The "New" Inland M1 carbine

I read with interest the cover story article in the current Guns & Ammo magazine about the newly manufactured M1 carbine by a company called Inland Manufacturing. They are marketing three models, a "1944" with a type II barrel band and comes with a 10 round magazine for sale in the constitutional restrictive states, a "1945" model with type III barrel band with bayonet lug and comes with 15 round magazine for sale in the mostly free sectons of America. They are also manufacturing a M1A1 model.

Article claims new Inlands are true to fit and finish of the original USGI and parts are interchangable, though internal parts are marked accordingly so as to help deter "fraudary" when used on original M1 carbines. They come with milled rear sights, round bolt and a push button safety. From the pictures in the article they looked good. Priced at a little under $1,100 for the 1944 and 1945 models, just over $1,100 for the M1A1.


I wasn't impressed with author Garry James' brief history about the M1 carbine. Anytime someone supposedly in the know gives full credit to the M1 carbine's development to David "Marsh" Williams it's an indicator they probably got their information from Wikipedia.

I haven't held one of these to know what your getting. But for the cost, $1,049 M1, and $1,179 M1A1 I'd rather look and find an original. I read these new Inland's also have cast receivers.

MKS Supply

The cast receiver is just the way things are done today. I suspect that almost all of the parts are cast as well. They can cast parts today with 8620 steel which is the same stuff that they made the Garand receivers from. Ruger has been making investment casting guns for 50 years with great success. I don't like cast part guns either but that's the way things are done today. Lowers scrap rate and machining costs.

I have nothing against cast parts either. I have eleven Rugers from .22 to .480 and my first revolver was a new three screw Blackhawk in .45 colt.

I just feel with so many still around, for the same dollars you can get a nice GI Carbine. I personally like having the history. Though I've seen shot and taken them apart, I've never owned a commercial carbine.

Yes, you can get a nice G.I. carbine for $1000. But don't you want to keep it nice? This way you get a shooter. With a warranty. With brand new replacement parts. And if I could find one of these stocks (Israeli Hezi SM1) I would get one of the new Inlands to put in it. No 'happy switch' of course. :)

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

I suspect had the technology been available in the early 1940's every USGI carbine made would have been cast. Just look at what I.B.M. did with the stamped trigger housing is evidence enough.

It was Underwood who started the brazed trigger housings and if they were able to make good strong castings back then they would have used them as Faulkner has suggested. They did experiment with castings of slides and hammers but they were deemed as not being good enough. Post war Springfield Armory did a lot of casting of replacement parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

Ruger has been making investment casting guns for 50 years with great success.

---

Probably 60 years or more now Dave. Good point. :thup: - Bob

The company was founded in 1949 by Alexander McCormick Sturm and William B. Ruger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce McAskill

It was Underwood who started the brazed trigger housings and if they were able to make good strong castings back then they would have used them as Faulkner has suggested. They did experiment with castings of slides and hammers but they were deemed as not being good enough. Post war Springfield Armory did a lot of casting of replacement parts.

---

Although Underwood did use the brazed trigger housings, it was I.B.M. engineers who designed and developed it at their Endicott factory. (According to "War Baby", page 195). About 20 years ago I actually met an elderly man who was a retired I.B.M. engineer who claimed he worked on the team that developed it.

Both Riesch and Canfield state in their books that "Underwood was instrumental in the development of the stamped/brazed process" and Underwood was indeed instrumental in helping solve many of the problems in the manufacturing process.

Didn't Ruger start with their castings in the late 60's when they started making high powered model 77 rifles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

Yes, you can get a nice G.I. carbine for $1000. But don't you want to keep it nice? This way you get a shooter.

---

This is an important point for me. I have a beautiful Inland '43 that was arsenal rebuilt in '49 and has never been shot since. I just don't want to use it -- it's a collector's item. I have a 1979 Marlin M2, which is an M-1 carbine in .22 I use for shooting. A faux M-1 (one of those on the market today that are "almost but not really" clones) just don't make it for me. It's either the real deal or no deal.

Regarding castings, all of our automotive engines are cast, and they receive a lot of torque and heat, but don't crack. The problem only occurs when castings are not quality (i.e. with cracks, bubbles, etc). If the casting is done in the U.S., there is a low likelihood of a problem. I would not trust any Far Eastern casting unless it came from a source that was reliable (such as a supplier for Honda, Toyota, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce McAskill

Didn't Ruger start with their castings in the late 60's when they started making high powered model 77 rifles?

---

I believe this started with the first Singles Sixes sometime in 1953. - Bob

I'm sure many members here subscribe to Guns & Ammo magazine. I was very interested when mine came and I saw the Carbine on the front cover. The Williams short piston issue has been around forever. And I think Garry James did a good review. Though I wasn't in 100% agreement with some of his comments. They are not identical or twins as he states. Those familiar with the GI carbine will notice the differences. I don't think they were designed with the collector market in mind. Generations grew up listening to their father or grandfather talking about military weapons. What they carried wherever they served. Maybe wanting to enjoy the feeling or memories to go along with those stories.

I also understand someone not wanting to damage a collectible, or it's value, by shooting it and want just a shooter to enjoy. For that purpose I feel there are many safe GI shooter carbines available for under this price point. And you still have the history that come with it.

Personally I hope this venture takes off. People buying these might then get the bug to find out more about the originals. New interest can bring new collectors and keep our hobby going for many years to come.

As for cast parts, there is nothing wrong with having cast parts. I have Ruger firearms with tens of thousands of rounds fired without issue. There are even big name current 1911 makers using cast parts.

I hope they are better than the late AO junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The key critical cast part on a commercial carbine is the receiver. Today, investment casting of a C4140 or C8620 steel M1 carbine receiver is just as good as a forged steel receiver. The concern started back in the 50's when cast parts ( not receiver) were tested, and the issue was what is referred to as the brittle-ductile transition temperature. All steels will lose the ability to withstand shock loads when the temperature gets down to a certain point (usually tested -30 to -50F).

Because the chemical recipe for cast 4140 steel has a bit more Si and Al in it, compared to a 4140 forging, there was initial concern about it's ability to withstand use in cold temperatures, ie elevated B-D transition temperatures. As we know from the Chosin event in Nov 1950, and subsequent combat analysis of M1 carbines, cold weather operations did present a problem, but not associated with the steels used to make the parts.

My cast receiver Iver-Johnson, c. 1983, works just fine, thank you.