Standard Products M1 Carbine
- Thread starter trailtoy
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
somd_mustangs
-----
- Jul 1, 2012
- 5,735
Import mark + probably "updated" and mixed parts?
Sure it's one of the "rarer" mfg but since it's an import it won't bring more than shooter $$ IMHO.
If by some miracle it escaped upgrades and still has original SP parts then it'll bump it up some.
gut feeling is $800-ish but if you see it on a grey blanket it might double that
Sure it's one of the "rarer" mfg but since it's an import it won't bring more than shooter $$ IMHO.
If by some miracle it escaped upgrades and still has original SP parts then it'll bump it up some.
gut feeling is $800-ish but if you see it on a grey blanket it might double that
Not necessarily. Inland is an appropriate barrel for a Standard Products. Unlike some manufacturers like inland Standard Products heavily used the contractor pool. There really isn't something that is a "correct" carbine. Though certain manufactures combos are correct or not correct. The post WWII rebuilds further complicated this by adding new parts and mixing up older parts.
I generally look at it this way
True Correct: WWII as issued, barrel receiver combo correct for the era (e.g., SP/Marlin, SP/Inland would be correct) pushbutton safety, no bayo lug, flip site, you can get down to barrel bands.
Everything else: I consider correct having a receiver and barrel combo that is right with the barrel being WWII dated.
http://m1family.com/a-little-history-of-standard-products-and-its-carb-t26.html
Correct bayo lugs were post ware rebuilds. That's why ones with early features are so rare.
Yup. Though isn’t the flip safety a late war change?
For instance, my Inland Carbine has an Inland Barrel and basically everything else stamped Inland. Barrel and receiver are within about 2 months of each other for manufacture date, so likely they are original to each other. It has a kensight rear sight however as the old flip sight is lost to the vagaries of time. Otherwise I am almost positive it was as issued and never arsenal refurbished. Original (or correct) Barrel band without bayonet luv, push button safety, etc.
But Inland made all of the parts and generally used all of their own parts. Most of the small guys didn’t.
I think that's correct. What I have heard is that the adjustable sight started being installed post the 5 million mark on Inland. See attached link. You are correct, if any M1 will be "uniform" in manufacturer its Inland and Winchester.
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/for...ww2-m1-carbine-picture-adjustable-rear-sight/
This is a classic example of why early featured M1s go for so much money. Not only is it confusing almost all were converted. Most exiting GIs (they way I have heard) didn't see a reason to buy theirs (as opposed to a more useful gun for hunting or home defense) most went back into Uncle Sam's locker and were hence reordinanced. The only other legitimate path I can think of for original configurations is those that might have been loaned out for occupation purposes.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
Carbines generally seem to have a much higher proportion wearing their original barrels than Garands and '03 rifles. Carbine ammunition was always specified to be non-corrosive where .30-06 was corrosive until the 1950s so there was less chance of a corroded bore.
Regardless of whether the carbine you have has seen rebuilding it's still a M1 Carbine and a piece of history...as well as possible Israeli history. Enjoy it for what it is.
Regardless of whether the carbine you have has seen rebuilding it's still a M1 Carbine and a piece of history...as well as possible Israeli history. Enjoy it for what it is.
You also have much lower powder charges and velocities. So barrel erosion is going to be a lot lower. I’d assume on the scale of tens of thousands of rounds versus several thousand rounds that a Garand “can take”.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (17 Viewers)- Latest: BurkeM
-
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (17 Viewers)- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 26
-
-
-
-
