Bighead38
Well-known member
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Connolly_(DE-306)
Down the rabbit hole I go exploring the ships history.
Down the rabbit hole I go exploring the ships history.
2018 Garage Sale Thread
- Thread starter Private Lugnutz
- Start date
- Status
Bighead38
Well-known member
Found an article my grandma wrote that I didn’t know about detailing her work on a secret project for the war. Happy I found this.
Attachments
Last edited:
Bighead38
Well-known member
Bighead38
Well-known member
Not sure why those came out so blurry. This is a link to the article. Starts on page 6. I couldn’t get the page flip option to work so I had to click the thumbnail on the right side and then open the link for each page.
It’s a pain format wise but a quick read and it would be awesome if any of you took the time to read it.
https://www.hrvh.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/hsrc/id/3290/rec/144
It’s a pain format wise but a quick read and it would be awesome if any of you took the time to read it.
https://www.hrvh.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/hsrc/id/3290/rec/144
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
That's a perfect coincidence on the name, Bighead38. Hope you find something to trade for it.
Boofer
Well-known member
Finally got out a little bit last weekend. Got the following from the local flea.
1991 jerry cans. One is clean as a whistle inside, the other is definitely not. I'll probably use one for fuel and the other to transport waste oil. $5 each.
Motor craft clock/sign, Tide Racing clock. Both light up, but both need new clock mechanisms. $5 each.
64? Impala SS hubcap $5, USA ball peen, TrueTemper cross peen, Plumb scaling hammer $2 each, CMan SAE hex driver set and Mac vise grips $8, Champion counter mat $1.
Stopped by an estate sale on the way home that was pretty picked over, but got the unused jumper cables, metal yard stick and the triple tap for $6.
1991 jerry cans. One is clean as a whistle inside, the other is definitely not. I'll probably use one for fuel and the other to transport waste oil. $5 each.
Motor craft clock/sign, Tide Racing clock. Both light up, but both need new clock mechanisms. $5 each.
64? Impala SS hubcap $5, USA ball peen, TrueTemper cross peen, Plumb scaling hammer $2 each, CMan SAE hex driver set and Mac vise grips $8, Champion counter mat $1.
Stopped by an estate sale on the way home that was pretty picked over, but got the unused jumper cables, metal yard stick and the triple tap for $6.
Attachments
driftpin
Well-known member
Thank-you for posting history of your grandparents. They were doing what the generation did, they stepped-up and defended their way of life. A very interesting read, and please post here or elsewhere perhaps under its own thread.
I don't have anything historic. I did get a fair deal at a Habitat for Humanity on tools, $10 for these.
From the top:
about 20" prybar
18" Johnston USA square, w/the scribing tool still aboard, in the bottom of the handle. looks like the thumbscrew was replaced w/a hex nut
Nicholson rat tail file, triangular file
mule-skinner wire brush for a 5/8" X 11 tpi, I believe
1/4" t-handle hex wrench
rigid pipe wrench
utility knife, double-edged
small tap handle, curiously, no markings. Very sturdy, it already paid for itself rethreading a carb threaded hole
Stanley 24 oz ball pein hammer, head bead-blasted now
a bunch of C-clamps
wheel dressing tool
small grease gun
I don't have anything historic. I did get a fair deal at a Habitat for Humanity on tools, $10 for these.
From the top:
about 20" prybar
18" Johnston USA square, w/the scribing tool still aboard, in the bottom of the handle. looks like the thumbscrew was replaced w/a hex nut
Nicholson rat tail file, triangular file
mule-skinner wire brush for a 5/8" X 11 tpi, I believe
1/4" t-handle hex wrench
rigid pipe wrench
utility knife, double-edged
small tap handle, curiously, no markings. Very sturdy, it already paid for itself rethreading a carb threaded hole
Stanley 24 oz ball pein hammer, head bead-blasted now
a bunch of C-clamps
wheel dressing tool
small grease gun
Attachments
drivesitfar
Well-known member
ALL: nice stories about the ashtrays!!
i was looking for an upgrade to my inversion table cause the newer TeeterUps have a nice cup type ankle holder instead of my old Invertalign's pad that has me hanging more on my achilles.
