I had a chance to get my hands on one of the new-production M1 Carbines being sold by MKS Supply under the Inland trademark. These guns have gotten a lot of press recently, and I have been interested in how they might perform. The original M1 Carbine has an interestingly mixed reputation – GIs tended to either love them or hate them.
The action on an M1 Carbine does not inspire a lot of confidence when cycled – they always sound pretty rickety. However, they are fantastically handy rifles to carry, and have virtually no felt recoil, making them great recreational guns. The question is, how will it handle a 2-gun action challenge match?
I will have a more complete review of the Inland gun in a couple weeks, along with a Rock-Ola brand reproduction from James River Armory.
That looked like an awesome amount of fun. I’ve not had the chance to shoot in over 10 years.
My father has a folding stock original Inland carbine he carried as a deputy sheriff for 30 years. Never seen it shot so I don’t know how it would perform.
Was the weight carrying and the running back and forth part of the challenge to add physical factors like muscle tremors and breathing to the match?
Thanks for another great video.
I wonder if the USGI mag springs are worn out because looserounds did not have any trouble. The USGI sliding sight on my carbine is fairly tight and I wonder if the reproduction sights are not as good. According to a thread on milsurps they source some of their parts from the same place as auto ordnance which does not have the best reputation. http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=53708
Didn’t the STG-44 have similar magazine reliability issues?
Can’t wait for the JRA carbine review. Do you plan on doing a review on a an original? Thanks for all the quality videos I have learned a lot from them
Did some more reading and it sounds like they have the parts made to their specs and are not necessarily identical in quality to Auto Ordnance.
Sorry, didn’t link the right page it should be page 4 of the thread. But it sounds like early production had some bugs and that they fixed the bolt issue
Sheesh, Ian. I was wincing and cringing every time you lobbed the 62lb. kettle bell! That is going to absolutely wreck your lower back, bro! Please consider a different physical exertion to add to your “practical rifle” matches! I’m thinking you might do a traditional shot put? Lobbed from the shoulder after a wind-up? Or how about a traditional hammer throw or even a Scottish caper toss? Everyone appreciates the effort, but safety first!
As for the much-maligned carbine, I’ve got two of the original Inlands. Reliability is the only complaint I have against the carbine, and in my case, it simply means changing out worn parts. A great little rifle. Fun to shoot, low recoil, great for introductory marksmanship as a step up from a .22.
Thanks for the video. Been very curious about these. Just saw the folding stock version reviewed on American Rifleman TV and they seemed happier with thiers. I fired an M1 carbine as a kid. One of the first guns I ever fired. Been kind of in love with it ever since. I don’t expect I’ll ever pick one up though unless the price happens to be low. A grand is too much to pay for something like this IMHO.
I hope to use my Federal tax refund to get one of these. I have an Iver Johnson made in 1984 and it’s a fun and accurate little gun, but I’ve had to replace many parts. Most recently the bolt, after noticing considerable peening. Fortunately, it takes GI surplus parts, in this case the round bolt.
“The action on an M1 Carbine does not inspire a lot of confidence when cycled – they always sound pretty rickety.”
BTW:
http://www.nramuseum.org/the-museum/the-galleries/world-war-i-and-firearms-innovation/case-57-world-war-i-allies-the-world-at-war,-1914-1918/wwi-secret-weapon-the-pedersen-device.aspx
When Army tested Pedersen device they consider that it is more silent than M1903 Springfield as a drawback, because they thought that enemy will fear less.
“The original M1 Carbine has an interestingly mixed reputation – GIs tended to either love them or hate them.”
Are documented cases where that gun failed despite being properly maintained? So far I know it is mechanically reliable (i.e. make BANG when trigger squeezed). If it is so I suspect that negative reputation is from GI which attempt to use it as rifle (at too big range for .30 Carbine).
I heard that one of drawback of M1 Carbine design is hard extractor replacement process. It is true or not? Anyway I assume that was armorer job, not soldier, or I am wrong?
Many modern reproduction magazines cause problems. Original 15 round mags and good-quality reproductions help a lot.
