M38 Axe

Post by **wesk** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:34 pm

The MIL specs were fairly open on those dimensions.

There is plenty of reading on this topic. Just google all of it up.

http://jeepdraw.com/John_Barton1_Shovels.html
http://jeepdraw.com/John_Barton2-AXES.html

These are addressing WWII axes in John Barton's review but the same specs still applied in the 50's.

The 53 & 56 ORD 7 SNL G-740 lists ax FSN 5110-00-222-0455. This
equates to:5110-00-222-0455, 10501970, 40D1FG, 6150925, GGG-A-926,
GGG-A-926TY1CL1DEA, MA207-21880, MA20721880, AX,SINGLE BIT

Kevin Emdee of Starr Electric posted this Pioneer tool write-up on the G503 several years ago:

This part of Federal Standard Part Catalog GGG-A-926a makes it quite clear what size ax head we use.

4x4M38 · Post by **4x4M38** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:02 pm

So, 1-3/16" width for the head plus or minus 3/32".

How is that comparing to everyone's heads?

Still no data on handle thickness or width of a prototype head
bracket.

I've seen plenty of replacement handles at various stores
locally and most of them are 35" plus. That is 4" more than
the specs.

Post by **wesk** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:20 pm

Did you read all of the data I listed and linked. The handles were covered there.

The latest version of NN-H-93 is Rev C dated 1 MAR 95. The dimensions are easily read there.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/lxzfpvw

4x4M38 · Post by **4x4M38** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:20 pm

On the link to John Barton's materials there is a handle drawing with
dimensions but I can't read them.

However, I did find this:
"The original handles are also thinner than modern ones… they bend around the jeep body better… and take a set if you leave them on for long time!"

I believe this is an A-HA moment.

Post by **wesk** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:25 pm

I believe these posts have addressed most of it:

I noticed the MB/GPW guys have similar issues though not as bad as the M38. All seem to be with stock factory tubs. I would guess the original axes used had thinner handles and heads. It wouldn't surprise me if the GI's just steamed the handles to a slight curve to make them fit better. I have often thought maybe Willys fouled up on the length of the axe handle divit in the tub. The MB appears to have a much longer or deeper divit.

4x4M38 · Post by **4x4M38** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:47 pm

So you insert the handle, thread the strap in the head bracket,
start the head in and crank that strap tight!

If the handle bends a little then that appears prototypical.

4x4M38 · Post by **4x4M38** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:11 pm

Some more observations.

The WWII and previous specs show 31" length for the MB/GPW,
and the M38 spec appears the same.

The 1948 and later specs linked show a 36" handle.

My "divot" is just over 1-1/2" wide at the narrowest point,
so if your handle is wider than that the handle won't sit down
all the way against the bottom of the divot, confounding
the problem.

Post by **wesk** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:54 pm

The handle spec is for an unfinished handle (no paint). Most folks would steam the handle then bend it while it is exposed to the steam. Same way we used to bend planks and spars for boat wood hulls.

TheMil Spec draws a spec with some leeway. The 36" sample drawing shows the sectional dimensions at 36" and you would calculate the correct dimensions/stations for shorter and longer handles.

Ryan_M ,
I reduced the size of your photos so readers would not have to go full screen or scroll left to right to read the posts. I copied them from your photo site to you album on this web site. Reducing their size in the process. Normally 150 to 200 K file sizes are the max for comfortable viewing of posts.

Ryan_M · Post by **Ryan_M** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 5:45 pm

1000's of photos posted on 1000's of forum posts and you are the first to mention the size. I personally find it handy to see the detail of a larger image plus being able to click on a photo linked to another site and see it even larger can also be useful. I think anyone who surfs the web with a minimized browser would be in the minority. I never have to scroll left or right on my devices. Maybe time to upgrade your hardware?

4x4M38 · Post by **4x4M38** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:41 pm

Easy Big Guy.
I am posting right now on my iPhone.

Depending on the page sometimes it is impossible to read.

I know also that a large photo in a post that is repeated in someone's
photo pages eats up bandwidth. I usually copy the original
size photo in my posts and add a link to the enlarged pic.

Anything to advance information flow is much appreciated.

Please don't take anything personally.

Brian

Ryan_M · Post by **Ryan_M** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:53 pm

No worries and I don't take it personally. I will not post any more large linked images here.

4x4M38 · Post by **4x4M38** » Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:22 pm

Just post the URL to the full size pic that way folks can click on it and see it full size.