Pictures of my "somewhat original" Inland - what do you guys think?

I bought this Inland at a gunshow yesterday. I wish I could've gotten it before a previous owner worked his "magic" on it. I believe I could've removed that "stubborn" oiler with a lot less fuss. This one's definitely got some "unique" features to it. I guess the first order of business would be to get rid of the nylon tie, clean it up a bit, check it over - then go see if it will shoot! My guess is it was made in '43 or '44. Can anyone narrow that down a bit? Thanks in advance! - Bob

Attachment 35491Attachment 35492Attachment 35465Attachment 35490Attachment 35466Attachment 35467Attachment 35468Attachment 35469Attachment 35470Attachment 35471Attachment 35472Attachment 35473Attachment 35474Attachment 35475Attachment 35476Attachment 35477Attachment 35478Attachment 35479Attachment 35480Attachment 35481Attachment 35482Attachment 35483Attachment 35484Attachment 35485Attachment 35486Attachment 35487Attachment 35488Attachment 35489

Very cool Bob. There are some features that sure giver her some character too.:thup:

Here's a couple more pictures of the "N" front sight and the undated barrel. It almost looks like they took an angle grinder to that sight. :bash: - Bob

Attachment 35493Attachment 35494

thats is very nice and has some early features. You are correct about what bubba did to the stock, see it made my gut hurt.

Nice find; If the rest of it is correct it would have a very nice find. Too bad about the stock, maybe Frank can fix it. GK

Did he have a bigger oiler than normal? It sure does have character though. I think, depending on price, you got a good gun. What about the trigger housing and associated parts?

Bob,

Nice.
That stock is screaming "Frank save me".
Looks like the serial number puts it around June/July 1943.

Jim

very nice early carbine ,you will in time put her back to right.
bubba will always be with us.

I was at a table of military collectibles (a guy from Montana) when a fellow walked up with this carbine and offered it to the vendor. The owner of the carbine was wanting a front sight and stock for it, or to just sell the gun and recover what he had in it. The vendor told him he was looking at $200 for a stock and $50 for a gunsmith to install a sight once he found the right one. The vendor turned it down for a bit over $400, so I was in the right place at the right time. The carbine owner said that a fellow back up the line of tables, had broken it down and that "everything inside was marked OI." Yeah, right! We walked back to that table and I asked the guy who had broken it down about the bolt. He hadn't taken the bolt out, but did say the handguard was marked OI and the trigger housing was Inland. It looks like the band spring has a fresh scratch and maybe a new gouge in the wood around it - also the band looks a bit crooked and maybe overtightened. This probably happened during the "breakdown." I've been thinking the same thing about having Frank give me an estimate. I just have a hunch that everthing about this one is original inside. The only thing I'm not sure of at this point is the Type 1 ejector and the undated barrel which may be from a rebuild or at least not used in this s/n range. Now I'm looking for the same stock as JimF is needing for his recent Inland. I do have the IS oiler and it has a bunch of pry marks on it, mainly on the cap. That kind of fits in with the stock "mods." I've got company coming tomorrow and lots of other things I'm behind on (like cleaning guns from recent shooting trips) so might be awhile until I dig into this one. Thanks for the info on the approximate date and for the sympathy about the stock. Nice CC stamp, huh? - Bob

How do you get the oilers out? Mine is real tight too. I've never gone very far with it for fear of damaging something. Plus, I never really needed the sling off, but I wanted to try it. I can't do it.

Very nice carbine, minus that front sight. I can kind of see why someone would WANT to do that. But I would never do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABPOS

How do you get the oilers out? Mine is real tight too. I've never gone very far with it for fear of damaging something. Plus, I never really needed the sling off, but I wanted to try it. I can't do it.

Very nice carbine, minus that front sight. I can kind of see why someone would WANT to do that. But I would never do it.

---

ABPOS,

Some of them are really tight. You have to "un-thread" the sling from around the oiler with the oiler still in place. You may have to do some wiggling around of the oiler to gain the necessary clearance. Some of the slings with thicker material, or the "D" tips can make it a tough job. The stocks can vary a bit too in the dimensions of the slot. I've got a couple that I have to coax a bit with a light hammer and a small wood dowel. There are other posts that will help if you use the search feature. I've got (2) carbines with this front sight "mod." It actually makes it a lot easier to obtain your sight picture, especially in low light - otherwise you might be drawing a bead using one of the protective wings. - Bob

The stock was worth about $300 before the monkeying. I think Frank could repair it and make it look like an arsenal job. Obviously you will replace the sight - I think you will come out about even after its all fixed. Maybe about $650 value after repair? I think it would gain a lot more value in the long run, like about 30 years. It'll be 100 then, and minor inconsistencies may become clouded with time.

