My M1A1 carbine

I finely got one, well most of it, please tell me what you think, good or bad.
I want it to look like it did in 1943, I know their is a lot wrong with it. the things I see right off is the frt. and rear sights are wrong, the barrel strap is wrong [I cut off the bayonet lug off until I can find the correct type 1]. I think someone replaced the leather and used the wrong rivets, the hand guard is not correct it has four rivets not the two rivets. [I have a correct two rivet hand guard for it].
The good things I see is that it is a Inland, it is in the right sn. range for a M1A1, most of the parts are Inland parts, and the gun itself is in very good shape.
Thank's for looking.

What are you going to do with the sight bridge since it has the stake marks for the adjustable sight? The stock nose is also going to have the mark of the type III band, and the barrel may have a worn place where the snout of the bayo lug rubbed. There are many more problems in 'correcting' a rebuild. Not to say they are not solvable, but sometimes it gets expensive.

Thanks for your thoughts Inland,
I know it's not an untouched M1A1 used at Normandy, but it's prob. as close as I will ever get to owning a very small part of WW 2 history, I just do the best I can with what I have and can afford, but you are right, their's a lot of prob's. to make this gun look like it did in 1943, but I kinda like it. thanks for your comment's :cheers:.

The metal on the folder looks the part although the leather has been replaced and the rivets are way off. The hand guard is a four rivet type, too late for the serial number. The staking has already been mentioned as has the type III barrel band footprint.

the stock has the RIA rebuild stamp and I would doubt it is a "hi wood" stock. Early stocks that I have seen had the circle P in the back not side. The pistol grip also has marks
which would indicate early or later too.

Sometimes it is better not to change things and put it back with the adj rear sight and with a bayonet lug. The later bayonet lug often leaves a shadow on the barrel and once
removed is easy to spot

I thank you all for your advice. Would it be best with all these prob's to just leave it alone as RCS says and put the rear adj. sight and a newer bayonet lug and frt. sight back on and the four rivet hand guard and leave as a Korea-Vietnam ere M1A1 ?
Maybe I was wrong on the WW 2 era. what would you guy's do with it ? just asking for some advice, Thanks for any help.
RCS, That sure would be a lot less trouble and exp.

I'd put it back to what it was and keep it.

Long-time readers will know that I have a very conservative attitude to "correcting". I will do whatever is necessary in the spirit of "long-term maintenance" to make my rifles perform well. But swapping out components merely to make a gun appear "correct" is, IMHO, falsification, and even if the (presumably) well-meaning perpetrator does not intend it to be so, produces a de-facto fake when the gun is passed on, as one day it will be.

I shoot a 1944 carbine which seems to have been through an overhaul (as were many/most rifles in long active service). The shaft is warped, so that I had to file around on the front end to stop it bending the barrel. It would be tempting to swap the stock for an unwarped one, and - hey! why not a "correct" one while I'm at it? - but since I have won the 50-meter championship in Hessen twice with this tatty original, any change would be non-functional, and therefore not necessary.

The aim of armorers and arsenals it to produce guns that function properly. Not to produce nicely matched sets of components to delight collectors.

How many "100% correct" carbines are there out there now? Probably a higher percentage that at the end of WWII.

Leave it alone and resist the urge to slide into fakery.

it is one thing to "correct" a carbine with no barrel band shadow or adj sight stake marks for your own pleasue but when they stand out like they do on this carbine it would be a distraction of sorts. Best to keep the adj sight, barrel band w/bayo lug on it. It is part of the carbine's history, nothing wrong with that. Lots of M1A1 carbines went through the rebuild process (RIA stamp) and were upgraded to those parts so having it with those parts in that stock will still be "correct" for it.

i agree with these guys. It IS a Korea Vietnam era M1 carbine. General Norman Schwarzkopf of Desert Storm fame, carried an M2 Carbine in an M1A1 stock as a young Lt. in Vietnam. My 6 digit Inland is correct, though not correct for 1942. It is correct for when it was rebuilt in the 1950s, and stuck in a VCI "white bag." It has arsenal upgrades to make it a better weapon: adjustable rear sight, M2 magazine catch, Type III barrel band for better accuracy and use of a bayonet, non-dog-leg hammer, and a stronger Potbelly stock (though I added that). A restored Inland, will always be just restored. It is actually more authentic with the upgrades, because that was its last "as issued" condition.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...50585857-1.jpg

You guys are right, I put it back like it was, and it will stay that way, thanks for being so honest in your comments, all good reasons. Thank you all for helping me ;).

