Correct shackles

[CUCVLOVER]

If you ever intend on flat towing keep then removable.

Good point.
I carry a large enough wrench to take them off for what ever reason.

 

[41cl8m5]

The front shackles are bigger or beefier than the rear ones. That's why the two different parts numbers. The rears are the round loop style while the front ones are like the lower front shackles on the m35a3. Don't know why they did this. But most cucvs will have the ones for the rear on all four corners. Just what I have seen. I personally use a large lock pin that has a threaded lock nut on the end just so someone could not just pull the pin and remove the shackle in two seconds, they will need a tool and work at it to get one.

 

[reaper556]

The front shackles are bigger or beefier than the rear ones. That's why the two different parts numbers. The rears are the round loop style while the front ones are like the lower front shackles on the m35a3. Don't know why they did this. But most cucvs will have the ones for the rear on all four corners. Just what I have seen. I personally use a large lock pin that has a threaded lock nut on the end just so someone could not just pull the pin and remove the shackle in two seconds, they will need a tool and work at it to get one.

I never knew there are 2 different sizes. I would be interested in seeing a comparison pic if anyone has one?

 

[cucvrus]

I never seen them and worked on them from new. I see now in the manual that they have 2 different part numbers but I never seen bigger ones on them. Even right off the car carrier 30 years ago. If they did I never noticed. I seen smaller ones.

 

[41cl8m5]

The shackles are the same size just the front ones according to the parts TM is just beefier instead of looking like round stock bent to shape its more of a triangler shape cross section wise. If you look at the m35a2 it's the same thing the front shackles are bigger than the ones on the rear. Never could get a answer as to why on both, I served most my time in maintenance units in the army in the 80s and 90s, the automotive sections were to concerned with just keeping up with all the issues coming their way to answer what they thought was a retarded question, so I stopped asking.

 

[lefty]

Engine & weight in the front, kinda makes sense you'd want beefier shackles up there if you're lifting the whole truck by them.

My 1028 is missing the 2 rears.

 

[the skull]

Mine was missing the front ones. And the rear bumper. The bumper I got
(thanks Doug) had the shackles. The front ones I got here were for a deuce,
I think they look good. Let's see if the pic works.

 

[the skull]

This works better, sorry

 

[Keith_J]

Front shackles are meant to lift the front axle with recovery boom. The offset gives clearance.

 

[Recovry4x4]

The shackles are the same size just the front ones according to the parts TM is just beefier instead of looking like round stock bent to shape its more of a triangler shape cross section wise. If you look at the m35a2 it's the same thing the front shackles are bigger than the ones on the rear. Never could get a answer as to why on both, I served most my time in maintenance units in the army in the 80s and 90s, the automotive sections were to concerned with just keeping up with all the issues coming their way to answer what they thought was a retarded question, so I stopped asking.

I know this isn't the deuce forum but I can answer the question why the deuce rear shackles are smaller. They are for trailer safety chains, not sling lifting. Rear slings use the adapter that hooks onto the fixture on top of the springs.

 

[cucvrus]

I looked at every shackle on every vehicle I have and in a pile of many extras I have and everyone of the ones I have has the same part number on them It is a GM part number and starts with a 14. And the engine would not be any heavier then a loaded truck being lifted. And they do lift loaded trucks also. Not just empty ones. I am trying to make rhyme and reason of this shackle issue. Never seen anything differnt or beefier front to back. i have seen some that were rustier then others mostly on the 1984 models. Then they dd a cadium plating to the later ones.

 

[cucvrus]

I was just looking at the Data Plates i have. The tie down load on the front eye is less then the tie down load on the rear eye. some by 2,000 lbs. Why would the front eye be heavier?
M1009 Front Eye 2945 Rear Eye 3455
M1008 Front Eye 3880 rear Eye 5765
M1010 same as M1008
So I have to wonder why the front eye would be any different then the rear eye. I know the front frame section on these CUCV's is weaker then the rear frame section. That has been the weak link on all older vehicles that I worked on. Designed safety crumble zones for impact protection is my guess. I had a few trucks with bent frames upfront from being bound down to hard. The D rings had chain imprints in them. Just a thought. and a few documented facts from the nomenclature data plate.