Hathcock-signed M40 Sniper Rifle (and other goodies)

[Son of Dorn]

Was browsing some of my usual haunts and this scrolled into view:

Rare! Original USMC M40 Sniper Rifle signed by Carlos Hathcock (R30701)

www.collectorsfirearms.com

Anybody have $25K lying around they don't need?

 

[Charger442]

While that's certainly a one of a kind rifle, Collectors is typically 3-4 times higher in their prices than the actual value.

 

[Son of Dorn]

While that's certainly a one of a kind rifle, Collectors is typically 3-4 times higher in their prices than the actual value.

I've noticed over the last few years of browsing their site that they do tend to overprice their items. Part of why I mostly just browse and haven't bought from them recently.

 

[Defender3]

Didn't he sign more than a few rifles? I seem to recall a M40A1 going up for sale a few years back with his signature.

 

[Son of Dorn]

While that's certainly a one of a kind rifle, Collectors is typically 3-4 times higher in their prices than the actual value.

Apparently it wasn't so overpriced that it's not already sold, lol.

Which one of you bought it? C'mon, admit it, one of you did!

 

[Charger442]

Apparently it wasn't so overpriced that it's not already sold, lol.

Which one of you bought it? C'mon, admit it, one of you did!

Incredible.

Like I said, one of a kind type item and Carlos has a devoted following.

There's several items I've watched from them for years I'm convinced they want to keep forever. But they have the inventory and selection and have for decades. I remember making trips there as a kid

 

[Carlos Danger]

Didn't he sign more than a few rifles? I seem to recall a M40A1 going up for sale a few years back with his signature.

I don't recall signing anything.

 

[Aqua Mark]

Here is a raffle for a M40 signed by Chuck Mawhinney, and proceeds go to a good cause.

Home Page

Snipers helping snipers in the Global War on Terror

americansnipers.org

 

[pitspitr]

Didn't he sign more than a few rifles? I seem to recall a M40A1 going up for sale a few years back with his signature.

It's kind of like the farmers around here say when somebody buys land at a really high price. "God ain't making any more land."

No matter how many he signed, He ain't signing any more.

 

[Charger442]

It's kind of like the farmers around here say when somebody buys land at a really high price. "God ain't making any more land."

No matter how many he signed, He ain't signing any more.

well, theoretically, you are correct.

but no one has ever faked a signature on any sports memorabilia, first edition book, etc, so its might be safe to say there wont be any more of these. until there are more of these.

 

[Random Guy]

Well, I recall that serial # 221235 falls in the known range of original 1966 order for the first 700 USMC M40s, and the fact that the green scope and scope mount are still serialized to the rifle is incredibly rare - in fact I have not seen that outside of old archival pictures from the late 1960s. It's one of a kind.

There are only a tiny number of documented, as-issued USMC M40s in private hands (I'd guess probably less than a dozen rifles that were complete), and given this rifle's reported provenance from its original owner all the way back to 1969, it was worth the money. Regardless of Hathcock's signature, which actually detracts from its otherwise original 1966-67 configuration, that was a worthy centerpiece for an advanced collector of US military weapons.

For the average collector like me with limited resources, the best option turned out to be a Chuck Mawhinney commemorative rifle, which I lucked into back in 2015 for $2500. The is a replica of the 1969 M40 configuration, and while it is not a vintage collectible, the upside is I can shoot this rifle from time-to-time without guilt, unlike that extremely rare 1966 M40 auction rifle, which is a true collector's item - for presumably display only.

 

[pitspitr]

well, theoretically, you are correct.

but no one has ever faked a signature on any sports memorabilia, first edition book, etc, so its might be safe to say there wont be any more of these. until there are more of these.

True enough

 

[pitspitr]

it is not a vintage collectible, the upside is I can shoot this rifle from time-to-time without guilt,

That's the kind I like to buy

 

[sirhrmechanic]

I'd share this with @buffalowinter, but he'd just trade it for a Kel-Tec or something... ;-)

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[buffalowinter]

I'd share this with @buffalowinter, but he'd just trade it for a Kel-Tec or something... ;-)

Cheers,

Sirhr

Nope, next item on my list is the newest release from Hi-Point, the YEET CANNON G1 TB, suppressor ready, MSRP $250. Seriously, I might get one of these and re-work it into a true match ready pistol, just to add the insult to injury factor when people get beat by an old guy limping around shooting a hi-point.

 

[Son of Dorn]

I'd share this with @buffalowinter, but he'd just trade it for a Kel-Tec or something... ;-)

Cheers,

Sirhr

He's probably the one who did buy it. He's gonna trade it for that Hi Point...

 

[USMCSGT0331]

 

[deltawiskey]

Well, I recall that serial # 221235 falls in the known range of original 1966 order for the first 700 USMC M40s, and the fact that the green scope and scope mount are still serialized to the rifle is incredibly rare - in fact I have not seen that outside of old archival pictures from the late 1960s. It's one of a kind.

There are only a tiny number of documented, as-issued USMC M40s in private hands (I'd guess probably less than a dozen rifles that were complete), and given this rifle's reported provenance from its original owner all the way back to 1969, it was worth the money. Regardless of Hathcock's signature, which actually detracts from its otherwise original 1966-67 configuration, that was a worthy centerpiece for an advanced collector of US military weapons.

For the average collector like me with limited resources, the best option turned out to be a Chuck Mawhinney commemorative rifle, which I lucked into back in 2015 for $2500. The is a replica of the 1969 M40 configuration, and while it is not a vintage collectible, the upside is I can shoot this rifle from time-to-time without guilt, unlike that extremely rare 1966 M40 auction rifle, which is a true collector's item - for presumably display only.

I still regret not getting one of those... such a great rifle.
DW

 

[Son of Dorn]

So will you be trading that for a Hi-Point, then?

 

[Im2bent]

Heres the problem look at the handwriting of the engraving. Specifically the number 3. On the bolt (probably the original engraving at the time) has an old school 3 with a flat top. The rail and scope not so much so added much later? Therefore not original package?

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Heres the problem look at the handwriting of the engraving. Specifically the number 3. On the bolt (probably the original engraving at the time) has an old school 3 with a flat top. The rail and scope not so much so added much later? Therefore not original package?

I don't see any problems with it, it's written in architectural script, so there's only so many ways a number can be written. I have a few dozen original 40X bases (M40 takeoffs) and you can tell that a few different people engraved them. Only slight differences in the numbers, since it's architectural script. The most noticeable difference in those is the size of the numbers.

