"Inland" Manufacturing M1 Carbines - 1st hand experience

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

I understand your perspective.

---

Thanks. We earn our own reputation one way or the other, too.

A note to all.... As many of you know I have been posting web pages on the history of the various commercial carbine manufacturers and their carbines on my website devoted to them at M1CarbinesInc.com. One of the reasons I did the work was to dispel some rumors with facts. Another was to document the history before it was lost. Of the many other motives one I knew would come with the work was a heck of an education in who did what and when. Some of the work was like accident reconstruction but some of those carbines don't deserve the reputation spread by those who had never fired one. I've been buying, documenting, photographing, hardness testing, etc then reselling them to get another for over 10 years. I have 4 in line at the moment. I also learned to look for patterns at various points in time of a company's history as things changed over time.

One of the many things I've learned is when a company first starts making carbines there are inevitably issues they didn't expect. Another is over time other issues come up they also didn't expect. The question is, what do they do about it? Companies who earn a poor reputation sometimes manage to turn it around but with some not in time to survive the damage to their income.

There are certain parts of a carbine that function fine if cast, machined, inspected and hardened properly. The latter being a major issue over time for both cast and milled steel. For instance, a cast hammer. The hardness of a cast hammer should be mated to the bolt. Problems occur when they aren't hardened properly (both cast or milled) or someone takes a cast hammer from one manufacturer and uses it with a GI bolt. Yes, the GI carbine standards have been the best yet and were maintained by U.S. Army Ordnance quality control. To say "the GI standards were the only standards" is technically incorrect. Many commercial manufacturers have had their own standards and conducted inspections to maintain them. Their standards were not equivalent to the GI standards but neither is an M60 Main Battle Tank to an M1A1 Abrams yet I don't think we'd care to get shot by either one. The majority of commercial companies have not made their carbines for use in a combat environment even though some of their sales people later claimed otherwise.

Even if this new Inland company makes mistakes, is involved with a company who consistently made previous mistakes, both intentionally and unintentionally, I think they deserve an unbiased chance to prove themselves. If they make mistakes we need to see if they address them honestly and professionally.

The question we have to ask ourselves personally is, are we willing to take a chance with $1000 of our own money to find out? My answer is to do the work to help you make that decision. Who I am is not important, it's what I do that will outlive me if I do it right. Most companies can't afford to think that way if they wanna stay in business. Regardless of what they make.

Sleep,

Well said. By the way, thank you from all of us for the formidable body of work you have done on M1 Carbines Inc. I visit regularly, and always discover something new. In 25 years of being an FFL and 20 years of LE, I have owned and fired dozens of M1 Carbines.

I have found your assessments nearly identical to my experiences. I have owned a very early Universal that was almost all USGI parts, and a later Universal after the switch to double recoil springs (but before the safety issue arose from production cuts). Both shot fine. I had an opportunity to shoot before buying, a late Universal, but didn't buy because it was junky. I also had an Alpine, which if I remember correctly had an odd square barrel that required the use of a metal handguard. It shot ok. I had a Plainfield, and it was a great little weapon, with many USGI parts. I would not hesitate to obtain another one, it in fact being the only commercial carbine I would buy now (except for maybe an IAI). The last commercial carbine I had was an Auto Ordnance in about 2008. It was a horror, with poor fit and finish, terrible wood, and would not feed one out of three rounds from a USGI magazine. Auto Ordnance jacked me around for 6 months, and never made it right. The gun shop I worked at the next year sold three AOs, and all three came back on warranty. I hope they have finally gotten their act together and improved QC and customer service.

I was surprised when "Inland" announced their intentions. I don't think they had a look at the status of the market before that decision. If "Inland" can make it at all, the quality of the product they produce and their customer support will make or break them.

Anyone owning one of these "Inland" Manufacturing carbines if you would please contact me I would appreciate it. I rarely have time for the forums with everything I'm doing. Best to contact me directly. This "Inland" brought me here for help.

I will add a few photos here in the next few days. Still shooting them.

Jim
jim@uscarbines.com

Jim, you are a great asset to the carbine world!

