1980 + M40 A 1 sniper rifle ?

[westhewelder]

I spoke to some one today that I would expect to know, however, this person said, the M40 A1 US Marine Sniper Rifle was not accurate and had a lot of problems .
Any personal experience would be welcome.
I am building an M40 A1 clone and that is why this question came up.

 

[Charger442]

You're building a clone using modern components on a Reminder 700 reciever and barrel of your choice. The gunsmith doing the work will be important to the accuracy and not that it's named an M40 clone

 

[Stevo86]

My A1 shoots 1/2 Mia easily when I do my part. It’s not as comfortable as an A3 or A5, but it gets the job done. There’s some guys around here that can speak from real world experience tho. Maybe they will chime in.

 

[Supersubes]

I spoke to some one today that I would expect to know, however, this person said, the M40 A1 US Marine Sniper Rifle was not accurate and had a lot of problems .
Any personal experience would be welcome.
I am building an M40 A1 clone and that is why this question came up.

Did he elaborate on the problems? All they’ve done in the subsequesnt versions is change the stocks and add features. Still a rem 700 with a Schneider barrel, in .308.

 

[westhewelder]

You're building a clone using modern components on a Reminder 700 reciever and barrel of your choice. The gunsmith doing the work will be important to the accuracy and not that it's named an M40 clone

I guess I was not clear or spacific enough.
I apologise in advance. I am having an M40 A1 clone built in the near future. It will probably shoot 1/4-1/2 min. if I do my part.
In 1980, around the time the rifle was put into service, it was said to be a POS. Not accurate and had mechanical problems. That was very surprising for me to hear.
Was this an operator issue or a armor issue?
Any first hand experience? Was it an armor night mare or a user night mare?
Or was the comment not an accurate one

 

[westhewelder]

My A1 shoots 1/2 Mia easily when I do my part. It’s not as comfortable as an A3 or A5, but it gets the job done. There’s some guys around here that can speak from real world experience tho. Maybe they will chime in.

I am hoping someone will. My future build has nothing to do with the question except that is what sparked the conversation. To pass the school they had to be pretty accurate you would think.
It will be interesting to read about some first hand pro and cons of the M40 A1 from some one it was issues to.

 

[Hattrick]

I really have no experience with the M40 A1 but I do no in the 80s rem had problems with there actions. I had one I had to send back and had a few friends that did too. Guns going off when you worked a bolt, my rifle the action just locked up.

 

[westhewelder]

I really have no experience with the M40 A1 but I do no in the 80s rem had problems with there actions. I had one I had to send back and had a few friends that did too. Guns going off when you worked a bolt, my rifle the action just locked up.

Thanks for the feed back. I am not one to go around saying this person said this and that person said that. That is why I ask for any input to try to come to a conclusion. Besides, it is interesting to hear/read.
I recently ordered a stock for my A1 build. To make my self very clear I said I wanted to clone an M40 A1. My stock was channeled for a varmint barrel and not a #7. Frustrating for a guy like me for that to happen. I had no idea that any A1 had a varmint barrel at any time. I thought they were all #7 contour, heart, Schnieder, ECT. I was under the impression that the original M40, wood stock, had a varmint barrel. Then when the change came about ALL barrels were #7 contour for ALL A1's.

 

[westhewelder]

Did he elaborate on the problems? All they’ve done in the subsequesnt versions is change the stocks and add features. Still a rem 700 with a Schneider barrel, in .308.

He said the problems were accuracy and bottom metal

 

[J-Ham]

Your source is a fool. PWS has been turning out pretty decent rifles for years, A1's, A3's, A5's. My A3 admittedly didn't have the greatest trigger, breaking at a kind of gritty 4½ lbs, but every M40 in the platoon was a hammer.

As stated above, if you're having a clone made, it matters exactly zero what the designation on the side of the rifle is. Any reputable gunsmith can build an accurate rifle on a Remington action with basically any stock (certainly any McMillan), a decent barrel & trigger.

In my opinion, you don't know what you don't know (to quote Frank). This thread sucks... Granted I've been drinking though, which could be playing a role.

 

[J-Ham]

The booze would like to reiterate that your source is a fool.

