Since both of these shovels are from the very first production runs of the Model 1943 shovels, it is quite illuminating to see how two companies interpreted the US Army specifications. From what I can tell, based on the examination of these tow shovels, the specifications were followed for overall construction dimensions, but there was apparently great leeway in the small details like rivets, metal forming, wood, etc.
Before we get too far into this comparison, here are a couple of front and back, overall shots, of the two shovels. As a quick side note, I believe that the AF&H shovel was likely all green originally, but the paint has since worn away.
 |
| Ames on left / AF&H on right |
 |
| Ames on left / AF&H on right |
I am going to just go down the list of differences that I noticed and show some side-by side shots to illustrate. I will let the photos speak for themselves for the most part. Let's take a look.
The first notable difference is the choice of wood used for the handles. The Ames shovel appears to have been made out of a softer, looser grain wood. You can feel the raised grain of the wood when held. The AF&H shovel is a much smoother, denser, tight grained, hardwood.
 |
| Ames on left / AF&H on right |
The butt ends of the handles are shaped somewhat differently as well. The AF&H shovel has a flat end, and the Ames shovel is rounded (the hole was drilled at some later date, most likely after it fell into civilian hands).
As we move down the handle, towards the blades, the next noticeable difference is the formation of the "shank tube", and fit of the wood handle to the shank. The shank on the Ames shovel is formed with a butted seam. The AF&H shovel is a complete tube and has no seam. You will also notice that the wood-to-shank fitting is different. On the Ames shovel, the wood handle is oversized and proud. On the AF&H shovel it fits smoothly.
 |
| Ames shovel |
 |
| AF&H shovel |
Next is the difference of the connecting rivet holding the wood handle to the shank.
 |
| Ames shovel on top / AF&H on bottom |
 |
| Ames shovel on top / AF&H on bottom |
Moving further down, it is quickly apparent that the handle mounting stud portion of the shank is very different on both shovels (the metal portion that extends from the handle, into the hinge bracket). On the Ames shovel, the stud and shank assembly was formed by "rolling" a piece of flat steel, leaving a distinct, butted seam. The steel used to form the stud and shank assembly is also much thicker on the Ames shovel. On the upper end of the rolled stud end, there is a crimped-on band that is used to reinforce the rolled construction since it is not solid or welded. You can see this clamping band protruding from the handle end of the tightening nut. On the AF&H shovel, this stud shank assembly is a solid metal tube, no seams, no clamp. The steel is also thinner.
 |
| Ames shovel |
 |
| AF&H shovel |
 |
| The clamping band can be seen on the Ames shovel, top. |
Next we'll look and the mounting bracket, hinge bracket, that connect the blade to the handle, forming the hinge. The overall shape of the two is the same, but the rivets used to connect them, and the shapes of the "wings" are different. On the Ames shovel, there is a flat edge on each ear. The difference in rivet types is quite evident on the back of the blade.
 |
| Ames shovel |
 |
| AF&H shovel |
 |
| Ames shovel |
 |
| AF&H shovel |
The pivot-pin rivets are very similar, but the end "peening" (mushrooming) is different. I can't tell if the two pins are the same diameter, with more, or less, peening on the end, or if they are two different sized diameters. I suspect that the AF&H shovel uses a smaller diameter pivot pin. When the AF&H shovel is folded, the blade and bracket is quite loose, indicating that the hole is larger than the pivot-pin. The Ames shovel is quite tight when folded, indicating that there is very little difference between the diameter of the hole, and the pivot-pin. Either way, the peened ends are different.
 |
| AF&H shovel on left / Ames shovel on right |
Moving down to the blade of the shovel, we notice that there are a couple of small differences there as well.
The upper shoulder of the blade is wider, (or taller, depending on how you look at it), on the AF&H shovel.
 |
| AF&H shovel on left / Ames shovel on right |
The pressed curved area that mates up to the hinge bracket is more rounded on the AF&H shovel.
 |
| Ames shovel on the left / AF&H on the right |
To some people, this in-depth analysis of two seemingly ordinary items, may seem a bit tedious, but it does give us some insight into the early production of this new tool, at a time the US was fully mobilized for industrial manufacturing, all over the country. It seems that there was some leeway in construction methods between the various companies that were contracted to produce equipment, with the overall goal being production over exact duplication.
I hope this comparison has been interesting, useful, and hopefully illuminating!
No comments:
Post a Comment