M-65 Field Jacket

[Preppy Climber]

I put the short (non-prickly) liner on the extra short jacket. The liner extends 1-1 1/2 inches past the bottom of the jacket. Also the bottom button and button hole don't line up, but that's a super easy fix--add a button hole to the liner. However, I will leave as is. It's unlikely I will be wearing the extra short prickly liner with just a t-shirt underneath. And if I happen to come across another extra small/extra short liner for a great deal, I'll consider it--and this time will ask about the material! That size is rare, however, but things do pop up.

The good news is my M-1943 field jacket came in and it looks and fits great! I must admit, it is a much better fit on me than my beloved M-65 jackets. @vintagewool thanks again for alerting me to the jacket. I I love it!

I do have a question. The date on my M-1943 jacket states 19 May 1952. When were those jackets discontinued? Thanks!

 

[vintagewool]

The good new is, my M-1943 field jacket came in and it looks and fits great! I must admit, it is a much better fit on me than my beloved M-65 jackets. @vintagewool thanks again for alerting me to the jacket. I I love it!

I do have a question. The date on my M-1943 jacket states 19 May 1952. When were those jackets discontinued? Thanks!

Congratulations on the better fit of the '43.

From earlier:
"The '43 women's version essentially was still being made in the 1970s at least, in a nylon blend (like the '65 shell is a nylon blend), without "M-1943" on the tag."

I haven't seen exact numbers for dates and total production.

The men's '43 was nominally obsolete with the adoption of the nearly identical M-1950 and then the zippered M-1951 jacket. However, a story about Norwegian-surplus men's '43 jackets is that Norway manufactured their own, although I don't know why they would, nor have I seen any evidence that they did.

Did Norway or any other country make men's '43 jackets?
Did Norway or any other country make women's '43 jackets?

This is a typical lack of actual facts in common "histories."

 

[Preppy Climber]

Congratulations on the better fit of the '43.

From earlier:
"The '43 women's version essentially was still being made in the 1970s at least, in a nylon blend (like the '65 shell is a nylon blend), without "M-1943" on the tag."

I haven't seen exact numbers for dates and total production.

The men's '43 was nominally obsolete with the adoption of the nearly identical M-1950 and then the zippered M-1951 jacket. However, a story about Norwegian-surplus men's '43 jackets is that Norway manufactured their own, although I don't know why they would, nor have I seen any evidence that they did.

Did Norway or any other country make men's '43 jackets?
Did Norway or any other country make women's '43 jackets?

This is a typical lack of actual facts in common "histories."

From earlier:
"The '43 women's version essentially was still being made in the 1970s at least, in a nylon blend (like the '65 shell is a nylon blend), without "M-1943" on the tag."

Oh, that's right. I must pay better attention!

 

[Preppy Climber]

Congratulations on the better fit of the '43.

From earlier:
"The '43 women's version essentially was still being made in the 1970s at least, in a nylon blend (like the '65 shell is a nylon blend), without "M-1943" on the tag."

I haven't seen exact numbers for dates and total production.

The men's '43 was nominally obsolete with the adoption of the nearly identical M-1950 and then the zippered M-1951 jacket. However, a story about Norwegian-surplus men's '43 jackets is that Norway manufactured their own, although I don't know why they would, nor have I seen any evidence that they did.

Did Norway or any other country make men's '43 jackets?
Did Norway or any other country make women's '43 jackets?

This is a typical lack of actual facts in common "histories."

I was wondering when zippers started appearing in U.S. military field jackets.

Although my '43 jacket fits me quite well, the '65 appears to be more heavy duty and practical; for example, the deep pockets. I also thought the '43 had chest pockets, but the flaps appear to be just for looks. Or perhaps the women's jackets were designed differently than the men's? All this being said, I like both jackets.

 

[vintagewool]

I was wondering when zippers started appearing in U.S. military field jackets.

Although my '43 jacket fits me quite well, the '65 appears to be more heavy duty and practical; for example, the deep pockets. I also thought the '43 had chest pockets, but the flaps appear to be just for looks. Or perhaps the women's jackets were designed differently than the men's? All this being said, I like both jackets.

The previous post about the "MINT" '43 jacket mentioned that the women's top pockets were different.

M-65 Field Jacket

Is Helikon a civilian version of the M65? I don't know. It's an authentic M65, according to U.S. Army specification.

www.thefedoralounge.com

The WWII U.S. trend was for women's uniforms to have false breast pockets (see the previous links on WAC/WAVES). One might think that there would have been an exception with the baggier field jacket, but, alas, no. I don't recall ever seeing a '43 men's jacket with shoulders smaller than about 18in (like the 18in '65 shoulders), so you faced the trade-off between 16in shoulders and breast pockets. For wearing history, the "WAC" jacket's false pockets become part of the charm.

