Inland M1A1 serial # 194619

[cplstevennorton]

I think you are probably fine on the type I band. There are a few marks on the top of the stock, but looking at it, I think it's from not losening the band enough to get it to slide off. Which scarred the stock a little. From the side, there is no shadow on the stock for a type III. So you are good. The front sight pin does have a little depress on it. But I doubt it's been removed. Very well could be how the pin was made, or from the install. The band looks like a legitimate Inland WWII band, which is a good sign.

The rear sight was definetly put on at a Armory. Those stake marks are the ones that armorers put on. Why they felt the need to pound them so deep I don't know.

It's hard telling if the barreled receiver is original to the stock. It's anyone guess, and there is no known way to know. It very well might be, and a few parts were swapped when it went through the rebuild. As parts broke, like the top handguard, and the early bolts had a few problems. But it's anyone's guess. But the fact that so many parts are correct after a rebuild is a good sign. Many times carbines were just torn apart and adjustable sights and bayonet lugs were installed. Sometimes just the adjustable sight, as it appears in the case. Otherwise they were left all original, except for non-serviceable parts. But as I said it's anyone's guess.

My personal opinion, which isn't worth much. I feel it's probably the original Inland receiver group to the stock, with a few parts replaced during rebuild/inpsection. Everything looks pretty consistant in wear and finish. If nothing else it's been that way since rebuild. I would sincerly doubt it's a recent put together rifle. I believe it at least left service that way.

You will never know for sure what is original on it, but you still have a very desireable gun, that many people would give their left hand to own.

Welcome to the club by the way! They are very addictive. If you haven't got a jump holster yet, you should find one. They look great together.

[bkavanaugh]

There were repairs done in theater, but they did not stamp any cartouches in the stock. Any rebuild cartouches were done in an armory in the US after 1947.

If an M1A1 stock had to be replaced in the field, where did the stock come from? Were there surplus "OI" Overton-Inland stocks available to armorers, or were "unmarked" replacement stocks on hand during World War II? I realize there were only about 140,000 M1A1s produced, but certainly many stocks were damaged and had to be replaced in the field. Where did these replacement stocks come from and were any of them stamped/marked?

[cplstevennorton]

I've never seen any info on M1a1 replacment stocks. In fact, I don't know if they made any as replacements. Someone who knows the history more might be able to comment on that.

My educated guess, which is about worthless as well, is if a M1a1 stock broke in Europe. It would have just been replaced with just a normal carbine stock, not the folding stock. The reason I think this was, the M1a1 was mostly for paratroopers. And mainly to fold up to jump with. Once a paratrooper was on the ground, there was no need for a folding stock.

But as I said, I don't know that question. But I just haven't heard of any replacments being made.

[usgicollector]

There were nearly the same amount of replacement stocks made as complete M1A1's. I believe CCNL 353 has a Rock-Ola that has a european combat history and is in a replacement M1A1 stock and came home from Europe that way. M1A1 stocks were replaced in the field. Also other units got M1A1's besides just the paratroopers.
Dave

[Hercules Powder]

Additional pictures added.

After reading the article titled MODIFICATION WORK ORDER (MWO) ORD B28-W2, M1A1 GRIP SCREW in the latest issue of the Carbine Club Newsletter #379 as well as conversation in a recent post I decided see which screw was in this stock. If you look back through this post you will notice there is a rebuild stamp on the left side and the high wood has been broken but was not removed during the rebuild. However, as can be seen in the pictures below the screw was not changed. It may or may not be due to the fact that the rebuild seems to have happened after the MWO cancel date 8 Nov 45.

Attachment 54897Attachment 54900Attachment 54899Attachment 54898

John

[firstflabn]

Thanks for the update. Somewhere around here I have an undated photo of a carbine 'disassembly line' at Augusta. The photo doesn't show any M1A1s, but I'm sure they would have been included.

The 1953 edition of TM9-1276 included the grip screw replacement requirement, so that could help put an end date on your stock rebuild stamp if the MWO had indeed been cancelled in '45. This TM references technical bulletins from 1949, 1950, and 1951. Would be interesting to see if the grip screw replacement is mentioned in any of them. No cancellation date is written on the other four carbine MWOs (1, 3, 4, & 5) from the same file at NARA.

This 1953 edition also contains the instruction to remove the highwood portion. Not sure if this is the first directive to perform that task.

I don't want to suggest the late '40s Ordnance Dept necessarily did anything consistently. With massive leftover heaps of materiel and deeply slashed budgets and manpower, haphazard would be the expected order of the day.

[INLAND44]

Carbines were rebuilt during the war. Perhaps there was no large-scale rebuild program for them until later, but repairs and updated parts were done at several levels of maintenance. The adjustable sight in question wears what's left of its original finish and retains traces of the original white paint in the sight markings so the carbine hasn't been refinished since it was installed, and the carbine finish also appears to be original. The sight is also the first version - milled, with the adjustable centering plate on the rear. I don't know what may have happened to it at Augusta, but it didn't get rebuilt. Maybe it was one of those 'in-out' deals where it didn't need anything.

[firstflabn]

The best I've been able to determine, the term 'rebuild' first appears in the 1953 TM. The process described therein includes a complete disassembly. That obviously didn't happen with this one. In my mind, Ordnance intended for 'rebuild' to include bringing the item completely up to current standards. Again, not the case here - especially when you consider that one of the three wartime domestic sources for the parts for MWO-1, -3, -4, and -5 was Augusta. If this carbine is factory original except for the rear sight, it's highly unlikely it passed thru Augusta during WWII.

At the risk of clutching onto the thin reed of anecdote (a sure sign of desperation): of the several accounts of wartime field replacement of rear sights in the ETO - performed by unit armorers - none mention anything about doing MWO-1 or -4 at the same time as -3. MWO-1 (where applicable) was at least as important as MWO-3 - and it didn't require any special tools (unlike when the rear sight was replaced by the book). As always with anecdote, this may ask a better question, but it can't provide an answer.

So, logically there's no way to differentiate between:

1) this metal with its WWII field replaced rear sight was matched up with an Augusta rebuild-marked stock by a later owner (military or civilian).

2) the carbine got its rear sight replaced in the field during WWII, stayed around during the occupation, and upon eventually returning home, got a quickie function check and stamping at Augusta when there was no need and no budget for a complete rebuild.

Augusta closed in '55, so who knows what might have happened during shutdown.

[rayg]

Always fun dissecting a gun for originality. A long shot if you have nothing better to do and would help in this case is if you know the dealer personally. Ask him if he can get the name of the Grandfather to look it up from the guy he got the gun from. Maybe he also served post war. That could answer some questions about the rebuild, and also clarify if the story was true that it was a bring home, Ray

[INLAND44]

I still don't like that 'AAHO' cartouche. I've never seen or heard of one on a carbine. But, with all the other factors to consider, I also think its legitimate.