"Inland" Manufacturing M1 Carbines - 1st hand experience

[Sleeplessnashadow]

I'm looking for owners with first hand experience with the new commercially produced carbines under the name of Inland Manufacturing. I'm hoping to compare hands on operational experience to learn if what I'm encountering is the norm or an oddity. I'm familiar with who the company is and the marketing, also probably a bit more familiar than most with commercial carbines, their weaknesses and strengths. This thread is intended to be specific to first hand experience with these new "Inland" carbines so we can all learn.

I picked mine up 09 Aug 2015. Serial number 9000696. Cleaned it then 10 Aug 2015 I had it out on a range feeding it Aguila and LC 1971 purchased from CMP. Put about 600 rounds through it with my veteran son.

Accuracy wasn't measured in inches. We used various size steel targets out to 200 meters. Accuracy was pretty good under these conditions. A cataract in my right eye inhibits my use of a peephole sight so I stick to metal targets instead of a bullseye.

Function improved with the number of round being fired but a number of problems became evident. These issues had been seen during cleaning before firing and were examined closer during firing and a subsequent cleaning afterwards.

The most prominent issue is the receiver is warped. In more than one area. The rear wall of the trigger housing abuts up against the bottom of the receiver and prevents the holes in the trigger housing and front receiver lug from aligning to insert the trigger housing pin. During the first cleaning and disassembly it took a brass punch and ball pin hammer to get the pin out. Knowing well the danger of snapping the front lug it was done cautiously. Rubber/plastic mallets would not budge it. Attempting reassembly it became obvious the bottom of the receiver was pivoting on top of the trigger housing rear magazine wall and the holes wouldn't line up. With as much care as possible the parts were forced into position. It became obvious whoever assembled it originally had to encounter the same problem.

Looking down the right side of the receiver along the slide groove the groove is warped in several places as in the metal the slides travels back and forth on.

Inside the receiver the casting mold marks protruded into the path of the bolt. Working the action the bolt hangs up in two distinct positions. This played out during firing when the bolt occasionally locked up all the way to the rear past the hold open pin detent and occasionally failed to rotate and lock into place due to the amount of energy absorbed by the ridges inside the receiver. The top of the bolt has been repeatedly scratched by these ridges, beyond the normal wear of a round bolt.

When attempting to seat their magazine, or a new commercial mag of quality and a couple GI mags in good condition, the mags often failed to lock into position above the mag catch. The space for the magazine to be seated properly has been reduced by the bow in the bottom of the receiver that the rear wall of the trigger housing pivots on. Close exam of the trigger housing later it looks ok, the issue is the warping of the receiver and casting mold ridges that should have been machined smooth.

At this point I won't get into the construction of the barrel or a few other interesting things. They worked, so far, so not an issue at the moment.

Next up is the finish on the stock. During cleaning of the powder residue from inside the handguard and inside the stock's slide well and barrel channel, I used cotton patches with Hoppe's #9. It removed the powder residue but also a percentage of the walnut stain finish, particularly in the areas where they stained it to the point of black. If I repeated the process after the powder residue was removed it removed more of the finish. Tested this on the outside of the stock with the same results. One thing I haven't seen before was the patches also came away with a light to medium green colored residue. Have no idea what this was from and can only guess.

Also, the receiver finish along the area where the slide travels has been worn off unevenly, consistent with the warping in that area.

I hope to shoot pics of it the next couple nights and will add a few here. After the pics I'll contact them for an RMA# and return it for correction. There are a couple other issues but minor compared to these.

Anyone else have first hand experience shooting/cleaning one of these?

Thanks folks

Jim

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.

[shadycon]

Thank you for the info. I think I'll stick with the good 'ole' GI models!

[imarangemaster]

Pretty sad, actually. For the amount of coin they charge, and considering all of the hype about how they are better/more accurate than USGI, that is REALLY disappointing. I would send a copy of the post to their customer service. That is unacceptable for the price of the weapon. I am not a fan of Kahr/Auto Ordnance carbines, but they are at least put together better than that one! Sounds like a 1960s Plainfield or 1970s iver Johnson would have been a better buy.

