What Are Correct Sling Well Marks for Inland 94,000 SN/11-42 Bbl date Carbine?

[Ironlip]

Just got a really nice early Inland. Metal is great, and all correct, but the stock is what Larson describes as a very early Quality Hardware; large Ordnance belted crossed canons on the right (so it looked like an Inland) marked RMC in the silng well.

War Baby and Larson describe different correct marks. IO with or without Ordnance bomb for WB while Larson says both should be present in this range perhaps with a letter A for 95,000 and below.

What is the view here on the board? Bomb or not? Letter A or not?

And does anybody have a lead on a correct excellent condition, I cut, unsanded, original finish, properly marked stock? The handguard it came with is fine, though a correct set with wear marks that matched up would be ideal.

[Tuna]

The correct stock would be one marked with OI in the sling well with or without the bomb. High wood I cut of course. Inland did not use Rock-Ola stocks while Quality Hardware did. I myself would not use Larson's book as he uses pictures of fake parts in it and he of course is reported as selling those same fake parts. A circled proof P on the bottom of the grip would be the only other letter on the stock.

[kar66]

Inland did use some RMC stocks, but I don't think it was that early. I have one marked RMC-I, however it has been though rebuild and cut to low-wood. I think in the Carbine Club Newsletters they list them as being used in the 2,9--,--- era carbines.

[Ironlip]

Tuna and kar66 thanks for your input. After I posted last night I was looking through some closed auctions on gunbroker and came across this one:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=362708427

That rifle is very close in time to mine, has a lot of the same components and it has an RMC marked stock. What is very different however, is the fact that the stock in the auction is not only marked RMC in the well but also has an I mark there. In addition, it has a circled P on the pistol grip. I am more inclined to view that stock as orginal than mine which lacks those marks, particularly the circled P. Since that was a proof firing mark at the time mine was made I can think of no good reason for it to be missing if the stock on my rifle is original to the rest of the gun.

The search goes on

[Tuna]

The one on GB is not correct. It is at least a restoration and I question the rear sight on it. The RMC stock use by Inland is still in question by some collectors. They feel the stocks were not used by Inland but by SG with the I being a number 1. I don't know if I believe that but I am still not sure about Inland using RMC stocks that early in production.

[jimb]

Look at the marking on the front sight too. That is also wrong and the front sight has been removed at least once. The staking has been pushed out. The welds on the barrel band don't look quite right either. It could be a repop.

[bruce381]

LOL I like the picture that shows everything apart with a multitude of finishes and wear marks