M43 Jacket sizing question 34R

Hi there all, just another M43 question. I've heard the originals are oversized, and am in a good position to pick one up ....... a smaller one for a decent price. However, i am unsure if the oversizing will still make a smaller size run too large for my bust. Not necessarily MY bust primarily, b...

www.usmilitariaforum.com

Zippers are controversial in military gear, because of reliability and repair. The '41 field jacket has a zipper, but also has a back-up of a buttoned storm flap. The '65 liner is buttoned, not zipped. The 1980s BDU trousers are buttoned, not zipped.

The '65 jacket has more features than the '43, such as built-in hood and zipper, which add weight.

I don't recall the real mil-spec '65 fabric weight right now but the '43 fabric weight was heavier than the '41 (see previous usww2uniforms.com links).

Differences among '65 jackets:

Alpha Industries M65 Field Jacket

With the built in hood, they are stiff enough to want to stay up. It takes some work to make them fold down. I think we wore them folded down, but that is so long ago, I can't really remember. I just checked mine from 1966, and it is folded down. So, that's the way I wore it then (what little I...

www.thefedoralounge.com

 

[Preppy Climber]

How do you know all this stuff? You're amazing!

The false pockets don't bother me. And I definitely noticed the '43 is much lighter than the '65. Can't wait for cooler weather so that I can rock both field jackets.

 

[Observe]

Found this site which has some information about the M-65, hopefully someone finds it useful.

The Ultimate Visual Buyers Guide to the M65 Field Jacket

Known worldwide for its iconic appearances in mainstream media and countless after-market commercial reproductions, the M-65 field jacket has flawlessly integrated into the world of modern fashion. Its utilitarian and simple, yet stylish design appeals to a vast audience from casual vintage...

omegamilitaria.com

 

[vintagewool]

How do you know all this stuff? You're amazing!

The false pockets don't bother me. And I definitely noticed the '43 is much lighter than the '65. Can't wait for cooler weather so that I can rock both field jackets.

Other people probably know more than me about M-65 contractors and other things.

It looks like your next report will be after Labor Day, unless you fly to the Southern Hemisphere before then to wear your jackets. There might be a government grant for that.

 

[vintagewool]

Does anyone know reliable sources about military-contract M-65 jackets for these questions?

1. The fabric weight of the shell?
2. The fabric weight of the permanent lining?
3. The material of the permanent lining?

I thought the lining was 100% cotton but apparently at least one late-production contract was not so. The actual labels in Observe's recent link show a "NYLON COTTON BLEND" of less-than-100%-cotton permanent lining (I had seen that webpage before, and that detail has been nagging at me, so now seemed like an opportune time to ask; the webpage's text seems to mis-identify the aluminum zippers as "chromed").

A recent search for fabric weights didn't produce a clear source similar to this:

M-1943 Field Jacket (Specification PQD 370E Dated 13 January 1945)

www.usww2uniforms.com

Thank you.

 

[rattlesnake501]

Does anyone know reliable sources about military-contract M-65 jackets for these questions?

1. The fabric weight of the shell?
2. The fabric weight of the permanent lining?
3. The material of the permanent lining?

I thought the lining was 100% cotton but apparently at least one late-production contract was not so. The actual labels in Observe's recent link show a "NYLON COTTON BLEND" of less-than-100%-cotton permanent lining (I had seen that webpage before, and that detail has been nagging at me, so now seemed like an opportune time to ask; the webpage's text seems to mis-identify the aluminum zippers as "chromed").

A recent search for fabric weights didn't produce a clear source similar to this:

http://[URL]http://www.usww2uniforms.com/370E.html

[/URL]


Thank you.

I'm not an expert, but i do have some experience in milsurp clothing from years of buying and wearing it. I also own three m65s from different eras.

It wouldn't be surprising if the lining material changed from maker to maker or era to era. If I were to guess, the more common liner material (in 80s and later jackets anyway) would be nyco, with cotton showing up in earlier jackets.

Unless someone has a copy of the technical specifications for the m65, we likely won't know what was originally specified (if anything was- sometimes tech specs will say something along the lines of "or equivalent" which opens the door for substitutions based on what's available and hits cost metrics). Even if the specs did call out a particular composition in 1965, there's a chance there was a revised spec that changed the required composition.

And that's ignoring the jackets from, say, Alpha Industries that are made for the civilian market by a maker that also holds military contracts for garments. I also own one from a brand that we would normally associate with malls that came to me new with what looks an awful lot (to me) like a military depot stock tag hanging on it. If memory serves, the contractor of note was American Eagle, but don't quote me on that- the jacket has been buried in a closet for a long while.

Welcome to military surplus... even the clear stuff can be a little foggy sometimes.

 

[Voodude]

I really don't have much to add to this conversation about the M-65. However, my father had an M-51 he bought in 1959. He wore it through the 60s while in the military. I started wearing it in the 80's and on into the 90s. Eventually it started getting worn as the jacket you wear when you know you are going to get dirty. I eventually had to throw it away. The whole point of me saying all of this is to say, that jacket was the softest jacket I have ever seen in my 50 years of life. It had been well worn and washed many times. I loved the feel of it so much.

 

[Peacoat]

I have two liners for my field jackets. The first is a late 60s–early 70s liner that a friend gave me. It is a very heavy liner that would only be suitable for climates such as Canada and the northern tier of states in the US. It substantially reduces the available room in the jacket..

