Should I Have Passed On This Inland?

I bought this one about 6 months ago on a hunch of what might be on the inside. It sat for 2-3 months before I decided to pull it apart. First problem was I couldn't get the sling off, and still haven't figured out how the PO got the darn thing on there! I'll show a few pics - I've been wanting to get an idea of what you guys think of it.

I didn't take the bolt apart, but it's marked IO 2 on the left lug and has a Type 1 ejector and firing pin. Other than a couple obvious mods to the stock, my biggest let-down was to find an "in-the-white" Type 3 SG hammer and a 26 coil spring - both look brand new. I spent more time cleaning off verdigris and trying to get the oiler (IS) out (never could) than I did examining the rest of the gun that night! The Op Slide is a Type 2 marked PI without the circle. The Op Slide spring has closed coils on each end that are ground flat. It measures a full 10-1/4" in length and is "in-the-white."

I see an S on the front sight - is it a poorly struck SI? The receiver shows the "two tone" pattern and there's a lighter area where the barrel band would have rested when being finished. The hand guard is unmarked and appears to be a Type 1 "bull-nose" - the stock has the "Julian Date" numbers in the slide channel. There's a circled P on the pistol grip, no import or rebuild marks, but also no CC visible on the RH side.

I've seen another Inland having a UI marked sling swivel with no serifs, but this one has them - hope that's correct. My original plan was to keep this Carbine just like it is - with little if any changes. The (2) previous owners had both served in the US Navy - a WWII veteran and his son, both now gone. I would appreciate any questions and/or comments. If you need more pictures of any area, let me know. Thanks! - Bob

Attachment 126238Attachment 126237Attachment 126236Attachment 126235Attachment 126234Attachment 126233Attachment 126232Attachment 126231Attachment 126230Attachment 126229

Here's more pics. - Bob

Attachment 126243Attachment 126242Attachment 126241Attachment 126240Attachment 126239

Looks mostly correct from the photos you have shown. Maybe the other owner thought he could help the trigger pull with the later parts.

Need more pictures of the sling. You can't remove the oiler with the sling on. It was made so you wouldn't loose the oiler by having it slip out. The carbine actually looks pretty good. The two tone pattern (top and bottom) on the receiver is correct for many earlier inlands. The rear sight looks good. The S~ marking would be correct. Should you have passed? Depends on what you paid. I suspect you might have done pretty well. You have a lot of early parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kar66

Looks mostly correct from the photos you have shown. Maybe the other owner thought he could help the trigger pull with the later parts.

---

Yeah, that alone helps the trigger pull a lot. I've got an S'G' with the original hammer and spring and the pull on it is close to 10 lb. I just checked this one and it's right at 6 lb. From the looks of the parts, it may have been done by the Government before they let it go. - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimb16

Need more pictures of the sling. You can't remove the oiler with the sling on. It was made so you wouldn't loose the oiler by having it slip out.

---

Yes, that's correct and even with original GI slings, not all of them cooperate like they should - stocks can vary, and a lot of the D tips can be especially difficult. This one has an 1/8" thick leather sling on it and the oiler will barely move in it. I believe whoever installed it, worked the oiler in at an angle and then riveted a loop into the free end after he got it out on the left hand side. I hate to cut it, but it does need some new slides (keepers?) on it. What do you think about the marking on the front sight? - Bob

I don't know that much about Carbines, but that's a beauty. No, you should not have passed on it.

Wood looks to be in good condition, just need to strip off that varnish and apply some RLO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRiverrat11

I don't know that much about Carbines

---

I'm not convinced of that - I think you're doing OK! :thup: - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singer B

Just need to strip off that varnish and apply some RLO.

---

If it would reveal a hidden CC it might be worth trying, but out of respect for the Navy Vets I hate to mess up their work. It looks like a very heavy coat of Varathane - it's easy to make matters worse sometimes. :ugh: - Bob

GIBOB,
In CCNL #32 June 1979,
The one that JB Powers searched thru the bushel of front sights.
SI milled were found. Reported having the rear bevel inside the outer ears (like yours).
On page 6, in the chart, last column it's noted Inland, Spring 1943.
Your Staking matches the marked style in the staking column.