Thanks for the tip on the oiler. Yeah, I think a wood dowel would be the best bet. But I've never been able to unthread the sling out of there. It's in there super tight.

I find AK's and SKS's to really be a problem with the protective wings in the front sight of them. I've never really had that big of a problem with a circular aperture and the wings. But the other day, when I was in my basement, in low light, I did do the same thing. I went to sight in on my Carbine and picked up one of the wings first. So yeah, I can understand it. I've never had a problem with a Garand or M1A though. But I at times get irritated with the aperture on the rear sight. I posted this in the 03 forum. When the light is real bright to your back, it really lights up the rear ap and makes it hard to see the front.

The secret with the oilers is to move them in and out as you dismount the sling. A slight push inward or outward makes plenty of clearance to remove the sling. The main thing is to not get frustrated and just keep trying to pull it out. My NPM has a beautiful Inland I cut (high wood trimmed and .U. mark) that has screwdriver injuries from some idiot trying to remove the oiler.

Here's the oiler that came with the Inland. The seller had only owned this carbine for about (2) months. I just assumed that the "mods" had been done years ago, but maybe he did them? The "sight work" looks kind of recent, but I can't tell for sure about the wood - looks old to me. He didn't have the sling for it, but I can see why it might not have survived! More pictures of the internals coming soon. The only thing I see in question so far is that it has the "dog leg" hammer, but with the later design spring. Do any of you Inland guys know if that could be original? Thanks! - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

The stock was worth about $300 before the monkeying. I think Frank could repair it and make it look like an arsenal job. Obviously you will replace the sight - I think you will come out about even after its all fixed. Maybe about $650 value after repair? I think it would gain a lot more value in the long run, like about 30 years. It'll be 100 then, and minor inconsistencies may become clouded with time.

---

I'm thinking it's worth at least $800-$900 for parts just the way it is. But, I don't plan on selling it that way. I'm sure someone else will own it 30 years from now.
:cheers: - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

The secret with the oilers is to move them in and out as you dismount the sling. A slight push inward or outward makes plenty of clearance to remove the sling. The main thing is to not get frustrated and just keep trying to pull it out. My NPM has a beautiful Inland I cut (high wood trimmed and .U. mark) that has screwdriver injuries from some idiot trying to remove the oiler.

---

IMHO, it's easier said than done. :lol:

The sling/oiler removal can be hard/frustrating to do. :surrender: Best advice is take your time.

Dave goes about it slow a easy with wiggles (safe on the stock). I do the same, works every time with a C clip sling. :thup:

The ends on a D clip sling are thicker. If I get a carbine with D clips I take those slings off and put a C clip sling back on with a coded oiler to maker. Yep, I have a bunch of IS oilers left over. If nothing else for the looks and I want the coded oiler in place. Personally I don't like the D clips. :thdown:

Most of the time the D clips do not want to come out. I think sometimes the fabric is also thicker whether from age or design. I put the D clip on a leather pad and tap it with a rubber mallet. :nono: I know, not kosher, but works for me.

Then I sell the D clip slings.

Jim

ABPOS, it helps if they are in the right way as opposed to backwards. Tip comes through the side of stock closest to the butt plate, left side looking down. Put the oiler in its slot to the bottom. Sling tip with plenty of slack over and through the right side looking down. Lace it through its keeper on the inside. HTH.....Frank

I'll have to get pics up. I don't know what kind of sling I have. It's OD in color though. And the fabric does seem thick.

Here's some pictures of the internal parts. I see two things so far that might not be right - the hammer spring and the staking of the gas piston nut. I'll try cleaning the area around the nut and getting a better picture. I hope to disassemble the bolt later today. Please comment about the two items I have in question and/or anything else you see that may, or may not look "right." If those stock numbers are Julian, do they have to do with the date of the whole carbine or just the stock? Thanks! - Bob

Attachment 35564Attachment 35565Attachment 35566Attachment 35567Attachment 35568Attachment 35569Attachment 35570Attachment 35571Attachment 35572Attachment 35573Attachment 35574Attachment 35575Attachment 35576Attachment 35577Attachment 35578Attachment 35579Attachment 35580Attachment 35581Attachment 35582Attachment 35583Attachment 35584Attachment 35563

The thing looks spotless except by the piston and inside the receiver. Did you just shoot it?