The second liner is a nylon liner I found online that is thin and more versatile than the heavy liner. Of course it isn't nearly as warm , but it's easier to move around in the jacket when the liner is installed.

Field jackets issued in the Southern states were issued without a liner. So the acquisition of a liner, when needed, was up to the individual, through the supply room, or otherwise.

 

[Trenchfriend]

@Peacoat
Easily to see, that the above users are fake or bots!

 

[Doctor Damage]

Here's links to download the Mil-Spec documents for the modern-day M65 jackets. I haven't downloaded anything from this site for a few years, so don't know if it still works or is safe.

M65 jacket dated 1991 (still has fold-down cuff extensions)
MIL-C-43455J, MILITARY SPECIFICATION: COAT, COLD WEATHER, FIELD (21-AUG-1991)
http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-C/MIL-C-43455J_43131/

M65 jacket dated 2007 (fold-down cuff extensions deleted in this spec)
MIL-DTL-43455K, DETAIL SPECIFICATION: COAT, COLD WEATHER, FIELD (02-AUG-2007) [SUPERSEDING MIL-C-43455J]
http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-DTL/MIL-DTL-43455K_43130/

 

[vintagewool]

Here's links to download the Mil-Spec documents for the modern-day M65 jackets. I haven't downloaded anything from this site for a few years, so don't know if it still works or is safe.

M65 jacket dated 1991 (still has fold-down cuff extensions)
MIL-C-43455J, MILITARY SPECIFICATION: COAT, COLD WEATHER, FIELD (21-AUG-1991)
http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-C/MIL-C-43455J_43131/

M65 jacket dated 2007 (fold-down cuff extensions deleted in this spec)
MIL-DTL-43455K, DETAIL SPECIFICATION: COAT, COLD WEATHER, FIELD (02-AUG-2007) [SUPERSEDING MIL-C-43455J]
http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-DTL/MIL-DTL-43455K_43130/

It looks like that site content-scraped a source that is not secure, not safe, and not reliable, the U.S. federal government:

https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=23626

 

[vintagewool]

Anyone finally seen on his jacket, if it's satin-weave http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=satin+weave&FORM=HDRSC2 , plain-weave or twill-weave?

Jacket: Weave (Shell):
'41 = Poplin (but some with Twill instead).
'43 = Sateen (but some with Oxford cloth instead).
'65 OG-107 color = Sateen.
'65 Desert 6-color = Twill (according to 1991 Mil-Spec document below).

https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=23626

There might have been other alternate weaves not mentioned here.

 

[vintagewool]

I'm clearly an idiot, because I cannot figure out what the Army/Marines issue in 2024 for a winter coat. I thought I'd find an M-65 derivative in the Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP), but I also realize it was phased out nearly two decades ago. I just thought the replacement would be clear, but I can't figure it out. Can anyone provide a link for the new winter coat? Or just the official naming?

Your confusion is understandable because the DLA in 2020 cancelled the 2007 M-65 Mil-Spec as a dead end:

MIL-DTL-43455K
NOTICE 1
January 12, 2020
COAT, COLD WEATHER, FIELD
MIL-DTL-43455K, dated 2 August 2007, is hereby canceled without replacement.

https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=23626

PS: The "without replacement" might merely denote that there is no new "spec" for an "M-65" but the lack of breadcrumbs to any replacement is abrupt.

 

[Preppy Climber]

Update: I decided to move forward on purchasing, so you can disregard my post or chime in if you'd like.

I think I will be pulling the trigger on this vintage M-65 field jacket, extra small/extra short. That size is hard to come by in olive green. However, there is no manufacturer listed on the tag. Does that matter? All other M-65 field jackets I've come across, as well as own, have a manufacturer listed. Should there always be one listed?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/315561529708?_trkparms=amclksrc=ITM&aid=777008&algo=PERSONAL.TOPIC&ao=1&asc=20240131095853&meid=fb6cf4c9b2664263963df9f6259a331e&pid=101949&rk=1&rkt=1&itm=315561529708&pmt=1&noa=1&pg=4375194&algv=RecentlyViewedItemsV2&brand=Army&_trksid=p4375194.c101949.m162918&_trkparms=parentrq:c2052d271900ab72ad5bd2ddffff8156|pageci:fdc1ae64-446c-11ef-9bcd-da6f59f8a5cc|iid:1|vlpname:vlp_homepage

Thanks!

 

[CatsCan]

Usually contractors put their company name on the label. This '65 listed was made by So Sew Styles in Alabama.

Cats

 

[Preppy Climber]

The '65 listed was made by So Sew Styles in Alabama.

Cats

Wow. Thank you for this information! I wanted the jacket badly so I purchased it, but now that I know the name of the manufacturer, it makes me feel even better about the purchase.

So, I just looked closely at the tag all the way to the bottom and there it is, So Sew Styles. I'm used to seeing the name of the manufacturer much further up the tag.

I'm not too familiar with So Sew Styles, but now I must google!

Thanks again, @CatsCan!