Print Page | Close Window

Carbine of Interest Inland 270

Printed From: The Carbine Collector's Club
Category: The Club
Forum Name: Newsworthy Items
Forum Description: Newsletters and Featured Carbines
URL: http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5734
Printed Date: Jan 28 2023 at 5:56pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Carbine of Interest Inland 270
Posted By: New2brass
Subject: Carbine of Interest Inland 270
Date Posted: Sep 23 2021 at 2:31pm

2021-D

Carbine of Interest

Inland Serial Number 270

 

                                                                                                                                                                          


Inland 270 recently came into possession of one of our members, Major General Hammer Hartsell, USMC Retired.

 

The carbine as received has retained some very interesting parts from the earliest days of Inland production which makes this carbine of interest “newsworthy.”





The stock group has been replaced, most likely due to the original breaking. The hammer has also been updated with a straight hammer. The trigger and sear show signs of polishing. This combined with the late hammer suggests it was to improve the trigger pull.

 

The barrel is dated 5-42 which is the earliest barrel used on production Inland carbines.

 

The Receiver is consistent with the early Inland receiver features. The left side rear detail has a 9/16” long leg. The trigger housing lug is a type 1.

 

 

The slide guide has only the forward notch. Notice how there is a slight machining error to the rear of the notch. The forward notch had a critical dimension as this was used to dismount the slide. The machining tool would enter and exit this hole to mill the slide guideway. The later rear hole allowed the tool to enter and exit to mill the guideway without risking damage to the slide dismount notch.

 

 

 

 


The rear of the receiver does not have a hole at the back of the operating slide spring housing. At some point during rebuilds, the hole would be added to the early receivers.

 

 

 


Another interesting observation is a round marking on the left side of the receiver. Other very early receivers have also been observed with this marking in various locations on the left side of the receiver.

It is believed to be a hardness test. We normally see punch type markings on some parts which are from a Rockwell hardness test. It is believed this may be a Brinell Hardness test mark, which can measure the lower end of the hardness scale.



 

The rear sight is a little different in that the 300-yard leaf is slightly longer, and the peephole is also higher. One explanation given was that this was due to the sight being developed for a velocity of 1800 fps.

Inland 270 on left compared to an early Inland production rear sight.

The carbine cartridge was approved on February 14, 1942, there were still issues obtaining a satisfactory propellant, and work continued after the round was adopted. During April 1942 tests were done on commercial and military powders. A new powder was adopted, and this new powder had a velocity of 1900 fps. This sight may be from preproduction for use with the slower powder the longer 300-yard leaf would need to be higher and bring the barrel up. With the higher velocity of 1900 fps, the trajectory changed, and the hole would be lower. 

Inland barrels typically have what we refer to as “hieroglyphics” or “characters” on the barrel flat. It started with very few makings and grew in number. Later the characters changed to letters and numbers. It is presumed that these markings indicate various inspectors.

Here we see this 5-42 barrel does not have any of these characters. There is a serif S near the gas piston and an Ordnance Bomb. This is consistent with very early production. The letter “R” has also been reported.

 

The early Inlands were observed as a black oxide finish on the barrel, receiver, and trigger housing. The finish would be a dull gray/black on the areas not protected by the stock. Areas under the wood line would retain a blued appearance. This finish across the barrel and receiver appears consistent but not what we would expect to see on an early Inland.

We know from CC Newsletter 363-7 that the Ordnance Department was experimenting with various carbine finishes during 1942.

The Proof P on the barrel would be applied after proof firing on a finished carbine. Notice the P is in the “white”, this finish may have been an alternate finish that Inland tried.

 


The bolt and T1 firing pin are unmarked. The T1 extractor is unmarked, which has been reported on some early carbines. The earliest known Inland bolts were marked with an OI in a circle on the large lug (although early Winchester bolts were reported as unmarked.) In comparing bolts, the machining on this one is consistent with an early OI in circle bolt.

 


The face of the bolt has a steeper taper to where the case seats. This gives the bolt a thicker appearance face. The bolt also has a slightly shorter overall length.

 

The bolt and small parts are blued as expected.

 

 

The trigger housing has the early tall Inland logo. It also has the front and rear bevel details which are to be expected in an early Inland.

Notice how the hammer plunger hole is not recessed for the hammer spring. This was changed very early on because the hammer spring would slide around making it difficult to install the hammer spring plunger.

