Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

M-65 Field Jacket

vintagewool

Familiar Face
Messages
84
Thank you for this! I just checked out pics of the 1943 field jacket. Very nice!
The M-1943 women's jacket (picture below) has different top pockets than the men's version.

M-1943FieldJacket-Women.png

https://www.ebay.com/itm/276354785200

http://www.usww2uniforms.com/370E.html
 

Preppy Climber

Familiar Face
Messages
74
M-1943/1951/65 Popularity: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery:

View attachment 623854

https://www.ebay.com/itm/276529123494
What a very nice looking jacket and great price! The pit to pit is about one inch smaller than the M-65 field jacket extra small and the length is about the same. I assumed the LRL jacket would be form fitting.

BTW, I initially thought the smallest size in M-65 jackets was extra small/short. I discovered the smallest made was extra small/extra short with the total length about 1 1/12 inches shorter than the short. I purchased a camouflage jacket in extra small/extra short, which is a better fit for me. I'll still keep and wear my olive green extra small/short. I love these M-65 field jackets!
 

vintagewool

Familiar Face
Messages
84
What a very nice looking jacket and great price! The pit to pit is about one inch smaller than the M-65 field jacket extra small and the length is about the same. I assumed the LRL jacket would be form fitting.

BTW, I initially thought the smallest size in M-65 jackets was extra small/short. I discovered the smallest made was extra small/extra short with the total length about 1 1/12 inches shorter than the short. I purchased a camouflage jacket in extra small/extra short, which is a better fit for me. I'll still keep and wear my olive green extra small/short. I love these M-65 field jackets!
You might want to check changing recruiting standards of minimum height for a clue about possible changes to available M-65 sizes. The post-draft shift to recruitment of women, plus additional possible changes to standards to meet recruitment quotas, might be reflected in M-65 contracted sizes. I would be interested in your findings.
 

Preppy Climber

Familiar Face
Messages
74
You might want to check changing recruiting standards of minimum height for a clue about possible changes to available M-65 sizes. The post-draft shift to recruitment of women, plus additional possible changes to standards to meet recruitment quotas, might be reflected in M-65 contracted sizes. I would be interested in your findings.
Thank you! I looked online and the current minimum height requirement for women is 58 inches. The smallest size I've come across for the M-65 field jacket is extra small/extra short, which states height up to 63 inches (I'm 61 inches). I would be surprised if they came in an even smaller size. The shoulders are 18 inches and my shoulders are 15 inches, but I decided I would rather wear a military issue M65 versus an imitation that would fit better on me.

I found a small handful of military issue M-65s in camouflage in extra small/extra short (and now I have two, both Alpha Industries--one with a brass zipper, other with the nylon/plastic zipper), but only one in olive green and that jacket is also the oldest M65 in xs/extra short I've come across (1982, Golden MFG.). It appears that size in olive green is rare in terms of folks selling. Attached is the link.

I'm somewhat hesitant to purchase the jacket given that it's ripped in a few places and has noticeable marks from what appeared to be patches removed. A seamstress can fix the rips, but it might be obvious that the areas were repaired. On the other hand, perhaps the imperfections could be part of the charm of owning and wearing a vintage M65 jacket. Anyone have thoughts on this jacket--snag it as it's the only olive green in my size currently on the market (from what I can tell) or pass? I do own an olive green in extra small/short, which I purchased before I discovered they were also made in extra short. I can and will still wear that one. Thanks for any input you might have!

https://www.etsy.com/listing/175067...fZCh9mheZaeiDxi1s-I8uPyyRVJ-mOCxoCTpQQAvD_BwE
 

vintagewool

Familiar Face
Messages
84
Thank you! I looked online and the current minimum height requirement for women is 58 inches. The smallest size I've come across for the M-65 field jacket is extra small/extra short, which states height up to 63 inches (I'm 61 inches). I would be surprised if they came in an even smaller size. The shoulders are 18 inches and my shoulders are 15 inches, but I decided I would rather wear a military issue M65 versus an imitation that would fit better on me.
One consolation from those data is that the smallest M-65 sits lower on the currently smallest allowed woman than the 2nd-smallest M-65 sits on you, since you are 3in above the minimum but the 2nd-smallest M-65 is only 1.5in longer than the smallest.

The drawstring allows adjusting the girth, mitigating a roomy chest size.

You might be able to fold the sleeve farther up into itself, bypassing the velcro point, or using a safety pin to attach a 2nd velcro point farther up.

