New Inland encounter...

I was shooting at the local Cowboy Action match and was talking with a couple other shooters. M1 Carbines came up, and another shooter asked about 10 round magazines vs GI 15 round.

To make a long story short, he said he had a new model Inland that would not feed from 10 round or even 15 round GI. I discussed some of the QC issues they are having, and this lead to him bringing the Inland out.

I field stripped and sure enough, the bolt lug was peening to the point you could catch the edge of the deformation with your finger nail! The channel in the receiver that the right lug engages, was wearing rounded, and showing a slight bit of peening. The receiver was also a little warped, and the channel that the bolt engages to slide back and forth was wiggly.

To say he was p*ssed was an understatement. He had less than 300 rounds through it, and had paid high dollar. He bought it recently. He is sending it back.

Another satisfied Inland customer. NOT!!! I wish him the best with Inlands oh so wonderful customer service and repair system.

You can read this sort of stuff about the new Inland on about any gun forum you want to. You can also read about how they have it corrected, but it doesn't seem so. If one just has to have a commercial copy, Fulton seems to get high-marks, but they will cost about 2X the price of a good USGI shooter. If one has to be had economically, the Universal generation one with a very low serial number is seemingly a good bet and they do turn-up. I have one crammed-full of USGI parts. The only thing non-GI is the barrel and the receiver, which is forged steel to USGI specs., or close enough to it. The informed just should not bite on any "new" commercial. The uninformed that have are learning a serious lesson.

Yep! I did not have the heart to tell him what I REALLY thought of the terrible cast receiver he had. It almost looked "out of focus". The channel that the slide lug reciprocated in was so tight, it is no wonder it would not feed.

I fairly recently worked on a Plainfield for a friend of a friend. It was/is a nice carbine.
His left top rail on the trigger housing, where the hammer strikes after fire was chipped out enough that the hammer would lodge forward/partly inside the TH.
I just put his parts in a GI trigger housing and dumped his cast hammer. Oh.. and I pulled the metal HG and put on a nicely matching GI Hg.
Now runs 100%, really a nice carbine for a commercial.
He's the one that swapped me this trooper case for labor.
I've been thinking about selling off some parts and cases, but prices seem to be down at the time.



http://www.milsurps.com/images/impor...ubasmaan-1.jpg

http://www.milsurps.com/images/impor...17pdo4mj-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce McAskill

Another satisfied Inland customer. NOT!!! I wish him the best with Inlands oh so wonderful customer service and repair system.

---

Good thing they're not being shipped to our GI's in a war zone!

Russ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RASelkirk

Good thing they're not being shipped to our GI's in a war zone!

---

Think we could use a back door and ship them to Lil Kim Jong Un?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a8dfc3a6-1.jpg

A Plainfield is really the best of the commercial carbines. All parts interchange with USGI parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce McAskill

A Plainfield is really the best of the commercial carbines. All parts interchange with USGI parts.

---

I had a Plainfield in th 1980s that was all USGI except for barrel and receiver. It was awesome.

I have an Iver Johnson and a gen-1 Universal that are both USGI compatible and both built on GI spec. single-spring forged steel receivers. Johnson inherited thousands of Universal forged steel receivers after their demise and used them to build carbines. Johnson also inherited the Plainfield leftovers, so a later Johnson is practically a Plainfield/Universal gen-1. The Universal came loaded with a Standard Products T4 trigger housing and a Winchester bolt. The Johnson has a Saginaw T3 trigger housing. I have no idea how long they may shoot, but both the guns are very tight and head-space measurements indicate they have a lot of life in them. I mostly shoot these and leave war-baby in the safe.

IJ in 1975 bought out Plainfield Machine Co. By 1976 the Plainfield name was discontinued and the carbines became IJ carbines. IJ was sold in 1982 and in 1983 it moved to a plant in Arkansas. IJ also bought Universal in 1983. In 1987 IJ was sold to A.M.A.C. and the Universal carbine was discontinued.

Universal started with the double recoil springs, aluminum trigger housing and the cut out side by about 1969. The Skeletonized Slide was supposed to be a stronger slide but it was anything else but that. Lots of breakage with the slide continues today. ( A new made replacement can be found on line.) The same cannot be said for the aluminum trigger housings. With time the pins holes become enlarged and out of round. Some housings have cracked and some broken off. USGI housings do not work on the Universal.

As the days go by, I find myself getting angrier as I think about it. Here's a guy, who is an avid shooter, not wealthy, but wanted something nice. He buys the BS and hype that this new Inland puts outs, drinks the Kool Aid, and ends up with a $1200 POS. He is not knowledgable about real carbines, and figures the jamming was typical of all carbines. When I told him that I could count the malfunctions I have had in over 30 year of owning and shooting carbine on one hand, he was mortified. WHen I predicted and finally showed him the peening of the bolt, he was dumbfounded.

I will try to get the serial number so we can see where in the production his carbine is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce McAskill

USGI housings do not work on the Universal.

---

I have to clarify this generalized statement just a tad. The very early guns (known as generation 1's) were practically 100% USGI compatible, single-spring actions and all. I totally agree that the generation 2's and 3's are not interchangeable, but the area is gray during the transition periods between gen-1 and gen-2 around SN 94XXX. One almost has to have the gun in hand to inspect it and determine what's inside. I completely agree that if you see a skeletonized slide, it's a dead giveaway to put it down and walk away from it if you want a GI compatible gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

As the days go by, I find myself getting angrier as I think about it. Here's a guy, who is an avid shooter, not wealthy, but wanted something nice. He buys the BS and hype that this new Inland puts outs, drinks the Kool Aid, and ends up with a $1200 POS. He is not knowledgable about real carbines, and figures the jamming was typical of all carbines. When I told him that I could count the malfunctions I have had in over 30 year of owning and shooting carbine on one hand, he was mortified. WHen I predicted and finally showed him the peening of the bolt, he was dumbfounded.

