Inland Flip Sight

Ruth, p. 211 shows 5 carbines with serial numbers +/- 4000 of yours being subjected to interchangeability tests on August 15, 1943. Nothing can guarantee a particular receiver was part of a carbine completed on a particular day. The closest I have seen is where the Carbine Club newsletters have a Winchester log that shows the last receiver stamped on each day of their entire production run, and while this info is useful for establishing an 'early' date range, there are a lot of steps after serial number roll on.

I understand the logic tree you're climbing - I have done the same thing myself with an original carbine that contains an extractor obtained from another maker - and it has a Ruth reference showing 5000 were obtained at just about the right time for my gun. So, keep doing the "what if" process, just stop before you get to wishing it so. Logic would insist that you give equal weight to the possibility of a replacement handguard - and nothing can disprove that it was a wartime ordnance shop job.

Interestingly, the CC newsletters have two Inlands with 9-43 barrels that have serial numbers slightly below the highest serial number in the above mentioned 8-15-43 interchangeability test. So, to be logical, if you want to claim the Rockola handguard is original due to some quirk in the manufacturing process delaying the receiver's use, you have to give equal weight to the possibility yours is a replacement barrel. Ruth in the NPM chapter shows 10 barrel assemblies were to be delivered with every 100 carbines - so a barrel that seems a bit too early for the rest of the gun could be a replacement - and could easily be a wartime replacement (war tends to result in lots of broken stuff). Good luck!

True, but the proof marks on the barrel will tell the story on that. If he knows what he is looking for he will know if the barrel is a replacement. Each maker had an individual proof mark on the barrel just like the stock cartouches. Also Inland finished the barrel, reciever, sights, and band as a unit. So close inspection of the finish would also tell so of the story on the barrel.
I for one would leave it the way it is. If it looks right it may well be. On the other hand as stated above it could be a wartime replacement which is just about as good to me.

I added more pictures of the whole gun. I have decided to leave the RCM handguard in place as is. The receiver dovetail is staked so this gun will never be truly "original" as issued. So I have no axe to grind here!
Statistically it would seem very unlikely to me, that a field or arsenal replacement handguard would just happen to be the RCM integrated part rather than the 50 or more other makers and variations of possible handguards. Right there is a 50:1 shot for originality in my view!
The dealer paid about $300 for it, and it obviously had not been touched or clieaned in 50 years. I cleaned it up to get to look like it does now in the photos. But I did not refinish or alter it in any way.
The oiler is SI and the sling is unmarked. The right front sight ear is noticeably thicker than the left ear, I've seen this on other Inlands. Thanks for all the help everyone. Now, on to the all original Garand from 5/45 that I just acquired!

If the receiver was held up during production long enough to be assembled with a type II RMC hand guard how do you explain the presence of the "fat boy" dog leg hammer? If the receiver was held up long enough for the RMC hand guards to be used the hammer would be a straight type not a "fat boy" dog leg.

Well, I am asking questions, not explaining anything! But I do appreciate your comments. I don't know the time frame of the hammer changes. But by seeing this carbine come into a shop and sold at a ridiculous low price by old people rules out any "recent" parts changes on the gun. This gun was not built up out of parts by someone!
I am thinking the gun may have been one of the first guns assembled right after the RMC handguards arrived. Some lucky carbine was the very first one to get an RMC forearm, probably not this one, but this gun could easily have been at the beginning of the 10,000 to come! Those handguards were integrated because there was a need for them. So I would guess they were put into production right away.
The barrel date, and serial number may not accurately establish the assembly date. In my years of manufacturing experience, I often saw new boxes of parts put on top of old boxes of parts so the sequence was not linear. Say the gun was assembled on 10-15-43, could that satisfy all the parts that are on the gun? I don't know about carbines, but every other gun I have collected had an overlap range were both types of parts were used for some time period. A hard and fast cut off line is rarely seen in part number changes during a production run.
If someone could prove this hand guard was definitively added later on, I would be very happy! Then I could just get an Inland hand guard and call it a day!

Beautiful Carbine

Two things don’t appear together, those being the hand guard and the hammer. The “fat boy” dogleg hammers show up in the early 400,000 to the early 600,000 range. That equates to a span of roughly a mid may to end of August 1943 time frame. So the hammer would be correct for your serial number. As mentioned earlier carbines in your serial number range were assembled in the July – August 1943 time frame with a few stragglers in September. If the carbine was assembled after the RMC hand guards were delivered in October the hammer used would have been a straight type as these were in use from mid September on. The serial number starts for the straight hammers runs from the mid 600,000 range on Inland receivers and the late 700,000 range on SG receivers. There were some dog legs still in use as Inland transitioned to the newer straight design but they were the standard dog leg type.

BTW at roughly the same time Rock-Ola sent hand guards to Inland Saginaw Gear also provided some. The RMC and RSG hand guards show up on Inlands assembled in the late October into November time frame with barrel dates being 10-43 and 11-43. This is fairly typical of integrated parts at Inland. They show up on assembled carbines almost immediately after the records show they were received.

Brian, Thanks for your thoughtfull explaination about the "fat boy" hammer. I see that the RMC handguard and that hammer don't usually appear together in the "normal" manufacturing sequence.
So for this carbine to have come this way from Inland, it would have had to be rejected by military inspectors at final inspection for some stock or handguard related defect. That way it would have the fat boy hammer, and the 10-8 barrel on the assembled action. When the new stock/handguard was refitted later on, the replacement parts would be into the RMC handguard usage time. Another possibility is a tray of buried earlier hammers being used a little later on in production. This possibility is well documented at Colt on the 1911-A1's for example. But of course field replacement of all or any parts is just as likely too. So it will just be what it is and stay that way too! Thanks everyone!

Your attempt to develop a story to explain how the hand guard could possibly be original is full of holes. First, if the carbine was rejected due to a stock or hand guard related defect during finial inspection it wouldn’t take months for a new hand guard to be fitted. Inland delivered almost 148,000 carbines in September and October 1943. Second, if a tray of earlier hammers were found and used concurrently with the RMC hand guards the serial numbers of the receivers would be in the mid 800,000 range, upper 900,000 range or low 2.9 mill range. The only logical explanation for the RMC hand guard that can be supported by factual data is that it is a replacement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJS57

I need to get an original flip sight to restore my otherwise original 541,000 range carbine. Just trying to get a general idea of cost? A search of this forum shows prices in the $125 range? The other question is the handguard on this Inland which is a Rockola. The barrel is dated 5-8-43 so that looks like the correct date range when Inland had 10,000 handguards integrated to them from Rockola per Riesch. This carbine came in to the gunshop at a stupidly cheap price and was dirty inside, 50 years dusty outside and dry as a bone, came with a box of 1944 WRA ammo. I am lucky to have been there to purchase it.

---

Here's one on Ebay. Looks real to me, but others here may know better. I thought of picking it up, but mine is "dead nuts on" with my adjustable, so I decided to stay with the type II.

Original Rear Flip Sight for Inland M1 Carbine - eBay (item 290442114336 end time Jun-09-10 18:46:53 PDT)