"Inland" Manufacturing M1 Carbines - 1st hand experience

[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

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.