New inland M1 carbine
- Thread starter brutus51
- Start date
- Status
rdmercer
Member
I bought an new Inland 2 years ago along with some Korean 15 rnd. mags and Korean ammo. The first 200 rnds I had maybe a dozen feeding issues but after that I probably had one FTF every 100 rnds which I think is very acceptable. Korean 30 rnd mags work great also.
Got one when they first came out. Returned it 2 or 3 times for repair because it wouldn’t cycle worth a damn. That’s a “no go” for a new $1,000 rifle. They ended up replacing everything except the stock and they even gave me a t shirt before the saga was over. Now it is pretty reliable. I wish I had just bought an original.
CoalTrain49
Member
M1 Carbines are tricky.
The new ones are very tricky.
Unless you want to learn the mechanics of making an M1 carbine run I would say just buy an AR carbine. They're not for the mechanically challenged.
The new ones are very tricky.
Unless you want to learn the mechanics of making an M1 carbine run I would say just buy an AR carbine. They're not for the mechanically challenged.
CapnMac
Member
Most of the issues seem to center on the use of cast parts and intermittent quality control.
Ian at InRangeTV picked on up and it had nagging things, like the front sight that was cast rather than machined. And the casting left a seam line askew to the sight vertical axis, and no one thought to grind that off smooth before seating it on the barrel. Much more serious was that the rear sight had no detents to hold it at any selected range. Which later "corrected" itself by sliding off. Along with indifferent feeding and reliability.
Given that MSRP is north of a grand, and you can find genuine Carbines for that price (and by getting on the carbine fora for closer to $800-900) the end result is definitely not worth the dollars spent.
Sadly, "new in box" does not equal "no problems."
Even the Fulton Armory version, around $1400 does not much compare with the Carbines on gunbroker listed at similar prices.
Ian at InRangeTV picked on up and it had nagging things, like the front sight that was cast rather than machined. And the casting left a seam line askew to the sight vertical axis, and no one thought to grind that off smooth before seating it on the barrel. Much more serious was that the rear sight had no detents to hold it at any selected range. Which later "corrected" itself by sliding off. Along with indifferent feeding and reliability.
Given that MSRP is north of a grand, and you can find genuine Carbines for that price (and by getting on the carbine fora for closer to $800-900) the end result is definitely not worth the dollars spent.
Sadly, "new in box" does not equal "no problems."
Even the Fulton Armory version, around $1400 does not much compare with the Carbines on gunbroker listed at similar prices.
Speedo66
Member
At a show yesterday I saw an original Underwood for sale, marked $1400, but the seller, who is a collector himself, said $1200 would do it.
This seller has a good reputation and if he has it for sale, the gun will work. I am not a Carbine expert, but he said it was a DCM sale, and had the DCM paperwork, so no import marks.
I would much prefer an original like that, and if I did not already own one, I would have engaged him in further bargaining and bought it. Getting an original, with the history and collectibility that goes with it, would be worth a few extra bucks to me. While getting a shiny new gun is nice, even if it runs perfectly, it will always be a copy.
This seller has a good reputation and if he has it for sale, the gun will work. I am not a Carbine expert, but he said it was a DCM sale, and had the DCM paperwork, so no import marks.
I would much prefer an original like that, and if I did not already own one, I would have engaged him in further bargaining and bought it. Getting an original, with the history and collectibility that goes with it, would be worth a few extra bucks to me. While getting a shiny new gun is nice, even if it runs perfectly, it will always be a copy.
maxxhavoc
Member
I guess mine is the odds one out then. It is an Auto Ordnance and has always run as well as my GI.
Speedo66
Member
There are two types of GI sights, a flip type and a sliding. I have no experience with the flip sight, but the sliding type on mine seems rugged enough.
CapnMac
Member
The legit GI sliding rear is nice an ruggged.
None of the brand new versions seem close (even the Chiappa .22lr).
The flip sight was actually the better sight, but the Powers That Be decided it was not fitting on a weapon issued to fighting GIs.
None of the brand new versions seem close (even the Chiappa .22lr).
The flip sight was actually the better sight, but the Powers That Be decided it was not fitting on a weapon issued to fighting GIs.
I bought a Kahr M1 Carbine for my wife. The M1 Carbine is the ideal gun for women. The .30 Carbine cartridge is the ideal round for women. I'm of the opinion that it's every father's duty to teach his daughter(s) to master this weapon. Oops, I'll get off my soap box.
Long story short, it's a single data point but my wife and daughters can shoot the wings off the proverbial gnat with the Kahr and my late model Universal. At 35 yards.
Long story short, it's a single data point but my wife and daughters can shoot the wings off the proverbial gnat with the Kahr and my late model Universal. At 35 yards.
