War Baby Vol 1 & Early M1 Carbine Parts

Look what arrived today!  And in addition to Larry Ruth's autograph, I plan on trying to get autographs from the following M1 Carbine Masters & Enthusiast all of whom I've met just in the past 3 weeks since acquiring my SN270 Inland :-)  

Edited by HammerGrunt - Aug 26 2021 at 10:08pm

Hammer, I'd say that you are very close to being Hooked on Carbines. The other 2 War Baby Volumes go really good with the 1st one. 

I guess I do need to start looking for an Underwood barrelled action an Trigger Housing group to put in the WWII Underwood Replacement Stock that my Inland 270 is currently sitting in until I get my restored Inland O, LA, Flaming Bomb, Cannons Cartouche marked I Cut stock

I've stayed in the shadows as I've been very busy with research and constructing more web pages for this website. Time is always a big challenge with so much yet to do.

I've seen the photos of Inland 270 and I'm in agreement with Larry Ruth and others that it's consistent with a prototype that was not issued to any soldier. Its slide and bolt assembly are not like any carbine we have ever seen before. I suspect it remained in-house at Inland or with Ordnance as a test bed. It's impossible to know what was original to Inland 270 as prototypes were often one of a kind.

The Underwood stock, while not consistent with an Inland and especially not an in-house Inland prototype, may have been put on it by Ordnance if they were the ones experimenting with it.

Please reconsider changing any part on this carbine. It appears to be a piece of carbine history.

The people who helped assess the carbine for what it is will regret having helped you.

Jim

HammerGrunt,

I mean no disrespect to those who owned it before you, or you. I really appreciate you sharing all the pics and info you have shared. You have a very interesting carbine. I think the following may help a little with understanding several things.

Most everyone on this forum and other forums has heard stories about carbines people owned or were selling. Not all stories were tall tales. Some were simply an evolution of verbal history. Documentation to support a verbal history helps a great deal when examining a carbine but even when documented, over the years so much has been faked we look to the carbine to see if it verifies the documents and/or story.

You've had some of the most experienced and knowledgeable people anyone could find examine what you have shared. Each formed their own conclusions with one conclusion being consistent among them: "consistent with" a prototype based on the unique features of a number of the parts along with the serial number. With several parts that may have replaced the original parts.

Who replaced them is anyone's best guess but prototypes were test beds often used for more than one concept/trial. Over time they commonly had parts replaced to facilitate further testing of the concept or a different theory/concept. Resulting in a mix of early parts and later parts. Some of the experimental/prototype carbines were later presented to an employee, affiliate, or Ordnance officer. These "presentation" carbines were commonly made presentable to varying degrees depending on who they were presented too. Without regard as to which part matched the time period the serial number was used.

We have no evidence that Inland 270 was a presentation carbine. Only knowledge of those that had evidence that educated us as to their history and the possibilities for a carbine like this one. We have no evidence it didn't go off to war. Intentionally or unintentionally. The possibilities are many which is one reason why it would be interesting to do more detailed research on this one. Which may or may not find anything.

The most significant thing that indicates it's a prototype/experimental is the slide's cam cut for the right bolt lug.

No one has found the Ordnance specs for the cam cuts of the early slides. Those specs changed over time and the drawings Ordnance retained were the most recent specs. Not the earlier drawings. What we know of the cam cut comes from data on tens of thousands of carbines and their slides submitted to our database since 1976 along with slides we have owned. As part of or separate from a carbine. Some of us carbine addicts have owned hundreds of carbines (myself not included).

What that data has shown us is what the slide manufacturers did and generally when during a particular serial number sequence. Which tells us what the Ordnance specs were at the time.

While some Ordnance specs were somewhat flexible the degree to which the cam cut of the slide in Inland 270 deviates from the norm is something we only see in prototypes/experimental carbines. It's so far off the norm that I question whether Ordnance would have accepted it if it was given to an Ordnance inspector at Inland. Or, if it was accepted as a production carbine and later altered by Ordnance, they did not forward those they altered to this extent for use by troops. In both cases, if it was to be accepted and issued they would have replaced the slide and possibly the bolt.

Is it possible someone missed it? Is it possible it was rushed out the door without a close inspection or without concern? As I indicated earlier, the possibilities are many. But the history of the extent to which Ordnance went to determine and set those specs, then inspect and enforce them before accepting a carbine are well documented and the reason why so many are still in use 75+ years later after what many went thru during that time.

