If you look closely enough you will see them, and if you dry fit before and after clean up you will see the difference.

KL

Exactly. If I'm cutting a rounded part I stay clear and sand the nub to match the contour. Even a perfect cutter will make a flat spot. I'd rather knock down the high points than fill the center and try to blend it.

KL

I have GH, Dispae and Tamiya 74123. GH gives a cut that is butter smooth because it has the thinnest profile. Not to say Dispae isn't good, but you can tell right away the GH cut felt no real impact but Dispae would snap, and you can tell the cut isn't as flat and flush. Tamiya is even less flush, but IMO its real advantage is its sharp point getting to some very tricky spots that GH couldn't.

Wow....what a price. In the UK on Amazon over £100, on Ebay upwards of £50. I thought my Xuron's were expensive.

I'd say in my opinion either the Xuron or Tamyia ones are a more balanced choice between, performance and price.

Although I guess if money was no object I'd try a pair of God Hand Spn-120 Ultimate Nipper 5.0 but to be honest knowing how so much is replicated by rip off merchants based in the far east I'd wonder if I was getting the genuine item.

Kurt, Bob, have either of you TRIED a set of the GH cutters? I'm not being argumentative, I just had exactly the same opinion as both of you, until I needed a new set of cutters and after doing some research decided to spend the money and try for myself.

I think I paid around $45 shipped for mine, I have been searching but cannot remember where I got them from, sorry. I will keep looking though.

I paid around 50$AU on Hobbylink Japan

Modellers just love to overpay for hobby-branded products. Klein, Knipex or Channellock all make small precision cutters, with a lifetime gaurantee at a fraction of the price of boutique brands.

I have Xuron, Dspiae and God Hand nippers, as well as a couple of cheap n nasty brands. I've used them all.

After a year of fairly intensive 'road testing' the God Hand are in my opinion the best. The Dspiae nippers are second and the Xuron are in third place. They are all good quality, but the GH cutters sit on another level from the others.

I look at tools as a long term investment. The GH nippers are roughly the same price as a good quality 1/35 AFV kit these days. For me it's a no-brainer. Spending that much on a tool that will last for dozens of projects and years of use is worth the 'sacrifice' of the occasional kit not purchased.

Regards,
John

My thoughts exactly.

Many modelers have multiplicates of various kits which are probably never going to end up on their bench, yet when it comes to purchasing a high quality tool, it is a big investment... to each their own, I guess.

Mario

No, I haven't, but they - like any other cutter - are still going to cut in a plane. That will always be a discontinuity on a curved or angled surface that will have to be removed. In other words, no matter how good of a cutter there will always need to be some clean up on contoured or angled parts. (And tank models have a lot of them.) What I have now is a 6 to 8 out of 10 with respect to a perfectly flush, exact match to the part when cut, depending on shape. Given the inescapable need to do some amount of clean up on every part, increasing the quality of the cut - even to 10 out of 10, which is realistically impossible - but only on some parts is not worth the added cost to me.

I'm picky.

KL

Who carries Godhand nippers in the US? I am not an ebay fan.

I'm picky.

Here are some pictures from build reviews. I'm not meaning to criticize these builders as what they are doing is fine for a review where there is a deadline involved. I just chose these because they are big, clear, readily available photos.

These cuts are not good enough for me:



On this one, you can still see the molding flash on the edge of the return rollers, along with the flat spots, and on the bogie bracket:


Check out the cylindrical object on the front fender support. A flat from sprue cutting and an open seam at the back. Note how the front tool box does not fit flush with the fender, and how the outside face does not fit the body. This is caused by minute bits of flash, mold mismatch, draft angles, and burrs. It's always there.


Look at the bottom of the turret. In addition to the sprue cut, there is flash that will need to be removed. It's just the nature of plastic molding.


If you follow these articles you'll see that they continue to make nice looking models. Good for them. That's not what I like to do however. I will do a lot more clean up on my models than these guys did, so a better sprue cut in the whole scheme of things doesn't make a $50 difference to me, and "to me" is all that matters.

KL

In most cases I would agree with you, but the brands you’ve listed are not anywhere near the performance of the products from Lindstrom. I used their flush cut pliers for years as a circuit card repair tech. My Lindstrom cutters outperformed cheaper brands consistently, but cost over $75.00 per unit at the time. With that said, they are designed for cutting soft metals and can’t hold a candle to the nippers purpose made for plastic because of the blade geometry.

Tweezers are the opposite. The hobby ones you can buy for under $10 are horrible. They have no feel of the parts you’re trying to hold and quite often the tips are so far off that picking up a thin flat object with confidence isn’t possible. I’ll spend the money and buy the Dumont tweezers favored by watchmakers for years.

