Muzzle Wear on My New Inland

I just "re-discovered" this forum the other day after a absence and not doing much with mil surps. Well, the carbine bug got me again so I have a question. I bought a Inland handstamp carbine last weekend and after a lengthy hunt for my old gages checked it out. I found the muzzle gaged at a fraction over 3 on my forster gage. About how much life would you say is left in this barrel? I feel pretty sure it is the original barrel since it is dated 1-45 and seems to fall within the time period for the serial number 67714xx . I plan to make the range later today and see how well or bad it shoots....
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_3028-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_3027-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_3025-1.jpg

Well I made it to a local indoor range and certainly answered any question I had about accuracy from a barrell that gaged 3+. I fired 60 rds total...half at 25 yds which is max distance for the range, and half at 15 yds and am extremely happy with the way this Inland shoots. I would have fired more but only have 120 rds of ammo left and can't find anymore due to the ammo hoarding goin on. Here's the results......
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7bdeca72-1.jpg

I know from being on the other forums, you can reload just for a specific rifle and get great results from a worn barrel. I don't know how good a shot you are but looks good to me:)

Nice to see you back around Shamrocks,
I hate to say........ But I'm worried about your stock marking.

Charlie-Painter777

Actually, I am curious about that CC as well. It might very well be a fake that was put there to match the more worn HI in the slingwell and the other side has a well worn RIA rebuild stamp visible but faint and so I think it is an Inland stock. Well if it is bad, a good Inland stock with real CC will come along eventually that I can replace it with.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC08152-1.jpg

Your carbine looks like it could be original to me. Muzzle wear does not necessarily indicate excessive wear in the rest of the bore, and if it's evenly worn, the carbine can have good accuracy. Muzzle wear typically is caused by the jointed steel cleaning rod being used haphazardly (you know, G.I.-style :)). The government counter-bored many carbines about a half-inch or so to get back to strong rifling during overhauls. Check for a slight shoulder in the bore. Actually, I doubt if yours was bored, just kind of mentioning it. I like the late carbines because they have every improvement they could come up with and many of them were never rebuilt/refinished. So go through it and find out what's inside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

Your carbine looks like it could be original to me. Muzzle wear does not necessarily indicate excessive wear in the rest of the bore, and if it's evenly worn, the carbine can have good accuracy. Muzzle wear typically is caused by the jointed steel cleaning rod being used haphazardly (you know, G.I.-style :)). The government counter-bored many carbines about a half-inch or so to get back to strong rifling during overhauls. Check for a slight shoulder in the bore. Actually, I doubt if yours was bored, just kind of mentioning it. I like the late carbines because they have every improvement they could come up with and many of them were never rebuilt/refinished. So go through it and find out what's inside.

---

Thanks Inland44. The rifling appears still pretty sharp so that and the grouping it shot eases any concern I had and looking at the muzzle more closely it appears good. I was at first concerned about the 3+ on the gage but not anymore. As for originality, it has certainly not been refinished. A few photos will show what I mean and the wear appears pretty uniform. The parts breakdown so far.....Round (worn)blued bolt AI, rear sight H in shield, housing Inland, Hammer I-I, mag release M/WA, safety N. , front sight N, Sear has hole but don't see any code unless it' on bottom and haven't taken out the trigger yet to see either, Op slide D-7161843-7 over HSA, barrel band KI. Love to hear your opinions after seeing these photos as to originality.I wish my lighting was a bit better but hopefully they show up okay. I recall the seller mentioning something about possibly original but I took that with a big grain of salt. Anyway, I am completely satisfied with what I ended up with....a nice late Inland that shoots pretty well.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fc530ca0-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...e11ede7e-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0e10a8b6-1.jpg

The MW guage really only gives you a measure of the muzzle wear. It doesn't give you an indication of the barrel wear. Slug the barrel and you will know for sure. A MW reading of 6 may indicate the need for the barrel to be counter-bored. The barrel itself may be a 2! The only way to really know is to slug the barrel. Accuracy from a counter-bored barrel can be on par with a new barrel if the muzzle wear is from cleaning and not shooting.

Yet you don't see them that often. I don't know if there IS a standard number of shots that would signal a shot out barrel. The carbine uses only 15gr of powder and the bullet has a short profile. Both way different than a Garand. Some of the 6K shot test carbines were just cleaned up afterward and sent out to issue. Imagine how much some of the Infantry carbines were shot, needing a barrel right after the war. My Winchester has an almost new barrel but the SG NPM is probably a 1 or 2 with a tiny bit of pitting near the gas hole. It outshoots the Winchester. These are funny little weapons aren't they?

Yep they are Dave...and very enjoyable too!

Shamrocks: I can't tell much by your pictures.

thnks anyway....I probably need a new camera and better lighting

From what I can see of the trigger housing, the finishes look correct. As already said, the Ordnance stamp on the stock looks a little strange, but it also doesn't look like a re-stamp, at least not to me. I looked to find vestiges of an original stamp but saw nothing. So either that stamp is the original or the original was completely sanded out and an original die was used to replace it, then 'aged-back'. Not impossible, but considering nothing else on the carbine appears to have been 'touched-up', the stamp has some credibility in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

So either that stamp is the original or the original was completely sanded out and an original die was used to replace it, then 'aged-back'. Not impossible, but considering nothing else on the carbine appears to have been 'touched-up', the stamp has some credibility in my view.

