Original Handstamped 6.9 Inland pics..

Here are a few pics of my new 6.93 Inland. Its in super nice shape. It has an non potbelly M2 stock, M2 housing, M2 slide, M2 sear. Interestingly the Type 2 rear sight is not staked to the dovetail in any way. Note the barrel band spring appears untouched and the surrounding wood shows no marks at all. The handstamped 1 is correctly through the finish, just like the proof marks on the bolt and reciever are.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04519-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04524-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04522-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04525-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04548-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04533-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04551-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04550-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04554-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04544-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04532-1.jpg

Nice! I've not seen a double stamp AI on a barrel band before.

Man - that's a beaut.

The clerk at the gun store, which deals mainly in new stuff, told me he thought it was priced a little high at $849. Especially when you could buy one of the brand new Auto Ord carbines they have for less. I was thinking to myself, if he only knew that I would have paid $1500+ for an Inland this nice without hestitation. Not to mention the two NOS stock pouches, 4 NOS mags and a sling that accompanied it.

Dude, when I finally pick my jaw up off the floor, please remind me to tell you just how much I hate you. :p


I got just one word for your carbine..... "Niiiccccceeeee!!!!!!!!" :thup:


Congrats!

I have one that is correct. I can't say original because if looks like the front sight was pulled. It is still original finish and shows the correct shadow just in front of the gas cylinder where the T3 band sat during finishing. It has the punch marks on the bolt and receiver in the white but the handstamp I is finished like the rest if the carbine. Mine is a 6.7. I wonder if they knew it would be an m1 and stamped earlier before finishing and your's being later they stamped after finishing. Mine has a 12-44 barrel on it for what it's worth.
Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usgicollector

I have one that is correct. I can't say original because if looks like the front sight was pulled. It is still original finish and shows the correct shadow just in front of the gas cylinder where the T3 band sat during finishing. It has the punch marks on the bolt and receiver in the white but the handstamp I is finished like the rest if the carbine. Mine is a 6.7. I wonder if they knew it would be an m1 and stamped earlier before finishing and your's being later they stamped after finishing. Mine has a 12-44 barrel on it for what it's worth.
Dave

---

Interesting, I would imagine your theory is probably correct. I have 6.7 handstamp as well, but it is a aresenal rebuild that has been rebarreled and refinished at some point, so its no good for comparison. Also, whats the deal with your front sight on your 6.7? Is it the staking that is disturbed or the finish at the end of the barrel. A bring back 6.4 Inland that I aquired looks like its front sight was slid off(or on), however the staking is perfect. Maybe some of the later inlands werent finished with the front sights in place??? or a new one put on during the sight in process?.......?

It has the pulled or pushed on marks on the end of the barrel. Staking does not have the pushed out edges around the pin, likethe pin was pushed out. Who knows??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usgicollector

It has the pulled or pushed on marks on the end of the barrel. Staking does not have the pushed out edges around the pin, likethe pin was pushed out. Who knows??

---

Or is it from a bayonet being put on and taken off?

No it has a darker stripe where the key cut is.
If I get a chance this weekend I'll post some pics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger

Nice! I've not seen a double stamp AI on a barrel band before.

---

The same guy must have stamped the band on my S'G' - maybe he hit 'em twice "just to make sure!"

Attachment 26072

can mimic the sight being removed. The flash hiders were considered way cool 20 years ago, so you just may have scarring from some guy who wanted to look cool. My 5.6 Win has this type of damage and there's no way the sight has ever been off .

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...27f662_b-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usgicollector

No it has a darker stripe where the key cut is.
If I get a chance this weekend I'll post some pics.

---

I am not sure what it is, but I have more than one of what I believe to be original Inlands that have this darker stripe at the end of the barrel.
This is a pic of a 5.4. Also have a 670k Inland with the same darker stripe.??
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC04641-1.jpg

That is wear from a bayonet being mounted and dismounted, plus movement/vibration during use in training, etc. That is where the loop on the guard rests on the barrel.

