Army M24 Build Thread

M24 stock bolts are on the left, and factory original Remington 700 on the right. The M24 bolts are slightly longer to compensate for the thickness of the 0.600" X 0.250" stainless washers placed between the bottom flooplate assembly and buttstock inlet. I have a pair of new M24 screws inbound, and will update the post when they arrive.
 

Attachments

  • 20230717_164335.jpg
    20230717_164335.jpg
    681 KB · Views: 85
Last edited:
A high wear item is the magazine follower. Originally coated with Sandstrom finish, cases abrade it away. I use aerosol dry moly lube to help keep her slippery. Hit it with a heat gun, and the new finish will last a few hundred rounds. I like keeping "Heavy Duty Judy" looking slick & sexy.
 

Attachments

  • 20230717_172228.jpg
    20230717_172228.jpg
    479.4 KB · Views: 62
  • 20230717_172421.jpg
    20230717_172421.jpg
    358.9 KB · Views: 66
The Army TM doesnt give much detail torquing down the stock bolts. Whats your procedure for bolting the stock back together?

Do you apply any lubricant to the threads? Or prefer them dry?

When using the 65 IN/LBS torque wrench, do you immediately stop turning after the 1st click? Or do you give it a few more click turns? I've witnessed sometimes another 60° of screw rotation after the 1st click. Same for the scope rings. What are your personal preferences?
 

Attachments

  • 20230717_181838.jpg
    20230717_181838.jpg
    374.8 KB · Views: 48
We alternated tightening each bolt with the Seekonk wrench until it clicked, threads were always dry. I stopped clicking the Seekonk wrench multiple times after the initial click. In theory, once it clicks you've hit the specified torque and that's that, adding more clicks can actually increase the amount of torque incrementally until something fails. I had this happen with a set of Badger Ordnance rings and a Seekonk 65 in/lb wrench. Witnessing an additional 60 degress of rotation after the initial click is indicative of something that's failed.
 
Found these stamps inside my Hardigg case. Any idea what they mean?

I haven't seen stamped marks, but have seen a lot of marks in that location that appeared to be left over from the fabrication of the cases.

I had a few extra cases at one point a few years ago. All the extras are now in the hands of fellow collectors!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3546.JPG
    IMG_3546.JPG
    474.8 KB · Views: 81
  • IMG_3555.JPG
    IMG_3555.JPG
    477.4 KB · Views: 70
  • IMG_3503.JPG
    IMG_3503.JPG
    815.6 KB · Views: 75
  • Like
Reactions: lockedandloaded
The Army TM doesnt give much detail torquing down the stock bolts. Whats your procedure for bolting the stock back together?

Do you apply any lubricant to the threads? Or prefer them dry?

When using the 65 IN/LBS torque wrench, do you immediately stop turning after the 1st click? Or do you give it a few more click turns? I've witnessed sometimes another 60° of screw rotation after the 1st click. Same for the scope rings. What are your personal preferences?

We alternated tightening each bolt with the Seekonk wrench until it clicked, threads were always dry. I stopped clicking the Seekonk wrench multiple times after the initial click. In theory, once it clicks you've hit the specified torque and that's that, adding more clicks can actually increase the amount of torque incrementally until something fails. I had this happen with a set of Badger Ordnance rings and a Seekonk 65 in/lb wrench. Witnessing an additional 60 degress of rotation after the initial click is indicative of something that's failed.

I do the same as Trigger Monkey, alternating the tightening between the front and rear bolts gradually tightening. When I can tell I'm close, I break the front bolt first, then the rear. Not sure that is necessary, but consistency can't hurt. I do not add any extra clicks.

I don't apply any extra lubrication, but I don't try to make them dry either. I remove them as seldom as possible anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lockedandloaded
I got a simple question thats not M24 specific, but theres people on here probably know the answer. What are the rubber bands for wrapped around some sniper scopes? Took a picture of a picture to show what I mean. I cant figure it out
 

Attachments

  • 20230720_122324.jpg
    20230720_122324.jpg
    611.6 KB · Views: 153
I was looking at 2 factory built civilian m24s and noticed the front sights were different. I seam to recall that at some point Remington ran out of the Redfield front sight and started using a different manufacture. So my questions are which one of these is the Redfield sight? One is milled a little different on the side, it has a line on it that can be seen. One has Allen screws and the other is held in with standard slotted screws. Any idea of when the screws were switched to Allen? One is parkerized but I don't think that helps date it. One appears to be on backwards too. Which one? Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • f1.jpg
    f1.jpg
    246.7 KB · Views: 94
  • f2.jpg
    f2.jpg
    157 KB · Views: 95
I was looking at 2 factory built civilian m24s and noticed the front sights were different. I seam to recall that at some point Remington ran out of the Redfield front sight and started using a different manufacture. So my questions are which one of these is the Redfield sight? One is milled a little different on the side, it has a line on it that can be seen. One has Allen screws and the other is held in with standard slotted screws. Any idea of when the screws were switched to Allen? One is parkerized but I don't think that helps date it. One appears to be on backwards too. Which one? Thanks.
The example on top is for the sight system manufactured in the UK, and the bottom example is US made Redfield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: superdave269
Here's another shot of Dakota vs SH bottom metal. As @lockedandloaded said- one welded and one bolted.
View attachment 8179918

This may be interesting. Got this floorplate that fits a M24 stock perfectly. Came in a paper wrapper with a partial label that has the Remington Arms Company CAGE code on it. The trigger guard itself is thinner than the one that came on my M24 rebuild though.