 





The tip of the hammer spring plunger has what looks like a hand-ground point to it, which has never been reported.

This is most likely an attempt to make assembly easier before the solution of counterboring the plunger hole on the trigger housing

 

 

 

 

 


The narrow magazine wall is expected. What is interesting is how tight it sits against the receiver, rather than leaving a small gap as is normally seen. Notice the matching wear marks on the receiver.

From here we find a few unexpected features.

The back wall of the trigger housings has a guideway for the magazine nibs. Due to manufacturing differences between manufacturers, these guideways can be just two short notches (milled) or full-length relief cuts on the back wall (broached).

One of Inland’s contributions to the development of the carbine was to change the design of the trigger housing to make it more symmetrical and easier to produce. With the mag well symmetrical the relief cuts could be broached instead of milled. The broaching process was faster and was the only style reported on production Inland made trigger housings.

 

However, the back wall of this trigger housing has the milled “notches type” relief cuts for the magazine nibs and is the first report of this feature on an Inland.

Inland in their pre-production did mill the short notches before the trigger housing change. These trigger housings are visually different from those used in production carbines. See WB pg 304.

Also of interest is that there is a “P” in a location where we sometimes see an ordnance bomb.

 

The slide at first glance looks like a typical “Type II” or an “E168” from the http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/carbine-club-data-sheets_topic26.html" rel="nofollow - data sheet. It is marked PI in a circle inside the box. It has an arm joint of 3/8”. The slide box rear has the part round cut.

 

 

 

The shape of the bolt camming cut is unusual. Look at the right wall by the orange arrow.



On June 8 to 13, 1942, Aberdeen Proving grounds held the first of three Pre-Service-Issue Trials. They tested five carbines pulled at random from Inland’s first production carbines.  These carbines had modifications based on a previous test of pre-production carbines.  The conclusion and recommendations of the first pre-service tests had the following:

“The new slides could not be made to function in any of the carbines. The bolt would not open far enough to feed the next round. The dimensions and weights were checked and the outside of the camming surface no differences could be found.”

(Bold emphasis added, no mention of the bolt camming area.)

The second test was performed on June 17, 19, and 22, 1942. From the report of the testing:

“During the initial test .. it was discovered that an unused (modified) slide would not allow the carbine to function semi-automatically if the carbine had been fired appreciably. A plausible explanation of this is the new slide’s bearing surface is comparatively rough and until broken in the used gun (with its gas port partially closed) does not have the power for operation.

The purpose of this test is to determine if the above explanation is the correct one or whether the modification of the camming surface is the cause”

(Bold emphasis added, clearly work was being done on the bolt camming area.)

In this test they used 4 of the 5 carbines from the first test as well as 3 additional Inland carbines. These new carbines to the test carbines had modified slides. One of these added carbines was Inland 269.  They also brought in 5 unused old type slides and 6 unused modified slides to test.

The results of the test showed the modified slides showed no unusual number or type of malfunctioning. Both the unused modified and old type slides allowed the carbine to function reasonably well. However, in the rain tests, the modified slides showed more difficulty in closing the bolt when charging the piece, than those with the old type of slide.

What is interesting is how the cam shape is that of the M1 Garand.

 

 

We have no reference to what was old, new, modified, or which one of these was used in production. What was new yesterday could be old the following day.

Whatever this unusual slide is, it is not what we know from early production. It could be possibly carried over from pre-production, or it could be one of the slides used in testing. Either way, it is very interesting!


We ask the membership to check their early Inland slides and trigger housings and report if you have seen any of these early or unusual parts.

 

For further reading see:

Parts Development Trials: War Baby! Pages 84 to 92, War Baby III pgs 940, 1058

Ammunition: CCNL 104, War Baby! pg 88, War Baby 2 pg 678


-67



-------------
http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/club-assistance-saginaw-receivers_topic4716.html" rel="nofollow - Club Survey Saginaw Receivers



Replies:
Posted By: hunterman
Date Posted: Sep 23 2021 at 8:30pm
I expect the slide stop is pinned.  Do you have a picture of that?


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 3:02pm
is this what you’re looking for?



Posted By: Abel4287
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 7:46pm
Here is a shot of Inland 1652 receiver for comparison 

-------------
USMC 2111


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 8:31pm
I sincerely appreciate Dan Pinto putting this amazing article together :-) Well Done Sir!!!
 
