I’m a very big fan of the premiers. They’re so aesthetically pleasing, and the large turrets are great.
Lets see your USMC M40-M40A6!!!
- Thread starter callsignninja
- Start date
Likewise, and your A5 paint job is money! Nicely done.
I may paint mine similar to yours but desert colors.
I recently acquired an extremely rare carbon fiber handguard for the M40A6 Remington RACS chassis. About half a dozen or less of these handguards were ever made, Remington custom ordered them from Lancer (company that's known for making polymer AR15 magazines with steel feed lips). A few of these carbon fiber handguards were also used on the RACS chassis that were on the Surgeon CSR/SRL rifles. I took a few photos of my M40A6 with the regular handguard and the carbon fiber handguard, so they could be compared.
I also weighed the stripped down handguards to see what the weight difference is. The regular aluminum handguard weighs 11.9 ounces and the carbon fiber handguard weighs 8.3 ounces. There's a 3.6 ounce (30%) difference between the 2 handguards, which isn't a whole lot, but the Corps (and the other military branches) have a history of experimenting with firearm weight reduction.
Normally it's stuff like the scope rail or recoil lug that's slimmed down, but in this case it's a piece of the chassis (not much else to trim down besides the chassis and barrel on an A6). Since it's a piece of the chassis and it's a custom made piece of carbon fiber that was sourced from another company, this piece was a lot more expensive than just making something like a scope base from a different metal. The carbon fiber handguard is definitely lighter than the aluminum one, but I doubt the Corps wanted to pay hundreds of dollars to shave a few ounces off the A6 chassis.
Even though the Marines didn't end up using a carbon fiber handguard on their M40A6 chassis, it's still an interesting footnote in the history of M40xx development, design and prototyping. It does look kinda cool though!
I also weighed the stripped down handguards to see what the weight difference is. The regular aluminum handguard weighs 11.9 ounces and the carbon fiber handguard weighs 8.3 ounces. There's a 3.6 ounce (30%) difference between the 2 handguards, which isn't a whole lot, but the Corps (and the other military branches) have a history of experimenting with firearm weight reduction.
Normally it's stuff like the scope rail or recoil lug that's slimmed down, but in this case it's a piece of the chassis (not much else to trim down besides the chassis and barrel on an A6). Since it's a piece of the chassis and it's a custom made piece of carbon fiber that was sourced from another company, this piece was a lot more expensive than just making something like a scope base from a different metal. The carbon fiber handguard is definitely lighter than the aluminum one, but I doubt the Corps wanted to pay hundreds of dollars to shave a few ounces off the A6 chassis.
Even though the Marines didn't end up using a carbon fiber handguard on their M40A6 chassis, it's still an interesting footnote in the history of M40xx development, design and prototyping. It does look kinda cool though!
Personally I think the reputation of carbon fiber has recently taken a deep dive.
Here's another prototype piece of M40xx history. The scope base in the photos below is an extremely rare prototype piece, it's 1 of 5 Badger Ordnance M40A3 scope bases that was made in aluminum! The aluminum base is on top, the regular steel base is on the bottom. You can also see the difference in finishing, since the aluminum base is anodized.
There's a 5.2 ounce difference between the 2 scope bases, which is more weight saving and far cheaper to produce than the carbon fiber handguards in my previous post. I'm comparing 2 different M40xx's, but this can still show how small changes to regular parts can have a more substantial impact than an exotic custom made part. But, the aluminum rail was never issued, probably because it's not as strong as the steel rail and the Corps moved away from aluminum M40 parts when they upgraded to the M40A1.
Just another interesting piece of M40 history. I think 3 or 4 of the 5 scope rails were sent to PWS for testing, I don't think that Badger Ordnance ever received them back. So, one of them could have ended up on an issued rifle or they could be sitting in a drawer at PWS right now or they could have been scrapped long ago.
There's a 5.2 ounce difference between the 2 scope bases, which is more weight saving and far cheaper to produce than the carbon fiber handguards in my previous post. I'm comparing 2 different M40xx's, but this can still show how small changes to regular parts can have a more substantial impact than an exotic custom made part. But, the aluminum rail was never issued, probably because it's not as strong as the steel rail and the Corps moved away from aluminum M40 parts when they upgraded to the M40A1.
Just another interesting piece of M40 history. I think 3 or 4 of the 5 scope rails were sent to PWS for testing, I don't think that Badger Ordnance ever received them back. So, one of them could have ended up on an issued rifle or they could be sitting in a drawer at PWS right now or they could have been scrapped long ago.
Last edited:
I will say you definitely have some very interesting M40 stuff.
