USGI M1 Carbine Question

ADClope · January 16, 2019, 03:33 PM

Recently picked up an M1 Carbine (Inland).

Barrel was dated 3-44 (Inland - General Motors)

Receiver is 5,50x,xxx. Based on this information that I found, the receiver seems to have been made in late summer 44, maybe July/August.

4,879,526 - 5,549,820 (Jan. 1944 - Aug. 1944)

Would this likely be the original barrel and receiver being potentially 6 months apart?, I wouldn't have assumed that much elapsed time I guess.

Thanks

RC20 · January 16, 2019, 04:43 PM

I don't know anything to speak of about the M1 Carbine, but flip the question around.

How likely is it to have a barrel that is GM and receiver GM that is that close?

Someone might know, if not I can ask some others that might know.

I do know Model of 1917 rifle vs receiver dates of 3 months apart were the norm.

ADClope · January 16, 2019, 09:14 PM

Yeah, I thought about that too. It's a fair point.

T. O'Heir · January 17, 2019, 02:14 PM

6 months apart wouldn't be unusual.
Rummage around here. All the links work too.
http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/barrels.html

HiBC · January 23, 2019, 06:33 PM

I make no claim to being an M-1 Carbine expert.I might be wrong.

Seems like I read that they approached carbine manufacture a little differently.

Where a Garand or a Springfield was likely made start to finish all in one arsenal,carbine parts were farmed out to a number of contractors.

I don't know what particular combinations were typical,but a first time brand new build could have Saginaw,Quality Parts, TRW, picked from a stockroom to build an Inland carbine (No,I don't know that a carbine was made with that assortment of parts. I'm just saying its a mistake to believe all carbines were built with single source parts)

Because the barrels may very well have been made 6 months different in time and ina different plant,I would not jump to conclusions about your carbine being a rebuild or mongrel.

Matching parts may not be a reasonable expectation for an M1carbine

T. O'Heir · January 26, 2019, 01:32 PM

"...carbine parts were farmed out..." Yep. None of the original makers made all the parts. Literally hundreds of small shops all over the U.S. Eastern seaboard made Carbine parts. Some were marked, some were not. S'why there's no such thing as an "all original" Carbine. Or one with matching parts. Moreso when you consider the fact that 99.99% of all Carbines were arsenal rebuilt after W.W. II.
They were bringing 'em up to "current standard" every time something was accepted too. Bayonet lugs and adjustable sights, for example.

Lexspeed · January 27, 2019, 08:13 PM

Just to add to what has been said. There were 12 different M1 30 carbine contracted manufacturers. Many shared parts with each other. Not to mention there were many more subcontractors making components. During war time no one cared who's parts were in one gun, only that the production kept humming to reach or exceed each month's quota.

RickB · January 30, 2019, 09:00 AM

Quote:

During war time no one cared who's parts were in one gun,

That's not true, in the sense that there are very detailed records of exactly which small parts were originally on the guns, but true in the sense that a part, is a part, is a part.

I would be extremely suspicious of any Carbine claimed to be "original", for reasons listed above, as it would have to be a "time capsule" that missed all the updates and rebuilds which were pretty continuous in the '40s and '50s.

Lexspeed · February 1, 2019, 11:17 AM

Rickb, I did not say or intended to imply that detailed records of parts where not kept. My point was that the US government intended the parts from all contractors to be interchangeable and generally speaking the government was more concerned about quality standards and production volumes/quotas and less concerned which parts from which contractors where used to produce the carbines. I don't claim to be an expert, but have read all of Ruth's books and a few from other authors to arrive at the conclusion of the points I was making in my post above.

I agree with your point that most "correct" parts matching carbines we may encounter are probably made correct by an individual at a later date. Carbines newly produced had a mix of contractor/subcontractor parts and then most carbines were rearsenaled at least once and received another mix of parts. Even defining what possible mix of parts is "original" seems to be debatable. The history of the USGI 30 carbine is very fascinating.

T. O'Heir · February 1, 2019, 01:49 PM

"...records of exactly which small parts were originally on..." Never seen any such list/very detailed records, ever. In any case, most subcontractor parts were not marked in any way.
The weapons techs who did the post war rebuilds(that was done primarily to bring as many as possible up to current standard as of 1945. Weapons techs still do not care who makes the parts they install on anything.) did not care who made what part. Nor did they document any of that. Other than which arsenal did the work on a particular Carbine. The parts used came out of bins and some of 'em were updated by FN in Belgium.
Even then the part numbers were not the same over the Carbine's entire career. You really have to read the whole uscarbinecal30.com site.

Ibmikey · February 28, 2019, 06:20 AM

Actually your receiver Barrel combination conceivably could be correct as both were made by Inland and barrels were placed in bins to draw from. Parts often remained at the bottom of the container while new and sometimes revised parts were dumped on top, no one was interested in using old parts first, they weren’t dealing in eggs and butter so nothing would spoil. Inland made the majority of their parts including both barrels and receivers and their production was so high they did not outsource many of their barrels like underwood who was a prime source of barrels for other makers and to a much lesser degree complete Carbines.

NWPilgrim · February 28, 2019, 12:13 PM

No way of knowing. Especially with Inland manufacturing the largest volume of Carbines and even barrels for other mfgrs. Could be the original barrel or could have been one in the supply line that was used to refurbish it after the war.

Regardless, it is a fun and wonderful rifle all can enjoy are put to good use.

Chris_B · May 2, 2019, 06:06 PM

USGI carbine ammo was not corrosive. Barrels can and did get replaced, but many USGI M1 carbines have original barrels.

I'd say the question is rather: what evidence have you that the barrel is NOT original?