I'm no expert on all the markings. But I think you got a good one there.

damn nice pics

The stock being so clean makes me wonder if someone had the action in a different stock, and then swapped it back just before selling. No, I haven't shot it yet - need to go see about getting that bolt apart. Thanks for the nice comments! After a closer look at the operating slide spring, I'm thinking it might not be GI. JimF is good at counting holes in targets - Jim: How many coils on that spring? Isn't it short by about 10 coils? ;) - Bob

That's one of the nicest ones I've ever seen. I would advise to not get hung up on originality of maintenance parts like springs and the staking of the piston nut. Any G.I. or armorer could have taken the gas piston out and put it back at any time.

I know most of you guys like pictures, so here's a bunch more of them. Hope I'm not over doing it. The gas piston nut was loose so I took it the rest of the way out. I believe it's the earlier type nut - and there is an extra stake mark on the housing. There isn't much wear on the bolt or the internal parts, hardly any peening at the back of the bolt. I need to check my books on these parts because I see the earlier firing pin and ejector. The safety and mag release plungers were pretty hard to get out - took some coaxing. Charlie Painter: If the picture of the extractor plunger is good enough for you to see it, the tip is a little bit blunt and a there's a small lip or ledge forming. Didn't you say it would be a good idea to stone that ledge off so it's smooth? At first I was afraid that bolt had been reblued with a sharpie like the story you told awhile back - but all is good! I guess that about does it for the pictures unless there's something else you guys want to see. Oh, how about that hammer - is that marking "H" ?
Thanks! - Bob

Attachment 35600Attachment 35601Attachment 35602Attachment 35603Attachment 35604Attachment 35605Attachment 35606Attachment 35608Attachment 35607Attachment 35613Attachment 35609Attachment 35610Attachment 35611Attachment 35612Attachment 35618Attachment 35619Attachment 35614Attachment 35617Attachment 35616Attachment 35615Attachment 35623Attachment 35622Attachment 35621Attachment 35620Attachment 35599

Bob, Great pictures.
Jim

Jim,

Is this one close to the s/n of the Inland you got earlier this year? I still need to look up info on the parts - everything is probably original except some of the springs. I've been getting behind on everything else around here because of spending too much time cleaning and "fiddling" with this stuff! - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

Charlie Painter: If the picture of the extractor plunger is good enough for you to see it, the tip is a little bit blunt and a there's a small lip or ledge forming. Didn't you say it would be a good idea to stone that ledge off so it's smooth?

---

Hey Bob,
I use a light stone to remove the burrs that form UNDER the ledge.

Charlie-painter777

Charlie,
I probably didn't use the best choice of words. I was talking about stoning off the slight "hook" that's forming at the tip of the ledge. When finished, it would have the same shape as a new plunger except the point would be slightly blunt. I think we're talking about the same thing??

After checking in Riesch's book, I find the following parts on my Inland that don't match his charts: Hammer spring (I knew that was probably changed), handguard (my type not used that early), and buttplate (should be diagonal rows). I was wrong about the op slide spring, it does have the right number of coils at 120. The buttplate doesn't really look like it's ever been off, and I know Riesch has errors on other plates. I wonder if he could be wrong about the buttplate and the handguard? One interesting thing I found was small dots of red paint on various parts including the stock, handguard, receiver, and trigger housing as if someone marked them to keep all the parts of this carbine seperate from others that may have been apart at the same time - possibly done at a repair depot?

Thanks, - Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

Charlie,
I probably didn't use the best choice of words. I was talking about stoning off the slight "hook" that's forming at the tip of the ledge. When finished, it would have the same shape as a new plunger except the point would be slightly blunt. I think we're talking about the same thing??

---

Yep, Same thing,
CH-P777

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

I found was small dots of red paint on various parts

---

I've seen many that had paint specs 'Flicked' on them from some painting going on near by (not the from Rack numbers being applied type)
But have never seen (IIRC) paint specs on the inside.
The picture you show with the parts still together (Top of page) Shows a spec of red on the RI sear.
Same picture shows a spec of red on the left outer side of the Trigger Housing, just behind the Trigger pin.

CH-P777