M 40 M40 Remington? Does anyone have any information on this rifle? 
Last edited:
- Thread starter Deere-w111
- Start date
Hello fellow interneter, yes do you have rifle for the shooting? This is happy good time most fun.
More and better pics would help, plus any info YOU have about the rifle. Where you got it, when you got it, who from? Where is it now? Brand/markings on the scope, on the mount, calibre, serial # range of the rifle, is that a Winchester-style safety on the bolt or doth mine eye deceive?
Cool rifle. But as mentioned above.. better pictures and what are you looking to learn?
Cheers,
Sirhr
Cheers,
Sirhr
Any idea on value?
I own it. Early 700 flat safety.
Serial 2352xx
Do a search of this site as well as M40rifle.net and Gunbroker to see what they are selling for. If you’re wanting to sell it here, upgrade your account to “Supporter” and list it in the PX subforum once you’ve arrived at a sale price.
DO NOT try to list it for sale in any other location on this forum as that’s a ban-able rules infraction. Not saying that’s your intention but you’re brand new so just giving you a heads up.
Rules
Again, it’s going to take some detailed pics for any determination of value. With these rifles, the devil is in the details and they make a huge difference in value.
With clone rifles, correctness and originality mean everything.
For example, the stock on your rifle speaks for itself and it’s plain to see you at least have an early square corner mount, but what about the other details like the clip slot, muzzle, bottom metal, stamps/markings, builder, etc, etc.
These things make the difference in a M40 collector paying good money or losing interest completely.
To me, the most valuable piece is the smear stock. The others covered the rifle. It the barreld action is 100% correct then that alone is 2k or so depending on who built it.
308 caliber, The person I bought this from got it at a Gun Show 24 years ago.
Here's what I see: It's a replica of an early M40A1 USMC sniper rifle, using the Weaver T10 scope that was used by a particular USMC Recon unit in the very late 1970s, before the famous Unertl USMC scopes were issued beginning in the early 1980s. The 'smear' stock is also from that era.
The two nicest things about that replica:
1960s era Remington 6-digit action used.
Early smear stock that a lot of guys go ga-ga over.
What I can't tell is whether or not the action was properly "clip slotted" as was done on the original M40s/M40A1s. A picture of the bolt area under the scope mount would be needed to see if that machining was done or not.
Barrel maker is unknown, and the 'RTE-P' stamp is a little too deep/hokey compared to originals, but whomever built it was trying to get some of the details right. The bolt is also not exactly stamped in the proper location with the last 4 digits, so again, someone tried to get some of the build details right, but that stamping is also a little off. If the rifle had a USMC 'Weapons book' that would be nice as it might identify who made it, and how many rounds have been fired in that rifle.
Fwiw, I shoot matches with guys that have similar rifles & the same scope. The old Weaver T-10s are the "poor man's" scope of choice for an M40A1 replica, but they work well for precision matches. However, if it had an original USMC Unertl scope on it, the value would be higher, but again the early stock is quite desirable.
I suspect that is a great shooting rifle and would be something I'd happily use in vintage sniper rifle matches. It won't hurt its value to use that rifle.
The two nicest things about that replica:
1960s era Remington 6-digit action used.
Early smear stock that a lot of guys go ga-ga over.
What I can't tell is whether or not the action was properly "clip slotted" as was done on the original M40s/M40A1s. A picture of the bolt area under the scope mount would be needed to see if that machining was done or not.
Barrel maker is unknown, and the 'RTE-P' stamp is a little too deep/hokey compared to originals, but whomever built it was trying to get some of the details right. The bolt is also not exactly stamped in the proper location with the last 4 digits, so again, someone tried to get some of the build details right, but that stamping is also a little off. If the rifle had a USMC 'Weapons book' that would be nice as it might identify who made it, and how many rounds have been fired in that rifle.
Fwiw, I shoot matches with guys that have similar rifles & the same scope. The old Weaver T-10s are the "poor man's" scope of choice for an M40A1 replica, but they work well for precision matches. However, if it had an original USMC Unertl scope on it, the value would be higher, but again the early stock is quite desirable.
I suspect that is a great shooting rifle and would be something I'd happily use in vintage sniper rifle matches. It won't hurt its value to use that rifle.
Last edited:
The bottom of the barrel and the recoil lug are both stamped with the last 4 of the serial number.
Thanks, the action is properly clip-slotted and the serial number stamping on recoil lug is considered a correct detail from that era. Nice.
If were mine, I'd try to hunt down a leather M1907 sling with a 'MRT 10/79' date on it. I had one such sling, but traded it a guy with a rifle just this one, down to the same scope and a smear stock.