 

[westhewelder]

Your source is a fool. PWS has been turning out pretty decent rifles for years, A1's, A3's, A5's. My A3 admittedly didn't have the greatest trigger, breaking at a kind of gritty 4½ lbs, but every M40 in the platoon was a hammer.

As stated above, if you're having a clone made, it matters exactly zero what the designation on the side of the rifle is. Any reputable gunsmith can build an accurate rifle on a Remington action with basically any stock (certainly any McMillan), a decent barrel & trigger.

In my opinion, you don't know what you don't know (to quote Frank). This thread sucks... Granted I've been drinking though, which could be playing a role.

Ha ha.....thanks for the reply. I did not use any Sniper rifle in the Corps but I could not imadgine any one of them not being accurate. A very good friend of mine used the A3. He seemed to like it.
Your right...this thread is not the best.

 

[Action Guy]

In my experience with M-40A1s from 1994 through 2002, the rifles were very good shooters. Initially, we did not realize how good they shot until M118LR showed up. Prior to that we only had M118 Special Ball. If you could put all three shots of a group into a 1" paster at 100 yards, you were shit-hot. With M118LR, this became a regular occurrence. What we thought was shit-hot was actually a bit of luck with some marginal ammo. After M118LR, qualification scores in school went way up. It was clear the rifles were good shooters and the snipers were better marksman than their ammo had been allowing them to be.

We all knew the gunsmiths in RTE/PWS were very skilled in barreling, chambering and bedding. It was very reassuring and rewarding to see the rifle do so much better once a better ammo was introduced. We could see the potential early on when we would occasionally shoot Federal GM Match or M852 in rifles.

M-40A3 allowed for a better prone position and adjustibility, so scores bumped again, both on KD and UKD scores. I love both the M-40A1 and A3 but never got to carry an older M-40 or the newer A5, A6 or what ever we're up to now.

Semper fi,
Action Guy

 

[_Windrider_]

I guess I was not clear or spacific enough.
I apologise in advance. I am having an M40 A1 clone built in the near future. It will probably shoot 1/4-1/2 min. if I do my part.
In 1980, around the time the rifle was put into service, it was said to be a POS. Not accurate and had mechanical problems. That was very surprising for me to hear.
Was this an operator issue or a armor issue?
Any first hand experience? Was it an armor night mare or a user night mare?
Or was the comment not an accurate one

Buy one from GAP. It’s damn near the closest you will get to the real thing and built by a 2112

 

[westhewelder]

Ha ha.....thanks for the reply. I did not use any Sniper rifle in the Corps but I could not imadgine any one of them not being accurate. A very good friend of mine used the A3. He seemed to like it.
Your right...this thread is not the best.

I believe the "source" was referring t

In my experience with M-40A1s from 1994 through 2002, the rifles were very good shooters. Initially, we did not realize how good they shot until M118LR showed up. Prior to that we only had M118 Special Ball. If you could put all three shots of a group into a 1" paster at 100 yards, you were shit-hot. With M118LR, this became a regular occurrence. What we thought was shit-hot was actually a bit of luck with some marginal ammo. After M118LR, qualification scores in school went way up. It was clear the rifles were good shooters and the snipers were better marksman than their ammo had been allowing them to be.

We all knew the gunsmiths in RTE/PWS were very skilled in barreling, chambering and bedding. It was very reassuring and rewarding to see the rifle do so much better once a better ammo was introduced. We could see the potential early on when we would occasionally shoot Federal GM Match or M852 in rifles.

M-40A3 allowed for a better prone position and adjustibility, so scores bumped again, both on KD and UKD scores. I love both the M-40A1 and A3 but never got to carry an older M-40 or the newer A5, A6 or what ever we're up to now.

