Indestro 53/64" Socket

[spildin]

Hi Everyone. While cleaning out my fathers work bench I came across a 53/64" Indestro socket. Having been a mechanic for 40 years I can honestly say" I have never seen a 64th of an inch socket. Anyone else ever seen one or have one? It was used quite extensively as it is cracked!!! Thanks.

bill

 

[Private Lugnutz]

They are in Duro-Indestro catalogs in the 30's and 40's. Used on older spark plugs with 14mm threads.

 

[damon18]

Hi Everyone. While cleaning out my fathers work bench I came across a 53/64" Indestro socket. Having been a mechanic for 40 years I can honestly say" I have never seen a 64th of an inch socket. Anyone else ever seen one or have one? It was used quite extensively as it is cracked!!! Thanks.

bill

Hi Bill, welcome to Garage Journal. If you hang around you'll find it's pretty hard to stump this band!

 

[ganymede]

I thought I was cool with a New Britain 31/32nds socket but ...
thats awesome.

 

[Provincial]

21mm stand-in.

 

[damon18]

Found one in my Granddads tools, looks like it had a hard life and might have cracked and been welded back together.

Sent from my SM-G973U using The Garage Journal mobile app

 

[DD T/A]

I wonder if they're cracked because they were hammered on incorrect fasteners or whatever and then were easier to fix than buy something to replace it.

 

[humber2]

I wonder if they're cracked because they were hammered on incorrect fasteners or whatever and then were easier to fix than buy something to replace it.

These were for spark plug work but all too easy to apply to wheel lug nut work with unfortunate results.

 

[damon18]

I wonder if they're cracked because they were hammered on incorrect fasteners or whatever and then were easier to fix than buy something to replace it.

These were for spark plug work but all too easy to apply to wheel lug nut work with unfortunate results.

Seems reasonable, could have been an air wrench involved if used for lug nuts.

 

[NoahG]

I thought I was cool with a New Britain 31/32nds socket but ...
thats awesome.

Right? Same with my 31/32" Bonney

 

[RubiconJK]

Reminds me of my Hinsdale 59/64 that I found a few years ago.

 

[ganymede]

Right? Same with my 31/32" Bonney

Im a sucker for 32nds . I Grab any if its in good shape.

Reminds me of my Hinsdale 59/64 that I found a few years ago.

Gah ! Those are hard to find.

 

[NoahG]

Im a sucker for 32nds . I Grab any if its in good shape.

:

I actually use 7/32” (5.5mm) 9/32” (7mm) and 11/32”, but anything bigger, not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NoahG]

Im a sucker for 32nds . I Grab any if its in good shape.

:

I actually use 7/32” (5.5mm) 9/32” (7mm) and 11/32”, but anything bigger, not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[YoshiMoshi3]

Reminds me of my Hinsdale 59/64 that I found a few years ago.

Sorry to bump an old post, but if you are still around, any chance you can measure it to see if it's truly 59/64 or a whitworth size?

 

[Shelbylex]

I have a Herbrand 57/64 - Herbrand DS-28B (12 point)

 

[RubiconJK]

Sorry to bump an old post, but if you are still around, any chance you can measure it to see if it's truly 59/64 or a whitworth size?

No problem. I'll take a look later today and report back.

 

[YoshiMoshi3]

No problem. I'll take a look later today and report back.

Thank you so much!

 

[RubiconJK]

Thank you so much!

I was just out in the shop and when I measure ID with my analog caliper it certainly measures closer to 1".

 

[YoshiMoshi3]

I was just out in the shop and when I measure ID with my analog caliper it certainly measures closer to 1".

Thank you! Hopefully we can finally put this mystery to rest! Looking at some nearby sizes:

9/16 W = 1.010 " = 25.654 mm
60/64 " = 30/32 " = 15/16 " ~ 0.94 " ~ 23.81 mm
~ 0.93 " = 23.5 mm
59/64 " ~ 0.922 " ~ 23.416 mm
1/2 W = 0.920 " = 23.368 mm
58/64 " = 29/32 " ~ 0.91 " ~ 23.02 mm
~ 0.91 " = 23 mm
7/16 W = 0.820 " = 20.830 mm

It seems that 1/2 W ~ 59/64 ", like nearly identical. So there's no real way to see if it's machined to 59/64 " or 1/2 W. Would you by any chance have a caliper that goes down to 0.01 mm? That would be the only way to see if you get closer to 23.42 mm (59/64 ") or 23.37 mm (1/2 W)?

