My Small But Growing 1/4" drive Socket Set Collection

[Private Lugnutz]

The second of three (3) 1/4-inch drive socket wrench sets the Ordnance Dept issued in WWII was 41-W-2615-20. The BF in the Spec column, as you might guess yourself without the aid of the Mfgrs Code index in the back, stands for Bonney Forge. And the V-52 part of the spec refers to Bonney's V-52 1/4-inch drive midget set. Even though the ORD 5 SNL J-4 does not provide the Bonney number for every single piece, the 41-H-1498-80 handle is the V-26 hinged handle. I have one. I have seen many others. It does NOT have a detent ball. Note that it is the same exact FSN as the 1/4-inch drive hinged handle in the Blackhawk set, even though that hinge handle has a detent ball.



Here's the rest of the set just for a sense of completion.



These midget kits were part of a much larger Bonney Master Mechanics Kit that the Ordnance Dept issued to every Dodge 1.5-ton G-61 Emergency Repair Truck. And it went in the box I have circled in red. The G-61 was a mobile repair truck that darted back and forth between the rear and the front as needed to get trucks back on the road again.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

The third of the three (3) 1/4-inch drive socket wrench sets that the Ordnance Dept issued in WWII was the 41-W-2615.



This is the midget set that went into every GMTK. For a sense of magnitude vs. the Dragon Wagon and Dodge Repair truck, almost 200,000 of these were sent to the ETO. Every general mechanic got one. You'll note that there is no Mfgrs Code in the Spec column. What you are seeing with this spec is the Tank-Automotive Center (TAC) in Detroit finally flexing some of its expertise and organizational muscle in the form of an Engineering Spec (ES) for toolkits. It also correctly implies that it may have sourced these kits from multiple mfgrs. And as you have probably seen from many of us, most prominently Don (d42jeep), most of us favor either Walden-Worcester (because the tools are excellent, and because many of them also tend to actually have the "41-W-2615" FSN stenciled on the lid)...



... or Duro-Chrome (because the GMTK manuals happen to show a Duro-Chrome set as an example...)



But again, they may have come from any mfgr who met the spec. Note that the FSN (41-H-1498-80) for the hinged handle is the same as the other two kits. Note that neither Walden or Duro hinge handles had detent balls.

GMTK's like this one...



...were carted around in the back of CCKW Mobile Maintenance Depots like this one...

 

[Private Lugnutz]

What can we conclude from all of the above? It doesn't look to me like the Ordnance Dept paid any attention to hinge handle crossbar retention. They specified Blackhawk for one big kit (Dragon Wagon), including the 1/4-drive set, Bonney for another big kit (Dodge wrecker), including the 1/4-drive set, and no single mfgr for the GMTK, including the 1/4-drive set. I think the fact that the Blackhawk 24999 has a spring-loaded detent ball is just as likely completely superfluous to the selection as Bonney's selection and Bonney's lack of a spring-loaded detent ball for the Dodge truck kit as Walden, Duro and others with no detent ball for the GMTK midget set. In short, whatever they used to select Blackhawk, Bonney and the others, I don't think the selection hinged on the midget set, let alone the hinge handle.

I wish I had equivalent documentation for the USAAF. Without it, nothing is definitive. But I still find the derived evidence of Snap-on's and Plomb's prewar hinge handle manufacturing compared to their wartime hinge handle manufacturing for the USAAF and the addition of a spring-loaded detent ball to be a very compelling pointer to a more crossbar-attentive USAAF specification.

I will leave this entire subject at that and bother 4.c's thread no more!

 

[four.cycle]

You're not bothering me. These deviations from the thread topics are generally the manner in which some of the best information comes forth.
The only real "downside" is trying to ferret out those discussions later when they need to be referenced in a subsequent conversation.
I don't follow the "Snap-on" thread, so I'm not clear on what the overall context is here.

Let me add:
I have a whole bunch of 1/4" drive stuff here, much of which contains breaker bars/hinge handles. That little detent ball isn't something I really paid much attention to, but I don't think there are any like that around here - and I have a lot of different brands. (Most, of course, manufactured well after WWII, so they're not relevant to your question anyway.)

Interesting stuff... So you think perhaps USAAF called for that detent ball? Or was it already there in the Blackhawk version and that's what they ordered? (Or did I completely misunderstand what I just read?)

And.... does that little Blackhawk kit I sent to you a while back have that feature? (Because now I'm wondering if I just never looked at it all closely enough.)

