. Probably best to start with a smaller tool (small combo wrench or nutdriver) and tighten lightly by hand then use the torque wrench, while paying attention to feel. We shouldn't be using a torque wrench as a ratchet any way, although many people do.

Spending more money is not always a guarantee for better accuracy. A fella I know grabbed a 1/4" Snap-On to mount a scope to his new T3. I suggested that he check it first. It was set to 25 in*lbs, but the actual torque was 45 in*lbs... off by 80%. I've seen this with another 1/4" Snap-On but both were the digital variety.

Jason

Jason, I just placed the Wheeler in my truck so I don't forget to ship on Monday (mabye )

Sounds good CT. A bud at work got the Wheeler for Christmas. He tested it 5x at each setting and did a full sweep up, then back down. He said it was dead-nuts, but didn't record the data.

I plan to test his and report it. It'd be great to get yours as an extra sample.

Jason

Also got a Park Tools TW-1 from member Swarf. Its a beam-type with a neat ball handle. I suspect the ball handle is to minimize leverage error. Neat little wrench that I hope to get tested next week.

In your test make sure not to just use whole "10" values. Try to repeatably set on 17 in/lbs, for example.

17 in*lb ?!?!?

Hmm...

We'll see how it does.

The scale on that wrench leave a LOT to be desired. I have a 1/4" drive wrench that I use on certified aircraft. It hasn't been calibrated in over a year but typically spot on. I think it is Taiwanese made.

What part of the central black -white -black piece do you use for the torque indicator?

g5m, I have it set on what I believe to be approximately 17 in/lbs, if that helps. Like Dennis said, the scale is terrible.

Once it's calibrated maybe it can be marked to make it more readable.

Even so, with only the tens marked on the scale, and a narrow spacing between them, "close" is all that can be expected. I am sure close will get the job done most of the time but its not for me.

Tested Fat Wrench #1 yesterday (co-worker's). It did pretty well, within 2 in*lb as per the Wheeler instruction sheet. I'll post test results in the near future.

In terms of "use", I don't care for the Wheeler. The scale is hard to read. Grip also sucks, but hey, it does the job.

CT is sending his so we'll have two samples

Also tested a Park Tool TW-1. Its a beam wrench with tiny ball handle. Its an absolute gem and the darling of the test thus far. I love beam wrenches. In my experience they are very accurate and repeatable. The TW-1 is no exception. It was dead nuts from 10-60 in*lb, as in zero error.

The smooooooooth torque application of a beam wrench is so nice compared to click-clacking. And I like to hold that torque for a few moments, whereas the clickers break at the desired torqued. Just personal preference, ymmv.

I know the market has gone away from beam wrenches to a certain extent, so its nice to see the Park at a fair price.

Thanks to Swarf for sending it.

I'll post results in the next week or so. But not much else to say other than its my favorite wrench thus far by a mile.

I used to sell torque wrenches. The beam (and especially the double beam) are far more accurate than any click type. But the clickers are easier to use (you don't have to be in position to see them) and they now far out sell the clickers.
It is also far more expensive to produce an accurate beam wrench.

CDI (Snap on Industrial Brand) makes some of the best clickers. This is a older model (less high end). It's on clearance and a steal at this price.

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/cdi-3-8-75-lb-micrometer-torque-wrench?a=1739166

It's not much use if one is needing in-lbs.

Should be some interesting results posted soon from the Wheeler Fat Wrench that I sent.

Sure, if you are working on cars!

I'm interested in seeing which part of the black mark is used to get the correct foot pounds. I've heard use the middle of the black strip the most. Can't wait to see the results.

For the Wheeler that CTSMITH sent, I just centered the mark. Results to follow.

This was the first Fat Wrench tested, submitted by a bud at work. It appears to be a newer version than what CTSMITH had sent. It was within the +/- 2 in*lbs that Wheeler specifies in their instructions.

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.

Jeffbird, I've tried a lot of them and the Wiha is hands down my favorite. The calibration report was provided when purchased and there was essentially no error. I intend to send to Jason and I'm anticiping similar results.


Wiha torque screwdriver


1/4" Drive

Good idea.

The pic below was taken with the wrench clicking at exactly 25 in*lb. I didn't do any more settings. CTSMITH donated it for dissection. I just need to take the sucker apart and snap some pics.

The Park will not fit in a small rangebag. And there is no protective case, just a cardboard box. But it seems like a steal, and excellent tool for home use based on the one that Swarf sent. I like the Park wrench ALOT! I plan to buy one in the near future.

So far the only compact wrench I've tested is the Fatty... one older one from CTSMITH and a newer one from a buddy. The newer one did well but there's a bunch of other wrenches out there. Even so, I still like beam wrenches so I see a permanent place for the Park.

I may try the Warne TW-1. It only has one setting... 25 in*lb, but its as simple as it gets.

Whatever you decide on, I'd be happy to test it for you. Just let me know.