anyway I can't say I was really looking for a DEAL, but aren't we all and instead of paying $400 for a new one i found a like new one for a benjamin that a couple wasn't using and it's mine now.
i've been using one for 10 years now and I try to hang every day for 5 minutes and as some of you know I lift and move some very heavy stuff and in the last 10 years i haven't had to take an advil for back pain.
anyway it's something to keep me getting older so I can buy more tools so thought i'd post it in case some of you might need one too. and BTW by finding this used like new one my tool budget just improved!!
cheers
i was looking for an upgrade to my inversion table cause the newer TeeterUps have a nice cup type ankle holder instead of my old Invertalign's pad that has me hanging more on my achilles.
anyway I can't say I was really looking for a DEAL, but aren't we all and instead of paying $400 for a new one i found a like new one for a benjamin that a couple wasn't using and it's mine now.
i've been using one for 10 years now and I try to hang every day for 5 minutes and as some of you know I lift and move some very heavy stuff and in the last 10 years i haven't had to take an advil for back pain.
anyway it's something to keep me getting older so I can buy more tools so thought i'd post it in case some of you might need one too. and BTW by finding this used like new one my tool budget just improved!!
cheers
Attachments
Bighead38
Well-known member
Interesting. I really liked the inversion table for my back but the ankle holders killed my metal ankle so I didn’t use it.
drivesitfar
Well-known member
BH: I think there are chair type inversions that you sit in that might help you. I know there are hyper extension and roman chairs where you can get a good stretch too if you have some issues with hanging because of your ankle. maybe just try YOGA or stretching.
ALL: since January my bride and I have been going to a gym where my daughter is the instructor and we do TRX, cardio on several machines and some Yoga and other stretching and even though we are not lifting heavy weights i'm getting in shape instead of being a shape now. some days I really have to drag my fat **** out the door to pick up my bride and go to the gym, but dang i always feel better after our hour workout.
ALL: since January my bride and I have been going to a gym where my daughter is the instructor and we do TRX, cardio on several machines and some Yoga and other stretching and even though we are not lifting heavy weights i'm getting in shape instead of being a shape now. some days I really have to drag my fat **** out the door to pick up my bride and go to the gym, but dang i always feel better after our hour workout.
Last edited:
I've also wondered how often those tables drop somebody on their head.
d42jeep
Well-known member
Finally got out a little bit last weekend. Got the following from the local flea.
1991 jerry cans. One is clean as a whistle inside, the other is definitely not. I'll probably use one for fuel and the other to transport waste oil. $5 each.
Motor craft clock/sign, Tide Racing clock. Both light up, but both need new clock mechanisms. $5 each.
64? Impala SS hubcap $5, USA ball peen, TrueTemper cross peen, Plumb scaling hammer $2 each, CMan SAE hex driver set and Mac vise grips $8, Champion counter mat $1.
Stopped by an estate sale on the way home that was pretty picked over, but got the unused jumper cables, metal yard stick and the triple tap for $6.
Those gas cans look earlier than 1991. Can you take a picture of the markings that might be on the bottom of each can?
-Don
Attachments
drivesitfar
Well-known member
TYM: i'm sure guys and gals have fallen on their heads when using the flimsey cheap *** ones, but if you buy an INVERTALIGN or a higher end TEETERUP you'd have to be completely drunk to fall out of it. my 6'5" 325 pound son uses mine almost every time he comes over cause he won't spend the money to buy one or keep it set up in his home. my 85 year old mom cured a back pain issue the doctors were feeding here vicadin for about 4 years ago by hanging for 5 minutes a day for a week and this was after an MRI was done and all doctors offered her was a shot.
try hanging and i bet most of you will really like how you feel.
cheers and climbing on ladders is killing my knee, but I need to climb on my roof again in a few minutes. I have another exercise for my knees.
take care
ALL: any of you find half used boxes of 3 inch coated screws for deck or fencing CAUSE DAMN I just bought a couple 25 pound boxes and blew most of my FUN tool funds?
try hanging and i bet most of you will really like how you feel.
cheers and climbing on ladders is killing my knee, but I need to climb on my roof again in a few minutes. I have another exercise for my knees.
take care
ALL: any of you find half used boxes of 3 inch coated screws for deck or fencing CAUSE DAMN I just bought a couple 25 pound boxes and blew most of my FUN tool funds?
