m24 used a lot of different bipods. what era are you setting your build? i would establish that and then get the appropriate parts.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Debating from either 2006-2010 or possibly a late build to match when the rifle was built.
Took it out and tried it. Very impressed with the groups I was getting from the bench, shot steel afterwords.
I noticed the buttpad adjustment system needs some work. I thought it was stripped, but I noticed that the screw with the wheels on it can freely turn. I just need to pull the pad off and tighten what ever holds it in place right?.
Took it out and tried it. Very impressed with the groups I was getting from the bench, shot steel afterwords.
I noticed the buttpad adjustment system needs some work. I thought it was stripped, but I noticed that the screw with the wheels on it can freely turn. I just need to pull the pad off and tighten what ever holds it in place right?.
Attachments
Last edited:
Last question for a while then to building... I am wanting to build the rifle in a late model 2006-2010. Are these components correct?
* Leupold Mk 4 steel rings medium height
* Harris swivel 9-13in bipod. Smooth legs/friction lock
* Leupold Mk4 3-10
* Leupold Mk 4 2 piece base (Currently owned)
*m1907 sling (Currently owned)
Also are these sling swivels correct?
* Leupold Mk 4 steel rings medium height
* Harris swivel 9-13in bipod. Smooth legs/friction lock
* Leupold Mk4 3-10
* Leupold Mk 4 2 piece base (Currently owned)
*m1907 sling (Currently owned)
Also are these sling swivels correct?
The value will always be there, it’s an M24... Is yours one of the new ones from eurooptic or one of the eurooptic Army buy backs from a few years ago?
I have illuminated MRT and LRT, both mildot w/M2's. I know one or both were used/issued on one rifle or another but can't recall offhand.
No intention here to upstage Mr. Ferguson here, congrats on your purchase and the long race begins for you to find the extras. Don't rush it and keep your eyes on the prize. Never my intent to step on anyone's acquisitions, I just like to share my stuff for reference material for all you M24 enthusiasts.
But I digress. A few weeks ago, another member here and I were talking over the night vision assets that were available at the time and during the 25 yr life cycle of the M24. I wasn't home to pull these out but I am now and I'd like to share them again. Pics of these guys used to be on the previous version of this thread but they're gone now, proof that not everything that goes on the internet stays on the internet.
This is Smokey, my 1988 US marked M24, sporting its AN/PVS-9 Simrad KN203 FAB night scope and AN/PEQ-2 laser. Old tech by today's standards but I've consistently hit targets to 1050 meters on dark nights. The insert of the original TM from Remington is just there to make you salivate.
And this is my 2013 M24A2 sporting its AN/PVS-30 and IZLID 200P illuminator. Please don't berate me for leaving the magazine out of the pic. Sorry.
But I digress. A few weeks ago, another member here and I were talking over the night vision assets that were available at the time and during the 25 yr life cycle of the M24. I wasn't home to pull these out but I am now and I'd like to share them again. Pics of these guys used to be on the previous version of this thread but they're gone now, proof that not everything that goes on the internet stays on the internet.
This is Smokey, my 1988 US marked M24, sporting its AN/PVS-9 Simrad KN203 FAB night scope and AN/PEQ-2 laser. Old tech by today's standards but I've consistently hit targets to 1050 meters on dark nights. The insert of the original TM from Remington is just there to make you salivate.
And this is my 2013 M24A2 sporting its AN/PVS-30 and IZLID 200P illuminator. Please don't berate me for leaving the magazine out of the pic. Sorry.
The next iteration of night vision for the M24 was the AN/PVS-10. It was designed to replace the day sight completely as it was a Day/Night scope. It mounted on the existing one piece scope mount. I never had any experience with it but I'm told it didn't bear up under scrutiny.
Other night vision used on the M24 were the AN/PVS-22, a pretty nice piece of kit. It was small and light and just as at home on a M4 as on the M24. This of course required the MERS or MARS rails as this was a true clip-on.
In very short succession the AN/PVS-26 came out very closely followed by the AN/PVS-30 shown earlier above.
And the last one I know of is the AN/PAS 13 V3 Thermal scope which again I have no personal experience with.
Other night vision used on the M24 were the AN/PVS-22, a pretty nice piece of kit. It was small and light and just as at home on a M4 as on the M24. This of course required the MERS or MARS rails as this was a true clip-on.
In very short succession the AN/PVS-26 came out very closely followed by the AN/PVS-30 shown earlier above.
And the last one I know of is the AN/PAS 13 V3 Thermal scope which again I have no personal experience with.
Last edited:
Associated with the night vision attachments was the blast deflector which was supposed to aid the shooter by reducing the flare caused by the muzzle blast. There were two versions made, one for the weapons with the Redfield type front sight bases,
and the later version for the OK Weber front sight base which is taller. [NOTE: this "Weber" version is on a Redfield front sight base]
This is the "Weber" version on a Weber front sight base [NOTE: the thicker locking ring]
and the later version for the OK Weber front sight base which is taller. [NOTE: this "Weber" version is on a Redfield front sight base]
This is the "Weber" version on a Weber front sight base [NOTE: the thicker locking ring]
Last edited:
Been awhile since I was on here so I will offer some comments.
- All M24's were issued with a non-illuminated MK4 M3 (fixed 10X) with Mil Dot reticle. There was a change in the elevation dials due to L&S changing the design.
- The sling swivels shown in this thread are not what what is in the D kit, they are similar but none had the Remington R on them as they were sourced from another company
- The Simrad KN200 or KN250 was not used by the general Army or even in SF, they were used by specific units back in the day. They typically had zero issues and while they work ok could be a pain. Once you had it zeroed, so long as it remained on the gun it was good.
