"Inland" Manufacturing M1 Carbines - 1st hand experience

[sieggie]

Its been about 6 weeks since I returned the 2nd carbine, the one sent as a replacement for the one I purchased. No word yet.

Jim

We are now halfway through Feb, have you heard anything from Inland? Still wondering if they ever solved the soft bolt problem.

Dave

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.

[Sleeplessnashadow]

I've been bogged down in work that's kept me away from the carbine research and websites I prefer to do. My apologies for the delay.

I received another replacement from Inland which I picked up after the January Shot Show in Las Vegas. S/N is 9001837. I also picked up a new Auto Ordnance carbine to compare the two. S/N is MC5439.

The Auto Ordnance was returned to the manufacture to correct problems with the fit of the stock and handguard. It was back several weeks later. The handguard was sanded down to fit flush with the stock but the stock was machined at an angle causing the action to sit an an angle in the stock. Most evident in the barrel channel where the barrel sits at an angle. Termite damage in the handguard was acceptable to Auto Ordnance.

Again, these pics are an Auto Ordnance carbine stock and handguard. Which Inland alters before selling.

Attachment 70105Attachment 70106Attachment 70107

Inland doesn't alter the inside of the stock and their barrels also sit an an angle in the barrel channel. To varying degrees. Some worse than others. Inland doesn't try to correct this as it would make the fit worse. It's an issue with the manufacture of the stock.

First, the comparison of the Inland to the Auto Ordnance. With the exception of the rear sight (adjustable on the Inland, flip sight on the AO), barrel band (with lug on the Inland, type I on the AO), wood finish (darker on the Inland, too light on the AO) and the use of the round bolt by Inland vs the flat bolt by AO, they are the same parts and the same carbine. Not similar, the same. The bolt is also the same with the Inland simply not having the lightening cut in the top of the bolt.

At the Shot Show I spoke with Inland's president, Ron Norton, who indicated he gets the Inland stocks from Auto-Ordnance and has had the same issues with the quality and fit. His people do the sanding to ensure a proper fit of the handguard and stock before they stain the wood darker.

One buyer noted previously the replacement stock and handguard they purchased from Inland would not fit their non-Inland non AO carbine without modification. Which is still consistent to varying degrees with both the Inland and AO wood. At the Shot Show I examined the Auto Ordnance carbine on display and found the handguard fit flush with the stock on the left side but extended out past the stock on the right. With the offset barrel position in the barrel channel. Anyone holding the AO carbine would feel the sharp edge of the right side of the handguard protruding out from the stock. The degree to which it's offset varies a little.

At the Shot Show I also learned from several sources, including the stock manufacturer, that the stocks for Auto Ordnance and therefore Inland are made by the Altamont Company in Thomasoboro, IL. They have also been making the wood for the AO and Inland M1A1 stocks but stopped recently. Apparently the source for the metal parts for the M1A1 stock is no longer available and both AO and Inland are seeking a different source.

There have been two other issues with the AO stocks. The nose at the front of the stocks, for whatever reason, are not rounded as all other carbine stocks. Altmont leaves them flat at the front. The second is the sling cut. Altmont doesn't machine the slingcut properly. This leaves about a 1/16" drop from the left side of the stock into the front of the slingwell instead of being smooth. Minor, but odd. But they also don't machine the angle properly which inhibits the use of an oiler to hold the sling in place. Norton indicates Inland rounds the nose before staining and cuts a semi circle in the slingwell to allow the oiler and sling to fit. Auto Ordnance leaves these issues as acceptable. I had requested, in writing, they be corrected when the stock was returned. They weren't. Several years ago with another Auto Ordnance I found a plugged knot hole in the stock and other unplugged knots. AO indicated not accepted for return as they didn't impact function. They have since indicated this on their website under returns, but not in the carbine description.

Attachment 70108

Back to the Inland, and also found on the current production Auto Ordnance carbine. Neither bolt is machined to GI dimensions. The right lug is shorter on the AO and Inland than the right lug of a GI bolt. I missed this before. The machining of the front and rear of the Inland bolt's right lug is slightly different than that of the Auto Ordnance. The front of both lugs have minor damage from the test firing by the manufacturer(s) and probably the operation of the slide/bolt action. Neither has been fired yet as both bolts appear to be "soft". Before firing either carbine I'm going to have a heat treatment facility do an Rc test on the right lug of each bolt. Unlike the previous Inland bolt, neither bolt has evidence of an Rc test by the manufacturer(s). Having the hardness test done has been put on hold due to work commitments.