I believe these were made by Simpro Mfg. Co. Who also made sights for IBM and Underwood.... Maybe NPM also, these include Type I and Type II when applicable.

Note: Though there were no pictures I found a post of a Bavarian return where the marking read IS with the barrel up right. It didn't state if it was a Type I or II.
With your S up on the ridge, I'd be looking for a light 'I' impression on either side.

With your picture blown way up, I think it may be stamped up side down. Being IS with barrel up. This from looking at the style of the S and a slight crush on the LEFT EDGE OR THE RIDGE.

5 SI sights were found in that bushel, I'd rate them as being rare.

?? You sure that's a OI stock? Can you see inside the sling well?

Per CCNL #346
UI Swivels with and without Serifs were reported in your range.
SI front sights (Ridged and Flat base) reported from 34,512 - 564,718
You can thank Chris A for this Masterpiece!

Later, Race is on....

I'm starting to get the idea you're pretty serious about this stuff! :cheers: That helps a bunch. I'll try getting a better picture of that sight. Here's one of the sling well - if you look close you can see I'd already tried pounding (mutilating) the sling and still couldn't get the oiler to tilt out. I think that's the way they got it in there - the oiler slot has been tapered a bit at the bottom. What do you think about the bull-nose hand guard - common on an Inland, or no? I think I have to wait until the end of the month to catch a race on network TV here. It's getting pretty hard to pick a winner these days! Thanks! - Bob

Attachment 126291

It would be nice to have the receiver/barrel out of the stock so we could see the shadow at the point of assembly barrel/receiver and the side of the receiver where they stopped sandblasting and the area there. It looks like in that one photo you see what looks to be the area of interest.The parts swap wouldn't concern me in the slightest it could be a field modification for a good reason. I'd love to have a six pound trigger on any carbine I have.
It is a nice gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

already tried pounding (mutilating) the sling

---

I don't understand what the worry about that Uncle Mikes sling is. It's a commonly available sling, Brownells retails them. I'd cut it and be away with it, then you can put the correct one on. Cut it across the back side of the oiler and it'll come away clean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

It looks like in that one photo you see what looks to be the area of interest.

---

Dave, I'll try to get those pictures - will not be as easy as the one for Charlie, though. That "shooter" IBM of mine that you liked years ago, has a trigger pull around 5 to 5-1/2. Thanks! - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It's a commonly available sling, Brownells retails them.

---

Jim: Don't know if you've bought one lately but they're not US made now - don't think they have been for a long time. The last good one I had was for a Mini-30 about 20 years ago. Right now, I feel like I should leave this one on there - wish I had new keepers for it, though. This one isn't marked "Uncle Mikes" anywhere on it like the one I had before, but both hooks are marked: JAPAN. Not sure if you're suggesting I put on a leather sling (would have to be a thinner one) or a WWII sling? As you probably know, they're not commonly available anymore! - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

I'm starting to get the idea you're pretty serious about this stuff!

---

As serious as I am about sticking a Fuel Injected Crate motor and up graded transmission in that old Ford of yours.
And using that Leather Sling for a tie down in the bed !!

Take $15,000 and 1 USGI C Tip Sling for it?
I'll have it picked up at the end of your drive way.

:dancingbanana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

a WWII sling

---

The proper sling, I know someone here must have one spare. As for the leather one, I've cut more than a couple off just because it was easier than trying to wrestle with it. It's a one inch military style is all. Nothing you couldn't live without I'm sure...

This is what it looked like... https://www.brownells.com/shooting-a...prod25729.aspx

Remove the varnish, and cut that leather sling at the back, and put on the correct one, [as BAR said]. :thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lboos

Remove the varnish, and cut that leather sling at the back, and put on the correct one, [as BAR said]. :thup:

---

I believe he wants to leave it mainly untouched since the Navy vets are the ones who applied the varnish. I would do the same if it were mine. I know exactly how he feels, I have items from Jim Flavin that are still wrapped up with post-it notes just like he sent them to me. I won't even unwrap them because he was the last one to wrap them up. Much like Bob's varnished stock, they will remain that way as long as I own them anyhow. Some things are more prized by where they came from more than the actual object itself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by painter777

As serious as I am about sticking a Fuel Injected Crate motor and up graded transmission in that old Ford of yours.
And using that Leather Sling for a tie down in the bed !!