Shorter sleeves compensate for bigger shoulders. I wouldn't expect the X-short to provide smaller shoulders. I thought the purpose of shorts and longs was to leave widths the same.

I would expect the smallest sizes in OG107 to be scarce because the post-draft emphasis to recruit women overlapped with the adoption of Woodland camoflague, unless counter-balanced by some women-heavy component of the armed forces being slow to abandon OG107, but I haven't seen the actual numbers.

Other M-65 size labels have a height guideline "From" a starting height, so a label that lacks the "From" inches might indicate the smallest size, at least AT THAT TIME.

You might want to check the smallest shoulder size on the M-1943 women's ("WAC") jacket.

This 12R looks like 16in shoulders:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/186482538538

This 10R doesn't show a shoulder measurement but you could ask:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/256291505439

PS: These 2 films, based on real WWII events, the "Angels of Bataan" and the "Nisei" units, illustrate uniform SAFUs on short people, including the ill-fitted yet glamorous Veronica Lake:

VeronicaLake-SoProudlyWeHail---1943-.png


So Proudly We Hail! (1943)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036367/

HenryNakamura-GoForBroke---1951-50p.png


Go for Broke! (1951)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043590/
 
Last edited:

Preppy Climber

Familiar Face
Messages
74
One consolation from those data is that the smallest M-65 sits lower on the currently smallest allowed woman than the 2nd-smallest M-65 sits on you, since you are 3in above the minimum but the 2nd-smallest M-65 is only 1.5in longer than the smallest.

The drawstring allows adjusting the girth, mitigating a roomy chest size.

You might be able to fold the sleeve farther up into itself, bypassing the velcro point, or using a safety pin to attach a 2nd velcro point farther up.

Shorter sleeves compensate for bigger shoulders. I wouldn't expect the X-short to provide smaller shoulders. I thought the purpose of shorts and longs was to leave widths the same.

I would expect the smallest sizes in OG107 to be scarce because the post-draft emphasis to recruit women overlapped with the adoption of Woodland camoflague, unless counter-balanced by some women-heavy component of the armed forces being slow to abandon OG107, but I don't know the actual numbers.

Other M-65 size labels have a height guideline "From" a starting height, so a label that lacks the "From" inches might indicate the smallest size, at least AT THAT TIME.

You might want to check the smallest shoulder size on the M-1943 women's ("WAC") jacket.

This 12R looks like 16in shoulders:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/186482538538

This 10R doesn't show a shoulder measurement but you could ask:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/256291505439

PS: These 2 films, based on real WWII events, the "Angels of Bataan" and the "Nisei" units, illustrate uniform SAFUs on short people, including the ill-fitted yet glamorous Veronica Lake:

View attachment 624318

So Proudly We Hail! (1943)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036367/

View attachment 624319

Go for Broke! (1951)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043590/
@vintagewool Thank you so much for both the wonderful information and history lessons!

A good friend of mine, who is a seamstress, moved the velcro on the sleeves for a more snug fit on my wrist. Much better. I can also turn the end of the sleeves inside out, which by doing so makes the sleeve length shorter although the inside velcro would then show on the outside.

Both the women's field jackets would fit me much better in the shoulders and sleeves. I will inquire about the 10R. It's interesting that the pit to pit on the size 10 appears to be larger than the size 12. Must be the way the sellers have their respective field jacket layed out. Thank you for taking the time to find these and send the links! I can picture my husband rolling his eyes as I already have way too many jackets (e.g., U.S. Navy pea coats, duffle coats, top coat, M-65 jackets, chore coats). :D

I had never heard of Veronica Lake before. It appears she was about my height. She was beautiful.
 

Preppy Climber

Familiar Face
Messages
74
This 10R doesn't show a shoulder measurement but you could ask:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/256291505439
A certain someone purchased the 10R thanks to you, @vintagewool. :)

I asked the seller about the shoulder measurement. 16.5 inches. The 12R shows 16 inches across and supposedly a slightly smaller pit to pit than the 10R. Doesn't seem right, but I went for the 10R as it's in better condition, the seller offered a steep discount from his/her original price, and 16.5 inch shoulders, if that is correct, will still look fine on me.
 

vintagewool

Familiar Face
Messages
84
A certain someone purchased the 10R thanks to you, @vintagewool. :)

I asked the seller about the shoulder measurement. 16.5 inches. The 12R shows 16 inches across and supposedly a slightly smaller pit to pit than the 10R. Doesn't seem right, but I went for the 10R as it's in better condition, the seller offered a steep discount from his/her original price, and 16.5 inch shoulders, if that is correct, will still look fine on me.