Here’s a nice bit of soldier opinion on the carbine:
“For all of his admiring opinions of the M1 rifle though, Parkinson has nothing complimentary to say about the M1 carbine. From the time the battalion first arrived in Korea in September until early November, he carried a carbine as the gun he would use when not firing the M20 3.5″ Rocket Launcher—also known as the “Super Bazooka.” During those weeks, his experience with that arm did not produce favorable memories: “The M1 carbine hardly ever worked,” he later recalled. Today, he even goes so far as to refer to it as “useless,” saying “it had no firepower.” One particular incident settled the issue for Parkinson once and for all. He fired four shots into an escaping enemy soldier, but the .30 Carbine bullets only made him stumble momentarily before he continued running. Another Marine then stepped forward with an M1 rifle and fired one shot that dropped the man like a sack of potatoes. With that, Parkinson grabbed his carbine by the barrel like a baseball bat and proceeded to bash it against a nearby tree until it was no longer serviceable. He then threw the shattered little rifle into a roadside ditch and shouted the words, “Piece of junk!” By the end of the day he had gone to a field hospital where spare M1 rifles could be found, and he never carried an M1 carbine again.”
Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/1/26/the-korean-wars-frozen-chosin/
From my personal experience, this little rifle was a lot more fun when you could get the ammo for next to nothing. ^__^
Audie Murphy.
As usual, I’m appalled at the opinions of those not only inexperienced with the item at hand, but mostly never even seen, much less touched one.
As a peculiar point, there were supposedly few if any M1 Carbines issued to Korean bound personnel, rather than the M2 (select fire fire version,) if at all. I mention this only because it’s usually a dead giveaway error that the item(s) in question had little if any relationships in real-life to the alleging user.
It’s well to remember the Carbine was designed and intended as a replacement for the 1911 and one might want to consider twhich selection while facing a “human-wave assault ” armed with a 7-shot 1911 or a 30 shot M1 Carbine.
Duh.
The idea that one would prefer a 3.5 Bazooka as a primary weapon over any firearm (even a 1911) is just plain silly and a product of pure video-game idiocy.
I know, as a designated (REAL) 3.5 Bazooka (misnomer) gunner, as issued, they’re really hard to hit anything with them.
Unless you count connecting on the first bounce, (which was how I became a designated Bazooka (misnomer) gunner, I would not recommend one unless the T34 was pretty much in the same hole you are. In any case, it was ( and is) about the best way for your next of kin to collect on your issue life-insurance policy.
Still, logically, a pretty silly comparison, 3.5 Bazooka vs M1 carbine, don’t you think?
Ian, it doesn’t look like the match was much fun. I don’t remember much of a requirement for cannonball lofting in my army. Is this a new requirement ?
But you did seem to do pretty well with the Carbine. As a long time owner of a 1943 variant, I can recommend either high-quality commercial or absolutely mil-spec your-own-personnel reloads for both reliability and accuracy. CMP has a good article on dealing with both. And that damn sight problem is a known issue, but not really much of a real problem….as long as you know about it. Any real combat troop knows…check everything…often.
There’s much to be said ( read) on the .30 Carbine subject, mostly bull****, and at best, anectdotal but most will be revealed when one compares the “Mighty” .357 Magnum, to the “Wimpy” .30 Carbine.
At a hundred yards.
Do the math.
Signed, an actual M1 Carbine user/shooter, and 3.5 Bazooka (Misnomer) gunner.
Preach it, Dave. There’s a vast body of “Army myth and legend” out there, and 99% of it is bogus.
Not to mention that destroying your service weapon (as this individual alleges he did, as he alleges he actually hit this Chinese fellow four times) in the face of the enemy remains potentially a death penalty offense under the UCMJ. In the Korean War they might have actually prosecuted it that way.
I wonder how far the four shots were fired at. Is it more like three misses and a Kentucky heart shot at over 300yards?
“From the time the battalion first arrived in Korea in September until early November”
This explain everything, so far I know, there was extreme cold winter. Weapons don’t work as intended because:
1) grease frozen
2) in cold temperature powder is weaker
It does affect not only M1 Carbine but other weapons too:
http://www.army.mil/article/47963/Combating_Cold_Korea/
Ha! Daweo, I am replacing an extractor as we speak, erm, well, type. I’ve had several stovepipe jams with my late 1943 Inland S.G. Saginaw, MI M1 carbine that went to Italy in 1963, and came back with a retrofitted swaged 1951 barrel.
Disassembly of the bolt requires a specialized tool. Other than that, the pin of the extractor holds all the other parts of the bolt in place: ejector, firing pin.
It was not too difficult with the correct tool.
M1 carbine has fewer parts than a Kalashnikov!
It was an Inland with me; just had trouble getting reliable ammo.
The after market 30 round mags suck and can be THE reason for malfunctions. I carried a Quality Hardware and Machine Carbine for 10 years before we got M16s. the 15 round military mags worked perfectly. I used Winchester 110 gr. HP exclusively for work and ball for fun. I won a couple of law enforcement 3 gun matches with that carbine.