---

I have known buyers to look over a GI carbine on the table marked at $800 and purchase the new AO or Inland for more money laying right beside it. They are buying a new gun and it has to be better...right! They simply don't know that old 75 year-old gun has been thru two or three wars and likely rebuilt at least once and it is yet more reliable than just about any commercial carbine made today and has more life in it than the commercial, with maybe 1 exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flydthecat

They simply don't know that old 75 year-old gun has been thru two or three wars and likely rebuilt at least once and it is yet more reliable

---

Fully Agree......
What they might not have considered is that ole 75+ year old Carbine with the old patina will most likely go up in value, along with having some History to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flydthecat

I have known buyers to look over a GI carbine on the table marked at $800 and purchase the new AO or Inland for more money laying right beside it. They are buying a new gun and it has to be better

---

Well...... Then they start thinking, Or not thinking You get what you pay for Looking over that nice early or mid war Replica Carbine, it's Pretty Stock and Crossed Cannons Cartouche. So by spending the extra cash, they are indeed thinking they've made the right move , thus getting more for their money. Plus it's new and has a Warranty !! But much like buying a new custom boat, they are losing value as the clock ticks.

Too much info out there about just about everything now days that you can research in a hour or two. No excuse to play ignorant or uninformed. Even if your not a computer type, this same info can be found in magazine reviews, by word of mouth....etc. I believe you also have to figure in the 'Pretty Factor'.......... "Man I'll look cool with this out at the range".
Cut to view of 2, 30 rders taped together with a few bandos slung over the shoulders and Repro US marked carry case.
I better stop...... ;-)

Jmo
Charlie-Painter777

I’m still annoyed at the flagrant positive spin that the firearm press put on the new Inlands when first released. I don’t remember them giving a single bad review back then. I guess only positive reviews get a share of the almighty advertising dollar. Thank heavens for the internet’s unbiased user reviews. Were it not for them, who could we trust?

After 75 years, all mine have been broken in and the bugs worked out.:rolleyes:

What is really sad is that the most expensive commercial M1 Carbine is actually the worst! Plainfield/Iver Johnson in all their incarnations were much better, even Auto Ordnance finally worked out the bugs, but cost a lot less. First generation Universals (with GI compatible parts) were good, and other assorted: Fulton, Federal Ordnance, Springfield Armory, and IAI were even better. How can everyone else do it better for less?

There was a know firearms writer who was on another forum. He praised the "New Inlands" as a huge improvement over the worn out original USGI carbines. He claimed he examined then and fired them finding them very accurate. Well he kept talking about them on this forum he was on and then I started to note that there were some people who were having problems with the new carbines on other forums. So I asked him about this and could he help some of these people get the warranty work done on them as he seemed to be well involved with Inland. Well he jumped all over me about anyone having any problems with the New Inlands. If they did then it was caused by them and not the company. I then found out that Jim Mock had an on going problem with the new Inland he had bought. So after talking with Jim I went back to that other forum and laid out the facts. This writer came back claiming that it could not happen as to what was claimed. Then someone else on the forum came in and said that he also had a new Inland was having the same problems. The writer said he would check with Inland and that was the last heard from him. Then the President of the New Inland came on the forum and said yes they had a few teething problems but they were working hard to correct them and if someone had a problem then just contact customer service and they would fix the problem ASAP. Well guess what, oh go ahead and guess. Yup your right. Nothing happened and one gentlemen who sent his back had been smart enough to mark the carbine so he could tell if it had been apart. The carbine came back as fixed and was feeding fine. As soon as he could he went out and it did the exact same thing. He had checked the markings and they had not been removed by taking the carbine out of the stock so he knew they were full of a lot of BS. The President of Inland never ever came back to that forum. So if your thinking of buying a new Inland then think long and hard before you do. And know that the problems with AO and they still have them, also apply with Inland as they use a number of parts from AO.

I'd prefer a restored Pinto.......


Here is a 21 page review:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=53708

Read this review early on. See them at shows all the time. Just can't justify spending that kinda cash when a USGI version works and is normally less Thanks for reposting the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

the bolt lug was peening to the point you could catch the edge of the deformation with your finger nail!

---

IRM,
See post # 25 in the link below. Is this bolt lug similar to the one you describe?

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=53708&page=3

Also in the post by Jim M,
I'm confident the problem with the Hoppes #9 pulling off the stock finish is they are more than likely using 'Water Based' Dyes, Stain and Top coats.
They are cheaper, require fewer in between steps, dry quicker and cut back on labor time. Hoppes #9 would be hot enough and also slow drying to pull these types of finishes.
The 'Green tint' Jim is seeing on his cleaning patches is coming from the adhesion binders found in the Water based top coats.. be them stain or clear finish. Being fast drying, low odor and low in solids, it's the binders that make up most of the VOC limit.

The Inland site doesn't list it's stock finish. A MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet for the woods finish would reveal this.
For any State, Federal, School, Hospital, Gen Motors and then some ... etc job we did, these were required to be filed for every product their Architect or Engineers called for.
A Royal Pain in the A$$.

Post #25 shows stock finish pulling:
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=53708&page=3

FWIW
Charlie-Painter777

I bought one of their paratrooper stocks to use for range time when I first joined this forum a year ago. It was hot and I was sweating. I remember the finish immediately started coming off on my hands. When I got home I stripped as much as I could off and started over. Not sure what they used but it was either not applied correctly or was crap, or both. The recoil plate cracked after a couple hundred rounds. The grip screw wouldn't stay tightened. It tended to fold up on me while firing. Other than that, it was perfect. Perfect for a wall hanger.