Great Day to Acquire a Carbine

Couldn't have picked a better day for my latest war horse to arrive at the FFL. She's a very early inland: 10,540. Barrel date is 8-42. She seems mostly correct, but not original due to a rebuild stamp on the stock. Let me know what you guys think!

Attachment 53541Attachment 53542Attachment 53543Attachment 53544Attachment 53545Attachment 53546Attachment 53547Attachment 53548Attachment 53549Attachment 53550Attachment 53551Attachment 53552Attachment 53553Attachment 53554Attachment 53555Attachment 53556Attachment 53557Attachment 53558Attachment 53559

Great day indeed ! I'm jelous, I don't own an I stock Carbine as of yet. And a very low serial # to boot.

Best Chris

I'm leaning more towards an original carbine placed in a stock that was on a carbine that went through a rebuild , if you can see my meaning.
Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emmagee1917

I'm leaning more towards an original carbine placed in a stock that was on a carbine that went through a rebuild , if you can see my meaning.
Chris

---

That was my thought as well Chris. I bought it under my personal assumption that even if it was a put together, or corrected carbine, it was still an early one. Everything except the stock seem to have uniform finish, wear, grime and crud, etc, except for the stock.


Just curious, what are the chances of a carbine going through rebuild and not having parts exchanged? Like an early war rebuild?

What if the stock had been damaged by a bullet or shell fragment. Just the stock would be replaced. Maybe shipped back with other damaged weapons to the arsenal. Only what would need replaced would be fixed.

That scenario would have required RIA to ignore MWO-1 if occurring after March 20, 1944 (and likely as early as November 1, 1943).

Further, replacing a stock is 2nd Echelon maintenance - a unit armorer job.

I spent two years in the army and they paid little or no attention to regulations. If some dope broke his stock you can bet that the armorer took a stock off some spare or unissued weapon and put it on the offending weapon. It was far worse in Vietnam. Have you ever been in an I.G. inspection? They would trade items, steal jeeps, have people make up fake hand receipts, anything to get around regulations. You live in a dream world of regulations. The real world was far different.

My, my, aren't we testy. Try to get some rest and realize there's room for all sorts of differing opinions. I even enjoy yours sometimes - on the rare occasion they have some factual basis.

Might want to throw away any 1940s-50s TMs and FMs you have since they're filled with those pesky procedures that you seem to think were banned in the 1960s. In trying to solve a historical puzzle like this one, rational folks start with the known, then inch towards a better defined question. Anecdotes from the 1960s aren't all that predictive of WWII conditions.

Had you ever read MWO-1, you might have noticed that RIA was designated as one of three facilities OD used to distribute the parts required for the mod. Not a dream world at all.

This forum encourages differing ideas, opinions, and first hand accounts. We should take into consideration that first hand accounts will vary with location and the conditions where someone has served. What may have happen in a back line unit or in the states is not always how it may have occurred in a combat unit.

What our forum wants to discourage is disrespecting the views and opinions that may differ between members. We can share our accounts and still stay friendly towards each other.
:beerchug:

May I add to this difference of opinion? As a parts clerk in the 6/10th FA in Ger. 1973-74. I had 2 sets of books [requisition orders] one for inspection and one for keeping parts that were needed to keep unit functional. I had a trailor full of parts not on my books, also parts that we needed to function. In my opinion; personnel in charge of supply and demand did what was nessasary to keep parts needed to keep their unit functional. That is what I did and trained for by the person I replaced. IT WORKS! GK.

That would be called the unit "scrounger". We all had one.

The military couldn't operate without rules, regulations, and a chain of command. As for how repair or replacement went for us. If in the field your weapon jammed, hit by a mortar, whatever, there were always others lying around to grab up. You took it and the stores off the previous user. I'm sure that wasn't procedure, but it's what happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadycon

May I add to this difference of opinion? As a parts clerk in the 6/10th FA in Ger. 1973-74. I had 2 sets of books [requisition orders] one for inspection and one for keeping parts that were needed to keep unit functional. I had a trailor full of parts not on my books, also parts that we needed to function. In my opinion; personnel in charge of supply and demand did what was nessasary to keep parts needed to keep their unit functional. That is what I did and trained for by the person I replaced. IT WORKS! GK.

---

Made me grin! A Cav unit disbanded a jeep recon platoon. They called and asked if I wanted any jeep parts before they buried them. Had all the new tires, ignition points, etc., I could have wished for. Of course when an IG inspection came around I had to get it all carted away and safely hid. One day the CO visited unannounced and found my stash. He commandeered a new set of tires and went away happy.

garretbragg12;I got off the original thread. THAT IS A GREAT LOOKNG FIND! GK

Sorry for being testy. Uncalled for.

Our battalion in Vietnam had a conex box that was full of contraband. There were weapons, enemy weapons, pistols, grenades, ammunition, extra C rats that we stole from time to time, None of this was on our T.O.E. If you needed an extra 1911, you went to the box. I would bet the farm that every outfit in the war had the same thing going.

I agree with Chris, this looks like a beautiful example stuck in someone else's stock. Great find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

Sorry for being testy. Uncalled for.

Our battalion in Vietnam had a conex box that was full of contraband. There were weapons, enemy weapons, pistols, grenades, ammunition, extra C rats that we stole from time to time, None of this was on our T.O.E. If you needed an extra 1911, you went to the box. I would bet the farm that every outfit in the war had the same thing going.