- The ANPVS-10 was a huge POS, we used them somewhat only because we had nothing else on guns that we did not have the KN200's on.
- The PAS13 was a complete pile and very seldom used on anything let alone the M24 (at least the initial ones). It had a terrible red screen that precluded you from seeing anything.
- I am the one who got the OSTI UNS into the military and it was/is a great addition but I had to invent a mount for the M24 which I did via McCann in Spanaway WA. I also invented the MARS while I was at Remington which is a far superior mount.
- The original flash hider for the M24 was developed to reduce visible flash and had nothing to do with night vision because at the time the only NVG option that was remotely available was the ANPVS-2 (starlight scope) which was not widely used or available. The flash hider came about for first light or last light firing or firing from inside of a building.
- I am the one who got the second version of the flash hider made, Picatinny did not even know that the original flash hider would not work with the OK Weber sights.
- There is basically 3 versions of the issued M24; the original which has Redfield sights and uses a one piece optics base, #2 which was with Redfield sights and 2 piece bases, and the last version which has OK Weber sights and 2 piece bases.
- I am the designer/developer of the M24A2 (as well as the M24A3)
- Just because there is a picture of a M24 with this or that does not mean thats how it was used.
- Remington has sold M24's to the public almost from the beginning of production, however prior to around 05 the price was a lot more than most would pay.
- The original M24 was made in 7.62 and 300WM
- the "U.S." was dropped from the M24 early in the production process, this was because it was not required by the USG and it cost RAC money to do (time)
- All of the issued M24's came with the 6-9" non-swiveling Harris bipods except those issued to Special Forces. They did not get any bipods because someone in the G8 said they didn't need them (which they did and then had to buy through the Army supply system).
Thank you for your input as always,
Did you have any involvement in the USR?
Yes, I developed it. The USR came about because there were a number of foreign countries that were looking for sniper systems but didn't want to spend $7K+ on one. Additionally the environment that their snipers would be working in was predominately Urban. On top of that our LE sales side was looking for something to promote to US LEA.
So what I did was I took the existing 700 LTR (which was/is an excellent rifle) and changed out the stock, gave it a DBM capability, added a bipod, added some optics on top of a MARS and threaded the barrel (the first ones did not have threaded barrels but after we acquired AAC we threaded everything usually). I put the entire system into a Hardigg IM3300 case (I believe I changed this along the way to a shorter case).
In the end it didn't sell all that well primarily due to price, it was pretty expensive as a kit. Those who shot it loved it as did I and on the US side you could source a 700 LTR and put optics on it for a lot less money. You wouldn't have all the bells and whistles but you would have a functional system for half the cost. I did sell some into the ME and perhaps Latin America as I recall.
Just for anyone interested, I developed or was directly involved with the following RAC products
Anyway, sorry for the phone book answer to a very short question...
So what I did was I took the existing 700 LTR (which was/is an excellent rifle) and changed out the stock, gave it a DBM capability, added a bipod, added some optics on top of a MARS and threaded the barrel (the first ones did not have threaded barrels but after we acquired AAC we threaded everything usually). I put the entire system into a Hardigg IM3300 case (I believe I changed this along the way to a shorter case).
In the end it didn't sell all that well primarily due to price, it was pretty expensive as a kit. Those who shot it loved it as did I and on the US side you could source a 700 LTR and put optics on it for a lot less money. You wouldn't have all the bells and whistles but you would have a functional system for half the cost. I did sell some into the ME and perhaps Latin America as I recall.
Just for anyone interested, I developed or was directly involved with the following RAC products
- MARS (Modular Accessory Rail System)- designer/developer/marketer (co-own the patent on it)
- SARS (Shotgun Accessory Rail System) - designer/developer/marketer (co-own the patent on it)
- Modular Combat Shotgun - Co-designer/developer/marketer and chief proponent
- M24A2 - designer/developer/marketer
- M24A3 - designer/developer/marketer
- MSR - initial co-designer and concept developer, assisted with marketing plan and production
- PSR - testing, tweaking and assisted with marketing development and production
- USR - designer/developer/marketer
- 700 Fed - designer/developer/marketer
- 700 Export - designer/developer/marketer
- ACR - brought BM and Magpul together, part of the initial development team, tester, assisted with marketing
- RGP - adviser on development and marketing, tester
- M24R - developed the program, wrote and managed the initial program, conducted damage control when the program went sideways because the guy I had to hand it over to jacked it up.
- R1 (1911 pistol) - planted the initial seed to develop during a period when RAC was expressing interest in getting back into hand guns.
- Versamax tactical - developed the concept, provided direction on the development and tested various models
- AAC product improvement program - initiated an improvement program when my clients were not happy with AAC products, however the program didn't go very far due to a lack of interest by AAC
- LVAW (aka Honey badger) - only involved from a testing position
- R50 - designer/developer/marketer
- TB12 breaching rounds - discovered the product (it was something that was already being made), conducted numerous tests on a variety of materials to prove it was a capable breaching round, specified packaging and developed the marketing
- 338 Lapua - convinced the company that it was a viable product, developed the New Product Proposal for the offering, tested initial samples
- 175 grain .308 - convinced the company that it was a viable product, developed the New Product Proposal for the offering, tested initial samples
- 77 grain .223 - convinced the company that it was a viable product, developed the New Product Proposal for the offering, tested initial samples
- Linked .223 - convinced the company that it was a viable product, developed the New Product Proposal for the offering, tested initial samples (this did not end well due to internal politics and short sightedness)
- Adviser/tester/reviewer - countless stocks, optics, slings, calibers, cases, electronic surveillance systems (long story there)
Anyway, sorry for the phone book answer to a very short question...
