The "New" Inland M1 carbine

[Faulkner]

I read with interest the cover story article in the current Guns & Ammo magazine about the newly manufactured M1 carbine by a company called Inland Manufacturing. They are marketing three models, a "1944" with a type II barrel band and comes with a 10 round magazine for sale in the constitutional restrictive states, a "1945" model with type III barrel band with bayonet lug and comes with 15 round magazine for sale in the mostly free sectons of America. They are also manufacturing a M1A1 model.

Article claims new Inlands are true to fit and finish of the original USGI and parts are interchangable, though internal parts are marked accordingly so as to help deter "fraudary" when used on original M1 carbines. They come with milled rear sights, round bolt and a push button safety. From the pictures in the article they looked good. Priced at a little under $1,100 for the 1944 and 1945 models, just over $1,100 for the M1A1.


I wasn't impressed with author Garry James' brief history about the M1 carbine. Anytime someone supposedly in the know gives full credit to the M1 carbine's development to David "Marsh" Williams it's an indicator they probably got their information from Wikipedia.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

I haven't held one of these to know what your getting. But for the cost, $1,049 M1, and $1,179 M1A1 I'd rather look and find an original. I read these new Inland's also have cast receivers.

MKS Supply

[DaveHH]

The cast receiver is just the way things are done today. I suspect that almost all of the parts are cast as well. They can cast parts today with 8620 steel which is the same stuff that they made the Garand receivers from. Ruger has been making investment casting guns for 50 years with great success. I don't like cast part guns either but that's the way things are done today. Lowers scrap rate and machining costs.

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

I have nothing against cast parts either. I have eleven Rugers from .22 to .480 and my first revolver was a new three screw Blackhawk in .45 colt.

I just feel with so many still around, for the same dollars you can get a nice GI Carbine. I personally like having the history. Though I've seen shot and taken them apart, I've never owned a commercial carbine.

[INLAND44]

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. With a warranty. With brand new replacement parts. And if I could find one of these stocks (Israeli Hezi SM1) I would get one of the new Inlands to put in it. No 'happy switch' of course.

[Faulkner]

I suspect had the technology been available in the early 1940's every USGI carbine made would have been cast. Just look at what I.B.M. did with the stamped trigger housing is evidence enough.

[Bruce McAskill]

It was Underwood who started the brazed trigger housings and if they were able to make good strong castings back then they would have used them as Faulkner has suggested. They did experiment with castings of slides and hammers but they were deemed as not being good enough. Post war Springfield Armory did a lot of casting of replacement parts.

[USGI]

Ruger has been making investment casting guns for 50 years with great success.

Probably 60 years or more now Dave. Good point. - Bob

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

The company was founded in 1949 by Alexander McCormick Sturm and William B. Ruger

[Faulkner]

It was Underwood who started the brazed trigger housings and if they were able to make good strong castings back then they would have used them as Faulkner has suggested. They did experiment with castings of slides and hammers but they were deemed as not being good enough. Post war Springfield Armory did a lot of casting of replacement parts.

Although Underwood did use the brazed trigger housings, it was I.B.M. engineers who designed and developed it at their Endicott factory. (According to "War Baby", page 195). About 20 years ago I actually met an elderly man who was a retired I.B.M. engineer who claimed he worked on the team that developed it.

Both Riesch and Canfield state in their books that "Underwood was instrumental in the development of the stamped/brazed process" and Underwood was indeed instrumental in helping solve many of the problems in the manufacturing process.