"Deep hole" drilling problem - Inland receivers

What serial number ranges would you expect problems such as I've pictured below to show up in? I've read that some Inland receivers were laid to the side, then used later in production by installing spring tubes. I think that's mentioned in War Baby! - Bob


Is this unusual to see on an Inland made this late? I thought they had "deep hole" drilling figured out by then. This is on my brother's carbine bought from the CMP in 2007. (JimF: I've got these pictures messed up - can you fix it for me?) Thanks - Bob

Well, how late is it? What's the serial number? Any chance the spring was exposed by sanding during a refinish to get rid of pitting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

exposed by sanding

---

I seriously doubt it. That's not how it happened...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

Well, how late is it? What's the serial number? Any chance the spring was exposed by sanding during a refinish to get rid of pitting?

---

I messed up while trying to add more pictures to the original post. I hope JimF or Badger can fix it for me. You can still click on the links and see them. It does appear to be refinished. The s/n is in the 6.4 million range, and the barrel date is 11-44. - Bob

I can still view my "non-existant" uploaded images from last night. I don't know why others can't see them. Maybe it's not permissable to add images to an existing post, but I did upload them. Hope I didn't "crash" the system. - Bob

Attachment 35284Attachment 35285Attachment 35286Attachment 35287Attachment 35288

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

I can still view my "non-existant" uploaded images from last night. I don't know why others can't see them. Maybe it's not permissable to add images to an existing post, but I did upload them. Hope I didn't "crash" the system. - Bob

---

You can view them because they are stored in your upload area, but they weren't attached within the post itself... ;)

Regardless, I see you have them now in your last post, so I'll remove the irrelevant links.

BTW, instead of selecting the "Insert Inline" button, just use the "Attach" button which works much better overall for viewing pics, unless you specifically want to insert various pics into your posts in different places and add text. :thup:

Regards,
Doug

Bob,

Sorry, I was away this morning. Glad to see someone else bailed me out (thanks Badger). Bob, I'll send you a PM.

Jim

doesn't affect the utility of the piece or long term reliability, these receivers were simply put into service. It isn't uncommon to see the spring under the slide lock recess, this is the same thing, just larger. Doesn't have any negative effects beyond cosmetics.

Also, since it is so far back, the chances of it developing into something larger or a crack are nil.

Dave: Thanks for the input. I have a 3.05 mil Inland with the hole for the slide stop clear through to the spring . It sounds like it must have been common to see small defects such as these anywhere throughout production. I'm guessing that this 6.4 Inland might have been made early in 1945. It must not have been an issue at all with the initial acceptance by the Government, or when it went through inspection at the CMP. :thup: - Bob

Geez, it doesn't seem safe though. Obviously in it's kind of a non critical area of the receiver, but any where in a receiver that you can see through would make me nervous. Of course I'm a worrywort at times though. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABPOS

any where in a receiver that you can see through would make me nervous.

---

Might want to avoid all Quality Hardware receivers then. And don't drive over any bridges with a section of grating.

I've got a Standard Products. Chicago has some of those grates over a bridge in town. I used to date this girl that was going to some school down there and I remember my car would kind of go left and right while going over that bridge. Meaning the grates seemed like they allowed the car to faintly "slide" from side to side. Didn't track well. It was always an uneasy feeling. hhehehhehe

(mine were 160 mph Continentals) and ride on freeway with rain grooves; it is like being on marbles. Perfectly safe. You might try reciting the 23rd psalm next time you cross a scary bridge, worked for me a couple of times in 1966-67.
Consider how much work went into the receiver and think about wartime pressure to perform, none of these carbines was finished like a Model 12, more like a brick. I think that the actual finish was excessively fine for what it was. Look over the top of a carbine from about the top of the stock comb, not much lines up or is straight. It's not how it looks, it's how it worked.

I'm probably totally wrong, but I think that this thing just went right through after an inspection to determine utility and was assembled.

For anyone who has ever worked on fabricating something to a standard, this is pretty obvious. The question immediately becomes: does it meet specs or not? (Not to say humans don't miss things here and there.) Companies bid jobs based on time/cost/quality requirements as stated in contract documents - drawings, specs, standards, etc. No way that several people overlooked this anomaly.