Here's a pic from a vintage match at Quantico several years ago. Rifle on left w/ T-10 is the same set-up, with a really nice smear stock. Whereas the replica M40A1 on the right has the later 1990s era woodland pattern stock, and the "rich man's" M40A1 scope, which is an original Unertl 10x USMC sniper scope, along with a SIMRAD bracket. Both rifles shoot well, with the 1/4 adjustments on the T-10 perhaps a little better for precision shooting.
If were mine, I'd try to hunt down a leather M1907 sling with a 'MRT 10/79' date on it. I had one such sling, but traded it a guy with a rifle just this one, down to the same scope and a smear stock.
Here's a pic from a vintage match at Quantico several years ago. Rifle on left w/ T-10 is the same set-up, with a really nice smear stock. Whereas the replica M40A1 on the right has the later 1990s era woodland pattern stock, and the "rich man's" M40A1 scope, which is an original Unertl 10x USMC sniper scope, along with a SIMRAD bracket. Both rifles shoot well, with the 1/4 adjustments on the T-10 perhaps a little better for precision shooting.
Last edited:
What's the going price for a mid 70's MRT? I may have a couple.
I think I bought this nice 1979 dated sling for $60 or $65 a couple of years ago, but what I really want is a 1970 (or maybe 1971) sling
for my XM21 replica. Depending on condition, I'd pay $80 or maybe $100 for a nice, still supple 1970 dated leather sling for this replica.
(I almost won a mint Jan 1970 on eBay a few years ago, but lost the auction by $2 or so...still upset about that one)
I had one built like this in 1984 by Gale McMillan. Mine had a M2 Ultra on it as the Unertl scopes were only supplied to Military and FBI. No
Local PDs could get them. My barrel was just bead blasted. I shot over 10k through that rifle and still one of my favorite rifles of all time for range use. The original GAP Rock rifle was pretty much an updated version
I love these type of rifles. The stocks had character
Local PDs could get them. My barrel was just bead blasted. I shot over 10k through that rifle and still one of my favorite rifles of all time for range use. The original GAP Rock rifle was pretty much an updated version
I love these type of rifles. The stocks had character
I have no idea if the scope base is early or not, but it's completely wrong for an M40A1 transitional build since it's not a 40X base or the correct type of later 700SA base. Look closely at the OP's photos, you'll easily see why the base isn't correct:
1) Even though the left rail on the receiver has been cut back, the end of it at the front of the clip slot doesn't terminate halfway through the base's left windage knob
2) This scope base takes up a lot of room on the rear bridge, much more than a 40X base does
3) This scope base probably uses 2 rear receiver screws instead of 1 rear screw, which would explain the extra length
4) The front right portion of the base is stamped with 2 lines of Redfield writing, instead of the having the correct Redfield logo with the "R" inside a circle with crosshairs
Even though everyone here noticed the square corners right away, the corners might as well just be a red herring that's takes away from further analysis. This is a good learning lesson for everyone interested.
This photo shows that the gunsmith who originally worked on this rifle knew that the receiver's left rail needs to be cut back on an early 6 digit M40 receiver, but he either didn't have the skill, means or motivation do do the cut correctly. I'm not insulting the build or the builder, it's a very nice clone and the builder had done some research, I'm just pointing out the facts. It appers that the gunsmith just cut a flat spot instead of continuing the angles of the original factory cut portion. This might sound like nitpicking, but every single detail counts when you're dealing with high level collectors/historians. Other than those few people, no one else will really care about such a minute detail. I can't get a good look at the thumb cut, so maybe there's something there as well.
The entire collector value lies in the stock, which has a lot of wear that's indicative of USMC use. However without further analysis, such as weighing the stock, checking for steel bar inserts, etc., I can't be 100% certain that it is a USMC used stock. McMillan made a bunch of civilian stocks that are very similar and I've seen multiple civilian stocks get passed off to collectors as original USMC. Even though the receiver is a 6 digit that's close to the serial number range, the incorrect US mark and the botched left rail cut ruin the receiver for any high level collector. Most people will over look this part, but I'm just being honest about how some collectors view these characteristics and how they want their clones to be as accurate as possible.
The OP wanted information about his rifle, so for better or worse, he definitely got a lot of information from all of us. Hopefully he'll ignore what I wrote and just take it to the range to enjoy, especially since overall it's a nice M40A1 clone.
Last edited:
I noticed this immediately after writing my post but didn’t put in the effort to go back to correct it.
I think the RTE-P and U.S. look etched instead of stamped/rolled.
Like you said, the stock is the centerpiece.
Are you trying to find it a new home?
It looks like solid work for the era, it would not be surprising to find out it was made by an USMC armorer. I've got an Unertl scope that needs something under it.
Any idea who actually made it?
It looks like solid work for the era, it would not be surprising to find out it was made by an USMC armorer. I've got an Unertl scope that needs something under it.
Any idea who actually made it?
Nice rifle. I'd also be interested if you decide to find it a new home.
