WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Manufacturers, configurations, Shovels, Axe, Wrenches, Oiler, F/E etc.
User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Wingnutt » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:22 am

LAST UPDATE: 5/16/2017 (see bolded entries)

This list contains the names of US tool manufacturers who had NO contracts listed with any agency (Army, Navy, Treasury) in the reference (see WARTIME SUPPLIERS thread). This list also contains the names of US manufacturers of other equipment whose names may have been seen on vintage tools or equipment, but also had NO contracts for any tools or equipment with any agency in the reference whatsoever.

AMCO
Androck
Apex
Arrow
Ashcroft
Athol M&F Co
Baldwins
Baxter
Bemis & Call
Bergman Buffalo
Bernards
Bishop
BMC Mfg Co
Bog
Bristol
Brown Manly
Buchanan
Buhl
Buhlson
Bullock
Burke
CAMCO
Champion Dearment
Chaplin
Cincinnati Balcrank
Clinton Tool Co added (this is one of three pre- "MAC Tool" companies)(added 2/10/15)
Cochran
Conneaut
Eagle
Enderes
Evansville
Faw
Federal
Ferguson
Forester
Frank & Warren
Frey
Fulton
Furney-Shirwin
Gardner
Goldblatt
Hargrave
Haviland, Arnold
Henry Allen
Hibbard
Hilger
Hollands
Hood Tool Co
Hubbard
IMCO
Irega
JAMCO
Jamesbury
Jamesville
Jamesway
Jones Tool Co
Keystone
Lakeside
Leyland
Littlestown
Mac Allied Tools (this is one of three pre- "MAC Tools" companies)(added 2/10/15)
Mapson
Mechanics Tool & Forge (this is one of the three pre- "MAC Tool" companies)(added 2/10/15)
Mathews
McGrath
McKaig-Hatch
Moore Drop Forgings
Mother Mfg Co
Mueller
Mussellman
Newell Sanders
Nixdorff-Krein
Noera
Norgren
Oxwall
Palmgren
Peace
Pioneer
Samson
Smith & Hemenway
Smith HD
Sommer & Mack
St Pierre
Syracuse
Thorsen
Tobrin
Triple Diamond
Tuck
Vandergrift
Verona
Vessel (added 2/10/15)
W. S. & T.
Westcott
Whitaker
Zim Mfg Co
Last edited by Wingnutt on Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:29 am, edited 15 times in total.
TEMPORARY DUTY


User avatar
pjones
G-Major General
G-Major General
Posts: 2791
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by pjones » Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:13 am

Wingnutt,
Just for clarification and so that this information is not misinterpreted or even worse misused, this list could mean they did not supply tools to those entities or that that they had contracts of less than 50K. It also does not mean that they did not directly supply tools to Ford or Willys Overland. Correct?
phil
pjones
'42 Ford GPW 7127
Need a MVMTS/GMTK?
Need a jeep toolkit?

User avatar
mudbox
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1526
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:09 pm
Location:

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by mudbox » Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:22 am

pjones wrote:Wingnutt,
It also does not mean that they did not directly supply tools to Ford or Willys Overland. Correct?
That would make sense with names like Noera and McKaig-Hatch on the list... :shock:
Champion Dearment is an interesting one as well.
-Jason

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Wingnutt » Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:42 am

pjones wrote:Wingnutt,
Just for clarification and so that this information is not misinterpreted or even worse misused, this list could mean they did not supply tools to those entities or that that they had contracts of less than 50K. It also does not mean that they did not directly supply tools to Ford or Wills Overland. Correct?
phil
Phil,

I discussed some of that on the original thread, but it probably does need repeating here. Mark has done the same thing on the other list. Thanks.


FACTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reference includes contracts between federal contracting agencies (Treasury, QMC, ORD, Air Corps, Signal Corps, Chemical Warfare Services, and several Navy bureaus) and commercial entities. In a G503 context, that would include vehicle manufacturers (i.e., Ford, Willys-Overland) as well as tool and equipment manufacturers. In a GMTK context, that includes tool manufacturers. In the broadest context, the reference includes any company that built anything directly for the Army, Navy or Treasury during wartime.

The reference does not include contracts between Willys or Ford and parts, equipment and tool makers that Willys or Ford used to fulfill the vehicle or vehicle toolkit requirements of their contract with the QMC or ORD.