CCNLs vaguely mention Inland putting together an inspection manual for in-house use. Everybody - including the ordnance folks - liked it so much they saw to it that it was adopted by all makers. I would very much like to see that document. If it was a rare occurence, then you just put it in writing and send it to engineering to evaluate (and take respponsibility for).

If I was the 1943 engineer I would ask if the recoil spring moved freely without any binding, and if OK, then direct that all sharp corners and rough edges be removed.

There were specs for the amount of drillout that was allowable. That one is well within specs, so it got used. No big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

(mine were 160 mph Continentals) and ride on freeway with rain grooves; it is like being on marbles. Perfectly safe. You might try reciting the 23rd psalm next time you cross a scary bridge, worked for me a couple of times in 1966-67.
Consider how much work went into the receiver and think about wartime pressure to perform, none of these carbines was finished like a Model 12, more like a brick. I think that the actual finish was excessively fine for what it was. Look over the top of a carbine from about the top of the stock comb, not much lines up or is straight. It's not how it looks, it's how it worked.

I'm probably totally wrong, but I think that this thing just went right through after an inspection to determine utility and was assembled.

---

I have a bunch of scripture memorized for anxiety. But I'm a work in progress. Not quite done yet. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimb16

That one is well within specs

---

Kindly tell us what those requirements are. Just saying that you've made the comparison doesn't really get us very far. If you ask me if I know what time it is, answering 'yes' would fall a bit short of a complete response.

Jim,

Are you able to share where you are finding the specs on the drill out tolerances? I would think that is of interest to many of us. Other parts as well.

Thanks,

Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimb16

There were specs for the amount of drillout that was allowable. That one is well within specs, so it got used. No big deal.

---

If I opened a bible, it would catch on fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

If I opened a bible, it would catch on fire.

---

That went right over my head. :confused:

We are getting off topic a bit. Lets not unintentionally hurt others feelings regarding peoples choices or beliefs. :D

Jim

I can't remember where the original specs are for the runout, but I can give you an example of where it is deemed acceptable. Look at TM9-1276/TO 39A-5AD-2 Page 104, Para 57. inspection Sec a. "Visually inspect reciever for break-through of the operating slide spring hole. This breakthrough occured in the original manufacture of some receivers because of the drill running out through either the bottom or the right-hand exterior surfaces. If the forward end of the breakthrough is 3 inches or more from the front of the receiver, it is acceptable; otherwise it must be rejected."

Jimb,

Thanks for the reference source.

Jim

Since this one is a rebuild, I'll keep believing the hole was made by sanding out pits or damage.

The only way to figure out which case is the truth is to make a measurement of the width at that point and compare it to an original receiver. But my point on the acceptance of receivers with drill runout still stands. Many were accepted and the defense dept. did not consider it cause for scrapping receivers unless they were out of the accepted specs..

Of course. That is all common knowledge. I'm just stirring the pot. Devil's advocate and all that.

Don't forget.....I know who you are! *VEG*

Here's a look at the other side of that pitted receiver ;) - Bob

My comment about a bible catching on fire was a joke. I was inferring that I am so removed from religion that the bible would react to me opening it. I would never ever have any negative comments about a man's beliefs. It is really not a subject to even joke about, so if I offended anyone, that was not my intent. I do know many passages from the bible as my Mother taught us well as children.
Again, sorry if I was misunderstood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

My comment about a bible catching on fire was a joke. I was inferring that I am so removed from religion that the bible would react to me opening it. I would never ever have any negative comments about a man's beliefs. It is really not a subject to even joke about, so if I offended anyone, that was not my intent. I do know many passages from the bible as my Mother taught us well as children.
Again, sorry if I was misunderstood.

---

I didn't mean to make an issues either. We are off topic. Hehehhehehe No offense here, I just didn't understand the comment. But I gotcha. No judgement here either. We all have our own paths to walk. You had a good Mom. :)

Anyways....... I gotta get some pics up of my carbine sometime. Because even though I was just fretting about this issue at hand, mine has been drilled and tapped on the side (didn't know it when I bought it) and one of the holes is just starting to peek into the side where the bolt lug slides. I've been wanting to get eveyrone's thought on it. I never new if that would make it unsafe. Or have an affect on function. I never have gotten mine to be very reliable. But I think it might be more the mags I've tried. I don't know.