I agree with Chris, this looks like a beautiful example stuck in someone else's stock. Great find.

---

Thanks for all the great words and info guys! This is why I love this forum.

Dave, and anyone else who bet on stock replacement, if you guys were betting men, would you say the stock was swapped during the war, or by someone trying to correct it? I know there's no way to tell, just curious.

My question is, if trying to correct a carbine, and paying the money for an "I" stock, why buy one with a rebuild stamp?

I also don't know if y'all can see it, but the RIA stamp covers the crossed cannons cartouche.





Another question, how tight do you guys usually tighten your barrel bands? I don't want to over do it, especially with a type 1.

I have the exact stock on my NPM with a .U. rebuild stamp. It is just too difficult to say when the stock was changed. Or even if it was changed. When you run into an original configuration carbine EVERYTHING is right. There usually is no doubt. Your metal looks all the same which is a plus. The stock is what it is. It obviously wasn't on the carbine when it went through a rebuild, since it shows no sign of being rebuilt.

Thats a nice one!! About a month ago I acquired An Inland Carbine ,Date stamp 6-42 SN 1205,I dont think its ever been rebuilt or refurbished. Ive got pics posted at imgur.com/a/vJA1Y. Im in the process of fill in out a data sheet for The Carbine Club.
Again Nice Rifle Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tschie

Thats a nice one!! About a month ago I acquired An Inland Carbine ,Date stamp 6-42 SN 1205,I dont think its ever been rebuilt or refurbished. Ive got pics posted at imgur.com/a/vJA1Y. Im in the process of fill in out a data sheet for The Carbine Club.
Again Nice Rifle Tom

---

I need to fill a sheet on this one! Where did you get your sheet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrettbragg12

Thanks for all the great words and info guys! This is why I love this forum.

---

This is why I do too! And it is because of all the great folks here who when they make mistakes or testy comments they are man enough to step up and say hey, "I screwed up". Great site, great people! Thanks to all of you. Carry on :thup:

PS, very nice carbine you have GarrettBragg12. Thank you for the nice photos of it. :cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

Sorry for being testy.

---

Thanks, Dave. You're alright with me. We usually agree strongly, but if we do that too much, there'll be talk. Safe to start a new streak of "...yeah, what he said."

I stumbled onto something related to this subject while on the way to look up something else (seems to be my best research technique). CCNL 267 has RIA carbine rebuild quantities by time period.

The work starts in Jan 1944 (after issuance of MWO-1), so if you're inclined to give weight to my theory, then this date is significant. (MWO-3 and maybe even 4,5, and 6 could also enter into this, but I'll put that aside for now). Work continues through FY57 with highs and lows (and 11 months in the '50s with no info found).

Anyhow, a little under 5000 carbines rebuilt (or processed in some manner) before VJ-Day; over 700,000 after VJ-Day. Absent any other info, that's pretty steep odds for any 'what if' scenario to overcome.

I have another crackpot theory (no, it doesn't involve alien abductions), but I'll have to hold off until the next CCNL comes out as that issue describes a rebuild operation I had never heard mentioned. Maybe it's new to everybody else as well. Don't get your hopes up, though the odds are better than 140:1, there's no way to confirm it - so just another scenario to ruminate over.

OK, Dave here's some more procedural mumbo jumbo...


(just kidding - for now).

They used FN as a resource and apparently refurbished any and all weapons. I wonder how many were really worn out vs how much was "make work" for a bunch of skilled Belgians needing a paycheck? The scale was phenomenal if the photos say anything. It would be interesting to know which were done by the FN workers since they apparently didn't mark anything to note a rebuild. Lots of mixed up stocks and parts on those weapons.

Stock could have been replaced anytime or more than once by the military or by a civilian owner.
If military , any cleaning session could cause a switch or any breakage .
If by an owner it could have been a case of what was on hand , or " You want HOW much fo that nice correct stock ? But you only want $20 for the same stock with a rebuild stamp on it ! " gun show deal. Or , the stock that WAS on it corrected another carbine and it's corrected this one better ( say Inland and early vs other maker and/or later ) .
Chris

Thanks again for all the replies guys! I think it's safe to say the stock has been replaced. I guess we'll never TRULY know though.

But as for the rest of the carbine, with uniformity on the finish wear, dirt and grime, patina, etc, is it safe to say it's original?

Lastly. How tight do you guys tighten y'all's barrel bands? I don't want to over do it, especially with a type one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

They used FN as a resource and apparently refurbished any and all weapons.

---

Dave, FN figures large in the forthcoming CC article. Stay tuned, some questions might find an answer. There's even a little more info in the three FN photos than is detectable in WBII.

I'm more of a paper guy (documents, not targets), but a cursory glance at Albright's terrific early Inland article in CCNL 346 seems to preclude the possibility that this stock or handguard could be original. Is that right or should I stick to turning over pieces of paper?

Your guess is as good as mine. I'm sure no expert. I know Chris' article on the 5.4 Inland block (#361) answered every question I could have had on mine.

*Thread Locked*

Hey guys .... :lol:

Resurrecting a two year old thread on a tangential issue from another forum .... seriously? :nono:

Last two posts deleted and original thread left in tact as it was in 2014. :cheers:

Regards,
Doug