"Inland" Manufacturing M1 Carbines - 1st hand experience

[USGI]

I would guess it is just like a new car model, on its 1st couple of months, hiccups. Be interested in seeing a latter built gun, and see if they have fixed the problems.

At this point it's been a year (if not more) and later examples and aren't showing much in the way of improvement. I guess time will tell. - Bob

[Captain O]

I have a great deal of sadness welling up in my heart as I finished reading this thread. I had been looking forward to purchasing an Inland Carbine as a suitable replacement for a USGI unit. I am a Vietnam-era Veteran (US Navy, Aviation Machinist's Mate, Jet). I have been an adherent/devotee of the .30 Carbine cartridge (and platform) for many years. I am not holding my breath, but hold out a little hope, (read: very little) that Inland will "get it's act together" and begin producing a quality product. I won't have the funds to effect said purchase until late 2016 or early 2017.

Many on the M1 Carbine forum are familiar with my zeal and overwhelming desire to purchase a well-manufactured specimen. If Inland's casting quality hasn't improved substantially by December, 2016, I will either be required to wait until March, 2017 or I'll wind up purchasing a Plainfield or other such early surviving sample of the M1 Carbine that still shoots and endures reasonably well.

The wait begins.

[Captain O]

He explained that people on this Forum may be judging him too harshly. Well, I don't think so. Everyone seems to want to give him an "even break". I was told this morning that neither a bolt, nor receiver has failed under normal use/operating circumstances. I both hope and pray that his will never be the case.

Inland would never survive a catastrophic failure of their products under normal circumstances. The civil consequences could force them to close their doors forever. There's no justifiable reason for this to occur.

Good luck and God bless, Ron.

[Sleeplessnashadow]

I don't think the topics here have been about Ron Norton. The main focus has been the carbines currently being made by Inland. The thread asks for comments by those with 1st hand experience to evaluate the quality of the carbine his company makes. One main theme here has been the hope Inland will be able to work things out. The interest in their carbines has held out hope this will happen.

The bolts they use being soft and taking damage from use shortens their lifespan significantly, which may or may not turn out to be a safety issue. The fact the bolts are soft should be a concern for Inland. It's not just a carbine issue, it's an industry wide accepted standard that centerfire firearm rifle bolts should be hardened to hold up to normal use without taking the damage these do. Norton has clearly indicated they are a concern for Inland.

The potential failure of a receiver only applies to those receivers that require stiff hammer blows to remove and install the pin securing the trigger housing to the receiver. The receiver lug the pin fits into historically has eventually cracked from such blows. But not every receiver is uneven enough that it has this issue. And it's not a safety issue as, if it happens, it will happen during maintenance.

The one issue that has a high probability of becoming a safety problem is the failure to properly secure the gas piston nut so it won't rotate out. This is easily remedied by whoever installs the gas piston nut. One of the purposes of these firearm forums is to get the word out to owners to check them, tighten them and secure them before using the carbine. And this isn't just Inland carbines, but Auto Ordnance too. I don't think Inland installs the gas piston nuts, I think it likely someone else installs them for them. But the end result is Inland's responsibility.

Most issues here have been about quality control. The receiver, wood fit and finish, trigger housing, mag catch, extractor, etc being areas of concern. With most not being a consistent problem with every Inland carbine. The bolt being the exception.

----------------------------------------------------------
Two things I'd like to make clear.

1) REPLICAS: Carbines not manufactured under contract to U.S. Army Ordnance are not true U.S. Cal. .30 Carbines. They are functional replicas.

We tend to assess a carbine using the GI carbines and the standards they were held too. These have been the only standards but they were designed and standardized for carbines intended for use by soldiers in combat and war environments.

No commercial carbines could ever meet U.S. Ordnance standards as those standards included inspections and acceptance by U.S. Army Ordnance personnel. Commercial parts built to the specifications of these standards are highly desirable but not how most firearms for civilian recreational use are built. Usually do to the costs involved and the intended use not needing to withstand reoccurring combat environments.

Firearms intended for civilian use are designed and built to a particular company's standards for that particular firearm. A replica can and will differ from one manufacturer to the next. As long as the replica functions and does so safely with the parts it has, GI compatibility is simply a bonus feature. GI specs are available to those willing to pay the price. Replicas are typically less expensive alternatives and not inherently unsafe. It's up to the manufacturer to know and maintain safety standards.

