I have this tool box:
It's a real pain to search through all of the sockets in the red removable tray to find the needed socket. Do you have suggestions as to how I can organize the sockets better?
I have these sockets:
Drive Length Count Sizes
1/4 deep 6 7/16" --> 1/4"
3/8 deep 10 13/16" --> 3/8"
1/2 deep 6 13/16" --> 9/16"
1/4 standard 11 9/16" --> 5/32"
3/8 standard 17 3/4" --> 1/4"
Drive Length Count Sizes
1/4 deep 6 12mm --> 6mm
3/8 deep 7 17mm --> 9mm
1/4 standard 12 14mm --> 6mm
3/8 standard 20 18mm --> 6mm
1/2 standard 6 21mm --> 9mm
It's basically a bar with anywhere from 12 to 16 metal clips on it. The
clips are 1/4, 3/8 and 1/2 inch square so that you can push a socket
onto each clip going from smallest to largest.
And, I find that they work pretty good.
Get them with different handle colours if you have both 8 point and 12
point sockets as I do.
They also work well for other kinds of sockets, like impact sockets.
I'm not using a usenet newsreader. I'm using Internet Explorer 8.0 to
post on this board, and the images show up fine on my computer.
If you look in the little box on the bottom left corner of this web
page, you'll see that it says:
"[IMG] code is On"
That means this web page is capable of displaying images in the text, so
why not use that capability?
Try accessing this web page with any web browser and you should see the
images, not just their URL's.
Many of us can't "look in the bottom left corner of this web page" because
we do not use a browser to read usenet groups.
Anyone using a usenet newsreader will not see you images, just the link.
In most cases it's OK, such as with Thunderbird, but the newsreader on my
iPad doesn't like the ] at the end of the image link. As I mentioned
before, that's not really your problem, I just thought I'd mention it. I
don't know if any other newsreader have that same problem.
You keep saying "this web page" but I don't know what "web page" you are
referring to because I am not using a browser.
Because ahr is a usenet text group, not binaries and most newsservers
won't host the binary, anyway.
At least have the courtesy to simply encapsulate the links w/ <...> ;
nntp will do a better job of not breaking them and other readers will be
less likely to choke.
If the reader is interested he can always go to a browser but it's
simply rude to expect the rest of the world to follow your use of
> On 7/15/2013 12:09 AM, nestork wrote:-
I am more than willing to accomodate the people in this group that use
usenet readers instead of browsers. You're saying I can do that by
putting the character string:
on each side of my image links? Is this correct?
Also will those people that are using web browsers still be able to see
I simply feel that the ability to illustrate exactly what I'm talking
about with an image is an important benefit to those people asking for
No, not sure how that ended up in there; not what intended.
Use <> around the URL...that's conventional (and I think is what the RFC
says but I didn't go look it up).
<url> > Also will those people that are using web browsers still be able to see
Possibly; at least they _should_ get a live link. Well, let's see--what
do you see from
Well, again, if the audience doesn't know w/o and image, the link is all
they need to go get it if they wish; meanwhile those who do know or are
bandwidth-limited or who are simply using usenet _because_ it is a text
medium w/o all the hoopla and often excessive use of bandwidth aren't
No, I'm not saying I want the images to show. The issue is that nestork
thought that we all saw them because he uses IE8 to post in a.h.r and he
can see his images.
Accessing the images via a link is how most people using a usenet
newsreader want to view them, if they want to view them.
I brought up the issue because the type of image links that IE8 creates -
using [image: link URL] - causes problems with at least one newsreader, the
one I use on my iPad. It picks up the closing bracket as part of the URL
and tells me that the link is invalid. I asked nestork about that and
that's when he said he uses IE8 and that he thought we all could see his
images directly in his posts.
Yes, up until now, I thought everyone could see the images on whatever
software they were using. I'm surprised to find out that they don't.
But, Derby Dad has a valid point. Posting the images right in the post
will slow down everyone's computer as each image has to load. By just
showing the link to the image, everyone who wants to see that image can,
but it won't slow down the computers of people who don't care to see the
So, I'll just post the image links from now on.
I used one of these for years, until I crushed it rolling over it with
The socket rail on mine was full length. It carried a standard set
3/8" and 1/2" drive sockets, ratchets, breaker bars and extensions.
Also held the combo wrenches. Some extra sockets like spark plug.
Besides that it was no problem getting some pliers, vise-grips and
screwdrivers in there.
That rail is the easily the best method of containing and ordering
sockets that I've seen.
The problem I've encountered with sockets is the duplicates and
variations you end up with. Long, normal, short, 6 and 12 point.
Then double it all for metric.
As it is I keep my Craftsman 1/2 3/8 1/4 set in the 3-drawer toolbox
it came in. It's heavy as hell even without loading up the top
compartment. Has the combo wrenches too, which get small use.
It's also bulky, because the plastic inserts to hold the various tools
are taking up space.
All the other sockets are piled in another toolbox.
If you're not using a roll-around tool chest or working near where you
keep your tools, you have to give thought to weight, and what you're
When I come across the right shallow box, I'll fabricate it with a set
of full length rails ala the box above to hold all my "extra" sockets.
Another useful tool box is this:
Easy to make. Used to have one and it was very handy for taking
longer tools to jobs. Wood and plumbing jobs and just about anything
If you make the sides high enough you can tuck some power tools under
the handle. You can make it very light, as mine was, by using 1/4"
plywood for the sides.
Now I generally use a 5-gallon pail, but long tools make it "tippy."
I had some, didn't like them... the clips weren't made to tight enough
tolerances so sockets would fall off of some and be damn near impossible
to get off others. If they were made better they'd be good.
I like the Lisle magnetic socket holders myself. Expensive but I've had
mine for probably 15 years, so it's proven to be worth it.
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
Would painting help? There are paint markers available if you
wanted to put the sizes on the most used ones. They look like a Sharpie.
Maybe even color coding for the various drive sizes would help.
I'm looking for a way to organize my sockets in my metal toolbox (which measures 20" long x 7" tall x 7" deep).
I have about 100 sockets. Some are metric and some are SAE. Some have 1/4" drives, some have 3/8" drives and some have 1/2" drives.
I've been looking at:
plastic holders (such as the Lisle Model 40120)
"rail"-type organizers (such as Tekton Item #1885).
Which type holds the sockets securely, releases the sockets easily, takes up less room in my toolbox, is more durable?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.