inland m1 carbine

[Brutus]

Anyone out there bought one of these? Looks interesting but kinda pricey.

[T. O'Heir]

CMP auction page has several real Carbines running less than the MSRP for a copy. Service grade Rock-ola's are running $854.00.
http://cmpauction.thecmp.org/catalog...3&n=M1-Carbine

[MagnumWill]

Not $850 anymore... honestly, if the Inland guns run well they're actually a normal going price for an M1 these days.

Note I said "these days". Let's see how many posts I get with people saying they paid $450 for theirs... (in 1986 )

I'd love to have one. It would be great to have a CMP one as well for historical value, but the virtue of a new production one is you can have a good time with it and beat it up without feeling like you're hurting a piece of history.

[OldScout]

I have the IBM M1 Carbine. I paid about $350 for it in 1992. Don't know what they are worth today. Wouldn't sell it for a million, well, maybe for a million.

[T. O'Heir]

"...Not $850 anymore..." Listed as such on the CMP's auction page.
"...virtue of a new production one..." Copies made with new machines and having zero collector value.

[ThomasT]

I would like to have one of the new Inland rifles. I don't care about the collector value. It would be a field gun bought to use. They did have a problem with soft bolts in the early guns and that has been corrected.I called the maker and they said serial numbers above 1200 had good bolts.

[RickB]

There's a strong sense that the Inland 1911s are rebranded Auto Ordnances; does the same hold true for the Carbines?
If so, weird that Inland would have trouble with their bolts many years after A-O started selling Carbines.
Why not buy an A-O, and what's the price difference?

[Ibmikey]

Inland products have been reported positively in several publications including a test Magazine. It matters not where the raw forging (or castings) are obtained if the end product is quality. Remember original Carbine manufacturers/assemblers often sub contracted receivers and other parts and freely swapped between each other when shortages occurred.
My first Carbine was a DCM Inland that cost me $17.50 + $2.50 Railway Express shipping (1964), it is still shooting fine today.

[COSteve]

It's a commercially made carbine, no different than the Auto Ordnance, just more expensive. However, they promote the idea that it's made by the same Inland that the GI carbines were; it's not. The new Inland just bought the naming rights from General Motors. It's just a way to get more $$ from you.

I've had a real GI '43, high wood NPM with original Marlin barrel in pristine condition for over 40 yrs. I got it straight out of the Arsenal Rebuild box it was shipped in. It's in such good condition, it's worth too much to shoot. I've got less than 100 rds through it but love to shoot carbines so a few years ago I looked around for a shooter.

The only GI carbines I could find under $1K were shot out, tired relics unsuitable for my purposes; a reliable shooter with decent accuracy I could enjoy. So, after much searching, I tried a new Auto Ordnance M1 Carbine that a member of our shooting club had just gotten. It's considerably more accurate than my GI model, reliable, came with a M2 mag release so it shoots the 30rd mags as well as the 15rd, and it's not a piece of history if it breaks.

I bought a new one for myself, changed out the flip rear sight for a Type II adjustable, and with my handloads, it's significantly more accurate than my pristine NPM. I couldn't be happier with mine as a shooter and now my NPM is retired along with my fully correct '44 M1 Garand for my son to inherit.

Before you spend a ton on the Inland wanabe, consider the AO version and use the extra money saved to buy quality ammo for it.

[Mosin44az]

I have the Inland paratrooper, and so far it's been perfect. Nice looking, perfect function, and fun to shoot, through several hundred rounds. I wanted something that I could shoot, not just look at and fondle.

Aguila makes reasonably priced .30 carbine ammo, works well.

[Model12Win]

The new INLANDS are G2G from all reports.

Buy with confidence.

[COSteve]

Bottom line, buy what you want.

If you got the money and want it to say 'Inland' on the receiver under the Type II rear sight, even though it's the same Inland company that built the GI version, then get the Inland and you'll be happy.