I've only handled the first version. Are the bodies of the two versions the same, with the height of the locking ring the only difference?
it's very appreciated!
Thanks, always had an interest in the M24's and USR in particular.
I believe so, to be honest I have never held one either. During SHOT one year I had a meeting with Picatinny (SWS PM) and we were talking about the M24 and the FH came up. It was originally contracted by Picatinny and sourced from a small shop someplace. They originally made one for M24 that the Army had (2400 ish) and perhaps a few extras but not much. Another issue was that the FH was a secondary item meaning that it came through the supply system and was issued to everyone with an M24, however at least in SF it was not a controlled issue meaning that it was never a part of the weapon's Basis of Issue (BOI) so it was not inventoried with the weapon and it did not come with any instructions. Many who got them didn't know what they were for, I have to admit that I had seen them in our weapons locker and never realized that they were a FH for the M24 until I saw one on a rifle.
So anyway, as we were talking about the FH I said "you know the original FH will not fit on the current rifles because the new sights?" The PM looked at me kind of strangely and said something to the effect of "hell I never even thought about that"... I heard later that they were making a new one but never really looked into it, I moved onto other things and lost sight of it.
You're most likely correct that Picatinny contracted the flash hider but as I understood it, Rock Island made them or had them made or at the very least handled their issue. To answer the fitment question, the hider itself was the same size, the lock ring was the only part that was different.
It should also be noted that using the flash hider affected the harmonics in the barrel thus causing a POI shift up to 1 MOA. So, one either mounted it and left on all the time and zeroed it or you simply didn't use it at all. That same issue applied to the EMA and a possible 1 MOA POI shift so. . . . Use it or don't. Or learn to compensate for it every shot.
There is no doubt that Rock Island was involved in the production/issue of the FH.
As to the POI shift due to the attachment/removal of the FH, this has not been my experience at all, I have seen "perhaps" some slight variation but not enough to discount shooter error. I had a number of guys used them in training where they would take them off and reinstall them without issue. That said, I would always confirm/deny POI shift when attaching anything to especially the barrel. That said the M24 has a pretty rigid barrel and despite what many would tell you, they are not as sensitive as some would like to believe. I've wrapped the barrel and stock when camo'ing the gun, installed flash hiders, muzzle breaks, suppressors, etc. Some of it had an effect and some didn't.
The major issue I have had with it is that they grab everything when stalking due to the fork design, however they do a pretty good job at reducing flash, I was pretty impressed the first time I saw them used during one of our night shoots.
None, Marty makes very good/accurate parts. I would go one step further and say Badger's rail is better than the original which had a tendency to "bow".
Badger Ordnance describes it as an exact reproduction or the original, but in the specifications it says it is picatinny configuration. The originals were Weaver configuration.
Yeah if it doesn't say Weaver then you're looking a t different part. Badger's 1 piece is indistinguishable from the original except as stated above the originals had a tendency to bow, I've seen that myself. Badger does make a 1 piece Pic style as well so make sure you're looking at the right part.
So I have looked into this mount issue and from what I can tell the M24 was always spec'd with a Picatinny rail (which was made by Leupold. The original requirements document (from the Army) and the original solicitation do not specify a mount type/style, rather it requires that the day optic be removable and replicable without more than 1/2 MOA loss in accuracy.
So I am unclear where the "Weaver" spec comes from, not saying that weaver rails or weaver rail wasn't considered or perhaps even used on early prototypes but I haven't ever seen any that I can remember. I dug through my records and reached out to some other resources and I cannot find any mention of a Weaver rail being used on a M24.
I will reiterate that Badger Ordnance makes as good if not better copy of the original one piece base that is accurate.
So I am unclear where the "Weaver" spec comes from, not saying that weaver rails or weaver rail wasn't considered or perhaps even used on early prototypes but I haven't ever seen any that I can remember. I dug through my records and reached out to some other resources and I cannot find any mention of a Weaver rail being used on a M24.
I will reiterate that Badger Ordnance makes as good if not better copy of the original one piece base that is accurate.
The 1913 Picatinny Spec does not go back as far as the initial M24 development (1985-86). The earliest published spec for the 1913 seen was dated Feb. 1988 I believe. The M1913 was invented by Earl Reddick of RAD (Reddick Arms Development). That said, the original scope base was a Weaver style in that it only had two sets position slots that have a proprietary spacing. That spacing is not uniform like Picatinny hence you can't take a scope mounted on a Picatinny system and mount it on a Weaver and visa versa without moving the rings. Forgive me if I'm oversimplfying this, I know I'm not talking to children. The word Weaver may not have been in the specs but that's what the one piece base was and I think that same spacing followed into the Leupold 2 piece bases. I was told a very long time ago that Leupold didn't actually make these bases, that Brookfield Precision Tools made them for Leupold and they were literally just down the road from Leupold. Eventually BPT went out of business but not before the M24 was mostly fielded. The two piece bases were a Leopold decision, from what I'm told. Leupold discontinued the one piece bases for logistical reasons. (Leupold "Why stock Long Action and Short Action one piece bases when we can just make 2 piece bases that work on both actions.") It appears, since I just looked at Badger's website, they they no longer carry the one piece base, not even in the Legacy Section. I don't know if they do piece work on request or not. Anyone with further or contradictory information on this please feel free to interject. I love new information and references.
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I was referring to the Badger Ordnance website:
In the description they say "The Badger Ordnance Remington M24 SWS Scope Rail is an exact reproduction of the original one piece US Gov't contract base."
But if you go to the "Specifications" tab, it says that it is "M1913 (Picatinny)".
When I tried to mount older Badger picatinny rings (from a Unertl 10X) onto my early one piece M24 bases, the cross bolts were too wide to fit into the Weaver slots on the base. The spacing appeared to be off too as eodsix mentioned, but I didn't get that far.
And you have discovered the improvement in the 1913, a tighter more uniform and standardized mounting system. The cross bars of weaver won't go into Pic Rails.Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I was referring to the Badger Ordnance website:
In the description they say "The Badger Ordnance Remington M24 SWS Scope Rail is an exact reproduction of the original one piece US Gov't contract base."
But if you go to the "Specifications" tab, it says that it is "M1913 (Picatinny)".
When I tried to mount older Badger picatinny rings (from a Unertl 10X) onto my early one piece M24 bases, the cross bolts were too wide to fit into the Weaver slots on the base. The spacing appeared to be off too as eodsix mentioned, but I didn't get that far.
That part you show is what it says it is, a M24 style single piece base despite spec page saying its a 1913 Picatinny. And it comes with the 8-40 screws that won't go into a standard M700 receiver. They are specific to the M24 receivers. Funny that that didn't show up when I did my cursory search earlier this evening. I guess I should have used the Search option which also reveals the M24A2 trigger guard and magazine, but only for the BDL stocks like the PST013 and PST026 stocks. Evidently he's quit making the M24 Drop In Replacement version which only fits the PST024 stock.
Last edited:
So after looking through some things (buried on a hard drive) and doing some measuring here is what I believe is the "deal".
- Standardization of rails began in the 80's but more specifically Dick Swan of ARMS was behind a lot of it. He was involved with the M24 program via Remington and after some measuring the M24 rail shares some traits with the ARMS rail.
- As to L&S changing the rail from a 1 piece to a 2 piece I do not believe is the case. A vendor cannot change anything unless the USG approves it and typically they can only do it when that part/item either proves defective or has become unavailable (like the Redfield iron sights). I do know that there were a lot of complaints with the original 1 piece had a tendency to bow which when they were tight was not a problem, however (as I have personally seen numerous times) the rear screws loosen over time and due to the "bowing" of the base it would appear solid however under recoil it would move and cause changes in the POI from the zero which many found hard to diagnose. I know that at RAC there were a number of calls over the years about this very issue. Now, who made the decision remains to be seen but I believe it was probably a collaboration between the PM, RAC and L&S.
- While the M24 rail is not Mil Std 1913 (i.e. Picatinny) it is different than commercial Weaver designs of the day. I suppose that because Picatinny was not a standard yet, you could say that the M24 mount a "Weaver" but that is pretty generic.
I truly don't want to dispute you on Leupold changing from 1 piece to 2 piece but actually you answered your own question, the 1 piece became "not available" because Leupold quit making or having them made. That info I have on the them changing from 1 piece to 2 for logistical reasons actually came to me from Leupold. Though I cannot correlate WHEN that happened, I never saw 1 piece base on a M24 with the OK Weber iron sight bases so this change MAY actually coincide. Pure speculation on my part here.
Marty's 1 piece base IS better than the original hands down.
Marty's 1 piece base IS better than the original hands down.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that Leupold didn't have a hand in it, there is no doubt they were getting flak from RAC and the SWS PM about bad bases and to your (or someone's) earlier point it makes better business/logistical sense to go to 2-peice bases. What I am saying is that L&S did not just "decide" to stop doing them, there was a process involved to be sure. Even if the actual shop that made them for L&S folded up, there is no rocket science in that base, it could be made by any number of machine shops in the Beaverton area or across the country.
This is significantly different from the Redfield sight issue as Redfield shut it down completely and owned the IP on the sights which are not super easy to make. In this case it was easier to go to another source.
We would all like to think that these weapons programs are thought up, executed and maintained by reasonable people making sound decisions but I can tell you for a fact thats not always the case. Most decisions are made by a very small number of people and sometimes decisions are made for unclear or inaccurate reasons. This is one of the things I tend not to like with the "purist" weapons crowd, too much why this happened or who did that much of which is speculation at best but they sound like they know what they are talking about so people buy in.
While the M24 is a fine rifle in its own right, there is really nothing all that special about it. It starts off any Remington 700 long action does and that has parts attached to make it what it is. It is not "hand built" by "artisans"... yes one guy does assemble the rifle but the same guy could be building any rifle as the process is the same. In other words, no special care is taken building the M24, it is pretty much screwed together as is everything else. It just so happens to work work out and perform well due to the sum of parts themselves.
This is significantly different from the Redfield sight issue as Redfield shut it down completely and owned the IP on the sights which are not super easy to make. In this case it was easier to go to another source.
We would all like to think that these weapons programs are thought up, executed and maintained by reasonable people making sound decisions but I can tell you for a fact thats not always the case. Most decisions are made by a very small number of people and sometimes decisions are made for unclear or inaccurate reasons. This is one of the things I tend not to like with the "purist" weapons crowd, too much why this happened or who did that much of which is speculation at best but they sound like they know what they are talking about so people buy in.
While the M24 is a fine rifle in its own right, there is really nothing all that special about it. It starts off any Remington 700 long action does and that has parts attached to make it what it is. It is not "hand built" by "artisans"... yes one guy does assemble the rifle but the same guy could be building any rifle as the process is the same. In other words, no special care is taken building the M24, it is pretty much screwed together as is everything else. It just so happens to work work out and perform well due to the sum of parts themselves.
any chance you could convince him to do another run of m24a2 bottom metals??
