Late war Inland...

Hi guys,
This 8-44 Inland carbine came my way recently. Judging from the exterior it appeared to be an un-refurbished example. A friend loaned me his copy of Harrison's book on M1's and from what I was able to glean from it's pages the carbine is correct internally as well. However I've been told that Harrison isn't always right so I'm posting it here for your perusal. Comments and opinions would be appreciated.

Best regards,
Len

Attachment 24978Attachment 24979Attachment 24980Attachment 24981Attachment 24982Attachment 24983Attachment 24984Attachment 24985Attachment 24986Attachment 24987Attachment 24988Attachment 24989Attachment 24990Attachment 24991Attachment 24992Attachment 24993Attachment 24994Attachment 24995

Looks very nice. To bad about the stock!

Very nice! I have seen several dings and dents around the oiler well where folks have tried to use a tool to pry the oiler out of the hole in order to remove the sling, not understanding the oiler must be left in. Yours does not look all that bad and would not be a negative to me. What's more important is the originality of the carbine and it appears to be an original, unmodified example.

Does the barrel band have any markings? How is the hammer marked? I have a 5.5 Inland with a 9-44 barrel. The type 2 band is marked KI and the hammer is marked I-I. Nice score and thanks for sharing.

Hi dbarn,
The band is unmarked. The hammer was poorly struck but I think it's marked H.I.

Looks like a great carbine. Check the left side of the barrel band for a / mark. Looks like it may have one in the photo. i have an original 5.4 inland with an 8-44 barrel and a / marked band as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mpd1978

Looks like a great carbine. Check the left side of the barrel band for a / mark. Looks like it may have one in the photo. i have an original 5.4 inland with an 8-44 barrel and a / marked band as well.

---

Thanks for the suggestion! I took another look and there is the mark you mentioned.

Attachment 25014[

Not to hi-jack this thread, but curious if your original 5.4 Inland's may have this sear and hammer mod from Inland? Scroll down.

Adjusting trigger pulls on carbines..

Man that is 1 fuzzy carbine! :lol: But, she's a beauty and looks right as rain to me. :thup: I'd love to own that one! Too bad some MORON used the carve the stock up form of sling/oiler removal! :ugh:

How about some more details on how it came your way.................?

Other than the rear sight with the stamped part number it looks to be original.

"How about some more details on how it came your way.................?"

It came from the estate of a gent who was said to have been a crewman on an LST in Pacific. He supposedly brought back this along with a Japanese rifle.

"Other than the rear sight with the stamped part number it looks to be original."

That's why I posted the pics. Harrison says the sight would be correct but as I stated in my posting I've been told he wasn't always accurate.

Your rear sight is correct for this serial number.
In fact if has been reported much earlier on original carbines. The Reiech (sp) book is way wrong on sight info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdpinwa

Other than the rear sight with the stamped part number it looks to be original.

---

Besides Harrison are you also saying Ruth is wrong about the rear sight?

War Baby page 346 says rear sight type F with I.R.C.O. on right side occasionaly over 7160060.

Jim:CC issue 361 pg 8; his is well inside the change to stamped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

Jim:CC issue 361 pg 8; his is well inside the change to stamped.

---

Dave,
Kind of my point without sounding snotty towards rdpinwa.
Used War Baby as it is published for sale. I didn't want to use the newsletter as it is supposedly CC member’s info.
5.1 - 5.5 shown, so Len, that rear sight is in the range and appears OK.
Jim

There's something I noticed the other day and I've been waiting to see if anyone else mentions it. So far they haven't, so I want to ask if anyone thinks the stamped numbers on the receiver and barrel are as sharp as they should be on an original? I've got a couple of reparked mixmasters that to me look sharper. Also, the wear on some of the pictured parts such as the hammer and mag release might not agree with what I see on the barrel and receiver. To me, it appears that the bottom of the pistol grip may have been sanded. It's not a WWII Inland, but I've got an SA stock that I removed the rack numbers from - I'll show it below along with my Inland receiver and barrel pictures for comparison. - Bob
Attachment 25216Attachment 25217Attachment 25218

Thanks, I like the bolt pic ! Mike.

I didn't want to say anything because I am not an advanced/experienced collector, but it is my feeling that this one either was heavily sandblasted before Parkerizing (atypical if it ever happened at all) or refinished after a heavy blasting to remove/obfuscate pitting. You can hardly see the lathing rings on the barrel, which should 'sing' when you run your fingernail down the barrel. All lettering is 'soft'. Still a beauty, but those aspects are somewhat questionable.

According to NL #361 Inland Serial Number Block 4879526-5549821, under Receiver and Barrel finish, it states that Inland continued to grit blast the tops of receivers and the front portion of the barrels in this serial number block. Some probably more than others.

I like the fact the receiver punch mark shows burnishing and the overall appearance of the carbine. Regarding the barrel, which was finished as an assembly, to include the receiver, barrel, barrel band, and front sight, all original receiver/barrel assemblies that have been observed have a lighter finish mark, just in front of the gas cylinder, where the barrel band rested during the finish process. A photo of this area would reveal original finish on the barrel.

This is what he is talking about above. The side of the receiver will also show this "Two Tone" see below it is and original looking 5 million Inland

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4486-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4485-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usgicollector

Your rear sight is correct for this serial number.
In fact if has been reported much earlier on original carbines. The Reiech (sp) book is way wrong on sight info.

---

No argument, just a question, but Ruth indicates that the adjustable sight was ordered 4/44 and use began 5/44. How early did the stamped sights show up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usgicollector

This is what he is talking about above. The side of the receiver will also show this "Two Tone" see below it is and original looking 5 million Inland

---

Thanks for the comments fellas. Here are some snaps of the area in question. They seem to look like the pics posted above (though with less photographic skill on my part).

Attachment 25252Attachment 25253

That pretty much puts the refinish question to rest.

I'd say it is as original as they come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usgicollector

This is what he is talking about above. The side of the receiver will also show this "Two Tone" see below it is an original looking 5 million Inland

---

Good information - Thanks! Can someone elaborate on the INLAND hammers that have been pictured so far in this thread. What finishes are shown? The last one pictured looks a lot different than the one in the OP. - Bob

The first one was parkerized or finished with Houghto-Black. The second one was left unfinished aka "in the white".

Great thread, but per my earlier post and link, I would like an answer to my question regarding if the hammer and sear have been modified by Inland in the 5.4 range. My 5.5 has been. It would be great to try and establish at what point Inland actually started performing this modification. No hurry, just when you have the time and opportunity. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

That pretty much puts the refinish question to rest.

I'd say it is as original as they come.

---

Yep. No doubt now.