Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes Sir that’s why I’m wondering if it’s legit
Wondering if the top base is a legit 40x base?
I don’t have them in hand yet but they are coming from a well known dealer.Definitely NOT REAL. Even the markings on both bases are wrong. I don't even think they're Redfield bases, they might be Leupold bases. Any markings on the sides of the bases? If they somehow have the Redfield "R" in crosshair on the fromt right side of the base, then someone faked the 40X marking on the bottom. If it's a Leupold base with that marking on the side, then that might be the way Leupold marked their bases on the bottom.
Just a quick glance, the markings are completely wrong for Redfield bases, the lightning cuts under the windage screws of the 40X base is wrong (shouldn't even have them), and even the direction of the milling machine marks on the rear bridge portion of the bases is completely wrong (marks should be perpendicular to the direction they're going on the bases in the photo). Taking all of that into consideration, I don't even think that these are Redfield made bases.
I hope that you didn't pay more than $10 per base, because that's about what they're worth. Were they sold to you as actual USMC M40 bases? Please provide us with some information about the deal, if you can. The more details we have, the more we can learn about what happened and how to prevent being taken advantage of as a potential customer. This information is important to all of us.I don’t have them in hand yet but they are coming from a well known dealer.
I will update when I have them in hand.
Thanks for the reply
From my research the windage screw slots should not be cut completely through the base.That style of base is legit. Whether or not they come from one of the sources used for the M40 I do not.know.
I will say that while I understand why they used that system, it wasn’t the best choice. Reason being is the friction hold on the front ring had a tendency to wear. That causes loss of zero. My clone that I’m working on right now, won’t have these. It will have Weaver or Picatinny bases. I know it’s not historically accurate, but Im not into a rifle that will turn into a POS.
He did confirm 40x’s were the original prototype actions and sporter weight barrels. He stated it just a few days ago on the Facebook M40 Enthusiasts page !As Smiley wrote on the other M40 Forum here in vintage. Don't confuse 40X with M40 The 40X is based off the 722, while the M40 is based off the 700. Similar reciever, but the bolt handles are different.
Correct! But prototypes are not production.He did confirm 40x’s were the original prototype actions and sporter weight barrels. He stated it just a few days ago on the Facebook M40 Enthusiasts page !
Where does it say it’s not a M40 base?AS the invoice says, they are NOT M40 bases. Even though the style looks like it.
As an aside I would not use any M40/Redfield bases. Not based on my experience in the military, rather based on my experience as a civilian. Note that I have mentioned in numerous posts about the failures of these bases. Clamped is far better than the friction hold of these pieces of crap. I have no idea why they championed them. I know they are original, but they suck! Again my experience as a civilian, not military. There were other bases and rings that were superior. Also note that due to failures they took to brazing/welding them. This is not necessary had they used better rings that had l-R clamping ability.
I know these are original, but I won't use the pieces of shit! Standard Weavers are a far better base.
As you noted in your original post, it is not an M40 base. At least you had questions about it. I know people want what was original, but those POS bases failed miserably. Original,... yes. Worth a shit.... NO! They fail! how hard is that to fathom?Where does it say it’s not a M40 base?
And further more if people want a M40 clone that is what is preferred!
Well we all have our opinions don’t we?As you noted in your original post, it is not an M40 base. At least you had questions about it. I know people want what was original, but those POS bases failed miserably. Original,... yes. Worth a shit.... NO! They fail! how hard is that to fathom?
Dude, it's a simple fact that the front ring retention is with friction, not actually clamping. That was one of the biggest reasons so many M40's were unserviceable within two years of them going to VietNam. My experience with them is numerous guns that people would say in our shooting circles that their rifle wouldn't hold zero. Recoil wears the friction points enough that the base won't hold zero.Well we all have our opinions don’t we?
I know and have plenty of experience with that type of base as well as many others.
I have never heard of anyone having issues with it!
AS the invoice says, they are NOT M40 bases. Even though the style looks like it.
As an aside I would not use any M40/Redfield bases. Not based on my experience in the military, rather based on my experience as a civilian. Note that I have mentioned in numerous posts about the failures of these bases. Clamped is far better than the friction hold of these pieces of crap. I have no idea why they championed them. I know they are original, but they suck! Again my experience as a civilian, not military. There were other bases and rings that were superior. Also note that due to failures they took to brazing/welding them. This is not necessary had they used better rings that had l-R clamping ability.
I know these are original, but I won't use the pieces of shit! Standard Weavers are a far better base.
This is what @fe1 has been trying to tell you this entire time! That's exactly why he wants the Redfield parts! It won't be museum quality, but it's an M40 clone nonethelessIf you want a museum piece...Get the original.
As you noted in your original post, it is not an M40 base. At least you had questions about it. I know people want what was original, but those POS bases failed miserably. Original,... yes. Worth a shit.... NO! They fail! how hard is that to fathom?
Nobody gives a shit what you think . You are out of your league here and looking more foolish with each post .AS the invoice says, they are NOT M40 bases. Even though the style looks like it.
As an aside I would not use any M40/Redfield bases. Not based on my experience in the military, rather based on my experience as a civilian. Note that I have mentioned in numerous posts about the failures of these bases. Clamped is far better than the friction hold of these pieces of crap. I have no idea why they championed them. I know they are original, but they suck! Again my experience as a civilian, not military. There were other bases and rings that were superior. Also note that due to failures they took to brazing/welding them. This is not necessary had they used better rings that had l-R clamping ability.
I know these are original, but I won't use the pieces of shit! Standard Weavers are a far better base.
Worth a shit....
Yep, used and beat up parts are the best! And I know that you have some of those items too, lol. Look at what my original Navy SEAL used Mk13 Mod 0 stocks are now selling for! I just help broker a sale for an original Mk13 Mod 0 painted stock kit, that kit sold for $6,100! I originally sold these kits for about $1,650 each, and the beat up painted kits are now selling for many thousands of dollars more than what collectors originally paid for them. History matters to some people, even if other people just don't care. "It's just a tool." Blah blah blah. Historical provenance actually means something and that will drive prices.Did you know cloners will max out their credit cards for something that was abused and beat up over something shiny and new?
Historical provenance actually means something and that will drive prices.