 

[Robertel1]

Thank You Lugz, fantastic research, and pictures. Much appreciated.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

so I'm not clear on what the overall context is here.

I recently found a partial Snap-on 1/4-drive midget set at the flea. I already have a 9/32-drive midget set. They both have "G" codes indicating 1945 production. The context and prompt for the survey here was the sudden realization over there that Snap-on TM-10 (1/4-drive) hinge handles made in 1945 do not have spring-loaded detent balls, while Snap-on M-10 (9/32-drive) hinge handles made in 1945 do!

So you think perhaps USAAF called for that detent ball?

I do think it seems highly likely that the USAAF specified the spring-loaded detent ball during WWII. Even though I don't have a document saying that, the derived evidence is almost impossible to argue with. Snap-on was making M-10 (9/32-drive) hinge handles without them before WWII. Snap-on was making M-10 hinge handles with them during WWII, and the USAAF was one of their well-documented largest customers for socket wrenches. Snap-on was making TM-10 (1/4-drive) hinge handles without spring-loaded detent balls throughout the war for other well-documented customers - including the Ordnance Dept! Plomb was making 4766 1/4-drive hinge handles without spring-loaded detent balls before WWII. Plomb was making WF-7 9/32-drive hinge handles with spring-loaded detent balls during WWII, and the USAAF was their well-documented single largest military customer. Plomb was making 1/4-drive handles without the balls during WWII! What else would motivate Snap-on to start provisioning their 9/32-drive handles with them? What else would compel them to not feel the requirement to do the same for their 1/4-drive hinge handles made at the same time? Ditto Plomb. I'm as cautious as the next gut when it comes to drawing conclusions, but this case is pretty dang tight. They may very well have seen it on the Blackhawk handles and told their vendors, Snap-on and Plomb, 'we want that.'

Or was it already there in the Blackhawk version and that's what they ordered? (Or did I completely misunderstand what I just read?)

That's one of the more ironic results of the survey and its findings. It was already there in the Blackhawk 24999, but Blackhawk was NOT making 9/32-drive, and they were not a major USAAF supplier. My WPB contracts books show all of their tools contracts were with the Ordnance Dept. They did make hydraulic jacks for the Air Corps. But all the tools went to the Ordnance Dept. Ironic, because of all the major mfgrs making midget stuff prewar, it looks like Blackhawk and Williams (still a maybe) were the only ones putting the spring-loaded detent balls in their hinge handles! But let's be real. I wouldn't expect the Air Corps to select a vendor based on the detent ball. They selected Snap-on and Plomb based on other things, almost certainly, and then - if I'm reading all this right - asked them to add that feature.

does that little Blackhawk kit I sent to you a while back have that feature?

That set does not have any hinge handle in it. It has the older permanent offset handle.

Thank You Lugz, fantastic research, and pictures. Much appreciated.

You're welcome. My pleasure.

 

[four.cycle]

thanks for clarifying. now it makes sense.

"...I'm as cautious as the next gut when it comes to drawing conclusions..."

In the context of documenting historical records, it's to be avoided - as I noted in my private communication to you yesterday.
Lacking empirical data, the best we can hope for is reasonable assumptions - a term you may have noticed I use frequently.

Drawing conclusions without evidence is analogous to believing the sun travels around the earth because it passes over us in the sky.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Yep, me too, hence all the caveats.

 

[Private Lugnutz]

Before I quite leave the subject...

I don't know when this Armstrong NM-24P (1/4-drive) set was made, exactly, but it couldn't have been before 1946, which is first use of the Armaloy trademark. Late 40's or 50's, not 60's I don't think, and the hinge handle does have a spring-loaded detent ball. So it did catch on and persist in 1/4-drive outside of Blackhawk, a tad, anyway. But that's as far as I am going with that, because I don't have many postwar tools and I'm all surveyed out!

 

[d42jeep]

Here are a couple of prewar or very early war 1/4” drive S-K sets I went through today. The catalog images are from the ‘43 catalog but they used prewar artwork. The contents of the sets was slightly different. The sets shown in 1943 excluded the 3/16” and 7/32” sockets.
-Don

 

[RubiconJK]

Some leon miller sets with flex handles

Honestly, I already looked it up, because I was curious about the Long Island coincidence (I believe that's where Oxwall moved from Brooklyn in later years) - but I'm really too busy to dive too deep or document what I already found. In 1933 Leon B. Miller TM'd the word "FleXible" for wrenches, screwdrivers, and other tools where the "X" is formed by two flex handles. Hunch on something like that (someone adept at clever TM'ing vs. patenting) is someone exploiting not inventing, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Just making a distinction that could be pertinent. I was going to try to see if I could make a connection between Miller and Oxwall. But that's as far as I got. What is the quality like, Otg? Like Oxwall? Or a notch above? Hard to tell from the photos.

