Milwaukee vs. DEKO PIT. EXPENSIVE versus CHEAP. The battle of the Screwtrivers. Makita Metabo Zitrek Sturm.

A price battle unfolds among vintovyort instruments, outlining options from entry-level to high-end. The budget category features complete kits like Zotrek with two batteries and a charger for 3,500 rubles, as well as Dec at 5,000 rubles. In contrast, premium models such as Miloviiki at 30,000 rubles and Metva at 23,000 rubles illustrate a striking tenfold price difference. Viewers are encouraged to compare these ranges and decide which option suits their needs best.

Comprehensive Performance Testing of Budget Screwdriver Bits A complete set of screwdriver bits from various brands, all priced under 10,000 rubles, was assembled for extensive empirical testing. Rigorous measurements and twisting trials, using over 400 screws per bit, provided detailed insights into torque and durability. A systematic scoring system revealed that the RCH bit outperformed its competitors in terms of price-to-quality ratio. This methodical evaluation underscores the significance of thorough comparative analysis in selecting reliable tools.

Laser-Enhanced Innovation in Screwdriver Bit Design A recent demonstration introduced the innovative Rage Furious bit, distinguished by its yellow head and slightly extended design compared to the standard orange version. Both the conventional bit and the new model are constructed from hardened alloy steel S2, ensuring high durability. However, the Rage Furious bit benefits from an additional laser-treated tip that delivers greater accuracy and reduces the typical wear caused by slipping during screw engagement. The presentation also highlighted various kit options, prompting further exploration of these advanced tool designs.

Battery Design Determines Balance, Size, and Weight The review explores differences in battery mounts by contrasting slider systems with pin-type attachments that directly impact tool ergonomics. Variations in battery placement among brands like Makita, Metabo, and others subtly shift the handle design and overall balance. Measurements show that while one model (MOK) is as short as 126 mm, others extend about a centimeter longer, reflecting design priorities. Differing battery construction also creates significant weight disparities, with lighter models like PIT diverging from those exceeding one kilogram.

Bit Clamping and Motor Characteristics Enhance Operation Innovative mechanisms differentiate how bits are fixed, with some tools enabling one-touch locking and others requiring manual insertion and unscrewing to secure the bit. The location of clamps varies as well, where certain designs position the clamp near the motor and others integrate it closer to the battery. Motor types contribute to dimensional differences, as models with brushless motors extend about two centimeters more than their traditional counterparts. Additional features such as a dedicated speed control button and integrated clamp designs further underscore the impact of internal engineering on performance.

Diverse Control Methods Across Power Tools Various power tools employ distinct control schemes for adjusting rotation and direction. Four one‐speed models rely on basic forward (screwing) and reverse (unscrewing) functions, while a two‐speed tool uses a trigger to gradually reduce revolutions and achieve four modes. Another design utilizes three forward speeds with an auto-stop reverse feature, and one tool incorporates self-regulation to deliver a total of seven modes. Each operating mode is evaluated systematically to reflect its precision in control.

Calibration Steps in Uniform-Speed Devices Evaluation of one-speed instruments begins by measuring their minimal revolutions and fixed incremental increases. One device starts at approximately 880 revolutions with steady 340-revolution increments, setting the baseline for minimal adjustment. Another model, beginning at around 60 revs, advances by 200-revolution steps to reach 10 distinct positions, while further devices start at 200 and 150 revs to yield 12 and 16 levels respectively. The sizable increments in these tools result in abrupt transitions that limit the perception of smooth adjustment.

Nuanced Calibration in Variable-Speed Tools Variable-speed tools offer finer control through trigger or button-operated regulation of revolutions. A two-speed model starts at about 60 revs and divides its range into roughly 25 positions per speed, though subtle differences between settings remain hard to discern. Another tool splits its range into three speeds with five distinct positions each, ranging from a base of 660 revs up to around 2000 revs, catering to both gentle and robust tasks. A third design employs three adjustable speeds with progressively larger increments, emphasizing intricate precision in operational control.

Aligning the third speed with the seventh maintains the smooth performance observed in earlier stages despite a significant overall growth. An initial surge of around 300 rotations is considered excessive, especially when devices like Shturm reach up to 880 rotations with a minimum of 600, indicating an overkill in design. In contrast, Meta sets an ideal benchmark with exemplary performance, prompting a reexamination of current scoring methods and the importance of smooth departure in rotational mechanics.

The discussion questions the practical need for maximum rotations in impact drivers by recalling the use of a decade-old tool that consistently operated at full speed without adjustment. A detailed comparison of five instruments highlights variations between speeds indicated by technical specifications and those measured with precise instruments. The analysis reveals that while some brands, notably one compared as Milloki, achieve exceptionally high rotations, others such as Makita and Dek offer lower speeds. A comprehensive table and graph summarize these differences, prompting consideration of how much maximum rotation really matters in everyday use.

