Affordable crimp tools for small connectors (Dupont, etc.)

[tooki]

..I went for the Molex KK396 system - crimp tools appeared affordable second hand and I was successful with my bids.

Bought two 63811-7500 tools, one a Rev B in almost unused condition with a 63811-7576 and 63811-7575 locator, the other a Rev K used with the 7576 locator as well. Each tool around the £60 mark.

Very nice!

[wickeddog]

I came across this thread while searching for crimping tools. Thanks for the discussion, I've learned a lot here. I purchased the SN-025 and IWS-3220M and did some tests. The SN-025 works well, but it feels a bit overkill for my needs since I mainly crimp 2.54mm DUPONT terminals. The smallest die is the only one I use, and the two larger dies crimp barrels around insulation that are too wide to fit into the 2.54mm housing. The IWS-3220M performs decently, but my only complaint is that I can't use my non-standard crimping technique with it.

Now, I'm considering buying the TZ-4228B. Does anyone know if it can crimp Molex Picoblade MX1.25 terminals? The MX1.25 requires a 2mm thick die, but from the pictures, it looks like the die thickness of the TZ-4228B is 4mm.

[nctnico]

For such small terminals you'll be way better off buying a crimper from Molex. Molex has 'service grade' crimpers which are reasonably affordable. I never succeeded to produce decent crimps for small terminals unless I use the manufacturer's crimping tool.

[shabaz]

Many low-cost crimp tools are not very accurate for such tiny crimps, or have other flaws such as not providing enough force for a decent crimp.

If you can't buy the official tool for PicoBlade for any reason, then there's the option to buy ready-crimped cables, they are quite popular for that connector type.

[wickeddog]

Here are pictures of a crimped Dupont 2.54 mm terminal and the die of the SN-025. The build quality of the SN-025 is pretty good. I got it for $12. IWISS isn't a low-end brand here, and for other brands on the market, their prices can't go as low as $5.

[tooki]

Here are pictures of a crimped Dupont 2.54 mm terminal and the die of the SN-025. The build quality of the SN-025 is pretty good. I got it for $12. IWISS isn't a low-end brand here, and for other brands on the market, their prices can't go as low as $5.

It is a low-end brand. Perhaps one of the best of the low-end brands, but still absolutely a low-end brand.

The images you shared show a mangled terminal, and a terminal inserted into the gap between the crimp nests. You’re using it completely wrong.

See the part of the die that looks like an “m”? (Not visible in the photo.) The conductor wings of the terminal go there, facing the m. The insulation wings go in the circular side. Either way, the wire needs to be the correct size. Whatever you’re using is way too thin. Optimal is 24AWG/0.25mm².

[tooki]

I came across this thread while searching for crimping tools. Thanks for the discussion, I've learned a lot here. I purchased the SN-025 and IWS-3220M and did some tests. The SN-025 works well, but it feels a bit overkill for my needs since I mainly crimp 2.54mm DUPONT terminals. The smallest die is the only one I use, and the two larger dies crimp barrels around insulation that are too wide to fit into the 2.54mm housing. The IWS-3220M performs decently, but my only complaint is that I can't use my non-standard crimping technique with it.

You shouldn’t be using any non-standard crimping technique, period.

Now, I'm considering buying the TZ-4228B. Does anyone know if it can crimp Molex Picoblade MX1.25 terminals? The MX1.25 requires a 2mm thick die, but from the pictures, it looks like the die thickness of the TZ-4228B is 4mm.

Not a chance. It’s way too big. The SN-03BM theoretically should work, but I would keep very low expectations… Tiny contacts require very precision tools, and I have yet to see a single cheap Chinese crimper made anywhere close to the necessary tolerances.

[wickeddog]

I made a typo. It should be "for other brands on the market, their prices can go as low as $5." 

[wickeddog]

Here are pictures of a crimped Dupont 2.54 mm terminal and the die of the SN-025. The build quality of the SN-025 is pretty good. I got it for $12. IWISS isn't a low-end brand here, and for other brands on the market, their prices can't go as low as $5.

