Inland RRA Rebuild, DCM Or Not?

[INLAND44]

The DCM carbines of the early sixties were sold off because they were deemed" unserviceable". This was because they had never been through an arsenal rebuild. I have observed many carbines that don't make "sense". They have a mixture of early and late features. Type one band and safety, but a late adjustable rear sight is common. Many with highwood stocks. The rear sights were often replaced at the unit level I am told. If you carbine has a rebuild mark then at the very least the stock has been though and arsenal rebuild. I have bought some primo highwood stocks from people who said the carbine it came from was a DCM. They just changed because they wanted a different stock at the time. The possibilities are endless. You carbine might be a DCM but will probably never be proven to be so. Anything is possible in the world of the M1 Carbine. I guess I should just say in my opinion you carbine is not a DCM. Others can disagree with everything I said but that's ok by me.

I'm quite sure that very many rebuilds/updated carbines were included in the sale. With very few exceptions, they had been used in WWII, updated/rebuilt, then used in Korea, possibly being redone again. These were simply carbines from long-term storage that were deemed 'surplus'. The use of the term 'unserviceable' was simply a means by which to surplus-out the carbines while satisfying the 'bean-counters'. They definitely were 'serviceable' in every respect. The same term was used to surplus-out thousands of U.S. pistols during the same period, some of which had never even been issued (the perfect late Remington Rands for example), along with the majority which were rebuilds.
So the term 'unserviceable' on these invoices has no meaning in the technical sense relative to suitability for use.

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.

[firstflabn]

The use of the term 'unserviceable' was simply a means by which to surplus-out the carbines while satisfying the 'bean-counters'. They definitely were 'serviceable' in every respect.

Not according to Jerry Kuhnhausen (p. 147). Go read the part where he says: "Although many DCM carbines appeared to be in as-new condition, all were shipped with components that did not pass ordnance gauge inspection..."

Superseded parts were included in the 'other' category, fair enough. But the other three sections detail physical deficiencies. As an example he presents a photo of an as-new appearing trigger housing with a mislocated trigger pin hole that could present a safety issue (several other TG problems omitted for brevity).

Would a carbine with the potential for accidental hammer release fit your 'serviceable in every respect' assertion?

[DaveHH]

to the citizens with no warning thereof ? The original shipment tags state that the shipping division "weapon must be inspected prior to shipment" "Extreme care must be exercised that no unsafe or hazardous weapon is shipped".

[firstflabn]

How did DOD define 'unsafe' or 'hazardous' for these purposes?

Your label must be defaced, else you would have also quoted the part where it says 'as-is condition.'

Those magic words constitute a disclaimer as to fitness for a particular purpose, or at least it did in the 1960s before the lawyers invented product liability litigation.

[DaveHH]

I have it on a word document format and can't download to my photo server.
I says that the pistol: "This sale is final and the US Govt retains no obligation or responsibility for malfunction, repair, replacement or exchange"

[firstflabn]

I have it on a word document format and can't download to my photo server.
I says that the pistol: "This sale is final and the US Govt retains no obligation or responsibility for malfunction, repair, replacement or exchange"

That wording is identical to that shown on a shipping document dated 1957 in Brophy's '03 book. And on the next page is a 1961 dated invoice with the same wording. For us non-lawyers, the different phrasing is equivalent and in both cases was probably enough to satisfy that era's government lawyers.

Would be interesting to find the 'unserviceable' definition in the document Kuhnhausen excerpted, but even that wouldn't mean that the standard was consistently applied.

In the TH example Kuhnhausen used, even his experienced eye didn't spot the misaligned hole until he looked down from the top and saw the sear wasn't laying where he knew it should. Would everyone doing these inspections have noticed that? Inspecting for four or five attributes really requires focus - doing a general checkout of a complex system is very difficult without a detailed checklist. Pretty sure that didn't happen here. Might even have heard the phrase 'good enough for government work' uttered a time or two.