I got my AO over 5½ years ago, before the new Inland carbines first came out. I've shot it over 3,500 problem free rds so far. The 50% higher price of the Inland vs AO isn't worth the word 'Inland' under the Type II rear sight to me.

It's your money, your choice. Get what you want.

[Model12Win]

The INLAND continues the legacy of the originals. It is a MIL-SPEC item, unlike the AO. It is much closer to the original deal. They even give the wood an aged tone, extremely cool.

Getting ahold of a real USGI M1 carbine is getting harder and harder and harder and harder as the years go buy.

Soon, it will only be folks like INLAND making true M1s that the averageman can afford. The collectors, in their infinite untouchable wisdom, will own all the GI ones.

[RickB]

Both the A-O and Inland are built on cast receivers, so neither is Mil-Spec.
There have been commercial Carbines made on forged receivers, but I'd expect them to cost $200-$300 more.

[Ibmikey]

Cast receivers are not necessarily a drawback today with modern techniques, just ask Ruger! I have a dozen GI Carbines left including a nice M1A1, all of them are shot regularly, last Sat I fired an Inland with a 57,000 serial number (Dec 41) making cans and broken bricks bounce all over.
If I could not find an acceptable GI perhaps a reproduction properly assembled would be on my shopping list.

[Dane17]

I have a Fulton armory m1 carbine. It truly is a wonderful gun. Pricey but with a phone call to them I got a decent discount over their web price.

[sarge83]

The Inland USGI WWII issue carbine, is highly desirable and unless it has been left out in the rain and dragged behind a lawn mower it should be a fine piece. I have one I bought back in the 90's for $350 and when I want to shoot a carbine it is my choice. IBM, Rock-ola, Standard Products, S'G', SG, Winchester, are just some of the USGI carbines out there and they will command a price far higher than the $350 I paid years ago.

Most commercial M1's will work, Plainfield and some Israeli versions, I would however avoid Universals as they are usually total POS. I cannot comment on the new Inlands, as I have not had any in my hands.

[COSteve]

The INLAND continues the legacy of the originals. It is a MIL-SPEC item, unlike the AO. It is much closer to the original deal. They even give the wood an aged tone, extremely cool.

Actually . . . . No.

Like the AO it has a cast receiver (Per Inland's own FAQ page HERE) as well as MIM parts so it's as far from a Mil-Spec item as one can get. Their accuracy claim is what my AO actually shoots so they don't have an advantage over the AO in accuracy or reliability either so all you're really paying the hundred's of dollars extra for is the name. Like I said above, it's the OP's money and he should get what he wants. I'm just trying to make sure he's informed so he knows what he's buying.

BTW, I'm a US Army trained Armorer initially trained in the 60's on the 1903A3, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and M14 plus light submachine guns; M3 'Grease Gun, M1918 BAR, and M1928A1 Thompson, crew served M1919, M60B, and M2HB Brownings, as well as vehicle mounted MGs; M60C, M73, M85, and M2HB Brownings (both butterfly and electrically fired).

In addition, I was trained on both the 90mm and 105mm main gun used on M48A3, M60 and M60A1 tanks. In 1968 I had to get trained on the plastic fantastic M16A1, the fun to shoot M79 grenade launcher, and even Winchester Model 1200 riot shotguns with an 18" long 1917 bayonet mount before a stint in RVN in '68/'69 so I feel confident that I know a bit about the military's weapons of that era.

I didn't buy my AO without checking it out with the trained eye of a US Army Armorer including taking one apart and comparing the quality and machining of the individual pieces to those of my own NPM I brought with me to compare. (Luckily, I have an understanding gunshop owner who knows my background.)

[fourbore]

One good Auto Ordnance does not negate dozens of bad experiences posted on the internet. Inland and Fulton seem to be faring a lot better.