Boofer
Well-known member
Honestly, I just looked at the numbers on one and assumed it was the date for both. Are we both right?
Attachments
d42jeep
Well-known member
Honestly, I just looked at the numbers on one and assumed it was the date for both. Are we both right?
The lower picture was a can made in 1953. You were right about the one 1991 can. 20 indicates the gauge of the metal, the 5 indicates capacity in gallons and the last number is the year of manufacture.
Here is my earliest can.
-Don
Attachments
Last edited:
Duct Tape Man
Well-known member
Haven't gotten much in the way of garage sales recently, every weekend it's been raining! Been getting a lot of rain in recent months....
Also need to get a new camera, my cellphone takes crappy pics.
Got a pile of vintage stuff recently, total price for everything was $20 or so. Lots of Plomb, long-C Craftsman, and some items that can be used in my GMTK project. Got a neat brass Coke bottle, probably an imported novelty, but it's cool. Couple drag links (1 Duro and 1 Herbrand), which aren't a common find. All in all a lot of smaller neat vintage goodies.
Also need to get a new camera, my cellphone takes crappy pics.
Got a pile of vintage stuff recently, total price for everything was $20 or so. Lots of Plomb, long-C Craftsman, and some items that can be used in my GMTK project. Got a neat brass Coke bottle, probably an imported novelty, but it's cool. Couple drag links (1 Duro and 1 Herbrand), which aren't a common find. All in all a lot of smaller neat vintage goodies.
Attachments
On the other hand, what would be the purpose of inaccurately representing the capacity if the container? 5gallons is less than 19litres, 20litres is more than 5-1/4gallons.
The guage of the material would directly affect the durability of the container, resistance to puncture, etc.
I would think the government specs would clarify the meaning of the 20 with some authority.
But you are correct, DF!
The guage of the material would directly affect the durability of the container, resistance to puncture, etc.
I would think the government specs would clarify the meaning of the 20 with some authority.
But you are correct, DF!
Last edited:
I guess I was thinking of accountability for the massive numbers of these cans used in the field by various military and government entities, not just one civilian user. Every twenty of these cans presents an opportunity to reallocate one full container to some other use, or to lose one full container, without much chance of discovery or recovery, because the contents are consumed at a variable rate.
And no, I don’t know how much a nominal 55-gallon drum holds, but I’d bet an even broader margin of error resides there.
And no, I don’t know how much a nominal 55-gallon drum holds, but I’d bet an even broader margin of error resides there.
Last edited:
d42jeep
Well-known member
Thanks for your tactful correction of my inaccurate information. I did a bit more research and found that you may be correct. I got my information from this thread.
https://forums.g503.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=298221
or
https://forums.g503.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=294429&p=1719645#p1719645
It appears that others are incorrect as well. It just goes to show even at my advanced age there is new information to be gathered.
-Don
From the ICC
Shipping Container Specifications
Specification 5
Marking:
11. On each container. —By embossing on head with raised marks as follows:
(a) ICC--5. This mark shall be understood to certify that the container complies with all specification requirements.
(b) Name or symbol (letters) of maker; this must be recorded with the Bureau of Explosives.
(c) Gauge of metal in thinnest part, rated capacity in gallons, and year of manufacture (for example, 14-55-39).
https://forums.g503.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=298221
or
https://forums.g503.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=294429&p=1719645#p1719645
It appears that others are incorrect as well. It just goes to show even at my advanced age there is new information to be gathered.
-Don
From the ICC
Shipping Container Specifications
Specification 5
Marking:
11. On each container. —By embossing on head with raised marks as follows:
(a) ICC--5. This mark shall be understood to certify that the container complies with all specification requirements.
(b) Name or symbol (letters) of maker; this must be recorded with the Bureau of Explosives.
(c) Gauge of metal in thinnest part, rated capacity in gallons, and year of manufacture (for example, 14-55-39).
Last edited:
Username already in use
Well-known member
This is correct
This is incorrect. But a widespread and all too common misconception.
