Hardness Dimples on June 1942 manufactured Inland Receivers

[ssgross]

had not there been a discussion of hardness testing, I would have guessed maybe the mark was a witness or index mark showing correct alignment in whatever jig was used in the milling processes.

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.

[eb in oregon]

had not there been a discussion of hardness testing, I would have guessed maybe the mark was a witness or index mark showing correct alignment in whatever jig was used in the milling processes.

For that to be the case those dimples would have to be in the exact same place on every single carbine. Jigs and fixtures require an exact location so those dimples would be consistent throughout manufacture for all production. I don't think any company is going to design it's own tooling that's different from everybody else's tooling as the process is supposed to be pretty much the same for everybody.

[USGI]

I don't think any company is going to design it's own tooling that's different from everybody else's tooling as the process is supposed to be pretty much the same for everybody.

IP was doing that until Saginaw took over and made a "few changes." Their set-up for the trigger housings was just one of them. - Bob

[eb in oregon]

IP was doing that until Saginaw took over and made a "few changes." Their set-up for the trigger housings was just one of them. - Bob

There is a difference between laminated and brazed trigger housings and cast trigger housings. While I've had multiple M1's with cast trigger housings my Inland has a laminated trigger housing. Two fundamentally different manufacturing processes with different construction processes. Not quite the same thing as the receiver and it's processes.