It is difficult to know what measurement variations there were in manufacturing, among contractors, over years, plus whether any used jacket was shrunken more, less, or not at all, plus (as you said) a seller's margin of error in measurement.

The cost of the '43 (a whole jacket) might be spent better than attempting to re-tailor an M-65's shoulders.

A trim-fit '43 without the removable liner goes well over a trim-fit 100%-wool sweater such as a real "wooly pully" "commando sweater" (not the synthetic ones).

The '65 has more features and is a great work coat but the '43 has its own appeal.

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 will be interested to read your first-hand comparisons.
 

Preppy Climber

Familiar Face
Messages
74
It is difficult to know what measurement variations there were in manufacturing, among contractors, over years, plus whether any used jacket was shrunken more, less, or not at all, plus (as you said) a seller's margin of error in measurement.

The cost of the '43 (a whole jacket) might be spent better than attempting to re-tailor an M-65's shoulders.

A trim-fit '43 without the removable liner goes well over a trim-fit 100%-wool sweater such as a real "wooly pully" "commando sweater" (not the synthetic ones).

The '65 has more features and is a great work coat but the '43 has its own appeal.

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 will be interested to read your first-hand comparisons.
I will indeed provide a report! The '43 is already on its way.

I expect the '43 to be roomy given the pit to pit measurement but of course more fitted at the shoulders. I still plan to wear my '65 jackets. How can I not? They are just too cool. I'll be fine with looking like I'm wearing a "boyfriend" jacket.

I look forward to adding another piece of U.S. history to my wardrobe. Oh, I've always thought the "wooly pully" commando sweaters were great looking!

Thanks again for increasing my knowledge in U.S. military clothing!
 
Last edited:

vintagewool

Familiar Face
Messages
84
Thanks again for increasing my knowledge in U.S. military clothing!

You're welcome.

You might want to peruse these while awaiting delivery:


I don't want to contribute to marital strife but a new listing appeared for an "Unissued" size-10 women's '41 jacket (the '43's hip-length predecessor):

 
Last edited:

Preppy Climber

Familiar Face
Messages
74
You're welcome.

You might want to peruse these while awaiting delivery:


I don't want to contribute to marital strife but a new listing appeared for an "Unissued" size-10 women's '41 jacket (the '43's hip-length predecessor):

I have some fun reading to do! Thank you!

I took a look at the '41 jacket and I must admit that I'm not fond of the design. That's a good thing as I don't think I can justify $300 plus on yet another military jacket. :) I do enjoy, however, learning more about the history of all these military jackets.

So I ordered two liners for my M-65 field jackets. One for the extra small/extra short and one for the extra small/short. For the extra small/extra short liner, the first one I received, I immediately noticed the material was prickly on my bare arms when wearing a t-shirt. I assumed that was the way the material was made and the thought was that folks would be wearing a long-sleeve or sweater underneath so it wouldn't matter. Today I received my extra small/short liner and the material is not prickly at all. So now I'm assuming the first one is defective? Unfortunately, I already accepted the order. Any thoughts on how to possibly get rid of that prickly feeling? It's highly unlikely I would be wearing just a t-shirt underneath, but it is a bit of a downer knowing that it should have a smooth feel to it. Thanks!
 

vintagewool

Familiar Face
Messages
84
I have some fun reading to do! Thank you!

I took a look at the '41 jacket and I must admit that I'm not fond of the design. That's a good thing as I don't think I can justify $300 plus on yet another military jacket. :) I do enjoy, however, learning more about the history of all these military jackets.

So I ordered two liners for my M-65 field jackets. One for the extra small/extra short and one for the extra small/short. For the extra small/extra short liner, the first one I received, I immediately noticed the material was prickly on my bare arms when wearing a t-shirt. I assumed that was the way the material was made and the thought was that folks would be wearing a long-sleeve or sweater underneath so it wouldn't matter. Today I received my extra small/short liner and the material is not prickly at all. So now I'm assuming the first one is defective? Unfortunately, I already accepted the order. Any thoughts on how to possibly get rid of that prickly feeling? It's highly unlikely I would be wearing just a t-shirt underneath, but it is a bit of a downer knowing that it should have a smooth feel to it. Thanks!

Sorry, fixing prickly nylon is outside my ken.

The Short liner probably will work in the X-Short jacket. A Large liner works in a Medium jacket.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
107,953
Messages
3,050,863
Members
53,250
Latest member
abrockie96
Top