Bumping this conversation back up between OTG and Lugz from last year regarding Leon B. Miller due to a couple fortuitous recent finds that I may show later in a separate thread. During my research of LB Miller I did find the attached patent 2023693 related to flexible tools.

 

[d42jeep]

I have been looking for a 1/4” drive Crescent branded socket set, mostly just because I have never had one, partially because they were sourced from S-K. This one arrived from an eBay seller today. All the tools are Crescent marked.
-Don

 

[Pexto]

Don, I've got an old Crescent 3/8" set that looks rather similar to that 1/4" set, although the box is quite different. It was my first socket set; my dad gave it to me around 1970 and I think he'd probably purchased it sometime in the 1960s. Do you know the date range when S-K was making these? I'd never heard of that relationship before.

 

[d42jeep]

I actually know very little about them but I’ll bet somebody on this site does. I spotted this on Archive.org. It’s from 1958
-Don

 

[3baygarage]

Most Crescent sockets and ratchets were made by Wright. The type of ratchet in your set is similar looking to S-K but not identical. I‘ve never compared the internals and couldn’t say who made them.

 

[Oldtuleguy]

Crescent made those. They started making their own ratchets around 1960

 

[d42jeep]

I’ll take the ratchet apart tomorrow and compare the internals with S-K. Sure looks similar to me although I see that the back is different. I was probably wrong about being S-K made.
-Don

 

[3baygarage]

That would make sense OTG. Crescent Niagara had the patent on the type with the sponge inside. When I opened one of those I was like .

How it’s referred to in the description of the patent drawing:

“the readily compressible member 70”

“the resilient piece 70”

“the resilient member 70”



Patent here. Not sure if the 1/4 is like that as I took apart a 1/2.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US2982161A/en

 

[Oldtuleguy]

No sponge in 1/4". This one has a spring.

 

[3baygarage]

Interesting. I may have seen that in another 1/2”. Now I’m tempted to starting checking them.

 

[four.cycle]

Crescent CMB16 1/4" dr. SAE socket set
Includes what appears to be a re-branded Wright 2400 and a re-branded S-K of some sort. I'll defer to Don as to who made the sockets and drive accessories.
The earliest document I have showing the "Gives Wings to Work" moniker is dated 1951. I would imagine ITCL probably has catalogs as well (which may or may not offer any clues as to who OEM might have been.)

 

[d42jeep]

Thanks to everyone for all the information.
-Don

 

[Oldtuleguy]

Crescent made and patented it

Here is the patent

 

[d42jeep]

I found this partial Craftsman =v= set at an estate sale today. I went through my spares and added =v= sockets and cleaned up the box. I’m always happy to find a set that includes the crossbar.
-Don

 

[Provincial]

Don, when do you think that box was made? I picked up one Friday that is the same, and the contents were mostly =V=. It did have a Proto ratchet and some other strays. I'll be posting it in the Garage Sale thread soon.

 

[d42jeep]

I am not as familiar with Craftsman as others on this site. Much of the Craftsman I find ends up on eBay to support the costs of my collecting. I have other similar appearing boxes with the red plastic holding the tools which must be newer. I suspect that JoCo or one of the guys with the Craftsman CD sets could narrow down the dates for us. Other than the cover of the clamshell, the contents are very similar to this heritage set. So maybe sometime after ‘57 and before ‘60 but that’s kind of a guess.
-Don

 

[bmwrd0]

Don, when do you think that box was made? I picked up one Friday that is the same, and the contents were mostly =V=. It did have a Proto ratchet and some other strays. I'll be posting it in the Garage Sale thread soon.

Jock, did you pick that up at a sale on 19th? I must have just missed you!

 

[Provincial]

Yes. I was there almost an hour before the start, and was #2 in line. I saw the rubber/steel hammer with the octagon handle in the CL photos, and made it a point to get there early!

 

[JoCoSawdust]

So maybe sometime after ‘57 and before ‘60 but that’s kind of a guess.

That's as good of a guess as I can come up with Don. Cases and tool boxes embossed with CRAFTSMAN are a bit of a mystery.

There's a lot going on in those two Craftsman sets Don. The clamshell with CRAFTSMAN embossed is newer than the Heritage decal one. I call the embossed one "Intermediate" as it fell between Heritage and Crown logos on a lot of boxes and cases. Exactly when the change was made is anyone's guess as the catalog illustrations really don't support an answer.

