The one not made not a rifle isn't even inletted.
It's a unicorns, unicorn.
It's a unicorns, unicorn.
- Thread starter ArmedGinger
- Start date
Sitting on a gold mine. I wouldn't sell. Guessing you got them when they were "plentiful" in the 2010's?
I love the character in all of them. I remember they were spendy but decent, now I can't imagine the price to get one. Let alone an un-inletted one.
I would cut the horn off that unicorn and make it into something instead of letting it sit on a shelf
Sorry, not selling any of them. They're all going to be made into different A1 variations.
It's probably going to be built. Will make for a pretty damn minty rifle! I even have a new in box USMC Unertl mount to go with it.
i had to ask. It’s the only part of my M40a1 build I would like to change is the stock. Mine is an early woodland But I don’t think it’s a return stock.
Other than knowing that, it's a 6mm Remington, marked 40x and that it's old, like 40s or 50s old I believe, I don't know anything about it.
I still don't have an A1 built, someday.......
I would do a LOT of sketchy shit for either of the bottom 2 lol.
Very nice representation of the progression.
How sketchy we talkin?
This really begs the question then. There have been a lot of reports coming from the military that the barrels were sub par. While potentially shooting sub moa, they possibly weren't shooting as well as the custom barrels they won the contract with? MOA is certainly acceptable when it comes to a sniper rifle. I also have seen a number of Remington barrels shoot moa or better. Maybe 'procurement' in the military was looking for an excuse? As far as I know, moa was well within the requirements of the contract. But, that's the only reason I've heard. Politics behind closed doors in the procurement side?
The other question was the bankruptcy the reason? Which came first? 'Bad barrels' or bankruptcy, which led to dumping them?
A kind of a backstory on this for me was in 1985, as a member of the 1st RGR BN, S3, special skill locker. We handled all the 'specialized training in the BN, i.e. Scuba, mountaineering, Scout Swimmer, and SNIPING. We did a train up for sniping and the mission was an abysmal failure. The op was a soup sammich from the word go. At that time the 1st RGR BN used the M21 (ART II scope). Anyhow suffice it to say we had a target house with bad guy and hostage B27 targets (bad guys had balloons stapled to them). We killed every hostage in the building. That's how bad it was. In the afteraction meeting, I suggested we go to a Rem 700 like the Marines. Based on two of my friends completing theMarine Scout Sniper course in the summer of '83. I nearly got laughed out of the room. "That is just stupid, returning to a bolt action rifle," was the most common response, from a number of staff officers and senior NCO's. Three years later the Army adopted the M24.
Evidence of political infighting was they used the 700 long action. Not the short action like the Marines. They then chamber it in the .308 (7.62x51) and not the the 30-06 (7.62x63), or the .300 WM (7.62x68), which is what that action is for. Which led to problems. Problems that they were advised to avoid. Those people were ignored. And on they went. Until finally, the Army switched up to the .300. In the meantime the Navy (SEALs) had been using the .300 since the early eighties. And, it took them years to figure out the 190 gr. load, A191, didn't remain stable in low density altitude past 1000 yds. You can have all the power you want, but if you don't have a bullet that will stabilize across the aerodynamic ranges of velocity and air density altitudes, you haven't improved over the old .308. The military (Navy and Army) finally made the change in 2010, moving to the 220 gr. bullet.
Yeah, there may be nothing wrong with Remington barrels. I understand the issues with them. But, the whole thing smacks of politics outside Remingtons control.
Last edited:
Go be poor somewhere else !!!I still don't have an A1 built, someday.......
nice collection
USMC only has one mission (to kill people (for the uninformed)). Unfortunately, the other services’ main mission seems to be indoctrination.
Here’s a pic: USS Iwo Jima (LPH2) in the Med ‘78.
Fixed it for you
Couple days ago I read somewhere that the long action was used in the M24 because it was SUPPOSED to be chambered in .30-06 but some Army muckamuck insisted it be .308. The "We always wanted it to be able to switch to .300WM" thing was apparently them trying to cover their ass after the toothing issues and the .308 just not quite cutting the mustard at longer ranges. Dunno if that's accurate or not but it sounds believable after your anecdote.
USMCSGT0331, those stocks are going to make some nice builds, and I look forward to seeing one of the early smears with a greenie scope.
Fwiw, this weekend I took my M40A1 replica to the Quantico Shooting Club's final vintage precision match of 2021. Weather was good, and here's two random pics, since this one does have a return stock w/ original paint (it also has one of the odd-ball black buttpads from the mid-1990s).