The Specifications for markings on the military fuel can are as follows:
Shipping Container Specifications
Specification 5
Marking:
11. On each container. —By embossing on head with raised marks as follows:
(a) ICC--5. This mark shall be understood to certify that the container complies with all specification requirements.
(b) Name or symbol (letters) of maker; this must be recorded with the Bureau of Explosives.
(c) Gauge of metal in thinnest part, rated capacity in gallons, and year of manufacture (for example, 14-55-39).
I'll buy that. It's ridiculous, but if that's the way it is...per the code presented...but I'd like to see the full context.
Has anyone ever seen one with anything but a 20?
I have no care.
I would like to be correct though.
Do you have the full document that your clip is from? I ask this because the date used as an example preceeds the Jerry can and the Gallons pertain to 55 gallon drums. There is no 'HEAD' on a Jerry can.
There is a bottom, and that's where the designations live. The letters on a Jerry can are not raised.
Nothing is correct in the words you posted.
I have no remembrance, but won't google
Bureau of Explosives.
I have to Guess, from reading the few words provided, that your text refers to drums which are shipping containers and heads and raised, and not Jerry cans which are storage devices and bottoms and imprinted.
If your statute is correct, every Jerry can ever manufactured is built wrongly.
Has anyone ever seen one with anything but a 20?
I have no care.
I would like to be correct though.
Do you have the full document that your clip is from? I ask this because the date used as an example preceeds the Jerry can and the Gallons pertain to 55 gallon drums. There is no 'HEAD' on a Jerry can.
There is a bottom, and that's where the designations live. The letters on a Jerry can are not raised.
Nothing is correct in the words you posted.
I have no remembrance, but won't google
Bureau of Explosives.
I have to Guess, from reading the few words provided, that your text refers to drums which are shipping containers and heads and raised, and not Jerry cans which are storage devices and bottoms and imprinted.
If your statute is correct, every Jerry can ever manufactured is built wrongly.
Last edited:
Username already in use
Well-known member
I’ll have to see if I saved the document. If so, I’ll post it for you here. However, I think the markings have more to do with the ICC standards for markings on fuel containers than anything else.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Regarding 5-Gallon Gerry Can Markings
It's Gage-Capacity-Year, just as Unaiu's source indicates. Not sure what research you did that indicated otherwise, Don, but I'd like to know the source.
See photo below for an excerpt from U.S. Federal Standard Stock Catalog, Section IV, RR-D-761, Specifications for 5-Gallon STC Drums, dated 1939. This would've been in anticipation for Gerry can production in the states, as we did not start using them until 1941.
It's Gage-Capacity-Year, just as Unaiu's source indicates. Not sure what research you did that indicated otherwise, Don, but I'd like to know the source.
See photo below for an excerpt from U.S. Federal Standard Stock Catalog, Section IV, RR-D-761, Specifications for 5-Gallon STC Drums, dated 1939. This would've been in anticipation for Gerry can production in the states, as we did not start using them until 1941.
Attachments
Username already in use
Well-known member
Since the cans were shipped all over, they had to comply with the ICC standards. I'm getting my information from THIS thread on the G503. The document being referenced is "Interstate Commerce Commission Regulations for the Transportation of Explosives and other Dangerous Articles by Express" 'Specifications for Shipping Containers'. These excerpts are from the document dated 1944, but are prescribed under 'Act of March 4, 1921'.
Size of the container makes no difference, 5 gallon, or 55 gallon. It's marked in a certain way so that the container is know to comply with the ICC spec.
Anyway, I hope this clears it up some. FWIW, I used to think that 20 was liters as well. /TheMoreYouKnow...
A bit on the 'rated capacity' since that was discussed up thread as well.
EDIT*... I see that Lugz has beaten me to it ... again...
Attachments
No, it's not anything like his source says.
His is for drums. Top, raised, storage
Yours, I'll conceded to as the liters being a happenstantial trial fit for the 20 on the gage.
I'll adjust accordingly.
Has anyone ever seen any JERRY CAN, not drum, with any gage other than 20?
But, Jerry cans aren't single use containers as addressed solely in your statute.
Either there's an amendment, or all the cans are built not to code.
The gage indicator would still stand. The 20 liter is coincidental, and also coincidental to the Jerry's, Jerry cans which ours were designed from
I'll change my thoughts, quit replicating this misperception...but neither of the statute presented is for Jerry cans.
