Inland 30 Carbine Newly Made

agtman:

Why don't you call Ron Norton at Inland Manufacturing and ask him yourself? An ascerbic diatribe is one thing, thoughtful and productive research is quite another. Anyone can engage in the former, the latter requires both intelligence and action. Constructive inquiry is never a waste of time. Please get back to us when you have more information, won't you?
 
Why don't you call Ron Norton at Inland Manufacturing and ask him yourself? An ascerbic diatribe is one thing, thoughtful and productive research is quite another. Anyone can engage in the former, the latter requires both intelligence and action. * * * [Excessive yadda, yadda snipped]
Click to expand...

Dudenal, hear me now and listen to me later: stifle yourself & focus. It's always the basis for any learning opportunity. ;)

Have you bought one these cloney Inland Mfg carbines and run it hard? Or are you just the Chief Sales Slick for Big Ron? :rolleyes: Don't want to hear about what a great dudenal Ron is, or how many kids he has. Don't care.

Despite your alleged *retirement* status, as well as your many pontificating posts here & elsewhere, I'm sure you're intending to buy an Inland Mfg carbine sometime before the next millennium. :rolleyes: When you do, please run it hard for a thousand rounds and then give us a field report, ... 'kay?

That will likely qualify you as one of TFL's officially-useful dudenals.

Just sayin' ... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
agtman

I can't help but ask the fundamental question: How much personal experience do you have with either the Inland or Auto Ordnance products?

Please enlighten us so that we can learn form your vast knowledge. Since the Inland Carbines have been out for almost a year, from the way you speak you must have plenty of "hands on" experience. How long have you used/owned one? have you experienced any malfunctions? Have they functioned properly?

It would be help to us all to be well informed.

Thank you.
 
I read this too. Guns.com had an article on it also. They look cool and obviously will perform like a top, but you can get an all original Inland stamped around the WW2 era for less than $1,200. At least there were some at the local show this weekend like that. They stamps all seemed to check out to me. But then it all comes down to preference.
 
I am Retired Army, and carried a Carbine in Korea and Vietnam. I own a very nice 1943 Underwood cow, and love it.

I have checked the new Inland's, and think they are a very nice rifle. The Inland and Fulton are both very good quality. Like any new products, they had a couple of start up glitches, but have corrected them.

I will also be purchasing one of the Inland's this Summer. Since the USGI ones are getting scarce, these will help keep the demand for ammo high enough, so we have good ammo available in the future. So many of the collectors of the USGI ones never shoot them, I am all for using them as a tool.

I am looking forward to getting one of Inland's Advisers Carbines, since they are nearly identical to the chopped M2 I carried in Vietnam. The only other source for anything like these, are the old Enforcers made by Universal, and a couple other companies in the 60s and 70s, which are junk.


My M2 in Nam.

m2 pistol only.jpg
 
I haven't handled an M1 Carbine since I left the Air Force in 1966. Because I was in the Air Police, I shot the little carbine often and cleaned it even more often but I wonder if I'd still remember how to tear the gun down without coaching a half century later...:eek:
 
It was since 1967 when I last used one in Vietnam, and I had forgotten a few little details. I knew I had to line up the bolt and op rod to something, but didn't remember what or where. Piece of cake after 2 field strippings to lock it back into the memory.

Great little guns.
 
Earlier, ratshooter snidely referred to "70yr old mismatched carbines with shot out bores".
Well, sure, mine is mismatched...because after fighting a world war, it was rebuilt to spec by a government arsenal, which also thoughtfully put on a new Underwood barrel. Got it all nice and ready for the next war.
Click to expand...

AMD please don't think I was "sniding" you. I wasn't trying to do that. But the odds are an affordable gun will be a rebuild. A pristine original gun is over my pay grade even if one could be found. Most of us will find one of the USGI models on the internet sited or the CMP when in stock. Any of these will be crap shoot to one degree or another.

The idea of a NEW decent quality appeals to me. I think I stated earlier I don't know anything about these rifles so I can't make a fair judgement of one even when holding it in my hands. I just know I like small lightweight rifles.

For fun I weighed several guns to get an idea of what a 5.3 pound rifle feels like. My ruger 10-22 with a synthetic stock weighs 5.3 pounds on the money. And it feels good in the hands.

Sorry for the long delay of getting back here. I have been in the hospital since sunday night. Thanks for the replies. I am learning.
 
Cast receivers & bolts, which are certainly not original mil-spec.
Click to expand...

There is nothing inferior with investment casting. A modern method, that may or may not, exceed some of the (or all) 1940's manufacturing. cast is not a 4 letter word.

What is milspec ? The parts are fully interchangeable. Per American Rifleman. Does the milspec specify the method of machining every part of just the end result for functionality, size and strength. I dont know, just wonder why that term is tossed around when the parts interchange.