Take $15,000 and 1 USGI C Tip Sling for it?
I'll have it picked up at the end of your drive way.

:dancingbanana:

---

Charlie: That was intended to be a compliment, not a dig. Nope, you can't have my pickup and ruin it - you might take that as as dig, though! The Ford has changed a bit since you saw it last. I apologize for the Chevy air cleaner (been on there for 45 years) but the old one (oil bath) sprung a leak! See pics below and better ones of the front sight, too.

I think you've got that sight pegged - looks like they tried to get an SI stamp on there (read from the muzzle end ) but it didn't quite fit. :thup: - Bob

Attachment 126302Attachment 126304Attachment 126303Attachment 126301Attachment 126298Attachment 126299Attachment 126297Attachment 126300

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

It would be nice to have the receiver/barrel out of the stock so we could see the shadow at the point of assembly barrel/receiver and the side of the receiver where they stopped sandblasting and the area there.

---

Dave: I'm attaching the best pics I could get of the areas you asked to see. I posted some like these before on a different Inland and was told by someone they weren't correct - wrong s/n block or some such thing. The area on the barrel isn't very distinct, but you should be able to see it. If I have room, will also show the original piston nut staking and (2) pics of the receiver from the top. - Bob

Attachment 126311Attachment 126312Attachment 126309Attachment 126310Attachment 126307Attachment 126308Attachment 126306Attachment 126305

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lboos

Remove the varnish, and cut that leather sling at the back, and put on the correct one, [as BAR said].

---

Louis, I understand what you and Jim (BAR) are saying, but I'm likely going to keep it much the way it looks right now. It's hard to explain, but Jon D pretty much "summed it up" in the post just below yours. I had (4) uncles that served in the US Navy during WWII. My Dad's (3) youngest brothers pictured below, served in the Pacific Theater and (2) were barely out of HS at the time.

Also, I was a friend of Jim Flavin's and was fortunate enough to meet him in person and to thank him for his service. He served in the Navy with "Assault Craft Unit 1" during the Vietnam War and faithfully attended the annual meetings with his group for as long as his health allowed.

I don't think the sling on this Carbine is just the "run of the mill" variety - but instead think it's likely been with the gun for possibly 50-60 years. I'll attach some pictures of the sling, too. If I remove it, I'll probably drill out a rivet rather than taking a knife to it. ;) - Bob

Attachment 126318Attachment 126317Attachment 126316Attachment 126315Attachment 126314Attachment 126313

You could always drill the center out of the rivet and pop it out. Then you could work the leather sling end around the oiler and remove it. A brass rivet isn't that hard to replace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimb16

A brass rivet isn't that hard to replace.

---

I learned how to do those from my Dad repairing picking bags on the farm where he worked when I was growing up. Probably have to buy a box of 100! One idea I have too, is to use one of those short screws with a large flat head and similar nut, like were used to hold 3 hole notebook folders together years ago. Most had brads that you bent over, but some had those screws that you assembled by turning with your thumb nail. I probably have one somewhere if I would just go look! :lol: - Bob

Thanks for the photos. The finish appears to be original and very well preserved. The sand blast mark on the receiver is strong and the shadow at the point of barrel/receiver joint is also there . I have a 5.4 (8/44) that is almost sure to be original that the finish isn't as good as that one. I think that Inland started to speed up and allow the quality to slip toward the end. They did request and were allowed to use barrels that were formerly rejects but would work fine according to the rules. My barrel looks like a 45 barrel, shallow rifling and not from being shot. That is a really nice unit you have there. Thanks
D