And yeah, I chose to reply regardless of the forum warning me about it. Jeez.

January 16, 2019, 03:33 PM	#1
ADClope Member Join Date: October 5, 2016 Posts: 54	USGI M1 Carbine Question Recently picked up an M1 Carbine (Inland). Barrel was dated 3-44 (Inland - General Motors) Receiver is 5,50x,xxx. Based on this information that I found, the receiver seems to have been made in late summer 44, maybe July/August. 4,879,526 - 5,549,820 (Jan. 1944 - Aug. 1944) Would this likely be the original barrel and receiver being potentially 6 months apart?, I wouldn't have assumed that much elapsed time I guess. Thanks

January 16, 2019, 04:43 PM	#2
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	I don't know anything to speak of about the M1 Carbine, but flip the question around. How likely is it to have a barrel that is GM and receiver GM that is that close? Someone might know, if not I can ask some others that might know. I do know Model of 1917 rifle vs receiver dates of 3 months apart were the norm. __________________ Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not

January 17, 2019, 02:14 PM	#4
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	6 months apart wouldn't be unusual. Rummage around here. All the links work too. http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/barrels.html __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

January 26, 2019, 01:32 PM	#6
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	"...carbine parts were farmed out..." Yep. None of the original makers made all the parts. Literally hundreds of small shops all over the U.S. Eastern seaboard made Carbine parts. Some were marked, some were not. S'why there's no such thing as an "all original" Carbine. Or one with matching parts. Moreso when you consider the fact that 99.99% of all Carbines were arsenal rebuilt after W.W. II. They were bringing 'em up to "current standard" every time something was accepted too. Bayonet lugs and adjustable sights, for example. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

February 1, 2019, 01:49 PM	#10
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	"...records of exactly which small parts were originally on..." Never seen any such list/very detailed records, ever. In any case, most subcontractor parts were not marked in any way. The weapons techs who did the post war rebuilds(that was done primarily to bring as many as possible up to current standard as of 1945. Weapons techs still do not care who makes the parts they install on anything.) did not care who made what part. Nor did they document any of that. Other than which arsenal did the work on a particular Carbine. The parts used came out of bins and some of 'em were updated by FN in Belgium. Even then the part numbers were not the same over the Carbine's entire career. You really have to read the whole uscarbinecal30.com site. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

January 16, 2019, 09:14 PM	#3
ADClope Member Join Date: October 5, 2016 Posts: 54	Yeah, I thought about that too. It's a fair point.

January 23, 2019, 06:33 PM	#5
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,283	I make no claim to being an M-1 Carbine expert.I might be wrong. Seems like I read that they approached carbine manufacture a little differently. Where a Garand or a Springfield was likely made start to finish all in one arsenal,carbine parts were farmed out to a number of contractors. I don't know what particular combinations were typical,but a first time brand new build could have Saginaw,Quality Parts, TRW, picked from a stockroom to build an Inland carbine (No,I don't know that a carbine was made with that assortment of parts. I'm just saying its a mistake to believe all carbines were built with single source parts) Because the barrels may very well have been made 6 months different in time and ina different plant,I would not jump to conclusions about your carbine being a rebuild or mongrel. Matching parts may not be a reasonable expectation for an M1carbine

January 27, 2019, 08:13 PM	#7
Lexspeed Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2015 Location: Southern IL Posts: 152	Just to add to what has been said. There were 12 different M1 30 carbine contracted manufacturers. Many shared parts with each other. Not to mention there were many more subcontractors making components. During war time no one cared who's parts were in one gun, only that the production kept humming to reach or exceed each month's quota.

February 1, 2019, 11:17 AM	#9
Lexspeed Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2015 Location: Southern IL Posts: 152	Rickb, I did not say or intended to imply that detailed records of parts where not kept. My point was that the US government intended the parts from all contractors to be interchangeable and generally speaking the government was more concerned about quality standards and production volumes/quotas and less concerned which parts from which contractors where used to produce the carbines. I don't claim to be an expert, but have read all of Ruth's books and a few from other authors to arrive at the conclusion of the points I was making in my post above. I agree with your point that most "correct" parts matching carbines we may encounter are probably made correct by an individual at a later date. Carbines newly produced had a mix of contractor/subcontractor parts and then most carbines were rearsenaled at least once and received another mix of parts. Even defining what possible mix of parts is "original" seems to be debatable. The history of the USGI 30 carbine is very fascinating.

February 28, 2019, 06:20 AM	#11
Ibmikey Senior Member Join Date: June 1, 2013 Location: Now relocated to Texas Posts: 2,943	Actually your receiver Barrel combination conceivably could be correct as both were made by Inland and barrels were placed in bins to draw from. Parts often remained at the bottom of the container while new and sometimes revised parts were dumped on top, no one was interested in using old parts first, they weren’t dealing in eggs and butter so nothing would spoil. Inland made the majority of their parts including both barrels and receivers and their production was so high they did not outsource many of their barrels like underwood who was a prime source of barrels for other makers and to a much lesser degree complete Carbines.

February 28, 2019, 12:13 PM	#12
NWPilgrim Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,346	No way of knowing. Especially with Inland manufacturing the largest volume of Carbines and even barrels for other mfgrs. Could be the original barrel or could have been one in the supply line that was used to refurbish it after the war. Regardless, it is a fun and wonderful rifle all can enjoy are put to good use.

May 2, 2019, 06:06 PM	#13
Chris_B Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2007 Posts: 3,101	USGI carbine ammo was not corrosive. Barrels can and did get replaced, but many USGI M1 carbines have original barrels. I'd say the question is rather: what evidence have you that the barrel is NOT original? And yeah, I chose to reply regardless of the forum warning me about it. Jeez.