Loscaldazar
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2013
- Messages
- 2,385
I thought I would throw up a few quick shots, measurements, and thoughts about the 88T Matco/Armstrong ratchets vs the 80T Snap On ratchets. I don't have my TL72 and T72 from Snap On anymore (sold them because I hated them), otherwise those would be included in this too!
UPDATE: I have added the Gearwrench 84T, another popular ratchet choice, in this comparison too. I did not include the 120XP because after having had both the 84T and the 120XP ratchets, the 84T are far superior to the 120XP. I have issues with the 84T and self reversing or locking up, but overall I like the mechanism better than the 120XP. I also sold my 120XPs almost a year ago and don't feel like buying another set just to do a comparison.
There are already a few threads on this, and several with pictures of the internals. I won't repeat other's work, so if you want a shot of the internals, you should be able to do a quick search to find that on this forum. The armstrong 88T and gearwrench 84T use the same basic mechanism, just different number of teeth.
First up is the 1/2 drive S80A and the Armstrong 12-992.
Gearwrench 84T and Snap On Dual 80
Armstrong on Left, Snap On on right
Gearwrench Left, Snap On Right
A chart of the measurements (all measurements are in mm). Blue highlights indicate the best measurement in that category (e.g. slimmest head or longest handle). Negative numbers indicate the brand listed first in that column is smaller, positive numbers the brand listed first is larger.
So at most we see a 4.28mm difference in thickness between the Armstrong and Snap On, which isn't that bad. The shorter anvil of the Snap On helps make up for the thicker head (and it holds the socket closer to the head). The armstrong is still thinner though, but I don't know how much the 3.96 millimeters will practically make.
A similar thing is seen between the Snap On and Gearwrench 84T ratchet. Interestingly enough, the 84T ratchet is slightly thicker than the Armstrong 88T ratchet, but still smaller than the Snap On. I would have thought Apex would have used the same basic head design for all their ratchets, but turns out the Taiwan 84T ratchets are a bit bigger than the US 88T. The difference is less thus between Snap On and Gearwrench, and for most purposes, still an irrelevant difference in size (3.5MM smaller for 84T gearwrench, very tiny).
As far as the ratcheting mechanism goes, the Snap On 80T mechanism is significantly better than the Armstrong 88T or the Gearwrench 84T. It is way smoother and has way less backdrag. Minimal differences in arc swing (4.5 for SO, 4.1 for Armstrong, 4.3 for Gearwrench). The Armstrong feels horribly clunky (like a 36T craftsman RP is the closest comparison I can think of, just clunky and super stiff). Surprisingly, the 84T Gearwrench feels a little less clunky than the 88T Armstrong, but not by much. The Snap On is still the champion in 1/2 drive.
For 1/2 drive, I would absolutely buy Snap On over Matco/Armstrong or Gearwrench. The ratcheting mechanism is so much better.
The S80A is also longer than the Armstrong ratchet and has the narrowest head in terms of width. Not a huge difference though, and the Gearwrench 84T ratchet is the longest ratchet in this group
Then the Snap On F80 and Armstrong 11-992
F80 and Gearwrench 84T
Armstrong on left, Snap On on right
Gearwrench Left, Snap On right
On a disappointing note, the machining on the inside of the gearwrench 3/8 drive ratchet is incredibly poor. All of those lines are different depths from different cuts. Clearly something that they don't care too much about.
A chart to compare dimensions.... again in mm. Blue highlights indicate the best measurement in that category (e.g. slimmest head or longest handle). Negative numbers indicate the brand listed first in that column is smaller, positive numbers the brand listed first is larger.
Here the Armstrong is smaller in every dimension than the Snap On except for length, where it is longer (good thing)! The difference, again, between the F80 and 11-992 just isn't too much though. At 3.58mm maximum difference and 2.7mm end to end difference, they are pretty close to each other.