Battery capacity now appears as a percentage, diverging from previous passport specifications and eliminating zero readings. All instruments include a standard two-hour battery, while one unit originally came with a shorter version that was later upgraded to optimize performance and reduce costs. A cost comparison reveals that purchasing separate battery components brings the total expense to around 3600 rubles rather than 5000. An IMAX B6 charger is used to fully charge the battery, verifying its specified milliamp performance.

Battery Endurance and Capacity Evaluation Five battery-powered tools—three new models and two top performers from an earlier series—were tested under identical discharge conditions. A detailed table compared the official specifications (shown in white) with the measured results (in red), highlighting the percentage shortfall of each instrument. The best performance emerged with the model labeled ‘pi’, while Makita, Milooki, and Metaba delivered a result around 1.734 and Deka lagged with ratings of 1.5 A and 2 A. Points were assigned taking into account the battery capacity percentages, establishing a clear performance metric.

Screw-Driving Efficiency and Thermal Performance In a practical test, 50 mm screws were driven into plywood to assess how many fasteners each tool could drive before battery depletion. Metaba led by driving the highest number of screws, followed sequentially by Milooki, Pit, and then Deka, which also took longer to complete its task. After full discharge, precise thermal measurements were taken for the battery holder, impact mechanism, and motor, revealing distinct heating profiles with notable differences for Deka. A subsequent challenge with fine-threaded screws in wood and plywood reaffirmed the performance order, where Milooki managed 45 screws before others, while time metrics underscored the importance of efficiency in exhausting battery capacity.

Seven instruments were evaluated by compiling a results table that showed, for the screwing test, Ztrek performed the worst by driving only two screws while other tools scored higher based on the same point system. Drilling tests using new X-shaped 32 drill bits demonstrated that Pit drilled most effectively, with Makita, Mitaba, Miluoki, and Decca following from a group that combined three new tools and two previous top performers. The final table revealed that before the tools heated up, Pit achieved 27 operations in one pass compared to Shturm’s 23 over two passes, with Ztrek again lagging at only three perforations. Practical fastening trials on a wood screw followed by a tougher 150-unit screw showed nearly identical timings for Milki, Pit, and Metaba, then sequentially slower performances from Makita, Otriv, Deka, and finally Zitrek.

A test compares seven fastening tools by measuring the time each takes to complete screw-driving tasks within a one-minute benchmark. Points are awarded by subtracting the elapsed time from a minute, meaning faster tools earn higher scores. A performance table clearly depicts the rankings, with one instrument finishing in 53 seconds as the slowest. An additional evaluation on tool power is expected to complement the speed-based assessment.

A rigorous test evaluated the torque ratings of several fastening tools, comparing their performance on wood and on various fasteners like bolts and nuts. Deka delivered the highest torque at 200 Nm, followed by Miloki at 170 Nm, Metab at 140 Nm, with both PIT and Shturm at 120 Nm, Makita at 110 Nm, and Ztrek showing the lowest output. The test confirmed that Deka’s 200 Nm specification aligned with real-world performance, validating its reputation for power. A simple test stand using six different drive bits, including those for nylon fasteners, provided a straightforward platform for these comparisons.

In a high-stakes contest of twisting bolts and nuts, an initial leader named Pit set a rapid pace against newcomers Deco and Metab. Pit demonstrated his skill by completing his task in under a minute while Deco took almost two minutes and managed a slight win over Metab in a subsequent round. The final duel revealed Miluiki’s advantage as he quickly accelerated and maintained a steady momentum, ultimately outpacing Pit despite lower baseline ratings. This competitive battle showcases how innovation and consistent performance can overturn early expectations in mechanical challenges.

A test method was established using new hardware for each instrument, scoring performance based on a fixed 2-minute operation period with a 40-second deduction. The evaluation shows that instruments with a 1.5 unit appear slightly faster than those with 2 units, with a performance table placing one model, referred to as 'deka', at the lower end. It was noted that the instruments provide continuous operation for 7 to 10 minutes before needing a recharge. Charging differences were highlighted by comparing a 400 mA charger requiring 3.5 to 5 hours for full charging versus an 800 mA charger that offers a faster charge for the accumulator.

Comparisons of different power tools reveal a range of charger outputs that directly influence battery recharge times. One model uses a 1.5 A charger taking roughly one hour and 20 minutes, while others operate at 1 A, 2.4 A, 2.6 A, and even 3 A, each charging more rapidly than the previous. A battery capacity of at least 4 Ah is recommended to ensure extended operational periods. Rigorous testing and a showcase of leading tools, including a top-rated 12V screwdriver, underscore the pursuit of superior efficiency.

