"Inland" Manufacturing M1 Carbines - 1st hand experience

[Sentryduty]

I just can't see why someone would spend over $1000 on a rifle and have to change parts right out of the box or have to keep sending it back for repair. I would be very upset and would want my money back. Maybe that is just me?

Last winter I went through the exact same decision making process and came to the exact same conclusion, my purchase of a USGI Carbine has been a no regrets decision. At the end of the day it's a real Inland, and being USGI it will always be a known quantity for parts, performance, and value retention.

[yoopercollector]

Replacing a bolt in a new rifle with another brand that might work better is like wanting a 30-06 and buying a .270 and having the barrel changed.

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

Last winter I went through the exact same decision making process and came to the exact same conclusion, my purchase of a USGI Carbine has been a no regrets decision. At the end of the day it's a real Inland, and being USGI it will always be a known quantity for parts, performance, and value retention.

And History.

[DaveHH]

So correct Jim. The story of how these companies came together and were able to build these 6.5 million guns in 3 years is an amazing story. It shows how the US could come together and produce these examples of industrial art, 6.5M and ALL PARTS INTERCHANGE. No other country on earth could do it. The guns came in on time and in some companies under budget. no way we could do this today.

[Sleeplessnashadow]

Replacing a bolt in a new rifle with another brand that might work better is like wanting a 30-06 and buying a .270 and having the barrel changed.

Now that got a good laugh out of me.

In defense of those who opt to buy a new commercial carbine instead of a GI carbine, keeping in mind my personal preference is the GI carbines, wandering into an unknown with all the possibilities that accompany most unknowns of this nature is a legitimate motivation to buy new instead of used. My first carbine was an Underwood. First range trip the bolt snapped in two. Knowing nothing of carbines at that time, panic set in. It wasn't until I took the time to learn that I realized the simplicity of a design and mass production that ensured all parts from all GI contracted companies were interchangeable with one another. Those that weren't were rejected. Adding to this the simplicity of replacing the majority of the parts without the need for a tool or gunsmith. This Underwood caused me to learn, with what I learned leading me to do what I've done so far and continue to do.

All this said, it would have been a lot easier had I bought a new commercially manufactured carbine absent any issues. The key element is "absent any issues". The vast majority of people take it for granted that the new product will be absent issues. What they don't realize is buying the new can be more of a headache and heartache than buying one of those old GI carbines. For many this knowledge would motivate them to buy a different gun to avoid the unknowns. They'd never know what they missed but would happily trade the possibility for a certainty.

OK, back to the .30-06 and which .270 barrel to choose.

For clarity and simplicity:

As Captain O indicated and I thought I addressed in my prior posts, bolts made by companies other than Inland Mfg and Auto-Ordnance may work in an Inland or Auto-Ordnance carbine.

Every commercial carbine I have bought I check it's parts for compatibility with GI parts as part of a basic evaluation of the carbine. I have owned three carbines made by Inland Mfg in the past 18 months. I have owned one new Auto Ordnance carbine that I tested right alongside the 3rd of those Inland carbines. Given the experiences I've had with Inland's bolts, I tried 4 separate GI bolts, an extra Plainfield Firearms carbine bolt and an extra Auto-Ordnance bolt I have, in each Inland and the Auto-Ordnance. I swapped the Inland and Auto-Ordnance bolts with one another. I checked the headspace before proceeding to the range. Two of the Inlands some of the GI bolts and the Plainfield bolt fit and functioned but not when the carbine was taken to a range and fired with each of the bolts. The other Inland failed the headspace test right out of the box with their own bolt. The same with any other bolt I tried. None would function even when the action was operated by hand. One of the GI bolts, the Plainfield, my extra AO bolt and the Inland bolts all functioned with the Auto-Ordnance carbine.

I usually don't test individual commercial parts in one of my GI carbines. No need really. If the GI part fits and works with the commercial parts they'll likely work in the GI carbine. Good enough for me.

I don't have answers for all of the various questions. Some of the answers are educated guesses, some are too long to explain here. But there were two consistents I've experienced before with Auto Ordnance carbines, with one of those two with iai carbines before them.

First, the bolts used by Inland Mfg and AO are not the same dimensions as the GI bolts. They are both the same dimensions as each other. The difference is small but small will make a difference with the next issue.

Second, the receivers used by Auto-Ordnance and Inland Mfg are cast from the same mold. Each manufacturer then machines those receivers to different degrees. With Inland, their machining or lack thereof sometimes lacks consistency to a degree that affects the performance of the receiver and everything attached to it. The mold used for the AO and Inland receivers is the same mold that was used to cast the receivers used by iai (receivers marked with the small case iai, not the capitol IAI).

As shown early in this thread, the cast receivers AO and Inland Mfg start with have varying degrees of consistency. One of those that's been happening since iai is the straightness of the receiver from front to back. The earlier post showing the bend in the receiver is an example. This bend is varies to different degrees with some being straight. iai's last carbines, using these receivers, had a problem with the slide jumping out of the receiver grooves that guide it back and forth. Not every carbine, just occasional.