I think the only single use were the four gallon british and the standard us square.
Maybe the requirement is for those square fives? Especially since they're mentioning 24 gage?
The railroad stuff is very specific in stating it is for a minimum shipping container of 33 gallon size and has no interest in smaller containers. Not for Jerry cans.
Last edited:
Username already in use
Well-known member
Interesting to note too, that the Spec that Lugz posted, doesn't specify a gauge for the sheet metal. Perhaps they hadn't yet landed on a Spec in '39. The earliest 5 gallon 'jerry' cans (U.S.) are dated '41.
PSD Co. 20 - 5.35 - 41 (ICC-5)
Bennett 20 - 5 - 44 (ICC-5L
Wheeling 20 - 5 - 45 (ICC-5L)
Nesco 20 - 5 - 45 (ICC-5L)
Not a metal 5 gallon 'Jerry Can', no. I've got more wartime fuel cans than I care to admit to here. All of them are marked 20 gauge. Here's a few that I had a picture of at hand.
PSD Co. 20 - 5.35 - 41 (ICC-5)
Bennett 20 - 5 - 44 (ICC-5L
Wheeling 20 - 5 - 45 (ICC-5L)
Nesco 20 - 5 - 45 (ICC-5L)
Right, well... you are correct. However, you're missing the point that the cans are marked to comply with the ICC marking standards. Otherwise, why are they all embossed 'ICC' at all.
Attachments
Last edited:
JMLangford
Well-known member
Today's flea finds.....Sorry for the crappy phone pics....
The top of the red metal box is marked "D WRENCH KIT" and was originally a Klein tool 9pc offering with a ratchet, sockets, extension, and a wrench
https://www.kleintools.com/catalog/socket-wrench-sets/38-drive-d-socket-wrench-set-9-pc....
But this one came loaded with a mixture of USA and import sockets and wrenches (and a bolt
)......
There are a mixture of Craftsman mm, and Kobalt, and no-names.....the sockets in front of the deep sockets are an almost complete set of Craftsman (missing the 7mm and of course the 10mm)....
The stainless steel tool is a German made and according to the SKLAR corp. catalog is listed as a "5-1/4" Baumgartner Needle Holder, Serrated, Straight" (instead of forceps).....
https://www.sklarcorp.com/needle-holders/standard/baumgartner-needle-holder.html.....
.
The top of the red metal box is marked "D WRENCH KIT" and was originally a Klein tool 9pc offering with a ratchet, sockets, extension, and a wrench
https://www.kleintools.com/catalog/socket-wrench-sets/38-drive-d-socket-wrench-set-9-pc....
But this one came loaded with a mixture of USA and import sockets and wrenches (and a bolt
)......There are a mixture of Craftsman mm, and Kobalt, and no-names.....the sockets in front of the deep sockets are an almost complete set of Craftsman (missing the 7mm and of course the 10mm)....
The stainless steel tool is a German made and according to the SKLAR corp. catalog is listed as a "5-1/4" Baumgartner Needle Holder, Serrated, Straight" (instead of forceps).....
https://www.sklarcorp.com/needle-holders/standard/baumgartner-needle-holder.html.....
.
Username already in use
Well-known member
A NATO can would not comply with an ICC (U.S.) spec. I’ve found the Euro style can to be a thicker gauge material than a standard U.S. can.
Interesting to note too, that the Spec that Lugz posted, doesn't specify a gauge for the sheet metal. Perhaps they hadn't yet landed on a Spec in '39. The earliest 5 gallon 'jerry' cans (U.S.) are dated '41.
Not a metal 5 gallon 'Jerry Can', no. I've got more wartime fuel cans than I care to admit to here. All of them are marked 20 gauge. Here's a few that I had a picture of at hand.
PSD Co. 20 - 5.35 - 41 (ICC-5)
Bennett 20 - 5 - 44 (ICC-5L
Wheeling 20 - 5 - 45 (ICC-5L)
Nesco 20 - 5 - 45 (ICC-5L)
Right, well... you are correct. However, you're missing the point that the cans are marked to comply with the ICC marking standards. Otherwise, why are they all embossed 'ICC' at all.
