Advice, Solderless Crimpers

985894 85 985753 216 673838 98 Upon a second viewing, it looks like the last ones are the only ratcheting pliers(?) Whilst standing solidly upon the fence regarding the ratcheting action...do I need it? because presumably it adds to the cost.

I can't tell the difference between the first and third except blimey that's a hell of an increase over the (equivalent) to $45 I paid 12 years ago. Unless you're doing production line crimping, go for no.1.

Message received - the investigation continues. (And I will follow up with a decision)

I use two sets of crimpers for crimp connections: If I'm in a tight area (ie, working under the dash, without the space to get the ratchet crimper in there), I use the T&B/Sta-Kon WT-1 (or similar from an electrical tool vendor, like Klein). Don't pay more than $30 for it. If I'm prototyping, or benchtopping, I use the ratcheting crimper along this line: http://www.amazon.com/Titan-11477-Ratcheting-Terminal-Crimper/dp/B0069TRKJ0/ref=sr_1_2?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1407175233&sr=1-2&keywords=ratchet+crimper Not that particular brand, though it's well reviewd I have no experience with it. I can't find the exact item I obtained at Oreilly Auto parts, but it was less than $30 and works exceptionally well. In fact, it works every bit as well as the crimpers I used to use for crimping bifurcated terminals onto wires when wiring IC Gyro and the Tactical Data Systems on aircraft carriers and other warships many moons ago. Those were high-end, $300 crimpers, but otherwise quite similar in construction and function. In short- there's your answers. The problem you're having with crimps coming off may well be with the solderless terminals you're using, or the technique. Believe it or not, there is one way and only one way to crimp those terminals. The seam in the terminal goes opposite the flat part of the crimper's cavity, so the swedged are of the cavity acts upon the seamed side. Not taking the effort to check this makes for an immense difference in quality of crimp, and failure-rate."Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it. - Robert A. Heinlein"

One thing I forgot to note: After crimping, I'll immediately give the connection a tug. I'm right there, I have it in my hand, it's no extra effort. Usually, the connector is still swedged into the die on the crimper anyway. This most often results in nothing much to note... the wire tugs the crimp, nothing moves and all is well (obviously I'm not doing this to 30AWG wire)On very, very rare occasion, it pulls the wire from the crimp barrel- and I've always found in that instance it's a defective barrel. Why? I buy commonly-available connectors at the auto parts store, I'm not wasting money on milspec connectors as this is not a life-safety or weapons system. It's a car, not a moon shot, folks. ;) It's a simple matter of suitability and availability. I can find them, cheap, locally, and they work. Occasionally I'll find a bum connector (usually apparent when I look into the connector barrel before using it while checking its orientation to the die- you do that, right?), but the reject rate (and related, the failure rate) is less than 1%. I think I have probably 1 bad connector and/or termination for every 300-400 crimps. That's mostly a matter of the operator's experience, but also a matter of not using utter crap for tools- I know some folks can make good crimps using those crimpers originally mentioned in the OP's bit, but every job I've every worked on where wiring work is done professionally, the mere possession of those tools has been grounds for being run off the task."Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it. - Robert A. Heinlein"

Good advice burntkat.Support the12volt.com

"...Believe it or not, there is one way and only one way to crimp those terminals. The seam in the terminal goes opposite the flat part of the crimper's cavity, so the swedged are of the cavity acts upon the seamed side." "...checking its orientation to the die- you do that, right?..." I was not aware of this limitation; I just stick 'em in there. Clearly I need to have a closer look at my El Cheapo tool and make sure I have the correct image imprinted on my mental screen. Then I can come back here and clarify which part is considered "the flat part of the crimpers cavity" I am absolutely elated to have this resource to tap. Thank you, gentlemen - I remain solidly in sponge mode.

Interesting statements... I suspect it's geared more towards smaller terminals used on 0.1" pitch arrays or Molex or housed spades etc rather than standalone RBY auto cimps.    But that's what mentioned my "new expensive" auto terminal crimper with no divots to extra crimp the center. FYI... In some cases using my 30+ year old plain "sheet metal" (flat) crimper I'd crimp and then centre-crimp using some edge on the tool. Other times I might merely follow up with a smaller crimp - ie, having crimped a blue with the blue, I'd then crimp it with the red slot. (FYI - I never found that the 2nd smaller crimp would open up or loosen the first.) Most often I'd due a double crimp - ie crimp towards one end and crimp again towards the other. (Usually overlapping because connector crimp regions are not very long.) What I actually did depended a lot on what burntkat mentioned - tug and observe. Any movement IMO had to be removed. (That was fun in 2-piece connectors where the inner solidly cable clamped sleeve would move or slide in an outer sleeve.)