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
Commercial M1 Carbines. We will always hear about the bad examples from disappointed owners. Satisfied owners have no complaints.
Problem appears to be that current commercial quality control is not as ruthless as WWII government quality control that let no gun leave the door if it did not pass inspection and test. That the commercial makers let lemons out the door hurts their reputation. They need to wake up and realize that's no way to do business: letting the consumer detect the lemons means lotsa consumer complaints.
BTW, my M1 carbine is a WWII era IBM 1943 manufacture I acquired 1990 as a Blue Sky return from South Korea. Participate in the military matches with it. It shoots LC, Win, Rem, Fed, PPU, Aguila ammo well; has problems with Russian steel case. It has needed new recoil spring, extractor and extractor spring over the years. It works well with original GI and South Korean manufacture magazines.
Problem appears to be that current commercial quality control is not as ruthless as WWII government quality control that let no gun leave the door if it did not pass inspection and test. That the commercial makers let lemons out the door hurts their reputation. They need to wake up and realize that's no way to do business: letting the consumer detect the lemons means lotsa consumer complaints.
BTW, my M1 carbine is a WWII era IBM 1943 manufacture I acquired 1990 as a Blue Sky return from South Korea. Participate in the military matches with it. It shoots LC, Win, Rem, Fed, PPU, Aguila ammo well; has problems with Russian steel case. It has needed new recoil spring, extractor and extractor spring over the years. It works well with original GI and South Korean manufacture magazines.
CoalTrain49
Member
I think he's referring to the new Inland, not an Inland built in 44. The sights on the old USGI rifles were well designed and battle tested. Some were milled from stock.
HPJeep
Member
Isn't Kahr making the receivers for Inland Mfg? Do make other parts for the Inland too?
CapnMac
Member
I thought I read that AO is making the IMC (Inland Machining Inc) parts. I could be wrong on that.
greyling22
Member
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am just flabbergasted that modern manufacturing can't seem to make an m1 run. I mean they were designed to be simple and mass produced and made by people who had never made a gun before. Rockola, singer, etc on pretty primitive equipment. I just don't understand it, everybody makes a wwii gun in the 1911 that works. Norinco can make the m1 garand work for what, $400 if you are in Canada. Maybe we need some other player in the game. Maybe the Turks? I bet ATA, girsan or sarsilmaz could make an m1 carbine that ran. Probably have nice wood too.
I think the problem with the commercial M1 carbines is that they have all been made by 3rd rate manufacturers. If S&W or Ruger made an M1 it would work reliably. But the market for M1 reproductions is really small so it wouldn't be worth it for a major player. The smaller companies are more willing to sell niche items and pick up the scraps of the companies who are too busy selling millions of firearms per year.
You are absolutely correct and I would add one thing--the use of cast parts per se is not bad as ruger and others do it quite well. The key is to take the time to machine it after the casting--which adds time and expense that these small companies apparently do not want to do along with general QC. Late Universal carbines did not have that good of a reputation either.
Gordon
Member
Count me in as another astonished person that with CNC a better than original M1 Carbine has yet to be produced ! I sold my Winchester one a couple years ago for more than $1500, I still have a very early well made Plainfield which appears all GI except reciever and it works well and I put a Ultimak mount and Aimpoint micro on . I do have a "lunch box " Inland which came out of Fort Ord Calif. in the early 50s and works 100% after I replaced a few small things. I think it was a non refurbished training rifle from there and the old gent that died a while back had it in his closet 50 years or more from where I retrieved it at the widow's request.
Gordon
Member
My Plainfield was made in 1965, and marked Dunellen NJ . It was in new condition when I got it ands with GI or the good Korean mags runs about 100% with good ammo. I went thru a Carbine course with Lousis Awerbuck with it at a Ca. Sheriff's Dept course 10 years ago with excellent results.
Gordon
Member
maxxhavoc
Member
AO and Kahr are the same company. You are both right
James River Armory's "Rockola" M1 Carbine is supposed to be pretty close. If you can find one...and afford it.
Ruger made the choice to make the Mini 14 instead of a direct .30 Carbine clone .Probably because GI carbines were cheap and plentiful, and .223 was a better choice for the carbine. They probably don't make it now, since any discussion of "Should I buy a Ruger M1 Carbine" would be answered by "Just buy a 300 Blackout AR, it is more accurate and better."
And let me reiterate, my AO M1 Carbine that I got for $600 is everything my GI is with the possible exception of long-term durability. Only time will tell. After over 2000 rounds, it is running fine. My S.G. will hold the role of safe queen until it has issues.
CapnMac
Member
Good price. Bud's wants $731 before shipping and ffl fees (and sales tax for those of us in Texas)
mljdeckard
Member
Based on what I am reading here, I would probably rather spend $1k on another original Inland, than buy one of these new ones.
- Status