Thanks guys. But I'm simply able to focus the obsessive-compulsive disorder into something constructive. Most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goatdude

Every part except for the barrel, screws, stock and springs is a casting. :mad: The bolt is cast. :banghead:

---

I am not a metallurgist, but the though of a cast bolt on a firearm with the PSI generated by the M1 Carbine is rather scarey. Were other commercial carbines (Universal, IAI, IJ, Auto Ordnance, etc.) cast or forged bolts? As far as the other parts, the pictures of the mag catch are unbelievable. It is not even close to GI spec. You can use the naked eye to see that. You don't even need a caliper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleeplessnashadow

Thanks guys. But I'm simply able to focus the obsessive-compulsive disorder into something constructive. Most of the time.

---

Jim,
Just want to say thank you for all that you have done for the M1 carbine field, and that your website has been on my favorites list for years. Carbine aficionados are fortunate to have you among us.

Nice to meet you also!

David

SAI tried cast bolts with their M1A. Had to go to forged after the cast bolts failed.

Cast bolts have been used exclusively by Iver Johnson, IAI/iai, Auto Ordnance, National Ordnance, Alpine, and Federal Ordnance. Plainfield switched to cast when GI surplus ran out in the 60's and most of theirs were cast. Universal used forged steel til about 1969 then switched to cast tho some in the late 70's were made from forged steel. Erma's Manufacturing used cast when GI surplus ran out.

I'm not a metallurgist but a Carbine Club member in Canada is a retired lifelong metallurgist and I've tried to coordinate with him under the restrictions of the laws of our respective nations.

I had seen it with most cast parts before he said it ... the problems arising with commercially manufactured bolts for the .30 carbines have not been whether they were machined from forged steel or cast. The problems have been related to the hardening process, a lack of consistency by the companies doing the hardening and the absence of quality control to catch them at it. This also applies to other critical components that take a beating during normal use: the sear, hammer, slide, receiver, extractor and so on.

That mag catch earlier in this thread ... manufacturers figure a certain percentage of parts will be rejects. The goal is to minimize that percentage and to have quality control inspections in place at various points that will catch a problem before it gets out of hand and prevent that percentage from shipping out with the carbine. The mag catch on my "Inland" was cast with no apparent machining. It does not have the issues the earlier one does. The extractor on mine was made from forged steel and is a lighter finish than the rest of the carbine. I suspect they bought surplus post war GI extractors until they can get the problem addressed.

Two parts on a carbine I will replace if they were made from casting simply because I've seen so many fail due to improper hardening. The extractor and sear. I have been recommending monitoring of the rear of the bolt and face of the hammer and not to use a GI hammer or bolt with a commercial hammer or bolt. Not because of forged steel vs cast but because of the different hardness used commercially that has sometimes been inconsistent.

Personally I prefer GI forged steel to any commercial equivalent of any kind. However, like that M60 tank vs the M1A1 Abrams both will put projectiles downrange. It's a matter of what we intend to use them for and what we're willing to pay for them.

Maybe to add some perspective to cast parts. Totaling the number of commercially manufactured .30 carbines by several dozen commercial manufacturers over the years they add up to just short of 1 million. With Universal Firearms having made 4 out of every 10 (they were in business for 22 years). Until Springfield Armory in Geneseo in the late 90's followed by Fulton Armory and James River Armory the past few years, ALL but Universal used cast receivers. Universal is rumored to have made a few cast receivers about 1972 but I've yet to see one. Investors cutting back on overhead then fell on their face in short order with their successor getting back to their standards. Things change over time.

What percentage of all those commercial carbines have failed? A higher percentage than GI but a low enough percentage to keep those companies in business over 10 years.

There are reasons everyone doesn't skip the commercial equivalents, or simply buy Fulton Armory M1 Carbines and skip all the rest. I'm in favor of "Inland" succeeding but that's up to them and the current market.

Jim

Ruger has been building guns with investment cast parts for 50 years. Most parts on modern auto pistols are injection cast. You can injection cast 8620 steel, the same stuff used to make Garand receivers. The key is properly hardening these parts so they work in relation to the other parts. This was the main reason for carbine production test failures. Generally firing pins would break.
I would bet the farm that these companies have neither the money nor the expertise to do this aspect correctly. They use manufacturers that they can afford not necessarily ones that can do the best job. In essence they are ironing out the faults of their product using customers as test medium. If they can get on top of it quickly and find companies that can do it, they will probably survive. Remember, the original carbine makers faced the exact same problems but had the resources of the Federal Government behind them and parts help from the other makers when theirs failed or were rejected.