Figure 26.6 was added to TM 9-8015-2 by Change 1 dated Nov 1954. Fig 26.6 specifically addresses only the body to crossmember attach bolts. The bulk of that change was to present the missing data for the M170's that had just entered production. As mentioned above many of these illustrations are based on prototype photos and do not always show the correct relationship of pictured parts. Par 260b of TM 9-8014 offers the best and most concise instructions for installing the rear lift shackles. _________________ Wes K
45 MB, 51 M38, 54 M37, 66 M101A1, 60 CJ5, 76 DJ5D, 47Bantam T3-C & 5? M100
Joined: Oct 02, 2014 Posts: 1916 Location: South Carolina, Dorchester County
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:06 am Post subject:
While anything is possible, there's no evidence (so far) suggesting that the photos and written instructions in a stack of Army manuals for the M38 and M38A1 are either prototype or staged glamor shots.
On the contrary, (so far) the evidence in these manuals, along with observed reports from at least 2 (maybe 3) forum members --- is consistent with its location and description as a "spacer" --- not a "shim" or a reinforcement or doubler plate.
Sure there are plenty of mistakes in these manuals. Some have been proved mistakes by research and evidence showing the error. Some haven't. This forum is pretty good about sorting out hard evidence from opinion.
Claiming these photos are or might be “prototype” or glamor shots doesn't make it so. Without evidence it's hard to prove a negative. Non-sequitur if you ask me.
All I can do is stick to the evidence that I see and read.
Mike_B wrote:
I'm also having a hard time believing the Army would require a shim between the rear crossmember and the bumperette, what purpose does it serve in that location?
Same here Mike. When you search the topic in this forum, that's the $64,000 question everybody wants to know. Including me, and I'm not going to guess about an answer one way or the other.
It's only 1/16th-inch thick. Who knows why the Army thought .0625" was essential for either a tolerance fit or would make a difference as reinforcement to lift or tie down a 3,000 pound jeep (many washers are thicker). Neither seems to make sense.
But right now all the evidence (not some of the evidence, all of it) points to spacer --- not a reinforcing doubler plate.
The Willys engineering drawing for the assembly would probably explain it. _________________ Ron D.
1951 M38 Unknown Serial Number
1951 M100 Dunbar Kapple 01169903 dod 5-51
“The only good sports car that America ever made was the Jeep."
--- Enzo Ferrari
BTW.
Is there a TM on how exactly how these things were used? Lifting. Tie down.
“And now we see one reason why the shackle pins get inserted from the inside pointing to the outside. So the lifting rings can be easily reversed.” Ron
Ron.
Are you saying the eyes were sometimes flipped right/left? _________________ Don Alvarez
Retired HS Teacher
Central Florida
M38 Project
Are you saying the eyes were sometimes flipped right/left?
All I'm saying is that if they were flipped (for any reason intentional or not), correct pin orientation makes it easy to change. _________________ Ron D.
1951 M38 Unknown Serial Number
1951 M100 Dunbar Kapple 01169903 dod 5-51
“The only good sports car that America ever made was the Jeep."
--- Enzo Ferrari
Joined: Oct 02, 2014 Posts: 1916 Location: South Carolina, Dorchester County
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:54 am Post subject:
wesk wrote:
Par 260b of TM 9-8014 offers the best and most concise instructions for installing the rear lift shackles.
That paragraph says the spacer goes between the lifting shackle bracket and the bumperette.
Paragraph 247 (page 271) and paragraph 262 (page 278) of TM9-8015-2 say the same. _________________ Ron D.
1951 M38 Unknown Serial Number
1951 M100 Dunbar Kapple 01169903 dod 5-51
“The only good sports car that America ever made was the Jeep."
--- Enzo Ferrari
I'm not going to guess about an answer one way or the other.
Unless you are not installing rear lifting shackles on your jeep you will actually have to make a sensible choice on positioning, NOT A GUESS!
It's time to put this to rest. We have two very different opinions on manual interpretations and neither of us has succeeded in changing the other's mind. So let's give the membership a break. _________________ Wes K
45 MB, 51 M38, 54 M37, 66 M101A1, 60 CJ5, 76 DJ5D, 47Bantam T3-C & 5? M100
Joined: Oct 02, 2014 Posts: 1916 Location: South Carolina, Dorchester County
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:21 am Post subject:
wesk wrote:
RonD said:
Quote:
I'm not going to guess about an answer one way or the other.
Unless you are not installing rear lifting shackles on your jeep you will actually have to make a sensible choice on positioning, NOT A GUESS!
As I said in an earlier comment, I did make a sensible choice when I installed mine. I went with the tech manual(s) description.
That doesn't mean it's the answer, it's just what I did on one M38.
wesk wrote:
It's time to put this to rest. We have two very different opinions on manual interpretations and neither of us has succeeded in changing the other's mind. So let's give the membership a break.
Not trying to change anybody's mind Wes. As always, everybody is free to make up their own mind.
I thought it was ok (even encouraged) to use this forum to investigate and discuss M38 topics. Guess I was mistaken about that.
Give the members a break and put it to rest, aye-aye! _________________ Ron D.
1951 M38 Unknown Serial Number
1951 M100 Dunbar Kapple 01169903 dod 5-51
“The only good sports car that America ever made was the Jeep."
--- Enzo Ferrari
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Well, I did see a sentence in APPENDIX Y that hints at why one would take off the lifting eyes. (This section was not specifically about M38/jeeps)