Highly unlikely, not enough money in it. When I did the A2 the bottom metal and mag were the biggest PIA there were. Originally I had HS make some using their mags which were 5rd and they welded 2 together to create a 10 rd mag which was horrible not to mention expensive. Eventually I went to Badger and had them do it but there were still issues due to the stock primarily but eventually we got it to work. Now the A3 was a much larger problem but thats another story.
I had read somewhere that the actions were trued and the rifle had a standard accuracy that had to be met before leaving. They are built in the “M24 Shop”. Not a line gun. Is that all BS??
Meh, the last .308 5R I had was more accurate with 175 FGMM than my M24. Sounds like they were "screwed" together by one guy more for accountability purposes than anything else. My M24 is no slouch, not like it's a scattergun or anything, and I love it but what tactinstr1SFG says pretty much jives with my experience. There really isn't anything special about it other than the fact that the receiver says "M24" on it. The barrel may be lapped, but I'm not sure it makes a whole lotta difference honestly. It's a part of history that I wouldn't want to part with, and the first time I saw one as a new private I knew I had to own one some day.
I would not say it is a "BS" per se but it also isn't what many imagine it to be, like a custom gun shop with artisan gun smiths scrutinizing every aspect of the rifle. The realty is (was) that the actions are normal 700 long actions, they are taken from the assembly floor prior to being hardened but after all of the machining is done and it has been serialized. At that point they are roll marked M24 and taken to the M24 shop. The M24 shop (aka the defense build area) exists because it is mandated by government contract and while in the plant is separated by security measures.
Once the action is in the M24 shop it can be assembled which is/was done by 1 individual. While most of those in the M24 shop were very happy to be there are and were conscientious about their job, they were not in most cases "master gunsmiths" or anything. They were normal people who knew how to put the gun together (which is not that hard). As a matter of course the actions did not receive any special machining or preparation prior to assembly.
Once the rifle was assembled it was proof tested and then as per the US Army contract accuracy tested (the barreled action was put into a machine rest and fired electronically 5 times). As per the contract and as per RAC directive the M24 had to exhibit 1 MOA or less @ 100 yards. This was usually easily achieved via the barrel/action combination and can be witnessed by pretty much any of the R5 barreled guns sold commercially. The fact is that a relatively stiff R5 barrel normally shoots very well.
So, no facing of the action or blue printing of the barrel was done, nor were there any other "truing" efforts taken, however the gun was assembled by one person and held to a standard. The commercial guns are merely proof tested, no idea how well (or bad) they shoot when they go out the door. But this is not a 'crap shoot", a lot of time is spent in the development stage to design a rifle (along with selecting its components) that will yield a quality product when released to the production line.
We would all like to think that our favorite firearms are made by "gun" people who build the gun like it was going to be their own, however this is not reality in most cases. Sure, many of the people who work at places like RAC are gun owners and some are avid gun enthusiasts but very few are gunsmiths. The M24 and Custom shop are the only places where any firearm is completely built by one person, the rest of the line is done in an assembly line format (think Henry Ford) and despite that, most of the commercial guns shoot pretty well, some very well. This speaks to the excellent design and versatility of the 700 platform.
I have shot a lot of M24's in my time and I have never had one that did not shoot well (sub MOA), however I have had a couple that shot exceptionally well and would literally hit anything it was pointed at. My M24A2 (which is just a modified M24 and this one is the very first one I modified for the program) is a "laser beam", that rifle has always shot somewhere in the .4 - .7 MOA range depending on ammo and shooter.
One last tidbit; at one time (probably around 06) I was having a discussion with the head of the M24 shop Tom Nagle and we were discussion M24 barrel life. By the Army contract the barrel had to retain accuracy through 5000 rounds which we knew it would far exceed. I had/have personally witnessed M24's with over 14,000 rounds and still produce 1 - 1.5 MOA groups. I openly wondered how many rounds an M24 barrel could shoot before accuracy opened up to more than 1 MOA. So, we decided to ask the Army to let us test an M24 "to destruction" which in this case meant until the accuracy went outside the standard. We asked the Army because we wanted to use M118LR ammunition for the test so that the results would be "valid" and relative to the military's use of the rifle. Well TACOM responded with a "no" because the contract says "5000" and that is all they were interested in. I tried to persuade them a little by explaining that at 5000 rounds they were tossing out good barrels but they said that most M24's were not returned for barrel replacement until well after that number so they were not interested in conducting the test. Well, we decided to do it anyway using commercial 175g match ammo which we made. The results were that we stopped shooting somewhere around 11,000 rounds or so because it was boring and getting hard to explain why were doing it to management, but most notable was that the rifle (a M24) shot a tighter group at round 10,000 than it did at round 1. Under a bore scope the bore looked like some alien terrain but that rifle continued to shoot.
That is the legacy of the M24, it is a not the sexiest of sniper rifles nor the most modern but it will perform under any and all conditions repeatedly and consistently. I once saw 2 M24's driven over by a 2 1/2 ton truck, they were in a pelican case and one of the bolts was jammed through the case. Those rifles were taken out and grouped and each shot sub-MOA. I personally swam M24s in the ocean, jumped them from a wide variety of aircraft and altitudes, dragged them through jungles, swamps, mountains, etc. and that rifle always performed. Yes I have seen them break or fail to function but this is a rarity and usually a result of poor/no operator maintenance or in some cases just plain old fatigue from being used so much. We saw some M24s be turned in during the M2010 conversion program whose receivers were so bell mouthed it was incredible (back of the receiver was very oversize and the bolt would literally move side to side a lot), but again, this was not common place. As the saying goes "haters gonna hate" but there is no denying that the M24 has stood the test of time.