The thing to remember about the carbine is that it was intended as a replacement for “pistols, submachine guns, and some shotguns” to quote the original RfP.
Edwin Tunis, in Weapons (1954), referred to it as “the pistol that looks like a rifle”, which is a fairly accurate definition.
The carbine cannot outshoot a full-grown rifle in a duel, if the opposing rifleman has the sense to stay far enough out that his range advantage counts. However, at the most frequent combat ranges (under 100 meters), the carbine generally has an advantage in firepower that outweighs the full-power rifle’s ballistic superiority.
As for the carbine vs. an opposing SMG, the SMG’s only real advantage is if the carbine is a semi-auto-only M1 instead of a selective-fire M2. The standard 110 grain hardball departs at about 1850 F/S for 840 FPE, and at its maximum effective range of about 300 yards it still is moving at about 1280 F/S for about 400 FPE. Or in other words, at three football fields’ distance it hits as hard as a 9mm or .45 does at the muzzle.
In many ways, the Carbine really falls into the category we now call a “PDW”. Although to a great extent, it can also be defined as the world’s first general issue automatic “assault rifle”.
cheers
eon
Your energy calculation favors the .30 Carbine a bit too much. WW2 9mm Parabellum SMG loads typically launched a 123 grain bullet at least about 1280 fps. Some were considerably hotter and reached up to 1400 fps at muzzle.
Nevertheless you are of course right, .30 Carbine was a fairly hot round and the M2 would have been a very good SMG in WW2, if it had been available with at least a 20 round magazine. However, it does not quite qualify as an assault rifle and certainly not as the first general issue one. Compared to 7.92mm Kurz the cartridge was too weak, and in any case the M2 Carbine was not really available in WW2.
Yes and more energy than a .357 mag out of a 16 to 18in barrel a 100 yards. I’ve heard many people poo poo the carbine as weak, but will deer hunt with a .357mag lever gun makes a lot of sence doesn’t it?
I’ve heard of these folks that hunt deer with .357 Mag. lever guns, but have never actually met one. I certainly wouldn’t take a gun like that to do any mule deer hunting in the western U.S. where the animals are large and the range is often quite long. Now, if the deer in your area aren’t much bigger than a large dog, and the encounters are Audie Murphy close, (like fist-fight distance), then you can go deer hunting with a .22 Long Rifle and bring down the animal.
No mule deer in my former home state of Indiana but they do have white tail deer. Most of the hunting is done in the woods from a tree stand. Most shots taken under 100yards, shotguns and slugs most common method. My best friend’s dad took a few deer with his .357 Marlin in Western Kentucky.
Here in OH, a .357 Magnum handgun is legal in deer gun season if it has at least a 6″ barrel and is loaded with at least a 158-grain bullet. According to my 2011 Gun Digest, a 165 grain .357 from an 8.375″ revolver leaves at 1290 F/S and 610 FPE. Most 158s are in the 550-580 FPE range from the longer barrel.
Most experts consider the 7.62 x 39mm marginal for deer, and 5.56 x 45mm to be not enough. Why the .357, which has less muzzle energy and downrange energy than either of those, is allowed escapes me.
cheers
eon
“deer”
We should start from maybe silly-sounding question: What a deer is? There are many deer species varying in size, please precise about which deer species are you thinking.
“Why the .357, which has less muzzle energy and downrange energy than either of those, is allowed escapes me.”
Maybe the intention was for coup de grâce?
You don’t need .357 Magnum for coup de grâce… .32 ACP is more than sufficient for that purpose as far as deer are concerned. In comparison, a modern high velocity .22 Short will penetrate an adult human skull quite easily at very close range.
Odocoileus Virginianus( white tailed deer) 1.8 to 2.4m length 50 to 136kg weight. Odocoileus hemionus (mule deer) 1.2 to 2.1m length 55 to 210kg weight. White tailed deer are the most popular big game in North America. West of the Missippi river flat shooting magnum cartridges are popular where the shots tend to be long. East of the Missippi where shots are in the woods and shorter, shorter range cartridges are more popular. I hope this helps to explain.
Tough course.
I picked a M1 Carbine up last year from CMP and was amazed how your comments mirror my experience with the gun. The elevation thing moves around on me. The best I could do to sight it in was a low 6 o’clock hold which works fairly well for me out to 100 yards (that’s the length of my range FWIW). A gentleman who know more about the carbines than I has informed me they are all difficult to sight in and it’s best to get close, learn your holds, and use Kentucky Windage. Reliability has been good for the most part, but if you don’t stop and add a little lube after about 125-150 rounds you start to have some real issues.