I doubt that the above pic is from a bayonet.
If it is a 5.4 it shouldn't have a bayo lug.

You're right - I looked again and he did say 'original', which should preclude a Type III band. Seems to leave only the possibility that the sight was changed out at some point after the original barrel was phosphated with the sight installed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

You're right - I looked again and he did say 'original', which should preclude a Type III band. Seems to leave only the possibility that the sight was changed out at some point after the original barrel was phosphated with the sight installed.

---

The 5.4 has a type 2 band. I dont think the front sight has been off, I think there is another reason why these Inlands have that darker stripe in the same spot. I just dont know what that reason is.

I thought of another possibility; if the barrel was sand-blasted, and then the sight was pressed on, it might rub a slightly smoother strip on the tip of the barrel that would take a little different tint when Parkerized. We know the the sight and band were installed after blasting but before phosphating, and that different surface textures take phosphating differently. This is why the sight and band can be different tints/shades on an original barrel.

Why is it you guys don't believe the front sight could possibly have been removed and replaced? Post # 12 sight shows signs of being removed the hard way. I've seen lots of 'em done just that way. People have to get over the idea of un touched guns. We've come so far in time that these are getting scarce.

Post 12 doesnt look like the front sight was removed to me. Those arent typical marks that I have seen with front sights that were banged off, IMO.

As for the sandblasted barrel theory, It may be plausible because surface prep does effect how a certain finish appears,however I dont think there is any part of the front sight that would drag across this area when it was pressed on. The key would have been put on before the sight.

I agree with BAR.

in different light. Do you still think this sight has been removed? Owned it since 1969.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...00457a_b-1.jpg

The stripe in the picture posted by mpd1978 in post #13 was caused by the front sight assembly fixture and is found to varying degrees on most original finish Inland carbines. Including those that have never had the front sight removed.

The front sight in DaveHH's post hasn't been off the barrel. The marks were probably caused by something banging into the side of it. The grenade launcher and recoil check create different marks.

BQ,

Do you know why the 1 on some is parked and some are stamped through the finish?
I think the likely reason is what I thought about earlier ones knowing there were going to be M1's before finish and later ones not being sure.
I am just guessing on that. I only have the one late Inland so not a lot to base it on in my own collection just observations.
Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

The stripe in the picture posted by mpd1978 in post #13 was caused by the front sight assembly fixture and is found to varying degrees on most original finish Inland carbines. Including those that have never had the front sight removed.

The front sight in DaveHH's post hasn't been off the barrel. The marks were probably caused by something banging into the side of it. The grenade launcher and recoil check create different marks.

---

Very good explanation. Wish I'd thought of the installation tool!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mpd1978

As for the sandblasted barrel theory, It may be plausible because surface prep does effect how a certain finish appears,however I dont think there is any part of the front sight that would drag across this area when it was pressed on. The key would have been put on before the sight.

---

I agree with Inland44's theory. It looks to me like a tight fitting front sight would burnish the sandblasted area when installed. The area of the barrel directly under the key slot in the sight wouldn't be burnished because there is no contact with the sight there, and it would probably look different in that area after parkerizing. I've seen this same appearance on a lot of machinery parts where a gear or sprocket with a key slot has been pressed on. - Bob

Just because there is some crud built up around where the sight meets the barrel doesn't mean it hasn't been off. I stand by my initial assessment that the sight has been removed. I've seen that damage on a lot of sights that were removed without the removal tool. There really isn't any other explanation for that damage.

Bill and I are talking about the slight flaring on the rear of the front sight in post 12. They are beaten off with a brass drift and that's the damage that occurs. 1969 isn't that far back. I remember it well. So, it was done before that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care...I just think this mind set of "This one's original" is wrong. It may be and it may not. I just wouldn't buy one with that story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usgicollector

BQ,

Do you know why the 1 on some is parked and some are stamped through the finish?
I think the likely reason is what I thought about earlier ones knowing there were going to be M1's before finish and later ones not being sure.
I am just guessing on that. I only have the one late Inland so not a lot to base it on in my own collection just observations.
Dave

---

I've only seen one hand stamped Inland where the one actually looked like it was stamped after the finish was applied. And it may not have been stamped after the finish was applied. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of pictures where the reflection from the flash or ambient lighting made it appear the one was stamped after the finish was applied . I tend to believe that because the tool used to stamp the one leaves a flat side when struck deep it creates a reflective surface.