I read the AR review and it sounds to me like someone finally got it right and struck a balance for price,quality and authentic. Obviously not the same inland. heck, we dont even have the same Remington, Marlin or Winchester anymore. granted Inland is not even related.
 
Last edited:
Nowhere did I say anything against cast parts.

My involvement was simply & ONLY to correct an early statement in this thread about the Inland guns being mil-spec, which they are not.
To those who don't understand the concept behind mil-spec, it may make no difference.
To those who do, it may.

I've also gone to great pains to say that I am NOT addressing quality on the new Inlands.

I've worked with two Kahrs in the past, the first was faulty, the replacement ran fine.

I have handled & discussed one of the new Inlands with Norton.
It looked just like a gun.
Beyond that, I have not fired one or broken one down, so I again make no comments regarding their quality or functionality.

And mil-spec does specify materials & methods used to produce EVERY SINGLE PART on a military-acceptance gun.

It does not merely mean that parts are interchangeable.

Materials are specified, dimensions are specified, production methods are specified, processes are specified, heat treating is specified, and so on.
That's exactly what mil-spec means.


The military lays out those specs to assure uniformity of parts, not merely in interchangeability, but in performance and long-term durability.

A frame may be (as an example) specced to be 4140 forged steel because the physical properties & performance of 4140 steel are long-established & well known.

On a hypothetical government contract let out to more than one maker, or a long-term contract with one maker, having a 4140 spec means we don't have to worry about what steel grade/formulation/alloy may be used by a maker.

We don't have to worry about Maker A using 4140 carbon, Maker B using 420 stainless, Maker C using a very cheap casting, or Maker D using compressed tinfoil.

There are, just like forged steel, several variations in cast receiver materials.
A properly-done cast part can be perfectly fine in carrying out the same functions as a forged counterpart.
A poorly-done cast part may show very crude "form", with rounded corners & edges & angles where they should be "sharp" or square, wavy lines, improper dimensions in critical areas, and so on.

It may use a lesser grade of material.
The heat treat may be less than needed.
It may be too soft & wear too soon, with a much shorter working life than a forged counterpart.
It may be brittle & crack early on.

A non-mil-spec cast part is simply an unknown part.
There are no existing standards to assure quality & duration.

A gove contract without established and enforceable specs, whether from one maker or several, runs the risk of getting a wide range of materials' quality.
Each maker may do whatever they choose to do in cutting costs, and without established standards even a single maker that starts out high may switch to low quality to save money halfway through a contract run.

DO NOT RUN OFF ON A TANGENT WITH WHAT I'M SAYING HERE.
I AM NOT stating or implying in any way that the current Inlands are low quality, or that they use inferior materials, parts, or processes.

I AM ONLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF MIL-SPEC REGARDING OTHER COMMENTARY ON THE SUBJECT.

Cast parts in an M1 carbine are simply not mil-spec.
Beginning, end, done.
That's it, that's all.

Don't quote me in defending or attacking cast parts in this gun, or the quality or lack there-of in this gun.
I take no position on either side.
Denis
 
Last edited:
DPris has an extremely valid point. Milspec and Milgrade literally mean nothing in terms of quality. It is simply the measurements they are made to and a few other specifications. I.E. in terms of barrel, the twist and whatnot. For example, the commercial spec and milspec AR15 Magpul stocks are EXACTLY the same build quality, they simply fit onto two different buffer tube sizes. I would honestly argue that milspec has no longer durability than the civilian versions of firearms. There is generally extremely negligible difference between when these companies make them for the military or for civilian use. They often come off of the same exact production line just have different trigger groups.

All "Milspec" is is a marketing technique used by companies because "oooh milspec". I was in the Army for 7 years and you come to realize it is no better or worse than anything you can get on the civilian market.

That being said, its an M1 Carbine and who doesn't want one of those?
 
I disagree with Dpris.
The M1 Carbine was built to a high standard by people when knew the gun they made could well end up in the hands of their brother, husband, father, etc
The specifications went far beyond what Dpris describes, and furthermore, the quality control was extreme...to the point that one contractor lost its contract due to their poor performance.
 
That contractor must have been Universal. I owned one. What a piece of junk, even with the best of magazines. It will be interesting to see what happens with this carbine revival. Bringing back a discontinued model of a gun has really been hit or miss in the US.
 
AM,
What do you disagree with?

I presented a simplistic version of what mil-spec means.

Those specs, for generations, have been designed to place the most consistent quality & dependability in the hands of our service people.

Denis
 
Well, I guess I disagree with the conclusion Ripon made from your post that "mil spec" is meaningless and a marketing tool.

Universal was never a government contractor, though they began by using surplus parts.

Regardless, GI carbines were built to a high standard by people who cared, and mil spec in this case has real meaning. Even after service, my Inland was rebuilt by people who knew what they were doing, to mil spec...upgraded parts and new parts as needed.
 