I concede to the marking requirement of 20.5.19xx and what it means, in both the railroad document and the tin can document.
I'm saying that neither statutes provided address Jerry cans.
Yours for saying
Head, raised, and top and 33 gallon and 55 gallon
His For saying
Single use(and the 24 gage being a clue about disposable cans like quart oil cans and 5 gallon oil cans.)
For a manufacturer, neither statute requires them to comply to anything the statutes say other than the 20.5.19xx coding, and since I'm not making anything with a head or is single use, neither pertain in the slightest to me.
Its all about loopholes and neither of those even begin to cover Jerry cans.
I'll take a try at looking one up that addresses reuseable containers not primarily for shipping.
Last edited:
I don’t know squat about Jerry cans. I’ve said so before on this thread. But I want to learn. It does seems a confusing coincidence that the litre capacity and the steel guage are represented by the same number. The Wavian site states they make their “NATO spec” Jerry cans from .9mm steel. And that is 20guage, yes? And it also states that they are 20litre/5.3USGallon. So measuring the actual material thickness of a can can only determine whether it is built to what Wavian claims are NATO spec standards, not resolve what the 20 means that is stamped on it.
Last edited:
I don't want to cut my others up.
Don't nato cans say
20.5.19xx?(I know it's us code, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a nato can in person so I don't know if the designator went international or not. I'd think they must meet code to be used here....)
Maybe mine isn't nato.
I bought it for the spout and never looked at it.
This is interesting enough that I'll walk down and take a picture.
I'll cut it up no matter what it is.
An aside:
About nato cans and code,sorta related.
The
Pr
You see on tape measures?
It means they're approved for use in Puerto Rico.
Who could give a ****... But there it is....
Last edited:
I don't know much about them.
I have a couple of early marine corps that I don't have the heart to cut into sconces.
I've learned a lot here about them.
I'm surprised my common knowledge of
Usmc cans
Zinc chromate
Spouts and such
Wasn't common knowledge but obscure unknowns.
So, it sounded like I may know something, but it was a VERY narrow something.
I'm about compliance and interpretations.
I'd like to know more about the cans SOLELY because the guys participating aren't giving me a bunch of **** for being wrong or being right.
It's been one of the few completely civil discussions on gj.
And:
It's a mystery infected with myth and grasps at Proofs.
It would be great for us to all debunk and allow pvt to write a factual definitive full of truths.
I have a couple of early marine corps that I don't have the heart to cut into sconces.
I've learned a lot here about them.
I'm surprised my common knowledge of
Usmc cans
Zinc chromate
Spouts and such
Wasn't common knowledge but obscure unknowns.
So, it sounded like I may know something, but it was a VERY narrow something.
I'm about compliance and interpretations.
I'd like to know more about the cans SOLELY because the guys participating aren't giving me a bunch of **** for being wrong or being right.
It's been one of the few completely civil discussions on gj.
And:
It's a mystery infected with myth and grasps at Proofs.
It would be great for us to all debunk and allow pvt to write a factual definitive full of truths.
Yeah, I get that it’s only a $2 cost, but my point is, all you’ll really know is how thick the steel is on that can. The question is, why do manufacturers stamp the 20 on the bottom? The other guys are quoting container regulations that seem to require it within certain jurisdictions, but I see that does not explain why they bear those same stamps outside those jurisdictions. I think the people to ask is the manufacturers: “Hey, why do you stamp 20-5-etc on the bottom of your Jerry cans?”
d42jeep
Well-known member
Lugz,
I just googled this website. It didn’t qualify as extensive research!
https://olive-drab.com/od_mvg_jerry_can_markings.php
-Don
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
It does. 24 gauge. I only posted the page containing the markings specification. See pic for previous page.
ducksface,
I explained in my very first post on the subject that the federal specification I excerpted for I.C.C. 5-gallon STC's is from 1939, and, as such, that it precedes the I.C.C. specifications for 5-gallon gerry cans, which, again, we didn't start using until 1941. But the marking format can be logically extrapolated to all other I.C.C. specified cans, as Unaiu has pointed out several times. Conversely, the implication of your insistence that it only applies to other types of cans is that the I.C.C. specified one marking format (GAGE-CAPACITY-YEAR) for two types of I.C.C. cans and another marking format (METRIC CAPACITY-IMPERIAL CAPACITY-YEAR) for another type of I.C.C. can seems illogical to me. The Fed Specs are very consistent when dealing with tools and equipment markings. Secondly, the idea that the US government would've specified anything in metric units of measure at that time is a non-starter to begin with. I have the 1939 Fed Specs for everything you can imagine, I've been through probably 50% of it, especially related to hardware, paint, and equipment, and nothing is specified in metric.