Back to Inland ... their involvement with the carbine was extensive. Their prototypes/experimental/presentation quantities were consistent with this and their large production quantities. Their involvement with the carbines ended the day after Japan signed the armistice. They went back to manufacturing whatever General Motors wanted them to manufacture for the automotive industry. The company had no interest in preserving prototype/experimental carbines or their records that, as a result, went in many different directions or were destroyed. They were not like Olin and Pugsley at Winchester with records and prototypes now preserved in a museum (Cody Firearms Museum). Which has made Inland carbine history a real challenge. Various Inland prototypes are currently owned by collectors.

So when some of us see a carbine like Inland 270 we are very interested in trying to learn why the slide was made that way and what the result was. Along with preserving it as-is, whatever it is. It's possible, even likely, an owner swapped a few parts out. But trying to figure out which parts were original is only an educated guess with education varying from one person to the next.

If Inland 270 was issued to the soldier with the 1st Infantry Division while in North Africa it wasn't used in combat much with that extractor plunger. The slide cam cut has me wondering if it's safe to shoot. But my experience isn't even remotely close to that of some of the folks you've had examine your carbine or pictures.

Just a suggestion ... it would be interesting and may have value to look into the service records of the veteran of the 1st Infantry Division. They won't provide the serial number but they may reveal what he did, when, and where.

Jim

1. If it was issued and carried during WWII then that wear would be normal for having been used during WWII.

But if it was a prototype/experimental test gun that wear may have happened during whatever tests were done. Using whatever carbine the parts were on at the time. Some of these carbines were test fired a lot with parts swapped based on whatever the needs were.

1 & 2) Or, the few parts not original to that early time (stock and hammer) may have been added by a subsequent owner. Same with the parts that have been modified (sear, hammer plunger, recoil spring guide, receiver finish in chamber area). It's odd the extractor was modified from its original spec as required by Ordnance but the extractor plunger wasn't replaced. The modification and replacement were mandatory for Ordnance on carbines they had already accepted that were issued to troops. With that early plunger having a common problem of ejecting out of the bolt during firing. Wouldn't necessarily be odd for a test carbine.

Bruce Dow and Ken Otero are very well qualified. More so than me. Plus they have had the opportunity to do a hands on examination instead of pics only. If either didn't spot that cam cut it wouldn't be unusual. It's easily overlooked during a hands on exam. You might point it out along with it's similarity to the cam cut of the production slides on the M1 Rifles. Ask them to explain to you how the shape and position of the cam cut effects the bolt and firing mechanism. Also have them take a look at the right bolt lug and bolt face.

2) One of the problems I've had is the pics of parts that I received had parts from two different carbines intermingled with one another. Apparently used to compare the different parts but without identifying which is which in the pics. I'll let someone else chime in on which parts were not original.

3) Value is in the eyes of the beholder. Even with experienced collectors. Sometimes the motives have more to do with money instead of history. Prototype/experimental carbines are a niche for those interested in preserving/collecting history. Those are a much smaller group than those who are on what I call a Quest for the Golden Fleece. History has been lost by some folks reconstructing a carbine into something someone thought was all original. Out of personal preference or monetary. Sometimes we find one reconstructed that we already have documentation that indicates what it was prior and both the monetary and collector value has been irretrievably lost. A few "presentation" carbines come to mind.

Finding the niche interested in buying prototypes who will pay for them is not as simple and fast as finding those who want a carbine used by troops during WWII in pristine condition as manufactured by the factory. Some seem to forget or haven't seen what a weapon used in combat for any period of time looks like.

Over the years so many have been reconstructed, by novices and collectors, that it's now often difficult to identify authentic vs reconstructed.

This is just from my limited perspective. Hopefully someone else will jump in and add to this. My perspective is, if there is a chance something was a prototype I leave it as is and research it.

I need to get back in my cave and work on what I been working on. When the article with pics is available some of the long time collectors here are very experienced and can help. No one person knows it all.

Jim

Edited by sleeplessnashadow - Sep 07 2021 at 5:36am

I think I need to clarify something.

I'm not saying it is an Ordnance test gun. Also not saying it wasn't issued.

I don't think it was a coincidence 269 was used for testing a prototype slide then 270 shows up with what looks like a prototype slide and matching bolt.

A lot could have happened since then but those parts didn't.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, folks.

Jim

I'm gonna let some of the more experienced folks chime in here and explain what's been found with some of the test guns.

Some were issued and went off to war. I'm not aware of any prototype parts tested going with them. Especially if your slide was the prototype or one of the prototypes tested with 269 that was not a success.

I jumped in only because I wanted to suggest not modifying anything in case there is history that could be lost. Also for future readers to consider what they change may devalue what they have. It may be a couple months before the article is released so everyone can see it. Sorry folks.

Jim