Quote
The first point is, it doesn't really matter the number given to the spec as long as the same type of equipment and conditions are being met.
I think I get where you are coming from and mostly agree. I work in research. There are research report results and real world results. Often times they don't correlate. That's why I said that precision (different than accuracy) and repeatability is more important.
I communicated with a tool room manager at a large aviation manufacturer that was using Snap On Tech Wrenches and his explanation mirrored yours (I think). It didn't matter so much that the final result was 100% of the engineered specification. What mattered was the achieved desired result using controlled techniques and tools, if that makes sense.
The problem, in my opinion, is that many laypersons assume that if you do a job with a sophisticated tool, it automatically insures accuracy. That's why I toss out those numbers above. It would be like a person assuming that a Bernelli will automatically improve results over a Mossberg. You understand the torque process. A lot of people don't. That's why I question people when they get worked up over a wrench that claims 1% accuracy vs. one at 3% accuracy. I'm sure that clinebarger understands the process also and he feels more comfortable using the best wrench he can have. For others, that 1% accurate wrench won't help when they jerk the wrench to a final reading on dirty, rusty, oil soaked fasteners.
It's been too many years to remember, but I think that guy at Lockheed said that Stahwille torque wrenches could be slid across the concrete floors all week long and still remained accurate and precise the best, in his opinion (could have been Sturdevant-Richmont too?).