Replacement showed up a few days ago...
There was no "tear away" return-to-sender label under the UPS shipping label, nor any instructions to ship the broken part back, so I'm pretty sure they knew it'd be more expensive for them to pay shipping back on it than for me to keep it as a souvenir. I can JB-Weld a magnet to it and stick it on the fridge.
First impressions? Aesthetically, the chrome is worlds apart from the 1964 socket. The '64 had a certain coarse satin quality to it, and the 2011 version is virtually mirror-like. The new foot has no stamped name, or size, but is completely laser etched, including the part number (which was absent on the original.) Normally, I prefer stamping, as etching tends to wear more, but on a specialty tool like this, I'm not as concerned about it wearing off.
Next thing I noticed is the sheer mass of the foot, compared to it's 47 year elder. The old foot clocks in at 25.9g. The new foot weighs in a full 3 grams more, 32.9. Now, the jaws have been substantially redesigned to be wider and stronger, but the socket itself is shorter, too. Another point worth mentioning is that I miss the new socket's lack of the square hole on the opposite end of the jaws that would allow someone to save space on their rail by orienting the open jaws away from the rail itself (as I have always done.) This may account for a portion of the new design's weight, but it's still a shorter design, and with more emphasis on the allocation of steel around the jaws themselves.
For reference, the 1964 9/16" cousin to my 1/2" weighs in at 24.3g - almost a full gram and a half under it's next smallest size.
If there's one thing that is consistent, it's the lack of symmetry between all of the examples. The older sockets, most noticeably on the 9/16", are nowhere near equal in length, and on the 2011 socket, the sides of the jaws in the opening are a few degrees away from being parallel with the 3/8" drive hole. I cannot find the charging cable for the camera I took the first pictures, so the pics I'm posting are not able to capture the same level of detail as the originals (sub-par cell phone camera.) I expect a new cable/battery in the mail tomorrow or the next, and will update with clearer pictures at that time.
Bottom line?
First, and foremost, my hat is off to the Snap-on warranty and their customer service department. For such a small item, and despite the tool's age, no questions were asked about the nature of the tool's failure (don't know if the submitted picture played a part in it, but I'm guessing it did.) My first experience in dealing with the Snap-on warranty from the corporate level spoken volumes of the lengths they will go to honor their guarantee, and I am more than satisfied that they stand behind their tools.
Secondly, and I'll admit, I'm a bit of a nit-picker with a severe case of OCD (or CDO, since everything should be ordered alphabetically,) the asymmetry of the jaws and them not lining up parallel to the drive square simply shouldn't be there. In this age of computer automation and mechanical forging, I can only wonder if their warranty replacement stock is comprised of finished tools that didn't make the grade to be sold on the trucks.
Yes, I said something that might come off as pretty nasty in an overly-enthusiastic Snap-on crowd, but I'm honestly curious - would a brand new
$22.50 socket purchased off the truck have the open end at an angle, with respect to the drive square?
Again, not trying to start a debate - very happy with the replacement, but curious...
(Better pics to follow.)
I use carving tools and wood planes that are 150 years old or older. Age really has nothing to do with how a tool will hold up. It is use and abuse. I have never even had a cheap Chraftsmand wratchet strip out. I have broken 2 craftsman sockets but I had a long pipe on the breaker bar. That split the sockets. Those are the only 2 good tools I have bronken in over 50 years of wrenching.