Charlie: I've had my share of flatheads many of them and Henry built a fine car, but the Chevrolet was a lot better in my book. The Ford would bust axles like popcorn always the same thing, $hitty crystalized steel. If I had a thousand bucks for every cluster gear I replaced on a Ford, I'd be a rich man. The Ford transmission was way too long and the gearshafts would flex because of it, once they spread enough, pow another cluster gear. The Chevy was the size of a Harley 74 but bullet proof. Better steel, shorter length. I had a 36 Ford flatbed truck. It had one of those cool Stewart Warmer "South Wind" heaters in the cab, the one that took a bit of gas from the Stromberg 97 and ran hot as hell. It was from Montana and had a strip of leather replacing one of the inserts on the crankshaft. Was in there working fine for decades. Ford did use inserts instead of Babbited bearings probably because they were cheaper.

I can tell that Dave has "been there & done that" with the Fords! Changing axles and transmissions on pre-49's isn't much fun - I think I broke and repaired 6-7 transmissions and a couple of axles. I do remember beating a couple of Chevy V8's, though.

Here's the pics of the receiver and barrel from the 5.4 Inland I had. I was told here on the forum that the s/n was too high to have that type of finish. :surrender: :dunno: - Bob

Attachment 126720Attachment 126721

EDIT WITH CORRECT PICTURES STARTS HERE:

I was looking at this reply the other day and noticed the Type 1 rear sight in the above pictures. My 5.4 Inland had an original Type 3 rear sight on it, so realized I had posted pics of my 476K Inland by mistake. Below are the pictures from the 5.4M Inland. There might be a slight "two-tone" look to the receiver and a light area on the barrel near the gas cylinder, but not definite like the early guns. - Bob

Attachment 126716Attachment 126717Attachment 126718Attachment 126719

I've got a few more pictures of this "current" 408K Inland, so will post below. Somewhere, I've read that Inland may have used some unmarked Type 1 "bull-nose" hand guards in the Spring of '43 and I believe the milling pattern on this one is the same as one Charlie helped me with before. He figured it was made by Winchester, but neither one of us could see a "w" on it anywhere. What do you guys think? I attached one of the code in the stock channel, too - hard to make out but I think it reads: 126 1

I also wanted to show the trigger housing and the "hammer strikes" - even though they're hard to see, I think both are there. - Bob

Attachment 126382Attachment 126381Attachment 126380Attachment 126379Attachment 126387Attachment 126386Attachment 126385Attachment 126384Attachment 126383

I see a 125 9. It's definitely a five instead of a six, I can see the straight back of the five. The last letter is fuzzy it could either be a one a three or a nine in my opinion.hth

Thanks! Yep, the number offset to the right is blurred and looks kind of wide. I've still got the action out of the stock - will try getting another picture outdoors. - Bob

"I can tell that Dave has "been there & done that" with the Fords! Changing axles and transmissions on pre-49's isn't much fun - I think I broke and repaired 6-7 transmissions and a couple of axles. I do remember beating a couple of Chevy V8's, though."

With the non-banjo rear ends (49-51) the trick was to take a broom stick and put a wire loop on the end. Reach inside and drop the loop around the broken part and pull that end piece out. I used to remove about half of the cross member bolts because I broke transmissions so often. They would never break when you were abusing them, it would go "Tink" when you were on a date or something. The engines were great.

The Hand Guard looks every bit like a WRA Bull Nose to me. The Height of the Frt profile, The Side of Frt Profile, The Circular milling near the notch with inner milling circle over top of the outer circle.
The numbers in the stock channel look like 126 3 to me..... Maybe 126th day of 1943 ? Or May 6 1943 ?

3-6-43 WB show RMC sending 3,000 Hammers to Inland.
I always wonder about these 'Integrated parts'.
Did RMC send Hammers made for them (?) or Hammers they had 'Integrated' from another Prime or Sub (?)
That make any sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

With the non-banjo rear ends (49-51) the trick was to take a broom stick and put a wire loop on the end. Reach inside and drop the loop around the broken part and pull that end piece out. I used to remove about half of the cross member bolts because I broke transmissions so often. They would never break when you were abusing them, it would go "Tink" when you were on a date or something. The engines were great.