Overall for a 70 year old gun I’m thrilled. The thing is a blast to shoot. USPSA is starting a new division for pistol caliber carbines and when the rules come out I hope the .30 carbine round makes the cut. I think it would be fun to run one of these in a pistol match, but that’s a wait and see at this point. They may think .30 carbine is too hot for close steel targets.
Last night watched your Q&A over on Full30.com. Not that my opinion is really worth anything, but I’m going to have to agree with you on the AR15 & AK being about as good as it gets. The last few years I get excited in January when the new stuff gets announced only to later be let down when I see them. This year I thought the new Sig MCX with folding stock would be cool, but after getting my hands on one I noticed the stock was uncomfortable and length of pull was not right for me. Not that it’s a bad gun, but at the end of the day it’s not worth changing from an AR for me anyway. You really get a lot of bang for your buck with an AR15. Maybe the X95 will impress me who knows.
Thanks for all the great videos.
Many people who used the carbine were unhappy with the magazines. The reliability problems are usually based in the failure of the magazine. Consider , it was the first PDW, it was snapped up by our enemies and it’s still in service 75+ years later. Also it’s ammo in US issue was noncorroive. Other than the Ma Duce no other US WW2 small arm is still in use today. It’s so popular it’s being faithfully reproduced today.
In my experience the 15-round magazine rarely fails to feed, but the 30-round “banana clip” introduced with the M2 generally works better with only 25 rounds.
Similarly, the “30-round” M16 magazine only feeds consistently with 25 rounds. It turns out that it’s actually the original 25-round magazine introduced when Armalite first developed the rifle, but when soldiers in Vietnam asked for more firepower than the then-standard 20-round, some joker in Ordnance discovered that you could force 30 cartridges into the 25-rounder- and thus the “30-round M16A1 Magazine” was born.
The Bren 30-round works better with 28 in it, and the 30-round for the M15 HB version of the M14 (which few people have ever even seen) doesn’t feed correctly with more than 27.
Of course, the German “32-round” magazines for the MP38/40 and MKb42/MP43?StG44 family really only worked right with 28 rounds in them, too.
In fact, the only 30-round magazine I’ve ever used that worked as advertised was the AK’s.
cheers
eon
“Fools! You’ve tricked yourselves into ruining your ammunition feed systems!”
The M1 Carbine is not a “one-shot-stop” weapon that can instakill a football team, so of course people who want “one-shot, one kill” at 300-400 meters are going to think it’s useless! If you really wanted a one-shot-stop, you’d have to violate the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 and adopt fulminating ammunition. Unlike regular auto-cannon HE rounds, fulminating small-arms projectiles are intended to detonate after penetration, not upon impact with the intended victim. This means a musket ball filled with a powder charge is intended to blow up an opposing powder wagon and that it can be used quite inhumanely to explode an enemy from the very inside of his body.
Just think. Had the M1 Carbine hater above been given “illegal fulminating” ball ammo (or perhaps a “varmint grenade” set of .30 Carbine bullets) and it somehow penetrated and then reduced the fleeing enemy to chunky salsa, would he be satisfied with how it performed?
Believe it or not, hollow lead “punkin balls” with a blackpowder charge inside were once advocated as hunting ammunition in double shotguns. See The Gun And Its Development by W.W. Greener (1897). You can get the pdf for free here;
http://www.am-firearms.com/cu31924097286177.pdf
Exactly what Greener & Co. were trying to accomplish with this stunt escapes me.
However, the book (810 pages, well illustrated with woodcuts and diagrams) is a great reference source for the history and technology of firearms up to the turn of the last century. A lot of the data in it really can’t be found anywhere else today.
cheers
eon
I have no idea why hollow “punkin balls” with powder charges inside would be considered legal to sell to hunters unless said hunters were after extremely dangerous game (like Siberian Tigers or grizzly bears) that required splattering them all over the place just to be sure the game was over.
A relatively fresh Suomi SMG 70-round drum will work when filled to full 70-round capacity. An old and worn one works better with a a few rounds less. It could be filled to 72-rounds, but then it would not work as reliably, so official capacity was 70 rounds. Ironically, the otherwise less than satisfactory Swedish designed 50-round “coffin” box magazine also worked if filled to full capacity. It had insanely strong springs and required a loading tool for anything above 30 rounds or so. However, it was too delicate for field conditions. A good range magazine, if you will…
My 1944 Blue Sky import Inland carbine works great with both the 15 and 30rd G.I mags I bought for it. Load to full capacity and no stoppages so far.
