The plastic was assumed to be fine
On this page14
A plastic jar was bought for tumbler springs
And the springs cling to the inside wall above the heap, where tipping the jar does not move them.
Which is static rather than a defect
A polypropylene or PET wall takes a surface charge from handling, and a few millimetres of steel wire is light enough to be held by it.
Polypropylene is the worse of the two
78 containers against 117 PET. A polyolefin holds a charge more readily.
And glass does not do it
56 of the 251 containers, which is the clean answer and a fifth of the shelf.
A clear plastic jar was bought for key blanks
And hazed, because steel is harder than the wall and shaking marks it. 91 of the 251 containers are clear.
Which removes the reason the jar was clear
A hazed container is not one you can see into, and for a sorted set that was half the value.
The oil was not accounted for
Lock parts arrive lightly oiled, oil defeats an adhesive label, and we publish no marking or labelling service.
So the sorted set lost its labels
Which on a set of ten pin lengths is the whole failure, because the label is the only thing distinguishing them.
Brass swarf was poured in with the parts
Debris from a cut blank is abrasive and scores the jar and the parts together, accelerating both failures.
One container was used for several sizes
A pin of the wrong length is scrap. One size per container is the only workable arrangement and it needs the small end.
Which the shelf has
60 containers under 60 mL and 22 under 30, with 29 at 59 mL alone.
A narrow neck was chosen
And a pin is picked out rather than poured. 112 of the 251 containers are on the two widest common finishes.
Glass, small, wide, labelled on the lid
Which is the recommendation, and the breakage risk is the price of it.