Inland RRA Rebuild, DCM Or Not?

They had to have had parts available then as they were still used by the Army. The DCM Garand sales were for sure just issued out of whatever armory had them. Some I know of were just beat up NG guns issued out of RRA. Mine was a new white sack out of Rock Island.
Some guys in our club got NM rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstflabn

Might want to acquaint yourself with MWO ORD B28-3?

---

Thank you for that. The way I read it , that supports my statement that rear sights were sometimes replaced with type three outside of arsenal rebuild where stamps would have been place on the stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgeP

The DCM carbines of the early sixties were sold off because they were deemed" unserviceable". This was because they had never been through an arsenal rebuild. I have observed many carbines that don't make "sense". They have a mixture of early and late features. Type one band and safety, but a late adjustable rear sight is common. Many with highwood stocks. The rear sights were often replaced at the unit level I am told. If you carbine has a rebuild mark then at the very least the stock has been though and arsenal rebuild. I have bought some primo highwood stocks from people who said the carbine it came from was a DCM. They just changed because they wanted a different stock at the time. The possibilities are endless. You carbine might be a DCM but will probably never be proven to be so. Anything is possible in the world of the M1 Carbine. I guess I should just say in my opinion you carbine is not a DCM. Others can disagree with everything I said but that's ok by me.

---

I'm quite sure that very many rebuilds/updated carbines were included in the sale. With very few exceptions, they had been used in WWII, updated/rebuilt, then used in Korea, possibly being redone again. These were simply carbines from long-term storage that were deemed 'surplus'. The use of the term 'unserviceable' was simply a means by which to surplus-out the carbines while satisfying the 'bean-counters'. They definitely were 'serviceable' in every respect. The same term was used to surplus-out thousands of U.S. pistols during the same period, some of which had never even been issued (the perfect late Remington Rands for example), along with the majority which were rebuilds.
So the term 'unserviceable' on these invoices has no meaning in the technical sense relative to suitability for use.

I read several decades ago that the "unserviceable" meant, the government was not going to order any future replacement parts to keep them serviceable at that time. Of course a few years later, Nam changed that and replacement parts were again ordered. Don't equate unserviceable with un-useable. I know we would but not in government-ease, as 44 said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgeP

Thank you for that. The way I read it , that supports my statement that rear sights were sometimes replaced with type three outside of arsenal rebuild where stamps would have been place on the stock.

---

My intention was to buy time and follow up with an image of the first page of the MWO - but my 'piling' system has thwarted me yet again. Though nobody has turned up any sort of report tracking WWII progress on MWO-3, anecdotes from ETO unit histories (usually in Feb-Mar 45) establish that the process was initiated. With MWO-4 and -5 not coming until after VE-Day, there's room for carbines manufactured with flip sights to have adjustables - but retain their original mag catches and front bands (and not necessarily limited to the ETO).

With the early postwar chaos involved in the rush to peacetime normalcy and the massive budget cuts, I don't find it hard to accept the possibility that large quantities of carbines remained in the crates they rode back home in. Claims that almost all carbines were rebuilt post-WWII universally fail to include any support. Would be nice to find the hidey hole with the progress reports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

The use of the term 'unserviceable' was simply a means by which to surplus-out the carbines while satisfying the 'bean-counters'. They definitely were 'serviceable' in every respect.

---

Not according to Jerry Kuhnhausen (p. 147). Go read the part where he says: "Although many DCM carbines appeared to be in as-new condition, all were shipped with components that did not pass ordnance gauge inspection..."

Superseded parts were included in the 'other' category, fair enough. But the other three sections detail physical deficiencies. As an example he presents a photo of an as-new appearing trigger housing with a mislocated trigger pin hole that could present a safety issue (several other TG problems omitted for brevity).

Would a carbine with the potential for accidental hammer release fit your 'serviceable in every respect' assertion?

to the citizens with no warning thereof ? The original shipment tags state that the shipping division "weapon must be inspected prior to shipment" "Extreme care must be exercised that no unsafe or hazardous weapon is shipped".

How did DOD define 'unsafe' or 'hazardous' for these purposes?

Your label must be defaced, else you would have also quoted the part where it says 'as-is condition.'

Those magic words constitute a disclaimer as to fitness for a particular purpose, or at least it did in the 1960s before the lawyers invented product liability litigation.

I have it on a word document format and can't download to my photo server.
I says that the pistol: "This sale is final and the US Govt retains no obligation or responsibility for malfunction, repair, replacement or exchange"

Re Mavica and floppy. Try these links:

File Explorer doesnt recognise floppy disk drive. - Microsoft Community

USB Floppy Drives

Dave