American Rifleman May '16 Issue

[imntxs554]

Did anyone read this month's issue of America Rifleman ? Here is the direct quote of the Associate Editor

" Built to the same specifications as there World War 2 era forebears, a complete line of new-production M1 Carbine models from Inland Mfg. look and feels as good as the originals--and shoot even better."

How true is this ?

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.

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

I belive I have seen a couple of posts that address this directly. Should be true for the asking price.

[Sentryduty]

According

Built to the same specifications as there World War 2 era forebears

I would consider that an over-generalization based on the data in the other thread.

If parts interchange and items are like heat treating are not within specification, I would consider that to be well, out-of-specification.

It's being a tad over particular, however a lot of marketing is being leveraged to convince buyers that these new production Carbines are just as good as the USGI models, but better built with modern technology. It is very much evident in the use of an original manufacture nameplate, and the effort spent to promote the Carbines with vintage photos and period nostalgia.

The whole effect plays on the natural mental association that "old" Inland simply turned the lights back on in the factory and started churning out military grade guns just like in the days of World War 2.

In a fashion it would be like if I opened a car factory that built modern copies of particular vintage designs, I might buy the Hudson, Tucker, or Studebaker nameplate and then build a 2016 Studebaker Avanti. Buyers would naturally assume that it was at least as good as the originals, the "getting the foot in the door" of building consumer trust by riding the success of the previous name.

I think it just is coming down to very aggressive marketing which is very timely because of the USGI Carbine pricing, and the promise of a new built, but better shooting gun.

I nearly fell into the same hype with the 7.62mm AIA "Lee-Enfields", turns out they are not in any way good as a vintage built No.4

[imntxs554]

I can't believe with a lot people i have seen here and other Forums sending them back or complaining about them still write this. There 6 pgs of Pics of both with stories saying this new Inland is way better than the Original . So I guess there new M1A1 now has never had not one problem according to A R.

[Sentryduty]

Well the sad part of affairs is that magazines are only superficially journalism, beneath they are paid for by advertising. Obvious advertising comes in the way of full page spreads with photos and generate want, less obvious advertising comes in the way of articles, often masquerading as technical information or reviews. If a product is reviewed in a negative light, then advertisers will shy away from that publication and it will fail.

Not that long ago, I ended up as a minor internet celebrity in a particular segment of performance cars. I could write, had a technical eye, and people seemed to enjoy my work. While not on the same level, I have done the "less obvious advertising" with automotive businesses and the internet publication. The formula is very simple, take a product or service, extol it's virtues, especially in a technical manner to create want, or better yet, need, and from there the orders start rolling in. The article is only a snapshot in time, and usually in a very controlled environment, ideal conditions, with prepared items, it doesn't give the long term test or "built on a Friday" sales experience to the customer. In my case the business changed a lot and the service slipped badly, due to the informal nature of my agreement I redacted my original publication to prevent any other clients from getting burned.

How did I learn this?

I read the car magazines, recognized a pattern of publication, and started to smell BS. Such as promoting a $1000 V8 intake manifold that only added 5 horsepower, a waste of time. However this magazine remarked of "The potential" and the "Burger Stand Appeal" of it's chrome finish, and glossed over the poor fitment, added weight, and general poor performance. From there I simply adapted my writing style to both educate and promote a product in a specific way, however as a "freelancer" I had the integrity to pull my work when the business failed it's customers, with ruinous results.

In syndication, such as automotive, or firearms magazines, these new product reviews are "puff" pieces, not to be entirely trusted. If you want to know how something really is, look at how it is reviewed after it is no longer available for sale, or run to youtube, there are some paid reviewers there but you can easily find an honest review.

In the example of this exact firearm, the Inland, Ian over at Forgotten Weapons did an excellent video with it, but not a review, he ran a 2-gun action shooting match with it. I observed with a critical eye to weapon function through the entire series of runs, and drew some private conclusions. I recommend a similar scrutiny. Action shooting does really let a person know if a gun is solid or perhaps not so much.

[browningautorifle]

As now discovered the claim is a bit hollow. Well meant I'm sure, they have big boots to fill. I'd LOVE to get a brand new M1 but I'll have to settle for my old AR instead...at least we can get them brand new. Guess it'll have to do.

[cipherk98]

InRangeTV, which is partly run by Ian of Forgotten Weapons did a full review on the Inland recently and basically said either get a USGI for the same or a little more money, or just save some bucks and go with a Universal. Notable issues with their gun was the rear sight was not properly staked in place and the casting on the front sight post was very poor, with a seam in the middle of the post that wasn't completely solid. These are both pathetic, especially on the front sight. The hardness testing results posted on here really concern me too.

I just rolled my eyes at the AR article, it's had Inland ads for the last couple issues and a big one was in this same or prior issue, so I knew they would rave about it just like the car magazine example above. Or if you go by music magazines every new amp sounds as good as the old Marshalls played by Jimi Hendrix and every new guitar plays like Jimmy Page's favorite Les Paul, followed by a big ad for it a few pages later.

I've not handled one so I don't have a strong opinion either way, but certainly wouldn't have the confidence to buy one for full price. One bad report is a fluke. Multiple people having problems is not a good sign, same reason why every dealer has a ton of Century RAS47s right now; the word got out they are trouble prone after multiple reports by different users and now no one wants them. Add on to it prominent Inland advertising in the same publication, one magazine review is not going to convince me the guns are magically better and worth dropping money on when you can get USGI for similar money. It's just someone in marketing doing their job to try and get people excited for the product.

[shadycon]

Very well put!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

[imntxs554]

I'm assuming sales are way down from what was expected by this time. In almost every Gun and Rifle Magazine I subscribe to I've seen more and more advertising for this New Inland that wasn't there just a few months ago. Today I received another Magazine with a half page advertisement of the New Inland. Doesn't this happen to any product. You just have to protect your investment with more money allocated for advertising to help push sales. They should revamp and advertise how they fixed the problems people who have bought one were having. JMO

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

Look at how strongly Kimber advertises. The back page in almost every magazine. And in my opinion they make a average to poor 1911 product.

No doubt keeping your product out in the market forefront helps sales.