View Full Version : ?'s about a 6.7 million Inland
Hi guys
I recently located a 6.7 Inland which I stuck on lay away at a local store. I have some questions about a few parts though as I've been out of carbines for a while.
The rifle is a 6.7 million, with a 12-44 barrel. The rifle appears to be original finish, and has the "1" in "M1"hand stamped.. It looks "text book" correct, except for a few parts, which while correct looking are throwing me off..
The type 3 band is unmarked from what I see. The "p" proof is in front of the type 3 band, and appears burnished, but I dont see any markings on the band itself. The rear sight (a milled adjustable) doesn't have any markings on it, neither does the front sight (no "N" or other markings) that I see.
The stock is an Inland M2 stock as well. It is marked in the sling well "HI" and has the large Inland wheel on the right side, but the M2 cut is present and the stock is a potbelly.
Any ideas? I know it is hard without seeing the rifle, but any help is appreciated.
Greg
If the barrel band has been change if it's unmarked and it seems that it has, then the front sight most likely has been too. A correct milled type 2 rear sight should be marked PI or HI. While your barrel may be original ( first in the bin and last one out.) it could also be a replacement. Your serial number would date to about Feb.1945 and by that time barrel and receiver out put were in the same time frame so one who think a 1-45 or 2-45 barrel would be correct.
Hey guys
I went back and took a few more pics (not as good as I would have hoped..need a new camera..lol) and looked at a few more things..
The rifle is actually in the 6,670,xxx range
The stock is NOT a pot belly..it is Inland type 3 and has the M2 cut though. The stock is marked "HI" in the sling well and has the large Inland ordnance wheel.
The band IS marked "KI" but it is faint and harder to see...
The front sight doesn't appear to be marked that I could see. It appears to milled
The rear sight is also milled and I couldn't see any markings on it either. It is correctly staked though.
The rest of the internals are correct.
The rifle is definitely a "hand stamp"
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r306/ls6man/023_zps307690c3.jpg
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r306/ls6man/021_zpsbab98cad.jpg
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r306/ls6man/019_zpsfb0f681c.jpg
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r306/ls6man/016_zps136478fc.jpg
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r306/ls6man/012_zpsc5ae73d1.jpg
The barrel band being marked KI would indicate it's original. The front sight should be marked N or R. It looks like a typical Niedner made sight which is correct for Inland. Look behind the blade for a faint marking. But I do not believe the rear sight is original to your carbine. There were times during 1945 that Inlands production was higher then their contractors could produce adjustable rear sights and they would use the old flip sight till new shipments of the adjustable sights would come in. I am thinking that your rear sight is a replacement for an flip sight. If your stock is not a pot belly and the cut for the M2 selector appears to be factory done it's a type 4 stock. The barrel channel in the front should be an inch longer then the type 3 stock so if it's 4 inches + it is a type 4 stock.
Just curious but couldnt the rear sight just be a part which just wasn't stamped..for whatever reason? I guess is it better to leave it alone or replace it with a part marked "PI"? I will also look at the stock channel and see what the measurement is.
It could be as far as the rear sight but something is not quite right with it to me. I have seen this type sight before and it was not on an Inland. I just cannot remember what it is about this unmarked sight.
I may be wrong but the hand guard appears to be a very early wide groove type .
Embalmer
08-12-2013, 04:31
Hand guard is early 2 rivet deep grove
And like many of the early ones it's cracking. The hand guard is not right for this carbine. Should be a type 3 four rivet hand guard.
It could be a FILO piece...
No the time frame is way to long between the early type you have and the later correct ones. Well over a full year time difference between the two.
I'm not sure if the handguard is original to the rifle or not...but I wouldnt simply discredit it based on the time frame..FILO, FIFO, etc. explains how this can happen. Case in point..I've owned a '70 LS6 Chevelle where the engine assembly date and car assembly date were the same week, and I've also owned one where the time frame was out of the normal 0-3 month window but the engine was the born with block. This happens all the time in manufacturing. Keep in mind no one at Inland was thinking ahead to 2013 and some rifle they were assembling being collectible.