The reference is for "MAJOR" contracts, which the CPA identifies as $50,000 value or higher.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

In my opinion, the $50,000 limit needs to be looked at from the big picture as well as on a case by case basis.

From the big picture, there's a reason the CPA used $50,000 as a cut off. It's a small sum, even by 1940's standards. Anything less than that was not tracked by the War Production Board. By definition then, any such contracts that people notionalize to explain a name being missing HAS to be considered minor by us as well.

For comparison purposes, and staying with the big picture, everyone should be aware that most of the tool suppliers who are in the book, and who are listed in the LIST A (VERIFIED QMC & ORD) thread, have multiple contracts, all in excess of $50,000. For a US tool maker to not have one single contract $50,000 in value or more is no easily dismissed data point. The numbers are huge, remember. I don't know what the QMC or ORD lifecycle ratios were like in WW2, but today we routinely spares for tools, in general, at a minimum of 3:1.

I'm not sure how the QMC or ORD fulfill the spares and replacement requirements with contracts less than $50,000. And before anyone quotes the price of an auto wrench in 1943, and multiplies it by 1,800,000, note that these contracts would not be commercial prices, and that the number is the value of the whole contract, which includes overhead, G&A, and profit.

In my opinion, the reference helps clarify several loose and murky previous assumptions.

"Motorpool" suppliers and "factory" suppliers are clearly not in all cases the same. If we suppose that Ford was buying McKaig-Hatch pliers, Moore Drop Forging Company auto wrenches, and Noera tire pumps for its Jeep factory toolkits, for instance, it's apparent to me that the QMC and the ORD were not buying those tools from the same suppliers for their "Motorpool" spares and replacements. To make the argument that they might've been, just not in quantities that added up to more than $50,000, is a postulation that now requires some other documentation in the face of the opposite. Company missives. An Army "E" award. Something. The CPA reference is too huge and detailed to be dismissed with a simple supposition. In other words, just because that's a possibility, doesn't make it a good possibility, and it certainly doesn't make it a feasible explanation. It's a weak excuse, in my opinion.

On the other hand, it also raises some valid questions. For example, if the QMC and the ORD were not buying spring-bottom oilers from Gem Mfg Co or Eagle, who were they buying them from?

Perhaps they were buying some of the motorpool spare and replacememt tools for the factory tools from the vehicle mfgrs. I'd like to see that as a contract item in the same reference, or elsewhere, though.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Mark Tombleson
MZ Radio Operator
Posts: 9836
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:58 pm
Location: Selah, Washington

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Mark Tombleson » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:31 pm

Let us not be too hasty with the $50,000 limit. If you look at my chapter in Lloyd's book, Volume 2 I have documentation that the first MZ-2 contract was fulfilled but the quantity was so small it was under that amount. Also, small items like tools we very inexpensive... I have a Delivery Improvement report for Willys on a Positive Battery Terminal that was for 210 units at .04555/unit for $9.57 (this document takes up page 546 in Fred's chapter in Volume 2). That terminal would be less that $30k for all WW2 jeeps made.

Using this concept Furney-Shirwin (Federal) may well have had a contract to the government for an A-375 Screwdriver for what? .25 each... totaling 199,999 units and still be under the $50K limit. We all have seen Utica 7-C Pliers Ads with $.25/each on them and a screwdriver should be less that the cost of pliers.

In the broad sense, jeeps were a minor contract. Building an Army or Navy Air Base, Aircraft carrier or battleship was a big contract. :)
MB-NAVY-MZ-1 352625 - 07/20/44 (DOD est.)
U.S.N. 133818
2nd place Restored Class 2008 Portland Convention
MVPA Hall of Fame - 2013

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Wingnutt » Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:48 pm

These unit prices would not have been comnercial catalog prices, Mark, and would've had all kinds of overhead built in to accommodate the increased G&A associated with a high volume order. That said, I have never said it was an implausible explanation. Without documentation to substantiate it, it still puts them in a unverified category, in my opinion. Especially when you compare apples to apples.

If tools were so cheap, why were there so many QMC and ORD contracts with so many other tool Mfgrs (i.e., Crescent, Danielson, Irwin, etc) for similar tools (i.e., screwdrivers, pliers) that easily and consistently exceeded the $50,000 threshold? One can't draw conclusions like that to justify a missing mfgr (i.e., MH) without looking at all the QMC and ORD supply contract data. As far as I know, that has never been done before.