Instrument Ranking Reveals a Clear Score Hierarchy The evaluation establishes a scoring system that spans from a low score of 3 up to a high of 7.9. Makita earns the fifth slot with 5.94 points, Shturm follows in fourth at 6.37, and Metaba ties in third with a score of 7. Pit claims the second position while Milloki leads the ranking at 7.9 points, forming a striking comparative table.

Advanced Performance Testing Highlights Key Metrics The analysis advances into deeper performance measures by testing maximum torque and battery capacity under a tenfold load. Deka is uniquely assessed in two variants—2A and 1.5A—with the latter producing a superior result. This detailed examination quantifies the instruments’ dynamic characteristics and energy delivery, providing robust insights into their operational strengths.

Transparent Testing with Ongoing Evaluation The narrative presents a clear and honest approach to measuring torque, emphasizing that the displayed results are part of an evolving process rather than final outcomes. It explains that continuous tests and comparisons are developed without the intention to target or criticize anyone. Emotional nuances are acknowledged, but they serve to underline a commitment to technical integrity and open evaluation.

Custom Torque Stand for Precise 5- and 10-Second Measurements A homemade test stand employs a dynamometric wrench to calibrate and verify torque values accurately. Two specially designed bolts—one with standard threading and one reversed—enable measurement of both the working torque over 5 seconds and the maximum stripping torque over 10 seconds. Practical tests, especially on 12-volt socket wrenches, reveal that the 10-second measurement typically reflects the peak torque, with results recorded via a dedicated program.

Automated Testing Exposes Low-Torque Battery Variations An automated system detects load initiation and runs a fixed 10-second measurement, eliminating human error. A 2A tool delivers over 74 Nm in that period, with a performance edge over its 1.5A counterpart. In a direct comparison, Deka starts strong and eventually outperforms Ztrek, which registers only 66 Nm.

Dynamic High-Torque Performance Settles the Competition High-torque instruments aimed at twisting were tested over 10 seconds, revealing a range from about 107 to 121 Nm. PIT, rated at 120 Nm, initially leads with roughly 107 Nm before being overtaken by Shturm, which hits 108 Nm despite a faster start. Budget Makita aligns with its 110 Nm expectation and later surpasses its rivals, while Metaba, though rated at 140 Nm and measuring 121 Nm, ultimately outpaces all competitors.

Milka meets its passport rating of 170 Nm and even achieves 172 Nm in 10 seconds, demonstrating a rapid and consistent torque buildup. The torque quickly escalates, nearly doubling competitors in performance during the measured timeframe. Graphs comparing passport data with 5- and 10-second readings reveal that only Milka reaches full scoring, while others fall short. The evaluation further suggests incorporating weight and length into performance metrics by using a torque-to-weight ratio for a more comprehensive analysis.

Battery discharge is evaluated by comparing instruments based on their power-to-size ratios, with a milling machine clearly outperforming alternatives. The analysis shows that while PIT offers an intriguing balance, Metaba provides higher power but is less competitive in terms of size, and Deco Easyck is disadvantaged by low power and excessive weight. A specialized test stand discharges 2A batteries at 20A and, complemented by a custom program, generates graphs that capture discharge behavior, revealing uniform voltage drops to 9.7V before divergence in performance, with the 2A battery delivering 94 mA and the 1.5 variant slightly over 130 A.

Unexpected Low Output and Varied Discharge Patterns A battery expected to deliver 2000 mA produced only 130 mA, with the Ztrek unit recording just 113 mA under similar conditions. Metaba maintained its load until a gradual drop to 10 V, then discharged rapidly to around 1000 mA, marking a significant shortfall versus standard expectations. Shturm exhibited a discharge pattern akin to Deco Easyck but sustained the load a bit longer with approximately 1.24 mA output. Pit demonstrated an even smoother voltage decline that held the load consistently, culminating in a discharge of about 1041 mA.

Smooth Voltage Retention Determines Enhanced Battery Efficiency Milloki showcased a flatter discharge curve with a lower voltage drop, achieving about 1.535 mA—roughly 50% better than previous models despite an expected 2000 mA. Makita maintained an even gentler voltage decline compared to Milwi while consistently supporting the load, matching current outputs but excelling in voltage stability. The analysis reveals that a higher sustained voltage throughout discharge directly translates into a more powerful tool. This insight highlights voltage retention as the key parameter for superior battery performance.

A systematic evaluation of battery banks was conducted by measuring the resistance of individual batteries using a specialized device. The readings from three banks, recorded as 21, 23, and 20, were combined to yield a total of 64 mA, with an average value of 21.5 and a noted difference of 2.81 between the best and worst results. Visual documentation further highlighted key measurement points with annotated values, establishing a performance ranking across various banks. A final scoring table was formulated by applying a formula that divides a 20 A reference by the average resistance, then adjusts the result by the observed difference.