I also sincerely appreciate all the amazingly knowledgeable CCC consultants and mentors who helped Dan with the research and details on this very early Inland that has some never before seen parts that may well have been used in testing and pre-production.

Some Background on this Special 270 Inland;
It was purchased in 1996 in Pennsylvania from an 80 year old WW2 Army Officer who said he had served in the 1st Infantry Division and that this was the Carbine he was issued in July 1942 and he then carried into North Africa and on thru the rest of the European theater, and that he had broke its original stock and this was the one it was replaced with in Europe, and that he brought this carbine home along with his pre-WW2 produced .45 M1911 (that was also acquired from this old Veteran when this 270 Carbine was bought from him in 1996). 

Personally I believe he was telling the truth and therefore I believe this 270 was in fact issued in the very first batch of Inlands that the 1st Infantry Division received in late June / early July 1942. 

I can also appreciate that there is an differing opinion by others who don't think that this Carbine went to North Africa in this old Veterans hands as he claimed. Due to its pre-production testing parts they believe that it would have been very difficult for this Carbine to get past the Ordinance inspections. But, this Carbine with its pre-production parts in fact still Fires Just Fine and is Fully Functional, and therefore its easy for me to accept that given the Army's desperate need to get as many "functioning" Carbines issued to the 1st Infantry Division as possible before they shipped out in early August 1942, this 270 was in the mix of those that went to War in 1942.

So... 
Either this very special early Inland 270 is in fact an M1 Carbine that was carried by a 1st Infantry Division Army Officer into North Africa and brought back Home by him, 
Or, 
Its a pre-production Factory test carbine that never went to War and somehow this 1st Infantry Division Army Officer acquired it after the War from the Inland Factory himself or from someone else who had, and if that's the case then maybe what he meant when he said he had carried this 270 into War was that he had carried a Carbine "just like this one" into War... 
Whichever's the case - He owned it, and its super Rare and Special :-)

I'll be happy to add any additional pictures Members would like to see of this Iconic One Of a Kind Early Inland.

Semper Fidelis!
Hammer


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 8:37pm


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 8:39pm
The Right Bolt Lug innerface with the Slide's Cam is amazing!!!

Rear curvature of the right Lug.


Left Bolt Lug compared to another early Inland;



Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 8:41pm
The Mag Well is really Unique and as far as we know never seen before... Look at the Vertical and horizontal machining that was done!


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 8:43pm
Here's a close-up of the machining error that Dan was referring to in the Article.


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 8:49pm
Close up of Barrel Flat double struck S. Some other early 3 and 4 digit Inlands have an R stamp. 

Does anyone else have this S stamp?



Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 8:56pm
This Inland 270 Receiver would have been made in June according to this data from War Baby Vol 1.



Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 24 2021 at 9:19pm
The only metal part on this 270's Receiver, Barrel, and Trigger Housing that's not an early 1942 Inland part is its unmarked (no Maker stamp) Type 3 Hammer.  

Interestingly it retained its 22 coil spring when the Type 3 Hammer replaced the Type 1 Dogleg Hammer. Maybe the 26 coil was too hard to use given there was no hammer plunger hole recess cut out in the rear wall of the trigger housing? (bottom picture) 

 






Here you can see that the Trigger Housing wall was struck allot by both a Type 1 Dogleg and a Type 3 Hammer.  



No Hammer Plunger Hole Recess.



Posted By: Matt_X
Date Posted: Sep 25 2021 at 3:06pm
Originally posted by HammerGrunt HammerGrunt wrote:

Personally I believe he was telling the truth and therefore I believe this 270 was in fact issued in the very first batch of Inlands that the 1st Infantry Division received in late June / early July 1942. 

I can also appreciate that there is an differing opinion by others who don't think that this Carbine went to North Africa in this old Veterans hands as he claimed.


I don't think this has to be an either or situation.
Unless demonstrated otherwise, we should accept the original owner's story as being his recollection at the time.  We can do so even though there may have been one or more things that he forgot or misremembered.  

Historians of the American Revolution commonly delve into the pension application papers of American soldiers.   When we do so, we (hopefully) are aware of the fact this testimonies were written decades after the war.  So even when there are obvious factual inconsistancies, we have to make a judgement whether this is a completely unreliable witness, or whether simply misremembered or confused certain aspects or sequences.   If we threw out each record that had a 'known' factual error, we be missing out on much valuable information.