Obviously the scope and base were done by the same person, but I think the bolt was done by someone else. The bolt was probably marked by Remington and the other parts were probably done by a USMC armorer. Or the scope and base were force matched later on, I don't know yet, but that would explain the weird location of the markings. I have about a dozen greenie scopes, this one is a first for me with markings in this location.

What's also strange is the 7.62 NATO marked barrel, I've never seen one of these barrels on an early 6 digit rifle. Normally these marked barrels are on the 6257xxx rifles, I need to match up the markings to a date chart and see what pops up.

Everything else about the rifle is legit. There's numerous characteristics that prove it's a real receiver, so I'm not worried about it at all. If it's a rebuilt rifle with newer markings on the scope and base, then it's the best I've ever seen. I need to do some more research on it, it could be an original rifle, it could be a rebuild with force matched parts. There's some interesting characteristics that aren't standard for this serial number range, so I'm excited to learn more. Here it is with Major Dick Culver's M40:

 

[USMCSGT0331]

So will you be trading that for a Hi-Point, then?

 

[buffalowinter]

Here's why it was no big deal for me to trade my M40a1. My "Hathcock" M40 in 30-06 he described as his deal sniper rifle.

Not to mention my M40A3 an MK13 Mod 0.

 

[Random Guy]

What's also strange is the 7.62 NATO marked barrel, I've never seen one of these barrels on an early 6 digit rifle.

Here's my 2cts. The auction rifle appears to have a barrel with an install date of March 1968 - if I understand the "A" plus "R" stamp on the left side of the barrel.

The Remington M40 drawings (aka blue prints), underwent 3 subtle changes b/t 1966 and 1969. This involved a change from the 'flat-face' safety to the round style, a change to the trigger and sear mechanism, and I think a slight change to the bolt as well. In addition, Joe Poyer's book noted that "post-1968" barrels have the stamping "7.62 NATO", which was presumably added to the 1968 drawings. So a 1966 M40 is very slightly different from a 1968 or 1969 rifle.

I digress, but I will note that a decade or more ago, I understand the SSA and Chuck Mawhinney M40 commemoratives were built using the 1969-dated M40 drawings, which is the latest (and I think only) drawing that Remington had on file. Some folks were upset about the round safety and where expecting a flat-style safety, but the fact is both are "correct" for a Vietnam era M40, it just depends on what year the rifle was made.

More importantly, Joe Poyer's book, Collecting the American Sniper Rifle 1945-2000, also noted how quickly the M40s were worn-out during the harsh tropical monsoon climate of Vietnam (pg 75):

"By the spring of 1967, ample numbers of M40 rifles were in-country, enough for sniper instruction and to arm all two-man Marine sniper teams then in the field. So rough were conditions and so great their need that by the end of 1969, only 90 M40 snipers remained in-country and only 23 were serviceable according to Marine Corps Records....The barrel tended to erode and pit after as few as 1,000 rounds. The trigger would not hold pressure adjustment as parts wore in. Stocks tended to absorb moisture, swell, and warp which caused changes in the point of impact (POI)....The telescope was easily damaged...The telescope sight often fogged in the high humidity of the Southeast Asian operating areas. Seal technology still had a long way to go in the 1960s and some of the more effective seal materials that are used today had not then been developed."

Bottom-line: There was an extremely high attrition rate in Vietnam re both M40 rifles and those greenie scopes. They needed constant re-building by Remington back in the USA to keep them serviceable, including new barrels. The Redfield scopes also failed a lot, so many were replaced as well. So my theory re the auction M40 rifle is something like this:

Rifle was built in 1966 and went into service with the USMC probably by early 1967...where and for how long is of course unknown, probably somewhere in Vietnam, but it could have also been used stateside for sniper instruction training, etc. Regardless, within a year the barrel needed replacement thanks to harsh conditions (or wear) and in the spring of 1968, Remington re-barreled it. I suspect they also put a new scope and mount on it during that process as well, based on how fragile the scopes were back then. The person at Remington engraved the scope and mount in the spring of 1968 during that re-furbishment process, accounting for the odd location when compared to where they originally engraved them back in 1966. (Note: Redfield was under contract to repair or replace the scopes as needed, as part of the M40 contract, and the black “Gen 2” replacement scopes came into play at some point in 1968-69).

IMO, this rifle was not likely fielded after the re-barrel (and possibly a new optic system was installed as well) - as it's just too pristine - and somehow a Marine was awarded or acquired that rifle in 1969, and it has remained in this configuration since. This history takes nothing away from the rifle as almost all M40's apparently needed to get re-built after a 9 or 12 month tour in Southeast Asia.... Again, it's a truly collectible M40 rifle still in its Vietnam configuration, of which only a tiny few are in private hands. It's the only one I have seen with a matching green scope and mount. That's my 2cts.

 

[kentuckyMarksman]

I certainly did not buy this rifle, however, a gentleman on M14forum did.

Carlos Hathcock signed M40!

I was extremely lucky this week and was able to purchase another original USMC M40, but this one was signed by Carlos Hathcock during an event in 1992! Here's my 2 M40's, the top one is Major Dick Culver's rifle, the bottom one is the rifle I just acquired: All matching serial numbers and a...

www.m14forum.com

 

[Charger442]

I certainly did not buy this rifle, however, a gentleman on M14forum did.

Carlos Hathcock signed M40!

I was extremely lucky this week and was able to purchase another original USMC M40, but this one was signed by Carlos Hathcock during an event in 1992! Here's my 2 M40's, the top one is Major Dick Culver's rifle, the bottom one is the rifle I just acquired: All matching serial numbers and a...

www.m14forum.com

ask him if he negotiated down or up.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

I certainly did not buy this rifle, however, a gentleman on M14forum did.

Carlos Hathcock signed M40!

I was extremely lucky this week and was able to purchase another original USMC M40, but this one was signed by Carlos Hathcock during an event in 1992! Here's my 2 M40's, the top one is Major Dick Culver's rifle, the bottom one is the rifle I just acquired: All matching serial numbers and a...

www.m14forum.com

That would be me, I posted it on a few forums.

ask him if he negotiated down or up.

They gave me a nice discount on it and free overnight shipping/insurance, I didn't pay the price that's shown on their site.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Here's my 2cts. The auction rifle appears to have a barrel with an install date of March 1968 - if I understand the "A" plus "R" stamp on the left side of the barrel.