Semper fi,
Action Guy

Thank you for that incredible, acurate, and we'll put information. That was exactly the point of the inquiries.
Again, I was not a sniper, however, I have some buddies that were. They used the A3 and we're out before the A5.
Speaking to barrel makers and gun builders they all say 173gr bullet while the manuals say 175. I have read before where the ammo in the beginning was not the best. I am getting my buddy an M40 Vietnam rifle made. He used the A3. They are close to being finished and I will be very proud to present him with that rifle.
I have the correct manual but not the other two books in the series. Still hunting for the FMFM 1-3 and the 1-3A.
I have two copies of the FMFM 1-3B YELLOW COVER If you would like me to send you a copy let me know. I think the yellow copy was more administration where as the brown copy was for the field.
Thanks again for your reply and sharing that information.

 

[westhewelder]

Buy one from GAP. It’s damn near the closest you will get to the real thing and built by a 2112

I have a non MILSPEC M40A1 from GAP. It is an impressive shooter. They said about $2,000 more to make it MILSPEC. I decided to keep it the way it is.
Thanks for your reply.

 

[Lowlight]

It was the ammo back then, I qual'd with an M40A1 in 86, the ammo back then was the issue.

The M40A1 was, is a custom build especially when you compare it to an M24. The limiting factor was the ammo.

173gr Special Ball is like semi high-end machine gun ammo. We begged for Federal 168gr stuff which was 10x better than 173gr special ball ammo.

That shit is just junk, so you can't blame the rifle for the crappy ammo used.

Aftermarket builds are custom builds they shoot.

 

[westhewelder]

It was the ammo back then, I qual'd with an M40A1 in 86, the ammo back then was the issue.

The M40A1 was, is a custom build especially when you compare it to an M24. The limiting factor was the ammo.

173gr Special Ball is like semi high-end machine gun ammo. We begged for Federal 168gr stuff which was 10x better than 173gr special ball ammo.

That shit is just junk, so you can't blame the rifle for the crappy ammo used.

Aftermarket builds are custom builds they shoot.

These replies are what make this discussion awesome. Thanks for your input. The person I spoke with was in regards to bottom metal and some other changes. So far I have not heard one word about issues with bottom metal. The Winchester BM in a Reminding action.
My stock was cut for Winchester BM. Still searching for that; in stock complete BM.
Keep'm coming. I always love to read about how it really was. Thanks for your reply.

 

[westhewelder]

These replies are what make this discussion awesome. Thanks for your input. The person I spoke with was in regards to bottom metal and some other changes. So far I have not heard one word about issues with bottom metal. The Winchester BM in a Reminding action.
My stock was cut for Winchester BM. Still searching for that; in stock complete BM.
Keep'm coming. I always love to read about how it really was. Thanks for your reply.

Yeah.....make that Remington action.

 

[Lowlight]

We taped our bottom metal, we didn't stuff rounds in, we single loaded when we could, and then when you had too, we'd load in 3 rounds.

remember the mantra back then was, no more than 3 rounds from any one position before you displaced and moved.

But ours had the bottom metal taped shut most of the time, and really was not something we thought about.

 

[westhewelder]

Then came the change to DD Ross? Or was DD Ross only on A3?
I was told a story of why there was no A2.
Amazing how politics work.

 

[Lowlight]

I liked it when we only had odd numbers,

not having an A2 or A4 makes it easy to vet the scammers.

there was an A2 but it was never fielded, having an A6 now messes up the history

 

[pmclaine]

A version of the A1 is my Billy Baroo.

Had it out today....

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/lets-see-your-billy-baroo.6926991/#post-7530269

Get it built right you will be happy.

GAP will get you a great rifle but it will not be "spec".

I have a PWS built A1

I modified it a little bit by pulling the front Wichita as someone built some sling studs with the same threading and I added a Harris

Its shot better but on this day I was looking for Magnetospeed data.

Raven Rifles in Virginia, @Raven 6 , builds an incredible rifle and has studied the M40 details of a few variations very well. I recommend him highly.

He built my Billy Baroo and is building me an M40 in .223 soon.

 

[Lowlight]

GAP has 2112s there, and Eric Reid from GAP ran the PWS in Quantico, they know the spec.

You can get it "spec" if you want, they are more than capable.

 

[westhewelder]

I liked it when we only had odd numbers,

not having an A2 or A4 makes it easy to vet the scammers.

there was an A2 but it was never fielded, having an A6 now messes up the history

There was an A6 but to my knowledge was scrapped due to the stock. I have not heard if " they" will change the stock to the Remington or whatever and keep the A6. It also has a 1-10 twist. Changes are never ending.