600 yard berm:
...and the 1000 yard berm. (Btw, these scopes run out of elevation adjustment with 175 Fed GMM at 1000 yds...):
Just a couple of random pics from this weekend. Next match is likely April 2022.
Fwiw, this weekend I took my M40A1 replica to the Quantico Shooting Club's final vintage precision match of 2021. Weather was good, and here's two random pics, since this one does have a return stock w/ original paint (it also has one of the odd-ball black buttpads from the mid-1990s).
600 yard berm:
...and the 1000 yard berm. (Btw, these scopes run out of elevation adjustment with 175 Fed GMM at 1000 yds...):
Just a couple of random pics from this weekend. Next match is likely April 2022.
Last edited:
Ah cool. Then I'd feel less bad about doing an M24 in .30-06 if I ever wanted to do an M24.
I thought the M24s were returned to Remington Defense in 2010-11 where they removed all the M24 parts and rebuilt them into XM2010 configuration. I can't say how many were new receivers versus re-used receivers, but that's my understanding of the 'upgraded M24s'. An excerpt from a 2010 article:
"US Army Snipers in Afghanistan will be having their M24 Sniper rifles replaced with the new XM2010 rifle starting next month. The Army's new contract with Remington Arms calls for Remington to either manufacturer new or convert existing M24's, to make 3,600 XM2010's, which will all be chambered in .300 Winchester Magnum."
M2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle - Wikipedia
Remington to Upgrade Army M24 Sniper Rifles into XM2010 Weapon Systems - Defense Update:
The U.S. Army’s PEO Soldier has awarded Remington Arms Company a contract for the modification of 250 M24 sniper rifles, a first batch of up to 3,600 M-24s to be modified into the XM2010 weapon systems
defense-update.com ....apologizes for digressing from the M40A1 topic of this thread, but my understanding is serviceable M24 receivers were reborn circa 2011 as XM2010s.
Last edited:
Here is a cool video link of Kelly and Ryan McMillan talking about the commemorative M40A1 rifles they built.
I have number 13 of 20, which happens to be the exact rifle they are showing in the video... I didn't realize it until after I purchased the rifle from the original owner.
I have number 13 of 20, which happens to be the exact rifle they are showing in the video... I didn't realize it until after I purchased the rifle from the original owner.
I picked up a cool vintage poster with an M40A1 in it... sorry for the bad glare.
DW
DW
Thread hijack - Appreciate you coming out and supporting the QSC and the match. Major M. and Gunny Otto have done a good job getting Vintage and GSM back up and running. I'm on the QSC BOD and while USPSA and PRS are the current hot commodities, we do want to continue to support the legacy matches.
The US Army Infantry Center and School in 1984 wanted to stick with 7.62 NATO only, backed up by the Army G4 and G8 (Supply and long-term budgeteers). The Army's next sniper manual doctrinally put maximum effective range at 800 Meters (880 yards -- which is realistic, given the ammo and the M3A scope).
The US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (the Special Operations Target Interdiction Course) wanted .300 Winchester Magnum as the primary bolt action, keeping the M21 (scoped National Match M14-type) semi-automatic rifle as the back-up.
Big Army screamed, "NO, ONLY ONE rifle per sniper!" 7.62 M118 was the issue precision round. Big Army didn't even have a sniper school, and wouldn't for another three years (with first students in 1988). The Army hadn't bought or made 30-06 since after Korea and before Vietnam, and weren't about to spec a 300 Magnum. Big Army grumbled, and agreed to the 700 long action as a compromise. Special Forces could build 300s and buy their own ammunition with their fixed-budget dollars (USSOCOM money after October 1987).
USSOCOM's A191 Mark 148 190-grain 300 Win Mag Match King load was standardized around 1999.
30-06 was never in the equation -- that is dope-smoker talk.
Five years into GWOT the XM-110 was adopted as the M110, and Big Army insisted rifle issue was a one-for-one swap, with both leg divisions and SF to turn in their bolt guns.
SF gave Leg Army the finger and said, "We're keeping our M24s, and we'll use SOCOM money to do it." Leg Army, starting with 10th Mountain Division (whose equipment modernization officer had just come from the USASOC office with the same mission) formally wrote the Army G3 (with the CG's signature), "That's EXACTLY the same mission essential combination we need to kill terrorists, too!" with 2-, 3-, and 4-star endorsements up the chain of command. G3 couldn't argue against 10th Mountain's continuously-growing Afghanistan and Iraq experience, and feedback from the other division commanders
Surprise, cock-fags! USSOCOM was the driving force, and Big Army had to eat shit and be quiet while the adults worked the solution. USASOC and Big Army adopted XM2010 about the same time. Note: Army-issue 220-grain 300 Win Mag MatchKing ammunition is Navy-typed Mark 248, Mod 1 -- developed by Naval Surface Warfare Center - Crane for USSOCOM ... it was NOT developed by Picatinny Arsenal's engineers, who should formally approve rifled barrels, the Minie Ball, jacketed bullets, smokeless powder, and non-corrosive primers in record program time within the next five to ten years.