My choices will probably not reflect that of many people and that is cool. I won’t tell you how to spend your money, but I have too little time to spend on my hobby to waste it being frustrated with tools that perform poorly and cause me to double or triple the time and effort needed to turn out a quality piece. I have well over 100 kits waiting to be built; the cost of a pair of nippers or tweezers or whatever else you care to add into the mix, pales in comparison to that outlay.

I believe the name of this thread is “ Best side cutters?”. This person was expressing interest in tools that offered increased performance. It is not about whether anyone thinks that increase in performance serves their purposes or methods or whether you think that performance is good value for money.

Several vendors on Amazon carry them now. I ordered mine from Hobbylink Japan several years ago.

@John: Sadly, I've not had the chance to try out most of the cutters mentioned in this thread! GH cutters apparently have impressed many as being a fine cutter, and I'm sure that I would enjoy using them at least as much as I enjoy using any tool which does well what I want it to!

But maybe the "what one wants it to do" is the real point?

KL has pretty clearly identified this salient point regarding tools and the JOB one buys tools to do... KL notes, as did I, that what he uses the cutter to do is to remove parts from runners - NOT to "finish" that part for attachment. Parts-removal is the JOB he, and I, buy cutters to do. I suspect that is actually what most of the folks posting here buy cutters to do. And the way I, and apparently KL, see it is... Buy the tool which works to do the job. And pay as much as that doing task well is reasonably worth.

I personally LOVE tools. Fine (and often costly) tools. I have scads of them. As a research biologist, I bought only the best stereomicroscopes - Wild-Leica for me! Better 'scopes provide better support for your developed fine observation skills and technique. Same with cameras. These tools do range in quality and "functional usability", and if you have high demands for the tool in doing a complex, key and critical job, it pays to get a very good tool... and back that expensive, great tool up with careful development of skill and technique in using it. Objective being to ultimately perform the final job BETTER: To get better and more-consistent exploration of minutiae in bio-specimens, to get better pictures as a photographer, etc. Great tools used with great skill produce great results. Buying a better 'scope and then not learning to use it to its capability to actually get better performance of your complex, demanding job is a waste of money. A super-good pro-grade camera does not make one a better photographer if you don't also really learn photo-techniques to take advantage of that better tool's capabilities. Owning a fine precision rifle does not make one a marksman.

I think that probably everyone here likes tools and revels in techniques - and we all want to get good builds out of our time and money.

But cutting parts off sprues isn't a complex, critical task. Aside from damaging a part thru faulty technique, it doesn't contribute much to the final build quality! I don't see where a "better" cutter will save time, nor how it really improves parts-prep for fitting to a build. And it's those things - saving time and getting a better build out of my effort - which are worth spending more money on!

The most-expensive, best-made cutter won't do anything to improve my modeling over a cheap-but-functional clipper used with care and attention to cutting technique. I'm still going to have to do further effort after removing parts from sprues (the cutter's rather limited function and capability in the job of building a model) by doing whatever trimming, detailing, sanding, and fitting is needed to get the most out of that part on the build!

Everyone is different. I have ancient side-cutters seconded from a pile of old electronics tools. They do fine at cutting parts from sprues. (I bought a new cutter at HL only because I was on travel without a cutter!). I learned to avoid trying to cut tiny, frail bits off with the cutters, and use a knife-and-tape technique to handle those things. I don't lose parts to the carpet monster during cutting from sprues... (Handling tiny bits after clipping has, on the other hand, resulted in fly-aways! ) and I don't damage them by cutting. Cutters are a tool to do a pretty limited, simple step in the process of building a model.

Cutters are much more like hammers then like cameras! And a cheap-but-solid hammer drives nails just fine!

My philosophy on tools (other then as collectibles...) is "buy the one which does WELL what YOU want it to do." The term "best" is really much more a marketer's claim and a relative / comparative opinion (often by enthusiasts and members of "cliques") then it is any sort of actual objective standard. The OP wants to know about buying a tool to do a job. It is, I think, more than moderately valid to actually identify WHAT the real JOB / task of the tool is, and discuss buying the tools in light of understanding the real constraints, parameters, and its worth of that task is relative to the ultimate "job" being done. (PS: I built real prototype circuit-boards as a teenager in the 60's and early 70's - I used Lindstrom cutters... but also cheapo's from Radio-Shack. The inspecting engineer couldn't tell which parts I trimmed with which tool... But I knew! LoL!)

Buy the tool which does the job that YOU WANT IT TO DO.

Just my thoughts on this issue!

Strictly following that view would produce several posts (or perhaps only one) listing a brand and catalog number, with no elaboration or explanation as to how the poster came to that determination.