[Sleeplessnashadow]

I would send a copy of the post to their customer service.

I'm hoping to get more opinions from people who own them before I pass judgment on these. I can't afford to go out and buy a bunch of these to do a fair evaluation. Other commercial carbines I've gone through many dozens with selling one paying for another to evaluate. I've owned or had hands on experience with only a few commercial carbines by Fulton Armory and James River Armory's commercial "Rock-Ola". Over time these will increase in numbers but have had enough hands on experience to include them on my commercial carbine website.

One carbine does not a fair evaluation make. I'm hesitant to post pics on here or my website as I don't want this one carbine to become what sounds like dozens on the discussion forums. I've run into that many times with people with no personal experience sharing stories posted by others.

This carbine will be going back to the manufacturer for repair or replacement. I don't want them sending a "special one", I want to evaluate what all buyers get. Their customer service will be receiving this one for their own evaluation.

[Bruce McAskill]

Thank you Jim for an honest evaluation of the new Inland. If I should find anyone with one I will have them get in touch with you.

[imarangemaster]

Sleep,

I understand your perspective. I evaluated "cowboy action shooting" type firearms for SASS' Cowboy Chronicle (I was a staff writer) for over 15 years. I got them from all of the major manufacturers: Uberti, Pedretti, Pedersoli, Ruger, Marlin, and from distributors: Cimarron, EMF, Taylor's, etc. Generally the weapons received were not "specials" as they knew it would not take long for folks reading Tuolumne Lawman's glowing reviews to smell a rat if the weapon they received sucked after I gave it a glowing review.

There was only one exception. A distributor sent me a revolver that was so horrible, I knew it had to be a "Friday Afternoon" gun that slipped through quality control. Having evaluated and shot other examples, I knew it was not indicative of the manufacturers general quality. Rather than "pan it in the press," out of respect for them and my professional ethics, I contacted them and got a replacement. They were so grateful for that, they sent me a "special pick." It was nice of them, but made it hard to do an evaluation, so I averaged the two!

[goatdude]

I have one and have put right around 500 rounds through it, both factory ammo and my reloads. Broke the extractor right around the 300 mark so that got replaced with a USGI part. Extraction is now fine. The mag catch is a cast POS and would not hold the magazine up far enough in the well for good feeding. That part also was replaced with USGI. Everything else looks OK. The trigger group is functioning fine. The receiver casting as well as the trigger housing look to be cast to spec. Stock is OK with the exception that the cut for the oiler is a little small and needs to be widened about 1/16" and that when received, the stocks' finish had not dried completely. I wiped it down with some mineral spirits and now one can handle it without the stain coming off in your hands. Barrel OK, gas system OK, sights good but the rear sight needs to be pushed a little to the right to center the adjustment if one wants to get anal.

While I was replacing the mag catch I installed a rotary safety. This is not a defect I just prefer that safety type.

So with one broken part replaced and one defective part swapped out she runs good and shoots as accurate as I can expect a carbine to.

I'll post an update once I shoot another 500-1000 rounds.

[Sleeplessnashadow]

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.

[Seaspriter]

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.

Jim, thank you for your immense work to provide such insightful and professional analysis on Post WWII M-1 Carbines. Your website is a wealth of information.

I have a dilemma that you can help solve. I own a 1943 Inland that went through a Korean War Arsenal upgrade, and has never been shot since. It is a pedigreed weapon with documentation from it's USMC owner -- a Lieutenant/Doctor in the Medical Corps. I don't want to shoot it.

Thus I'd like to purchase a shootable M-1. What is your recommendation? Buy an authentic M-1 or a more modern reproduction, such as an early Plainfield or Universal or other? I (and I'm sure others) would value your learned insights.

Thank you, Robert

[Wastelander]

Here is a link to an article in Shotgun news dated September 2, 2015.

Inland M1 Carbine Review - Shotgun News

Reviews the history of M1 carbine, but is light on details as to the current production model. Some nice pictures of the carbine and a Gallery of Guns video at the end.