Stick a GI bolt or bolt with GI dimensions in a receiver that's not cast and/or machined to GI specs and there's a good chance it might not work. Stick the non-GI spec bolt that comes with that receiver in that receiver and it works. Why? Because the bolt and receiver were made for each other. With a casting that varies in dimensions and angles those GI bolts may work in some but not with others.

For clarity. I am not a gunsmith. My experience is specific to .30 caliber carbines with an emphasis on those made commercially by over 25 different companies since the first in 1960. Also their replica's in calibers other than .30 Carbine. I've been acquiring, evaluating, selling, and sometimes scrapping these carbines with the specific intent of getting all the experience I can on what each of their manufacturers did with each of their models at different points in time. I make no money for what I do, I do it because I enjoy it. It's cost me plenty as most hobbies do. But I'm retired and these carbines are my full time and half hobby (aka obsession, addiction).

Take what is of use to you and ignore what isn't. The learning never stops with these carbines. Who I am isn't important, it's what I attempt to do that has sometimes has meaning.

If you wanna say thanks the best way to do so is by helping others. If you wanna say no thanks thats okay too, but I've found sticking with the positives instead of the negatives is far more constructive, far more helpful and far less stressful.

I sold that Auto Ordnance carbine about a month ago. The new owner is plenty happy with it after spending some range time with it. It's not GI nor is it made to GI spec. It's slightly better than new in that I tightened the gas piston nut, ran it thru a break-in period and replaced a defective mag catch with a GI equivalent that worked. I sold that third Inland to a collector who doesn't shoot the guns in his collection. The money I lost was my investment in learning. The money I recovered is being spent on learning more.

Inland Mfg can manufacture a carbine lots of people have fun with and safely. So can Auto-Ordnance. What they haven't managed to do is a level of quality control that can insure there won't be any problems with their new carbines. That quality control fluctuates with more problems at some times than others. Both companies stand behind what they sell but don't tell people what to look for that they will correct. At the moment, most commonly Inland with their bolts, Auto-Ordnance with the fit of their stocks to their handguards.

Jim

[kettbo]

GREAT THREAD, just read the whole thing again! Thanks for your time Jim and others!

[browningautorifle]

GREAT THREAD

But far too long about nothing. This clearly illustrates the case of this being a new firearm to stay as far away from as possible. It's JUNK! Buy an original.

[Bill Hollinger]

But far too long about nothing. This clearly illustrates the case of this being a new firearm to stay as far away from as possible. It's JUNK! Buy an original.

Not too sure it's about nothing as a lot of work has gone into the research Jim has done. Jim has been very detailed in pointing out issues with the "new" Inland which offers the consumer a chance to use this great information to make their own decision on whether to buy one or not. His method has been open and not bias in any way. Now, I do agree that the consumer should steer clear of these at least until the issues are resolved. That said, it is my firm belief that the original WWII manufactured M1 carbine, regardless of maker, is the only way to go. It has the quality, time proven reliability and and Jim F. stated, history.

[browningautorifle]

Agreed about lots of research, but a decision could have been made by a consumer by about the end of page one. Yes, an original...

[Sleeplessnashadow]

I realize this seems to get to the point of beating a dead horse early on. But there is more to this than informing potential buyers, hearing from others and their experiences and my research.

One of my top goals right behind these other motives has been the combined voices of the owners and responses from owners of other carbines. I'm not here to try to put Inland out of business. Those combined voices and the voices of over 27,000 views send a message to Inland and serve to counter the orchestrated glamorous marketing claims using The American Rifleman, Guns n Ammo, etc. You folks are operations, not marketing.

While this forum doesn't have the circulation of The American Rifleman and others this thread's existence brought the president of Inland in here early on. As well as some of the people who work there. They occasionally monitor this thread. While it's easy for them to walk away complaining about some people here, the message wasn't lost. Owners comparing experiences and having a collective voice are not the same as dealing with them one at a time.

This isn't a place for marketing half truths and games.

No delusions of grandeur, this isn't mainstream media. But the best thing that can happen for all is owners keep posting their experiences here. Both good and bad. Don't stop because of the numerous pages and messages before you. They're history. Bring us up to date.

At some point Inland is going to learn it's more cost effective to address these issues rather than ignoring them. The number of returns increased because people became aware of what to look for. Things most wouldn't have noticed otherwise. Inland will never know how many sales they lost. People keep buying enough. But every manufacturer knows the costs in time and money of handling returns.

Nobody is just returning them just in case. They're returning them because of the issues each has.

Educated consumers are a good company's best friend. They can also help motivate change when change is needed and not being addressed. What we see here is only a small percentage of what this thread causes to happen.

Inland has made changes to their carbines over the couple years they've been in business. Albeit at the buyers expense for R&D that should have been done before sales started. But those changes have been improvements. They wanna stay in business and are willing to make changes to do so.

Don't overestimate all of this, but don't underestimate it either.

Jim