But I am not going to try to persuade you.
We can agree to disagree.
LesserSon,
See above. Not sure what you mean by "jurisdiction," but there was nothing outside of or higher than Section IV (Specifications) of the Federal Standard Stock Catalog when it comes to the specification of federally acquired materials in the Interwar years and WWII. That would include anything and everything that all federal agencies, departments, and the military services would be buying and using. It was the predecessor to today's GSA catalog. There is zero confusion or debate about the markings on I.C.C. 5-gallon cans among WWII collectors.
Attachments
Last edited:
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Thanks, Don. I would hazard to bet that they are guessing, and not too reasonably well, and have never seen the Fed Specs.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
ducksface,
We must be talking past each other. I am very familiar with the history of the gerry can. That article is completely accurate, explaining how the US did not have such a can in 1939, as I said several times above. 1939 is that date of the Section IV I own a copy of. It includes fed specs for all the cans that the US did have in 1939, which were, like the later gerry can, ALL specified by the same body: the I.C.C. The history of the gerry can - whether the article you cited or many others - does not and cannot possibly negate or disqualify anything about the I.C.C.'s marking format. It explains why the 1939 Fed Specs do not include gerry cans. Which is what I said now several times.
Again, if you want to stake your argument on the principle that the I.C.C. had different marking formats for different cans you are welcome to it. I find that illogical in the face of two other specs for two other I.C.C. controlled cans with the same exact marking format.
We must be talking past each other. I am very familiar with the history of the gerry can. That article is completely accurate, explaining how the US did not have such a can in 1939, as I said several times above. 1939 is that date of the Section IV I own a copy of. It includes fed specs for all the cans that the US did have in 1939, which were, like the later gerry can, ALL specified by the same body: the I.C.C. The history of the gerry can - whether the article you cited or many others - does not and cannot possibly negate or disqualify anything about the I.C.C.'s marking format. It explains why the 1939 Fed Specs do not include gerry cans. Which is what I said now several times.
Again, if you want to stake your argument on the principle that the I.C.C. had different marking formats for different cans you are welcome to it. I find that illogical in the face of two other specs for two other I.C.C. controlled cans with the same exact marking format.
No.
I believe the markings are exactly what you say they are and they are universal regarding cans.
However.
The one you post is SPECIFICALLY for single use cans, absolutely requires a designation that is not on Jerry cans and has nothing to do with Jerry cans.
The other is for drums of 33 and 55 gallon storage drums only, absolutely requires marking on the head and not the bottom, and has nothing to do with Jerry cans.
What needs found is a statute that specifically covers Jerry cans. Reusable five gallon, or any reusable gallonage can.
Due to disqualifiers of
33 gallon and fifty gallon specifics and single use, Those two statutes have nothing to do at all with Jerry cans.
They do however, both quote the same rule, the rule we can assume applies to Jerry cans due to Jerry can compliance.
It's good to know the 20.5.19xx rule exists. Those statutes prove the existence of, without a doubt, the gage designator, we just haven't seen the rule. It's quoted, it's not referenced with a place to find it.
It needs to be found standing alone, not as a requirement for an unrelated item.
The two statutes prove the rule exists, it does not give a source of the rule or show us where it is applied to Jerry cans.
I'm not being argumentative in the slightest. It's just that the Proofs you both supplied are not Proof that it is required on Jerry cans.
I'm not doubting for the slimmest second that it is required, that it exists, that it is required on Jerry cans and that the 20 is the gage.
I'm saying your statutes do not say it is required on Jerry cans.
Somewhere there is a statute that does say it either as Jerry can specific or in terms of reusable containers.
Only to help you, combat me, am I participating.
