Early Inland questions

[John C]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=390161480

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=391364213

I'm looking at the above 2 early Inland carbines hopefully adding 1 of them to my collection. Just seeking the advice from carbine owners on here, is there anything bad or wrong that is seen on either of these? What is correct or incorrect with either. Do the stocks looks to be original?

Thanks;
John

[Embalmer]

first one stock was sanded, and stamps kinda look redone, but im no expert on stamps. 2nd one looks nice.

[Tuna]

Both of those carbines have been put together. The first is so wrong. The barrel is wrong for the serial number being it was made about October 1942 but had a December barrel date? The acceptance stamp is fake. The bolt is one much later then the serial number. There are other things wrong but one gets the picture. The seller is know by carbine collectors as a maker of fakes. The second one has some fake parts and late parts on it. I would question the rear sight and the slide is a much later one. Buyer beware with both of these.

[John C]

Thanks members for the help, this is the information I'm looking for before proceding with a purchase.

[Underwood]

Another thing not mentioned is that the handguard on the 42 Inland has what looks like a crack running down the middle left side. Other than that, they both look nice but not correct.

[boykin]

Stock should be "I" cut on 42 carbine and have a P proof.