four.cycle
Well-known member
^ I believe Roger is correct. Enlarge that image and look at it. It's lookin' more like 5 than 3 to me. (power of suggestion?)
Mystery tool, 1937
- Thread starter Junk&Disorder
- Start date
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
If you two want to doubt the owner of the tool, I guess that's your prerogative. It looks like a "1937" stamp to me, we've all (except Rog apparently) been talking about it and researching it as a 1937 tool, and the OP identifies it as 1937 in the thread title.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
Zoom in.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
All the straight parts are very straight, all the round parts are very round. The top of the number in question is clearly straight.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
I am not sure why you guys are trying so hard to convince me. I have no stake in it being 1937 vs 1957! I'm just simply relating that the entire thread has been pursuing it as a 1937 stamp. The way you said, "it's marked 1957" led me to believe you either mistyped or you had been thinking it was 1957 all along, despite it being identified as 1937 in the thread title and despite us discussing it as a 1937 tool.
If you want to now open a whole 'nother line of inquiry on the date stamp, have at it. Or maybe ask the OP to re-examine to make sure of the digit. I'm not personally convinced it's a 5 instead of a 3, even with it zoomed in. But these and several other digits are often hard to discern as we all know from experience.
With respect to it being a screwdriver/spanner/key for large gun with a hydraulic buffer, 1957 would be getting very late.
If you want to now open a whole 'nother line of inquiry on the date stamp, have at it. Or maybe ask the OP to re-examine to make sure of the digit. I'm not personally convinced it's a 5 instead of a 3, even with it zoomed in. But these and several other digits are often hard to discern as we all know from experience.
With respect to it being a screwdriver/spanner/key for large gun with a hydraulic buffer, 1957 would be getting very late.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
Are you using your phone right now? From my iPad it’s pretty clearly a 5
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Nope.
lol You've made it quite clear that you are very convinced that you are seeing a "5", Rog. I'm not seeing one, and, respectfully, I am going to take the OP's word for it being 1937 for now until he tells me otherwise. As I said, I am fully prepared to shift gears to postwar.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
Compare the 3’s and the 5’s from the same part. I don’t see why they would use 2 different types of 3’s on the same part.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
That C with arrow symbol is not contiguous with the same marking, Rog, was not applied by the same organization, and has a good chance of being applied with a completely different die. But I will re-emphasize, I am not sure why you're trying to convince me. It's not my tool. Your argument is with the OP. If you're convinced it's 1957, I look forward to your research on gun keys/spanners from that timeframe.
four.cycle
Well-known member
^ I downloaded the image and enlarged it. I have a great BIG monitor here.
I thought Roger was nuts when he first suggested it was a "3", but then I downloaded it and blew it up:
And then I just cropped it and blew it up again to post it here, and now I'm not sure if it's a 3 or a 5
Serif? Non-Serif?
Not a clue there.. but either way, I think 3bay nailed it on the "gun sight adjustment spanner" part.
I thought Roger was nuts when he first suggested it was a "3", but then I downloaded it and blew it up:
And then I just cropped it and blew it up again to post it here, and now I'm not sure if it's a 3 or a 5
Serif? Non-Serif?
Not a clue there.. but either way, I think 3bay nailed it on the "gun sight adjustment spanner" part.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
Jeez don’t get angry.lol My only research is zooming in.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Seeing 3bay's wartime gun spanners also help make sense of this bit from the 1928 Gun Handbook.
It looks like they were relacing the Hydraulic Buffer Key with a multi-purpose spanner, and if I had to guess, probably with the blade/key and some openings. I'd love to find an illustration of the No. 112!
It looks like they were relacing the Hydraulic Buffer Key with a multi-purpose spanner, and if I had to guess, probably with the blade/key and some openings. I'd love to find an illustration of the No. 112!
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
No anger, Rog. Just explaining the two different markings (and numerical fonts), emphasizing that I am not convinced, and re-directing your inquiry about the date to the OP. As for zooming, it looks like you need to up your game. 4.c is at atomic level!
four.cycle
Well-known member
^ okay, but now I'm absolutely baffled. If it IS what we believe it to be - a "gun sight adjustment spanner" - does 1937 make more sense than 1957? I'm lost on this one, Lugz - I don't know jack about guns or military stuff.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
Like the op said, 1957 might not even be a year.
Beerhippie
Well-known member
How many pages back did we lose the OP?
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Have you read the thread from the beginning? I highly recommend you do. It will provide a lot of context you may be missing trying to jump in at this time without doing so.
Who's we, Kemosabe?
No, seriously, I am not sure why you're jumping to that specific conclusion. The wrenches he posted appear to be US made, for US Navy ships, for one thing. The OP's tool is almost certainly British with a British certification symbol on it and specific lettering that does not jibe with US Navy wartime markings, some of which (such as the "AS&S") also seem to jibe with it being British. Speaking for nobody but myself, I do not believe the OP's tool to explicitly be a "gun sight adjustment spanner."
Make no mistake, I DO think the gun spanners that 3bay posted from eBay, which retained a "key" like blade, you will note, help the cause significantly. As wartime gun wrenches, with use cases that would be similar to British gun spanners, evolving from a mutual history of keys, wrenches, and spanners for artillery (notably not that far removed from the keys @PCustoms posted for small arms), they do have a look, feel, and function that lends much credence to the idea of the OP's tool being a modified key/spanner, as @Mintgrun first suggested when he noted the whittled look of the area around the blade/key.
I still have a high level of confidence that the "HYD BUFF" marking is for hydraulic buffer. It looks to me like ordnance and naval ordnance started obsoleting multiple single purpose keys, including those for hydraulic buffers, in favor of multi-purpose spanners, able to service multiple components, in the Interwar years.
