Jump to content

MILK utility pocket knives


dustin
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is quite the journey. Now I know why they made the "second version" knife. We had always focused on the screw driver being moved to the other end of the knife from the main blade, but I had never understood that it was the can opener that needed to be moved so the bulk of the knife would not get in the way while opening a can. Then there is the bevel on the can opener. The early knives did not have a bevel. They were cut square. The documents seem to show that the can opener change (second version knife) did not come about until August 1945. (post#89) That's much later than I thought.

It also appears that the early knives had blued blades, and the later ones had stainless blades. I must be guarded in my conclusions because recommendations do not always make it to production. It was recommended that the stud on the screw driver was to be narrowed, but I have never seen a Kingston or Stevenson knife have a narrow stud. Only the post war knives have them, in my experience. It also seems that testing was being done for over a year starting in late 1944. The documents never say when these knives were issued, but it would seem that they were issued, at least in limited, targeted areas well before the testing was completed. In post # 45, there is mention that the Marines had already issued these knives, It I understand the documents correctly, the testing seems to have concluded about the same time the war ended. Much of the testing in 1945 was on the second version knife. Thanks again, dustin.

Marv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got three knives, two marked U.S. MARINE CORPS and one unmarked on the scales with a KINGSTON marked clevis. All have the can opener on the opposite end from the main blade and have the bevel on the can opener.

One U.S. MARINE CORPS marked knife with the can opener on the main blade end has no bevel on the can opener.

Also noticed on the Ulster-48 marked knife the both sides of the can opener taper down to a more or less false edge, doesn't start to flatten out until you get up from the tip of the can opener.

The earliest knife I've seen so far with a smaller stud is the 1949 Camillus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not see any manufactures called out by name but I believe Kingston was involved for much of the process as evidenced by the tang stamp of USA. I slipped and cleaned this image in post #106

post-56-0-44521900-1481905691.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the practical application of going from paper to production, things do not always line up.

In these pictures, I have two knives, the left one is a 2nd version, and right one is a 1st version.

The 2nd version should have a beveled can opener, yet both of these versions have the straight cut can openers, i.e. without a bevel.

Both knives are marked Kingston on the clevis.

Marv

post-26996-0-39348100-1481943926.jpg

post-26996-0-03163900-1481943944.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this picture, I have a Marine Corps 1st version and an Army 1st version. 1st version knives should have straight cut can openers. Both of these have openers with large bevels. Since these are 1st versions with bright blades and not blued, are they post war "put togethers"? Who knows? And don't even try to compare Stevenson knives with Kingston. Similar but different.

 

Marv

post-26996-0-26807700-1481944289.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Notes on Knife, Pocket, General Purpose

A few pertinent observations:

In a document dated 31 July 1944, post # 37 reviews the evidence of the need for “such an item” called at the time, “Tool, Pocket, Individual”. It was to be issued to every man in the field. Contained in this document are recommendations dated as early as January 1944. “Nearly every one questioned on the subject believed that a pocket knife should be issued to all soldiers.”

In the same document, dated 31 July 1944 it is stated: “Pocket knife to be issued to every Marine: A 4 blade pocket knife to be issued 1 per individual was approved by Marine Corps on the 18th of May 1944. The knife adopted has the following characteristics: It shall be 4 bladed. The screwdriver to be lockable when open and long enough to service the carbine. The handle shall be dull in finish. It shall have a clevis to provide a means for attaching the knife to the person.”

Obviously, the final pocket knife did not include all the desired features. The lockable screw driver blade was never adopted. The “dull finish” handle was not adopted in favor of the bright handle knife with dark finish blades and springs.

It is interesting that one of the bases for needing an issued pocket knife was by observing the PX sales of pocket knives. The 1944 PX requirements for Boy Scout knives were for 3,584,000, and the need was still not being met.

At the end of post #39, the comments section of document dated 31 July 1944; “Knife can be finished either light or dull.” “Knife as proposed is believed to fulfill characteristics to greatest possible extent consistent with immediate production.”

post #69 The report dated 14 December 1944 (post#61) shows the problem with the can opener being troublesome on large cans, or cans with straight sides due to the first version position. (main blade on same end of knife as screwdriver.)

Test report 28 December 1944 comments on test results of Type 1 (polished blades), Type 2 (dark oxide blades and springs) and Type 3 (whole knife treated with dark oxide) knives, and concludes that the corrosion resistance treatment on the Type 3 knife is superior to Type 1 or Type 2. They recommend the Type 3 knife with a couple changes, make screwdriver ½ inch longer and provide locking device to lock it in the open position. Also, it recommends moving the thumbnail nick farther away from the pivot point of the can opener and leather punch to facilitate easier opening.

Post #16 3 April 1945

The Army calls it Knife, pocket, General purpose The Marines call it Knife, Pocket, Utility

Post #24 bottom of page

3 April 1945

Marine Corps advised that the same knife as in Army Quartermaster Corps, has already been adopted by the Marine Corps.