2) Replication Authenticity & Lifespan: Not every replica is compatible with what it seeks to replicate, or with other replicas. Every part on everything has a lifespan. Even the best quality eventually wears out.

A big source of Inland's woes has been their choice of using the same manufacturers and standards as used by Auto Ordnance. With the exception of the bolt, all of the issues discussed on this thread have been issues with Auto Ordnance carbines since well before Inland started production.

Auto Ordnance has chosen parts manufacturers, standards and quality control inspections that have been cost effective for the replicas they make. That they find certain deviations from the standards used by others as acceptable is reflected in the quality of their carbines and the lifespan of the parts therein. The trade off is they are the least expensive new commercial carbines available.

Inland makes some efforts to improve the fit and finish of the parts they obtain from the same sources used by Auto-Ordnance. The fit of the handguard to the stock and the finish on both are examples. The use of an adjustable rear sight, barrel band with bayonet lug for improved accuracy, rotary safety instead of a push button safety are functional improvements over the Auto Ordnance design, which replicates the earlier GI carbines.

This said, the handguard and stock used by Auto-Ordnance and Inland are a matched set slightly shorter than GI stocks and handguards and those used by other commercial manufacturers. Replacing one or the other with wood from another source requires both be replaced to keep them functional. Replacing with wood used by Inland or Auto-Ordnance may require hand fitting.

This is the case with other parts as well. Some are interchangeable with GI parts, some are not and many will change whether or not they are because of the standards used to make them.

Do not expect a carbine by Inland or Auto-Ordnance, or any parts therein, to last as long as their GI counterparts. The use of GI parts or other commercial parts with either of these replicas can affect their ability to function properly and may decrease the lifespan of the Inland/Auto-Ordnance parts they interact with.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Those who chose the name "Inland Manufacturing" inherited the strength of the name for marketing purposes. But they also inherited the expectations of quality that earned the original Inland's reputation. I think it unreasonable to hold a replica to GI standards. But, holding a replica to basic quality standards recognized by the entire firearms industry as to quality of manufacture, fit, durability, function and safety is the realm of the consumers and their evaluating a particular firearm. And this forum.

Auto Ordnance and Inland carbines are functional. They are not inherently unsafe. How long they will stay functional and safe is directly related to the cost of making them, the price they sell for and the profit margin that keeps a company in business. For those who want a lower cost alternative to a a carbine replica made by Fulton Armory, these are a viable option. Just know the lower cost does not include the quality, durability and function of a carbine made by Fulton Armory.

As for the bolts used by Inland, enough has been said already here. Ron Norton has claimed they were working on the issues.

The reputation of Inland Manufacturing and Ron Norton are not in the hands of the consumers or this forum. Should nothing change, as it appears it hasn't so far, the "even break" will still be even. All commercial carbines, and all firearms, are subject to consumer scrutiny. Not just those made by Inland.

The potential for change is strongly supported, encouraged and hoped for. We're not here to destroy carbines or the companies who make them, we're here to buy them, use them, enjoy them, rely on them and comment on them.

I'll be adding another post in regards to the bolts.

Jim
USCarbineCal30.com
BavarianM1Carbines.com
M1CarbinesInc.com

[Sleeplessnashadow]

Numbers are from two separate tests done on each part listed. Both carbines were obtained new and have not been fired unless done so at the manufacturer.

All numbers are Rockwell C scale

GI Specs
Receiver: 38-45
Bolt: 38-43 front, 48-54 rear
Slide: 40-45

Inland Mfg s/n 9001837
Receiver: 38/39
Bolt: 32 front/32 rear*
Slide: 43/44

Auto Ordnance s/n MC5439
Receiver: 41/43
Bolt: 37 front/38 rear*
Slide: 44/45

*hardness at the rear of the bolt can be compensated for with the hardness of the hammer. GI and commercial hammers were/are case hardened and measured using the Rockwell N scale, unavailable at the time of the above tests. Both Inland and Auto-Ordnance hammers have been case hardened.

This was only one carbine from each manufacturer. However, the deformation of the metal on this Inland lug is consistent with those seen prior on Inland carbines with lower serial numbers.

Inland Bolt

Attachment 71384 Attachment 71381
Attachment 71382 Attachment 71383

Auto-Ordnance Bolt

Attachment 71385 Attachment 71386
Attachment 71387 Attachment 71388

The areas of deformation on the Inland bolt are consistent with where they come in contact with the cam cut for the right lug in the slide during the forward and rearward movement of both together.