My suggestion is to start by verifying the owner's service record.  I suspect that will be largely as recollected, but why not verify that.  It may also reveal additional tidbits, such as weapon qualification, etc.  I know only a little bit about researching WW2 military service records.  If others here can't help, I know there were some threads on the USMilitaria forum with some info on how to for Army officers.




Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 25 2021 at 9:34pm
Thanks Matt_X :-)  

If it is in fact a never issued Inland test weapon, due to its never before seen Pre-Production parts, and being one of the earliest "complete" Inlands out there, then its probably more valuable to a Collector anyway if that's the story. Its going to stay in the "Hammer" Family with my other 4 very special M1 Carbines, so I'm fine with believing the 80 year old Veteran's story and accept its potentially reduced value as such :-)

Whats so amazing to me is that this Inland Carbine is number 270 of the 2,625,591 Carbines that Inland made, and it was produced in the very first Month (June 1942) of the 6.1 Million M1 Carbines that were made in just 38 Months. 

Its also very surprising to me that other than its unmarked Type 3 Hammer and its Underwood highwood replacement stock (no CC's cartouche), it had no other upgrades with later modifications or parts, and from what I'm learning on the Forum that is just about unheard of... I've decided to leave it as the Veteran said he brought it Home. I have a Type 1 Dogleg H in a shield with flaming bomb Hammer, but I'll just keep that with this 270 to show what type of hammer made the hammer strikes on the Trigger Housing wall along with the type 3 hammer strike marks.

I just acquired its battle born Brother Inland 3446 that has all of its original & correct as issued Inland parts and stock and I'll be posting about it soon :-) 


Posted By: New2brass
Date Posted: Sep 26 2021 at 3:03pm
Originally posted by hunterman hunterman wrote:

I expect the slide stop is pinned.  Do you have a picture of that?


I am not so sure that the pin ever made it as far as production.
It was seen on some of the early 2 digit carbines. One report of a loose slide that belonged to one of the carbines in the 20 range as event by the serial number on the parts for the first 30 or so pre production carbines.

The confusion may have been created by the technical manuals.

T9-1276 January 1947 page 52

This is not the first time we have observed the reuse of pictures pictures that are incorrect for the time frame. Sometimes the wrong part altogether is shown. I think there is a Garand gauge shown in a carbine manual.

For those with sharp eyes, the hole goes straight through so it can be pushed out. You would be able to spot it when the slide is on the carbine by looking at the charging handle.


-------------
http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/club-assistance-saginaw-receivers_topic4716.html" rel="nofollow - Club Survey Saginaw Receivers


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 27 2021 at 9:40pm
Does anyone know about what Serical Number Inland started adding the Hammer Plunger Recess cut out in the rear wall of the Trigger Housing?


Posted By: W5USMC
Date Posted: Sep 28 2021 at 6:35pm
Originally posted by HammerGrunt HammerGrunt wrote:

Does anyone know about what Serical Number Inland started adding the Hammer Plunger Recess cut out in the rear wall of the Trigger Housing?

Sometime after serial 270.Thumbs Up Mixed use up to 6062, See CCNL 346-18 for more info.


-------------
Wayne
USMC Retired
NRA Life Member


Posted By: jackp1028
Date Posted: Sep 28 2021 at 7:50pm
S/N 1983 (COM CCNL 230) had a hammer spring recess, but a later S/N 3546 (COM CCNL 337) had no recess. These two carbines along with S/N 6062 (COM CCNL 314) were all probably made in July 1942 although not necessarily in serial number order.

-------------
JackP


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Sep 28 2021 at 8:19pm
That's really interesting.  

I guess since Inland made close to 11,700 Receivers from late June thru August it may have been a first in last out sort of thing. 

And since the modification was intermittent and intermingled up at least up to the 6062 range it wasn't an Army Ordnance acceptance requirement or else they wouldn't have made it out of the Factory without being modified with the recess...


Posted By: New2brass
Date Posted: Sep 29 2021 at 10:08am
Originally posted by HammerGrunt HammerGrunt wrote:

And since the modification was intermittent and intermingled up at least up to the 6062 range it wasn't an Army Ordnance acceptance requirement or else they wouldn't have made it out of the Factory without being modified with the recess...


It was the lack of modification that appears intermittent.
A more likely explanation is that those without the modification were earlier deliveries.

receivers would have to be sent out for heat treating, gauging and off to finish before going to the assembly room. This would create quite a mix of serial numbers.