If this were a thesis, it would be thrown out for showing either of those statutes as a proof.
If it were a trial, you'd be contemptuous for even giving it a shot.
I want you to write the definitive, no ****, no holes, article on the 20.5.19xx theories, as fact indisputable, with my help. I want to help because I followed the logic, and was wrong. I'd like it to be indisputable so others aren't equally wrong when following perfect logic of:five gallons is essentially 20 liters and who would in the usage of a Jerry give a flying patoot about the gage. I'm wrong, I admit it freely, let's fix it once and for all.
Those statutes are not only disputable as a proof, but inconsequential.
An afterthought:
A Jerry can required labeling MIGHT be under refillable bottle rules. (it is the government after all)
Does anyone have an old milk bottle or pop bottle to see if they're coded on the bottom like cans?
I'm trying to get you a gj splash page article that sets the facts for something disputed since 1941.
I believe the markings are exactly what you say they are and they are universal regarding cans.
However.
The one you post is SPECIFICALLY for single use cans, absolutely requires a designation that is not on Jerry cans and has nothing to do with Jerry cans.
The other is for drums of 33 and 55 gallon storage drums only, absolutely requires marking on the head and not the bottom, and has nothing to do with Jerry cans.
What needs found is a statute that specifically covers Jerry cans. Reusable five gallon, or any reusable gallonage can.
Due to disqualifiers of
33 gallon and fifty gallon specifics and single use, Those two statutes have nothing to do at all with Jerry cans.
They do however, both quote the same rule, the rule we can assume applies to Jerry cans due to Jerry can compliance.
It's good to know the 20.5.19xx rule exists. Those statutes prove the existence of, without a doubt, the gage designator, we just haven't seen the rule. It's quoted, it's not referenced with a place to find it.
It needs to be found standing alone, not as a requirement for an unrelated item.
The two statutes prove the rule exists, it does not give a source of the rule or show us where it is applied to Jerry cans.
I'm not being argumentative in the slightest. It's just that the Proofs you both supplied are not Proof that it is required on Jerry cans.
I'm not doubting for the slimmest second that it is required, that it exists, that it is required on Jerry cans and that the 20 is the gage.
I'm saying your statutes do not say it is required on Jerry cans.
Somewhere there is a statute that does say it either as Jerry can specific or in terms of reusable containers.
Only to help you, combat me, am I participating.
If this were a thesis, it would be thrown out for showing either of those statutes as a proof.
If it were a trial, you'd be contemptuous for even giving it a shot.
I want you to write the definitive, no ****, no holes, article on the 20.5.19xx theories, as fact indisputable, with my help. I want to help because I followed the logic, and was wrong. I'd like it to be indisputable so others aren't equally wrong when following perfect logic of:five gallons is essentially 20 liters and who would in the usage of a Jerry give a flying patoot about the gage. I'm wrong, I admit it freely, let's fix it once and for all.
Those statutes are not only disputable as a proof, but inconsequential.
An afterthought:
A Jerry can required labeling MIGHT be under refillable bottle rules. (it is the government after all)
Does anyone have an old milk bottle or pop bottle to see if they're coded on the bottom like cans?
I'm trying to get you a gj splash page article that sets the facts for something disputed since 1941.
Last edited:
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
I am not combatting you, ducksface. There is nothing to combat and I have no reason to. This is a non-issue in the WWII collecting community. Of course the spec for the 5-gal gerry can itself would be definitive, and several of us are constantly on the lookout for 1942 and 1943 fed specs, as well as a host of other period documents (e.g., TM's, etc) we are still missing. Many of them have been found, but we are always looking for the ones we still need. In lieu of having them all, however, we always use best reasonable logic practices (deduction, inference etc) with the available facts at hand. In this case, two other kinds of cans have the same marking format, from the same spec source, and the US was not specifying anything in metric. Those facts allow us to conclude that the format was very likely universal and consistent. And in our hobby, 'very likely' is often the best we can do. Barring the discovery of the actual spec for the 5-gal gerry cans, I have zero need or motivation to do any more analysis on this case. It's not my theory. It's the commonly acceptable conclusion based on the document Unaiu posted and the Fed Spec I posted.
- Status