• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

M40A2 - What was it?

ArmedGinger

Sergeant of the Hide
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 11, 2018
390
1,182
BC, Canada
So I got the book "The Complete Book of US Sniping" by Peter Senich and in the section about the M40A1, it shows a picture of a rifle and calls it the M40A2. Now I've never heard of this, I always assumed it went from A1 to A3 (although didn't know why). So what was different about the M40A2 compared to an A1? I see that it has a bipod attached and what appears to be a Leupold Optic instead of the Unterl.

On a somewhat related note while trying to do some research I found this:

s-l1600.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't think there was ever technically a M40A2 sniper rifle. There may have been some different configurations tested in the time between the A1 and A3 but nothing officially adopted. If I'm remembering things correctly it went from A1 to A3 because there was already a M40A2 in the inventory.

Gun builders also seem to take certain liberties when naming their rifles when in reality it has little to do with the genuine article. (e.g. Daniel Defense Mk12, Tactical Rifles M40-anything, etc...)
 
This is a picture of the rifle spoken of in the book. I've also come across it mentioned in "The Ultimate Sniper" by John Plaster.

DSC_4549.JPG
 
More than likely the M40A2 never got past the prototype/testing/whatever the .gov calls it stage and into adoption.

That's why the military has an F-16 and an F-18 but no F-17. The General Dynamics YF-16 and Northrop YF-17 were competing prototypes for the Air Force's Lightweight Fighter Program. The YF-16 was selected to move fwd and became the F-16.

The YF-17 eventually became the F-18 when Northrop partnered with McDonnel-Douglas to offer it to the Navy.
 
More than likely the M40A2 never got past the prototype/testing/whatever the .gov calls it stage and into adoption.

That's why the military has an F-16 and an F-18 but no F-17. The General Dynamics YF-16 and Northrop YF-17 were competing prototypes for the Air Force's Lightweight Fighter Program. The YF-16 was selected to move fwd and became the F-16.

The YF-17 eventually became the F-18 when Northrop partnered with McDonnel-Douglas to offer it to the Navy.

I had heard somewhere that there was at least one M40A2 being tested by the USMC and floating around for awhile. But yes, it seems to have never made production or used in combat by any means. Still an interesting rifle thought.

I've heard scuttlebutt about it have a regular black medium sized recoil pad instead of the thin brown. The picture shows two piece scope bases and of course the Leupold and then the bipod. Other than that I was wondering if they still used the M70 bottom metal.
 
A guy at my gun club has one of the Ed Brown M40s.

They have nothing to do with USMC rifles.

They are built on a Win Model 70 clone action.

I was shooting my made at PWS M40A1 and he was there with his telling me how his rifle was built exactly like the ones the Marine Corps used.

I just keep quiet at time like this.
 
A guy at my gun club has one of the Ed Brown M40s.

They have nothing to do with USMC rifles.

They are built on a Win Model 70 clone action.

I was shooting my made at PWS M40A1 and he was there with his telling me how his rifle was built exactly like the ones the Marine Corps used.

I just keep quiet at time like this.

BothOffensiveFlamingo-max-1mb.gif
 
Technically speaking, there was already an M40A2 weapon in the Marine's inventory system from the Vietnam era, but it was a 485 pound anti-tank weapon...so the USMC simply skipped to M40A3 for the next rifle in the series, per the historical record as noted by Jim Land (USMC ret). https://www.tanks.net/anti-tank-weapons/united-states-m40a2-recoilless-rifle.html

Just an fyi from a historical perspective. (What Ed Brown and other commercial manufactures want to call their products is often loosely based around official military nomenclature - but it is definitely not official military gear, and lacks an NSN number. Its mainly for civilian sales and marketing purposes).
 

Attachments

  • M40A2_recoiless_rifle_jeep_mounted.jpg
    M40A2_recoiless_rifle_jeep_mounted.jpg
    320.9 KB · Views: 207
Last edited:
Just an fyi from a historical perspective. (What Ed Brown and other commercial manufactures want to call their products is often loosely based around official military nomenclature - but it is definitely not official military gear, and lacks an NSN number. Its mainly for civilian sales and marketing purposes).

Yeah the Ed Brown ad was just another reference to the term. As for the recoilless rifle, there was one also designated the M40A1 as well as a has mask with the same designation wasn't there?

But the Mcmillan one in the book I figured might be a little different since Mcmillan did supply the stocks for the M40A1. I found a post here in Sniper's Hide that mentions there was an M40A2 in testing but it seemed like it was in a different stock (more like an early M40A3 stock?) and not the rifle mentioned in the book.

So was the "M40A2" mentioned in both books built by the USMC or was it something like Mcmillan themselves put together?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandwarrior
So was the "M40A2" mentioned in both books built by the USMC or was it something like Mcmillan themselves put together?

Others will know more, but I am not aware of anything official that was called an "M40A2" - but there are pics and anecdotals of prototype rifles from the 1990s with odd-ball configurations that were loosely based on the M40A1 thus folks are prone to call them "M40A2s" - but with different stocks, different scopes, different scope mounts, and even a shortened barrel threaded for a suppressor - all these permutations were tested, but none were fielded in an official capacity (ie, no technical package was developed, no National Stock Numbers were developed, and nothing was officially procured.) Could the late Gale McMillan have given the USMC some of his newer stocks - gratis (free) - to test/evaluate in the 1990s hoping that it evolves into a prospective new 'M40A2' procurement opportunity for his company? Absolutely.

Per Jim Land, the M40A2 recoilless rifle was still in USMC weapon inventory, so the M40A2 was skipped over in favor of the M40A3 nomenclature. (Presumably the nuanced difference b/t ordering a "M40A2 rifle, sniper" and "M40A2 rifle, recoilless" might have caused some confusion, and I imagine it would be hard to conduct a stalking exercise if the "M40A2s" that were ordered - showed up on-site in huge crates consisting of 485-pound recoilless rifles...opps.)

Digressing somewhat, but Gale McMillan did offer some 7.62 NATO sniper rifles to the US military in the mid-1980s that were improvements over the M40A1 configuration developed the late 1970s era. These were not USMC rifles - but were instead purchased by U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) - and are really a different subject unto themselves, but they are pretty close to what is pictured in post #5, but with a slightly different McMillan stock that has a higher comb, and a different camo pattern. (Pic 1 is from Joe Poyer's book, Collecting the American Sniper RIfle 1945 to 2000, pg 126).

The M86 rifles purchased by SOCOM solved the 3 issues that Gale McMillan had identified by the mid-1980s re the M40A1s: Higher cheek weld/cheek piece was needed, a bipod stud was needed, and a scope mount that accommodated 30mm rings was needed for the new Leupold Tactical scopes.

My understanding is that 460 of the M86 rifles were purchased by SOCOM around 1986 (or so), and they were used by Navy SEALs and perhaps other SOCOM units up through at least Desert Storm circa 1991 (see pics 2 and 3). Again, the M86 is a separate rifle platform altogether and used a special action that McMillan briefly made that was based on the Remington M700, but with various changes. From both a configuration perspective and chronological perspective regarding the evolution of McMillan stocks, the circa mid-1980s M86 fits between the M40A1 and later M40A3 configuration.

Bottomline, me thinks a "USMC M40A2" is a mythical creature based on one or two or three misc prototype, or concept rifles, tested in the 1990s by the USMC, but never officially fielded or officially developed into a Technical Package. That process didn't occur until around 2000 with the M40A3. My 2cts.
 

Attachments

  • M86_Poyner.jpg
    M86_Poyner.jpg
    190.4 KB · Views: 1,393
  • M86_image2.jpeg
    M86_image2.jpeg
    318.6 KB · Views: 742
  • M86_Popular_Mechanics_1991.jpeg
    M86_Popular_Mechanics_1991.jpeg
    233.2 KB · Views: 538
  • M86_Stock_v2.jpg
    M86_Stock_v2.jpg
    141.7 KB · Views: 578
Last edited:
The Marine Corps in its infinite wisdom left blank slots specifically to satisfy the clone queer crowd.

Here is my M40A2......

1611249518836.jpeg


My M40A is being built in this thread.......

 
The Marine Corps in its infinite wisdom left blank slots specifically to satisfy the clone queer crowd.

Here is my M40A2......

View attachment 7533554

My M40A is being built in this thread.......

That thing is drop dead sexy
 
B6829751 is the serial number to one of the M40A2 prototype rifles, it was first test fired on February 9, 1993 and fired again on September 2, 1993


And you know this as the tube book and rifle are in a safe being kept warm from the winds of the lake blowing upon Shitcago?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sandwarrior
And you know this as the tube book and rifle are in a safe being kept warm from the winds of the lake blowing upon Shitcago?

I wish! The info I just provided was from a friend, I tried to "@" him here, but his handle doesn't show up, so I'm not sure if he's on the forum anymore. He found the info, literally just a page with what I previously posted. I truly hope more info surfaces in the future, I'd love to know how the A2 was configured! Even though it's a prototype, it's still important in the M40 lineage.

Does anyone here know any 2112's from the early 90's? Seems like the next logical step is to interview someone who worked at the RTE shop during this time and see what they remember. The A2 did exist, it might have been a one-off or a few produced, but it did exist.
 
An old thread from Sept 2009: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/m40a2-question.15486/#post-15486

"Re: M40A2 question

From what I remember we had two of them in our class and yes they still had the winchester floorplates and same swivels, the stocks were OD green not camo and the recoil pads were black."

(he later added): "yea I forgot that they had the adj cheek rest like pictured above, they still used the Unertl mount and scope."

Another forum member:
"Same as Hogstooth said, the one we had was in Woodland but was later spray painted. The rifle jumped around Battalion STA's for T&E."

...So that old thread confirms my impression from retired 2112s that Gale McMillan provided the USMC with a small number of free stocks during the 1990s for the Marines to test and provide feedback re product improvement opportunities. This practice of providing 'gratis' gear often allows a vendor to get valuable feedback from the military and puts them in a better position to meet the technical requirements of a future procurement opportunity/contract, and Gale was certainly well versed in this practice with the USMC. (Scope manufactures do this as well)

My assumption based on the above post - is that both OD green and camo stocks were provided back then for prototype or concept rifles that were unoffically called "M40A2" rifles. At least some of them had adjustable cheek rests. The stocks were most likely the A2 and/or early A3 configuration. Some were camo, some were not. Some used Unertl scopes and mounts, and some did not. Some used M70 bottom metal, and some did not - probably depending on the era and if and when D.D. Ross provided some free bottom metal for the USMC to test & evaluate, etc.

I don't know about the history of pic #1, but for some reason I recall that it was reportedly from the late 1990s (I think 1998?, but really not sure)
Rifle on left is a USMC M40A1, and rifle on the right appears to be a prototype USMC rifle with a camo McMillan A2 stock with a fixed comb, Harris bipod, some sort of Leupold Variable power scope (looks like a 6.5-20x) and the little gold sticker is a Premier Reticles sticker, so I presume Dick Thomas worked on that scope as he installed a lot of Mil-Dot reticles for the USMC, and other military customers. This is about as close as I have seen to the mythical "M40A2" from mid or late 1990s. Earlier prototypes from early 1990s may have used the standard Unertl 10x scope, and perhaps an earlier McMillan stock.

Pics 2 thru 4 are from the book, Death from Afar, Vol IV (1995). The two Chandlers who wrote that book had very strong opinions about what a prospective "M40A2" should consist of circa late 1995, but their position was not an official USMC position. What the 3rd picture of the stock validates is that USMC MOS 2112s did provide McMillan with input on the early A3 stocks. The Chandler's were very much in favor of DD Ross scope rails and DD Ross bottom metal - as they thought using the old pre-64 M70 bottom metal took too much time and effort. They were also advocates of Hart barrels at that time, and they argued that a variable power scope should be used on a hypothetical M40A2. I should also note that McMillan stocks went through a lot of evolution during the 1980s-1990s as well, with the solid grey A2 chosen by Crane in 1995 for their M700/300 Win Mag sniper rifles, and the USMC went with an OD green A4 as of 2000 for the M40A3. (The A3 stock config and its options obviously evolved during the 1990s)

So again, a one-off or two-off prototype or concept rifle(s) for a hypothetical 'M40A2' would look different based on the era in which it was made: late 1980s vs early 1990s vs mid-to-late 1990s would have used different stocks based on whatever Gale McMillan was likely providing for T&E purposes. By 1999-2000 they had developed the design based on USMC input for an OD green A4 stock with 'large hook' and an adjustable cheek piece with a rubberized pad, sniper-fill, 3 bipod studs, DD Ross bottom metal, etc. (All specified in the M40A3 Technical Package and its new NSN)

(Last pic shows a modified M40A1 being tested that I guess is a rather mythical "M40A1.5 revision S" (for Suppressed...note early SureFire brake)
 

Attachments

  • Maybe_M40A2_prototype_1990s.jpg
    Maybe_M40A2_prototype_1990s.jpg
    432.5 KB · Views: 934
  • DFA_Vol_IV_M40A2_chapter_pg71.jpg
    DFA_Vol_IV_M40A2_chapter_pg71.jpg
    682 KB · Views: 559
  • DFA_Vol_IV_M40A2_chapter_pg79.jpg
    DFA_Vol_IV_M40A2_chapter_pg79.jpg
    779.5 KB · Views: 458
  • DFA_Vol_IV_M40A2_chapter_pg81.jpg
    DFA_Vol_IV_M40A2_chapter_pg81.jpg
    553 KB · Views: 634
  • M40A1_test_bed.jpg
    M40A1_test_bed.jpg
    315.4 KB · Views: 693
Last edited:
Ok
I wish! The info I just provided was from a friend, I tried to "@" him here, but his handle doesn't show up, so I'm not sure if he's on the forum anymore. He found the info, literally just a page with what I previously posted. I truly hope more info surfaces in the future, I'd love to know how the A2 was configured! Even though it's a prototype, it's still important in the M40 lineage.

Does anyone here know any 2112's from the early 90's? Seems like the next logical step is to interview someone who worked at the RTE shop during this time and see what they remember. The A2 did exist, it might have been a one-off or a few produced, but it did exist.
i was speaking to a retired 2112 this morning concerning a gen 1 MEUSOC build and I asked about the A2. He said the same thing Random Guy said, it was an unofficial name not an actual Nomenclature. They had them at the schoolhouse, he said, there’s no info around PWS covering them. Not sure if they were rifles built up specifically to be used in the stocks or if they dropped A1’s in them. By the way, stainless 1911 triggers (bow and shoe) aren’t easy to find!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandwarrior
Did the USMC field USO scopes?
This is not completely clear, but the best answer I got was "yes, a few were used." When US Optics got the contract to re-furbish the USMC’s Unertl scopes in 2000 (after Unertl was no longer in business), they had some Unertl scopes come in that were unserviceable (physically damaged objective bells or rear ocular, damaged main tube or turret housing, etc), and I understand that the USMC contract required that unserviceable scopes to be "repaired or replaced", so US Optics made some replacement scopes. There are threads somewhere on this topic. There are also a few pics floating around of US Optics scopes on issued rifles. I should also note that the US Optics contract from 2000 required that they make some MST-150 scopes for the Barrett M107 and M107A1 rifles (50 BMG) and those scopes have a unqiue serial number range and of course a different BDC turret.

He said the same thing Random Guy said, it was an unofficial name not an actual Nomenclature
That is correct, to the best of knowledge there was never a National Stock Number (NSN) created for a USMC M40A2 sniper rifle, which requires an item be a Program of Record; w/ a Project Manager, and w/ funding allocated, etc. That whole paperwork process is what creates the 'type classification’ and official nomenclature (ie M40A3). The mythical “M40A2” were a few prototype/experimental projects that varied based on what was being tested as a “school house” gun. (Hence no paperwork was done).
That last photo is rather modern... Look at the smart-phone in that bearded "Instructor's" back pocket.
Yes, that is a relatively recent picture likely taken in the 201Xs, and my whimsical comment about the "mythical M40A1.5 revision S'" was to illustrate that over the years 2112s have gotten permission to experiment with different configurations and parts to test performance (or ergonomics, etc). The M40A1 in the pic is presumably one of the dozen or so that remain in original configuration and kept at PWS, but that one was was clearly pulled out and modified for some sort of experiment w/ a SureFire brake. The mythical "M40A2" fits into that same category as a one-off or two-off type of experiment based on whatever stock or other part(s) a vendor or PWS wanted the Scout-Snipers to test & evaluate for possible future use back in the day, etc.
 
Last edited:
This Fantasy rifle did exist at one point. McMillan A2 Transitional stock tested at the school house but never adopted. Pretty rare bird since they never gained any traction. Didn’t last long, the A4 stock we all know and love made the cut. I used bastard take off parts for this clone including the Unertl base that was repaired (tack welds) at one point in it’s rough life. A little piece of M40 History.
 

Attachments

  • 1D753996-2CA1-4DD6-A6C3-47DB905EFA9A.jpeg
    1D753996-2CA1-4DD6-A6C3-47DB905EFA9A.jpeg
    79.8 KB · Views: 603
  • 3297BF12-10BA-4C9A-BD71-8E3E7D273ADF.jpeg
    3297BF12-10BA-4C9A-BD71-8E3E7D273ADF.jpeg
    27.9 KB · Views: 512
  • D70E8C4A-C754-4411-BCBC-14849CD7393F.jpeg
    D70E8C4A-C754-4411-BCBC-14849CD7393F.jpeg
    66.3 KB · Views: 470
  • 81578178-4872-474B-91A0-1D82C4D83457.jpeg
    81578178-4872-474B-91A0-1D82C4D83457.jpeg
    114.8 KB · Views: 516
  • 0AD933BD-E6C7-4F1C-93F8-A4F5DE21EFA6.jpeg
    0AD933BD-E6C7-4F1C-93F8-A4F5DE21EFA6.jpeg
    85.2 KB · Views: 578
  • 748912F9-F944-4575-BC0E-CB5272A214A7.jpeg
    748912F9-F944-4575-BC0E-CB5272A214A7.jpeg
    100.3 KB · Views: 1,084
Thanks for the pics(!) Very cool McMillan A2 stock and the patina and camo of that Unertl basically matches it too(!!). I'd love to know what year that prototype was made, my guess is mid-1990s but that's just a guess. Looks like it has an M14 front sling swivel and no bipod stud. Also looks like a woodland camo pattern, but hard to tell. The lack of an adjustable cheek rest suggests it might be one of the earlier A2 stocks.

(BTW, it's not a fantasy rifle, but it is neat piece - the mythical/experimental M40A2 - even has the old tape on the stock for identification. It might be only 1 of 2 or maybe 3 such prototypes with that particular A2 stock provided by the late Gale McMillan back in the day)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the pics(!) Very cool McMillan A2 stock and the patina and camo of that Unertl basically matches it too(!!). I'd love to know what year that prototype was made, my guess is mid-1990s but that's just a guess. Looks like it has an M14 front sling swivel and no bipod stud. Also looks like a woodland camo pattern, but hard to tell. The lack of an adjustable cheek rest suggests it might be one of the earlier A2 stocks.

(BTW, it's a not a fantasy rifle, but it is neat piece - the mythical M40A2 - even has the old tape on the stock for identification. It might be only 1 of 2 or maybe 3 such prototype with that particular stock provided by the late Gale McMillan back in the day)
Random, you are correct with the details. M14 front sling, no bipod stud and it’s woodland. I’m sticking with Fantasy...lol😂
 
Ok

i was speaking to a retired 2112 this morning concerning a gen 1 MEUSOC build and I asked about the A2. He said the same thing Random Guy said, it was an unofficial name not an actual Nomenclature. They had them at the schoolhouse, he said, there’s no info around PWS covering them. Not sure if they were rifles built up specifically to be used in the stocks or if they dropped A1’s in them. By the way, stainless 1911 triggers (bow and shoe) aren’t easy to find!

I heard the same story, unofficial name not an actual nomenclature. M40 Prototype
 

Attachments

  • F77562C2-2EE1-46A6-BCBA-28C191FF9668.jpeg
    F77562C2-2EE1-46A6-BCBA-28C191FF9668.jpeg
    98.4 KB · Views: 440
  • A7144C81-9CA4-4441-9A30-98C577F299D1.jpeg
    A7144C81-9CA4-4441-9A30-98C577F299D1.jpeg
    94.3 KB · Views: 444
  • D4B5A625-94E2-45BB-9FAD-EBF5D85046B8.jpeg
    D4B5A625-94E2-45BB-9FAD-EBF5D85046B8.jpeg
    104.2 KB · Views: 616
  • D89939D8-A259-46F2-B852-84D1BF7C382B.jpeg
    D89939D8-A259-46F2-B852-84D1BF7C382B.jpeg
    87.3 KB · Views: 675
Last edited:
So I have seen one of the build books of these. I need to see if I still have the photos of it. The rifles were maintained up until 2008. I spoke to one of the armorers that built them and basically as stated they were test platforms for different configurations ie scope rails, recoil lugs and barrel lengths. This is one of the stocks and rails that was used. I was told the actions were not clipslotted for these also as they had no formal build process.
The bottom metal screws are not as it came and the scope obviously isn't from it but as there isn't much photographic evidence, liberties are taken.
 
Last edited:
This is one of the stocks and rails that was used. I was told the actions were not clipslotted for these also as they had no formal build process
That stock w/ adj cheek piece does look like one of the mid-1990s prototypes that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Thanks for that pic.

However, I might note that the scope rail shown is actually the McCann Industries scope rail, sometimes called the MRS (McCann Rail System) or MIRs (McCann Industries Rail) - which was developed during 2003 and first went into production in 2004. Long story short, the prototype MRS or MIRs mount was evaluated in 2003 by SOCOM and Jim McCann subsequently won a $500k contract to begin production in 2004 of the first 600 rails that went to SF and the Ranger Regiment for their M24s. Mike Haugen (1st SFG at the time) designed it right before he retired from the Army in 03' and went to work at Remington (where he developed an improved version called the Modular Accessory Rail System or MARS). Brief history from the MRS inventor:
In 2002... there was no means or mechanism to mount IR devices onto the M24 and the only real NVG we had for it was the AN/PVS-10 which sucked. Subsequently the BN CSM came to me (I was in charge of all advanced training for the entire unit to include new equipment acquisition). He asked me to source a mount to allow the mounting of a IR laser pointer (aka target designator). I knew Rich McCann who had a small shop in Spanaway WA; Rich was an interesting guy who had never been in the military or a cop but was a bit of a "mad scientist" as he did things like convert M1 Garands to heavy calibers and such.

I went to Rich and laid out what I was looking for, basically a mount to replace the mount/s on the M24 that allow for the attachment of a IR laser and a clip on in line night vision system as they were just becoming a viable option. I provided my own Remington 700 custom rifle in 300WM as a platform to develop the mount. I drew up the mount in his shop and left my rifle for him to develop a prototype which he did.... This effort took probably 5-6 months start to finish and in 03' we had a production mount which I named the "MRS" (McCann Rail System) and wrote the marketing information on as well as tested.
(circa 2004)...As the MK13 (Mod 0/1) came into being, the SEALs were looking for an upgrade and had seen it, thus they began asking for it as well. Subsequently NSW ended up getting a number of them as well.
...so I suspect that stock could easily have been on one of the prototype "M40A2" rifles from the 1990s, but the McCann rail was not yet around back then. Cool rifle though and I wish it were mine. Thanks again for sharing that pic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sandwarrior
Yeah I realize that. I think at the end they were piecemeal rifles. The rail could be a leftover from the a3's that were tested with them. It is all speculation and in the end it just adds to the lore of the A2 unicorn. As we all know, without evidence, its all just hearsay.
 
the USMC never fielded an A2, we used odd numbers only until recently

these were copies not created by the USMC

Like Tactical Rifles or Bell and Carlson calling their stuff M40s, has nothing to do with the USMC, how do you have an A2 after the A3 ?

We didn't actually field Winchesters either, only a handful were tested or used by Special Services (Recreation centers) but the idea we had issued Winchesters is fake too, testing something short term happens all the time, doesn't make it so, or valid, anyone can walk something into a unit ask them to look at it, then say the USMC used or tried it ...

Fake
 
...

We didn't actually field Winchesters either, only a handful were tested or used by Special Services (Recreation centers) but the idea we had issued Winchesters is fake too...

I know I'm kicking the HMFIC here but Winchester M70's were used by Marines, some of the most famous snipers too.

Once the M40A1 was introduced, I believe all M70's were out of service.

As to the M40A2 in the ad, I think that has been explained already as the company's marketing.
 
This is not completely clear, but the best answer I got was "yes, a few were used." When US Optics got the contract to re-furbish the USMC’s Unertl scopes in 2000 (after Unertl was no longer in business), they had some Unertl scopes come in that were unserviceable (physically damaged objective bells or rear ocular, damaged main tube or turret housing, etc), and I understand that the USMC contract required that unserviceable scopes to be "repaired or replaced", so US Optics made some replacement scopes. There are threads somewhere on this topic. There are also a few pics floating around of US Optics scopes on issued rifles. I should also note that the US Optics contract from 2000 required that they make some MST-150 scopes for the Barrett M107 and M107A1 rifles (50 BMG) and those scopes have a unqiue serial number range and of course a different BDC turret.
Here ya go- USO
0w06gdy.jpg
 
hahah i asked the same question for the next gen. i was issued an a3 and then a5 i can hardly imagine was the a4 would be since what the a5 gave a NV bridge and tweaked the barrel...they used someone's toddler to numerically list these things and just jump around.
 
Never was an M40A2. Not a prototype or nothing. We went from A1 to A3 because there was already an A2, like a recoiless rifle or some shit. Vietnam era.
 
Never was an M40A2. Not a prototype or nothing. We went from A1 to A3 because there was already an A2, like a recoiless rifle or some shit. Vietnam era.

Seeing as I have all the paperwork involving the development of the M40A2 on the 1990's, I'm going to say that you're not quite correct. They did officially jump from the A1 to the A3, but there was indeed an A2. And the A2 is actually a very important piece of M40xx development. You can read about it when I publish this information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haney and j-huskey
I seem to remember Gunny Jim Owens pushing the McMillan A4 stock on the M40A3, maybe one of you have better memory than me.
Owens was a fan of the heavier the better prone prone prone...
Owens could be a sour puss though... just sayin...
I remember him and Neil Morris, way back when, it seems another world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USMCSGT0331
This is directly out of the proof book at the shop. It has every serial number of every gun made at RTE/PWS going back to Apr1991. 3 May 99 was the first A3 built, ever. If you look at 8 Jan, you'll see the last A1. Both on the same page. There is a 4 month lag there, we were waiting on stocks I believe. I am done arguing on this matter, if you are ever in Quantico come by the shop and I'll open the books up for you. Piece out.
I seem to remember Gunny Jim Owens pushing the McMillan A4 stock on the M40A3, maybe one of you have better memory than me.
Owens was a fan of the heavier the better prone prone prone...
Owens could be a sour puss though... just sayin...
I remember him and Neil Morris, way back when, it seems another world.
We definitely know the same peeps. Jim was heavily involved in the stock choice from A1 to A3. The entire sniper community had input. It was at the ordnance symposium at the SNCO club at Pendleton 1998 I believe when Ken Davis asked them and that's the stock they collectively wanted. He tried to talk them out of it due to the weight, but they held their ground
 
This is directly out of the proof book at the shop. It has every serial number of every gun made at RTE/PWS going back to Apr1991. 3 May 99 was the first A3 built, ever. If you look at 8 Jan, you'll see the last A1. Both on the same page. There is a 4 month lag there, we were waiting on stocks I believe. I am done arguing on this matter, if you are ever in Quantico come by the shop and I'll open the books up for you. Piece out.
In my previous post I said that in my paperwork SYSCOM calls the rifle an M40A2 and WTB referred to the M40A1 upgrade as an M40AX. I'm pulling this information directly from documents that were produced by SYSCOM and WTB/RTE, this isn't something I've randomly pulled out of my ass with no proof.

Since it comes down to a matter of semantics, the "A2" that was developed might be in your logbooks as an "A1." Or the A2 might not have been fired at the test shed. Or was fired there and wasn't recorded. Or only SYSCOM ever called it the A2 and WTB/RTE called it something else. Or any other number of reasons.

Additionally, we know when one of the A2's was test fired because this information was discovered close to a decade ago by someone who was looking at the records at PWS. Let me say it again, about a decade ago someone found A2 information at PWS. Not in a government archive hundreds of miles away, it was found inside PWS.

I'm not going to share the photo of the A2 3-ring binder sitting on the shelf next to the other 3-ring binders that have all the M40 serial numbers in them. It's an old photo and it's not mine, so I'm not going to post it. Since it's an older photo, I have no idea if those 3-ring binders are even still down there or if they were thrown away at some point. The photo of the A2 binder wasn't taken by a 2112, it was taken by someone visiting PWS who had permission to research information. In that binder was a single page of information, which I had previously summed up:

"B6829751 is the serial number to one of the M40A2 prototype rifles, it was first test fired on February 9, 1993 and fired again on September 2, 1993"

The serial number doesn't line up with any other M40xx serial number ranges, so who knows where it came from. This is all the information on that rifle. Who knows, maybe a 2112 broght his personal gun into RTE and declared it to be an M40A2, filled out the paperwork and then filed it away on one if the shelves. Or it was an M40A2 prototype built and tested by the 2112's.

I'm also aware of when the first A3 was test fired. Interestingly enough, in correspondence from WTB to MCCDC on May 24, 1999 (21 days after the A3 was first logged into the test shed's book), there is no mention of the M40A3. They referred to it as the M40AX. And in the previous year, R&D paperwork from mid to late 1998 calls the rifle the "M40A1 Mod.".

I mention these documents from the development of the A3 to show that the nomenclature wasn't well defined at that time. Different people in different places had different names for the upgraded M40A1, which continued after the M40A3 designation was recorded in the test shed's logbook. This isn't a matter of speculation, this is historical fact that's backed up by existing documents. We have information from two separate places in the Marine Corps that refer to the rifle as an M40A2 and one is shown to have built.

I'm not trying to be a dick and argue for the sake of arguing. I've spent the past decade trying to document as much M40 history as I can. I don't care about being right, I only care about the truth and what actually happened. If you prove that my information is incorrect, then that adds to the correct history of this weapon system. I appreciate your offer of showing me the test shed logbooks, someday I'd like to take you up on that and finally have a chance to visit PWS.