Again, I have no stake and would live to verify more, not less, suppliers. But none of these possibilities can put these suppliers into the same category as the verified suppliers without documentation, in my opinion. That would just flat out be dismissive of a valid government reference.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Mark Tombleson
MZ Radio Operator
Posts: 9836
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:58 pm
Location: Selah, Washington

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Mark Tombleson » Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:57 pm

In 1929, Walker acquired Ajax Auto Parts Company and became one of the country's leading jack producers.
http://www.walkerexhaust.com/about-walk ... er-history

I think you will find all the jack contracts for the Ajax were with Walker in Racine, WI on page 3287.
MB-NAVY-MZ-1 352625 - 07/20/44 (DOD est.)
U.S.N. 133818
2nd place Restored Class 2008 Portland Convention
MVPA Hall of Fame - 2013

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Wingnutt » Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:45 am

Agreed, Mark. I recall all the good discussions we've had here on the A-12268 and I had them off this tab in the database. Thanks for the catch.

The big headscratcher with jacks for me is the motorpool spares for the early to mid war A-1204 jack. It's easy for me to see how the ORD bought wrenches, screwdrivers and pliers etc from multiple vendors. The #200W-G jack seems more of a sole source item to me. Unless the ORD bought spares and replacement jacks from a different supplier we don't know about. Ironically, that might explain the variances in cup and base etc that trouble some collectors.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Chuck Lutz » Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:54 am

Just for clarification....the $50,000 figure.....is it incidental or cumulative?

So I would ask if the $50,000 benchmark means that if a company has 15 contracts for $45,000 then they never made "the list" because they didn't cross the $50,000 threshold on any ONE contract?

Lots of names on that list that are VERY familiar!

To look at this another way.....if the "BRISTOL WRENCH" for the jeep toolkit was supplied by Ford and Willys and per their contract the ALSO supplied a certain percentage of "spares" along with that vehicle contract....It might also hold true that an Automotive Repairmans Toolkit might contain a Bristol wrench also but would be included in the contract for the kit as a whole.....over and above that, contracts for additional Bristol wrenches at maybe FIVE CENTS +/- for 10,000 of them would only be $500.00. I doubt if the procurement office would buy that many at a time either....as for the NOERA, GEM or EAGLE oilers, the same situation would exist: the jeep came with one and additional ones would be provided as well as "spares". Beyond that the gov't could buy directly from the mfger.....

This is a pretty good example since I think the ratio of "correct" oilers we find today including NOS examples....favors EAGLE and GEM over NOERA....but that might be explained by Ford/Willys favoring EAGLE initially. While the example given for oilers at EIGHTEEN CENTS may in fact have been TWICE as much as the gov't paid....that actually makes is much easier to order QUANTITY and still fall under the $50,000 threshold for making the list.

It's a hell of a lot of info to help us out, but as usual, we end up with as many questions as answers.....if we discount GEM, EAGLE, NOERA as "vendors" to the gov't then we are going to have to re-write the "book" on what oiler to use in our jeeps....unless they were only provided through contracts originating with Ford/Willys.

(Thanks Tom....)
Last edited by Chuck Lutz on Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

User avatar
Tom Wolboldt
banned
Posts: 8353
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:29 am

Hi Chuck,

The $50,000 minimum figures in the above referenced documents are per contract and not by company.

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Wingnutt » Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:16 am

Seeing all the data helps get a sense for scale and scope and also the patterns, where the contracts were clearly more like what we call purchase orders today, one after the other, separated only by a few months at times, for the same tool, from the same vendors.

The concept of the ORD purchasing spares through the vehicle Mfgr has come up on the other two list threads, Chuck. As have some other potential explanations, including the "toolkit" explanation. All more or less possible. I just think we now need some substantiation for suppliers that have nothing going for them, regardless of what was previously thought with nothing to back it up.

The cheap tool = less than $50k explanation has also come up in more detail on the other list threads and for convenience I will just direct you to my replies there. In brief, I don't dismiss it as a possibility outright. But it doesnt always bear out with some tools of similar size and simplicty that do have plenty of contracts.

In sum, there are many questions. None of them should make us conclude that we should keep all the previously "acceptable" suppliers in the "acceptable" category, unless they have some other evidentiary support, in my opinion.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Chuck Lutz » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:11 am

I think it also VERY important if we look at a "NO CONTRACTS" list not only to exclude some mfgers, but to include others....with an eye to what exactly constitutes "tools". For the sake of the G503 I think our focus is limited to the vehicles the gee covers and the GMTKs related to them.

