Low 5 Digit Inland

[Bruce McAskill]

Bruce, I really feel that your bolt is an SG bolt. SG marked their bolts right side up and upside down just like yours.

[bacarnal]

Okay.

[Newscotlander]

Finish on receiver is not correct. Should be black oxide like barrel. Inland applied finish to barrel and receiver as a unit.

[bacarnal]

Finish on receiver is not correct. Should be black oxide like barrel. Inland applied finish to barrel and receiver as a unit.

I did not know that. The only book I have to look things up in right now is "War Baby!". You wouldn't happen to have a reference for that? Thanks, Bruce.

[Newscotlander]

Carbine Club Newsletter (CCNL) 346, pages 7-9 and CCNL 348, pages 5-7.

[ChipS]

Finish on receiver is not correct. Should be black oxide like barrel. Inland applied finish to barrel and receiver as a unit.

Question: Weren't early Inland barrels and receivers finished separately before assembly? I thought I was previously corrected in a forum when I noted that Inland B/R's were finished as assembled units with the front sight and barrel band attached.

[deldriver]

Question: Weren't early Inland barrels and receivers finished separately before assembly? I thought I was previously corrected in a forum when I noted that Inland B/R's were finished as assembled units with the front sight and barrel band attached.

My understanding is that Inland finished the barrel and receiver as an unit with the sights and band on the carbine. That's how you get the shadow in front of the gas cylinder from pulling the barrel band all of the way back and finishing it. It also makes it fairly easy to tell if the front sight has been off of an Inland by the marks left.

[Newscotlander]

I thought I was previously corrected in a forum when I noted that Inland B/R's were finished as assembled units with the front sight and barrel band attached.

I can only advise you of what the physical and documentary evidence indicates.

[bacarnal]

As to the argument as to whether the barrels and the receivers were finished together, the question would be, as ChipS asks, when did they start? At the time this one was made, Inland was still going through a lot of teething pains just trying to get a product out that was acceptable. Granted, they were one of the innovators of speeding up the production process, but at this time they were still wed to most of the processes that Winchester had dictated. At what point during production did some bright guy say, "Hey, if we parked the barrel, front sights band and receiver together, we'd save four steps and such and such time?". I guess the only way to solve this question would be for me to pull the barrel once I get home and see if it is parked throughout or if it is in the white around the threads and face. It would be interesting to find out. Cheers, Bruce.

p.s. And after looking at it through a high power magnifying glass (15X) in bright and low light for contrast, I still think the depth of the strike on the end and no joining leg on it's end makes it still look like a "C" on the bolt to me.

[Newscotlander]

Think what you will. I'll tell you one thing though. I've never seen an original, as manufactured Inland carbine that has a black oxide finish on the barrel and receiver with a phosphate finish.