-------------
http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/club-assistance-saginaw-receivers_topic4716.html" rel="nofollow - Club Survey Saginaw Receivers


Posted By: New2brass
Date Posted: Oct 01 2021 at 3:47pm
More on the "early pinned" slide stop.
Ron Dalhamer sent me some pictures to share. This was observed at a gunshow on display. Ron attempted to purchase but it was not for sale.
http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/uploads/2396/Inland15.png

Notice how the hole goes through
Here is the other side.
http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/uploads/2396/SlideInland15.jpg
Below is the slide for Inland 270, notice how it does not have this hole



The slide Ron had attempted to purchase was from Inland number 15 which was one of the 20 toolroom carbines considered the true 'pilot' of the mass produced carbines, meaning they were made by the blueprints on production machinery.

Does anyone notice any other similarities?


-------------
http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/club-assistance-saginaw-receivers_topic4716.html" rel="nofollow - Club Survey Saginaw Receivers


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Oct 01 2021 at 4:24pm
Grainy picture but the inside top portion of 270's Slide Cam area looks alot like this 15's cam area :-)




Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Oct 01 2021 at 5:20pm
I took 270 back out to Bruce Dow this morning and asked him to specifically look at 270's very different Slide cam & Bolt lug combo. He admitted that he had totally missed this odd design when he looked at 270 a month ago when I first took it to him. He was mostly focused on the early type rear leaf sight that was reported by Dan in the article :-)

Upon close inspection and much sliding of the bolt's lug in the Slide cam track, Bruce was intrigued by what he saw and I took a video of what he thought about this particular Slide-Bolt Cam interface and I sent the video to both Dan Pinto and Marcus Rust to listen to. 

Here's my transcribed synopsis of what Bruce says in the video and I apologize for the redundancy of his thoughts but I'm trying to accurately transcribe both what Bruce said before and after I asked him to make the recording :-)

1. This Slide is not a different Slide design, but it a purposely modified/differently milled cam interface of the standard early Slide and Bolt.

2. It looks like this slide and bolt cam combo was built to purposely Test the problem Inland was experiencing with its early Extractors failing, which he said was due to the Higher Velocity Ammo which increased the Gas Pressure which Rotated the Bolt Faster which caused more Centrifugal Force which caused the early type Extractors to fail.

3. He said Inland had to very quickly figure out how to put more Stress on the Extractor in order to determine what was causing the Extractor to fail, and to try to determine where, when, and how it was failing in their current design at that time. He believes Inland engineers created this 270's Slide-Bolt design to specifically force a faster rotation in order to test the cause of the early type 1 Extractor and Plunger failure problem.

4. He believes they used this Slide-Bolt cam combo to prove that it was in fact the new Ammo's increased velocity, increased gas pressure, faster rotating bolt, increased centrifugal force that was causing the Extractor failure issue. From this testing, he believes Inland engineers were able to determine that a new modified Extractor design was needed to eradicate the failures being produced by the increased velocity Ammo.

AND after a much closer inspection and reflection, Bruce now concurs with many others that this 270 most likely would not have been issued out to the Army for Combat use in this "modified slide bolt cam interface design" and due to its still retaining its Type 1 Extractor with its Type 1 Plunger configuration. He agrees that its more likely 270 stayed in house at Inland as a Test Rifle. He also looked closely at the unmarked type 3 Hammer and said it may well be a prototype Type 3 Hammer that was used by Inland for testing, and believes that is why there may be such significant Type 1 and Type 3 Hammer strike indentions on the non-Ordnance Bomb proof marked, but "P" marked Trigger Housing wall.

The INTRIGUE of this 270 Inland only continues to grow :-)


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Oct 25 2021 at 11:52am
The more I learn about M1 Carbines testing and early production the more I realize why so many experienced / knowledgeable Carbine enthusiast are really interested in this Inland 270... 

I hope more of the Club's Members will see this Post because there may be others who have a few more pearls of wisdom out there to share on this very cool Carbine :-)


Posted By: jackp1028
Date Posted: Oct 25 2021 at 5:03pm
@Dan, aside from the difference in the slide stop, I noticed that there are other significant differences between 270's slide and the slide in the picture provided by Ron Dalhamer. The 270 slide has a perpendicular surface on the right side whereas the one shown in Ron's picture is angular, thus possibly affecting the rate of bolt closure. Also, it appears that the width of the top of the cam cut is greater in Ron's picture compared to the 270 slide. Notice how thin the section is at the top left of the 15 slide (maybe 1/16") versus the 270 slide (~1/8") or about the same as a standard Type 1 slide. This could retard the bolt opening timing compared to the 270 slide. These slides look totally different to me.