With that in mind....again, the mfgers of those vehicles chose their mfgers with no assistance from Gov't list makers....if it fit the spec, it was good to go. A good many of the vehicle kit guys are interested in the FACTORY tool kit....which makes what the gov't lists included or excluded a non-issue. To learn about those kits, we have to look at Ford/Willys(other veh. mfgers) documents.

For the gov't supply system, a certain number of those items would be a part of the "spares" program the veh. mfgers supplied and again, not on Gov't lists. It would be those tools purchased for those vehicles (and the GMTKs) after those supplies were used up that would appear in those three documents.

At that point in time it would seem silly to purchase on one contract over $50,000 worth of ANY tool contained in a jeep tool kit....multiple contracts of lesser value over time...yes....so it would be very easy for a mfger of say, jeep chains or jeep oil cans to not appear anywhere whatsover with a $50,000 threshhold for listing a contract.

Personally I don't think that the NO CONTRACTS list is useful for eliminating any particular mfger of a jeep tool kit item based on the above...

To compound the problem though, if we are going to "confirm" any mfger as "Correct" for a jeep tool kit then for the factory kit, Willys/Ford(other che. mfgers) will confirm that.....

A problem with the CONTRACTS list of vendors is the nomenclature used to describe what the purchase item WAS is not consistent, nor does it elaborate beyond "tools" or "wrenches" which may never have been used on a vehicle and may ONLY have been used at higher echelon services. Not to mention that a wrench bought by the ARMY might have been for an AIRCRAFT and not at all for a vehicle.

These are good lists...but I think you have to interpret what the say, and include as well as what they don't go into detail about or elaborate on....

The vehicle mfgers documents are best for factory kits.....but I would have to ask the GMTK guys something:
Did the gov't buy the boxes and individual tools and assemble them or did they purchase a kit spec'd for each individual use? If they assembled them in-house at the QM or ORD facilities then there might be records on purchases directly relating to the GMTKs. If they bought them as a "kit" then maybe somewhere in all this there is info on WHO put them together and who they bought from?
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Wingnutt » Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:21 am

Chuck Lutz wrote: A good many of the vehicle kit guys are interested in the FACTORY tool kit....which makes what the gov't lists included or excluded a non-issue. To learn about those kits, we have to look at Ford/Willys(other veh. mfgers) documents.
Of course. As has already been noted. In the context of G503, these lists would contain tools the QMC and ORD would’ve purchased for spares and replacement tools, commonly referred to as “motorpool” here. A secondary benefit of the data contained in the reference, however, is the confirmation that “motorpool” (QMC and ORD supplied) and “factory” (Willys an Ford supplied) suppliers were clearly, inarguably not always the same. Hopefully, it also dispels the misguided idea of the concept of a “motorpool approach” as being somehow ‘anything goes, as long as it’s vintage correct and from a wartime supplier’ or ‘as close to the factory toolkit as possible.’ The “motorpool” toolkit was its own entity, with its own identity, and its own brands, which would’ve been provided - at the very least - by the suppliers on the VERIFIED list. If the also bought tools from other vendors, in less than threshold quantities, I'm all for more research to find them.
Chuck Lutz wrote:At that point in time it would seem silly to purchase on one contract over $50,000 worth of ANY tool contained in a jeep tool kit
What you’re saying here is that in addition to the factory toolkits, Willys and Ford were contracted to supply the majority of the toolkit spares that the QMC and ORD planned for the rest of the war? Wow. First of all, Chuck, that runs contrary to everything I have read on the subject of QMC and ORD tools supply. Secondly, to draw this conclusion, you would have to know, definitively, that the QMC and ORD (a) bought toolkit tool spares through the vehicle mfgr contracts, and (b) that they bought them in quantities sufficient to meet their logistics projections for the entire war. If you have any documentation that shows that Willys and Ford bought most of the tools the QMC and ORD planned for the vehicles lifecycle, please provide it.
Chuck Lutz wrote:so it would be very easy for a mfger of say, jeep chains or jeep oil cans to not appear anywhere whatsover with a $50,000 threshhold for listing a contract.
That’s interesting, since there are several of the automotive chain manufacturers attributed to Jeep on the “sticky” (e.g., American Chain and Cable – who made WEED brand chains, Columbus McKinnon, and Hodell) with millions of dollars in QMC and ORD contracts in the reference. By the same token, several of the other chain supplier names mentioned on the “sticky” (e.g., Nixdorff-Krein) did NOT have a contract. Just like the situation with pliers (no McKaig-Hatch, but PLENTY of other pliers makers in the ORD vendor stable), just like the situation with auto wrenches (no Moore Drop Forgings, but PLENTY of other auto wrench makers in the ORD vendor stable). Again, examples like these make these arguments seem awfully inconsistent, convenient and defensive of old convictions. Postulating that Danielson, Crescent etc had big contracts and McKaig-Hatch must’ve had small ones seems like the tail wagging the dog to me. Ditto with Weed versus Nixdorff-Krein. Again, I wouldn’t rule it out. But it will require some evidence now, in my opinion. Give the plethora of other vendors who the QMC and ORD did have large contract with for THE SAME tools, I believe it's much more prudent to assume that if they had wanted to contract with the missing vendors for those tools, they would have. To argue that these mfgrs shouldn’t be considered questionable, and that they should still be considered with equal status on the “sticky” as the mfgrs who are on the verified list with QMC and/or ORD contracts makes no sense and seems willfully parochial about those mfgrs in my opinion.
Chuck Lutz wrote:A problem with the CONTRACTS list of vendors is the nomenclature used to describe what the purchase item WAS is not consistent, nor does it elaborate beyond "tools" or "wrenches"
The version I have, published in late 1945, includes the following terms for individual contracts with the major US tool mfgrs I have found, sorted in alphabetical order: adjustable wrenches, auto wrenches, box wrenches, brushes, chain pliers, chests, cleaning brushes, electrician’s knives, engineers wrenches, files, gages, hammers, hand pliers, hand saws, hand tools, hardware, lubricating equipment, lubricating guns, machinists tools, machinists hammers, machinists hand tools, misc tools, monkey wrenches, pipe wrenches, pliers, ratchet wrenches, repair tools, saws, saws and blades, screwdrivers, shears, socket wrenches, socket wrench bars, socket wrench handles, special service tools, truck tools, steel chests, steel toolboxes, toolboxes, tool cases, tool chests, toolkits, tools, and wrenches.