Don't know if you know but someone has a brother socket to your SR30W whitworth socket stamped with 59/64 " on it, a SR24W socket with 45/64 " stamped on it. See here https://www.garagejournal.com/forum...cket-set-recommendations.552747/post-11428361. I have asked him to measure it and hopefully he will be able to. This would be much easier to put the mystery to rest. He could measure with a caliper and see if he gets closer to 17.9 mm or 18.0 mm. Might be splitting hairs here, but we are talking the difference of 0.1 mm for the SR24W socket over your 0.01 mm that would be required on your SR30W socket.

46/64 " = 23/32 " ~ 0.72 " ~ 18.26 mm
3/8 W ~ 0.71 " = 18.03 mm
~0.71 " = 18 mm
45/64 " ~ 0.70 " ~ 17.86 mm
~ 0.69 " = 17.5 mm
44/64 " = 22/32 " = 11/16 " ~ 0.69 " ~ 17.46 mm
5/16 W = 0.6 " = 15.24 mm

Some of the larger sockets within the set have larger differences between their " sizes and closest whitworth sizes.

 

[RubiconJK]

It seems that 1/2 W ~ 59/64 ", like nearly identical. So there's no real way to see if it's machined to 59/64 " or 1/2 W. Would you by any chance have a caliper that goes down to 0.01 mm? That would be the only way to see if you get closer to 23.42 mm (59/64 ") or 23.37 mm (1/2 W)?

I don't have one, but let me see what I can come up with. I'll follow up on this.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

The 59/64" on Roob's Hinsdale SR30W socket is the "service opening", i.e., the Across-the-Flats dimension of the broaching for a Whitworth nut or bolt head. The 1943 catalog doesn't correlate the Hinsdale model numbers to Whitworth boltage, but the proximal decimal inches can be derived. Blackhawk's broaching solutions during the same relative timeframe (1938) were a little different than Hinsdale's, but they did helpfully provide the Whitworth hardware correlation.

 

[YoshiMoshi3]

The 59/64" on Roob's Hinsdale SR30W socket is the "service opening", i.e., the Across-the-Flats dimension of the broaching for a Whitworth nut or bolt head. The 1943 catalog doesn't correlate the Hinsdale model numbers to Whitworth boltage, but the proximal decimal inches can be derived. Blackhawk's broaching solutions during the same relative timeframe (1938) were a little different than Hinsdale's, but they did helpfully provide the Whitworth hardware correlation.

Hey thanks! It seems like they are likely the size stamped on them, despite being advertised as Whitworth sockets, they are not really Whitworth dimensions. Besides Blackhawk and Hinsdale, are there other manufacturers that sold Whitworth sockets, that were actually SAE sizes that are approximately Whitworth sizes and not actually Whitworth sizes?

Also, as far as I know there is no formula to convert Whitworth sizes to Inch or mm dimensions, and one must reference a table with approximate values. Is this accurate, no formula actually exists?

We know that
1 " = 25.4 mm
This is the exact conversion formula, but no such formula exists for Whitworth?

You seem to have a wealth of knowledge on vintage tools, thanks for sharing it!

 

[RubiconJK]

@YoshiMoshi3 I don't know if this is going to help clarify or add confusion, but here is what I measured with a digital caliper. 26.5 mm. This socket does appear to have been used over the years, so perhaps some wear is causing it to measure larger than expected? It is also possible that I may not be taking the measurements exactly in the center although I tried to get it as close as possible. I did check my caliper on the drive side to prove up accuracy and it measured exactly 1/2". I'm not emotionally tied to this socket, so assuming you are here in the States, I'm happy to send it to you since it seems to be something in which you have an interest.

 

[Farmer J.]

see next post

 

[Farmer J.]

one must reference a table with approximate values.

