I’m a very big fan of the premiers. They’re so aesthetically pleasing, and the large turrets are great.Love the Premier!
My single turn may not be perfect but it is my favorite scope and it hits what it sees.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Post any issues in the thread below or reach out directly to support!
View thread Contact supportI’m a very big fan of the premiers. They’re so aesthetically pleasing, and the large turrets are great.Love the Premier!
My single turn may not be perfect but it is my favorite scope and it hits what it sees.
Likewise, and your A5 paint job is money! Nicely done.I’m a very big fan of the premiers. They’re so aesthetically pleasing, and the large turrets are great.
I will say you definitely have some very interesting M40 stuff.Here's another prototype piece of M40xx history. The scope base in the photos below is an extremely rare prototype piece, it's 1 of 5 Badger Ordnance M40A3 scope bases that was made in aluminum! The aluminum base is on top, the regular steel base is on the bottom. You can also see the difference i finishing, since the aluminum base is anodized.
There's a 5.2 ounce difference between the 2 scope bases, which is more weight saving and far cheaper to produce than the carbon fiber handguards in my previous post. I'm comparing 2 different M40xx's, but this can still show how small changes to regular parts can have a more substantial impact than an exotic custom made part. But, the aluminum rail was never issued, probably because it's not as strong as the steel rail and the Corps moved away from aluminum M40 parts when they upgraded to the M40A1.
Just another interesting piece of M40 history. I think 3 or 4 of the 5 scope rails were sent to PWS for testing, I don't think that Badger Ordnance ever received them back. So, one of them could have ended up on an issued rifle or they could be sitting in a drawer at PWS right now or they could have been scrapped long ago.
View attachment 8176124
View attachment 8176123
View attachment 8176122
View attachment 8176121
@USMCSGT0331 You inspire meHere's an interesting variation of the M40A3:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
You have a nice pair.I previously had a Remington 40X 22lr M40 clone built, I was hoping for a pair unfortunately the stocks are quite different:
View attachment 8178546View attachment 8178547
I previously had a Remington 40X 22lr M40 clone built, I was hoping for a pair unfortunately the stocks are quite different:
View attachment 8178546View attachment 8178547
Beautiful! Are you going to replace the Leupold replica scopes with original Redfields green anodized by Toki?I previously had a Remington 40X 22lr M40 clone built, I was hoping for a pair unfortunately the stocks are quite different:
View attachment 8178546View attachment 8178547
Yup! Original metallurgic aging patina.Looks real nice. is that a plum color bolt handle? I like the look... you'll need to take her to the range this summer.
Probably going to stick with the Leupolds at least for now. I have a green scope that Toki anodized, but I need to decide if it is going on my 6 digit smear project... I can't decide what scope to use so I will probably try them all out and then go with the one I like the best. Just waiting on the barrel now!Beautiful! Are you going to replace the Leupold replica scopes with original Redfields green anodized by Toki?
What is the front rail you are running on the A3? Ive seen some A3s with an EFR, but nothing like that!Hey brother, looks like we've got the exact same rifles! Have you wrapped up an A6 build?
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
It's a US Optics M40A3MVP mount. I only saw them on a couple pictures of Marine Recon M40A3's.What is the front rail you are running on the A3? Ive seen some A3s with an EFR, but nothing like that!
Awesome picture!! I wish I would have gotten GAP to build one of these for me back when they offered them...View attachment 8203940
Couldn’t live without this…. And never did anything with it. Shame
Wow!Just a follow-up range report on my recent M40 project... These are two consecutive 3 shot groups at 100 yards with 168 FGMM:
View attachment 8203006
This old school set-up out shoots my Tac Ops Delta 51!!
DW
LMAO... it has a Tangent Theta that cost more than my entire M40 build!!Wow!
I bet your tac ops has more magnification too.
Great hits
At least it’s a properly done M40LMAO... it has a Tangent Theta that cost more than my entire M40 build!!