Jason

Jason,

PM me your address and I'll send you two Borka wrenches and a PTL (Precision Torque Limiter) for testing.

Did these get sent and tested?

No, I never heard from him. Maybe he didn't see my post above.

Just saw it. Pm on the way.

Well???

Don't have them yet.

Mailing them out tomorrow. I came down with a stomach virus and have been out of commission since last Wednesday eve.

How 'bout now?

My CDI 0-75 inch lb dial type wrench came with cal certs, left and right hand. within 1% IIRC. About $150 from Amazon, American made.
You can measure running torque, like when you have dry Locktite, and add your desired amount easily.

I have a Wheeler Fat Wrench that appears to look like the second one you tested, the one that has a 20% error. I have had this wrench for 10 years or so.

Now, I also have the instructions for the wrench. Below is a quote from those instructions.

"If the upper edge of the red mark on the sliding indicator is aligned with the tic mark, the torque produced will be equivalent to the number on the scale next to the tic."

The instructions continue to say "If the lower edge of the red mark on the sliding indicators aligned withe the tic mark, the torque produced will be equivalent to the number on the scale next to the tic plus five."

By adding the five (5) when using the lower edge of the indicator you can get 15, 25, 35, 45 etc.

Now although my wrench looks like the wrench with the error of 20% my indicator is red and I note that the author indicates his indictor is black. I don't really know what this means.

He's had them for two weeks, but their test bench/machine/whatever is down.

Jason thought it might be back up and running as soon as last Friday, but I haven't heard from him.

Thanks.

So, for a guy looking to get a reliable and accurate wrench to do scope mounts with, what would you recommend? I am thinking the Park TW-1 with a bit kit

The fixture was still down as of yesterday. Our techs are busy assisting with a new met lab so they are limited on time. I'm sorry for the delay but will get results posted once the device is re-calibrated/replaced.

So far, I still really like the Park. But I'm partial to beam wrenches. It won't fit in a range-bag though.

The Wheelers are handy but I haven't inspected the mechanism. I have the one which was donated and still need to dissect. I'm behind schedule!

The Borkas seem really good... even though I haven't tested them yet. Very simple design, and will fit in a range-bag.

If I had to buy right now, and not worry about putting the wrench in my range-bag, I'd go with the Park.

When you're up and running I'll send the Wiha.

Their test bench is still out of commission and I needed my wrenches back.

I appreciate your effort Jason, let me know when the new bench is in play and I'll send the wrenches back.

Thanks.

SD,

The instrumentation lab at work has been in total disarray the past week. They partitioned off a section for a new met-lab.

Thanks for being such a good sport with this, and the torque wrench test fixture taking a crap. I'm sorry I had your wrenches for so long and wasn't able to test them.

I'll post an update once we have suitable test equipment. Have fun with your new rifle!

Jason

No updates, did the equipment get fixed, did we get more testing done?

They chucked the old Snap On fixture, and got a new one. CDI, I believe. Haven't gotten any test requests since.

J

CT never sent you the Wiha?

I hope mine is correct

I don't think I got the Wiha to test.

J

I'm glad to see this thread rise to the top again.

Hey, 4th point do you have the time and equipment to take this up again? I've got a Felo 1.5 Nm-3 Nm that I'd send your way.

I'll check the lab tomorrow to confirm that the fixture is available. If so, I'll make it happen, and ship it back on my dime. I'll try to update tomorrow evening.

Jason

I dropped the ball today. Will check tomorrow.

J

Okay.

Well you enablers should be proud of yourselves I am going to toss the Wheeler I have and purchase the park tw-1 from amazon. Thanks to all for the heads up on these alternative and apparently better tools.

For anyone interested, I have a NIB Park TW-1 that I will be selling.

I realize it proved to be the most accurate, but I prefer the Wiha wrench.

PM me when you have a chance

Message sent

Shoot me a PM for details on shipping.

Thanks,

Jason

PM sent

Back at you Circles. Look forward to testing it.

Jason

Two more quick tests of wrenches, sent by Campfire members. Circles sent a Felo 1.5 - 3.0 N*m, and 7fa sent a Mountz 10 - 50 in*lb.

Big thanks to both of these dudes for being good sports by sending the wrenches, and being patient with my slow progress.

Jason

Felo 1.5 - 3.0 N*m

Although the settings are metric, I used SAE units to report the results.

Mountz 10 - 50 in*lb.

I think this is the MT50-AFH model.

Mountz chart had an error, so post was edited to correct the problem.

Note that each setting was tested 5 times, and averaged.

Jason

Thanks Jason! Very interesting results. The felo looks to be about 2-3 inch-pounds light all the way through it's range. Am I reading your chart right? I like that it seems to be a pretty straight line, but it's hard to compare to some of the other wrenches you've done because the adjustment range is so much smaller.

What do you think of it?

The Felo appeared to be linear.

That's correct. Consistently low, by a few inch-pounds. I like how lightweight, compact, and simple it is. Could be handy for a range bag.