---

My Dad bought a new '51 Custom 2DR when I was about 6 years old. By the time the (3) of us boys were teenagers we had another (4 ) '50 and'51 "shoebox" Fords surrounding the house. Yep, a cousin who worked at the wrecking yard showed me that trick with the axles! The 51's had a stronger transmission but could still be broken! :wave: - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by painter777

The numbers in the stock channel look like 126 3 to me..... Maybe 126th day of 1943 ? Or May 6 1943 ?

---

I thought it could be 126 3 and Jon saw a 5 instead of a 2. Either way, that date would be about right with my 4-43 barrel, I think. I have other pictures to add, but need to head for town right away, so will attach them later. That's a good question on the parts transfers! In the back of my safe, I found another Inland I bought 6 years ago and it has an SI sight! Will attach a picture later this evening!

EDIT STARTS HERE

I tried taking more pics of the stock's date code outdoors for Jon D, but couldn't come up with anything better than I had - it's just too faint! The 1st picture below was taken outdoors and the last number does look like a 3. The second picture is from a 426K Inland auction on GB (2016) with a 6-43 barrel. That would figure out to mid May 1943 - also seems about right.

Attachment 126430Attachment 126429

If I'd taken the time to look closer at that 755K Inland (from the back of the safe) when I brought it home, I would've already had my answer regarding the missing I on 408K's sight. It's clear that the 755K has the I to the left of the ridge and the marking is "upside down" - viewed with the barrel up. The date on the barrel is 7-43, so this one appears out of the s/n range according to the CCC data on the use of the SI sights. The second picture shows (2) NI sights with the marking along the side of the blade - seems like the SI's could have been stamped there if they had wanted to - a tighter space for the stamp, though. :dunno: - Bob

Attachment 126428Attachment 126427

I promise you guys it's a 5! It says 125 3, the five is very elaborate and the bottom of it curves up almost touching the bottom of the straight back of the five. I wish I knew how to take a picture and draw on it to show you guys what I'm seeing. Charlie's right about the last digit being 3. I must have a really good screen because I can see the five clearly when I zoom in

I also believe the old auction picture reads 158 3 because I can see the same characteristic dip in the top of the five as I see in Bob's picture. Where it's an elaborate number 5, the top of the five dips down like a smile on a smiley face, then has a straight back, then circles out and curls back up almost touching the straight back of the five but not quite, there is a tiny space there with no ink which is also present in both pictures of Bob's and the auction. Since the numbers are so elaborate, I would imagine a number six would also be very curved at the top if that makes sense.hth. but Bob's stock definitely has a number five, I would literally bet my house on it haha!That's how sure I am. I just want Bob to record the correct numbers for his records

Jon - you've almost got me convinced, but I'm thinking the heights of the numbers in that first group of (3) would've all been about the same. For example, a 5 would be about as tall as the 2 or 8 shown next to it - I can see a faint curvature on my 6's that extends to the same height as the other numbers.

Attachment 126591
Is your house paid for, and can you get a picture of it? :dancingbanana: Just Kidding !!!!!

Those numbers are so faint it's a wonder they can still be seen at all - I'm happy they're there, even if I can't read 'em! Being stamped directly over the milling lines doesn't help any either. :dunno: - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by painter777

I believe these were made by Simpro Mfg. Co. Who also made sights for IBM and Underwood.... Maybe NPM also, these include Type I and Type II when applicable.

---

Charlie, The Inland "SI" (sans serif) front sights were made by R.D. Sedgley, Inc. - I found this in WarBaby pages 335 and 1145. - Bob

My goal was to get the sling and oiler removed and still have the sling capable of being reinstalled. To do that, I needed to drill out the rivet and replace it with a post (barrel) screw. The rivet turned out to be hollow steel about 1/8" in diameter with brass caps. When I started drilling, the cap came off - then it got really tough to get the rest of the rivet out without ruining the leather.