---

Are you serious?
And the selector cut......... Is that original also?

I believe the selector cut is original to the stock. The serial no. and the hand stamped 1 falls in the time period M2s were being made and don't think it was cut down from high to low wood either. Anyway, thanks for the opinions and info.

The earliest M2 Inland stocks did no have the potbelly foreend. It could very well be an original early M2 stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by painter777

Nice to see you back around Shamrocks,
I hate to say........ But I'm worried about your stock marking.
Charlie-Painter777

---

Could I ask why you are concerned? Is it too good? Regarding fakes, what should a person look for? Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimb16

The earliest M2 Inland stocks did no have the potbelly foreend. It could very well be an original early M2 stock.

---

Inland had two types of M2 stocks. The first (type 4) had just a slight drop on the bottom of the foregrip. The second (5 obviously) had a well defined pot belly appearance. I believe the stock is a type 3 with a selector switch cut out. If it were a type 3, it would be very correct for his gun. Heck, I like any later carbines, since they usually retain so many of their original parts and stand a chance of not being over used.

I questioned the Selector cut because I doubt anyone could tell if it's original from looking at that outside view only.
Am curious if it has a long barrel channel?

Oddball,
I called out the Repro CC so the OP knew it was what it is.
Incase it (the stock) was mis-represented to him as an original and he paid top $$ thinking it was legit.
The picture I posted on page 1 is a real Inland CC. You'll have to study known originals. There are countless fake CC stamps out there.

Charlie-Painter777

Another Fake Inland CC
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...VgTm89_3-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC07810-1.jpg

Charlie, I believe it to be a real Inland stock that someone added the CC to after thinking about it. The channel measured a little over 4 inches if I measured it correctly. I think I mentioned the HI in the sling well is worn much more than the CC and the OI on the handguard is similarly worn. I always appreciate opinions and advice but I didn't pay a premium price for this one so no real worries about the CC on my part.

Only thing that matters is you being happy.
So you've got a long channel.
I tend to call the Type III lo-wood stocks that came with the later long channel a 'Late Type III'
Could only guess when/how the M2 cut was made.

Your metal has that been together a long time look.
I'd guess the stock was 'Added' to it.

Just nice to see you back around.
Better yet with a good shooter.

Cheers,
CH-P777

The trouble with muzzle wear is that it is usually assymetrical at the crown. This can be a sort of statistical chance thing at first, but any unevenness, such as a nick, tends to lead to a vicious circle: Where the bullet base first parts company with the barrel, there will be a puff of very hot, very fast gas coming through the gap before the base has completely left the muzzle. That tiny puff on one side pushes the bullet off the barrel center line, giving it a skew. The mechanism is similar to throat erosion - if not so severe - the spot tends to be eroded and the unevenness will be worsened. Maybe be only microns. But work out how much skew over the length of a bullet will give a bullet 1 MOA yaw, and the result is awfully small.

If all this did was to divert bullets off course by a couple of MOA in a consistent direction, the deviation could be corrected by the sights and there would be little trouble. Unfortunately, since the bullet is rotating, it is not a simple straight-line deviation, and tiny differences in velocity will vary the effect of the "kick" produced by the nick or wear on the crown, and thus the magnitude (and direction) of the deviation from the barrel center line. In other words, the group opens up all over.

Nicks and uneven wear caused by careless cleaning are the major causes, and the worst offender is a dirty pull-through cord or a chain (as favored in Germany). Careless cleaning can, in fact, be over-enthusiatic cleaning. No-one can pull anything through a barrel dead straight down the barrel center line over a distance of a yard without touching the sides, which is why the Swedes and the Swiss had little sleeves to fit over a cleaning rod and protect the muzzle. Without this precaution, some poor grunt cleaning the heart out of the barrel to please sarge is probably doing more damage to the muzzle than a sackful of ammo. Bad experience has taught me that the shiniest barrels can be the worst.

So what is to be done? Just recrown the barrel. It is explained in detail, with good photos, in the very first chapter of "Accurizing the Factory Rifle".
If you have a delicate touch, you can probably get a crown cutter and do it yourself. If not, go to a good gunsmith (i.e. one who doesn't just want to sell you a rebarrelling job) and it will be the best 10-15 dollars, euros or whatever that you ever spent on your rifle.

In the case of the rifle that is the subject of this thread, I would do this before spending more on ammo. You may well find that the dispersion of the shots shown in the targets is much improved. Of course the ammo and the shooter also play a role...;)

Well written Patrick...

A lighting-fast guide to detecting many (not all) fake marks without having a clue about stamp styles:

Get a really good watchmakers eyeglass.

1. Wear over marking - could be OK (not guaranteed).
2. Marking over wear - fake, unless assured arsenal reworking.
3. Wear elsewhere, but not just around the marking - a remarkable coincidence, or - a fake. The surface has been reworked to disguise 2.

Wear inconsistency is one of the surest guides to detecting non-original artefacts with no particular expert knowledge, just a good glass and careful observation. Stamps and styles, are easier to fake than consistent wear.
Consistent does not mean the same everywhere, but consistent with that which would be shown by a genuine object - more on exposed or handled surfaces, less on sheltered surface, in corners etc. A sanded stock is the most obvious example that comes to mind of something that is not consistent with genuine wear.