The reason Inland hand stamped the model number is because it was easier to control the percentage of good receivers after heat treating and finial machining of the receivers. Once the unmarked receiver passed final QC it could be marked according to which type was needed and sent on to be mated with a barrel, barrel band, front and rear sights, then finished. Only then was it necessary to segregate the types for final assembly

Let's see....66-42=24, yeah I'd like to just pop back to then.

So...these guns are waaaay older than that. So am I. Anyway, doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Bill and I are talking about the slight flaring on the rear of the front sight in post 12. They are beaten off with a brass drift and that's the damage that occurs. 1969 isn't that far back. I remember it well. So, it was done before that.

---

As can getting banged around on a carbine rack, which is probably the cause of the wear on the front sight.

There are some things about DaveHH's carbine that are not general knowledge that indicate it is in original configuration.

Sorry Brian, I don't totally agree with you. Okay, it is in its original configuration but my belief is that sight has been banged on to be removed. A rack is not going to cause that kind of damage. That damage is from strikes to the back side of the sight.

Dave, please don't take my disagreement over this topic wrong. You have a very nice carbine. One of the nicer carbines we've had posted here in a while. I mean no disrespect to anyone or do I mean to downplay how nice your carbine is.

Agree to disagree :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger

Sorry Brian, I don't totally agree with you. Okay, it is in its original configuration but my belief is that sight has been banged on to be removed. A rack is not going to cause that kind of damage. That damage is from strikes to the back side of the sight.

---

So you think someone took the front sight off this or another carbine. Put it on and re-staked both sides of the front sight pin using the same method Winchester did, but never bothered to replace the one non- Winchester part . A part that is very visible as well as very easy to obtain. It is also a part that no published integration records show should be there but occurs in a very narrow band in the 5.6 mil range.

Brian, I am NOT going to argue with you over this. Your tone clearly suggests that is what you want. I'm not going to bite Brian. I stand by my first assessment that this sight has been removed for whatever reason. You and all your knowledge are correct on so many occasions and may very well be on this but I do not believe so and disagree with your reasoning. No one, (NO ONE) is going to beat on a front sight except for one reason and that is to remove it. A carbine rack did not cause that damage and for you to even suggest that is rather beneath you. I'm sure you realize just what it takes to distort metal as this has been distorted. Now, if you are not able to except someone disagreeing in a civil manner with you then I'm sorry, however, I'm not sorry for disagreeing.

I looked at my NPM which is my house gun, it is a rebuild and it clearly shows where the sight has been off on the end of the barrel. Two distinct wide stripes across the finish. The Win doesn't have that. I have looked very closely at the photo that you guys are concerned with and it has been struck by something but not on an angle you would expect if trying to remove the thing. it is a glancing blow that hit the barrel a bit and hit on the edge of the metal, not the back. Remember this thing has been used as a camp rifle for decades and I never even thought to take better care of it. It has been dropped, banged around tossed etc. Until I found out what it might be. I'm getting a new camera stand, when I do I'll get the Winny down and take a much better look at it. I know is there isn't much if any of the scarring present on the NPM. I'm more excited about the Inland that is coming. The story of the Win and it's one non- Win part is pretty cool and makes a strong argument for not ever changing anything on these carbines.
Thanks Guys, Thanks Brian, Very much appreciate your help.

Bill and BAR:
I sent extremely detailed photos (20+) of the barrel and sight of the Winchester carbine in question to the most knowledgeable carbine person I know. After careful review, he determined that the sight has been damaged by the use of a grenade launcher, recoil check or some other foreign activity. The original Win staking is present and the sight shows no sign of ever having been removed. The scars from the Grenade launcher or recoil check are very evident on the bottom of the barrel, as are pattern scarring behind the sight from the use of these items. While you guys may think that there are hammer blows on the sight to remove it, that is apparently not the case. Thanks for your input.