Auto Ordnance M1 reviews:

At 6 minutes, the bolt fails to stay open after the last shot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSP2vnU_-M

At 2 minutes plus begins discussion on feed issues at 2: 50 magazin drops to grounbd. He goes on to say original GI mags do not drop but but he still had a few failures to feed AND EXTRACT even with GI mags.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0wOdkAW-8Y

After this above video I read some viewer feedback, maybe last gun from USA this person buys:

Letter sent to Auto Ordnance, August 2013, no answer.... To whom
To whom may concern: My name is Manuel Alcalde. I live in Spain. Among all the guns I own, there is a .30 M1 Carbine made by Auto Ordnance/Kahr SN 9541. I bought it in 2013 from a gun shop whose name is Top Gun, in Madrid. Gun was BRAND NEW, unused. Apparently, the importer in Spain is Arminse, in Barcelona. I also own an all-original, almost new Saginaw M1 Carbine made circa 1943. My experience with the one built by Auto Ordnance has been utterly disappointing, and I can certainly attest that this gun as sold is of sub-standard, low (if some) quality. My opinion is based on the following facts: First day, out of the box: - handguard is loose on stock, moves to the left; plate attached to handguard by two rivets is loose. - fitting of barrelled receiver against recoil plate is loose; the whole assembly rattles inside stock. Horrible fitting of recoil plate in stock. - gas piston nut loose. - trigger guard assembly loose, a lot.... - front sight loose. Cast, horrible aspect, cheap. - front band of very low quality, only one welding spot, does not work correctly, bends.... First trips to the range: - magazine included too loose, continuos FTF, very low quality. Gun was OK with original GI magazines. - gun shoots to the right. No way to adjust rear sight... rear sight tabs are bent inwards, finally I found out it was Loctited... - on the bright side, the barrel itself is of excellent quality and manufacture. After disassembly and thorough inspection: - cast receiver, it works but is not within GI specifications. Different dimensions, especially lengthwise. - trigger guard assembly is loose because legs in receiver are not OK, some material is missing, possibly as a result of cast process. - stop surfaces slide/receiver are not parallel to each other, possibly as a result of cast process; contact barely 50%, though it works. - extractor too big, hits and peens receiver. - bolt does not stop on opening against inner rear area of receiver as in GI carbines; instead bolt stops when rear side of right lug hits receiver. Inner cam surfaces in slide (cheap cast, by the way, and too soft) get peened and deformed; front surfaces of right bolt lug get peened and deformed as well. - bolt is too soft, rear part already peened by hammer after just a couple of ammunition boxes. Not even geometry is within GI specifications. Due to this fact, one of the most critical safety features - interaction hammer/bolt - of this gun might be compromised, ineffective. - hammer is too soft as well, got peened after just a few ammunition boxes. - retaining/retracting surfaces in receiver are not cut to GI specifications, not even close. They work though, as long as firing pin is of minimum GI specified length. Components I had to replace for the gun to work safe and properly,: - wood stock, original GI. Including butt plate and screw. - recoil plate, including screw and nut, original GI. Neither screw not nut were within GI specifications!!! - front sight, pin and key, all GI. - slide and recoil spring, all GI. - front band, GI. - extractor, GI. - hammer, GI. - rear sight, GI. It was bent, and Loctited... (without Loctite it would have fell off...). - bolt, GI. - also, on the bright side, all these GI components were accepted by the gun. Repairs: - head spacing. - material added to receiver legs, by laser welding, proper fitting afterwards. Conclusions: After so many repairs and modifications, finally I got a gun which actually works in a safe and reliable way... even though, it is not yet the same as an original GI one. The point is that I paid quite a bunch of money for it (1150 Euros, in Spain guns are pretty expensive and also it was clearly overpriced, my mistake), and invested extensive amounts of time and efforts, plus additional money for new components and repairs... Was it worth it? I do not think so....my Saginaw works flawlessly, after 70 years, and I paid for it less than half what I paid for the Auto-Ordnance. I would not pay right now not even 300$ for such a gun.... I would not accept it not even as a gift!!!!! Many people already asked me about my M1 Carbine by Auto Ordnance, I vehemently recommended not to buy it under any circumstance!!!! Stay away from it... Of course, I will post these notes on the Internet as many times and in as many places as possible, for everybody to know... Best regards,

I am not an armorer and as such a few hundred dollars more seems like (or potentially) money well spent. If I got a WWII surplus guns, I would not be surprised to have a problem. And I would not complain if I did. I expect a new gun to work or 99% of them should work perfectly. Occasional slip ups may happen. That should be rare.