The headspace of both carbines is as it should be, unlike the last Inland. The issue with the trigger spring hole in the rear of the trigger housing being flat on either side still exists, in both carbines. The issue with the casting of the receiver leaving imperfections inside the receiver in the path of the bolt still exists, in both carbines. However, unlike the other two Inlands that were not machined smooth inside the receiver, both of these carbines have had the ridges of the imperfections smoothed. Neither receiver has been machined along the top right where the slide travels back and forth. This leaves an uneven surface for the slide to travel on and over, removing the finish from the receiver in this area. This issue has been noted on all of the receivers used by Inland and Auto Ordnance. The magazine catch of the Inland is somewhat loose in it's slot in the trigger housing and wobbles when used. Not so the Auto Ordnance. Since I haven't examined a number of AO carbines of recent manufacture this may be consistent with the rest of the lack of uniform quality control that has been an issue with the AO carbines from the start, and now inherited by Inland.

Both the Inland and Auto Ordnance are parkerized with manganese phosphate. All Inland's I have owned and examined the finish is easily scratched and wears off quicker than I've experienced with no other guns but those by Chiappa. Chiappa's finish is different. The Auto Ordnance fairs better with wear and scratches. I have no idea why, not an area I'm fluent in.

One other thing that's extremely important. The gas piston nut on this Inland, the previous Inland it replaced and this Auto Ordnance carbine were not tightened before they were staked and not staked sufficiently to keep them from rotating out. Should this happen it will effectively redirect the energy away from the rear of the bullet and into the rear of the gas piston, making the gas piston the bullet. The slide will catch it but the transfer of energy to the slide is not something you, or anyone near you, will want to experience. Before you fire a carbine made by either of these companies, and/or any used carbine you buy, make sure the gas piston nut is tight and staked properly.

I do not know what kind of arrangements or agreements Inland has made with Auto Ordnance. What I do know is their part numbers are the same, their model numbers are the same but for the AO on Auto Ordnance and IN on Inland, their manuals are the same but for the name and address of the manufacturer, and all of their parts are identical except the differences noted above. Same casting mold marks on the cast parts, receiver included. Same cast parts, same milled from forged steel parts.

At this point in my own experience with the Inland carbines and feedback I've received from more than a dozen other Inland owners, after examining this current Inland I don't need to shoot it to see if the issues with the bolt have been corrected.

Last but not Least

My web page on Inland will be completed when I can find the time. It will include advising owners to monitor the wear of the rear of the bolt and the right bolt lug as their lifespan will not be that of a GI bolt. Every part on every carbine, and every firearm, has a lifespan. Commercially manufactured bolts have consistently not been hardened to GI spec that requires the rear of the bolt be harder than the front of the bolt so all commercial bolts should be monitored for wear on the rear of the bolt. For Auto Ordnance and Inland I'll be adding the right bolt lug needs to also be monitored.

I will also be indicating GI parts may or may not be interchangeable with those of the Inland and Auto Ordnance carbines due to variances in quality control and machining, or a lack thereof, that may make their parts not to GI spec.

I realize Inland has made a number of claims as to changes and there has been evidence of this. But the issues with their bolts, even after whatever changes they have made, remain. They are not inherently unsafe but they need to be monitored to keep them safe.

On my websites and web pages I don't get into value and prices. People buy what they want and can afford which is what has driven the market for the new and used commercially manufactured carbines. But here I'll make the following observations and suggestion....

The $250 or so more for the Inland carbine buys you an adjustable rear sight instead of a flip sight, a more secure barrel band, one less cut in the bolt, a darker finish, a few wood modifications that are an improvement over the Auto Ordnance carbine and the Inland name instead of the Auto Ordnance name. But they are the same carbine otherwise.

There are currently 5 manufacturers making new M1 Carbines. Auto Ordnance, Inland and Classic Carbines are the low end in quality and price. They'll work, but if you plan on shooting a lot the cost in replacement parts alone may reach into the two manufacturers at the upper end, James River Armory's "Rock-Ola" reproduction and Fulton Armory. Of these two, the Fulton Armory carbine is better built and well worth the few extra dollars. Wait to buy until they run one of their holiday sales. Of the 5 the one with the highest quality is Fulton Armory.

If the cost of a new carbine is an issue don't feel alone. Used GI carbines are still readily available as are used commercial carbines. But don't be fooled by whoever made either one as they are all used carbines and there is no way to know what they've been through. Looks can be deceiving and claims should have hard evidence to support them. If you buy a used carbine, regardless of who made it and when, get it safety inspected before you shoot it. The design of semi-auto military rifles and the rifles that copy that design come with the need to monitor several things that can become safety issues. Head space is right at the top of that list. The safety inspection doesn't cost much for what you get in return.

Jim
USCarbineCal30.com
BavarianM1Carbines.com
M1CarbinesInc.com

[shadycon]

Thank you for your latest observations. It's a shame these companies won't fix these known problems.

[goatdude]

Thought this was an interesting little read on cast vs forged vs billet parts:

http://www.robertpowersmotorsports.c...tvsForged.html

[wd4ngb]

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.

[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