Courtisy of https://www.crawford-space.co.uk/old_psc/spanner_jaw.html

Here ya go:

Spanner Jaw Sizes and corresponding Nut/Bolt Use

Diff (mm)	Jaw Size Millimetres	Jaw Size Inches	Spanner Metric	Spanner AF	Spanner British	Common Nut/Bolt (*=non-preferred)
​	2.97​	0.117​	​	​	10BA​	​
0.23​	3.20​	0.126​	3.2mm​	​	​	M1.6​
0.13​	3.33​	0.131​	​	​	9BA​	​
0.53​	3.86​	0.152​	​	​	8BA​	​
0.11​	3.97​	0.156​	​	5/32 AF​	​	No.0 UNC​
0.03​	4.00​	0.157​	4mm​	​	​	M2​
0.37​	4.37​	0.172​	​	​	7BA​	​
0.39​	4.76​	0.188​	​	3/16 AF​	​	No.2 UNC​
0.14​	4.90​	0.193​	​	​	6BA​	​
0.10​	5.00​	0.197​	5mm​	​	​	M2.5​
0.50​	5.50​	0.217​	5.5mm​	​	​	M3​
0.06​	5.56​	0.219​	​	7/32 AF​	​	​
0.03​	5.59​	0.220​	​	​	5BA​	​
0.37​	5.95​	0.234​	​	15/64 AF​	​	​
0.05​	6.00​	0.236​	6mm​	​	​	M3.5*​
0.30​	6.30​	0.248​	​	​	4BA​	​
0.05​	6.35​	0.250​	​	1/4 AF​	​	No.4 UNC​
0.65​	7.00​	0.276​	7mm​	​	​	M4​
0.14​	7.14​	0.281​	​	9/32 AF​	​	​
0.02​	7.16​	0.282​	​	​	3BA​	​
0.77​	7.94​	0.313​	​	5/16 AF​	​	No.6 UNC & No.10 UNC (bolt)​
0.06​	8.00​	0.315​	8mm​	​	​	M5​
0.23​	8.23​	0.324​	​	​	2BA​	​
0.36	8.59	0.338			1/8 W; 3/16 BSF
0.15​	8.73​	0.344​	​	11/32 AF​	​	No.8 UNC​
0.27​	9.00​	0.354​	9mm​	​	​	​
0.27​	9.27​	0.365​	​	​	1BA​	​
0.25​	9.53​	0.375​	​	3/8 AF​	​	No.10 UNC (nut)​
0.48​	10.00​	0.394​	10mm​	​	​	M6​
0.49​	10.49​	0.413​	​	​	0BA​	​
0.51​	11.00​	0.433​	11mm​	​	​	M7*​
0.11​	11.11​	0.438​	​	7/16 AF​	​	1/4 UNF​
0.19​	11.30​	0.445​	​	​	3/16 W; 1/4 BSF​	​
0.70​	12.00​	0.472​	12mm​	​	​	​
0.70​	12.70​	0.500​	​	1/2 AF​	​	5/16 UNF​
0.30​	13.00​	0.512​	13mm​	​	​	M8​
0.33​	13.34​	0.525​	​	​	1/4 W; 5/16 BSF​	​
0.67​	14.00​	0.551​	14mm​	​	​	​
0.29​	14.29​	0.563​	​	9/16 AF​	​	3/8 UNF​
0.71​	15.00​	0.591​	15mm​	​	​	​
0.24​	15.24​	0.600​	​	​	5/16 W; 3/8 BSF​	​
0.64​	15.88​	0.625​	​	5/8 AF​	​	7/16 UNF (bolt)​
0.13​	16.00​	0.630​	16mm​	​	​	​
1.00​	17.00​	0.669​	17mm​	​	​	M10​
0.46​	17.46​	0.688​	​	11/16 AF​	​	7/16 UNF (nut)
0.54​	18.00​	0.709​	18mm​	​	​	​
0.03​	18.03​	0.710​	​	​	3/8 W; 7/16 BSF​	​
0.97​	19.00​	0.748​	19mm​	​	​	M12​
0.05​	19.05​	0.750​	​	3/4 AF​	​	1/2 UNF​
0.95​	20.00​	0.787​	20mm​	​	​	​
