![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My bet is that the track jack with the longer fingers is the earlier type. The long fingers would be prone to bending and breaking. My money says the short fingers are to reduce the chance of bending the fingers, and the spacer stops the operator from over tensioning the track jack to the point of breaking the fingers. I think the spacer will come pretty close to the distance of a track section.
Last edited by rob love; 30-07-21 at 04:49. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think you are correct, Rob.
If you look at the photos Derk posted with the tape measure on the long version, the tips look like they are already flaring outward beyond the 2-inch mark. Be interesting if Derk measured the gap at the shaft and at the tips. I would guess the tip gap is greater. David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
those longer ones are definitely going to be more prone to bending,
i have a jack that is in pretty good condition and it has the CO1UC part number on the inside of the jaws do these long jaw versions have a part number? |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian UC track jack on eBay uk | Colin Alford | Auction and Classified Ad Site Heads Up | 0 | 28-03-21 05:54 |
Track Jack Identity ? | Andrew Rowe | The Armour Forum | 1 | 15-10-14 09:15 |
track jack | kevin powles | The Carrier Forum | 4 | 23-08-11 17:15 |
Track Jack ID Required | B. Harris | The Armour Forum | 3 | 10-08-11 18:29 |
M 113 Track Jack | Doug Lavoie | The Armour Forum | 4 | 26-11-09 09:28 |