Yes. For one thing, the OP's tool has the identical C-and-arrow symbol that is found on British materiel in the 1937-1939 timeframe. The link to the British militaria forum that @alfadan helpfully posted was validating his earlier confirmation of my hunch that the symbol looked martial, which he made yesterday. And, if you scroll down from the prewar examples, someone posted an example from 1949 that was completely different. The arrow was next to the C.
But again, not falling on my sword that it's not 1957. We will all have to do some serious re-thinking if it is, though.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
He’s here. Coincidentally someone on that forum thought it was 1957 also.
Beerhippie
Well-known member
It clearly is 1957--but is that a date?
four.cycle
Well-known member
^ well... THIS is what I was running with... it definitely looks plausible that the OP's unit could very well be a cut-down version of what 3bay found on ebay.
So going off on that assumption on my part may well be completely off the mark, but it's still really the first thing that's come up that makes sense to me.
And yes, I've been following this all along
^ I started that thread a day or so ago because I thought it might be a device used in logging, and we have a member (treeswarper) on there who's quite well-informed on such matters. That was a total stab in the dark there.
No idea how that new member (Rubber Legs) zoomed in on it so quickly.
As it stands, I can't make any conclusions on this one way or another. The word is "flummoxed".
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
If you mean gun spanners of that type, with multiple openings on the ends of a bar that is also used as the handle for a prominent offset key or screwdriver-like blade in the middle, yes. The similarities are clear. We started considering that as soon as Tom mentioned it and I drew more of something on the other side. And the handbooks seem to be showing discontinuing the keys in favor of multi-purpose spanners. So it all seems to make sense. Finding examples of British versions with similar British markings to the OP's would be much more definitive, though.
And apparently enlisting your hiking group into the alphanumeric code-breaking!
four.cycle
Well-known member
Well.. again... for some reason I thought it might have been some sort of "wedge" device used in logging... treeswarper came up with a photo of a tool, but it's nothing at all like what the OP brought in. There's a couple other guys on there who are really good with mining tools and equipment, but none of them chimed in on that one.
Good to see they're arguing just as much as here
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
Musket tool? Looks similar.
veteranarms.com
American "Pickering" Musket Tool | Veteran Arms From Muzzleloading Era
American "Pickering" Musket ToolDesigned by General George Washington's quartermaster general Timothy Pickering, this handy tool features turnscrews of two size
four.cycle
Well-known member
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
I was just kidding ya, 4.c. It's funny imagining a bunch of people unconnected to this forum and the OP's original query scrutinizing the same tool. And, we did start out thinking wedge or similar striking tool. I got us off on keys for hydraulic buffers opening the up the railway or artillery lane.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
The OP questioned exactly that.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Hmm. I must have missed that. Please re-quote him questioning that.
I just reviewed all his posts - linked here via the Search Thread on his Username only, for convenience, and I don't see that.
The only instance I can find of him transcribing the marking, including that part of it, upon request from me, is here:
...where he re-confirms the number he is seeing on the tool in his hands from his thread title.
In my opinion, not only does it look like a date, but one would have to not just blatantly ignore but challenge Occam's Razor and the proverbial walking quacking duck to pursue it as something other than a date. It having a marking (the C-arrow) that is identical to the C-arrow marking found on British material with 1937 dates also puts a heavy onus showing it to be something else. It's possible it might just be another number with a coincidental syntax with dates, there's certainly no harm in questioning it, and research might help prove it otherwise.
EDIT: I look forward to seeing what you guys track down as it possibly being something else (e.g., secondary model number to the model number ("No. 146") that is already has on it, etc)
Last edited:
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
There is an oddly placed “11” over the 1937/1957. I don’t know what that would mean if it were or were not a date?
OP
Junk&Disorder
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2025
- Messages
- 7
Great discussion, thanks!
Admittedly it is ambiguous but I vote 1937
To throw some light onto the "date" stamp, I've cleaned then captured in different light situations.
Admittedly it is ambiguous but I vote 1937
To throw some light onto the "date" stamp, I've cleaned then captured in different light situations.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Maybe it's time for a new iPad.
Would you care to revise your rather assuredly declarative statement, sir?
You are being far too kind.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
Told ya it was a 3.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
I restrained myself from suggesting it was an "11" rather a "T1" - because, you have a better view than me, but I would now suggest it might be an "11" (signifying November) to go with that "1937". The entire stamping was non-uniform and done by hand with letters out of whack and leaning and that figure could easily be a misstamped "1". If the "T1" or "11" was not located so close to the "1937", I might not go that far. It's sort of innocuous anyway. The year is important in keeping us prewar and in perfect synch with those C-arrow markings on the helmet liners. It's a military piece. Or at least government.
Beerhippie
Well-known member
Amazing difference with those last photos! I was 100% on the '57 bus.Maybe it's time for a new iPad.
Would you care to revise your rather assuredly declarative statement, sir?
You are being far too kind.
But this fits much better with the broad arrow C research.
Old Man Roger
Well-known member
So we all agree? Saw Set?
four.cycle
Well-known member
well... you sure had me fooled for a bit there.
you too, huh?
Anybody else ever read that short story by Charles Bukowski where the guy is wandering around late at night and the man walks up to him and says "Mr. Smith, we've heard you lost your mind, and we found a piece of it," and proceeds to pull a small package out of his coat pocket and hands it to him.
So Mr. Smith takes the package and puts it into his pocket and forgets all about it and continues walking around and later finds himself back in his room at home.
And then he remembers the man he met and the package he handed to him, so he goes to the coat closet and pulls the package out of the pocket and opens it up and what he finds looks like a piece of cheese. So he smells it, and it smells like cheese. So then he tastes it, and it tastes like cheese.
So then he ate it.
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Did it taste like crow?