Printable View
I saw that all the A-O reviews online more or less said "crappy" or needed a lot of rounds to fire the weapon in. These articles dated back 10 or more years. Therefore, figuring some QC improvements, I'll do some modern testing. The PO of this weapon had the ramp polished up, said it feeds/shoots everything. We'll see. I'll sigh off, not trying to derail this fine thread. Want to add to it.
As I said earlier, the newer A/O (AOM 130) M1 Carbines have bolts that will "take the heat" of shooting normal, "full power" ammunition. The bolts are sufficiently tempered and will function properly.
The primary problem that the Auto Ordnance had was poorly manufactured magazines. This problem is readily remedied by using either USGI or magazines of Korean manufacture.
If you want to shoot 30-round magazines, you will best be served by replacing the original magazine catch with an M2 type unit. This has the extra "fingers" on the back of the catch to hold the heavier magazines firmly in position. Once this alteration has been accomplished, the rifle should be shot about 300 rounds to "break it in". It is then time to polish the feeding ramp for JSP ammunition so that you can take it hunting.
Enjoy this simple process and have fun! :thup:
A quick update on my IM carbine. Back from the factory on Wednesday. Less than 2 week turn around. According to the work order, the following was done:
"Polished and tuned action." "Installed piston nut to specs." "Tested with asst ammo."
I immediately upon receipt disassembled it and found the following: Some metal had been removed from the top inside of the receiver. Feed ramp had been 'semi' polished. An attempt had been made to smooth the R/H bolt guide rail. Still some very deep valleys in the edge. The gas nut had been replaced and tightened. It was NOT staked. The bolt was NOT replaced. I believe the mag catch WAS replaced as the mags fit much better. While apart, I polished the feed ramp and replaced the recoil spring with a new Wolf spring. Assembled and went to the range with 25 rounds of ammo. 10 Armscor and 15 Aquila. 5 shots each using 3 mags. 2 15 round and 1 30 round. 30 round mag 10 rounds. Absolutely no failure to feed, no failure to fire and no failures to return to battery. The rifle worked perfectly. This is not near enough to state that the rifle is reliable, but it is promising. As soon as I can get some more ammo, I will continue to test. I am also going to put the original recoil spring back in and see what happens.
I still would not recommend this rifle to anyone considering the purchase of one. That may change if the rifle proves to be reliable. It's a shame, because the rifle is a beautiful concept and very well engineered. The execution is the problem. If they could get the receiver right in terms of fit and finish, they would have something. I am going to continue to work with this and see what develops. Any ideas/suggestions are welcome.
Thanks again to those of you who have provide input in response to my questions.
After the break-in period of 250-300 rounds most of the Inland Mfg carbines function okay. The gas piston nut does not need to be staked if it's seated tight and doesn't move. Staking was an option for those that didn't stay tight but some manufacturers defaulted to caution and staked them. The magazine catch on both the Inland and Auto-Ordnance, some work okay, some don't. One of a number of quality control issues. Another being the quality of various springs. Inland's customer service has been pretty good with turn around times. My experience of waiting months hasn't been the same experience the majority of people have.
Be careful with polishing the feed ramp. Check the spent casings for bulges around the rear of the casing. A bulge on one side of the rear may indicate too much was polished/altered and the receiver may need replacement. Light "polishing" is okay but removing metal near the chamber is risky.
That they didn't replace the bolt or any other parts that have metal deformation from improper hardening is a clue as to the overall mindset of what's acceptable to them and what's not. It's consistent with the lack of quality control that causes the returns. If a soft bolt is acceptable then everything is questionable.
Keep monitoring the metal deformation on the rear of the bolt and right bolt lug along with the face of the hammer. If it continues to worsen they'll need to be replaced. If you replace them I recommend buying the replacements from Auto-Ordnance. If you want Inland to replace them while it's still under warranty then operate the bolt/slide action a thousand times, letting go of the slide so it will push the bolt forward and locked. Let those parts beat each other to death to a point that's obvious. If they don't, that's a good thing. But don't trust them until they pass frequent inspections over time..
Inspecting the parts to check for these issues is obviously something that shouldn't have to happen with a new firearm. The majority of owners don't. They rely on the manufacturer as we should be able too. If the carbine functions we assume all is as it should be. The lifespan of the parts is measured in number of rounds fired, not using a calendar. Those not hardened properly will die an early death and as they do they begin affecting other parts. When they finally tell the owner something's wrong it may start with a whisper, but may not. Fire the carbine a couple hundred rounds now and then, put it back in the closet or safe til next time. Everything will seem fine in calendar time.
I'll give it a few more months before buying another retail with the highest serial number possible. I do this with all current production carbines based on the U.S. .30 caliber carbine design. Your serial number is a little lower than the last one I had (9001837). They're well into the 5000 or 6000 range by now. Would be good to hear from owners who have one with a serial number above 9004000. That they didn't replace your bolt in the past month is probably a good indication of the bolts they are still using.
One question for you. Is their a dimple that looks like a punch mark anywhere on the bolt? Most likely on the top or bottom of the right lug. It doesn't take a Rockwell test to see a bolt with damage is too soft. But some of the bolts I've tested have that dimple left by a hardness tester.
My Wilson Rockwell machine tests on spec with the factory test blocks. These bolts, and others by Inland, were consistently 30-32 on the Rockwell C scale. GI spec and the spec most manufacturers stick to (Auto-Ordnance included) is 38-43 on that C scale. Though most all ignore the GI spec of 48-54 for the last inch or so of the rear of the bolt. That those bolts had a dimple consistent with the one left by the test, on the top/bottom of the right bolt lug, they either know the bolt is 30-32 and find that acceptable or their hardness test machine is off spec. Again, it doesn't take one of these machines to see these bolts are soft. This kind of damage wouldn't happen to a bolt hardened to 38-43.