DW
Oh so you were the one I was biding against? I'll send you a PMI recently acquired an extremely rare carbon fiber handguard for the M40A6 Remington RACS chassis. About half a dozen or less of these handguards were ever made, Remington custom ordered them from Lancer (company that's known for making polymer AR15 magazines with steel feed lips). A few of these carbon fiber handguards were also used on the RACS chassis that were on the Surgeon CSR/SRL rifles. I took a few photos of my M40A6 with the regular handguard and the carbon fiber handguard, so they could be compared.
I also weighed the stripped down handguards to see what the weight difference is. The regular aluminum handguard weighs 11.9 ounces and the carbon fiber handguard weighs 8.3 ounces. There's a 3.6 ounce (30%) difference between the 2 handguards, which isn't a whole lot, but the Corps (and the other military branches) have a history of experimenting with firearm weight reduction.
Normally it's stuff like the scope rail or recoil lug that's slimmed down, but in this case it's a piece of the chassis (not much else to trim down besides the chassis and barrel on an A6). Since it's a piece of the chassis and it's a custom made piece of carbon fiber that was sourced from another company, this piece was a lot more expensive than just making something like a scope base from a different metal. The carbon fiber handguard is definitely lighter than the aluminum one, but I doubt the Corps wanted to pay hundreds of dollars to shave a few ounces off the A6 chassis.
Even though the Marines didn't end up using a carbon fiber handguard on their M40A6 chassis, it's still an interesting footnote in the history of M40xx development, design and prototyping. It does look kinda cool though!
View attachment 8176040
View attachment 8176039
View attachment 8176038
View attachment 8176037
View attachment 8176036
View attachment 8176035
View attachment 8176034
The USMC tested various chassis systems in the early 201Xs to replace the glass-bedded/labor intensive McMillan stocks, so I think the answer is 'no' if you are asking that question. There was no interest in glass-bedding more USMC sniper rifles in the early 201Xs - it was all about a chassis system, per the RFP that was released for industry solicitations. I don't know how many chassis systems were tested under the USMC RFP back then, but it was several (Remington, AI, Cadex, APO and perhaps others). Remington of course won it in 2014. Per a 2112 who was at PWS in 2014-2016 during the transition from the M40A5 to A6, USMC leadership was focused on a chassis system as a strategy to greatly reduce the manual labor of 2112s building sniper rifles... He also told me that 2112s were forbidden to make any modifications to the chassis systems on the M40A6 - no minor filing of the Remington chassis or the recoil lug was even allowed. It was about standardization and labor reduction (ie, no more glass-bedding, etc).Did the military field/test this stock before going to the a6 chassis
That big hook one might be mine from a long time ago and if it is, its one of the first from McMillan civ production.The USMC tested various chassis systems in the early 201Xs to replace the glass-bedded/labor intensive McMillan stocks, so I think the answer is 'no' if you are asking that question. There was no interest in glass-bedding more USMC sniper rifles in the early 201Xs - it was all about a chassis system, per the RFP that was released for industry solicitations. I don't know how many chassis systems were tested under the USMC RFP back then, but it was several (Remington, AI, Cadex, APO and perhaps others). Remington of course won it in 2014. Per a 2112 who was at PWS in 2014-2016 during the transition from the M40A5 to A6, USMC leadership was focused on a chassis system as a strategy to greatly reduce the manual labor of 2112s building sniper rifles... He also told me that 2112s were forbidden to make any modifications to the chassis systems on the M40A6 - no minor filing of the Remington chassis or the recoil lug was even allowed. It was about standardization and labor reduction (ie, no more glass-bedding, etc).
Fwiw, USMCSGT0331 posted this neat picture a while back that basically shows the chronological progression of the M40A3 thru A6 rifles. I don't recall the details of that bottom rifle with camo stock w/ the huge hook on the stock, but it looks like a very early McMillan A4 stock and it might be have been a one-off or two-off prototype from the mid-to-late 1990s. Note: The USMC tested a few gratis (free) McMillan A2 stocks in the mid-1990s that Gale McMillan gave them for T&E purposes. What they adopted of course was the OD green stocks with a cheek rest w/ 2 screws.
(I changed the orientation by 90 degrees as it's a little easier (for me at least) to see the changes when the rifles are shown horizontally).
View attachment 8265644