0.64​	20.64​	0.813​	​	13/16 AF​	​	9/16 UNF (bolt)​
0.19​	20.83​	0.820​	​	​	7/16 W; 1/2 BSF​	​
0.17​	21.00​	0.827​	21mm​	​	​	​
1.00​	22.00​	0.866​	22mm​	​	​	M14*​
0.22​	22.23​	0.875​	​	7/8 AF​	​	9/16 UNF (nut)
0.78​	23.00​	0.906​	23mm​	​	​	​
0.37​	23.37​	0.920​	​	​	1/2 W; 9/16 BSF​	​
0.44​	23.81​	0.938​	​	15/16 AF​	​	5/8 UNF​
0.19​	24.00​	0.945​	24mm​	​	​	M16​
1.00​	25.00​	0.984​	25mm​	​	​	​
0.40​	25.40​	1.000​	​	1 AF​	​	​
0.25​	25.65​	1.010​	​	​	9/16 W; 5/8 BSF​	​
0.35​	26.00​	1.024​	26mm​	​	​	​
0.99​	26.99​	1.063​	​	1-1/16 AF​	​	​
0.01​	27.00​	1.063​	27mm​	​	​	M18*​
0.94​	27.94​	1.100​	​	​	5/8 W; 11/16 BSF​	​
0.06​	28.00​	1.102​	28mm​	​	​	​
0.57​	28.58​	1.125​	​	1-1/8 AF​	​	3/4 UNF​
1.43​	30.00​	1.181​	30mm​	​	​	M20​
0.48​	30.48​	1.200​	​	​	11/16 W; 3/4 BSF​	​
1.27​	31.75​	1.250​	​	1-1/4 AF​	​	​
0.25​	32.00​	1.260​	32mm​	​	​	M22*​
1.02​	33.02​	1.300​	​	​	3/4 W; 7/8 BSF​	​
0.32​	33.34​	1.313​	​	1-5/16 AF​	​	7/8 UNF​
0.66	34.00	1.339	34mm
1.31​	35.31​	1.390​	​	​	13/16 W​	​
0.69​	36.00​	1.417​	36mm​	​	​	M24​
0.51​	36.51​	1.438​	​	1-7/16 AF​	​	​
1.08​	37.59​	1.480​	​	​	7/8 W; 1 BSF​	​
0.41	38.00	1.496	38mm
0.10​	38.10​	1.500​	​	1-1/2 AF​	​	1 UNF​
2.03	40.13	1.580	​	​	15/16 W​
0.87​	41.00​	1.614​	41mm​	​	​	M27*​
0.27​	41.28​	1.625​	​	1-5/8 AF​	​	​
1.14​	42.42​	1.670​	​	​	1 W; 1-1/8 BSF​	​
0.44​	42.86​	1.688​	​	1-11/16 AF​	​	1-1/8 UNF​
1.59​	44.45​	1.750​	​	1-3/4 AF​	​	​
1.55​	46.00​	1.811​	46mm​	​	​	M30​
0.04​	46.04​	1.813​	​	1-13/16 AF​	​	​
1.21​	47.24​	1.860​	​	​	1-1/8 W; 1-1/4 BSF​	​
0.38​	47.63​	1.875​	​	1-7/8 AF​	​	1-1/4 UNF​
2.38​	50.00​	1.969​	50mm​	​	​	M33*​
0.80​	50.80​	2.000​	​	2 AF​	​	​
1.27​	52.07​	2.050​	​	​	1-1/4 W; 1-3/8 BSF​	​
0.32​	52.39​	2.063​	​	2-1/16 AF​	​	1-3/8 UNF​
2.61​	55.00​	2.165​	55mm​	​	​	M36​
0.56	55.56	2.188		2-3/16 AF
0.83	56.39	2.220			1-3/8 W; 1-1/2 BSF
0.76	57.15	2.250		2-1/4 AF		1-1/2 UNF
2.85​	60.00​	2.362​	60mm​	​	​	M39*​

 

[Private Lugnutz]

It seems like they are likely the size stamped on them, despite being advertised as Whitworth sockets, they are not really Whitworth dimensions.