Jim

[Captain O]

While I know all of this, after the purchase has been made, I want a relatively long-lived, accurate, and fully functional M1 replica that I can enjoy fully, until I finally pass away (which shouldn't be for another 25 years).

[Bubba-7]

Based on the following, it does look like Inland Mfg. has solved their problems. I would buy one if I did not have a bunch of the old WWII, wore out junk ones.
Thanks for the up date.
Posted by Captain O
"I just go off the horn with Ron Norton of Inland
Ron personally assured me that the bolts on their M1 Carbines have been heat treated to a harder level than before, thus eliminating the problems with his earlier rifles.

Ron went to the 2016 SHOT show and took two "mule" carbines as demonstrators. These samples had 10,000 rounds fired through them before attempting a "fire the rifles until they stop" torture test. This test was performed on the of firing these "well-used" Carbines without lubrication! They fired an average of 1800 rounds dry before stoppages! This leads me to believe that the "problem" with the bolts has been resolved."

[Captain O]

Contrary to what many may believe, I have yet to be paid, in any way, by Ron Norton for anything whatsoever. While I am awaiting the "green signal" to work for Ron in about 2 1/2 months to work in a "voice over" capacity in his "faux newsreel" film. It will be a commercial version of the "Victory Is Our Business" General Motors film of 1943. No conclusions for this have been reached.

If I perform "voice work" for Inland, I'll let you know.

[Sleeplessnashadow]

Did you happen to notice the serial numbers of those used for demonstration at the Shot Show in January? The one the Rc numbers are posted for above, S/N 9001837, was sent to me by Inland in January just prior to the Shot Show. As a replacement for the one I returned in December 2015.

Things can change and I hope the issue with the bolt has been addressed. Been hoping all along, as others here have too.

One of the challenges in buying one off the shelf is how to know if it was made prior to the change or afterwards. But one sent direct from Inland after the claim was made should have the later bolt.

I've been in communication with a number of owners who have received replacement bolts or replacement carbines. All but one were before January 2016. The one after January received it as a replacement direct from Inland in the past couple weeks. I'll be examining the bolt on this one sometime in the next month. But it's just one carbine. Hopefully more owners will share their experiences here.

Marketing claims and firearms used for marketing demonstrations are not always in line with what turns up in the hands of owners. This is historical and applies to all manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers and not just firearms alone. The info from Ron Norton is good news but not new news. I'm not quite ready is spend another $950-$1000 plus tax and transfer fees to find out after 3 of them, two being replacements, and the conversations and info shared by the owners of several dozen more. Because of what I do for my websites I will eventually acquire another one. New and off the shelf. And what I do isn't gun reviews. It's documentary in nature for the history and general info.

Unfortunately most "gun reviews" nowadays are more in line with what a manufacturer wants everyone to hear. They provide the sample and often come with it. If the magazine or reviewer relies on what they write for an income and wants to continue doing what they do, reviews that include both the good and bad are not a good means for a reliable future income. This struggle for accurate honest reliable reviews is nothing new.

Where the truth lies is in the hands of the owners over time. Which is why I buy off the shelf more than once or twice over time. And seek info from other owners.

Ron Norton has known me and spoken with me since Chiappa introduced their .22 LR version prototype of the M1 Carbine at the NRA National meetings in Pittsburgh in 2011. Up to and including the 2016 Shot Show, though I didn't attend the range demonstrations. In my mind I'm neither friend or foe. I did see what he had displayed and examined a couple of them. But didn't ask to take them apart. Not the place. But I evaluate carbines based on first hand experience with off the shelf carbines themselves, regardless of who makes or sells them.

If Ron and Inland succeed, it would be a good thing. If they don't, it would not be a good thing. I hope they do succeed. And prove it with the carbine we buy.

Jim

[Captain O]

I do not owe Ron Norton any semblance of "blind allegiance" but will hold fast to his assertion that the "soft bolt" problem has been solved until it has been proven false. If, and when, that has been confirmed, I will withdraw my endorsement.

A man has to have faith in something. Since Vietnam was such a SNAFU, It has been difficult for me. (Yes, I was serving in the Navy during the final days of the Vietnam War/Conflict). I was stateside at USNAS Whidbey Island, WA, but we were still at war. It did have an impact upon me. We all carry the "scars" (either physical and/or emotional) to this day.

We all need to "keep the faith".