Great to hear that. That is a plus for you and your carbine :thup:

A grenade launcher kicks the other way. A recoil check now....
Chris

Yes it does but hey

it is insulting sometimes to listen to people who have no idea what I have in my hand offer opinions about what they think they see. I have listened to this s**t for a long time. People who think that cartouches are fake when they aren't, offer opinions on parts they've never seen before, observe a situation that they think fits their idea and that's the only answer. Well, it hasn't been off, never has been off, has no reason to have ever been off. I'm not trying to sell it; I don't care if you wouldn't buy it, so call me a liar. I don't really give a s**t. Excuse my French Annie O.

Emmag1917: You ever fire a grenade from a carbine? Or use a recoil check? Probably not, so you are not really qualified for an opinion on that are you?

Dave,

Opinions vary. As does the knowledge level of people giving the opinions. Take them for what they are, opinions.

You own and are holding the weapon in hand. You have gone to folks you trust, with your questions, who have great knowledge on the subject and gotten your answers. Believe those people.

I have posted items and been questioned. Owning some for 35 years and people saying the changes were made during the late 80's or early 90's. Sorry, had the item 10-15 years longer then that.

Not worth getting upset over, and do not let others opinions cause you any heartburn.

Jim

Exactly! Jim is right. And my opinion means squat. There have been some that have made that abundantly clear. It is your carbine and it is in your hands and if you are happy with it then that is all that counts. If my opinion is wrong then it is wrong. Won't be the last time I'm sure. It's all good. :super:

and calling someone a liar with a smile on your face, same thing. These sites have turned into places where people no longer talk about collecting carbines, they just talk about fake parts and individuals trying to cheat people. Every carbine is immediately judged by that yardstick. The answer is ALWAYS about fake parts.

I post a photo to show some guy damage from a grenade launcher and immediately the conversation shifts to my carbine and how, I'm full of crap because of course that sight has been pounded off with a hammer. I'm trying to put something over on everyone. "I wouldn't buy it like that" of course its fake, tampered with, seen it before. Really makes a person want to put their carbines out there to show them off.

This is why I think part swapping is a fool's errand.

I was hoping we could get more pertinant discussions about a nice, original and somewhat difficult to find carbine, but instead we get all this nonsense. Sad. Its like a bunch of old women from the church group have infiltrated our ranks!

I snatched a few quarters from the collection plate when it went by. How's my hat??

Hey Dave, I don't really see where any of us called you a liar nor did any of us disrespect you. It appeared to me that there was a civil disagreement amongst men. Nobody called anyone names or any of that. Your carbine is very nice and as I said before I'm very happy that you were able to come to a decision about the sight. Please don't take disagreement as anything more than just that. Again, it all good.

Dave HH , yes , I have . The point I was making is the kick goes back ( trust me on this ) , so could not cause damage to the rear surface of the sight ( scrape off the finish if it's a tight fit and you had it on and of a lot , yes , pien over , no ) . I am not positive what part takes the recoil , if it is the front surface of the sight or the end of the bbl ( I would think the latter because if the former there would be a lot of force on the sight pin ) because I had never thought about it . I have also shot M2s with recoil checks , but I rarely use them because I like the kick and noone's firing back. The gas goes up and the muzzle down. Now here , the force may also be directed forward ( gas angled to the rear a little ) to help hold the muzzle down and pull the gun forward to lessen recoil. That would apply force to the rear surface of the sight , but my personal experiance would indicate that that would not be enough to cause damage to the sight. If lots of rounds and a loose fit , maybe , I just don't know. Now , as far as the side scraping , yes , both of these would do that and is one reason I don't shoot recoil checks a lot and why my grenade launching is limited to one carbine and a spare M2 stock with sights .
I never made any comments on your carbine , and I will not do so now.
Chris

As have I, M1 rifle kicks a lot more IMO.