Also, as far as I know there is no formula to convert Whitworth sizes to Inch or mm dimensions, and one must reference a table with approximate values. Is this accurate, no formula actually exists?

We know that
1 " = 25.4 mm
This is the exact conversion formula, but no such formula exists for Whitworth?

I think I know what you mean, but you're talking about Whitworth like it's a unit of measure. It's not analogous to 'Imperial' (your 1" citation) or 'Metric' (your 25.4mm citation). It was a standard for interchangeable mechanical fasteners, in terms of thread specs. Whitworth is analogous to other mechanical fastener standards, such as A.L.A.M (obsolete), U.S. Standard (U.S.S.)(obsolete), S.A.E., and, (after 1948), UTS. It may seem odd to lead with this, and hopefully not pedantic or trite, but it helps to put it in that perspective to respond more fully to you.

The other thing that seems to be getting in the way a little here is the unfortunate byproduct of this weird misleading conflation that modern mechanics like to make equating 'S.A.E' (a boltage standard) to 'Imperial' (a unit of measure). I don't know if it's just laziness or a misunderstanding of history, but it matters to the topic.

Everyone wants to talk about how Whitworth is weird because it is identified by bolt sizes (i.e., the diameter of the threaded bolt, in fractional or decimal inches), but prior to everything in the US being standardized on S.A.E., ALL nuts, bolts, AND wrenches were ALSO specified by bolt sizes, in fractional inches, in A.L.A.M., U.S.S., Hex Cap, etc standards, just like Whitworth. And for the longest time, well up to the 1930's, these bolt sizes in various standards (U.S.S., Hex Cap, etc) were actually forged or stamped on wrenches, not the milled opening sizes. Just like Whitworth! And, to continue, and bring this point home, nuts and bolt heads of the same bolt size had different AF sizes depending on whether they were Heavy (U.S.S.) or Light (S.A.E.) standard. It's not just a nutty British car thing. Working on antique and prewar vintage American cars will make you toss a wrench or two across the garage, too, especially if you don't have a good Boltage Chart.

For example, you CANNOT turn a 3/8" U.S.S. bolt and a 3/8" S.A.E. bolt with the same wrench! They had different size AF nuts and heads. Same bolt size!

See chart from 1941!



Why did I go through that?

Because it's the same thing going on with Whitworth. The AF sizes of Whitworth nuts and bolt heads are not random. They are arbitrary and they can be measured in Imperial (fractional or decimal) or Metric units of measure. They just don't line up exactly, on a tidy graduation, for wrenches made with either one. Unless you have tools made to Whitworth standards - which will, in turn, frustrate the fudge out of you on hardware of other standards!

If you go back and look at the Blackhawk catalog excerpt, Blackhawk is saying those opening sizes are their broaching solution to match the AF size of the nuts and bolt heads for Whitworth bolt sizes listed next to each one. Why Hinsdale was using slightly different openings, I don't know, but probably different interpretations of min/max. If that's what you mean by "approximation," yeah, they weren't re-tool-and-die-ing. I DO know that Blackhawk was selling loads of Whitworth tools in England in the late 1930's, into the prewar Cash-and-Carry and Lend-Lease programs, and throughout WWII, because my WWII collecting colleagues have them. If you hang out up on the General Tools Discussion forum you probably know Dave455. He has some, too. His grandpop's, if I recall correctly. He occasionally ventures down here and I remember he and I discussing them on the Blackhawk thread.

Besides Blackhawk and Hinsdale, are there other manufacturers that sold Whitworth sockets, that were actually SAE sizes that are approximately Whitworth sizes and not actually Whitworth sizes?

Here's a composite I made (two separate pages) for how Williams handled Whitworth in 1941 -



EDITED: Instead of adding another column for "Whitworth Std" to their 'Wrench Openings to Hex Bolt Standards' table on p.24, they added a page for Whitworth in the back (p.127). That table reuses the regular P/N's with a W prefix. It does NOT show opening sizes, though. The implication is the broaching would be to Whitworth Std.