Jim
Jim, although this report is not as flattering to Inland Mfg as it it could be, your full and impartial reporting on every aspect of these carbines has been a true delight to read. Reporting in such a manner serves to prove the genuine type of guy you are and Inland Mfg should be very grateful that you have taken the time and spent the money on such an endeavor. Sadly, if the truth be told, they are probably not all that pleased that you have brought to the surface so many issues these new carbines display. My hat is off to you sir. Thank you again.
There is a web page coming devoted to Inland Manufacturing and their carbines. I've intentionally held off to see if they were going to correct the main issues. Particularly the soft bolts, as they have claimed for over a year now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wish Inland would make the best carbine possible given the challenges of manufacturing costs and affordable firearms. I'm not interested in being a carbine critic and flat dislike it. On the other hand, I'm no one's marketing dummy. I work operations. If a manufacturer wants glowing reviews from someone in operations it's not difficult to figure out how to get them. Invest the marketing money in the quality of the carbine. It will market itself.
I'm no stranger to Ron Norton. Going back to the design phase of the Chiappa M1-22. He's been professional and cordial as long as I've known him. It's pretty clear he is less than happy with some of the information I've shared. Some of what he has shared with me he did so only if I promised not to repeat it. I made that promise and have not repeated what he told me. I don't think he realized I already had that particular info from one or more other sources. So I used their versions. I didn't tell him because I'm an investigator and do what investigators do. He knows this. And I didn't reveal any conflicts in information provided from the various sources, if they existed.
I hold no ill feelings towards Norton and Inland. My long standing offer of whatever assistance I can provide, at no charge to anyone, still stands. Use what's useful, ignore what's not.
My web pages are not gun reviews or critiques. They're history of the carbines. Who makes that history isn't me.
What's beyond my understanding is what's so difficult about having a bolt hardened properly and tightening a gas piston nut. Beyond these two basics, quality control is money, but money well invested in bigger returns. The challenge for every manufacturer of everything is balancing the costs of quality control, overhead and a retail price people will be willing to pay. Auto-Ordnance carbines are the least expensive retail at a cost to quality control. Fulton Armory carbines are some of the most expensive because of their level of quality control. People buy what they can afford.
With the exception of the bolt, Inland's carbines are generally better than those made by Auto-Ordnance. Inland corrects some of the AO deficiencies. But even Auto-Ordnance has their bolts hardened properly. Pretty basic SOP with every firearm, not just carbines.
Thanks for the kudos, but I'm simply trying to pass on the positives that were passed on to me. And hope others can/will do the same.
Jim
Jim........Just had the rifle down again and checked for a punch mark or dimple. Nothing like that appears on that bolt. Now I'm wondering if i should go ahead and get an AO bolt and just keep it in hot standby. Do I need to replace the hammer along with the bolt? It would seem so, if they (AO) are properly heat treated. Are the Fulton carbines better in terms of quality control/reliability etc. ?
I guess I just don't understand the mentality of Inland in not making sure these rifles are the best they can be. I was always told that if something cost a thousand dollars, it had better by god, look like a thousand dollars and work like a thousand dollars. I would have gladly paid more for a high quality firearm.
Going to try to get to the range in the next couple of days. I'll post the results when that happens.
Thanks again, Jim. I really appreciate your comments and help.
Gary
Gary
Every manufacturer of almost everything fights a constant struggle of overhead costs, supply and demands and how much profit they need to make to survive ... or profit. Each owner has their own motivations, limitations etc of why they get into the business and how they run the business.
I don't wanna get into the Fulton carbines here as it will look like bad mouthing Inland for Fulton. Not why I started this thread. I'll put it this way: Fulton Armory has been the only commercial manufacturer of replicas of the U.S. 30 Carbines who could honestly say their carbines are 100% made to GI specs. If you wanna buy one wait til they have one of their frequent sales of 10-15% off.
Of the current manufacturers of .30 carbines, Auto Ordnance is on the least expensive end and the quality is consistent with this. But they're affordable and enjoyable. Fulton Armory and James River Armory's RockOla are on the high end. Their quality is consistent with their products. In between is Inland Mfg and Classic Carbines. The quality control at Fulton and James River is such that returns are rare. The quality control elsewhere is such that they get more returns.
What one buys is what one can afford and based on what they want to do with it. Inland's biggest weakness is their failure to correct the soft bolts and tighten the gas pistons. I'm also at a loss for why they don't correct this given how long they've known and how many returns they've had.
Just as James River relies on the RockOla name as a marketing gimmick, Kahr Arms does so with the Auto-Ordnance name, Inland manufacturing doe so with the Inland name. And Winchester's owners do with the Winchester name. The list goes on. This marketing/sales gimmick works. People like the names. But sometimes confuse the name of the current company with the reputation earned by the previous company. That reputation is what companies are banking on, literally.
Jim
Jim:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeplessnashadow
As you said with the A/O their costs are the lowest, and their quality isn't the most consistent. They haven't seemed to suffer the metallurgical problems endured by Inland. I think that anyone replacing their New Inland bolts with one from either James River or Fulton Armories can't really go wrong.
Whoever is purchasing their bolt from another manufacturer should be well-served.
I don't understand the logic behind buying a repo carbine when there are so many GI carbines available. Even a shooter grade GI seems to be more reliable than the new Inland's and the AO's. They run about $1K the same as the problematic remakes. Nicer, maybe a more collectible maker, can be $1,200 and up. I just don't get it. :dunno: