M40A1 or M40A3 or M40A5

mcm308

Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 2, 2008
810
153
43
Bloomfield, NJ
I used my machinist square and set it up to measure the center line of the rings, it was a little less than 3/4 from the top of the base, to the centerline of the rings. It looks like if the bell was smooth and no knurls, it would fit, but, no dice,, I do have a jr. mount and the correct rings, this has been a pain in the ass.. Thanks to you and your buddies for the info, ordered the tall rings today, will up load a pic when I have the rifle set up, Thanks, Charlie112
[ if something different that I am missing shows up, I will post, I have made mistakes before.}

If that was my rifle, I would want to know. I couldn't just slap in some tall rings and send it because that would irk the crap out of me not being correct but we are all different.
 
Last edited:

Toftwo

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 9, 2017
86
42
I used my machinist square and set it up to measure the center line of the rings, it was a little less than 3/4 from the top of the base, to the centerline of the rings. It looks like if the bell was smooth and no knurls, it would fit, but, no dice,, I do have a jr. mount and the correct rings, this has been a pain in the ass.. Thanks to you and your buddies for the info, ordered the tall rings today, will up load a pic when I have the rifle set up, Thanks, Charlie112
[ if something different that I am missing shows up, I will post, I have made mistakes before.}
If you get really bored, measure the outside diameter of your rear receiver ring. It may be out of spec. I have been told that Remington's dimensions are all over the place. If it is, and it bothers you, it's probably easier to have the barrel turned ever so slightly to get clearance so you can use correct parts, as opposed to mess with the receiver.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Charlie112

Charlie112

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Feb 28, 2017
185
126
As has been mentioned, Your barrel might be out of spec. And you never answered on who tapered the barrel, is it a factory Hart taper or did your smith turn it? If your smith turned it, Id pull the action from stock and measure the barrel diameter where it touches. Then Id make a call to Hart to find out what their dimension is and compare. Medium rings are suppose to be the correct rings.

If that was my rifle, I would want to know. I couldn't just slap in some tall rings and send it because that would irk the crap out of me not being correct but we are all different.
Weaver T-10 Med Rings Redfield Jr mount. About .010 clearance.
View attachment 7355279
Yes, .010 is exactly what I said on June 5th in earlier post on this problem,,, that's for the measurement ...
If you get really bored, measure the outside diameter of your rear receiver ring. It may be out of spec. I have been told that Remington's dimensions are all over the place. If it is, and it bothers you, it's probably easier to have the barrel turned ever so slightly to get clearance so you can use correct parts, as opposed to mess with the receiver.
The only thing that bothers me is I can't get my scope mounted and get to the range,,, but,,, tomorrow is another day... will keep all up with the results of what I find...
 

Toftwo

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 9, 2017
86
42
Yes, .010 is exactly what I said on June 5th in earlier post on this problem,,, that's for the measurement ...
The only thing that bothers me is I can't get my scope mounted and get to the range,,, but,,, tomorrow is another day... will keep all up with the results of what I find...
I think that’s good news, if you’re measurement is the same as the one in my pic, then I think youre square.
 

deltawiskey

DILIGAF
Belligerents
Minuteman
Feb 13, 2017
690
294
Wisconsin
We need some love for the A3 here!
While the A1 is certainly sexier, I do really enjoy shooting the A3.
It might not be far for a lot of you guys but I was shooting steel at 1100 yards with it a few weeks ago...the farthest I have ever shot. It certainly would have been alot more challenging using the A1 with the MST 100!!

DSC03668.JPG
 

ChanceDoane

Private
Minuteman
May 8, 2020
66
48
Southwest VA
I like both the M40A1 and M40A3. The A1 is more like a carry hunting rifle to me and the A3 is more of a setup and shoot prone rifle. I have three rifles in M40A1 HTG stocks i use regularly for my Groundhog hunting rifles. I love that style of stock!
 

TorF

Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 9, 2003
481
90
59
Norway
In the early 1980'ies I built a M40 clone, later updated to M40A1, using components I could find in Europe.
I used the rifle for some time as a "working gun" as a sniper in the National Guard and privatly for hunting.

True to form I started with a Redfield 3-9 AT and later a T10.
However, none of these scopes were good enough for field use at the time. The T10 is a exellent scope for range use.
I upgraded the rifle with a Kahles ZF69 6x42 mounted in Redfield 26mm JR 4 screw rings making the whole rig bulletproof and with optic quality that is excellent even today. I sold the rifle 30 years ago but I still have the scope.

The ZF69 (introduced in 1969 on the Steyr SSG69) transformed the all round performance of my M40 at the time. Why this scope was not considered for the M40 in the US in the 1970'ies is beyond me except for the "not invented here" syndrome.
 

Random Guy

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
May 16, 2012
487
743
50
The ZF69 (introduced in 1969 on the Steyr SSG69) transformed the all round performance of my M40 at the time. Why this scope was not considered for the M40 in the US in the 1970'ies is beyond me except for the "not invented here" syndrome.
I like the 6x ZF69 scopes, and wish I could find a nice 10x version of the ZF84, as I'd like to put it on an SSG-69, but I think the history of the M40A1 scope is a bit more complex. It wasn't so much as a 'not invented here' issue as it was this question - 'What manufacturer will help us make a truly unique USMC sniper scope with a crazy new reticle pattern ?' (....And we probably only need 600 or so of these scopes too). Not even Leupold at the time would make the USMC's requested modifications, even though their M8 scope (10X) was apparently found otherwise favorable.

The fact is that the USMC evaluated a several scopes in the 1977-1978 period when they updated the M40 to M40A1 specification. (Leupold M8, updated Redfield Widefield 3-9x, Weaver T10, an innovative RAND Systems Corporation 'dual-power' 3x & 9x scope, etc).

The issue was that the well-respected Officer in Charge (OIC) of the USMC Sniper School, Jack C. Cuddy, wanted to incorporate a very innovative reticle that was developed at the MTU (Marksman Training Unit), which was based on the milirad system for range estimations, without any moving parts, etc - and no commercial scope manufactures wanted to invest the time and effort to make a custom reticle for a small volume of USMC-specific sniper scopes...except for one small business based out of Pennsylvania - the John Unertl Optical Company. The owner, John Unertl Jr, spent a lot of time down at the USMC base in Quantico Virginia in the late 1970s, where he and the USMC sniper school developed THE transformative sniper scope reticle - the now famous Mil-Dot system. Attached are 3 excerpts from Peter Senich's excellent book, The One-Round War (1996), that describes the late 1970s collaboration. The scope's reticle was described in a January 1981 manual:
"Reticle: Mil dot duplex for range estimation and calculating leads on moving targets"
Perhaps if Kahles or Swarowski had been willing to fly some optical engineers over to the USA and work closely with the USMC Sniper Instructors/OIC in the late 1970s, history might have been different - but it John Unertl's gamble to work hand-in-hand to development a completely new and robust scope that was both 'Marine proof' and had a Mil-Dot reticle that changed history. Basically all 'modern' military sniper scopes since the 1980s equipped with Mil-Dot reticles, or today's 'Gen II' Mil-Dot reticles, can trace their roots back to the Unertl 10x USMC sniper scope developed in the late 1970s and first tested in 1980.

Again, I like the little ZG69 scope and wish I could find a nice ZF84 (10x version), but it should be noted that the USMC Unertl scopes were so strong, that when the USMC adopted the big 50 caliber Barnett M82 sniper rifles in the early 1990s, the Unertl company didn't need to do anything to the scope's construction other than change the marking on the BDC /elevation dial from 1000 yards (7.62 NATO) to 1800 yards - given the 50 BMG's extended range. They also marked the scopes '50 CAL' on the side (see pic #4), but otherwise they are the same as the M40A1 scopes. Whether or not a Kahles ZF69 scope could withstand the serious recoil forces of a 50 BMG sniper rifle is unknown, but the Unertl's did... Anyhow, my apologizes for the digression re all this history, but it is something I have read a lot about.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sandwarrior

TorF

Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 9, 2003
481
90
59
Norway
Random Guy: Very interesting read.

For me it was just a case of "I need a better scope than the T10 for use in the field. What can I get ASAP over the counter".
The T10 was too fragile and had poor optic quality.

In Norway in the 70'ies, 80'ies and 90'ies shooters were used to order target scopes with custom reticles for moving target and field target competitions.
From USA shooters got Redfield scopes from Lee-Dot and Leupold from Premier. Dick Thomas of PR sold so many scopes to Scandinavia that he actually crossed the Atlantic to see what was going on.

Shooters also ordered custom reticles from European makers with short turn around time.

Pecar of Berlin/Germany was very special due to the fact that the scopes had quick change reticles and the shooters could install the reticles themselves.
If a shooter needed a new reticle he would just send a detailed drawing to Pecar and the reticle would be in the mailbox 6-8 weeks later.
I ordered several reticles from Pecar. The best I made, for me, was for military sharpshooting on popup targets (3-5 sec target visibility, no time for dialing) on ranges out to 700m with 146gr NATO ball. I had a 1moa 100m centered target dot, heavy side posts with 20moa spacing from center for lead on moving target and low light performance. Then I had ballistic dots below zero in the scope for 300, 400, 500, 600 and 700m. The dots were sized to match a russian helmet/head on target at each range so when a target popped up it was just a case of matching the correct dot to the head of the target and pull the trigger.
The Pecar scopes are FFP so what could possibly go wrong :) I won a few comps with this scope. ( side note, what's the point of having 1200yds range in a rifle with a dialing scope when an enemy pops up at 650 and kill you within 5 seconds? How do you handle dialing rigs wearing gas mask and ABC gear?)

Here's a QD reticle unit with std turrets and a chart std reticles. The unit could also be ordered with target turrets:



Hertel&Reuss, makers of the Weatherby Supreme scopes in the 60'ies, also delivered scopes with customer designed reticles on short notice. In the 70'ies they actually had a FFP 2.75-10X45 with a "Christmas tree" ballistic reticle eched on glass.

Pre year 2000 even Schmidt&Bender could install custom reticles for single customers with relatively quick turn around time.

Regarding the ruggedness of ZF69/84 I think they are rugged enough for .50 cal rifles. If I remember correctly the Swaro 10x42 was made for Barrett with a .50cal ballistic reticle. Of these scopes I think the ZF69 is the most rugged of all due to the very simple internals.
 
Last edited:

navynambu

Peace, if we can manage it.
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 5, 2017
331
418
Anasazi Land
Oh so nice, is that a finger-painted McMillan smear with a brown pad? Is that a return or a commercial one?