I am sending my bolt and side to Inland tomorrow. It shows the same wear as the one pictured above.
Printable View
I am sending my bolt and side to Inland tomorrow. It shows the same wear as the one pictured above.
While the warped receiver in itself I do not believe a safety issue (aesthetic and affects function) , that deformation of the bolt in the earlier post and slide in this post are unbelievable! WOW. The lack of tension in the trigger spring further reinforces my thoughts that the poor ejection qualities in the video are also due to a weak ejector spring. Jim, how was the ejection pattern in your test? Was it decisive like a USGI, or anemic like the video?
Video?
I believe they are talking about this video
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=53767
Sheesh, too many late hours and little sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by imarangemaster
ERRATA: 2) Don't have a pic of it but the EXTRACTOR plunger spring in mine was 2 coils shorter than GI. Depth of the spring hole looked correct. Wasn't a problem but should be 2 coils longer.
First, your question. It ejected like the ones in the real time firing sequences. The slow motion part of the video is hard for me to use as an indicator as I have very little experience analyzing slow motion firing.
OK, onto the ejector spring and ejector.
Ejector was fine. Ejector spring was the right length but tension was weaker than GI. As were the trigger spring, hammer spring and ejector spring. Sear spring seemed ok. I didn't do spring tension measurements. I replaced each one with their GI equivalents and just felt for a difference. Because the carbine function was not impaired by the weaker springs and I didn't want to go part by part in a critical analysis I didn't mention it before. The springs that were weak I suspect will not have the lifespan of a GI spring ... the trigger spring happened sooner than later. Which made me reframe my thinking on the springs. I think the issue may be the kind of wire their supplier used to make them. I'm no spring expert.... their light, but they work. For now. I mentioned this to Inland in the letter that accompanied the return.
EJECTOR HOLE: The diameter of the ejector hole was slightly too small. The ejector had to be forced in and out. I tried the ejector and it's spring in a GI bolt, no issues. I tried multiple GI ejector/springs in the Inland bolt and all required force to get them in and out. Not a lot of force, but not a little force either. Required pliers to remove them. The smaller diameter was mentioned in the letter to Chiappa as a side note for them to check. Not listed here before as it's only 1 bolt and ejection functioned ok. One other owner advised his ejector went in and out just fine.
There are a number of issues smaller than those I noted in my previous post. But I'm not ready to call them real issues until I get more experience with them and hear from others on theirs. I had this carbine for 1 range trip and it's first 500-600 rounds, then pics and back to Inland. I like more experience and time with them before passing judgment. Over the years I've seen a number of commercial parts that were not to GI spec but worked fine on the carbine they were on. Keeping in mind these are not GI carbines, they're replicas.
I hadn't watched the video before as most of what's been out there is marketing material. In the slow motion sequences I could see scratches on the rear of the bolt that were consistent in appearance with mine. Keeping in mind over time the finish on round bolts gets worn and scratched a bit, the scratches in mine were not the norm. Deeper than normal wear and only after one range trip. And caused by the ridges inside the receiver that have been identified as a casting defect.
Jim
Sleeplessnashadow,
Your situation seems to be different from mine. I do not have any warping at all. My pin is tight but goes in without too much trouble. I do have some slight wear on the front of the bolt. I see no wear on the back of the bolt or on the hammer. Mine also does not have the casting markes inside the receiver.
I do not appear to be able to link pictures so here are the links
Dropbox - bolt1.jpg
Dropbox - bolt2.jpg
For the first couple of hundred rounds I did have both eject issues and battery issues. I had them with Federal, and Armscor ammo. For the third hundred I used Aguila and did not have a single failure, I went back to the Armscor to verify that the rifle did not like that ammo and blew through another hundred without a failure so I am guessing that it just needed a break-in and a couple of cleanings to get over the jamming. I purchased the paratrooper stock and did not see any problems with the stain. Since Inland Mfg still does not have the parts webpage up, I bought a full wood stock from CMP and refinished it myself so do not expect any problems with stain. I have noticed that the stock Inland Mfg type 2 barrel band does not hold the CMP guard as tight as the Inland Mfg guard though, but that is my problem not theirs.
Dave
Dave
Here's your pics, cropped to show the area of interest.
Attachment 64821
Wear to the Parkerizing is to be expected to a little extent. But the concave indentation at the front leading edge of the lug shouldn't happen if it's been hardened properly. I'd be concerned enough to send it into Inland for inspection and replacement. This is a good example that whether milled from forged steel (as in this case) or cast, more important is proper hardening.
Attachment 64822
When inspecting ANY carbine bolt look for deformed metal. The reason these are hardened is the forces they encounter will beat them up. With the bolt, the impact of the hammer on the rear and the pressures exerted on the right bolt lug are usually ground zero. Hardened properly they should last a long time. The GI bolts are a good example.
Inland Manufacturing contracts someone to harden their parts. They may want to consider a quality control process that makes sure it's being done right and consistently. Been a problem for many companies, not just this one.
Jim
Ron,Quote:
Originally Posted by Inland
Welcome to the Milsurps M1 Carbine forum. The members on our forum are knowledgeable in military weapons and those who frequent here the M1 Carbine. Scrutinizing GI and well as aftermarket examples. Not looking for faults, rather for anything to help themselves and others enjoy our hobby. Your willingness to answer and address issues that may arise with your new Inland are greatly appreciated by us all.
Thank you for becoming a member.
Jim
Jim, thank you for your immense work to provide such insightful and professional analysis on Post WWII M-1 Carbines. Your website is a wealth of information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeplessnashadow
I have a dilemma that you can help solve. I own a 1943 Inland that went through a Korean War Arsenal upgrade, and has never been shot since. It is a pedigreed weapon with documentation from it's USMC owner -- a Lieutenant/Doctor in the Medical Corps. I don't want to shoot it.
Thus I'd like to purchase a shootable M-1. What is your recommendation? Buy an authentic M-1 or a more modern reproduction, such as an early Plainfield or Universal or other? I (and I'm sure others) would value your learned insights.
Thank you, Robert