SORRY FOR THE THREAD DRIFT -- I know this is supposed to be about Marine rifles, not Army.
Last edited:
I believe the guy on the left is Sergeant Bob C, who went on to work elsewhere within the government. He's in another photo on the cover of sniper data books we issued.
Last edited:
Great to know, and thank you for posting a picture of the book!I believe the guy on the left is Sergeant Bob C, who went on to work elsewhere within the government. He's in another photo on the cover of sniper data books we issued.
DW
Early Windage knobI believe the guy on the left is Sergeant Bob C, who went on to work elsewhere within the government. He's in another photo on the cover of sniper data books we issued.
Today I shipped everything for my M40A1 build to GA Precision. Gotta try and be patient for the next 5 months. Will post pics here when done.
Does anyone know if twomanattack is still around? I've always wondered if he's ok and what he's up to.
He’s still around. I talk to him quit often. Still building m40 rifles and parts
I believe the guy on the left is Sergeant Bob C, who went on to work elsewhere within the government. He's in another photo on the cover of sniper data books we issued.
Note the "football" windage knob......
What year was this?
Either 87 or 88. Was my dads class
Watched this go on ebay last night...
McMillan USMC M40a1 HTG CAMO STOCK Remington 700 Short Actio Bolt Rifle 24 PIC | eBay
This auction is for the pictured McMillan M40a1 HTG Camo Stock inletted for a Short Action Remington Model 700 Rifle. The barrel channel has been opened for a large bull barrel. It is in very nice condition with no issues. Please scroll down the page to see all 24 pictures. More Parts To This...
www.ebay.com
Maybe one day this will get finished and be posted in this thread…
Last edited:
Or.... hear me out now.... you can send that old one to me and see it put together in a month and I'll send you my brand new shiny one as soon as mcmillan is done with it.
He can send it to me, I'll have it assembled 24 hours after it gets here, and he can have my M1903 NRA Sporter (no assembly required).
On serious note, interesting thought about building one of these. You can chose an early build and have a cheap scope with an expensive stock. Or you can chose a later pattern and have an expensive scope with a cheap stock . Decisions, decisions.
Can you even use “cheap” and M40A1 in the same sentence?
Aside from a Unertl or USO MST-100, what scope would be “correct” on an A1?
Nice stock. Hopefully one day I can find a nice old one for my M40a1
Nice!
I really like seeing the smears come out of hiding. Get busy on that build.
Last edited:
In theory, if you were building a very early rifle, the appropriate Redfield 3-9x would be vaguely correct. I went with a Weaver T10, since some element of the USMC tested it before the Unertl was adopted.
I just need a stock for my half assed M40A1 attempt. I intend to get a newer stock and paint it to gloss over the fact that it should be a smear for an early build.
A Redfield isn't "vaguely" correct, it's 100% correct and hundreds of them were used on the early A1's for the better part of a decade. In fact, an early smear stock like the one that was just posted has a 100% chance that a Redfield scope was used on it, if it was produced before 1982 (which it probably was). The Corps only had 25 Unertl test scopes in 1980 and the rest of the scopes/mounts started shipping in 1982.
So, what did they use for the 7 years between 1975 and 1982? Hundreds and hundreds of the green Redfields (and some matte black), which are now in the $5k to $6k price range. The Corps only had a literal handful of the Widefields and the T10 scopes.
Now a Unertl doesn’t sound so expensive…
I said "vaguely correct" because I didn't mean specifically a green (or even matte black) Redfield. I just meant that a Redfield 3-9x from the correct era would be kind of close. Sorry for the confusion.
Cool!
I was just at the school house and the PWS shop last Monday to teach a class!
So who is the go to now a days to get the correct slip slot for a 6 digit? I typically do lug slots myself but my luck I'll fuck up my own 6 digit and cry myself to sleep a few nights. Might outsource this one
Old Post but whatever..
He manufactures parts. He uses a “smith” (I use that term extremely Loosely) that isn’t a 2112 and doesn’t work at PWS to do his rifles even though that’s what he sell you on. Dudes a fucking hack and a liar.
Do not under any circumstances send that man your parts..
Theres plenty of folks on here to that will tell you horror stories of how that dude has f**** up their builds
Last edited:
