Inland question

I have an Inland that is almost new. It is a 5.4 with the late bells and whistles that checks perfect in Chris' CC article on those numbers. One of the things that I've noticed over the years is that the rifling is almost absent. it is very shallow when compared with both Win and NPM (IBM barrel). Yet it shoots fine.
I've read all of the War Baby books and one of the things that is mentioned is that Inland at some point was (I'm assuming here) having a lot of barrels rejected. They presented a series of tests to ordnance that apparently proved that these rejected barrels were in fact fully usable and Inland was allowed to use these rejected barrels which now met standards. Am I correct in my assumption? Does that explain the shallow rifling? They were obviously a forward thinking company when you consider their quality, but I always had a feeling that they were building a product that was intended for a specific service life as any of their other products did.
Dave

I hate to mention "bullet test" again, after we "beat it to death" recently, but does it look pretty good? I no longer have my 5.4 (which was very similar to yours) but remember it showing about 7/32" of bullet when checked with 60's M2 Ball. - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

the rifling is almost absent

---

I don't recall if that barrel would have been Broach cut Or if Inland was using the Button reaming yet.

Maybe ? possible a Brand New cutter was used, that left less rifling, then with wear came closer to spec?

A complete WAG...

The barrel looks like a 45 ACP barrel very shallow rifling, The bullet test w/AP 1/4"

Dave,
IMO, If they could get that barrel to hit, it was accepted, Critical time for production.

Here's a S'G' BA barreled Blue Sky that looks to be Damn near a smooth bore. As you can see it swallows a M2 round to the Brass. But shoots better then I'd of ever dreamed possible after looking down the bore. Go figure..... This was my first time out with it, bought sight unseen. Creeping longest trigger pull of any Carbine I shoot. CAST Hammer.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...kvdwbybd-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...e509zha9-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...l8ojeos3-1.jpg

To read and see my hold:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=61219

If it shoots fine note the shallow rifling as a fact and enjoy it!

Here's a muzzle picture of the 5.4M Inland I mentioned in post #2. The rifling looks kind of shallow on that one, unless I've forgotten what they're supposed to look like. :dunno: - Bob

Quote:

---

I don't recall if that barrel would have been Broach cut Or if Inland was using the Button reaming yet.

---

Too early for the Button rifling. That would have been in the 6 mil range. Barrels with the button rifling would not be marked near the muzzle with a date or name but would have I-BR on the top of the barrel, near the breech. The documentation indicates that only 5000 button rifled barrels were made.

Thx Chris,
That saved me from looking back thru the paper stack.

Went back into War Baby 3 to seek clarification and one page 940, It mentioned Inland testing barrels with a too large bore and being allowed to use them since they worked. There were apparently quite a few barrels with issues pertaining to gas fixtures not fitting well. I think this was where they used white lead to seal the poorly fitting gas units. I seem to remember Mr. Doerfner mentioning something about barrels. I'll find it since I constantly read all three WB Books. I had no idea that Inland had machines to wear in finished carbines opening and closing them over and over again. What a great idea! What an extra step to assure quality function.

I don't want to have people assume that I'm saying this carbine is a poor example or not as good as it should be. Over the years I've shot it not a lot since it is in such good condition and appears to be as built. It shoots at 100 yds same as the Winchester which has a tighter barrel. And not as good as the NPM which has a more worn IBM barrel.
Thanks for the input guys.