The Gearwrench 84T again is the longest, and is just slightly larger than the Armstrong 88T. Of course, that still leaves it as being smaller than the Snap On, but by a smaller amount (2.58MM, super tiny)
As far as the ratcheting mechanism goes, the mechanisms in these ratchets are much more competitive than in the 1/2 drive. The Snap On is definitely smoother and has just ever so slightly less backdrag after it has been broken in and used a bit. The Armstrong is clunkier (not anywhere as near as bad as the 1/2 drive though) and starts out with less backdrag, but the Snap On will have less as it breaks in a bit. The difference is so slight though, that it almost doesn't matter. The gearwrench 84T mechanism is much smoother than the Armstrong mechanism, and maybe just as smooth as the Snap On. Backdrag is about the same as the other two, maybe a hair better than the Armstrong. Very competitive group.
You couldn't make a bad choice between the 3/8 drive Matco/Armstrong or the Snap On F80 or even the Gearwrench 84T. I will be going with Snap On because I like the mechanism just a little bit better, but the Armstrong or Matco is also a solid choice with a very similar mechanism (in terms of feel) and more compact dimensions. I would put the Gearwrench mechanism as slightly better feeling than the 88T mechanism, and maybe just behind Snap On. They're all so close though.
On an important note though, the 84T and 88T mechanisms are known for occasional self reversing and jamming. The 80T Snap On is probably more reliable in this regard.
Chrome is pretty even between Armstrong and Snap On. Armstrong has that slightly yellow tinge that all Armstrong tools have, but it's unnoticeable except for when it is next to a Snap On or other tool with really white or grey chrome. The Gearwrench is duller than either of the other two, and probably undergoes less finishing and polishing to get a better chromed surface to save costs. The chrome is good, but not top tier. I haven't had a problem with any of the chrome on ratchets from these brands, so I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the chrome quality. You can tell, though, that the gearwrench is just not put through as good of a chroming process as the other two.
The Snap On cover plates are secured with screws, which I like better than the snap ring secured cover plates on the Armstrong/Matco/Gearwrench ratchets. I've never had a problem with the Armstrong or Matco ratchets or the Gearwrench 84T, but I have had a gearwrench 120XP shoot its guts out when the snap ring let go. Then again, I've had a Snap On SL80 also shoot its guts out too, but the SL80A redesign has eliminated that problem.
In summary, in 1/2 drive, the S80A is far superior. In 3/8 drive, they are much closer to each other, and you can decide whether you want a slightly smaller ratchet with a slightly worse mechanism or a slightly bigger one with a slightly better mechanism, or the ratchet in the middle (gearwrench) which is middle sized and middle in the ratchet mechanism feel.
Hope this helps!
UPDATE: I have added the Gearwrench 84T, another popular ratchet choice, in this comparison too. I did not include the 120XP because after having had both the 84T and the 120XP ratchets, the 84T are far superior to the 120XP. I have issues with the 84T and self reversing or locking up, but overall I like the mechanism better than the 120XP. I also sold my 120XPs almost a year ago and don't feel like buying another set just to do a comparison.
There are already a few threads on this, and several with pictures of the internals. I won't repeat other's work, so if you want a shot of the internals, you should be able to do a quick search to find that on this forum. The armstrong 88T and gearwrench 84T use the same basic mechanism, just different number of teeth.
First up is the 1/2 drive S80A and the Armstrong 12-992.
Gearwrench 84T and Snap On Dual 80
Armstrong on Left, Snap On on right
Gearwrench Left, Snap On Right
A chart of the measurements (all measurements are in mm). Blue highlights indicate the best measurement in that category (e.g. slimmest head or longest handle). Negative numbers indicate the brand listed first in that column is smaller, positive numbers the brand listed first is larger.
So at most we see a 4.28mm difference in thickness between the Armstrong and Snap On, which isn't that bad. The shorter anvil of the Snap On helps make up for the thicker head (and it holds the socket closer to the head). The armstrong is still thinner though, but I don't know how much the 3.96 millimeters will practically make.
A similar thing is seen between the Snap On and Gearwrench 84T ratchet. Interestingly enough, the 84T ratchet is slightly thicker than the Armstrong 88T ratchet, but still smaller than the Snap On. I would have thought Apex would have used the same basic head design for all their ratchets, but turns out the Taiwan 84T ratchets are a bit bigger than the US 88T. The difference is less thus between Snap On and Gearwrench, and for most purposes, still an irrelevant difference in size (3.5MM smaller for 84T gearwrench, very tiny).
