Well, I fixed it.

You know how there's guys that will see a brown recluse and call the exterminator, and then there's guys that will see one and burn the house down?

I'm that second guy.

Requested pics of the sight "installation"






And an example of how it "should" be on the Inland I bought to go with it.

Oi.

What a shame.

It looks Lymanesque, but someone really should not have done that.

Meh, it could be worse. Otherwise it's a pretty darn nice M1 Carbine, and I likes 'dem.

I want to follow up on those $350.00 M1 Carbines lyman mentioned...
Ain't none of them around these parts. It takes at least $700 to get out of the Frankenstein level ones.
I direly need a Underwood receiver for a rescue.

You are precisely correct, Arc. Especially since it seems like many - if not all - of the parts inside are Winchester as well. (I'm still learning my markings on these). I mean, it's not like somebody took a hack-saw to it, but it would be better if somebody had not done that to a Winchester.

I took my issue of buying or passing to my gunshop owning friend down the road, to get some more info. In the course of explaining it, and hearing his advice, he mentioned he had one. Not "correct", but a decent Inland that was obviously re-stocked that he would sell me at a reasonable price. It was a deal I couldn't pass up, so I bought it. And then went and bought the Winchester anyway. Cause I'm dumb like that. I figured maybe shoot them both, see which is better, put the best parts on the best shooter, and sell the other as a re-stocked mix-master.

But in all reality, I'll probably just keep 'em both.

Thanks to everybody for the advice, opinions, and information on these rifles.

It is interesting that your new carbine with a late sight, has a flat bolt...

The bastard sight has a round bolt, OK, but who cares because Bubboom.

It is also worth noting that M1 Carbines were not built "parts correct" so such is irrelevant. Not that it didn't happen, it just has no bearing on a "correct" carbine.

I believe (or have been told) that round bolts were later production - perhaps in re-arsenal? - because some of the flat bolts were cracking.

Of course the bayo lug means they were probably both re-arsenaled (is that a word?) after the second world war, but I'm pretty sure the Winchester - because of the low serial - was a WWII era gun. Not as sure - or as familiar - with the Inlands.

If it ever stops being colder than well digger's ankles here, I'll take them to the farm and see if either one will shoot straight.

M1 Carbines are a rabbit hole, in a variety of ways.

The late sight should also accompany a round bolt, generally. The bayo band, sight, and round bolt are all improvements gathered for oh, Korea.

The round bolt was really due to the M3.

You can also look at the stocks of each, to try to glean more info.

The late sight is what you want anyway, early sights are shit.

As far as what is "correct," it is not at all just "matching."

Replace all the springs. Get some fresh magazines. Don't worry about anything else.

As far as Mr. Grindy, I'd get an Ultimak rail and red dot for that bad boy.

quote:

The round bolt was really due to the M3.

Are you referencing the night sight version, or another M3?

If the former, did they have the rear sight turned down to accommodate the scope/night equipment? Just a thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Rinehart:
Meh, it could be worse. Otherwise it's a pretty darn nice M1 Carbine, and I likes 'dem.

I want to follow up on those $350.00 M1 Carbines lyman mentioned...
Ain't none of them around these parts. It takes at least $700 to get out of the Frankenstein level ones.
I direly need a Underwood receiver for a rescue.

if you reread my post, I mentioned I would not pay full boat, maybe 1/2 for that one,

as it sets, it may be worth $350 in parts, or more, depending on how they are marked,


and yes, prices are stupid for some, however I have picked up and sold some beater Blue Sky's for almost that cheap,



re that underwood, I may have some coming to me from a collection, (receivers) if I get an underwood, I'll reach out,

also check James River, they had a bunch of different receivers listed not that long ago on the parts page of their website, not sure if they still do or not

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Oi.

What a shame.

It looks Lymanesque, but someone really should not have done that.

hey!!

I got nothing in this!!


(it's a Williams, as mentioned in the OP)

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
M1 Carbines are a rabbit hole, in a variety of ways.

The late sight should also accompany a round bolt, generally. The bayo band, sight, and round bolt are all improvements gathered for oh, Korea.

The round bolt was really due to the M3.

You can also look at the stocks of each, to try to glean more info.

The late sight is what you want anyway, early sights are shit.

As far as what is "correct," it is not at all just "matching."

Replace all the springs. Get some fresh magazines. Don't worry about anything else.

As far as Mr. Grindy, I'd get an Ultimak rail and red dot for that bad boy.

remember, the upgrades (Sight and Bayo lug) were one thing, if it had a flat bolt and it was in spec, it was left during rebuilds, and the upgrade to adj rear and bayo

not all were tossed for rounds, and the round were primarily for the M2 conversions


and yes, Carbine Collectors are probably the most OCD collector out there,

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
. . . the round were primarily for the M2 conversions

This. The purpose of the round bolt was to slow the rate of automatic fire in the M2. With the advent of the M2, the round bolt became standard for both late production M1 as well as M2 Carbines.

It looks like an aftermarket stock as well, but in it's condition as a shooter only, it really doesn't matter.

quote:

Originally posted by jaybirdaccountant:
It looks like an aftermarket stock as well, but in it's condition as a shooter only, it really doesn't matter.

Which? The Winchester? I thought that was a legit stock.

If you mean the Inland, I agree. I'm about 99% sure that's a repro' stock, but I thought the Winchester was correct for the era.

Just to clarify, the darker wood on the left is the Winchester with the turned down rear sight. The lighter wood with the correct sight on the right is the Inland.

The Winchester is in a high wood stock. That all by itself is worth a bit 'O coin.

A recent American Riflsman issue had a short story on a Winchester carbine with the same rear sight. It must have been somewhat common back in the day.

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:

quote:

Originally posted by jaybirdaccountant:
It looks like an aftermarket stock as well, but in it's condition as a shooter only, it really doesn't matter.

Which? The Winchester? I thought that was a legit stock.

If you mean the Inland, I agree. I'm about 99% sure that's a repro' stock, but I thought the Winchester was correct for the era.

Just to clarify, the darker wood on the left is the Winchester with the turned down rear sight. The lighter wood with the correct sight on the right is the Inland.

Sorry, I was looking at the Inland with the hardwood stock. I should have realized that from the sight, but wasn't passing good enough attention!

quote:

A recent American Riflsman issue had a short story on a Winchester carbine with the same rear sight.

If you could tell me which issue, I'd really like to place a WTB ad for a copy of the magazine. That would be a nice bit of kit to keep with the rifle for my kids to have someday.

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:

quote:

A recent American Riflsman issue had a short story on a Winchester carbine with the same rear sight.

If you could tell me which issue, I'd really like to place a WTB ad for a copy of the magazine. That would be a nice bit of kit to keep with the rifle for my kids to have someday.

I may still have it. If I do it's yours.