@USMCSGT0331 You inspire meHere's an interesting variation of the M40A3:
LolThough was it just a NF NXS 3-15x50 on the official test rifle? I put a NXS 5.5-22x56 on mine and the proportions look much better, in my personal opinion.
Last edited:
This is my latest project, I purchased a stripped 6 digit U.S. marked receiver on Gun Broker and scrounged the parts to have this built:
Some details of the stamps on the new Douglas barrel:
I previously had a Remington 40X 22lr M40 clone built, I was hoping for a pair unfortunately the stocks are quite different:
Probably going to stick with the Leupolds at least for now. I have a green scope that Toki anodized, but I need to decide if it is going on my 6 digit smear project... I can't decide what scope to use so I will probably try them all out and then go with the one I like the best. Just waiting on the barrel now!
Last edited:
We all love a good deployment case picture.
absolutely! i started to build one out and got as far as having the stock cut and bedded the EFR. now it is just sitting in my closet. so if anyone need the stock for M40a5 lmk.
i can build clones all day but will never be the same as my issued. she just felt different lol (miss it but enjoy getting fat)
i can build clones all day but will never be the same as my issued. she just felt different lol (miss it but enjoy getting fat)
What is the front rail you are running on the A3? Ive seen some A3s with an EFR, but nothing like that!Hey brother, looks like we've got the exact same rifles! Have you wrapped up an A6 build?
It's a US Optics M40A3MVP mount. I only saw them on a couple pictures of Marine Recon M40A3's.
Just a follow-up range report on my recent M40 project... These are two consecutive 3 shot groups at 100 yards with 168 FGMM:
This old school set-up out shoots my Tac Ops Delta 51!!
DW
This old school set-up out shoots my Tac Ops Delta 51!!
DW
Awesome picture!! I wish I would have gotten GAP to build one of these for me back when they offered them...
LMAO... it has a Tangent Theta that cost more than my entire M40 build!!
DW
At least it’s a properly done M40
I’ve got a factory freak R770 that pisses me off it shoots so well it calls a lot of my $$ spent into question.
I'm making some M40A6 Hanguards with added features for myself... Mirage mitigation and also some other things that I thought would have elevated the design... I'll be making a few, probably out of carbon infused materials or some other similar.
Attachments
The USMC tested various chassis systems in the early 201Xs to replace the glass-bedded/labor intensive McMillan stocks, so I think the answer is 'no' if you are asking that question. There was no interest in glass-bedding more USMC sniper rifles in the early 201Xs - it was all about a chassis system, per the RFP that was released for industry solicitations. I don't know how many chassis systems were tested under the USMC RFP back then, but it was several (Remington, AI, Cadex, APO and perhaps others). Remington of course won it in 2014. Per a 2112 who was at PWS in 2014-2016 during the transition from the M40A5 to A6, USMC leadership was focused on a chassis system as a strategy to greatly reduce the manual labor of 2112s building sniper rifles... He also told me that 2112s were forbidden to make any modifications to the chassis systems on the M40A6 - no minor filing of the Remington chassis or the recoil lug was even allowed. It was about standardization and labor reduction (ie, no more glass-bedding, etc).
Fwiw, USMCSGT0331 posted this neat picture a while back that basically shows the chronological progression of the M40A3 thru A6 rifles. I don't recall the details of that bottom rifle with camo stock w/ the huge hook on the stock, but it looks like a very early McMillan A4 stock and it might be have been a one-off or two-off prototype from the mid-to-late 1990s. Note: The USMC tested a few gratis (free) McMillan A2 stocks in the mid-1990s that Gale McMillan gave them for T&E purposes. What they adopted of course was the OD green stocks with a cheek rest w/ 2 screws.
(I changed the orientation by 90 degrees as it's a little easier (for me at least) to see the changes when the rifles are shown horizontally).
Last edited:
Finally got my M40A3 completed. Went with the DD Ross bottom metal setup and got a schnieder barrel made when Gary was turning them. Can’t wait to shoot it or decide on painting or not either lol
Last edited:
That big hook one might be mine from a long time ago and if it is, its one of the first from McMillan civ production.
That time of year again, my buddy deer hunting with his a5 before the holidays
M40 series Display. This last Thanksgiving weekend I displayed my M40 series rifles at the Tennessee military collectors association fall show at Franklin Tn. Displayed vertical in fielded chronological order, thanks to @Random Guy for dates in service. Lots of response from show attendees, most were interested in the SSa M40, eleven wanted to look thru the scope to see the tombstone ranging system, one wanted to look thru the Unertl on the M40a1. Only interest in the a3 or a5 was the a5 log book, over20 attendees thumbed thru log book. Had a nice visit with Jason " he of 100 Unertl 10x's". I usually only see him at theSOS or Gun Day showsin Louisville.
Attachments
Similar threads