-------------
JackP


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Oct 27 2021 at 9:45pm
I think Dan was trying to show the inside top of part the cam on the slide has a similar wider milled out area than the standard production slide.


Posted By: New2brass
Date Posted: Oct 28 2021 at 11:36am
Inland serial numbers 11-99 were Engineering Models. More specifically serial numbers 11-30 were Engineering Specials. These were not true production models that required considerable hand fitting.
These were made to prove the blueprints as well as helping shake down the machining setup and jigs.

If you take a good look at any slide you will see the bolt cam area is quite complex as the cut is done while rotating the slide to give it a helix curve for the bolt.
The 2 slides in question are very different manufacturing wise but clearly have similarities.

I bring up the Inland 15 slide because there is a possible perpetuated myth of early slides having the stop retaining pin. This possible perpetuated myth falls in the hands of ordnance/ Raritan Arsenal or whomever was laying out the manuals as they show slides like the one on Inland 15 as the "old style" in the FM

http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/uploads/10/slide_pin.jpg

The slide on 270 is not what we see in production. It may have been first production or first production modified based on the ordnance documents on the slide testing.

The angles of the pictures can skew what we are seeing and make things seem as they are not.
The cam area picture of #15 was taken with the camera slanted and the box of the cam was closer to the camera than the cam. The slide is only a few degrees of rotation off the table.
The picture provided by Hammer  was taken more square to the slide but is rotated about 80 degrees more than the #15 slide.

here is a picture of the cam area on #15 that was taken more parallel. The cam area on the left looks a little wider than the picture in my previous post, It may be thinner than #270

http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/uploads/2396/Slide_Inland_15_cam.jpg




-------------
http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/club-assistance-saginaw-receivers_topic4716.html" rel="nofollow - Club Survey Saginaw Receivers


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Mar 05 2022 at 5:32pm
Was honored to have Dan Pinto visit my great State of Florida and while here today he had the opportunity to manhandle Inland 270 in person. I have a feeling we may be seeing some more information from him on this super interesting early M1 Carbine :-)


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Jul 23 2022 at 6:40pm
Dan - Ive been hoping that you could find a time to post some information about the mold castings you did on this very early Inland with its mix of early prototype and early standard production parts. I was curious about the possible dimensional differences you would find comparing it to other early Inlands.


Posted By: New2brass
Date Posted: Oct 16 2022 at 7:02pm
Recently someone shared a Inland presentation with the club, this was a known renumber from an early X serial number carbine. This carbine has the longer 300 yard flip sight.
Checking records on another presentation I found the same tall flip sight.

Long time member Asa Overall also sent me pictures of a 4 digit that has that flip sight as well. It has a 6-42 barrel. It would seem more than a few made it into production.

http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/uploads/6054/long_flip.jpg

Found some ordnance documents to dig through on ammo, maybe there will be some info in there


-------------
http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/club-assistance-saginaw-receivers_topic4716.html" rel="nofollow - Club Survey Saginaw Receivers


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Dec 24 2022 at 10:02pm
Thank you Dan for posting these additional earlier type of M1 Carbine Rear Sights. We know Inland changed these out very early on in their production run which makes these older type rear sights possibly some of the most uncommon Inland made parts to make it onto Inlands first batch of Production rifles. 

It still amazes me that we are finding these type of not previously seen / known M1 Carbine discoveries after so many years of research and collecting. 

I'm also really surprised to see that this Carbine of Interest has received over 7500 views since you posted about it Clap 

Let me know when your coming back to Florida for another visit!


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Dec 31 2022 at 7:45pm
Here's some additional pics of Inland 270, and something on the very early (modified?) Op Slide handle that I hadn't noticed previously. Happy New Year to All Carbine Enthusiast!

Inland 270's Op Slide has an extended machining flat compared to all of my other Type 1 or 2 Slides. 
 
Inland 3446 Op Slide


On my early 1943 Winchester
 

My Early Rock Ola



Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Dec 31 2022 at 7:48pm
Inland 270 has much rougher / more extensive machining marks on the receiver’s top right side compared to all my other Carbines.



-------------
Semper Fidelis!


Posted By: HammerGrunt
Date Posted: Dec 31 2022 at 7:51pm
Some views not previously shown.






Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net