Commercial copies of USGI firearms fall into one of two categories: they're either (1) unreliable junk, not worth your money, or (2) they perform acceptably and passably but without the market value and historical significance associated with the real-deal mil-spec originals.

One example of the latter was the short run of non-mil M1 Garands that Springfield Armory Inc. churned out some 10-15 years ago, built on commercial cast receivers. The one I handled that a buddy bought functioned fine and it shot okay, but it wasn't a true USGI M1 and was less accurate at 200yds than my genuine S.A. M1 with WW2 serial-numbered receiver, all S.A. parts, and a 1950 barrel.
 
I guess I was not clear.

Mil-spec is far from meaningless.
It ensures a consistent quality level, and not just in minor areas like AR buffer tube sizes.

It was intended to create a proven level of dependable quality in fighting weapons for military use across many manufacturers of the same product.
Which it did, and for the reasons I gave earlier.

When I said I was not taking a position on quality, I was referring strictly to the cast parts in current Inland M1 carbines.

Those may or may not be adequate to their intended function.

Mil-specs ARE important, and go much farther than mere interchangeability, as also mentioned previously.
Denis
 
Some of the best weapons in the world have been built for the U.S. Army. Some of the worst weapons in the world have been built for the U.S. Army. Not all the M1 Carbines built for the military were problem free.
 
Dpris,

I appreciate the clarification on the methods being included as part of the milspec.

Lets hope the inland m1 meets or where different exceeds the spec and does well. I think there is a demand that needs to be filled beyond that which the quantity and condition of the 70 year old surplus firearms can meet.

When I first started buying firearms, the 1898 antiques were 70 years old. Not really making any point, just reminiscing, how the decades fly. Well, that and maybe old stuff wears out.
 
Mil-spec quality can, of course, be exceeded.
Mil-spec is not a guarantee of "best quality available".
Mil-spec does mean uniformity at whatever quality level the speccing military has determined it needs, after some form of testing protocols have been carried out.

It's an indication that a military entity that will knowingly be using such specs in battle has tested & established certain requirements based on parameters designed to ensure as closely as possible the best practical performance characteristics for each part.

Essentially- THEY'VE done the major part of the performance testing, not the end user.
As with any design in any mechanical device, actual beta use "in the field" can occasionally show minor deficiencies unforeseeable during the initial R&D phase.

In the M1 Carbine's case, between 1940 & 1945 (just to pick a handful of years) the carbine went through minor modifications as field use in various theatres brought up issues.
Mil-specs can & do change as necessary, but they still maintain standards.

In the commercial market, from the Universals & the Iver Johnsons of the 1970s on through various other private labels to today, there were & are no standards.

Each company has been free to set its own specs & run with its own processes, and the three key factors inherent to those offerings has been that the guns function with their own internally-specced parts (not to be necessarily interchangeable with any other commercial brand's guns), don't blow up, and do make a profit for the maker.

The commercial M1 Carbine has been & is driven by a for-profit model, not a win-the-war-for-Peggy-Sue-waiting-back-home model.

The commercial M1 Carbine has never been required to meet government specs or acceptance, only the capitalistic market acceptance.

The consumer has replaced the military inspector, and as a result the commercial maker only has to produce a gun that works well enough to satisfy enough consumers in a totally different role to keep sales rolling along.

Today's market buys the M1 Carbine for fun, nostalgia, occasionally for limited defensive applications, and/or possibly some hunting use.

Today's market will not be toting a commercial M1 Carbine through battlefield extremes around the world, the gun will not be required to run through hell, highwater, multiple re-issued users, or be rebuilt at a field facility using a standard stock of "reach into the parts bin & grab one" repair system that has to use parts that largely drop right in (with minimal hand fitting) regardless of which company made the gun.

Most commercials will not be ridden hard & put away wet.
Most commercials will fire a few rounds a year, in good weather, and be leisurely taken to a local gunsmith for repairs if something busts.

All of this means that with a mil-spec gun, in general you pretty much know what you're getting, which is the purpose & intent behind military specs.
With a commercial non-mil-spec gun, you don't.

This DOES NOT MEAN I'M SAYING Mil-Spec=Perfect/Non-Mil-Spec=Junk.

I've owned both the old Universal & the old Iver Johnson.
Both had problems.

I've owned a Fulton, world of difference.
You do get what you pay for in the commercial M1 Carbine market.

There have been other makers over the years that have put out non-mil-spec carbines, with varying levels of success.

The Inlands are still going through birthing pains & their non-mil-spec offerings are still unproven.

Only time, and the market, will tell the tale there, as it has with other commercials in the past 40 years.

I'm again here addressing the concept of "mil-spec", NOT the quality of the new Inlands.
Denis
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top