Few if any framers follow the installation instructions properly, IMO. That was shown to me by our Andersen dealer when they came out to do the final tune-up on our windows and doors. Ours were only fin-nailed as well, but they seem to be doing fine. Apply the peel & stick sealant as noted above around the exterior for the water seal (framers do this). Frome the inside, make sure they supported the L & R window jamb with shims sitting on the horizontal frame member. This is the proper way to level a window and keep it from shifting over time. Use low expansion foam on the inside around the window-to-framing gap for the air seal (insulation people usually do this step).

I used to work for a window company. And we all used to giggle when people ordered grid work and Argon gas. The way we got the grid work to stay in was to punch holes in the spacer between the glass and fit the grid into it, locking the grids between the double glass pieces. Yes, we sealed up the holes, but nothing works better than to have not punch the hole in the first place. Unless the technology has changed, the best bet if going with argon is to NOT have grid in your windows. Grid is a throwback from the past where it was a pain to replace the glass in a whole window, so breaking it into little panes meant that it was less of a pain. (Pun intended) Why we would laugh is that grid work added to the cost of the windows, the more grid, the more expensive. Also, the argon gas was more money. So, you'd have people paying extra money for special gas, then even MORE money to make it easier for the gas to escape. I've heard a lot of people say, "The windows don't look right without the grid." I guess it's a matter of choice. Growing up, all the windows had grid, unless they were really tiny, because that's the way it was. With most houses having replaced their windows at least once, I think we're getting used to the idea of no panes in the glass, and unless you personally can't feel comfortable with it, you might as well skip the grid, especially if going with argon gas.

I don't imagine you could take that measurement without breaking the seal. The inadequate seals are the bigger concern, though since they mean air leakage from outdoors is possible. In talking with a local window and door distributor who reps. a number of lines, including Andersen and Marvin, he said that Marvin windows are far superior. I've gotten that from lots of experienced builders as well. But he said he found Andersen doors to be superior to Marvin's. So much for one stop shopping! Windows are more important, though.

johnaddis, Welcome to the forum. You have brought up some really interesting points and I am going to reply; but since I am not going to agree with all of your statements, please take my comments in the spirit of open exchange of ideas and not as criticism. To (hopefully) help interpret for the non-metric folks who may be reading this thread - 1000mW/mK = 1 W/mK = 0.5779 Btu/(ft x h x degrees F). And to answer your implied question, krypton is at it's insulating best in narrow airspaces, typically 3/16" or less, while argon's maximum efficiency is between 7/16" to 5/8" airspace. Using argon in narrow airspaces (less than 3/8") or krypton in wider than 3/8" simply isn't cost effective. If you were to fill a 7/16" airspace with krypton the insulating value would be slightly higher than you would achieve with argon, but at (last I heard) 600 times more expensive than argon there is no way that the slight improvement of krypton over argon in that situation would make any sort of either financial or performance sense. I would argue that glass is actually a relatively poor conductor of heat when compared with other similar materials. Certainly it isn't comparable the gas infill, but I would suggest that comparing glass to aluminum foil is a bit of a stretch as well since thermal conductivity of argon is .016 W/mK and glass is about .96 W/mK and aluminum is about 250 W/mK (lower number indicates less conductivity). So I would suggest that the conductivity of glass is a heck of a lot closer to the conductivity of argon than it is to aluminum. While I would agree that "pumping", as you describe it, contributes to argon dissipation through the IG seal, I would not agree with the rest of your statement. Basically, if the integrity of the seal isn't compromised then it is entirely possible to form a vacuum between the lites in an IG unit due to argon migration thru the seal. Argon and krypton will migrate thru the material of the IG seal at a rate substantially faster than nitrogen (air) will migrate back into the space - unless there is a physical breach of the seal. You are absolutely correct that the state-of-the-art IG seal systems in use today are much better than the systems used 20 years ago. The better IG seals in use today are tested to have an argon dissipation rate of about 1% per year and seal failures of a good bit below .25% over 20 years. Keeping in mind that not all IG seal systems in use today can make those claims. Like you see in all products, there are really good systems in use today and not-so-good systems in use today. Folks who have experienced "collapsed glass" or collapsed IG's in windows made 15-20 years ago have seen what happens when argon migrates thru the spacer materials and isn't replaced by air. Seal failure that results in a "steamed up" window is an entirely different issue than what you describe. Curiously, if a window has a collapsed glass issue it means that the seal hasn't failed despite the rather extreme conditions that have resulted in the collapsed glass.