Late war Inland...

[Len]

Hi guys,
This 8-44 Inland carbine came my way recently. Judging from the exterior it appeared to be an un-refurbished example. A friend loaned me his copy of Harrison's book on M1's and from what I was able to glean from it's pages the carbine is correct internally as well. However I've been told that Harrison isn't always right so I'm posting it here for your perusal. Comments and opinions would be appreciated.

Best regards,
Len

Attachment 24978Attachment 24979Attachment 24980Attachment 24981Attachment 24982Attachment 24983Attachment 24984Attachment 24985Attachment 24986Attachment 24987Attachment 24988Attachment 24989Attachment 24990Attachment 24991Attachment 24992Attachment 24993Attachment 24994Attachment 24995

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[shadycon]

Looks very nice. To bad about the stock!

[dbarn]

Very nice! I have seen several dings and dents around the oiler well where folks have tried to use a tool to pry the oiler out of the hole in order to remove the sling, not understanding the oiler must be left in. Yours does not look all that bad and would not be a negative to me. What's more important is the originality of the carbine and it appears to be an original, unmodified example.

Does the barrel band have any markings? How is the hammer marked? I have a 5.5 Inland with a 9-44 barrel. The type 2 band is marked KI and the hammer is marked I-I. Nice score and thanks for sharing.

[Len]

Hi dbarn,
The band is unmarked. The hammer was poorly struck but I think it's marked H.I.

[mpd1978]

Looks like a great carbine. Check the left side of the barrel band for a / mark. Looks like it may have one in the photo. i have an original 5.4 inland with an 8-44 barrel and a / marked band as well.

[Len]

Looks like a great carbine. Check the left side of the barrel band for a / mark. Looks like it may have one in the photo. i have an original 5.4 inland with an 8-44 barrel and a / marked band as well.

Thanks for the suggestion! I took another look and there is the mark you mentioned.

Attachment 25014[

[rdpinwa]

Other than the rear sight with the stamped part number it looks to be original.

[Len]

"How about some more details on how it came your way.................?"

It came from the estate of a gent who was said to have been a crewman on an LST in Pacific. He supposedly brought back this along with a Japanese rifle.

"Other than the rear sight with the stamped part number it looks to be original."

That's why I posted the pics. Harrison says the sight would be correct but as I stated in my posting I've been told he wasn't always accurate.

[Mikey51]

Thanks, I like the bolt pic ! Mike.

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

Other than the rear sight with the stamped part number it looks to be original.

Besides Harrison are you also saying Ruth is wrong about the rear sight?

War Baby page 346 says rear sight type F with I.R.C.O. on right side occasionaly over 7160060.