-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
A Ghost...
- Thread starter Doric
- Start date
That's a unique build. To me it looks like the very early or 'transitional' M40A1 from circa 1978-79, in which the USMC was evaluating various scopes, including the odd-ball matte-black Redfield "Widefield" scope that you have ('US Property' marked). I noted the transitional mount as well. That's a very 'niche' build, I like it. (Attached is the only picture I have seen with that evaluation scope from the late 1970s era).
Attachments
That scope is exceedingly rare, there's only a handful known to still exist. What's the scope's number on the top of the tube, underneath the rear ring?
Here's the 2 types the USMC tested: top is sandblasted, bottom is some kind of matte finish. Your scope is the same type as the bottom one.
Here's the 2 types the USMC tested: top is sandblasted, bottom is some kind of matte finish. Your scope is the same type as the bottom one.
No doubt! I still have inner struggles with .308-hate, but the rifle...the way it's built light, but strong, heavy where needed, not where it isn't, enough scope, not too much BS attached, no unnecessary options. Just a killa' when it's needed.
Have yet to take the scope off the rifle, will let you know the number when I do. Have just posted an update on the story behind this rifle.That scope is exceedingly rare, there's only a handful known to still exist. What's the scope's number on the top of the tube, underneath the rear ring?
Here's the 2 types the USMC tested: top is sandblasted, bottom is some kind of matte finish. Your scope is the same type as the bottom one.
I'm 99% sure that is a return stock sold-off by McMillan back in 2006-7 period and it was subsequently used on this very nice replica. As a small time collector of M1 Garands I always carefully study patina of metal and wood parts in an effort to try and determine what is original - versus what was restored, refinished, or replaced. With respect to this 'ghost' rifle, it clearly has brand new bottom metal that lacks any patina at all. No finish wear on the edges, no discoloration/oxidizing of the finish that naturally occurs over a 10 to 40 year period. Hence the bottom metal is new, and it doesn't match the stock's patina. (I will note that the front screw is not correct on the ghost rifle, as the original USMC M40A1 build procedures used allen head bolts - see pic #5 of correct parts used on real M40A1s)
See first pic: I have a bunch of pictures of real M40A1s that I have taken at Quantico over the years, and all of them, and I do mean all of them, show natural patina on the bottom metal finish, regardless of wear levels - it just slowly and lightly oxidizes over time naturally. I noted that the 'ghost' rifle has a very worn buttpad (which is original and cool), and the late 1970s evaluation scope has a lot of finish wear/patina from being field tested by the USMC back in the day (or in later years by subsequent owners) - whereas the bottom metal (and the bolt too) looks like it was just refinished - so its not original. (Last picture shows my spare M40A1 bottom metal with corrrect allen head bolts that were refinished at PWS in 2019, and it too lacks patina....and looks nothing like the patina seen on real M40A1s built in the 1980-1990s - as shown in the first pic, or the patina of the original bottom metal on my M40A1 return stock).
So the ghost rifle has new or replacement bottom metal, as the vintage M40A1 stock might have been missing its original metal, which is not that uncommon. The bolt lacks wear /patina compared to the worn safety, and the rings also lack finish wear, which would be expected given all the wear on the scopes' front bell, rear ocular, and turret caps. So the rifle has a mixture of newly finished parts and some vintage parts with appropriate patina.
Please note: These observations do not take away from the fact the the 'ghost' rifle is a very cool early M40A1 replica, and I would be proud to own it, but it is not an original M40A1 rifle built back in the 1970s. A casual observation shows it to be a restoration using a vintage stock and scope. And that's fine (minus the undocumented 'story' about the USMC supposedly building a SF sniper rifle for 'politcal deniability' to be used in South Africa 40+ years ago...)
BTW, the scope(s) shown are the Redfield 'Widefield' variety from the late 1970s. If you look closely you will see the lens are not circular, but are actually an oblong, quasi-rectangular shaped lens. These were evaluated in the late 1970s as replacements to the earlier Redfields, but were rejected in favor of the Unertl 10x scopes that were developed in the 1979 time period. These scopes are marked "US PROPERTY" and are kind of rare. Last picture is from Chandler's book, Death From Afar, Vol 1, page 62 - note the shape of the front objective and rear ocular - they are quasi-rectangular in shape.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thank you all for your feedback, much appreciated. As requested, herewith some more pics. McMillan did confirm the authenticity of the stock, but were unable to offer any further information regarding the number.
Attachments
Similar threads