I'll have to take some pics later to further demonstrate what I'm saying, but for now, here's a few links to pics off the web to help... Those crimpers "with the extra bit" that you're referring to are like the commonly-available cast steel crimpers from Klein, like these: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41w-QeuQ8rL._SY300_.jpg Note the little tooth in the jaw. These are actually designed for crimping UNinsulated terminals. Let's face it, though- they work well for insulated terminals, and we've all used it for an installation with strictly insulated terminals throughout. It's "wrong" as it's not what it's designed for, and it makes a crimp that's not to spec in terms of swedging the open side of the terminal and it overly-deforms the copper wire. But again we say "this ain't a moon shot", and it works quite well even given that it's "wrong". Now, the actual, correct tool for insulated connectors is more along the lines of these: http://www.stridetool.com/tools/electrical_datatools/crimper_ie145187.gif Specifically, the "hand side" of the hinge on IE-145, and the entirety of the dies on IE-187 (though I can't discern if they're actually for data connector terminals- tool looks REAL similar to the crimper for DAMA30 and UYK20 pins, which were a severe pain in the ass, but that's another discussion). If you look at slot "A" on IE-187, you'll see a bowed surface on the left, and a cupped surface on the right. The bowed surface is where the "open side" (honestly, a better choice of words would be "seamed side"- but no matter the terminal, a seamed connection always has an open side where the material is not joined to itself, because they start out as flat sheets of material that are then formed into connectors, whereas unseamed connectors start out as tubing). So, getting back on mission here- the open/seamed side goes against the bow (or the left side of slot A on IE-187), and the solid/unseamed side goes against the adjoining, cupped side... Finished product should look something like this: http://m5.i.pbase.com/g3/84/622984/2/94465955.Sq9IoVXH.jpg. Granted, those are both FAILED connections, but it's early, I'm still trying to wake up, and I don't wanna track down my good camera. Those are failures for two reasons. The one on the left is unevenly crimped, the one on the right appears to have been used with a wire that was too small, as it's not full of material. The one on the left would probably work just fine for mobile electronics. The one on the right would likely not pass the "tug test". Note that the "open side" is at the top, and has clearly been pressed into the bowed side of the die. This first tightens the material, then shrinks it as it pushes it around and down into the material inside the body. When it does this, it also swedges the material inside, deforming it and making sure everything is compacted together, achieving lower resistance in the connection and a mechanical bond. I will add that crimping, then crimping with a smaller die, is dounterindicated. You will break strands doing this, and stress the hell out of the wire. Not good for a high-vibration environment. But it works for him, so that's fine. I suspect, if I know our Aussie friend, Oldspark, like I think I do, that he ends the job by harnessing all the wires into a bundle and then taping together- creating an excellent strain relief. I do it myself, just make sure not to use the cheap tape- it leaves a mess if you have to go back and change things. ;) If it seems I know way too much about this stuff, it's because I do. I had to set through a week long course on doing this stuff when I started working on Uncle Sam's neat toys. More than you'll want to know about crimping: http://www.globalspec.com/learnmore/tools_instruments/crimp_tools Though right off the bat I note one glaring inaccuracy in their document. They say that "bullets are crimped into their shells". Well, maybe. The vast majority of bullets are NOT crimped. Some are, especially those used in tube-magazine rifles and shotguns. Another discussion entirely, outside of the scope of this document. (Can you tell I also handload ammo?) "Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it. - Robert A. Heinlein"

B4 I say anything else, I want to state the following: I am enjoying this dialogue immensely. I am VERY pleased to have the opportunity to hear the opinions of people who know what they are talking about. It reminds me of when I was a youngster and could simply ask my Dad (R.I.P.) about whatever it was that had piqued my curiosity that day. Of course my memories are skewed by the passage of time -- and I knew then as I know now that my Dad was by no means an expert on everything -- but the point is that I could get a general idea about something or other without a whole lot of research and/or instruction. Nowadays I am keen to pick the brains of people like yourselves, because I can get that same "right now" feedback...and choose to pursue it and ask questions (or not) depending upon my level of commitment. So - thank you. I have admitted that I am stumbling along in the dark in this area (and with my current tool) and I acknowledge that MAYBE that Chinese El Cheapo plier may very well perform satisfactorily after all once I apply my newfound knowledge. OTOH -- within reason -- I am willing to invest a few bucks on a tool that: a) makes an operation foolproof b) makes an operation easier and/or faster But of course there's a limit. If I found such a tool and it was priced at over $100 I would eliminate it from consideration immediately. It isn't that important! So I have found a few more tools about which I'd like some feedback. Paladin 1305 Paldin 8022 ...and BTW - this particular tool keeps popping up with alternating part numbers. On Amazon and some other sites, p/n 8000 is described as "Frame only". I realize the dies are interchangeable, and that "frame only" should mean NO DIES INCLUDED, but the picture clearly shows the tool (and describes it as coming) with R/B/Y dies installed. Other sites make the same error. I wrote in to Amazon to propose a correction, but they declined. And I also posted a question of other owners, and a gentleman said his came with dies pre-installed. Yes I realize I can return it if it does not arrive as shown...but for me that's not only problematic, but...well...silly. Overshadowing all of this is... Aside from the sometimes exorbitant cost, the mechanism of all these tools appears to be identical. If that presumption is correct -- and all we are doing is squeezing a pair of dies together -- then the variables must therefore be longevity/durability of the tool, and quality of crimp based upon the design of the die. I guess what I am saying is that in every case, the fail-ability of the human operator is virtually eliminated.