The rats in both of yours sets are Gen 1 Pear Heads that ran from 47-52ish. BUT....look at the two of them. The rat in the embossed clamshell is has a significantly thicker neck than the rat in the Heritage clamshell. I call the thicker one the "cankle ratchet". Not a good looking ratchet. I speculate the cankle rat is the older of the two.

I question if the cankle rat in the embossed box is original to the box. Gen 2 Pear Heads ran up to 56 or so....which sneaks into the possible timeline of the embossed box...but I think the Gen 1 rat, especially a cankle rat, is just too old for the clamshell. That is pure speculation on my part.

The hinge handle boxed in the Heritage clamshell is 64ish or later based on the hole going through the face with the raised panel. Older ones had the hole penetrating side-to-side through the handle (like the one perched up there with the cankle rat). Probably warrantied or just replaced somewhere along the line.

Now I know where all the T bars are!!

 

[d42jeep]

Thanks for all the great info. I may switch a few pieces around between sets so they make more sense. I had noticed the change in the crossbar holes which can actually be seen in the catalogs. Neither of those ratchets have =v= markings which I’ve seen many times before but still don’t really understand. I think that both sets should have =v= sliding Tees as well.
-Don

 

[Stillgottimefor1]

Yes. I was there almost an hour before the start, and was #2 in line. I saw the rubber/steel hammer with the octagon handle in the CL photos, and made it a point to get there early!

So show the hammer when you get time, not familiar with that…

 

[Provincial]

Here is the hammer, along with most of the rest of the haul. A full report is in the Garage Sale thread.

Here is a close-up of the socket set:

A photo of the flex spinner:

Two close-ups of the flex spinner markings:

 

[d42jeep]

Thanks for all the great info. I may switch a few pieces around between sets so they make more sense. I had noticed the change in the crossbar holes which can actually be seen in the catalogs. Neither of those ratchets have =v= markings which I’ve seen many times before but still don’t really understand. I think that both sets should have =v= sliding Tees as well.
-Don

Here is where I’m at for now. I believe that the top set has all of its original pieces, right down to the Circle H flex handle. It still has some of the original preservative on the tools. It has the more sleek ratchet. I changed the middle set to have the earlier flex handle, otherwise matching the upper set. The lowest set ended up with the cankle ratchet, right or wrong. Still have to find a sliding Tee and an earlier flex handle.
-Don

 

[four.cycle]

"...the flex spinner..."

Am I imagining things, or is that unit just a bit odd? What's up with the knurled collar just below the handle? Is that original?

 

[Provincial]

The plating/finish on the knurl matches the rest of the area. The section between the knurl and the handle is where the flexible shaft was swedged.

I find that the knurled area is handy to spin the tool faster. The smaller diameter results in a faster RPM for the same amount of finger travel.

I haven't found exact information, but I've seen where the "circle-v" mark is supposed to be around the 1980's, so the spinner is not contemporary to the rest of the contents of the box.

 

[Provincial]

Further research shows a very similar Craftsman Flex Spinner with a -H- mark, indicating Danauer Holo-Krome Division. Because of the prior acquisition of Easco (Moore Drop Forging), which had the letter "V" identifier for Craftsman, it is possible, and even likely, that the circle-V identifier was linked to Easco.

Some spinners shown of Ebay have the knurl, and later ones do not. It appears to indicate that the knurl is an indicator of earlier production. The handles with the blue collar are later than those with amber handles, but the knurl appears to be a hold-over from the amber era:


My gut feeling is that the shorter flex shaft is an attempt to limit warranty claims by having less of an area for "wind-up" that leads to permanent distortion of the shaft.

 

[Pexto]

I found this Sparta 1/4" set in my dad's tools after he passed away. I don't remember ever seeing it when I was a kid, but it might have been in the one machinist box he had that was off limits to me. It looks almost new!

 

[four.cycle]

^ very nice set there!

 

[d42jeep]

Here is my prize BE Craftsman flex spinner with a knurled section. And a Crown 1/4” drive =v= set I used to have. I kept the flex extension and sold the rest. No crossbar was included.
-Don

 

[JjKk40]

Nice spinner d42! Heres my New Britain similar to your Craftsman BE. Same from knurled section down except labeling, obviously lol! Different handles! My po decided to engrave his terrible name into the handle! Lol! Also a 1/2" New Britain ratchet adaptor!