“Of course, the German “32-round” magazines for the MP38/40 and MKb42/MP43?StG44 family really only worked right with 28 rounds in them, too.”
Also If I am not mistaken, magazine for STEN sub-machine guns rarely were loaded to it nominal capacity of 32-rounds, because you need big force to do it.
Early DP machine gun has 49-round pan magazine but due to reliability issue it was replaced with 47-round pan magazine.
The SAS used to dock anybody who loaded more than 10 rounds in the P-35 pistol magazine for the same reason. Which is curious, as it’s one of the few high-capacity magazines prior to the Glock 17 that actually works correctly at full rated capacity.
(Hint; never put more than 13 rounds in an MAB PA-15 or S&W M59 “15-round” mag. Trust me.)
cheers
eon
I have a Quality Hardware receiver carbine bought from the DCM in 1966. I have never had any problems. Its reliable and fairly accurate. I have several friends who shoot carbines in service rifle matches with me. When they did have problems they were traceable to Korean made magazines. I use only US GI magazines. I was glad to see you use the carbine in a “2” gun match because I have been considering trying one a 3 gun match.
As many above have stated: GET GOOD MAGAZINES. I have a Universal—which were of varying quality, apparently, but with decent magazines it has been a gem. Mine likes the current production S. Korean 15 rounders. YMMV. Oh! and it doesn’t like steel cased Wolf ammo much either. They function ok, barely, seeming to be somewhat weak.
Good save on the last stage Ian, I got berated for using 5 smokeless and 3 black powder rounds in SASS event, to get threw the last stage.
On the reliability point, keep in mind that while the M1 Garand, considered to be reliable, was developed over years and years by a professional tool and die maker and made by two arms makers that had been around for a long time, the M1 Carbine was developed very quickly from a new style of action that had been invented in a prison and was then put into production with…well, who did not make them? Almost a dozen companies made them and only one of them had ever made guns before.
“the M1 Carbine was developed very quickly from a new style of action that had been invented in a prison and was then put into production with…well, who did not make them? Almost a dozen companies made them and only one of them had ever made guns before.”
I can’t deny that most manufacturer have no prior experience in weapon production and that designer of M1 Carbine – Carbine Williams – invented in while in prison, I must point that before he worked on M1 Carbine, he designed some weapons before that – .22 conversion for .30 Browning machine gun, .22 conversion for .45 Colt Government automatic pistol which allow for cheaper training, .22 self-loading rifle which after some redesigns will become Remington Model 550 (note that it is .22 short AND .22 long AND .22 long rifle weapon, NOT .22 short XOR .22 long XOR .22 long rifle weapon) and co-design Winchester Model G30 rifle, which gave him experience useful in M1 Carbine.
“Carbine” Williams was really only a contributing designer for the M1. His short stroke piston was about the extent of it from what I have read. Am I mistaken? Regardless the Light Rifle prototype was most definitely not designed in a prison!
David Williams designed the patented gas system. The rest of the gun was designed by Edwin Pugsley and his team. Williams later designed a scalable action that was built, experimentally, in calibers from .30 Carbine to .50 BMG. Most successful were probably his M1 Rifle and BAR competitors, but not achieved production. All were lighter than their counterparts.
But, CaptEndo is quite right, the movie credits Williams with design of the carbine, but that’s hollywood simplification for you.
That’s pretty good shooting for leftie… or otherwise :-)))
No doubt, M1 carbine is still attractive looking firearm; mainly due to its classic layout and woodwork. And useable on common range on top of it.
Since there is mention of Garand, I cannot help it and remind that AFAIK the Carbine is miles ahead. Just look at ammo supply system – no comparison, not to mention weight and useable power vs. weight and control.
Did you have any issues as a left-hander? My father had an M-2 in Korea while police action-ing with the NKs & Chinese. His only real comment was that as a lefty he could put several hundred rounds a minute of hot brass down his collar. He was not in the Infantry, so any time he would have fired, the feces had already hit the fan. He may have just been too distracted for proper form.
Ian,
It really wasn’t fair to take a commercially produced replica from a firm that doesn’t make ANY
high quality firearms and then base your test and opinions on it, rather than the Real McCoy.
And Carl (Karl?) was way off base with HIS snide remarks of “never seeing a single carbine do well on the course”. That’s because most have been through several wars, countless soldiers, and have been poorly re-arsenaled several times over until they are so far out of spec that its amazing they work at all.