[fourbore]

Both the A-O and Inland are built on cast receivers, so neither is Mil-Spec.
There have been commercial Carbines made on forged receivers, but I'd expect them to cost $200-$300 more.

Zero civilian guns or parts are mil-spec. To be mil spec requires govt involvement and acceptance before, during and after manufacturing. Anything less than that is meaningless verbage. A person can say 'equal'. he can say 'better'. he can say anything he wants, it is not mil-spec unless it went through the full military acceptance procedure. That is pretty much another way of saying GI or surplus.

The spirit of the above comment is well taken. Cast parts do not 'look' the same as machined or forged. But; it has nothing to do with mil-spec.

[Brutus]

Don't know why but an M1 is starting to call to me. Just not much about it that doesn't appeal to me, what got me started was articles about the 300 blackout.
same size bullet, same velocities, M1 has straight wall case for easier reloading, wood stock, and much prettier.

[Reloadron]

Inland Manufacturing's 1945 M1 Carbine is an American Rifleman review of the new little rifle. The original "war baby" guns are currently demanding a pretty good price. Mine is a Quality Hardware manufactured which I haven't shot in maybe ten years. The little M1 Carbine is just one of those rifles which is a pleasure to shoot, if there is a classification for fun rifles the M1 Carbine likely tops that list. Today, given a choice, I would likely opt for another actual war baby than a new flavor but if a new version trips your trigger then by all means go for it.

Ron

[dahermit]

Don't know why but an M1 is starting to call to me. Just not much about it that doesn't appeal to me, what got me started was articles about the 300 blackout.
same size bullet, same velocities, M1 has straight wall case for easier reloading, wood stock, and much prettier.

As one of the last to be issued an M1 Garand for Basic Training (Fort Knox, August 1962), I take exception with those who casually refer to an M1 Carbine as an M1. The "M1" has traditionally meant, "M1 Garand" by thousands of troops whereas the M1 .30 Carbine is an "M1 Carbine".

[Ibmikey]

At one time I collected Carbines when GI rifles were relatively inexpensive. I am down to about a dozen at this time and have been holding steady there. The Carbine is fun to shoot and ok for small critters and home defense on a bit larger critter, I have shot Texas hogs of about 250# with one of mine ( i shoot all of my military weapons, 1911, Garand, 03, Trap Door, etc, etc.) and with proper placement will put them down just fine.
So many respondents seek only the doom and gloom side, many new products have teething problems at first such as Inland (modern) with soft bolts but corrections come and a good product can result. I put my original close to issue condition ( not a CMP rifle) M1A1 Carbine next to a New Inland of the same configuration and was surprised at how close they were, at five feet one would be hard pressed to tell them apart. Speaking of M1A1, I traded an original stock for a nice Colt 1911a1 ( unmolested) so that suggests what the stocks are worth. I have shot Fulton, Kahr (AO) and Inland Carbines finding my personal rating:
1. Fulton Armory
2. New Inland
3. Kahr (AO)
If without a decent GI to purchase one of the new boys on the block would get serious consideration.

[fourbore]

Ibmikey,

Your list in order 1,2,3. The quality appears to follow price and that is no surprise.

The Fulton has great reviews, it is somewhat a class by itself. As a potential, someday buyer with a friend who is more serious. I would appreciate any details on how and why you rank these. More function than finish which I can see. But any details appreciated, not many have all three.