 

[pmclaine]

GAP has 2112s there, and Eric Reid from GAP ran the PWS in Quantico, they know the spec.

You can get it "spec" if you want, they are more than capable.

Will they black oxide now or still using cerakote?

 

[westhewelder]

GAP has 2112s there, and Eric Reid from GAP ran the PWS in Quantico, they know the spec.

You can get it "spec" if you want, they are more than capable.

They said the cost would be about $2,000 more to change my non-milspec to a Milspec. I will keep it non Milspec. I just don't have the cabbage to have it changed. It's a 1/4 min rifle so another reason not to mess with it.
The one I am trying to build to spec? I have an action, barrel, and a stock. Schnieder barrel. Still saving. Gotta feel my pain.

 

[westhewelder]

GAP has 2112s there, and Eric Reid from GAP ran the PWS in Quantico, they know the spec.

You can get it "spec" if you want, they are more than capable.

I have a rifle modeled after the A5. Gary Schnieder barrel, manners stock, adjustable cheak, and detachable BM. I will have an M40 Vietnam soon, with the actual scope they used in Vietnam and I have the non Milspec A1. I have the barrel, action, stock, for the A1 build but am waiting on money.
Your rifle is looking sweet. Like the US Optics as well.

 

[westhewelder]

I have a rifle modeled after the A5. Gary Schnieder barrel, manners stock, adjustable cheak, and detachable BM. I will have an M40 Vietnam soon, with the actual scope they used in Vietnam and I have the non Milspec A1. I have the barrel, action, stock, for the A1 build but am waiting on money.
Your rifle is looking sweet. Like the US Optics as well.

Would you recommend Winchester BM or send the stock back and get them to patch it, then recut for DD Ross BM?

 

[Lowlight]

for a copy, I would rather it last versus the originals that rusted all time, the coatings were shit.

If you asked I would bet they (GAP) send it out, coatings are easy, the originals were junk and worn off, plus was it really black oxide in 1978 vs blued, because I thought they were more blued.

If you look at the pictures none of them are black, they were blued, and it was worn to hell and back. Here is Taylor's rifle.

 

[pmclaine]

for a copy, I would rather it last versus the originals that rusted all time, the coatings were shit.

If you asked I would bet they (GAP) send it out, coatings are easy, the originals were junk and worn off, plus was it really black oxide in 1978 vs blued, because I thought they were more blued.

If you look at the pictures none of them are black, they were blued, and it was worn to hell and back. Here is Taylor's rifle.

Awesome details on the sling sections and paracord.

Always intersting to see how guys modified or accessorized for field use.

Is that a tape covered leather cheek piece?

 

[J-Ham]

Built-up cheek pieces with iso-mat & tape was still how we were rolling in the early 2000's. The A4 stock had the riser with the 2 thumb screws, but no one used that. I then covered mine with an Eagle stock pack, but most guys didn't.

 

[pmclaine]

Looking at Mr Taylor's rifle looks like he used an old school leather cheek piece.

Curious is Mr Taylor now an artist?

 

[westhewelder]

Would you recommend Winchester BM or send the stock back and get them to patch it, then recut for DD Ross BM?

I went with Winchester BM. I wish I had my stock inletted for DD Ross. What a pain in the butt in regards to Winchester Bottom metal. Every one who knows the process seems to guard it. I can modify and weld my own but finding the parts pieces, and techniques makes you want to choke your neighbor. Go with DD Ross and be done.

 

[sinister]

The earliest M40s were factory rifles very close to a wood-stocked 700 Varmint. I'm not sure they were glass-bedded. Vietnam humidity and rain would have made for "iffy" consistency. Surface rust would have been a zero issue during the monsoon season.

The M40A1s were built by the PWS, bedded into MacMillan stocks; MacMillan (then Schneider) stainless barrels; and PWS-welded bottom metal. Paired with good ammo (handloads) they made for a very good (but heavier) system. Army shooters with AMU-built rifles got Leupolds while Marines got Unertls.