Note that they did not do a similar table for 1/2-inch drive detachable socketry, but they did include a notation on that page saying, "Whitworth Standard sizes also; details on request." I'm 100% positive it would follow the same scheme as the tables above for fixed Tee and Offset handle socket wrenches.

If you compare the Hinsdale and Blackhawk, you will see that there is not much agreement among them. But if you studied it, I'd be surprised if it wasn't within min/max. Williams unknown.

Sloppy? Or best practical course of action at the time?

Make of all this what you will.

You seem to have a wealth of knowledge on vintage tools,...

Nah. Honestly, I'm just a nerd and a bookworm. The real wealth of knowledge is inside the catalogs of the major hand tool manufacturers or vintage editions of Machinery's Handbook. Pages like this from the 12th Edition (1943), which is what the guys at Hinsdale, Blackhawk, and Williams were probably using as a reference.

 

[leg17]

Great post Lugz

 

[dscheidt]

I used to have a set of short wrenches that went from 1/8 to 1/2. By 64ths, mostly. I assume this was so there would be a wrench that fit whatever, whether it was a us standard, BA, whitworth, or metric, and the sizes not included weren’t close to some fastener size. Sadly, they were stamped of the finest cheese, and weren’t actually usable as tools.

I forget who made them. Not oxwall, though it sounds like their thing. They were in a plastic sleeve that fell apart when I opened it. If I remember right it claimed they were a set of “radio wrenches “.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

^ Maybe I'm reading too much into "short wrenches," "64th, mostly," "stamped," "Not oxwall, though it sounds like their thing," and "plastic sleeve" but it almost seems like you're thinking of Kastar's "K-Star" line. They were made of stamped steel, came in sets in plastic pouches, and had a lot of /64ths openings. They were ignition wrenches, though, and not sized for slop or conversion. ALL ignition wrenches in this era, even of the highest quality steel by the highest quality Mfghrs, had a lot of /64ths and /32nds, to match the leading magneto and ignition systems, and because wrenches were paired to give each size a 15* or 60* or sometimes a 75* angle.

 

[YoshiMoshi3]

@Private Lugnutz, some great information.

I now see what your saying "Whitworth" is not a unit of measurement, and neither is "Imperial" or "SAE". While "inch" and "mm" are units of measurement. So, there is no way to directly convert a "Whitworth" number to "inches". I wonder if it's possible to convert the Whitworth number first? For example, 1/8 W. If I'm understanding correctly, this means that the nominal diameter of the threaded portion of the bolt, d, is 1/8 ". If we know the nominal diameter of the threaded portion of the bolt, is it possible to calculate the hex size of the head of the bolt? Like some constant, k? Or were manufacturers able to make the hex head size of the bolts to whatever dimension they desired? Meaning Manufacturer A could put a 14 mm hex head on a 1/8 " diameter Whitworth bolt, while Manufacturer B could put a 17 mm hex head on a 1/8 " diameter Whitworth bolt. Obviously just making up numbers here. There's "typical" size by convention, and then if it was "required" to be a certain size by some specification.

I'm thinking something like:
Nominal Hex Head Across the Flats in inches = d * k

I didn't know about A.L.A.M. Very interesting and short lived, 1903-1911! Was 23/32 " and 27/32 " and X/64 " more typical under A.LA.M. in the very early 1900s? When switched over to another standard in 1911, 23/32 " and 27/32 " and X/64 " no longer really necessary, and any manufacturers still making them were just stragglers making tooling for only a few remaining fasteners?

I'm having difficulty reading that last column. Any way you can get it in focus? But If I'm understanding correctly, your saying tooling manufacturers may have used this and said 1/8 W minimum and maximum values from across the flats is within the minimum and maximum values for 5/16 " across the flats wrench. So we can make a 5/16 " across the flats wrench that will fit "most" 1/8 W fasteners?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

...manufacturers may have used this...

There's no "may" about it. It's Machinery's Handbook. The bible. Those are the specs for Whitworth Std nuts and bolts.

 

[Farmer J.]

@Private Lugnutz, some great information.