What version of the reference are you reviewing, Chuck?

Or did you just make a statement about the terminology used to describe the contracts in a document you have not actually read?
Chuck Lutz wrote:Not to mention that a wrench bought by the ARMY might have been for an AIRCRAFT and not at all for a vehicle.
The Air Corps had its own tool contracts, which exceeded the Ordnance Department's in number and total value. Contrary to your supposition, there is no indication that tools purchased by the QMC and ORD were provided to the Air Corps for Air Corps use, and PLENTY of evidence to the contrary. But this is an area I am reading more about through other sources.
Chuck Lutz wrote:Did the gov't buy the boxes and individual tools and assemble them or did they purchase a kit spec'd for each individual use? If they assembled them in-house at the QM or ORD facilities then there might be records on purchases directly relating to the GMTKs. If they bought them as a "kit" then maybe somewhere in all this there is info on WHO put them together and who they bought from?
There’s no might be and maybe about it. The QMC and then the ORD had responsibility for fielding GMTK’s and GMTK spares (just like they had the responsibility for G50X spares), and this reference contains the records of contracts (purchase orders) over $50,000 for those tools.
TEMPORARY DUTY

User avatar
Mark Tombleson
MZ Radio Operator
Posts: 9836
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:58 pm
Location: Selah, Washington

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Mark Tombleson » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:58 pm

I think it important to note this is a big document and there is a lot of information in it.

It makes my head hurt. :wink:
MB-NAVY-MZ-1 352625 - 07/20/44 (DOD est.)
U.S.N. 133818
2nd place Restored Class 2008 Portland Convention
MVPA Hall of Fame - 2013

User avatar
Wingnutt
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5029
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:17 pm
Location:

Re: WARTIME SUPPLIERS: LIST C (NO CONTRACTS)

Post by Wingnutt » Tue May 16, 2017 5:48 pm

Looked up a long list of vise mfgrs today. Those who had ORD or QMC contracts were added to the "A" List.

Unfortunately, I could find no records for the following, and they have ben added to post 1 of this thread for now.

Athol M&F Co
Hollands
Littlestown
Palmgren
Last edited by Wingnutt on Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
TEMPORARY DUTY


Post Reply

Return to “G503 Tools & Equipment (Vehicle & Pioneer)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thomas Jacobson and 40 guests