Battery Build Consistency Drives Performance Excellence Precise assembly, measured by the minimal gap between battery casing and contact performance, proves crucial for lasting battery output. Lower discrepancies, such as Makita’s 2.8 and Miloki’s 4, translate to uniform cell performance and extended life, while larger gaps like Deczytrek’s nearly 20 indicate significant imbalance. Robust battery torque and capacity result from tight assembly, reducing premature energy loss and battery degradation. Updated performance readings prompted a reordering of scores that underscores the importance of build precision.

Price-Adjusted Scoring Unveils True Value Performance scores were refined by relating them directly to instrument cost, accounting for additional accessory expenses. A coefficient was calculated by dividing earned points by the price, with appropriate adjustments for bundled extras. This analysis led to Pit topping the value list, followed by Miloki and Makita, while Shturm, Metaba, and Deka ranked lower. The method highlights that the best instruments strike a balance between high performance and cost efficiency.

Comparative Internal Electronic Structures and Sensor Integration Battery tools from Metabo, Pit, Milwoki, Makita, Ztrek, Shturm, and Deka share very similar internal electronics featuring common battery banks, brushless motors, and consistent component layouts. Variations appear in the positioning of circuit boards, the quality of soldering, and the configuration of buttons and bearings. Notably, Milwoki and Metabo incorporate temperature sensors that enhance thermal control, reflecting careful design differences despite overall similarity.

Unified Impact Mechanism Design with Critical Spring Variations The impact mechanisms across these brands display identical structural elements such as metallic reducers, bearings, and hexagon-patterned housings. Small differences in spring stiffness significantly affect performance, explaining discrepancies in output ratings even when dimensions remain nearly the same. Designs like Ztrek closely replicate Makita’s approach, while observed warranty issues highlight the influence of component quality on operational durability.

Milki distinguishes itself as a robust hammer, appearing similar to others but functioning differently due to the interplay of its parts. Its performance depends not only on the hammer element but also on critical components like the spring, motor, battery, and even bearings. The analysis emphasizes that an integrated design is key to a tool’s true effectiveness and invites feedback for further insight.

A comprehensive overview shows users can freely choose tests and build a personalized comparison table to match their needs. A universal table aligned with trusted standards serves as a reliable benchmark for evaluating instrument performance across various tasks. Hands-on testing uncovers subtle nuances that differentiate each instrument, and community feedback confirms that Deka provides a more engaging experience than Ztrek.

Budget instruments offer an attractive price point but are hampered by unreliable battery performance, necessitating constant recharging. They handle small tasks adequately, yet their limitations become evident when more demanding work is required. A premium, compact, and lightweight cordless screwdriver outshines its competitors, including heavy and underpowered alternatives. This superior tool can be sourced both from traditional outlets and secondhand platforms, providing a cost-effective solution despite limited warranty coverage.

The instrument, intended as a cost-saving solution, underperformed due to rapid battery capacity decline that hints at either design or manufacturing issues. Its battery deteriorated quickly under use, negating the anticipated savings and forcing additional expenses to replace it. Despite featuring a notable key regulation, its performance was indistinguishable from a standard screwdriving tool. The experience highlights that promising features cannot compensate for fundamental flaws in core components.

Makita 110 Overpriced and Uninspiring The Makita 110 is criticized for offering only basic screwdriving performance despite its steep price of 17,000 rubles. Its traditional design fails to impress compared to modern alternatives, making it appear dull and underpowered. The tool’s performance is deemed ordinary and does not justify its cost, especially when even budget Chinese models can compete.

Flawed Speed Control Diminishes Practical Value The evaluation questions the need for a complex speed regulation mechanism that adds little benefit. Comparisons with models featuring more purposeful speed adjustments, such as the 111 and the technologically advanced Pit, highlight its shortcomings. The unnecessary intricacy in speed control is seen as counterproductive, suggesting that a simpler, well-engineered screwdriver would be a better choice for everyday use.

Innovative Power Tool Concepts Amid Mixed Feedback A range of advanced tool designs is evaluated against standard models, with a notable focus on a precision instrument that outshines basic fasteners. The narrative outlines a diverse lineup including screwdrivers, drill drivers, and even plans for a Bulgarian variant, while mentioning prototypes made from plastic and other materials. Testing reveals both impressive potential and clear disappointments, reflecting a balanced mix of innovation and underperformance. The discussion emphasizes the importance of thoughtful design and a comprehensive tool range that aspires to be technologically cutting‐edge.

Future Directions Fueled by Community Engagement and Support Plans for additional product variants and further testing are detailed alongside an open invitation for viewer suggestions and feedback. Upcoming experiments, including new models and accessory trials like backpacks, are presented as collaborative future endeavors rather than commercial offerings. Viewers are encouraged to interact through likes, comments, and modest financial support to help secure materials and tools. The overall message is one of community-driven evolution, where active engagement is key to shaping what comes next.