I now see what your saying "Whitworth" is not a unit of measurement, and neither is "Imperial" or "SAE". While "inch" and "mm" are units of measurement. So, there is no way to directly convert a "Whitworth" number to "inches". I wonder if it's possible to convert the Whitworth number first? For example, 1/8 W. If I'm understanding correctly, this means that the nominal diameter of the threaded portion of the bolt, d, is 1/8 ". If we know the nominal diameter of the threaded portion of the bolt, is it possible to calculate the hex size of the head of the bolt? Like some constant, k? Or were manufacturers able to make the hex head size of the bolts to whatever dimension they desired? Meaning Manufacturer A could put a 14 mm hex head on a 1/8 " diameter Whitworth bolt, while Manufacturer B could put a 17 mm hex head on a 1/8 " diameter Whitworth bolt. Obviously just making up numbers here. There's "typical" size by convention, and then if it was "required" to be a certain size by some specification.

1/8" Whitworth is 0.338" (8.59mm) Across Flats

For the specification, which has been revised twice since 1841, refer to the table I posted above and read the beginning of

Spanner Jaw Sizes

Useful guide on spanner to nut/bolt relationships, and the selection and use of spanners and socket sets

www.crawford-space.co.uk

 

[Private Lugnutz]

@YoshiMoshi3

A little update on this...

I DO know that Blackhawk was selling loads of Whitworth tools in England in the late 1930's, into the prewar Cash-and-Carry and Lend-Lease programs, and throughout WWII, because my WWII collecting colleagues have them. If you hang out up on the General Tools Discussion forum you probably know Dave455. He has some, too. His grandpop's, if I recall correctly. He occasionally ventures down here and I remember he and I discussing them on the Blackhawk thread.

I went back and double-checked those discussions with my UK WWII collecting colleagues as well as the discussion I had with Dave right here on the GJ Bh thread, and it reminded me that the P/N's from the 1938 catalog (shown again below)...



...are stamped on the sockets, and, that the P/Ns embed the AF figures in decimal inches. The "52" in "W52N" is .520. The "60" in "W60N" is .600. The "71" in "W71N" is .710.

For sh&ts and grins, I thought it would be prudent to see how Snap-on was handling Whitworth. They first appear in the back of the 1938 catalog, same year as Blackhawk, again in 1939, and then not again until the mid 50's.



They are expressing the nominal opening sizes not in fractional inches but decimal inches! And, as you can see, those decimal inches are the Whitworth AF Max figures. Now, whether they picked what they felt was the optimal existing broaching (a la Blackhawk) or did they actually re-tool-and-die, I don't know.

 

[YoshiMoshi3]

@Private Lugnutz , thank you! Would you by any chance have a picture showing the maximum and minimum sizes for ASE/inch version? I'd like to compare the two tables if possible.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

^ Sorry, your question makes no sense to me.

The Whitworth Standard, like the S.A.E. Standard (and all the other obsolete standards I talked about above) are all expressed in Imperial units of measure. Whitworth specified the bolt sizes in fractional inches and the AF min and max sizes in decimal inches.

If you're saying you're interested in analyzing the Whitworth AF min and max decimal inch sizes in a fractional inch context, consult any typical fractional to decimal chart.

I was interested in seeing the various Mfgrs I have mentioned in one table to compare their approaches.



I did not include Williams. They did not cite service openings.

Hinsdale looks a little wonky, but note that they did not correlate their P/Ns to Whitworth bolt sizes in the catalog, so I am doing a little guessing about their production based on their openings sizes.

Blackhawk cleverly embedded the Whitworth decimal inch specs inside their P/Ns suggesting a direct broaching, but the 1938 catalog cited openings in proximal fractional inches. It should be noted that actual examples of Blackhawk Whitworth sockets have the sizes stamped on them in decimal inches. I don't know if that was merely artificially instructional (i.e., 'use this socket for its corresponding Whitworth bolt') and I don't recall if I ever asked my colleagues or Dave455 (or anyone else with Blackhawk Whitworth sockets) to measure the AF service openings.

Based only on their treatment of the spec, Snap-on seems to have taken the truest most direct approach. I know someone who has probably the largest collection of Snap-on Whitworth sockets I have ever seen. Maybe I will ask them to take a few measurements.

 

[YoshiMoshi3]

^ Sorry, your question makes no sense to me.