In fact, such a view would reduce your post to "Lindstrom", which would be singularly unhelpful to the OP because you also state that "they are designed for cutting soft metals and can’t hold a candle to the nippers purpose made for plastic because of the blade geometry", meaning you really replied:




KL

Whether you use nippers as “hammers” or precision instruments is entirely a personal choice. I’ve found that the GH cutters allow me to cut closer to the part without stressing the plastic which means I spend less time doing cleanup and final fitting. They don’t remove mold lines and they don’t magically make parts fit, but they reduce the time I spend doing cleanup which makes them a good value for me.

Companies make cars in different shapes, sizes and prices for different types of driving. Tool companies make circular saws and screwdrivers and wrenches in a vast array of types and prices. Why should it be any different for modeling tools?

Pick something that suits your preferred methods and the price point you like and be happy. Just don’t expect everyone to agree with your choices.

I remember my first nippers, a set of toenail clippers. That left a lot of cleanup and occasional repairs. I then up graded to an xacto knife and a metal fingernail file. I discovered by experience what I wanted in a nipper. It must cut without applying enough turque to send a part flying (be sharp). It needs to have one side of the blade beveled, not two sides, otherwise it leaves more to clean up. The blades need to be thin to fit into tight places. I would rather take a more robust nipper and cut out the part out leaving some sprue then use the better nippers to make a final clean cut.

Just my thoughts.

No, of course there isn't. There can't be a definitive anything unless there are clear and precise and numerical metrics by which to judge and assess definitive answers.

It's like sports. Some sports have a clear and definitive system of assessing a winner, either time or score or some such numerical metric.

Some sports have a number that represents the opinion of the judge or judges. Those results can never be considered definitive because a different judge could have come up with a different answer.

Matters of opinion, like this matter, are like the second set of sports. It's all opinion, therefore can not possibly be definitive.



Again, what constitutes "no clean-up" is an opinion. As Kurt has said, geometrically it's physically not possible for a plane cutter to leave no trace on a curved surface. Simply not possible. YOU need to do some clean-up. On planar surfaces the ability to cut absolutely flush is limited by the skill of the user, so you still might get a nub.

But certainly, absolutely zero clean-up is not a thing that _any_ side cutter could manage in all cases, no matter how good you are.

I think I saw several side cutter comparison reviews when I was looking for more info on God Hand offering. I can’t locate these reviews at the moment as I have limited access to internet, however searching on Google and Youtube should yield several results.

Mario

Egg-zactly.

KL

Paul I understand your answer. However if I gave you 5 different brands of nippers and asked which worked the best, you could probably sort them into best, middle and bottom. You might have several in each category. You will have a reason why you chose each category. Maybe the cleanness of the cut or how close to the part you could get, stiffness of operation, something. I would guess that someone else would have similar results. Outstanding tools usually rise to the top. I race slotcars and good tools pay off. Some parts, screws, and fittings are hard to come by. A sloppy fitting tool guarantees you will be parts hunting. I learned the hard way that screwdrivers and allen wrenches of the same size are not the same size. I have stripped out allen screws and regular screws until I got a propper set of machined tools. If you work on expensive shotguns, don't use Craftman tools, they are not machined to the correct tolorences. If you normally used average tools and then tried mine you would notice a difference.
I am thinking this applies to the nippers. You might think so what, I plan on scraping and sanding every part any way so cheap is fine by me. Plastic is forgiving and it will work out. I want a nipper that requires little extra work to the normal cleaning of mold marks and seams. And yes on rounded parts you don't want to cut off any of the curve but cheap nippers are not an advantage there. And yes, by the way good tools need to be replaced when their tolerences change just like cheap tools.

Kurt, I agree with you. You also need to evaluate the importance of the work the tool will do. If I am doing a non precise job and a one time tool use, I am headed to Harber Freight.

That's exactly why Paul is saying it's impossible to definitively or even unambiguously rank best, because each reviewer will have their own reasons and their own rationale. If you establish an objective criteria ahead of time, then sure, you could do it. Without that you are just going to get "I like X because of Y" responses. Those are fine for what they are but you need to recognize what they aren't.

Just as a sidebar, Paul and I are both engineers and our careers have repeatedly involved dealing with people who wanted to know if something worked, was it strong, or would it last, but were unable to define what criteria should be used to define success. Frequently they were unable to even understand that success needed an objective definition. Hence we are attuned to situations where people want definite answers to indefinite questions.

KL

Same pattern emerges again... those who use God Hand, love it.

While I respect the rest of opinions (and of course everyone is free to do what they want with their money), it lacks an essential part as you have not tried them yourself. Would you discard a hotel following the opinion of people who has not been there, just thinks it's too expensive? Or not buy a car because someone says, without having driven it, that is not worth?