Once the action is in the M24 shop it can be assembled which is/was done by 1 individual. While most of those in the M24 shop were very happy to be there are and were conscientious about their job, they were not in most cases "master gunsmiths" or anything. They were normal people who knew how to put the gun together (which is not that hard). As a matter of course the actions did not receive any special machining or preparation prior to assembly.
Once the rifle was assembled it was proof tested and then as per the US Army contract accuracy tested (the barreled action was put into a machine rest and fired electronically 5 times). As per the contract and as per RAC directive the M24 had to exhibit 1 MOA or less @ 100 yards. This was usually easily achieved via the barrel/action combination and can be witnessed by pretty much any of the R5 barreled guns sold commercially. The fact is that a relatively stiff R5 barrel normally shoots very well.
So, no facing of the action or blue printing of the barrel was done, nor were there any other "truing" efforts taken, however the gun was assembled by one person and held to a standard. The commercial guns are merely proof tested, no idea how well (or bad) they shoot when they go out the door. But this is not a 'crap shoot", a lot of time is spent in the development stage to design a rifle (along with selecting its components) that will yield a quality product when released to the production line.
We would all like to think that our favorite firearms are made by "gun" people who build the gun like it was going to be their own, however this is not reality in most cases. Sure, many of the people who work at places like RAC are gun owners and some are avid gun enthusiasts but very few are gunsmiths. The M24 and Custom shop are the only places where any firearm is completely built by one person, the rest of the line is done in an assembly line format (think Henry Ford) and despite that, most of the commercial guns shoot pretty well, some very well. This speaks to the excellent design and versatility of the 700 platform.
I have shot a lot of M24's in my time and I have never had one that did not shoot well (sub MOA), however I have had a couple that shot exceptionally well and would literally hit anything it was pointed at. My M24A2 (which is just a modified M24 and this one is the very first one I modified for the program) is a "laser beam", that rifle has always shot somewhere in the .4 - .7 MOA range depending on ammo and shooter.
One last tidbit; at one time (probably around 06) I was having a discussion with the head of the M24 shop Tom Nagle and we were discussion M24 barrel life. By the Army contract the barrel had to retain accuracy through 5000 rounds which we knew it would far exceed. I had/have personally witnessed M24's with over 14,000 rounds and still produce 1 - 1.5 MOA groups. I openly wondered how many rounds an M24 barrel could shoot before accuracy opened up to more than 1 MOA. So, we decided to ask the Army to let us test an M24 "to destruction" which in this case meant until the accuracy went outside the standard. We asked the Army because we wanted to use M118LR ammunition for the test so that the results would be "valid" and relative to the military's use of the rifle. Well TACOM responded with a "no" because the contract says "5000" and that is all they were interested in. I tried to persuade them a little by explaining that at 5000 rounds they were tossing out good barrels but they said that most M24's were not returned for barrel replacement until well after that number so they were not interested in conducting the test. Well, we decided to do it anyway using commercial 175g match ammo which we made. The results were that we stopped shooting somewhere around 11,000 rounds or so because it was boring and getting hard to explain why were doing it to management, but most notable was that the rifle (a M24) shot a tighter group at round 10,000 than it did at round 1. Under a bore scope the bore looked like some alien terrain but that rifle continued to shoot.
That is the legacy of the M24, it is a not the sexiest of sniper rifles nor the most modern but it will perform under any and all conditions repeatedly and consistently. I once saw 2 M24's driven over by a 2 1/2 ton truck, they were in a pelican case and one of the bolts was jammed through the case. Those rifles were taken out and grouped and each shot sub-MOA. I personally swam M24s in the ocean, jumped them from a wide variety of aircraft and altitudes, dragged them through jungles, swamps, mountains, etc. and that rifle always performed. Yes I have seen them break or fail to function but this is a rarity and usually a result of poor/no operator maintenance or in some cases just plain old fatigue from being used so much. We saw some M24s be turned in during the M2010 conversion program whose receivers were so bell mouthed it was incredible (back of the receiver was very oversize and the bolt would literally move side to side a lot), but again, this was not common place. As the saying goes "haters gonna hate" but there is no denying that the M24 has stood the test of time.
Wow. Thank you for passing on the knowledge. I carried M40A1/A3 for years. Loved the A1 more but the S&B scope on later A3 made the rifle more effective. I got an M24 a while back and fell in love with it. I shoot Federal 7.62 Mk316 Mod 0 AB39 Match through her. She shoots tighter then my M40’s did. I love the M40’s. Always be in my heart but the M24 is just amazing to me. Here she is when I first got her and now how she is set up. A few nice groups from both weapons. Shot from prone mostly.
Attachments
Looks like an awesome rifle. Of course being an Army guy the M24 was the rifle we had (after the M21) but we also had some 40X rifles when I was overseas (very much like a M40 built by Crane but in a McMillan A2 stock). I have 2 M40's (the 1969 reproduction version that we did for the SSA one of which is a Chuck MaWhinny rifle). I've always wanted to build a M40A1 but just never got around to it and given that the Unertl optics are next to impossible to find I just never have.
All this said, I have shot a lot of M40A1's and a M40A3 a time or two, they are excellent weapons to be sure. I spent over 9 years on Okinawa and the USMC owned the ranges, so we would share the KD range with the SOTG snipers, of course there was always some good natured rivalry but I can say that the M40's did not "outshoot" the M24's despite what was said. We let them shoot our M24's and if you could get them to be honest, most of the time they would comment how surprised they were at how good the M24 is, especially when we pulled the gun apart and reassembled it and then shot to zero.
