I was digging through the bosses toolbox and came across the narrowest beam wrench I have ever seen a Proto Challenger 6122. It is an 11/16 and I compared them to my SO and SK wrenches. It is around a 1/16 of inch and looks very uncomfortable to operate. Has anyone else came across these wrenches? He has a ton of other Proto wrenches and they are like my SK.
Snap On vs Proto wrench beam width
- Thread starter Panzer
- Start date
tonydanzah
Well-known member
New Britains a thin like that.
Last edited:
cruiser808
Well-known member
Hi Panzer - The Challenger name was a "moving target" as the brand was always absorbed by some larger corporation. In the 1960's, it had it's own differences from New Britain, Blackhawk and Proto, but, as Tony points out, your probably seeing an early 1970's New Britain Co. version which was very thin. When IR took over in the later 70's, they basically cloned Proto and Challenger tools, but marketing Challenger the "economy" brand. Big mistake on their part, as you could purchase Challenger for 25% less than Proto and still get the same quality. Personally, I have no problem with the thin beams of the era you're speaking of. They fit well in real tight spots, made of fine US steel and weigh next to nothing. But that's just me. I love working with vintage US name brand tools. 
cruiser808
Well-known member
New Britians a thin like that.[/QUOTE
Hi Tony - you know your stuff. I'm damned impressed!
tonydanzah
Well-known member
Thanks, but I'm way more impressed with your knowledge of the company history.
cruiser808
Well-known member
Tony - thanks for your kind words, but as my family always tell me; "even a blind pig can root up an acorn once in a while."
HankMurphy
Well-known member
I have to correct a couple of statements here. Challenger was never a New Britain line -- it belonged to Plomb/Proto/Pendleton long before they came together as Stanley subsidiaries. It originally was a trademark of Penens if Alloy Artifacts is correct, and I think it is.
As Cruiser808 mentions, the thin beams are often handy in situations of poor access, but they are susceptible to bending...I have one or two which suffered that.
The history of New Britain after Litton acquired them does not seem to be available on the web, and since Northrop Grumman acquired Litton, even Litton's history is becoming obscure. (Litton acquired New Britain in the conglomerate frenzy era of the 1960s, but their definition of "synergy" was a little too broad. Another long story.) However, I'm pretty sure that New Britain was not part of Stanley until at least the late 1980s, based on comments from someone who worked at Stanley in New Britain, Connecticut, in those days.
Cheers,
Hank
As Cruiser808 mentions, the thin beams are often handy in situations of poor access, but they are susceptible to bending...I have one or two which suffered that.
The history of New Britain after Litton acquired them does not seem to be available on the web, and since Northrop Grumman acquired Litton, even Litton's history is becoming obscure. (Litton acquired New Britain in the conglomerate frenzy era of the 1960s, but their definition of "synergy" was a little too broad. Another long story.) However, I'm pretty sure that New Britain was not part of Stanley until at least the late 1980s, based on comments from someone who worked at Stanley in New Britain, Connecticut, in those days.
Cheers,
Hank
arkangel06
Banned
Most challenger stuff was made in Canada
cruiser808
Well-known member
Hank is correct, there was never a direct connection between New Britain and Challenger. However, the early Challenger and Tru-craft wrenches show a distinct similarity to the beams of the NB wrenches from the 1970's. Are they from the same blanks as the NB's, I don't know. But the similarities are there. 