As far as the ratcheting mechanism goes, the Snap On 80T mechanism is significantly better than the Armstrong 88T or the Gearwrench 84T. It is way smoother and has way less backdrag. Minimal differences in arc swing (4.5 for SO, 4.1 for Armstrong, 4.3 for Gearwrench). The Armstrong feels horribly clunky (like a 36T craftsman RP is the closest comparison I can think of, just clunky and super stiff). Surprisingly, the 84T Gearwrench feels a little less clunky than the 88T Armstrong, but not by much. The Snap On is still the champion in 1/2 drive.
For 1/2 drive, I would absolutely buy Snap On over Matco/Armstrong or Gearwrench. The ratcheting mechanism is so much better.
The S80A is also longer than the Armstrong ratchet and has the narrowest head in terms of width. Not a huge difference though, and the Gearwrench 84T ratchet is the longest ratchet in this group
Then the Snap On F80 and Armstrong 11-992
F80 and Gearwrench 84T
Armstrong on left, Snap On on right
Gearwrench Left, Snap On right
On a disappointing note, the machining on the inside of the gearwrench 3/8 drive ratchet is incredibly poor. All of those lines are different depths from different cuts. Clearly something that they don't care too much about.
A chart to compare dimensions.... again in mm. Blue highlights indicate the best measurement in that category (e.g. slimmest head or longest handle). Negative numbers indicate the brand listed first in that column is smaller, positive numbers the brand listed first is larger.
Here the Armstrong is smaller in every dimension than the Snap On except for length, where it is longer (good thing)! The difference, again, between the F80 and 11-992 just isn't too much though. At 3.58mm maximum difference and 2.7mm end to end difference, they are pretty close to each other.
The Gearwrench 84T again is the longest, and is just slightly larger than the Armstrong 88T. Of course, that still leaves it as being smaller than the Snap On, but by a smaller amount (2.58MM, super tiny)
As far as the ratcheting mechanism goes, the mechanisms in these ratchets are much more competitive than in the 1/2 drive. The Snap On is definitely smoother and has just ever so slightly less backdrag after it has been broken in and used a bit. The Armstrong is clunkier (not anywhere as near as bad as the 1/2 drive though) and starts out with less backdrag, but the Snap On will have less as it breaks in a bit. The difference is so slight though, that it almost doesn't matter. The gearwrench 84T mechanism is much smoother than the Armstrong mechanism, and maybe just as smooth as the Snap On. Backdrag is about the same as the other two, maybe a hair better than the Armstrong. Very competitive group.
You couldn't make a bad choice between the 3/8 drive Matco/Armstrong or the Snap On F80 or even the Gearwrench 84T. I will be going with Snap On because I like the mechanism just a little bit better, but the Armstrong or Matco is also a solid choice with a very similar mechanism (in terms of feel) and more compact dimensions. I would put the Gearwrench mechanism as slightly better feeling than the 88T mechanism, and maybe just behind Snap On. They're all so close though.
On an important note though, the 84T and 88T mechanisms are known for occasional self reversing and jamming. The 80T Snap On is probably more reliable in this regard.
Chrome is pretty even between Armstrong and Snap On. Armstrong has that slightly yellow tinge that all Armstrong tools have, but it's unnoticeable except for when it is next to a Snap On or other tool with really white or grey chrome. The Gearwrench is duller than either of the other two, and probably undergoes less finishing and polishing to get a better chromed surface to save costs. The chrome is good, but not top tier. I haven't had a problem with any of the chrome on ratchets from these brands, so I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the chrome quality. You can tell, though, that the gearwrench is just not put through as good of a chroming process as the other two.
The Snap On cover plates are secured with screws, which I like better than the snap ring secured cover plates on the Armstrong/Matco/Gearwrench ratchets. I've never had a problem with the Armstrong or Matco ratchets or the Gearwrench 84T, but I have had a gearwrench 120XP shoot its guts out when the snap ring let go. Then again, I've had a Snap On SL80 also shoot its guts out too, but the SL80A redesign has eliminated that problem.
In summary, in 1/2 drive, the S80A is far superior. In 3/8 drive, they are much closer to each other, and you can decide whether you want a slightly smaller ratchet with a slightly worse mechanism or a slightly bigger one with a slightly better mechanism, or the ratchet in the middle (gearwrench) which is middle sized and middle in the ratchet mechanism feel.
Hope this helps!
Last edited:
