Quoted:
A guy i work with has an M1 Carbine for sale. He is asking $400 for it, and im not sure if that is a good price or not. The rifle has about 90% of the finish, the barrel has a bright, shiney bore and chamber, the barrel has "Inland MFG division" then "General Motors" then "6-45" on it. The band on the front of the stock has a bayonet lug. The reciever has a two-digit serial number behind the rear adjustable sight (88) . The band on the reciever by the chamber says " U.S. carbine", then ".30 cal. M2". The only other markings that i can find is an " IO " where the sling attaches to the stock. I have had the rifle completely apart, and can find no other numbers or symbols. The stock has been refinished. I know this will hurt the value, even though it looks really nice. It also has a correct green canvas sling, and 2 GI 30 round mags. I would post pics, but i dont have a camera at the momment. Any help would be greatly appriciated.

Quoted:
Not sure about the above post.
I have a complete Winchester and don't recall seeing M2 stamped on the receiver of any M1's, ever.
The price is great, and if there are no FA parts in it, I don't think it is illegal.
I don't know for sure. so it's on you.
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-649661.html
Check the link above.
I edit my entire post.

Quoted:
From  my understanding, and I admit I could be wrong, but all Carbines that are marked M2 are considered by the ATF to be machine guns.  Even if they don't have the full auto parts installed.  Once a full auto, always a full auto. Even though the Carbine does not have any of its full auto parts on/in the receiver.  But for some strange reason, the ATF considers the M2 Carbine an exception, so they make the receiver illegal even though it never carried the full auto parts.
Who is the receiver manufacturor?  It should be stamped on the receiver under the rear sight.  A two digit serialed receiver would more than likely be an Inland, and it would not be an M2. M2s were not made till very late in  WW2.  Not withstanding all this, $400 is a very good price for an M1 Carbine.  
With a barrel date of 6-45, it could very well be an M2 with the original barrel, as production started in 4-45.  If it was a standard M1 Carbine that would give it a value of about $700+ dollars.   All the small parts will be marked with letters, which are manufacturors codes indicating who(which subcontractor) made the part for which primary contractor.  Such as AOB, meaning Auto Ordnance for IBM.  If it is all original, and the value increases when there are more original parts, the parts should be marked with Inland on them.
But, as was said before, it it is marked M2 then you should run, not walk, away from the deal.

Quoted:


Again, ask to see the form four.   If its a properly registered gun and has the tax stamp it's legal to purchase.   If the guy looks at you funny or doesn't know what a form four or nfa tax stamp is then you need to walk quickly.  

Quoted:


This.
 

Quoted:

Quoted:
Short answer: ATF considers any carbine stamped "M2" to be a machine gun under that "once a machine gun, always a machine gun" rule.

Long answer: ATF has never, and I doubt will ever, prosecuted anyone for possessing an M2 Carbine as long as it has semi internals.

The story:

The M2 was a later development of the M1 in which the receivers of the two variants are dimensionally identical. Instead of modifying the receiver, the engineers developed a fire-control system which permitted selective fire with the original M1 receiver.

The receivers which were destined to be built into FA variants were stamped "M2" to alert the GIs who were issued them. But again, the receivers were identical; only the seven fire-control parts were different.

In the 1960's, the Department of Civilian Marksmanship (forerunner to the present CMP) sold a metric ton of M1 Carbines to civilians. It was pretty cool –– any U.S. citizen could send $15 plus like $2.75 shipping to DCM, and the mailman would bring you your very own M1 Carbine. Problem was (at least in ATF's eyes), many of those DCM Carbines were stamped "M2". The internals were all semi –– some switched in by U.S. military armorers, others apparently virgin surplus M2 receivers built up as M1s –– but they were still stamped "M2" and thus in ATF's eyes, were machine guns.

It was a hoot to watch at the time.

ATF (which was then a division of the IRS) did try to get some back, but they were largely ignored ... and I have never, ever heard of them attempting to prosecute anyone who legally bought one of these from the United States government.

The problem, if it ever came to court, is that the M2's FA fire-control system was a drop-in conversion much like an RDIAS. And saying that a receiver dimensionally identical to an M1 suddenly was a machine gun because at one time or another, it may have had FA fire-control parts installed, is the same as saying that any AR15 which may at one time have had an RDIAS installed is thus a machine gun, under the "once an MG, always an MG" credo.

ATF would prolly get laughed out of court. And thus, they have let sleeping dogs lie, and the M2 Carbine is a moot issue, at long as it has semi fire-control parts installed.

This is not legal advice. Just an observation.

Quoted:


Again, ask to see the form four.   If its a properly registered gun and has the tax stamp it's legal to purchase.   If the guy looks at you funny or doesn't know what a form four or nfa tax stamp is then you need to walk quickly.  

Quoted:
A M2 Carbine is a machine gun. Walk away unless it was registered many years ago.

Quoted:

You need to explain to your co-worker about the problem with it being an M2. He is in possession of an unregistered machine gun.

Quoted:
Lots of people don't know the laws and look at you like you are from another planet when you explain things to them.

The U.S. is filled with illegal guns-lots of bring backs and people just not knowing the law.

I had a discussion with a retired cop last year that bought a pistol and was buying a folding stock for it.I gave up after a few minutes because he didn't believe me that it wasn't legal to put a stock on a pistol.I have seen plenty of other examples over the years as well.

Too bad about the carbine,but it's defintely not worth the hassle.