Try taking a professionally rebuilt carbine that’s been blueprinted back to milspec with USGI parts. James River Armory has taken two of my old clunkers and turned them into like-new gems.
Its unfair to test drive a 1953 Chevy with 200,000 miles on it and complain about the quality.
Finally, if you want an in-depth and very professional opinion of the M1 Carbine, try reading “Shots Fired In Anger” by Lt Col John George (ret). He was an expert rifleman who joined Merril’s Marauders and fought with one all throughout Burma. Its an excellent book, and he gives insightful critiques of both our weapons and those of the Japanese.
This article reminded me that I’ve not shot my 1943 Inland for a while, and I’ve an elderly mix of ammunition dating as far back as 1945. Obviously this lot badly in need of an impromptu, hands-on field test for reliability, and accuracy. (Not to mention long-term storage stability.)
So off to the range today and I won’t bore you silly with the usual endless column of factoids and questionable methodology The tot for the lot was; No jams or failure’s to feed, or fire, whether it was the two versions of soft-points or quite the variety of FMJs. 118 rounds fired, and even the barely-older-than-me 8 rounds of 1945 stuff worked just fine.’Twas very forgiving that way. Accuracy at our local (max)100 yard/ range was within the (about) 5 inch black bull.
Well within Frank Hamer’s “Minute-0f-Clyde.” Or Col. John George’s first- hand experiences, (See “Shots Fired in Anger.”)
To be fair, both Col. George, my Dad in 1945 against the Japanese on Luzon, and me on 2-26-2016 against black bulls on paper (and feral dirt clods on the backstop,) were not subjected to sometimes vastly less than zero degrees temperatures. Subtract the better part of a hundred degrees in temp and I probably would have a different report. (In extreme cold, remove all lubrication and once cold-soaked, don’t bring the Carbine [or whatever] inside to condense moisture on it. That would be a classic ‘Bad Thing.’ It’s all in the cold weather Army manual, likely whatever your Army was/is.)
But you know, where I live, we rarely get ridiculously reduced molecular movement in our environment (aka, “COLD!”) And even if we do, I’d suggest my long-term solution to that problem; MOVE! You’ll find additional benefits other than Carbine Kindness in a warmer clime.
Two general comments:
1. Sharp edges on mags.
An essential part of metal work is deburring and edge breaking. It’s one of the first things to learn if you’re going to make stuff of metals. My own experience is that many products, including firearms and especially magazines, are not getting this attention in their factories. A real extreme case? Compare a Kahr M1 Thompson with a GI one. You can cut yourself on the edges of the Kahr, and the GI gun has a radius (as is shown in the book of TSMG reverse-engineering by Isby — if I have the name right — the book’s on the shelf but I happen to be writing in the dark).
So how do you deal with these sharp edges? Same way the factory would have if they hadn’t done a half-assed job. Debur them yourself. Disassemble the mag, and debur the edge. Because they are made of sheet steel, you’re better off not using a shaving-type deburring tool (my brand is Shaviv, great tool) but instead either draw-file the edge or — if you got no tools — use RED scotchbrite pads, or — if you’re well off tool-wise — use a gray Scotchbrite wheel in a bench or pedestal grinder. This will remove finish as well as burrs, but any finish applied over bad metal prep probably sucks anyway.
There’s guys who read this blog that are bigger metalworking gurus than I am, so they may have a better approach. I just used red Scotchbrite on two new Craftsman toolboxes that had nasty, sharp edges on every drawer and cabinet door. Yeah, I could have bought Snap-On and they would have been built right, but for 10x the money.
As a rule of thumb, nothing made in China is deburred right, except in state arsenals and aircraft factories. (And I’m not sure about the aircraft factories).
Hint: do this to household stuff when it has a nasty edge, and your womenfolk think you’re McGyver, minus his gun control bullshit. Remember, though, that the sharp edge is under the finish, so only do it to things where the finish machts nichts or can be readily restored.
2. the M1 Carbine as Assault Rifle.
Just this week I was reading a couple of Russian books on firearms development and was surprised that both of them (Bolotin and Natzvaladze) gave props to the 1944 M2 Carbine as one of the first assault rifles: “Only Germany and the USA deployed assault rifles” despite Soviet designers working in parallel. They also say proudly that the design that their system finally shook out — the AK — was superior to the US and German firearms, which is certainly a defensible statement.
I can provide one data point. My Fulton Armory M-1 is very reliable.