It is a low-end brand. Perhaps one of the best of the low-end brands, but still absolutely a low-end brand.

The images you shared show a mangled terminal, and a terminal inserted into the gap between the crimp nests. You’re using it completely wrong.

See the part of the die that looks like an “m”? (Not visible in the photo.) The conductor wings of the terminal go there, facing the m. The insulation wings go in the circular side. Either way, the wire needs to be the correct size. Whatever you’re using is way too thin. Optimal is 24AWG/0.25mm².

I posted the second picture to show the die. I don’t crimp terminals like that. The picture quality isn’t great. I’ll upload a clearer one later.
Can you tell me what part of the terminal in the first picture is mangled? I know the wire is too thin.

I've ordered the TZ-4228B and SN-03B to see if they make a difference. The IW-3220M is hard for me to use, particularly with the innermost die and PH2.0 terminals. The insertion depth of the PH2.0 female terminals into the die is hard to control, which results in mangled terminals.

[tooki]

Can you tell me what part of the terminal in the first picture is mangled? I know the wire is too thin.

Maybe it just looks bad because the photo is so blurry it’s hard to make out detail, but it looks like there’s no clear end to the conductor crimp.

I've ordered the TZ-4228B and SN-03B to see if they make a difference. The IW-3220M is hard for me to use, particularly with the innermost die and PH2.0 terminals. The insertion depth of the PH2.0 female terminals into the die is hard to control, which results in mangled terminals.

If you think it’s hard with the 3220M, then you’ll find it even harder with the others. The 3220M’s completely parallel action makes contact positioning easier than the pliers-style tools.

As I’ve said many times in this and other threads, one of the problems with cheap Chinese crimpers, even the ones that are among the least shitty, is the lack of contact locators (positioners). These tools would become infinitely easier and more reliable to use if they were just equipped with locators. (The only cheap Chinese crimpers I’ve ever seen available with locators are the ones for Han-D and for MC-4 solar. Why those two? Who knows.)

And it’s not as though I have to speculate about this: many top-quality crimpers (for example, some of the ones I have from Molex) are FAR harder to use, some bordering on impossible, with the locator removed.


(Also, the innermost die for PH? That is, the largest one? It’s way too big for PH. I left my 3220M and PH contacts at work and I’m on holiday this week, so I can’t check right now, but I’m pretty sure PH needs one of the middle two dies.)

[wickeddog]

Contact locator is a good idea, but I haven't seen any SN-** crimping tools on the market that have it. Maybe it's because of patent issues.

[wickeddog]

I spent a whole night crimping DuPont 2.54mm Terminals. This is what I got.
In the picture, the terminal at the top was crimped with the SN-025, and the one at the bottom with the TZ-4228B.
I deliberately chose a thick wire with a 1.6 mm outer diameter to test them. I'd say the SN-025 performed much better than the TZ-4228B. The latter crimped the terminals with an overly thick barrel around the insulation, which sometimes made it very difficult—or even impossible—to fully insert the terminal into the housing.
For SN-025, in most cases,  the terminal can be inserted smoothly all the way into the housing.

[wickeddog]

SN-025's die:

[wickeddog]

TZ-4228B's die:

[wickeddog]

The SN-025's die has higher precision and a better finish. Its overall build quality is also better. I only need to squeeze the handles lightly to crimp.
The build quality of the TZ-4228B is actually similar to that of $5 crimping tools, but it costs $12. This brand also sells standard SN-type pliers for around $5. I guess the higher price is just because tools that can crimp DuPont terminals properly are hard to find.

At the end of the test, I was surprised to find that the upper and lower dies of the TZ-4228B aren’t aligned!!!

[wickeddog]

I'm gonna test the TZ-4228B, IW-3220M, and SN-01BM, SN-02BM, and SN-03BM on PH2.0, MX1.25, and SH1.0 connectors over the next few days.

[wickeddog]

I tested these pliers on smaller terminals, and my conclusion is that the IW-3220M is the best all-around.

It has a thin 2.6 mm die, which works great for MX 1.25 and SH 1.0 terminals. For these tiny terminals, I have to use my non-standard crimping method. But I can't use that method with the SN-03BM because its 3 mm die is too thick, so I’ve never succeeded in crimping these terminals with it.

