M-65 Field Jacket

[CatsCan]

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

M65s made by So Sew are considered to have belonged to the best M65s back then along with some others like Golden Manufacturing, Alpha (the old Alpha, not today's).

I happen to own a rarer one with a Talon main Zip (aluminum). It has the gusseted sleeve cuffs seen on the older ones. This one has no maker's name printed on the label but the manufacturer can be traced just by the contract number alone. Mine was made by Ralph Edwards Inc. in 1967. The label on mine was about to come loose so I took it off and put it in one of the breast pockets before I washed and ironed the jacket.

I wonder what my M65 has seen in it's day.

Cats

 

[Preppy Climber]

M65s made by So Sew are considered to have belonged to the best M65s back then along with some others like Golden Manufacturing, Alpha (the old Alpha, not today's).

I happen to own a rarer one with a Talon main Zip (aluminum). It has the gusseted sleeve cuffs seen on the older ones. This one has no maker's name printed on the label but the manufacturer can be traced just by the contract number alone. Mine was made by Ralph Edwards Inc. in 1967. The label on mine was about to come loose so I took it off and put it in one of the breast pockets before I washed and ironed the jacket.

View attachment 627709 View attachment 627710

View attachment 627715

I wonder what my M65 has seen in it's day.

View attachment 627713


Cats

You have a very nice M-65 field jacket! And good to know that I purchased a jacket from one of the better manufacturers.

I would love to own a '65 with an aluminum zipper. In addition to the brass zipper, I have a jacket (woodland camo) with the plastic green zipper--my least favorite.

I, too, wonder what my '65s and M-1943 have seen. I feel honored and proud to wear these articles of clothing. Same with my American railroad pocket watches.

 

[vintagewool]

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!

Your concerns about purchasing and contractor are resolved but I have some information about sizes.

The difference between a 1991 X-Short and Short is 1.5in but with a margin of error of + or - 1in in each coat, so an actual X-Short might be longer than an actual Short directly out of the factory. This is one reason why it helps to get actual measurements of the current item to estimate actual fit.

Mil-Spec:
3.8 Finished Measurements (combining data from 2 documents):
WIDTH     LENGTH
          XXS   XS    S
1991
 XS         N    Y    Y
  S         N    Y    Y
  M         N    Y    Y
  L         N    N    Y
 XL         N    N    Y
XXL         N    N    N [NONE IN ANY LENGTH]
2007
 XS         N    Y    Y
  S         Y    Y    Y
  M         Y    Y    Y
  L         N    N    Y 
 XL         N    N    Y
XXL         N    N    N [IN X-LONG ONLY]

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

The 2007 XX-Short in M and S but not XS is curious. Perhaps the change adressed shorter men rather than women, although I saw no specific mention of the reason.

2007 was about the time of recruiting problems because of disillusionment with the Iraq War and lowering of recruiting standards.

Military Lowers Standards To Fill Ranks

The Army Is Taking Chances On Recruits With Rap Sheets

www.cbsnews.com

It would be interesting to see the pre-1991 "mil-specs" for exactly which sizes were available when. It would be even better to see the breakdown by numbers produced and in what colors.

 

[Preppy Climber]

Your concerns about purchasing and contractor are resolved but I have some information about sizes.

The difference between a 1991 X-Short and Short is 1.5in but with a margin of error of + or - 1in, so an actual X-Short might be longer than an actual Short directly out of the factory. This is one reason why it helps to get actual measurements of the current item to estimate actual fit.

Mil-Spec:
3.8 Finished Measurements (combining data from 2 documents):
WIDTH     LENGTH
          XXS   XS    S
1991
 XS         N    Y    Y
  S         N    Y    Y
  M         N    Y    Y
  L         N    N    Y
 XL         N    N    Y
XXL         N    N    N [NONE IN ANY LENGTH]
2007
 XS         N    Y    Y
  S         Y    Y    Y
  M         Y    Y    Y
  L         N    N    Y
 XL         N    N    Y
XXL         N    N    N [IN X-LONG ONLY]

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

The 2007 XX-Short in M and S but not XS is curious. Perhaps the change adressed shorter men rather than women, although I saw no specific mention of the reason.

2007 was about the time of recruiting problems because of disillusionment with the Iraq War and lowering of recruiting standards.

Military Lowers Standards To Fill Ranks

The Army Is Taking Chances On Recruits With Rap Sheets

www.cbsnews.com

It would be interesting to see the pre-1991 "mil-specs" for exactly which sizes were available when. It would be even better to see the breakdown by numbers produced and in what colors.

As always, thank you for being helpful! I should have asked that the seller provide the total length of the jacket. Keeping my fingers crossed it checks out to my satisfaction. I'll soon find out as the jacket is on its way to me.

 

[vintagewool]

As always, thank you for being helpful! I should have asked that the seller provide the total length of the jacket. Keeping my fingers crossed it checks out to my satisfaction. I'll soon find out as the jacket is on its way to me.

Errors are usually in a "normal" ("bell curve") distribution, so most '65 length errors likely would be a small fraction of an inch, but there is always the chance for outliers that passed mil-spec inspection. That also means that there COULD be an X-Short that is nearly 1in SHORTER than the nominal X-Short length (or that has nearly 17in shoulders).

The sections 1.2, 3.3.9.1, and 3.8 size data of those PDFs are the kind of information that you might want to keep handy while shopping.