A Remington 700 in pretty much any form is hard to beat. Put a good barrel on it and headspace it a little tight and you are good. I have been looking for a Win 70 because I don't have but just haven't found something I want, but having shot quite a few rounds through them I'd say that I prefer the 700.
All this said, I have shot a lot of M40A1's and a M40A3 a time or two, they are excellent weapons to be sure. I spent over 9 years on Okinawa and the USMC owned the ranges, so we would share the KD range with the SOTG snipers, of course there was always some good natured rivalry but I can say that the M40's did not "outshoot" the M24's despite what was said. We let them shoot our M24's and if you could get them to be honest, most of the time they would comment how surprised they were at how good the M24 is, especially when we pulled the gun apart and reassembled it and then shot to zero.
A Remington 700 in pretty much any form is hard to beat. Put a good barrel on it and headspace it a little tight and you are good. I have been looking for a Win 70 because I don't have but just haven't found something I want, but having shot quite a few rounds through them I'd say that I prefer the 700.
Lol. You have brought back many memories for me. You are right. Marines will never admit that the M24 was better. Since I’ve been out and have gotten time on an M24 I can agree that the M40’s will not out shoot the M24. Many people pay a lot of money for a hand built rifle that really won’t out shoot an M24. If it can then it’s just barely. I had an M40A1 and C&H precision screwed me. Buck Holly is a bad person. That’s another story though.
Well in all honesty the M40A1 is a good shooting rifle, however what I could never get my head around was how the Corps would not the snipers do much more than shoot and clean the bore of the rifle whereas the M24 could be removed from the stock, the optics could come off etc.
I have met a lot of "custom" gun shops/smiths and while many can/do build some nice rifles in many cases they are not doing anything magical or special. I may have related this story on this forum earlier but I will post it again. At one point Marty (Badger Ordnance) and I were having a discussion about rifle accuracy and he was telling me how much work went into a truly accurate rifle, specifically how the action needed to be faced and how production rifles were not made overly well. He did say that he had a Remington 700 PSS that shot "exceptionally well". A few years later we were at SHOT and again I was talking to Marty and during the conversation Marty started laughing and asked if I remembered the conversation we had about accuracy which I did. He then told me how his "exceptional" shoot PSS had finally worn out its barrel so he went about putting a new barrel on, when he removed the old (factory) one he discovered that the barrel shoulder was only making contact with the receiver in 2 spots yet delivered sub MOA groups its whole life. Point being that a lot of what "custom" gun shops offer is snake oil.
I have met a lot of "custom" gun shops/smiths and while many can/do build some nice rifles in many cases they are not doing anything magical or special. I may have related this story on this forum earlier but I will post it again. At one point Marty (Badger Ordnance) and I were having a discussion about rifle accuracy and he was telling me how much work went into a truly accurate rifle, specifically how the action needed to be faced and how production rifles were not made overly well. He did say that he had a Remington 700 PSS that shot "exceptionally well". A few years later we were at SHOT and again I was talking to Marty and during the conversation Marty started laughing and asked if I remembered the conversation we had about accuracy which I did. He then told me how his "exceptional" shoot PSS had finally worn out its barrel so he went about putting a new barrel on, when he removed the old (factory) one he discovered that the barrel shoulder was only making contact with the receiver in 2 spots yet delivered sub MOA groups its whole life. Point being that a lot of what "custom" gun shops offer is snake oil.
I agree with what Marty said about snake oil many times.
You mentioned the win 70. I am rather fond of the FN SPR’s. It’s to bad that FN dropped it. Such a solid rifle. I have a few of them. Both are 1/2 inch guns.
yes the Corps was stupid about taking M40’s apart. When I became a chief scout with a platoon we took some apart to do trigger jobs. Completely against regs but they were our weapons. Many did that.
thanks for the info you pass. I appreciate it.
Actually Marty didn't say that about "snake oil" that was me, but what Marty conceded was that rifle accuracy is not "black magic".
I have no experience with the FN SPR but they looked interesting. I thought about getting one for awhile but just never got around to it.
I understand why they didn't want the M40's taken apart due to the bedding and the chance it could get chipped or damaged but with aluminum bedding blocks being available in stocks or even stand alone but the Corps being the Corps no one wanted to step into the 21st century.
I like to be able to provide any information that might be of interest. I have been very fortunate in my life, a lot of years in Special Forces where I had access to a lot of different weapons systems and being a Sniper I really enjoyed those systems. I was able to do a lot of sniper focused things in a variety of countries which was a lot of fun. Additionally being able to run sniper courses for a very wide array of students in a lot of locations was challenging and interesting. Then RAC experience was awesome (for the first 11 years) as it allowed me to do a lot of things (like chopping up a brand new M24 to make something else) and learn a lot. I was literally a "kid in a candy store". But like all things, it all came to an end and I am better off for it.
I have no experience with the FN SPR but they looked interesting. I thought about getting one for awhile but just never got around to it.
I understand why they didn't want the M40's taken apart due to the bedding and the chance it could get chipped or damaged but with aluminum bedding blocks being available in stocks or even stand alone but the Corps being the Corps no one wanted to step into the 21st century.
I like to be able to provide any information that might be of interest. I have been very fortunate in my life, a lot of years in Special Forces where I had access to a lot of different weapons systems and being a Sniper I really enjoyed those systems. I was able to do a lot of sniper focused things in a variety of countries which was a lot of fun. Additionally being able to run sniper courses for a very wide array of students in a lot of locations was challenging and interesting. Then RAC experience was awesome (for the first 11 years) as it allowed me to do a lot of things (like chopping up a brand new M24 to make something else) and learn a lot. I was literally a "kid in a candy store". But like all things, it all came to an end and I am better off for it.