The smallest post screw I could find at HD was 3/16" x 1/4" so knew I would have to shorten both pieces to get the length down enough to tighten against the leather. Even though the leather was nearly 1/8" thick just a few inches from the riveted loop, I found that I needed to shorten the post to a length of about .170" to match the leather at the loop. The (double) thickness of the leather in the area where it comes in contact with the oiler when installed on the gun, is about .235" - that's why the loop at the end of the sling has to be taken apart to remove the oiler. I used a 3/16" hollow punch to increase the size of the original rivet holes.

The oiler didn't look like it had been out or had the cap off in a long time - an original leather washer was still in there! I'll probably put on a GI sling, but at least I was able to save the "Veteran" one!

I'll attach a few pictures. - Bob

Attachment 126606Attachment 126605Attachment 126604Attachment 126603Attachment 126602

You may be absolutely right Bob, probably looks a lot clearer in hand as well but for what it's worth since I don't know how to take a picture and draw on it I tried my hand at drawing it freehand of what I'm seeing to see if anyone else can see the same thing.

I also notice at the ends of some of these numbers is a thicker ball like end. In the auction picture, the number three is very clear with these thick ball like ends. Your number six seems to have a thick ball like end at the bottom which is why I thought it's the bottom end of the number five. You probably seen these style numbers on a million more stocks than I have so I'm sure you're probably correct about it being a number six but on my screen, it sure looks like a number five. The auction picture looks more like a six to me than the picture of your personal stock Bob, because the tops of the numbers are more cut off looking to me in the auction picture. On this picture, these are the two points that I thought matched on both yours and the auction picture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jond41403

You probably seen these style numbers on a million more stocks than I have.

---

Jon, your estimate is a little high! Don't know how many you've seen, but my total is probably a half dozen or less. Before I replied earlier today, I was able to visualize your pencil drawings in my mind as I studied your earlier posts. You've done a good job!

I've got pictures from lots of old auctions and threads stored away, so hopefully can find more legible examples with that same style of numbers. It would probably help if I took time to search through some older threads here and on other forums, too.

Thanks for spending extra time to help us all learn more about these old Carbines! :thup: - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

The Inland "SI" (sans serif) front sights were made by R.D. Sedgley, Inc.

---

Your right US BOB,
I had Simpro Mfg Co. of Newark New Jersey: who made the fabricated SU B and SI U sights mixed up with Sedgley. :confused:
Source: Memory !

You ever wonder who made the bayonet band for Inland Hand Stamped Sans Serif S and I and also S and Serif I ?
Just Asking :slap:

Safe Holiday All,

Charlie, I think I have an Inland with one of those bands and looked up the maker one time. Can't remember right now but will take some time this evening and see if I can find it. Just realized I showed the wrong Inland receiver pics to Dave HH in an earlier reply to this thread - so need to figure out if I can fix that, too! :runaway: - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by painter777

You ever wonder who made the bayonet band for Inland Hand Stamped Sans Serif S and I and also S and Serif I ?

---

American Radiator Standard Sanitary Corp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W5USMC

American Radiator Standard Sanitary Corp

---

D@mn :banghead:
I was going to add, Wayne can't play. Whole idea was to get ole USBOB to dig thru his books.

Safe Weekend All,

Sorry Charlie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by painter777

I was going to add, Wayne can't play. Whole idea was to get ole USBOB to dig thru his books.

---

He probably had to look it up, too! While watching a movie with the wife last night, I did take a peek at WB for the answer. Came up with an abbreviated version of the same thing.

I would add "&" between the words "Radiator Supply", though. I did have to dig through my safe - turns out I don't have an "SI" on any of my Carbines. Most of them are marked "AI."

Here's one for you two: How many variations are there of the horizontal type Inland butt plates? Show us pictures if you want to - I don't mind if you Hi-Jack my thread!

- Bob

Mine is American Swiss, most are so light that you only see the triangle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jond41403

I'm sure you're probably correct about it being a number six but on my screen, it sure looks like a number five.

---

I can't tell for sure what that number is, but found pics of the stock on my 476K Inland (undated barrel) and it appears to read "147 3". Still would like to find another one with a definite 5 to see if the style matches your drawings.