The Remington M40 drawings (aka blue prints), underwent 3 subtle changes b/t 1966 and 1969. This involved a change from the 'flat-face' safety to the round style, a change to the trigger and sear mechanism, and I think a slight change to the bolt as well. In addition, Joe Poyer's book noted that "post-1968" barrels have the stamping "7.62 NATO", which was presumably added to the 1968 drawings. So a 1966 M40 is very slightly different from a 1968 or 1969 rifle.

I digress, but I will note that a decade or more ago, I understand the SSA and Chuck Mawhinney M40 commemoratives were built using the 1969-dated M40 drawings, which is the latest (and I think only) drawing that Remington had on file. Some folks were upset about the round safety and where expecting a flat-style safety, but the fact is both are "correct" for a Vietnam era M40, it just depends on what year the rifle was made.

More importantly, Joe Poyer's book, Collecting the American Sniper Rifle 1945-2000, also noted how quickly the M40s were worn-out during the harsh tropical monsoon climate of Vietnam (pg 75):

"By the spring of 1967, ample numbers of M40 rifles were in-country, enough for sniper instruction and to arm all two-man Marine sniper teams then in the field. So rough were conditions and so great their need that by the end of 1969, only 90 M40 snipers remained in-country and only 23 were serviceable according to Marine Corps Records....The barrel tended to erode and pit after as few as 1,000 rounds. The trigger would not hold pressure adjustment as parts wore in. Stocks tended to absorb moisture, swell, and warp which caused changes in the point of impact (POI)....The telescope was easily damaged...The telescope sight often fogged in the high humidity of the Southeast Asian operating areas. Seal technology still had a long way to go in the 1960s and some of the more effective seal materials that are used today had not then been developed."

Bottom-line: There was an extremely high attrition rate in Vietnam re both M40 rifles and those greenie scopes. They needed constant re-building by Remington back in the USA to keep them serviceable, including new barrels. The Redfield scopes also failed a lot, so many were replaced as well. So my theory re the auction M40 rifle is something like this:

Rifle was built in 1966 and went into service with the USMC probably by early 1967...where and for how long is of course unknown, probably somewhere in Vietnam, but it could have also been used stateside for sniper instruction training, etc. Regardless, within a year the barrel needed replacement thanks to harsh conditions (or wear) and in the spring of 1968, Remington re-barreled it. I suspect they also put a new scope and mount on it during that process as well, based on how fragile the scopes were back then. The person at Remington engraved the scope and mount in the spring of 1968 during that re-furbishment process, accounting for the odd location when compared to where they originally engraved them back in 1966. (Note: Redfield was under contract to repair or replace the scopes as needed, as part of the M40 contract, and the black “Gen 2” replacement scopes came into play at some point in 1968-69).

IMO, this rifle was not likely fielded after the re-barrel (and possibly a new optic system was installed as well) - as it's just too pristine - and somehow a Marine was awarded or acquired that rifle in 1969, and it has remained in this configuration since. This history takes nothing away from the rifle as almost all M40's apparently needed to get re-built after a 9 or 12 month tour in Southeast Asia.... Again, it's a truly collectible M40 rifle still in its Vietnam configuration, of which only a tiny few are in private hands. It's the only one I have seen with a matching green scope and mount. That's my 2cts.

You might be right about it being a rebuild, it's an earlier receiver with later parts, but it might also be in 100% original configuration/condition. It's possible that Remington got an order for rifles in 1968 (322xxx M40's) and built this leftover new old stock 221xxx receiver that wasn't part of a previous shipment. After examining the rifle, I don't think it's something a collector put together later on, I believe that it left the Corps in this configuration.

This also makes sense when you look at each individual part. It's not just the barrel that's from a later date, the scope is also very late. In fact, it's the highest green Redfield serial number I've ever recorded! The scope on this rifle is serial number F80450, which is far higher than the typical F57xxx serial number range from 1966. I've only seen 2 greenies in the F7xxxx range, which are probably replacement scopes (perfect condition, no number engraved on the side). Here's this rifle's greenie and a few others I have:

Redfield greenies that were on 221xxx and 224xxx M40's always had the rifle's serial number engraved on the front left side of the main tube. Later replacement scopes were unmarked, presumably to allow them to be matched to a rifle later on or they just got sick of trying to mix and match parts. The 6257xxx M40's from after 1968 have the gen 2 matte black Redfields, those scopes were engraved in the same location as the earlier scopes, but only had the last 4 digits of the rifle's serial number.

I have no idea how the 322xxx M40 scopes were marked because I've never seen one. They might have been left black and not engraved or they might have been engraved in the same location as the scope on my rifle. I have 2 USMC scopes in my collection that have engraved serial numbers under the turret housing, but that's still different than the engraving location on this M40's scope. Here's the other 2 unique scopes, one's a greenie (the 262756 is weird, it's not a USMC M40 and it's not in the usual architectural script) and the other's a Widefield:

The location of the engraving on the 40X base isn't correct for the 221xxx and 224xxx rifles, but it is for the later 322xxx rifles. I'm not sure why they changed the location of the engraving on the later guns, but every 322xxx base I've seen has been engraved in the center. So, it's my opinion that this rifle was either a rebuild or a new build on an old stock receiver at the same time the 322xxx rifles were being built. These would have been built in 1968 before Remington changed their serial numbers when the 1968 GCA became law. Here's 2 of my original 322xxx engraved 40X bases:

After comparing these 322xxx bases with this 221xxx base, I think the same person engraved all 3 of them. I'm no handwriting expert, but to me they look like they were done by the same hand. What do you guys think?

The 16601 buttplate and the stock have matching control numbers, in this case it's the number 7:

That's my research so far on this rifle, thankfully I have a good sample size of original parts to help with any comparison. 99.9% of the early M40's are all the same, it's a simple low production rifle with very few parts (compared to rifles like the M14). This is one of the few that's different and I think we're getting very close to understanding why it's different from the other 221xxx/224xxx M40's.

 

[pmclaine]

How does it look like they finished the raw aluminum on the butt plate edge?

Understand they were issued raw and than finished in the field to get rid of the shiny aluminum edge from fitting.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

How does it look like they finished the raw aluminum on the butt plate edge?

Understand they were issued raw and than finished in the field to get rid of the shiny aluminum edge from fitting.

They only had raw sides on commercial rifles, all the M40's had completely black buttplates from Remington. They could be touched up in the field with some paint as the anodizing wore off, but they were 100% finished when first issued.

 

[pmclaine]

They only had raw sides on commercial rifles, all the M40's had completely black buttplates from Remington. They could be touched up in the field with some paint as the anodizing wore off, but they were 100% finished when first issued.

Thank you.

Had always believed they shipped with raw edge and guys hit them with paint on issue.

 

[Random Guy]

Thanks for the details re your latest acquisition. Given the Remington archival history in Joe Poyer’s book, my guess is both the 221k and 322k rifles were part of the original 1966 order and delivered by late 1966/early 1967, but that is an educated guess. I don’t know how Remington handled any replacement receivers for M40s that came in for rebuild in 1968 that were deemed unserviceable (oxidation/pitting could have been an issue after a hard tour in Vietnam).

The small M40 orders from 1967-1968 do not appear to be for the USMC, but their is a curious order in 1969 out of the Boston Procurement office - which is the entity that handled the original order in 1966 for the original 700 USMC M40 rifles. Not sure where those 105 rifles went, and presumably they were 7 digit rifles in the 6 million range. (Source is Poyers book, data is from archives at Remington Arms Co.):

M40 sniper rifles sold to the US gov't by year:
1966 = 714 (biggest contract was Boston Procurement District for 700 M40s - these are the original USMC rifles. Small contract for 6 rifles each for COUSN Regional Financial District and NAVY SPT GRP Pacific)
1967 = 42 (biggest contract was Edgewood Arsenal, MD for 30 M40 rifles, followed by Frankford Arsenal, PA for 7 M40 rifles)
1968 = 81 (biggest contract was Military Air Command, Dover AFB in Delaware for 58 rifles, followed by Frankford Arsenal, PA for 9 rifles, and US Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA for 6 M40s)
1969 = 135 (biggest contract was again Boston Procurement District for 105 M40s (unclear from records who received these), followed by US Navy Training Center in San Diego for 30 M40 rifles)
TOTAL = 972 rifles

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Thanks for the details re your latest acquisition. Given the Remington archival history in Joe Poyer’s book, my guess is both the 221k and 322k rifles were part of the original 1966 order and delivered by late 1966/early 1967, but that is an educated guess. I don’t know how Remington handled any replacement receivers for M40s that came in for rebuild in 1968 that were deemed unserviceable (oxidation/pitting could have been an issue after a hard tour in Vietnam).

The small M40 orders from 1967-1968 do not appear to be for the USMC, but their is a curious order in 1969 out of the Boston Procurement office - which is the entity that handled the original order in 1966 for the original USMC 700 rifles. Not sure where those 150 rifles went, and presumably they were 7 digit rifles in the 6 million range. (Source is Poyers book, data is from archives at Remington Arms Co.):

M40 sniper rifles sold to the US gov't by year:
1966 = 714 (biggest contract was Boston Procurement District for 700 M40s - these are the original USMC rifles. Small contract for 6 rifles each for COUSN Regional Financial District and NAVY SPT GRP Pacific)
1967 = 42 (biggest contract was Edgewood Arsenal, MD for 30 M40 rifles, followed by Frankford Arsenal, PA for 7 M40 rifles)
1968 = 81 (biggest contract was Military Air Command, Dover AFB in Delaware for 58 rifles, followed by Frankford Arsenal, PA for 9 rifles, and US Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA for 6 M40s)
1969 = 135 (biggest contract was again Boston Procurement District for 105 M40s (unclear from records who received these), followed by US Navy Training Center in San Diego for 30 M40 rifles)
TOTAL = 972 rifles

Thanks for posting the info, for some reason I kept thinking those were all USMC order dates. Even though the Corps ordered their rifles in 1966, the very first ones to ship to Vietnam was in March 1967. All of my original take-off barrels are dated 1966. It appears that even though the Marines ordered the rifles in 1966, they were being built and delivered over the next 2 years.

I have 2 Remington 700's in the 322xxx serial number range that I'm going to use for M40A1 builds, one of them has an XP barrel code, the other has a BR barrel code. This dates them to December 1967 and January 1968, respectively. Here's a link to the Remington 700 barrel date codes incase anyone here needs to use it: https://www.leeroysramblings.com/Gun Articles/remington_barrel_date_code.html

It appears that the 322xxx rifles were being made at the end of 1967 and into 1968. It now makes sense that this 221xxx receiver could have been in the bottom of a box (first in, last out) and was built with the 322xxx rifles. This would explain the later AR (March 1968) M40 barrel, the 40X base that's engraved exactly the same as the 322xxx bases and the extremely late serial number green Redfield scope. The bolt also appears to be in original condition, had it been refinished the matching serial number engraving wouldn't be in the white. By this time, Remington had also moved from the split sear to the single sear in the trigger. This M40 and both 322xxx rifles have a single sear trigger from the factory.

If it were a rebuild, it would have to be one of the first rifles sent to Vietnam in early to mid 1967, used extensively, sent back to Remington, get rebuilt with new parts from 1968, get sent back to Vietnam, come up as an extra rifle in inventory and then be sent to Camp Pendleton in 1969. I just don't think this is the case, there's a lot of movement in a short period of time, especially when Marines had spare parts and could fix rifles in country. I doubt the armorers in Vietnam would have wasted time trying to force match serial numbers, especially with how often parts would need to be switched out and swapped around.

Assuming that the rifle was shipped to the Corps shortly after it was built, it fits the previous owner's timeline of being in Vietnam and then receiving the rifle at Camp Pendleton when he got back it 1969. That would mean this rifle isn't a rebuild, it's in original condition and it's truly one of a kind! After taking all this into consideration, I'm 99% sure this rifle is a late build and is in it's original configuration. In the off chance that it's a completely rebuilt rifle, that makes it even more interesting, since the receiver would have gone through hell and back in Vietnam! Either way, it's a fucking great rifle and I'm extremely happy to have it in my collection!

Here's the M40 and 322xxx rifle's barrel date codes:

Here's 221235 with 322693:

 

[Random Guy]

You might be right about it being a rebuild, it's an earlier receiver with later parts, but it might also be in 100% original configuration/condition. It's possible that Remington got an order for rifles in 1968 (322xxx M40's) and built this leftover new old stock 221xxx receiver that wasn't part of a previous shipment. After examining the rifle, I don't think it's something a collector put together later on, I believe that it left the Corps in this configuration.

