The "New" Inland M1 carbine

[Bruce McAskill]

Didn't Ruger start with their castings in the late 60's when they started making high powered model 77 rifles?

[Seaspriter]

Yes, you can get a nice G.I. carbine for $1000. But don't you want to keep it nice? This way you get a shooter.

This is an important point for me. I have a beautiful Inland '43 that was arsenal rebuilt in '49 and has never been shot since. I just don't want to use it -- it's a collector's item. I have a 1979 Marlin M2, which is an M-1 carbine in .22 I use for shooting. A faux M-1 (one of those on the market today that are "almost but not really" clones) just don't make it for me. It's either the real deal or no deal.

Regarding castings, all of our automotive engines are cast, and they receive a lot of torque and heat, but don't crack. The problem only occurs when castings are not quality (i.e. with cracks, bubbles, etc). If the casting is done in the U.S., there is a low likelihood of a problem. I would not trust any Far Eastern casting unless it came from a source that was reliable (such as a supplier for Honda, Toyota, etc.).

[USGI]

Didn't Ruger start with their castings in the late 60's when they started making high powered model 77 rifles?

I believe this started with the first Singles Sixes sometime in 1953. - Bob

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

I'm sure many members here subscribe to Guns & Ammo magazine. I was very interested when mine came and I saw the Carbine on the front cover. The Williams short piston issue has been around forever. And I think Garry James did a good review. Though I wasn't in 100% agreement with some of his comments. They are not identical or twins as he states. Those familiar with the GI carbine will notice the differences. I don't think they were designed with the collector market in mind. Generations grew up listening to their father or grandfather talking about military weapons. What they carried wherever they served. Maybe wanting to enjoy the feeling or memories to go along with those stories.

I also understand someone not wanting to damage a collectible, or it's value, by shooting it and want just a shooter to enjoy. For that purpose I feel there are many safe GI shooter carbines available for under this price point. And you still have the history that come with it.

Personally I hope this venture takes off. People buying these might then get the bug to find out more about the originals. New interest can bring new collectors and keep our hobby going for many years to come.

As for cast parts, there is nothing wrong with having cast parts. I have Ruger firearms with tens of thousands of rounds fired without issue. There are even big name current 1911 makers using cast parts.

[shadycon]

I hope they are better than the late AO junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[manteo97]

The key critical cast part on a commercial carbine is the receiver. Today, investment casting of a C4140 or C8620 steel M1 carbine receiver is just as good as a forged steel receiver. The concern started back in the 50's when cast parts ( not receiver) were tested, and the issue was what is referred to as the brittle-ductile transition temperature. All steels will lose the ability to withstand shock loads when the temperature gets down to a certain point (usually tested -30 to -50F).

Because the chemical recipe for cast 4140 steel has a bit more Si and Al in it, compared to a 4140 forging, there was initial concern about it's ability to withstand use in cold temperatures, ie elevated B-D transition temperatures. As we know from the Chosin event in Nov 1950, and subsequent combat analysis of M1 carbines, cold weather operations did present a problem, but not associated with the steels used to make the parts.

My cast receiver Iver-Johnson, c. 1983, works just fine, thank you.