Here's a few pic's of it after I put it back together and cleaned it up.

It looks fine like that, at least you have one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lboos

You guys are right, I put it back like it was, and it will stay that way, thanks for being so honest in your comments, all good reasons. Thank you all for helping me ;).

Here's a few pic's of it after I put it back together and cleaned it up.

---

Looks great. You mentioned 'maybe I was wrong about the WWII era?'. No, it is a WWII carbine and I think it may be in the serial number range of the first run of M1A1s. All carbines were made during WWII. But having been overhauled and updated while it was in service, it would take an expensive restoration to put it back into original condition. As it is, you still have an honest M1A1 that has some good value which is only going to go up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

Looks great. You mentioned 'maybe I was wrong about the WWII era?'. No, it is a WWII carbine and I think it may be in the serial number range of the first run of M1A1s. All carbines were made during WWII. But having been overhauled and updated while it was in service, it would take an expensive restoration to put it back into original condition. As it is, you still have an honest M1A1 that has some good value which is only going to go up.

---

Inland,
Thank's for the kind words and good advice. I went back and try'd to find what you are talking about [maybe you was wrong about the WW 2 era ?] if I made a mistake. I did not mean to, prob. just my poor grammar ;).
This is a great forum, and so many of you guy's that know your carbines, you guy's sure saved me from making a big mistake.

Very Nice! Not a thing wrong with that sweet weapon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lboos

I thank you all for your advice. Would it be best with all these prob's to just leave it alone as RCS says and put the rear adj. sight and a newer bayonet lug and frt. sight back on and the four rivet hand guard and leave as a Korea-Vietnam ere M1A1 ?
Maybe I was wrong on the WW 2 era. what would you guy's do with it ? just asking for some advice, Thanks for any help.
RCS, That sure would be a lot less trouble and exp.

---

I meant, no, you were not wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

i agree with these guys. It IS a Korea Vietnam era M1 carbine. General Norman Schwarzkopf of Desert Storm fame, carried an M2 Carbine in an M1A1 stock as a young Lt. in Vietnam. My 6 digit Inland is correct, though not correct for 1942. It is correct for when it was rebuilt in the 1950s, and stuck in a VCI "white bag." It has arsenal upgrades to make it a better weapon: adjustable rear sight, M2 magazine catch, Type III barrel band for better accuracy and use of a bayonet, non-dog-leg hammer, and a stronger Potbelly stock (though I added that). A restored Inland, will always be just restored. It is actually more authentic with the upgrades, because that was its last "as issued" condition.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...50585857-1.jpg

---

imarangemaster,
Thank's for posting the pic. of Gen. Schwarzkopf, but i'm thinking that M1A1/M2 prob. belonged to the RVN paratrooper in the middle he was helping. and Schwarzkopf being a Lt. would have carried a 1911 most of the time.
Many of the RVN troop's carried the M1's and their paratroopers loved the folding stock with the M1 or M2. it would help if we knew the year of the pic. many M1's, M1A1's, and M2's were issued to the RVN.
But, I've been wrong many time's before. :thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lboos

Thank's for posting the pic. of Gen. Schwarzkopf, but i'm thinking that M1A1/M2 prob. belonged to the RVN paratrooper

---

Apparently the story was that Norman had an M1A1...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Apparently the story was that Norman had an M1A1...

---

bar,
Thank's for that info. that makes owning a M1A1 even more interesting. :thup:

I am going to the range tomorrow to see how it shoot's, I just hope it shoot's as good as my Quality Hardware does.

If all goes well, I will clean it, and into the display case it goes in my little comp. room. :madsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Apparently the story was that Norman had an M1A1...

---

It was Norman's. If you look close, he has 30 rounders in his jungle fatigue breast pocket. I also read something years ago where he referred to his "paratrooper" carbine he used in Vietnam. IIRC, he was talking about it being a lot of firepower if things got "close and stupid," or something like that. It was around the time of Desert Storm (1990/1991) that I read it in print media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

he referred to his "paratrooper" carbine he used in Vietnam

---

That's right...