Based on the archival information from Remington Arms that is found in Poyer's book, I'm quite sure that M40 was re-barreled by Remington in 1968 - as were likely most M40s that served in Vietnam. As an M40 addict, Poyer's book is a must. While it has numerous small errors and several of the pictures are incorrect, but the archival info re the M40 (and M24) programs is very comprehensive. Here's the key excerpt from his book (page 72):

"The main order for 700 M40 Sniper rifles was issued through the Boston Procurement District, contract NOM-733566, and shipped on June 20, 1966. The order consisted of 550 M40 rifles with accessories and 150 rifles with only the base, manual, and sling. The rifles shipped with bases but not scopes did not have serial numbers engraved on the base. Sufficient rifles and accessories were in the Marine Corp's supply system by January 1967 that an official 'in-service' date of 1 February 1967 was determined. Sniper rifles were to be issued initially to the First and Third Marine Divisions, and then to the Second and Fifth Marine Divisions, and Reserve units. The primary Scout-Sniper Training facility was established at Camp Pendleton, California in late 1966 with the first class beginning in January 1967.

..."Seven hundred and sixteen M40 sniper rifles were manufactured by Remington and delivered to the Navy or Marine Corps by the close of 1966."

My guess is that Redfield could not produce all of the required 700 green scopes by June 1966, and had sent Remington 550 scopes that summer so they could at least meet the delivery requirements for the rifles. I assume the remaining 150 scopes were shipped later to Remington, or perhaps the USMC directly. (This seems to happen a bit with military optics, with phased delivery after the rifles are ready).

Given that only 90 M40s were left in Vietnam in late 1969, and only 23 of them were serviceable per USMC records - my assumption is that Remington serviced/re-built the majority of those rifles due to wear and tear in Vietnam in the 1968-1970ish period. Remington was presumably under contract to fix them for a period of time (probably 5 yrs), hence the issue of only 90 in Vietnam in late 1969, with the majority back in the USA. I presume by the mid-1970s the USMC took over the support of M40 sniper rifles, leading of course to the much more robust M40A1 rifles made by the RTE guys (2112s).

Bottom-line: The auction rifle (and all other USMC 6-digit M40s) were apparently shipped to the USMC on June 20th 1966 per the Remington archives, and apparently in 1968 this rifle got re-barreled, probably after a tour in Vietnam. Again, nothing about that takes away from its service history, and its current configuration. It's a very rare and desirable, originally configured M40 from the Vietnam era. (I wish it was mine, of course).

 

[cplnorton]

I don't study the M40. I only go up to the Model 70 and basically stop. But the only thing I would caution is I would not take something that stated in a book to actually be correct, unless I could independently prove it.

I have tens of thousands of pages of sniper docs from the National Archives from 1907 to about 1973 and what I found is if you compare our books to the actual documents, these authors filled in gaps with a lot of opinions and hearsay stated as facts. These guys did not have a lot of factual information to base their books on, so they had to get a little creative.

No joke, some of these books do not even know what actual rifles were used, let along the traits of these rifles.

In my opinion, Senich was the best of them. Though he missed a lot, you can tell he really tried to get it right, and for right now his are the only ones I would even recommend. I hate to say it because he was a nice guy when we talked, but in my opinion Poyer's are the worst. Some of his stuff is so far into left field that I was left with my mouth hanging open wondering how they hell he could even come up with that. I would not personally recommend Poyer's books because so much just wasn't correct.

My point in this is, I would personally take everything that is stated in these books with a grain of salt, unless you are holding the actual documents in your hands to fact check them.

The Vietnam era is in need of a major rewrite from everything I have seen.

Just my .02.

 

[Random Guy]

My point in this is, I would personally take everything that is stated in these books with a grain of salt, unless you are holding the actual documents in your hands to fact check them.

I agree that Senichs books are among the best (with only minor errors), and that some info of Poyers books regarding some sniper weapons have some obvious errors, and some questionable assumptions as well. That said, he was able to review the archives at Remington and his info re the M24 and M40 programs appears to be unique in its level of detail. Fwiw, I am not aware of Remington Arms allowing this level of access for any other researchers, but somehow Poyer was allowed permission to work with the Remington Society of American Archives Research Team, hence the hyper specificity about the M24 and M40 contracts, development, cost data, shipping data, and related topics pertaining to those 2 rifles. The info re various other sniper rifles is generally not nearly as detailed or accurate…as you observed.

(Your archival research on the USMC M70s appears more comprehensive than found in any books on this enigma of a topic - wish you'd write a book on that topic and others like the USMC MC52 rifle, etc).

Anyhow, I don’t recommend folks take all of Poyer's info at face value re 1903 rifles, M70 rifles, and his section on the M25 is very poorly researched and some of the pics are wrong in various places including the M24 section, but I don’t question the veracity of the archival info that he states is directly from “Remington Arms Co.” and/or the "Remington Society of American Archives Research Team." The stuff in my post re the M40 is reportedly from that source, but unlike Joe Poyer, I suspect none of us can gain access to Remington’s archives to validate the original contractual documents and shipping info. Thus fact checking isn't possible unless one is a member of good standing within the Remington Society of American Archives Research Team - and now with their unfortunate bankruptcy, I think any validation becomes even more unlikely. (On Edit - what is attached looks quite valid to me).

(PS: I was preparing a letter to him back in 2018 regarding the errors in his book, Collecting US Sniper rifles 1945-2000, but learned that he had passed away. His collection was subsequently auctioned off, saw lots lots of interesting items).

ON EDIT: Attached is the info from Poyer's book that appears unique in that it's based on Remington Society of American Archives Research Team's access to the company's archival info. While Joe Poyer's books do contain errors and assumptions re various sniper rifles, nothing in the attached information appears remotely incorrect to me re the M40 rifle. Thus I won't impugn him over his research re the M40 program, nor impugn the Remington Archival Research team who provided Poyer with the attached info. Not even Peter Senich's excellent books contain this type of hyper-specific information on the M40, but on page 161 of 'The One-Round War', Senich notes exactly what Poyer stated about the initial delivery: "Remington completed the 1966 Marine Corps order (700 rifles) that same year (550 rifles with telescope sights, and 150 rifles without telescopes)." The only difference is that Poyer provided the original gov't contract number, and the exact date, that Remington shipped those 700 rifles to the USMC: reportedly June 20, 1966. Just say'n...

 

[RTH1800]

If the rifle had been listed at twice that it still would have sold quickly. Someone made a mistake.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Based on the archival information from Remington Arms that is found in Poyer's book, I'm quite sure that M40 was re-barreled by Remington in 1968 - as were likely most M40s that served in Vietnam. As an M40 addict, Poyer's book is a must. While it has numerous small errors and several of the pictures are incorrect, but the archival info re the M40 (and M24) programs is very comprehensive. Here's the key excerpt from his book (page 72):

"The main order for 700 M40 Sniper rifles was issued through the Boston Procurement District, contract NOM-733566, and shipped on June 20, 1966. The order consisted of 550 M40 rifles with accessories and 150 rifles with only the base, manual, and sling. The rifles shipped with bases but not scopes did not have serial numbers engraved on the base. Sufficient rifles and accessories were in the Marine Corp's supply system by January 1967 that an official 'in-service' date of 1 February 1967 was determined. Sniper rifles were to be issued initially to the First and Third Marine Divisions, and then to the Second and Fifth Marine Divisions, and Reserve units. The primary Scout-Sniper Training facility was established at Camp Pendleton, California in late 1966 with the first class beginning in January 1967.

..."Seven hundred and sixteen M40 sniper rifles were manufactured by Remington and delivered to the Navy or Marine Corps by the close of 1966."

My guess is that Redfield could not produce all of the required 700 green scopes by June 1966, and had sent Remington 550 scopes that summer so they could at least meet the delivery requirements for the rifles. I assume the remaining 150 scopes were shipped later to Remington, or perhaps the USMC directly. (This seems to happen a bit with military optics, with phased delivery after the rifles are ready).

Given that only 90 M40s were left in Vietnam in late 1969, and only 23 of them were serviceable per USMC records - my assumption is that Remington serviced/re-built the majority of those rifles due to wear and tear in Vietnam in the 1968-1970ish period. Remington was presumably under contract to fix them for a period of time (probably 5 yrs), hence the issue of only 90 in Vietnam in late 1969, with the majority back in the USA. I presume by the mid-1970s the USMC took over the support of M40 sniper rifles, leading of course to the much more robust M40A1 rifles made by the RTE guys (2112s).

Bottom-line: The auction rifle (and all other USMC 6-digit M40s) were apparently shipped to the USMC on June 20th 1966 per the Remington archives, and apparently in 1968 this rifle got re-barreled, probably after a tour in Vietnam. Again, nothing about that takes away from its service history, and its current configuration. It's a very rare and desirable, originally configured M40 from the Vietnam era. (I wish it was mine, of course).

I agree that Senichs books are among the best (with only minor errors), and that some info of Poyers books regarding some sniper weapons have some obvious errors, and some questionable assumptions as well. That said, he was able to review the archives at Remington and his info re the M24 and M40 programs appears to be unique in its level of detail. Fwiw, I am not aware of Remington Arms allowing this level of access for any other researchers, but somehow Poyer was allowed permission to work with the Remington Society of American Archives Research Team, hence the hyper specificity about the M24 and M40 contracts, development, cost data, shipping data, and related topics pertaining to those 2 rifles. The info re various other sniper rifles is generally not nearly as detailed or accurate…as you observed.

(Your archival research on the USMC M70s appears more comprehensive than found in any books on this enigma of a topic - wish you'd write a book on that topic and others like the USMC MC52 rifle, etc).

Anyhow, I don’t recommend folks take all of Poyer's info at face value re 1903 rifles, M70 rifles, and his section on the M25 is very poorly researched and some of the pics are wrong in various places including the M24 section, but I don’t question the veracity of the archival info that he states is directly from “Remington Arms Co.” and/or the "Remington Society of American Archives Research Team." The stuff in my post re the M40 is reportedly from that source, but unlike Joe Poyer, I suspect none of us can gain access to Remington’s archives to validate the original contractual documents and shipping info. Thus fact checking isn't possible unless one is a member of good standing within the Remington Society of American Archives Research Team - and now with their unfortunate bankruptcy, I think any validation becomes even more unlikely. (On Edit - what is attached looks quite valid to me).

(PS: I was preparing a letter to him back in 2018 regarding the errors in his book, Collecting US Sniper rifles 1945-2000, but learned that he had passed away. His collection was subsequently auctioned off, saw lots lots of interesting items).

ON EDIT: Attached is the info from Poyer's book that appears unique in that it's based on Remington Society of American Archives Research Team's access to the company's archival info. While Joe Poyer's books do contain errors and assumptions re various sniper rifles, nothing in the attached information appears remotely incorrect to me re the M40 rifle. Thus I won't impugn him over his research re the M40 program, nor impugn the Remington Archival Research team who provided Poyer with the attached info. Not even Peter Senich's excellent books contain this type of hyper-specific information on the M40, but on page 161 of 'The One-Round War', Senich notes exactly what Poyer stated about the initial delivery: "Remington completed the 1966 Marine Corps order (700 rifles) that same year (550 rifles with telescope sights, and 150 rifles without telescopes)." The only difference is that Poyer provided the original gov't contract number, and the exact date, that Remington shipped those 700 rifles to the USMC: reportedly June 20, 1966. Just say'n...

Poyer's books are hot garbage, I don't trust anything he writes. For fucks sake, even in his M40 section he talks about the Model 700 having 3 fucking receiver screws, the middle one apparently has something do with accuracy (page 63, top right paragraph if you want to double check). Just say'n...

You say that Senich's books don't contain the "hyper-specific" information on M40 production, but in actuality, Senich had that same info and more. Senich didn't list all the other contracts and the years because it didn't pertain to the 1966 USMC M40 contract, which was his focus. What he did do is talk about the supply contract NOm-73566 (17 May 1966), Senich even had the exact day of the contract recorded. My point is, Senich had that exact info and more and stayed on focus with what he was writing. Additionally, look Poyer's book and add up the contract production per year, then compare it to the production per year in Senich's book. Guess what, the numbers don't match. Seems the only thing they agree on is NOm-73566. We haven't seen the other documents that Senich had, but he put those numbers down for a reason, he isn't known to cut corners on paperwork/documentation and analysis.

You say that "Bottom-line: The auction rifle (and all other USMC 6-digit M40s) were apparently shipped to the USMC on June 20th 1966....," but this is straight up impossible, the 322xxx rifles were made in 1968, not 1966. Coincidentally, neither author talks about the 322xxx rifles being made by Remington. The 322xxx M40's were some of the very last M700's made by Remington in 1968 before the change in serial numbers and started anew in the 62xxxxx range in late 1968. We know for a fact that the Corps had these rifles, 44 serial numbers are listed in DFA vol. 1 and that's only a portion of what they had. This is important because my M40 shows the same scope base engraving as other known 322xxx bases. Interestingly enough, there's a 322xxx shown in Senich's book with the same type of engraving as the previous 221xxx/224xxx rifles. So, another question arises, when/why the change in engraving in the 322xxx range?

You know what, where are the USMC 322xxx orders documented? I don't see them in Senich or Poyer's books. Chandler documents 44 of them, but where's the NOm-xxxxx or whatever the contract would be? The Corps had enough rifles on hand, but still wanted more? We're also assuming that Remington's records are good when they say the built and shipped that number of M40's those years.

If we use the Remington Society's M40 contract lists for 1968, 2 went to Crane, 12 went to China Lake, 9 went to Philadelphia and 58 went to the Air Force. Where are at least 44 USMC M40's in 1968? Did we get them from the Air Force? Also, the 6257xxx rifles that pop up at places like the CMP with 1969 dated barrels, are they from the group of 105 rifles that went to the Boston Procurement District (same place as the original 700 1966 USMC contract)? Are those USMC rifles? If so, where the hell are 105 of them and why have we never seen a single one as an issued A1? The Corps ordered 6257xxx rifles for testing, but I didn't think they'd get that many. I've gone off topic quite a bit with this, my point is that even with this contract information, it's next to useless and it raises more questions than it answers.

You speculate that "my assumption is that Remington serviced/re-built the majority of those rifles due to wear and tear in Vietnam in the 1968-1970ish period. Remington was presumably under contract to fix them for a period of time (probably 5 yrs), hence the issue of only 90 in Vietnam in late 1969, with the majority back in the USA. I presume by the mid-1970s the USMC took over the support of M40 sniper rifles, leading of course to the much more robust M40A1 rifles made by the RTE guys (2112s)."

This is incorrect, the Marines took over the support of the M40 sniper rifles the moment they received them. There were RTE 2112's in each Division in country who specifically worked on sniper rifles, including the M40. They constantly repaired rifles and worked on absolutely everything, except for in country rebarreling for the M40 (according to Senich). So, Remington had absolutely nothing to do with wear and tear in Vietnam, the Marines handled everything and even had spare parts for the rifles (i.e. "adequate supply of spare trigger guards").

As for the 23 serviceable M40's in Vietnam in 1969, Senich addresses that in his book. He states that "both 3d MarDiv and 1st MarDiv personnel tasked with Scout-Sniper "requalification" in mid 1969 have indicated there was "no perceptible shortage" of M700/M40 sniper rifles at that time." So, of the 99 rifles that were sent to Vietnam, 54 were unserviceable and 45 were in the field. Of those 45 rifles, 23 were serviceable and there wasn't an issue with shortages. The Corps also states that these 99 rifles were list as the only 7.62mm USMC sniper rifles "in all of Vietnam" in 1969. This 99 count goes back all the way to February of 1968 (presumably there were less then that throughout 1967 as they were still receiving rifles). Senich thinks there could have been more than the 99 recorded rifles, but it's not going to be a massive swing of numbers. We're probably looking at a discrepancy of a few dozen rifle at the most, seeing as how they were keeping decent records at the time.

23 rifles was still enough for the Marine snipers and they had accountability for pretty much all of the unserviceable rifles. The other 601 M40's we apparently stateside and could be shipped to Vietnam on a moments notice if they were needed. But they weren't, so they weren't. It would be much easier to have a new gun sent to Vietnam then to have one sent to Remington for repair. And from the sound of it, they had accountability of their rifles and didn't send any back stateside

There's the basis for our discussion, is my M40 a Vietnam rebuild or is it an older receiver that was built later on. A 3rd option could be somewhere in the middle, it was brought back from Vietnam and was worked on at the RTE shop. However, that 3rd option still raises various questions about the scope/base markings in the same style as 322xxx bases, the original mint condition bolt with factory serial number (Poyer covered the bolt engraving, but he somehow still got information wrong, so I'll correct it here in this post - the serial number isn't visible with the bolt closed), the highest known serial number greenie and the perfect barrel marking index.

Speaking of barrel marking index, I think I have the only currently known real M40 that was rebuilt at the RTE shop after the Vietnam War, it's Major Dick Culver's rifle. And I've personally talked to the Marine armorer who built it. The barrel isn't indexed at all, they didn't care about the markings, they only cared about headspace. The markings on the rifle are as far off as you can get, they're at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions, lol.

I'll give that gentleman a call when I have time, he served as a 2112 armorer in Vietnam and will have the answers, if he wants to share them. With accountability of rifles in Vietnam and a massive supply of them in the Corps, how often did they even change barrels? Did they even bother with it? Just use a new gun and rebarrel for the A1 program, it sounds like there were enough M40's to just do that. And what happened to the missing 300+ rifles after the war? They sure as hell weren't lost in Vietnam. Probably needed new barrels and just threw them all out! Lol, just joking about this, I doubt that happened.

Anyway, who knows if we'll ever know the answer. I honestly want you to be correct, I would be extremely happy to know that this is a Vietnam rebuild, it would add even more to it's history! But, with the information on hand, it's just easier to assume it was an overrun receiver from the original batch of 700 and was just set aside to be built when a new order came in. Occam's Razor and all that. More research needs to be done, other questions I've asked in this post need answering.

Also, you can stop calling it an auction rifle. It wasn't an auction, it was just for sale in their shop.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

If the rifle had been listed at twice that it still would have sold quickly. Someone made a mistake.

Absolutely! The last one to sell at auction went for double this amount and it didn't have any of the documentation.

The rifle also came with it's original tan Protecto Caddy case, cleaning gear and pamphlets on the rifle and scope. I've only seen copies of the Remington sniper pamphlet in Senich's book. I'm not even sure if he had a copy of it, the documentation is credited to Remington.

I can't believe the rifle came with the Remington pamphlet, I highly doubt many survived, the armorers probably just threw them away. Or they're all still in mint condition stacked neatly next to a pile of 300 missing M40's, lol. Anyways, here it is:

It's not the most exciting thing in the world, but I enjoy seeing original documents.

 

[Random Guy]

One brief idea re this topic given my basic understanding of gov't procurements as they pertain to weapon systems:

You know what, where are the USMC 322xxx orders documented? I don't see them in Senich or Poyer's books. Chandler documents 44 of them, but where's the NOm-xxxxx or whatever the contract would be? The Corps had enough rifles on hand, but still wanted more? We're also assuming that Remington's records are good when they say the built and shipped that number of M40's those years.

