Check out this Joe Salter SG Inland..???Joesalter.com # 17667

[Garandrew]

Joesalter.com
# 17667
Stock incorrect..
Finish?
Any other opinions?
Sold as 1st run Inland..SG sub contract, but wrong stock, mine is type 2, plus Im not sure if its not parked over?

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.

[Harlan (Deceased)]

That site isn't set up where you can link directly to the sale page so you have to search for it.
I copied the links to the photos they posted to make it easier for everyone -

Early Inland M1 Semi Auto Carbine
Price: US $2295.00

[mar53]

According to CC newsletter, I cut high wood stock ended around serial 294488. Says for this serial it would be an oval cut high wood stock. Sling markings also not as reported in newsletter. IO with Bomb in sling well with crossed cannons on right was serial range #39848-294488. But who knows. Newsletter is just what was reported. This is from NL #346

[Garandrew]

Speculation is this SN run was made with the earlier Inland run on SG machinery, but stock still too early. Mine is the 2 tone Houghto-black oxide finish, not parked, but mine is a bit earlier.

[Bill Hollinger]

The front sight has been off of the barrel at some time. Looks like a put-together.

[USGI]

The front sight has been off of the barrel at some time. Looks like a put-together.

Bill, can you elaborate a bit? The retaining pin looks "funny," but other than that I don't see anything.
The muzzle looks good and I think I can see good rifling. What about the butt plate? - is the horizontal checkering correct for the receiver, but not that stock? The punch mark on top of the receiver might be parked over, and the hammer pin is in the wrong way. - Bob

[Bill Hollinger]

The front sight pin has been removed at some point. The only reason to do that is to remove the front sight. There is also something going on with the barrel to receiver. Looks chewed on??? The finish looks good but may be an early refinish? 22 coil hammer spring with type III hammer? And, of course the stock but the stock may be correct because of the FILO/LIFO deal.

[Garandrew]

Looks too green, could be his camera

[usgicollector]

The barrel is for sure original finish. I can't tell that the front sight pin has been out and there are no drag marks on the barrel from pulling it. You can still see the "two tone" on the receiver so I would be original there also. Stock is earlier. Hammer should dog leg IIRC, but it is getting close to the changeover. I would like to see the hammer strikles on the TH. If i was going to pay a premium price I would ask many more questions. I would say a mostly original with a few parts added. Hammer could be a field replacement. I would also like to see the receiver to recoil plate fit and the recoil plate fit to the stock. Buttplate is correct for the stock or the receiver. Inland was using both styles for most of 1943.
I'm not knocking it, and if someone pays it, good for the seller. He is running a buisiness so he can ask what he wants.
Dave

[Garandrew]

Must be me..the 2 tone isnt that noticable, mine is more pronounced, thats why I thought it was parked over