Which Adjustable Wrench Brand Wins?

(by far the heaviest of all 16 brands)

(lightest at the time stated)

(heaviest at the time stated)

(heaviest at the time stated)

(very light)

(heaviest at the time stated)

(lightest at the time stated)

(about the same as Milwaukee and Gedore)

(transcript attributes this reading to 'the rinse performed slightly better than average', immediately after describing the Milwaukee's own worm gear and jaw stretch in the same sentence; resolved as Milwaukee's own value since Milwaukee is not otherwise given a torque figure and no other brand named 'Reed' fits this sentence position, and Reed already has a separate confirmed value of 123.5 ft-lb elsewhere)

(moved into 1st place at the time it was tested; finished 3rd overall per the closing recap, behind Craftsman USA and the smaller Wera Joker)

(4th overall in the closing recap)

(weak result attributed to significant visible jaw stretching)

(5th overall per the closing recap)

Larger wrench (16-19mm size) failed the tester and flew off before the torque reading saved, appeared to peak near 167 ft-lb per the on-screen glimpse (unconfirmed, data lost). The smaller wrench (which also fits a 3/4 inch nut) reached 163.7 ft-lb before losing grip, and is the figure used in the closing recap as 2nd place overall behind Craftsman USA.

(about the same as Milwaukee)

(2nd place at the time it was tested)

(3rd place at the time it was tested, behind Crescent and Tekton)

(weak, with visible jaw stretching)

(15 ft-lb less than Navegando)

('off to a pretty good start')

up/down, 0.25 mm side to side

up/down, 0.13 mm side to side (six-thread knurl)

up/down, 0.3 mm side to side

up/down, 0.1 mm side to side

up/down, 0.18 mm side to side

up/down, 0.25 mm side to side (least up/down travel at the time)

up/down, 0.2 mm side to side

up/down, 0.15 mm side to side

up/down, 0.3 mm side to side

up/down, 0.6 mm side to side (good fit and finish)

up/down, 0.18 mm side to side

up/down, 0.6 mm side to side; later in the flat-stock no-load gap test, this brand's own no-load gap is separately given as 0.07 mm ('grew 10-fold from 0.07 to 0.7 millimeters')

up/down, 0.66 mm side to side (more slop than Navegando)

up/down, 0.053 mm side to side

jaw opening (2nd best, moved into 2nd place)

jaw opening (best of all 16 brands, moved into 1st place; confirmed in the recap: 'the milwaukee came out on top only giving up 0.27 millimeters')

jaw opening (about the same as Kobalt)

jaw opening

jaw opening (did not perform as well as the USA Craftsman)

jaw opening (moved into the lead at the time)

jaw opening

jaw opening (4th best, behind the USA Craftsman)

jaw opening (much better than Navegando and Pittsburgh)

jaw opening

jaw opening (about the same as Crescent per the narrator, though the two values differ by 0.14 mm)

jaw opening (nearly the same as the vintage Craftsman; 5th in the closing recap)

jaw opening

jaw opening (by far the worst of all 16 brands)

(longest jaws in the field helped here; tied Crescent for 2nd/3rd best)

(no-load gap was 0.35 mm, doubled under load; described as very close to average)

(smallest gap recorded up to that point; tied with Bahco for 2nd/3rd best in the final recap)

(2nd smallest at the time; 4th in the final recap)

(struggled in this test as well)

(no-load gap 0.25 mm, tripled under load; smallest gap at the time, took the lead from Kobalt)

(no-load gap was 0.25 mm, about tripled under load)

(no-load gap was 0.17 mm; 4th best in the closing recap)

(no-load gap was 0.33 mm, more than doubled under load)

(short jaws were a leverage disadvantage but still performed as well as longer-jawed competitors)

(not quite as good as Crescent)

(no-load gap 0.07 mm grew tenfold under load)

(no separate no-load figure given for this brand in the flat-stock test; the earlier no-load gap comparison stated only that it was 'even larger' than Navegando's 0.5 mm)

gap doubled from a stated no-load value to just over 1 mm under load; the no-load value is given as two conflicting figures at different points in the transcript, 0.045 mm in the flat-stock parallelism section and 0.45 mm in the 200 lb load section (a full decimal-place discrepancy, recorded as a flagged conflict rather than resolved)

(best of all brands, had a 7 mm jaw-length advantage over every other product)

(per the closing recap list)

(above average despite shorter than average jaws)

(2nd best of all brands, benefited from the 2nd-longest jaws in the lineup)

(short jaws were a big disadvantage)

(3rd best per the closing recap; the mid-narrative sentence giving this brand's own failure-load number is missing the actual figure entirely, recovered only from the closing recap list)

(above average despite slightly shorter than average jaws)

(4th best per the closing recap)

(about 120 lb less than Crescent)

(10 lb less than the China-made Craftsman)

('made it to around 600 pounds before giving up', an approximate figure per the narrator's own wording)

(jaw broke off; leverage advantage from longer-than-average jaws)