It is the type of thinking that you are advocating IMO that leads many original cars or guns to be "restored" incorrectly with original as manufactured parts to be removed and a more "text book" correct part added.
Just saying
I have a 6,673,xxx Inland receiver with no Type 2/3 rear sight staking marks. I did put a 12-44 Inland barrel on it that had the original KI Type 3 band and Neidner (N) front sight. I believe the receiver was probably manufactured in December 1944 or January 1945.
Most likely January 1945 for a 6.6 million Inland. As to the time frame with parts. You have to realize the speed that parts were used in making carbines. With such a large time frame there was no way an early hand guard was sitting in a bin for over a year. A month or two maybe but not over a year. When your carbine in the 6.7 range was made do you have any idea how many carbines a day Inland was making? About 4500 each day which translates to about 90,000 a month. And you really think a hand guard got FILO in a bin for over a year? You would have better odds playing the lottery.
I'm aware of how many rifles were being made..I've been collecting these things for a while...just not over the last 13 years.. and honestly I'm more of a German/Garand/03 guy. I'm also aware even the most experienced collector has looked at MAYBE .5% of the total number manufactured (and that is probably being WAY too generous) of truly original rifles and therefore the vast majority of what we "know" are assumptions based on the absurdly low number of truly original rifles viewed.
I'm not saying the handguard is original to the receiver...no way to tell really, but to automatically discount it based on the fact it doesnt fit into your "box" as to what is known isn't the right way IMO either.. Case in point @1997 I was on here (well the 03 section) chatting with Big Larry (where did he go BTW??) about a 1903 Springfield I was trying to pick up. This rifle had all the hall marks of being a Unertl equipped rifle..right serial range, "O" and "E" blocks, milled handguard with chatter, punch on the bottom of the barrel, filed guard, star gauge, etc....EXCEPT it was in a type "S" stock. I called Larry and we chatted. Long story short...I bought the rifle and after doing some detective work...we both determined the rifle was legit and was actually used with the type "S"..based on preference of some Marine RT member and that was how it was converted. A lot of guys based on your idea would have discounted the rifle as a fake or worse..switched the stock to a pre-war type C with NM number to make it "text book" correct...
My point is since no one on this board was there..and we can't say with 100% certainity (ie: the part wasn't made yet) it couldnt happen...sometimes you just leave it alone..same with cars as these..
Greg
Carbines are NOT 03's and there is a big difference between them. 6.2 million made in less then four years by eleven different makers. Hundreds of different sub contractors and a committee that oversaw all production and improvements. Production was everything with carbines. Get them made and delivered ASAP. Parts did not stay in bins for very long and sometimes those bins were all empty as the parts were slow in getting to those makers. As I said you cannot compare the 03 to the carbine. Production was completely different.
Mr. Ruth is still around. He just published his latest update on War Baby. If you want to get into collecting carbines then I suggest you get a copy of War baby and read it from cover to cover. I think you will have a better understanding of what it took to make over 6 million carbines.
I realize carbines are not 03's....and I'm familiar with their manufacturer. I'm also familiar with lateral support and have spoken to Larry Ruth on numerous occaisions..have both of his books and ordered the 3rd book this week. I never said I was "new" to collecting carbines...just that I'd been out of it for about 13 years. I sold off a pretty large US and German collection in the late '90's and early 2000 to move back into muscle cars. I've owned most of the carbine manufacturers but concentrated on Inland and had at various points very early, early, mid, and late feature rifles (including M1A1's). When I sold off everything in 2000 a few of the M1A1's brought over $5k apiece..and went into big collectors hands off here. So while I have been away for a while..and want a refresher course as the information on the 'net has greatly increased.. I'm not brand new to this..
My whole point is even Duff, Canfield, or Ruth hasn't seen enough rifles to make 100% definative statements about some things and having an open mind and looking at everything as a whole sometimes is the best way. I would agree it is unlikely the handguard for this rifle is original to the serial...but then again who knows...I (nor you I believe) wasn't assembling them at Inland.