Speaking of PH 2.0 terminals, the IW-3220M, SN-01BM, and SN-02BM all crimp them well, except the M-shaped section ends up too flat and wide. Still, the terminals can fit into the PH 2.0 housing without issues.

I'm gonna keep the SN-025 and IW-3220M, and return the rest.

[tooki]

Contact locator is a good idea, but I haven't seen any SN-** crimping tools on the market that have it.

Yes, I already said that. (Trust me, unless you work for a crimp tool company, I’m sure I’ve spent more time looking than you have! )

Maybe it's because of patent issues.

I sorta doubt it, insofar as the concept of a locator is nothing new, and the styles of tool the Chinese copy are mostly rather old designs whose patents have likely already expired. (And the only ones that do have locators — the Han-D and MC4 ones — are actually clones of recent Knipex designs, so even if those are patented, the Chinese tool makers don’t seem to care.

I spent a whole night crimping DuPont 2.54mm Terminals. This is what I got.
In the picture, the terminal at the top was crimped with the SN-025, and the one at the bottom with the TZ-4228B.
I deliberately chose a thick wire with a 1.6 mm outer diameter to test them. I'd say the SN-025 performed much better than the TZ-4228B. The latter crimped the terminals with an overly thick barrel around the insulation, which sometimes made it very difficult—or even impossible—to fully insert the terminal into the housing.
For SN-025, in most cases,  the terminal can be inserted smoothly all the way into the housing.

Neither crimp looks great, but while I’d say the SN-025’s looks to be more precise, we’d really need to see a properly-done crimp to be sure. That one has the wire trimmed too short, and not fully inserted. (Or it is fully inserted, but the insulation is cut uncleanly so we can’t see whether the insulation is fully crimped or not.)

The SN-025's die has higher precision and a better finish. Its overall build quality is also better. I only need to squeeze the handles lightly to crimp.
The build quality of the TZ-4228B is actually similar to that of $5 crimping tools, but it costs $12. This brand also sells standard SN-type pliers for around $5. I guess the higher price is just because tools that can crimp DuPont terminals properly are hard to find.

Yeah, the build quality of the TZ-4228B is disappointing.

At the end of the test, I was surprised to find that the upper and lower dies of the TZ-4228B aren’t aligned!!!

Indeed, I think their dies are let down by a really cheap handle. At my old work, we bought several of them, and some had much better die alignment than others. It’s just really poor precision and quality control in the handle.

I tested these pliers on smaller terminals, and my conclusion is that the IW-3220M is the best all-around.

It has a thin 2.6 mm die, which works great for MX 1.25 and SH 1.0 terminals. For these tiny terminals, I have to use my non-standard crimping method. But I can't use that method with the SN-03BM because its 3 mm die is too thick, so I’ve never succeeded in crimping these terminals with it.

Speaking of PH 2.0 terminals, the IW-3220M, SN-01BM, and SN-02BM all crimp them well, except the M-shaped section ends up too flat and wide. Still, the terminals can fit into the PH 2.0 housing without issues.

I'm gonna keep the SN-025 and IW-3220M, and return the rest.

Nice, thanks for the info.

What is your “nonstandard method”?


Re: “flat and wide” — YES! This has been my observation with practically all cheap Chinese crimp tools: they crimp too flat and wide compared to the original tools. I can only assume that this is easier to manufacture, but it really reduces the crimp quality.

[wickeddog]

I cut the carrier strip along with the terminal and use it as a locator. I push the terminal into the die until the carrier strip is stopped by the die.
This non-standard method requires the die's dimensions to perfectly match the terminal and the carrier strip. That's why I can't use this method on PH2.0 with IW-3220M.

[Ian.M]

@wickeddog: I suggest adding closeup photos of both sides of the dies in the fully closed position so we can see how well the dies are aligned and match.

[tooki]

I cut the carrier strip along with the terminal and use it as a locator. I push the terminal into the die until the carrier strip is stopped by the die.

I’ve heard of many people doing it this way.