The Whitworth Standard, like the S.A.E. Standard (and all the other obsolete standards I talked about above) are all expressed in Imperial units of measure. Whitworth specified the bolt sizes in fractional inches and the AF min and max sizes in decimal inches.

If you're saying you're interested in analyzing the Whitworth AF min and max decimal inch sizes in a fractional inch context, consult any typical fractional to decimal chart.

I was interested in seeing the various Mfgrs I have mentioned in one table to compare their approaches.



I did not include Williams. They did not cite service openings.

Hinsdale looks a little wonky, but note that they did not correlate their P/Ns to Whitworth bolt sizes in the catalog, so I am doing a little guessing about their production based on their openings sizes.

Blackhawk cleverly embedded the Whitworth decimal inch specs inside their P/Ns suggesting a direct broaching, but the 1938 catalog cited openings in proximal fractional inches. It should be noted that actual examples of Blackhawk Whitworth sockets have the sizes stamped on them in decimal inches. I don't know if that was merely artificially instructional (i.e., 'use this socket for its corresponding Whitworth bolt') and I don't recall if I ever asked my colleagues or Dave455 (or anyone else with Blackhawk Whitworth sockets) to measure the AF service openings.

Based only on their treatment of the spec, Snap-on seems to have taken the truest most direct approach. I know someone who has probably the largest collection of Snap-on Whitworth sockets I have ever seen. Maybe I will ask them to take a few measurements.

Great table! Sorry for not being more specific. Was there a table for wrench across the flats dimensions for SAE? Meaning a wrench stamped with 3/8 on it and is meant to be approximately 3/8 " across the flats. Is there a table for acceptable minimum and maximum values due to tolerances around the 3/8 " nominal opening?

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Was there a table for wrench across the flats dimensions for SAE? Meaning a wrench stamped with 3/8 on it and is meant to be approximately 3/8 " across the flats. Is there a table for acceptable minimum and maximum values due to tolerances around the 3/8 " nominal opening?

Almost certainly in ANSI, somewhere.

But I think you may still be confused about the data I have shared with you. The tables I have posted from the 1943 Machinery's Handbook - including the min and max AF figures, are specs for Whitworth Standard fasteners. Nuts and bolts. It's implicit that wrenches to turn them would be milled and broached to those specs, but it's not a wrench book, it's a hardware book.



There are over a hundred pages of nut and bolt specs for various standards and types of fasteners.



The only S.A.E. table in this edition is for machine screws. While hand tool makers had been including the emerging standard in their catalog wrench tables for years, it was not adopted into the UTS until 1949.

The U.S.S. table does not include min and max, just the nominal AF sizes.



The Am. Std. table does include min and max.



As a vintage guy, I don't have any modern editions of Machinery's Handbook, which would surely contain S.A.E. specs, but the information you are asking about is readily available online. Here are modern UTS (colloquially, S.A.E.) specs, including AF min and max.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I have these federal wrench specs from 1942, and it has several pages of tables for all the types of wrenches you see listed in section B., which does not include socket wrenches. I've never found those (GGG-W-641, Wrenches, Bolt and Nut; Socket), and therefore I have never seen them, but I would expect the tolerances to be similar.



I will re-emphasize, since you're still erroneously using "S.A.E." as a synonym for "Imperial," that these specs are expressed in an Imperial unit of measure, fractional and decimal, and would apply to nuts and bolts made to any and all thread/fastener standards using an Imperial unit of measure.

Here's an example...



Tangentially, I haven't looked at this in a long time, and it's interesting (and instructive!) to see how the bureau inside the Treasury Dept administering the Federal Standard Stock Catalog expressed the standards with their trade/street names (Regular, Heavy and Light)... Adding markups for those who can't readily make the correlation without a cross-reference.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

I've never found those (GGG-W-641, Wrenches, Bolt and Nut; Socket), and therefore I have never seen them, but I would expect the tolerances to be similar.

Well, now I am more curious than ever, because the 1975 version (GGG-W-641E)...



...does not include min max for detachable socket openings...



Oddly, it did for fixed socket wrenches, whether were on an offset handle...



...or a Tee handle.