IMG_0424.jpeg
IMG_0426.jpeg
 
This may be interesting. Got this floorplate that fits a M24 stock perfectly. Came in a paper wrapper with a partial label that has the Remington Arms Company CAGE code on it. The trigger guard itself is thinner than the one that came on my M24 rebuild though.

View attachment 8190940View attachment 8190942
Does the left side have a Magnaflux proofmark as shown in post #1446?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kft101
Redfield sight bases & sights. The Palma is not listed here, so it must have been discontinued when these adverts were published.

My specific M24SWS has an "A" marking stamped on the rear face of frt base. I drew an arrow on the page listing the "A Special Front Base, Item No. 723015". The installed height is 0.173" on a 0.954" diameter 5R barrel.
If one were to order a front sight base from Steve Earle Products to match the original shorter Redfield front base as closely as possible, any idea which one to get? Thanks!
 
If one were to order a front sight base from Steve Earle Products to match the original shorter Redfield front base as closely as possible, any idea which one to get? Thanks!
Well that depends on which Iron Set you want, the Redfield or the OK Weber. The Redfield bases were the most prolific. That front sight base above that has the rounded edges is either a Redfield or a close facsimile or maybe even a genuine Remington. Can't see it well enough. BTW, Remington actually made their own front sight bases but the Redfields are nearly identical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lockedandloaded
Well that depends on which Iron Set you want, the Redfield or the OK Weber. The Redfield bases were the most prolific. That front sight base above that has the rounded edges is either a Redfield or a close facsimile or maybe even a genuine Remington. Can't see it well enough. BTW, Remington actually made their own front sight bases but the Redfields are nearly identical. And notice that the leading edges aren't really rounded, they're beveled.
Ooh now that I look at those pics again the one on the bottom of each pic isn't right. Too tall. This is a genuine Remington front sight base.
v0LLhtD.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: kft101
No, no “M” proof or any other markings at all on the bottom metal I have. The trigger guard looks thinner than both the Dakota Arms or Sunny Hill M24 bottom metals too.

View attachment 8191505
It seems you own a Dakota Arms "Peter Greisel" designed commercial floorplate, not the early US Army version. I cant locate my paperwork from old Brownells catalogues listing your version at the moment. But it was the basic design that Remington chose for the original M24. They beefed it up, and since it was two halves welded together, it required Magnaflux inspection with the circled M inspectors stamp to pass gov't inspection. The thinner trigger guard was how Greisel designed it for his Model 76 hunting rifles, not military use. Greisel was the owner of Dakota Arms, and he later sold his company to Remington. If it was a Sunny Hill manufactured version, there would be 2 allen head bolts as illustrated in @m1marty post #1453.

But the fact yours came with Rem. CAGE code labels is very interesting. I've come to believe that when Remington started selling their M24 models on the open market, it made financial sense to obtain parts subcontracted through outside vendors, rather than build them in-house at a higher cost. There are numerous posts showing differences between early issue parts and later parts. Primarily scope rings, scope & open sight bases, floor metal, etc.

Also, the last contract between Remington & US Army for M24 was dated August 28, 2002. It was the agreement for Remington to continue rebuilding worn out/damaged rifles. On page 3 of this Contract For Depot Support it states: "The Contractor shall submit a Report Of Item Discrepancy (ROID) identifying all shortages of components." Army knew the days of the old M24 were limited. But until its replacement was certified, they had to keep the original systems operable. And if the contractor could not procure/produce original spec items, a suitable replacement was allowed.

Its my opinion your BM is one of their later issued replacement parts, sourced from a company-owned subsidiary. The CAGE code labeling strongly supports this.

ETA: Dakota Arms was purchased by Remington, and ultimately the brand was sold off during their recent bankruptcy.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230729-030603_Drive.jpg
    Screenshot_20230729-030603_Drive.jpg
    543.3 KB · Views: 59
  • 20230729_043044.jpg
    20230729_043044.jpg
    185.8 KB · Views: 56
  • 20230729_043336.jpg
    20230729_043336.jpg
    505.8 KB · Views: 53
Last edited:

Looking for the complete Serial # list of these 15 M24 rifles that Remington leased to the US Army Sniper School, and copies of the lease contract. My earlier post #1068 from 2022 detailed the RIA Auction back in 2019 when one example sold for $13,800. I've had zero luck tracking down any info. Now that Remington records are closed, can anybody provide info? These are significant rifles related to Remington history, and the M24 SWS legacy. If you purchased that rifle, it's understood you demand anonymity. And if your last name happens to be Knight, I'll come visit your collection!😉
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230729-131532_kindlephoto-1204740414.png
    Screenshot_20230729-131532_kindlephoto-1204740414.png
    202.6 KB · Views: 79
Last edited:
It seems you own a Dakota Arms "Peter Greisel" designed commercial floorplate, not the early US Army version. I cant locate my paperwork from old Brownells catalogues listing your version at the moment. But it was the basic design that Remington chose for the original M24. They beefed it up, and since it was two halves welded together, it required Magnaflux inspection with the circled M inspectors stamp to pass gov't inspection. The thinner trigger guard was how Greisel designed it for his Model 76 hunting rifles, not military use. Greisel was the owner of Dakota Arms, and he later sold his company to Remington. If it was a Sunny Hill manufactured version, there would be 2 allen head bolts as illustrated in @m1marty post #1453.

But the fact yours came with Rem. CAGE code labels is very interesting. I've come to believe that when Remington started selling their M24 models on the open market, it made financial sense to obtain parts subcontracted through outside vendors, rather than build them in-house at a higher cost. There are numerous posts showing differences between early issue parts and later parts. Primarily scope rings, scope & open sight bases, floor metal, etc.

Also, the last contract between Remington & US Army for M24 was dated August 28, 2002. It was the agreement for Remington to continue rebuilding worn out/damaged rifles. On page 3 of this Contract For Depot Support it states: "The Contractor shall submit a Report Of Item Discrepancy (ROID) identifying all shortages of components." Army knew the days of the old M24 were limited. But until its replacement was certified, they had to keep the original systems operable. And if the contractor could not procure/produce original spec items, a suitable replacement was allowed.

Its my opinion your BM is one of their later issued replacement parts, sourced from a company-owned subsidiary. The CAGE code labeling strongly supports this.

ETA: Dakota Arms was purchased by Remington, and ultimately the brand was sold off during their recent bankruptcy.
I differ with your evaluation. If you look at the wrapping and date code you will notice it is 2008 which would be a Hill manufactured trigger guard. I would venture to say an early commercial Dakota guard was put in that wrapper to give it provenance. Hill made all the guards for the last 15 years of the program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lockedandloaded
I differ with your evaluation. If you look at the wrapping and date code you will notice it is 2008 which would be a Hill manufactured trigger guard. I would venture to say an early commercial Dakota guard was put in that wrapper to give it provenance. Hill made all the guards for the last 15 years of the program.
This seems plausible if the BM was passed off as original issue with the wrapping paper. Its just an odd situation that Rem would discontinue using their original supplier (Dakota) after purchasing that company, just to go to an outside vendor (SH). I wish these issues were somehow better documented for posterity sake. The clock is ticking to obtain these details now that Rem filed bankruptcy and the new ownership really isnt involved with the previous bus. ops.
 
Anyone know where one can obtain the bigger lock ring for a M24 flash hider to use with barrels with the taller OK Weber front sight base? I managed to find a M24 flash hider, but it has the original lock ring for barrels with the shorter Remington/Redfield front sight bases. Thanks in advance.

EEA1C661-979B-485F-9160-D7BC0A95B7E7.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Anyone know where one can obtain the bigger lock ring for a M24 flash hider to use with barrels with the taller OK Weber front sight base? I managed to find a M24 flash hider, but it has the original lock ring for barrels with the shorter Remington/Redfield front sight bases. Thanks in advance.

View attachment 8195721
I'll send you the contact info of a gunsmith who built some copies. Maybe he can make the correct sized lockring for yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kft101
Anyone know where one can obtain the bigger lock ring for a M24 flash hider to use with barrels with the taller OK Weber front sight base? I managed to find a M24 flash hider, but it has the original lock ring for barrels with the shorter Remington/Redfield front sight bases. Thanks in advance.

View attachment 8195721
Over the years there seems to have been a pretty high demand for M24 flash hider, perhaps this can be added to the clone parts that LRI is going to be producing? In turn this would get you a locking ring??
DW
 
  • Like
Reactions: kft101
Over the years there seems to have been a pretty high demand for M24 flash hider, perhaps this can be added to the clone parts that LRI is going to be producing? In turn this would get you a locking ring??
DW
Already reached out to LRI about this. His repro/clone parts queue is fully full right now, but something to keep in mind in the future when it opens up for other requests. 😂
 
Are the threads on both flash hiders the same pitch?
Replied to your message, but for everyone’s awareness, yes, the thread pitch should be the same since it’s the same flash hider body, just different size lock ring diameter to take into account the different height front sight bases.

Looks like @animaldoc has the larger lock ring for the later OK Weber base, and I have the smaller lock ring for the original Redfield base. Any machinists out there that could take both and create repros of them?

Figure that may solve this issue for a bunch of folks here.
 
Hello, looking clarification regarding the correct leupold rings. Part number F96082… Would the later rings have the leupold logo on top of the ring or that is the incorrect rings supplied to Remington Defence?