Great to hear from other Remington lovers. I fell in love with my first Remy back in the late 80s early 90s. It’s a r700 Varmint synthetic and the damn thing still shoots .5moa or better with the original barrel.
I have a m24 that I picked up a while back and I’m thinking about freshening it up a little. It’s not loaded with options like others I’ve seen. From a collecting standpoint would you bother with a Mars, flash suppressor, hard case and the peep sight?
When if ever did Remington use their own barrels on the m24. I’ve heard they used rock creek barrels but I wanna get it from someone like yourself that really knows.
I can’t thank you, and everyone else who contributed, enough. Thanks Top
To tag along with eodsix's optics post, I definitely saw documentation that the PAS-19 was also an issue item back in the relevant timeframes, and the announcement and I thought some paperwork I have somewhere very much showed it on an M24. Certainly the image about it in the 1989 Janes is on an M24. Also called the Magnavox HHTI (hand held thermal imager though... not really hand held). Not a lot of info now, I believe though both were issued in smallish quantities, that was functionally a test and it lost to the PAS-13 series which was bought, in improved models, for years and in much larger quantities.
Anyway, I got one much more recently, though still years ago now. Put it on the PSS even — close enough to make me fell old school sniper! — It was... terrible. I am sure a miracle in the 1980s, but by the time I got it I had moved to uncooled thermals, so it was very hard to use, had weird power requirements, was hard to charge with gas (though it was just air) and so on so do not regret selling it at all, and I even profited a few bucks!
The one I had also came in a case with some interesting papers and stencils indicating it had been deployed to base security in Afghanistan as late as 2008 (IIRC). No proof it left the arms room, but maybe.
The only one of my photos I can find look cool still!
Pretty close to what it looked like through it under ideal conditions:
And through mine, under quite not ideal conditions (condensing humidity!)
Since these are unknown and not beloved, when they do pop up they aren't especially expensive.
If interested, ask and I'l see what I can find hidden on my computer, on paper, etc.
Anyway, I got one much more recently, though still years ago now. Put it on the PSS even — close enough to make me fell old school sniper! — It was... terrible. I am sure a miracle in the 1980s, but by the time I got it I had moved to uncooled thermals, so it was very hard to use, had weird power requirements, was hard to charge with gas (though it was just air) and so on so do not regret selling it at all, and I even profited a few bucks!
The one I had also came in a case with some interesting papers and stencils indicating it had been deployed to base security in Afghanistan as late as 2008 (IIRC). No proof it left the arms room, but maybe.
The only one of my photos I can find look cool still!
Pretty close to what it looked like through it under ideal conditions:
And through mine, under quite not ideal conditions (condensing humidity!)
Since these are unknown and not beloved, when they do pop up they aren't especially expensive.
If interested, ask and I'l see what I can find hidden on my computer, on paper, etc.
As far as the accessories, the iron sights (peep sights as you call them) are really not necessary unless you intend or want to shoot iron sights. Even the military barely used them outside of the course. The MARS is a great addition as it allows you to use clip on NVG or even thermals, but if you have no intention on doing those things then you probably don't need it. The flash hider is good if you are going to be using the rifle in a situation where you do not want to give away your position.
As to the barrels, only the very early M24's had Rock made barrels, it was pretty quickly that Remington brought barrel production in house. The story was Mike Rock had some personal issues and because it was a USG contract RAC felt it needed to put some distance between them. I have talked to Mike and he didn't seem to harbor any ill feelings about it. The RAC barrels were/are every bit as good as the originals. The bottom line is that every M24 since 90 (I think it was) had a RAC barrel on it.
As to the barrels, only the very early M24's had Rock made barrels, it was pretty quickly that Remington brought barrel production in house. The story was Mike Rock had some personal issues and because it was a USG contract RAC felt it needed to put some distance between them. I have talked to Mike and he didn't seem to harbor any ill feelings about it. The RAC barrels were/are every bit as good as the originals. The bottom line is that every M24 since 90 (I think it was) had a RAC barrel on it.
To tag along with eodsix's optics post, I definitely saw documentation that the PAS-19 was also an issue item back in the relevant timeframes, and the announcement and I thought some paperwork I have somewhere very much showed it on an M24. Certainly the image about it in the 1989 Janes is on an M24. Also called the Magnavox HHTI (hand held thermal imager though... not really hand held). Not a lot of info now, I believe though both were issued in smallish quantities, that was functionally a test and it lost to the PAS-13 series which was bought, in improved models, for years and in much larger quantities.
Anyway, I got one much more recently, though still years ago now. Put it on the PSS even — close enough to make me fell old school sniper! — It was... terrible. I am sure a miracle in the 1980s, but by the time I got it I had moved to uncooled thermals, so it was very hard to use, had weird power requirements, was hard to charge with gas (though it was just air) and so on so do not regret selling it at all, and I even profited a few bucks!
The one I had also came in a case with some interesting papers and stencils indicating it had been deployed to base security in Afghanistan as late as 2008 (IIRC). No proof it left the arms room, but maybe.
The only one of my photos I can find look cool still!
Pretty close to what it looked like through it under ideal conditions:
And through mine, under quite not ideal conditions (condensing humidity!)
Since these are unknown and not beloved, when they do pop up they aren't especially expensive.
If interested, ask and I'l see what I can find hidden on my computer, on paper, etc.
I don't think I ever saw one of those. We did have the PAS-13 which was a POS and we seldom used them.