BTW.."Big Larry" isn't Larry Ruth..it is Larry Reynolds who back in the mid-late '90's was a very senior member on CSP (while more of a '03/Garand/shotgun guy...he had a great carbine collection)..maybe that was before your time???
This has become a useless thread.
My whole point simply was if you only rely on a text book to evaluate a rifle..carbine or not..then you run the risk of replacing an original as manufactured part with a "text book" correct part which wasn't on the rifle in the first place..There are things such as wear patterns, looking for information from other rifles close to serial, etc..that should also be used. Whether you want to admit it or not..as you pointed out there were over 6 million carbines made..and how many truly original rifles has Ruth, Canfield, the carbine club, etc looked at and evaluated..MAYBE 30,000 (and that is probably WAY high)..so collectively maybe .005% of all the rifles made. Sort of puts it into perspective, at least for me..
If by me making that point it offends you...I'm sorry..but if so then you need to really get out of collecting IMO. This thread didn't apparently become "useless" until I made a point you didn't like. It is funny...Maybe this particular board hasn't changed that much in 13 years..then it was largely made up of the old "Gun and Knife" guys and "outsiders" used to complain about the secrecy of it or the apparent if "so and so" says something..it is gospel mentality..Lately I've heard from guys on other boards that attitude is still here...maybe so...the jury is out on that for me..
I'm sure some one learns from each thread posted..I know I do...so to me this or any thread isn't "useless" as I'm by no means an "expert" or "guru"
Thank you though for the information and whether you believe it or not...I appreciate your post and the insight
Just so you know I have been collecting carbines since 1972. I have or had in my collection early and late Inlands including M1A1's. Early and late Winchesters including a four digit Winchester. An IP that is all original IP as well as all of the other makers of the carbine. I have or had firearms from all of the countries that fought in WW2. Some have been sold or trade to improve my collection as most collectors do. If you think I just rely on books or CC news letters your vastly mistaken. Every single book and the CC has errors in them. I have been fortunate to have very good relationships with many dealers and have looked at and noted many firearms they have gotten in and there have been surprises in some of them. But to tell me that in your opinion I should get out of collecting is quite insulting and yes you are very opinionated. My mistake was to try and get you to see something that was out of place and in reality you know it is out of place but have decided to argue it with what if. Well I will not argue with you and as I said before this thread has become useless. Hope you have a good weekend.
No one is arguing "what if" as whether or not the handgaurd left the factory on that carbine or not..you nor I will truly ever know. Will I change it...who knows...if I want a "text book" rifle..then "yeah" but I have others for that...it is a solid rifle regardless. My whole point was simply that dismissing something based on it not fitting a book or what is commonly known or accepted is wrong.
Ever seen a Remington '03 marked "03a3?" I have..true transitional rifle...do the books even show it? "Nope"...yet know the guy well who sold it a few years ago and got a chance to inspect it..Stuff does happen as these were never meant to be "collectible."
As far as my comment...it was my opinion...and last I looked I was allowed to have one. If you didn't like it or it bothered you that much..sorry. BTW..I didnt take offense to your opinion...just how you presented it. We can agree to disagree.
Johnny in Texas
08-18-2013, 04:54
Nothing is ever 100% in this type situation but i'm sure anyone could theorize a way an Underwood barrel got on a late inland or anything else for that matter. What if the production manager at Inland needed to get one more carbine made to get a big bonus and they were short one hand guard so he went to the testing range and removed on from a test gun that was sitting in a rack not being used. That could have happened but is very unlikely. We will probably here that story repeated sometime in the future as well as many other theories.
jimmyzwei
08-19-2013, 06:13
and they were short one hand guard so he went to the testing range and removed on from a test gun that was sitting in a rack not being used. That could have happened but is very unlikely.
Actually the scenario is not that far fetched, just being able to prove it to provide provenance is.
While manufacturing Howitzers, I have actually directed that parts be removed from a test gun to be used to make the monthly schedule of a new production gun (18 months of "on time" delivery record at stake). Parts were replaced on test gun the next week, but had we waited for them we would not have made the previous months delivery. Now proving that it happened is another story, which is why it happened in the first place.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.