3 April 1945

The sub-committee recommends that Knife, Pocket, General Purpose be classified, without further service testing as “standard”.

“It is recommended that the Quarter Master General be charged with storage and issue of above said item.”

Jun 1945. There was a push all along to make the general purpose knife universal enough to replace the electrician’s knife TL-29, and the mountain knife, also there were efforts to replace the mess kit knives with the Knife, Pocket, General Purpose. In post #55, it indicates that the effort to make “limited, standard”, the electrician’s knife would not work due to the need for a much longer screw driver blade, and that making the locking mechanism for the longer screwdriver blade would be too complicated. They decided to retain the electrician’s knife and the mountain knife as they are.

The Jun 1945 report also says: “Industrial Service was contacted, and they now have adequate facilities to make 2,400,000 General Purpose Knives per quarter. Of the allocation, the Navy is taking about 800,000. This will leave 1,600,000 per quarter, or 6,400,000 per year, for Army use” “Industrial Service asserts that they could increase this production, if necessary.”

Who is this “Industrial Service” and did they have a connection with Kingston and Stevenson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In post #89, dated August 1945, it says that a change of position of the screw driver and can opener was made.

There is an indication that the Type 2 knife, with the blades and springs blued, leaving the scales bright, had been adopted and issued.

This next test report changes the nomenclature of this adopted knife to “Standard” Type 1, and the test knife as “experimental stainless steel knife”, Post #99. In a report dated September 29 1945 it was concluded that stainless blades were better than the dark coated blades. Also, the stud on the screw driver be reduced in diameter.

Post #108 shows bevel on can openers which are second version knives. In test report dated 29 September 1945.

In this report, it references the “standard” knife vs. the stainless steel bladed knife. This indicates that the blued blade “standard” Type 1 knife was in use for some time AND that the dark oxide (blued) bladed knives were made in 1st version (screw driver same end as main blade) and it was made in 2nd version knife (screw driver on opposite end as main blade.

Summary:

With all this new information, there were two major surprises to me. First, I had no idea that the first of these knives had dark oxide blades and springs, and seem to have been issued for most of 1945. The second surprise is the position of the can opener. It was the main reason for the change in the blade positions in the second version arrangement. The can opener itself had either a square cut edge or later, a beveled edge.

The problem with these documents, is that even though there is a certain progression as the recommended changes take place. The practical observation of knives in my collection is that there are 1st version knives with both square cut can openers as well as beveled can openers. There are can openers which have the Pat.Pend mark which have been considered an indicator for identifying the earliest production knives, that I have on both 1st and 2nd version knives. Not only that, but the Pat.Pend. can opener on the 2nd version has a bevel. I have two 1st version knives with narrow bladed hole punches, and two 2nd version knives with wide hole punches.

 

I did not find any information in these documents about the diameters of the hole punches other than the recommendations that the hole punch must be capable of making holes 1/6” to 3/16”. I have stainless blade knives (or highly polished steel) that are 1st version as well as 2nd version.

All these anomalies may simply suggest that regardless of the recommended changes, once in full production, it became a “parts is parts” kind of thing as the war was dragging on and they used a bucket of can opener blades which were square cut as well as beveled with the old 1st version knives and continued with the 2nd version knives. I can’t help wondering why, since the problem of the position of the can opener was known in December of 1944, that there are so many 1st version knives still found.

The most interesting variation is my 1st version Kingston/ U.S. 45 marked knife with bright blades and a screw driver that is narrower than standard and does NOT have the stud used to open it, and with a beveled can opener.

In spite of the volume of information that dustin as presented, there are still more questions than answers. I would loved to have seen a document stating when these knives were a fully implemented and issued item. Some production numbers and dates to go along with them would be nice. Maybe that’s why I like these little knives.

Any and all comments welcome!!!!!

Marv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good observations Marv! I'm glad someone made use of them.

That is the problem about uncovering things like this, more questions than answers arise. I'm sure somewhere in some box are the documents you seek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I'd add this correspondence I had with Tom Williams of Camillus about 5 years ago.

 

Camillus made only prototypes of the all metal camp knife during WWII. The all metal camp knife appears in Camillus' WWII records but never advanced beyond the sample stage and never went into production until 1949. I acquired some of the production records for Camillus after the company closed in 2007 and I discovered an order for several hundred thousand of the all metal camp knives in August, 1945, but these were cancelled after the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. The order was placed and cancelled in the first weeks of August, 1945. Camillus was geared up to produce this knife and even ordered some of the dies for production. The true story of this knife can be credited to Frank Trzaska.

Tom Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank Trzaska

Outstanding Dustin, great work. Keep it up, I look forward to seeing your book and I hope it is soon.

 

All the best

Frank Trzaska

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...