Spring U-bolt Seal Retainer

Jeeps4Brains · Post by **Jeeps4Brains** » Sun May 07, 2006 2:55 pm

After reading my manual and then leaving the book at the house, I was installing my U-bolts on the leaf springs and was assembling things like I felt they should go. Well I put the Seal Retainers and Seals on the U-bolt and then threaded the bushing through the frame. Then I put the outer seals on and the was ready to put the plate and nuts on. Well for some reason I put another set of Seal Retainers on under the plate and then put the nuts on the U-bolt. This looked really nice having the Retainers on both sides of the U-bolt. It is not like in the manual.

What does everyone think about this? It is not too late to take the two extra Retainers out. Has anyone else seen this or tried it?

Thanks, Alan

Post by **Ryan_Miller** » Sun May 07, 2006 7:25 pm

Alan,

I have not tried that, but as you know the plate you have on the interior aspect is for the CJ jeeps and not the military.

With the military U bracket, you do not need the plate.

Bob_C · Post by **Bob_C** » Sun May 07, 2006 8:46 pm

Ryan,

If we're both talking about the same plate, I thought that that plate was for later production model M38A1s as well.

Jeeps4Brains · Post by **Jeeps4Brains** » Mon May 08, 2006 4:07 am

The Jeep came with the plates on it. Also the U-Bolts are all right hand threads. It is a 53 model so I am guessing it has been rebuilt at some time and ended up getting later components as it was a forest service Jeep. Whatever red paint they used was really strong stuff as it sticks to the metal well.

PeteL · Post by **PeteL** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:35 am

Not to be contrary at all, but my 1952 M38A1-C has the shackle plates, and I'm quite certain they are original.

(The 'A1-C had beefed up rear suspension also, so maybe the plates were part of the conversion package for the 106mm gun?)

Sorry, no opinion about the extra seal retainers, except that as a general philosophy, I figure the more we do to maintain things as original, the less we confuse the next generation of owners!

Pete

davem201m38 · Post by **davem201m38** » Mon May 08, 2006 9:10 am

I've seen a very similar (same?) thing on Greek recoiless carriers and MILAN launchers. Not sure it makes any difference unless you're carrying 4 marines + Kit + Beer+ 106mm+kit +more beer.
On a run about / resto it just complicates things.
All the best,
Dave

PeteL · Post by **PeteL** » Mon May 08, 2006 9:55 am

Or a "Davy Crocket" M38A1-D. Imagine... a Jeep, a nuke, two GI's and a case of beer! What were they thinking???

Not that it proves anything, but TM-2320-208-20P (1966 parts book) shows " #2510-693-0780 Plate: side, shackle (83333259)"

Also, my stock '57 CJ5 does not have the plates, although otherwise similar. A 1973 civilian parts book I have illustrates a plate for the military (801624K), but not the civilian (802062).

Of course after-market plates are installed on CJ's by off-roaders.

I just offer this for whatever it's worth. Others will know better than I what the reality was. The map doesn't always match the terrain.

Pete

Post by **wesk** » Mon May 08, 2006 10:25 am

My research to date shows the late 60's USMC M38A1 order had the plates. The Army switched all on an attrition basis to the plates in the late 60's and on. Same goes with the two left hand threaded "U" bolts just like their civvy counterparts were eventually deleted from use.

So for M38's factory (No Plates). For M38A1 factory up thru 1962ish (No Plates) 62 and later (Plates).

For either jeep as a motor pool resto they can all have the plates if the resto represents 1962 or newer field use.

If you want the best shackle setup and aren't interested in judging requirements use the plates.

BobW · Post by **BobW** » Mon May 08, 2006 6:56 pm

Didn't the M170 have the side plates from the beginning?