Good question. Well, I know that during the M24 program circa 1988-2010 (where Remington Defense handled the full life-cycle of the M24 rifle program for the US Army, and later the US Air Force) any M24/M700 receivers that came in for re-barreling or servicing that were found to have a potential issue with tolerances or minor defects (ie, any stretching of the receiver ring, magnaflux results suggesting a micro crack, excessive bolt lug wear, oxidation or pitting, etc) were automatically destroyed per the DoD contract, and Remington provided the Army (or Air Force) with a new M24 receiver, reportedly with the same serial number as the destroyed receiver. I didn't think to ask the former Remington Defense manager how often this occurred, but he explained the process I just outlined. It was part of the gov't's contract provisions. (Fwiw, the contract also specified that M24s were to be built within a space w/ controlled access, hence the reason Remington Defense established a separate shop for M24 production, and they were built separately from the civilian stuff, but I digress).

Same contract provision applied to Leupold 10x scopes that became unserviceable during the contract, they were replaced as needed, even if the scope was obviously dropped or otherwise abused by a soldier, it was simply replaced to get the rifle serviceable and back into the field.

That said, I don't know what the Remington archives say about M40 rifles that came in for a re-barrel or re-work during the 1968-1970ish era that were found to be unserviceable; showing oxidation/rust, or maybe stripped or rusted threads for the scope mount, pitted bolt faces, etc - but given the high attrition rate from service in Vietnam, it seems possible that Remington might have elected to replace a few 22X,XXX receivers from 1966 with a current production receiver, which I guess could fall into the 322,xxx range from 1968? That would explain a lot. We do know that Vietnam's monsoon climate = rapid oxidation and reportedly pitting inside the M40 barrel, which was a documented issue per Poyer’s book, and conceivably that could apply to receiver or bolts too, right? USMC records from late 1969 reportedly noted that only 23 out of 90 M40 rifles in Vietnam were still serviceable = a 75% attrition rate(!).

In other words, did the USMC send possibly unserviceable M40 rifles back to Remington for repair, re-barreling, or replacement during this era? If the contract's Period of Performance was for 3 years (1966-1968) or 5-years (1966-1970), that would make sense. Based on their museum rifle that was re-barreled in Sept 1969, and the rifle in this thread which appears to have a 1968 replacement barrel, plus the reports about oxidized bores after only 1000 rds, I'd surmise a lot of re-barreling took place in that period...

Again, that is not something I've read in a book, but I am aware of typical gov't procurement contracts, and often they will have a "repair and/or replace unserviceable parts" as standard contract language, for whatever the Period of Performance (PoP) might be. This applies to both rifles and scopes. Hence the black 3-9x 'Gen II' Redfields that were used under the USMC M40 contract provisions to replace any unserviceable greenies that came back from a tour in Vietnam. We know the black Gen II scopes were "post-1968" items that Redfield utilized as needed under the original USMC contract, so the PoP for NOM-73556 contract was at least through 1968, possibly later (I would guess 5 years, but again, only the archives would have that data).

As as aside, and as you are certainly aware, Carlos Hathcock's issued M40 was actually damaged/destroyed in a fire in Sept 1969 when his vehicle ran over a land mine, and he was seriously wounded with numerous burns. I wonder if the USMC eventually ordered another M40 to replace his unserviceable rifle, or did Remington possibly replace it per the contract provisions? His M40 was undoubtedly one of many sniper rifles that was rendered unserviceable due to harsh combat and/or climate conditions. Again, I don't know the contract provisions, but it would not surprise me if it contained a clause that Remington would "repair and/or replace unserviceable parts" for the duration of the contract, and that clause would include receivers or maybe even a whole rifle in the case of Hathcock's issued M40. Vendors typically bend-over backwards to keep or maintain their $$ gov't contracts...(esp when the country is at war).

One note about Remington's records of shipping 700 M40 rifles in June 1966 as part of their contract. Per Senich, 152 were sent to Albany, GA, and 548 were sent to Barstow, CA. The USMC contracting officer or his designee at both Albany, GA and Barstow, CA has to sign-off on the physical delivery of the procured items as part of the gov't's procurement close-out process. (This is the case for rifles or even logical things like software licenses, a formal signature is required at delivery - in order for a vendor to get paid. That's how it works...). Thus I have no doubt Remington shipped those 700 rifles in 1966, as failure to do so would have been a breach of their contract and that would have made it into the history books. So 700 rifles were delivered, the only mystery is what was the upper serial range of those original 700 rifles...

Anyhow, I wanted to mention this idea of a potential 'repair and/or replace unserviceable parts' contract clause as a possibility re the 44 or so 322k M40s that would seem to be later M40s and not part of the 700 rifles shipped in 1966. (As noted, this hypothesis is based on the reported high attrition rate of M40s used in Vietnam, the fact that Remington was re-barreling M40s in 1968-1969 - and thus able to replace a sub-standard receiver in the process if needed, and in part how the later M24 rifle contract was structured w/ Remington Defense, but that was of course circa 1988, much later than the M40 contract). My 2cts.

PS: If I were the lucky owner of M40 s/n 221235, I would try to reach out to the Remington Society of American Archives Research Team and see what the records say about that rifle...Not sure following Remingtons' bankruptcy if this is still a viable organization, as their event calendar only goes to 2019, but definitely worth a try given the rarity of that rifle. https://www.remingtonsociety.org/research-team/

On edit: I noted in Chandler's DFA, Vol 1, a total of 18 six-digit M40/M40A1 serial numbers were "coded out" ("code H") or removed from the inventory system between 1981-1988. No details are available as why those 18 rifles were removed from inventory, but I suspect its a mixture of old M40 receivers that became unserviceable, and perhaps a few that were 'awarded' or 'gifted' rifles to retiring USMC personnel with special stature. I wish we had a similar list of M40s that were 'coded out' of the USMC inventory between 1967-1971, as that would provide interesting insight into about how many M40 rifles became unserviceable during the Vietnam War, and such data might provide insights into the 322k serial block. Possibly as replacement rifles...possibly.

 

[akmike47]

I've noticed over the last few years of browsing their site that they do tend to overprice their items. Part of why I mostly just browse and haven't bought from them recently.

They’ve always priced stuff high.