My 6.42M Inland came with a 2-44 Underwood Barrel when I purchased it. I understand that the Underwood barrel wouldn't have been used in the carbine's original 1944 or 1945 assembly. So in order to make my Inland more "correct", I would like to find a nice-condition Inland barrel that has a barrel date consistent with the carbine serial number. What range of barrel dates would be most likely to be correct for my receiver(within 2 or 3 months)? Any help here would be appreciated.
My late Inland Carbine:
[IMG]http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/...psd92377ce.jpg[/IMG]
From a CCNL dealing with the 6.2 to 6.4 range, it looks like yours would be about 11-44; there can always be some variance in that date though. Also, there seems to be a fair amount of Inland undated barrels in your range. I hope this helps you.
Are you indicating that my Inland was assembled about 11-44? If so, then wouldn't the Inland barrel be made about 2 or 3 months earlier than that in all likelihood?Quote:
Originally Posted by deldriver
No, I am saying your barrel should be dated 11-44 according to what I read in the CCNL I have. I feel strongly though that there could be some play in the date, probably earlier than later. Don't put too much stock in trying to judge a particular carbine's production date by its barrel date; it's a clue, but not always the best way to determine it.
No, the carbine would have been assembled later than that with an Inland barrel from about 11-44. The fact that the Underwood barrel has the correct date for the Inland receiver is pure coincidence. Setting out to 'correct' a carbine is an expensive venture that frequently doesn't turn out well. Re-barreling a carbine is definitely not for the hobbyist. You have a carbine that was most likely overhauled in 1949 and put in it's present configuration. It may have been used that way in the Korean Conflict and that is the configuration it was in when sold off by the DCM. You might want to consider preserving that piece of history.Quote:
Originally Posted by southfork
By the time this carbine was made Inlands barrel and receiver time were in the same frame. Barrels in the earlier time period were way ahead of receiver production but by late 1943 production of receivers was catching up. Undated barrels were around August/September 1944. A 6.4 Inland would have been made in November/December 1944.
My brother has an Inland from the CMP s/n #6,418,XXX and the barrel date is 11-44. That matches with the info that has been posted in this thread. One thing that now has me confused is, I have a 476K Inland that I thought was almost completely original, and it has an undated barrel. This Inland has a dogleg hammer and a highwood stock. I thought the buttplate was wrong because it has the horizontal pattern rather than diagonal, but later found out that both were used during the time it was produced. Is it without question that the undated barrels were only around August/September of 1944? Thanks. - Bob
Shouldn't you should be asking for a source for the claim rather than just a repetition of an opinion. Critical thinking is dead - and Riesch is still just a very nice picture book.
There were several times that Inland did not date their barrels. One was about mid 1943 and the other in the summer of 1944.
Isn't constantly asking for a source just a nice way of saying you don't believe the guy? Not everyone reads history or reference books and takes copious notes like we did in college. A lot of reading is done for pleasure and a lot of knowledge can be learned from this reading. I'd bet that most of us don't run and jot something down so we will have it handy when some guy says we are full of it. I think it is kind of rude to constantly say "Source?".
Thanks for that information, Bruce. I've been told that my 476K Inland would probably date to around June/July of 1943. - BobQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruce McAskill
I've got to step in here and disagree with firstflabn.Quote:
Originally Posted by firstflabn
Rieschs' book is a long way from being a very nice picture book :surrender:
Cheers,
Charlie-Painter777
I would think if we took a survey, more people have at least one edition of the Riesch book then any other out there.
For the money, the Riesch book is a good value as a quick reference. Errors, you bet. But all the books have them.
I don't think anyone should comment on just using one source if that person has no clue how many sources were checked. If a person has that much knowledge to know how sources were checked, tell them to write a book so all of us will know what that person does. Not picking on anyone in particular, just commenting on stuff I have seen over the years.
I have serial number 64135xx with barrel date of 11-44, if that helps.
Reisch is a good quick reference. But just because something doesn't agree with Reisch doesn't mean that it is wrong. What it means is that further research needs to be done. Even if there were no errors in reisch, he couldn't possibly have every detail. There is so much undocumented transfer of parts between manufacturers that I don't see how we can ever know everything. There are a lot of transfers that are known, but there is no documentation for them, so how do you "PROVE" that transfer? You can argue all you want and exclaim this book or that book is full of errors, but we still will need the publication of the best information available as a guideline. And that is what Reisch's book is, a guide.