Attachment 126690Attachment 126691

Now I'm wondering if the date codes on the stocks were stamped at the time they were finished and passed inspection, or if it was done at the time the actions were installed in them. I'm thinking it must've been when just the stock was completed, since the date code is a lower number on my 476K than the "158 3" we saw on the 426K (Gunbroker-2016) Inland.

Another observation I've made is with the numbers stamped on top of the barrel near the receiver ring. I have (3) 6 digit Inland carbines. Maybe it's common knowledge, but I noticed those numbers increase along with the s/n's.

408K (5)
476K (7)
755K (8)

Attachment 126689
Charlie and Wayne, What do you think about the Inland butt plates? :wave: - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

Another observation I've made is with the numbers stamped on top of the barrel near the receiver ring. I have (3) 6 digit Inland carbines. Maybe it's common knowledge, but I noticed those numbers increase along with the s/n's.

---

Numbers or letters have been observed on the bevel of Inland barrels dated from 6-43 to 12-43, they are random not necessarily increasing with the serial #. I have 479296 with a 6 on the bevel.
Still looking into the buttplates have to "look it up" :lol:
FWIW I see 125 3 on the inside of your stock, or maybe it's a 6.

I took Bob's picture and zoomed it in and took a snapshot of it and I don't know if this will help make it any clearer, but I'm going to try posting to see if it helps. I emailed that picture to new to brass Dan (hope he doesn't mind) but I haven't heard back yet. I figured if anyone has a picture or has seen a picture of a clear number 5 in that style, it would be him.hth. would it be correct in reading the date on your 476k carbine as July 14th 43? And your 408k carbine as maybe May 12th 43?

Too late at checking email tonight - will try to figure it out tomorrow! Good picture! - didn't realize my foot was in it till just now. :thup: - Bob

---------- Post added at 11:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W5USMC

Numbers or letters have been observed on the bevel of Inland barrels dated from 6-43 to 12-43

---

Wayne, that one I posted with the (5) has a 4-43 barrel date. - Bob

Hey Bob, does that mean that yours might be the earliest observed so far with those numbers on the bevel? If the already known observed dates are from 6-43 to 12-43, yours beats that by 2 months

Good to know Bob, I imagine there may even be earlier dated barrels with a # or letter on the bevel out there. The "have been observed on the bevel of Inland barrels dated from 6-43 to 12-43" statement came from a CCNL published Mar 2008 and was based on what had been reported to the club prior to that time.
This is a good reason why submitting datasheets on all carbines not just originals can provide some good info.

Jon, In reply #33 Charlie thought May 6th would be about right for the 408K. I found a "Date Difference" calculator on line here:

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calcu...calculator.php

I worked it with that date (05-06-1943) and got 125 days which should be be correct with the numbers as you saw them. For the 476K, I used 05-28-1943 and the difference showed as 147 days:

Attachment 126715

If I had a 1943 calendar, I'd probably count every day between to see if I'd get the same result! Maybe our buddy Charlie has one tucked away some place and can check it for us.
:dancingbanana:

Wayne, does your 479K Inland have an undated barrel? - Bob

The barrel date on my 479K is 6-43

Dan is the man! I heard back from him and he sent me a couple pictures with a clear number five which matches your example Bob. Dan sees a five as well. Thank you to new to brass Dan for the pictures and his time.hth. are you 100% convinced it's a number five yet Bob haha?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jond41403

Are you 100% convinced it's a number five yet Bob haha?

---

Well at least 99%!!! :thup: - Bob

Still waiting for an answer on the Inland butt plates, though!

:dancingbanana:, I've been wanting to help you out with something ever since you helped me out about a year and a half ago on those SEY split back magazines I bought. I'm not sure if you remember but I had already bought them and was fairly certain they were usgi but wanted your opinion and not only did you give me the thumbs up, you educated me on the things to look for on the fake ones.

Yes, I do remember! - and I still have a note laying here as a reminder I need to PM you with a couple questions on my M1 Rifle. :thup: - Bob