M-40 Barrel stampings and bedding

[mjmd11]

When Remington made their first run (1965-66") of the M-40's, the rifles were not bedded. Consensus is that the USMC began to bed them at some point after that. When did they start to do that.?
When the original barrels came off the assembly line were the stamped 7.62 or was that a process for the replacement barrels.

 

[Random Guy]

Remington revised the drawings slightly for the M40s in 1968 and again 1969, and my understanding is that early M40s (circa 1966) didn't have '7.62 NATO' stamped on them - but M40s that came in for a re-barrel after serving a tour in Vietnam in the "post-1968" period - were stamped '7.62 NATO'. Remington made 135 new M40s in 1969 as well, and I assume that those were also stamped '7.62 NATO.' So it was probably a drawing change circa 1969 and applied to work done on them that year and shortly afterwards, which applied to re-barreled rifles, and the batch of new M40s ordered in 1969. At least that is my understanding.

Note: The Remington Museum had an M40, serial #314169 that was made in 1966, but records show that it has a replacement barrel that is dated Sept 1969 (it is date stamped "UDS"), and it's barrel also has the '7.62 NATO' stamp on it. (Reportedly many M40s acquired oxidized/rusted bores and got re-barreled by Remington in that era).

As for bedding wood stock M40s, I have not heard of any formal documentation about that procedure during the Vietnam war. Did USMC armorers in Vietnam do this? Yes, the stocks swelled from all the humidity and rain, and bedding compound might have helped, but I suspect it was just an ad hoc process "at the local level." (On edit). I suspect that Remington serviced some M40s during the Vietnam war, and their contract didn't require that they glass bed the rifles.

The USMC precision armorers (presumably MOS 2112) starting formally upgrading the old M40s in the 1977 period to the M40A1 configuration w/ McMillan stocks, those were of course all bedded as part of the build process. Prior to that formal process, I don't think documentation really exists, and it was likely a localized effort by some USMC armorers. Maybe others know more, but I recall one original M40 'take-off' stock lacked bedding, hence my understanding that it may have been ad hoc thing.

 

[mjmd11]

Remington revised the drawings slightly for the M40s in 1968 and again 1969, and my understanding is that early M40s (circa 1966) that came in for a re-barrel after serving a tour in Vietnam in the "post-1968" period - were stamped '7.62 NATO'. Remington made 135 new M40s in 1969 as well, and I assume that those were also stamped '7.62 NATO.' So it was probably a drawing change circa 1969 and applied to work done on them that year and shortly afterwards, which applied to re-barreled rifles, and the batch of new M40s ordered in 1969. At least that is my understanding.

Note: The Remington Museum had an M40, serial #314169 that was made in 1966, but records show that it has a replacement barrel that is dated Sept 1969 (it is date stamped "UDS"), and it's barrel also has the '7.62 NATO' stamp on it. (Reportedly many M40s acquired oxidized/rusted bores and got re-barreled by Remington in that era).

As for bedding wood stock M40s, I have not heard of any formal documentation about that procedure during the Vietnam war. Did USMC armorers in Vietnam do this? Yes, the stocks swelled from all the humidity and rain, and bedding compound might have helped, but I suspect it was just an ad hoc process "at the local level." Remington continued to service the M40s during the Vietnam war, and their contract didn't require that they glass bed the rifles.

When Remington's gov't contract for servicing M40s was presumably no longer in effect, and the USMC precision armorers (presumably MOS 2112) starting formally upgrading the old M40s in the 1977 period to the M40A1 configuration w/ McMillan stocks, those were of course all bedded as part of the build process. Prior to that formal process, I don't think documentation really exists, and it was likely a localized effort by some USMC armorers. Maybe others know more, but I recall one original M40 'take-off' stocks lacked bedding, hence my understanding that it may have been ad hoc thing.

Thanks Random Guy. I am looking at a early barrel with a udn 41 and no 7.62 that belongs to a friend. I had a recollection that this was not inappropriate for and early run 65-66 barrel and was too lazy to rip out all the research to find it, so I thought i would rely on a younger mind. Thanks for the confirmation. I have seen both bedded and un-bedded original stocks . The two that were un-bedded that i remember were early 1st gen. Seems that it was pretty common on the later seven digits

 

[USMCSGT0331]

When Remington made their first run (1965-66") of the M-40's, the rifles were not bedded. Consensus is that the USMC began to bed them at some point after that. When did they start to do that.?
When the original barrels came off the assembly line were the stamped 7.62 or was that a process for the replacement barrels.

Remington did something they called "hand bedding," which isn't the bedding we typically think of. Their hand bedding was just a more precise inlet for the barreled action, no actual bedding material was used. The USMC started bedding their M40 stocks in 1967, when the first rifles were shipped to Vietnam. They mainly used Bisonite, but other materials on hand were also used. It wasn't a standardized practice at the time, so the rifles back in the US weren't bedded (at least not right away).

I have no idea when they started to bed them back in CONUS, but I'd imagine that the 2112's started experimenting right away, especially after the first user information came back from Vietnam. In the end, not all of the M40's ended up being bedded, I have a few original stocks that don't have bedding compound, but most of the stocks I own are bedded.

Both of these stocks are original USMC M40 take-offs from 1966. The top one (left in bottom pic) is unmodified and it's the same condition as it came from the factory (oil finish, no bedding compound). The bottom one (right in bottom pic) has a waterproof coating on it and is bedded with Bisonite. These were 2 of the modifications the 2112's made to the rifles in Vietnam, so this could potentially be a war used stock. Or these modifications could have been made by the RTE shop here in the US at some point in time before the A1 rebuild started.

All of the barrels made for the original contract in 1966 (700 rifles) just had the basic barrel markings, none of them had the "7.62" stamp. The 7.62 markings came a few years later, I think they might have started in late 1967 or early 1968. Replacement barrels made during this time would have had the 7.62 stamp. If Remington supplied the Corps with some extra barrels in 1966 with the original rifles, they wouldn't have the 7.62 stamp. It all comes down to when they were produced.

Remington continued to service the M40s during the Vietnam war

Where did you get this information? I've never seen anything that points to Remington servicing M40's during the war. Once the Corps received the M40's, Remington was out of the picture. The only thing they were on the hook for would be replacing a defective rifle directly from the factory, they didn't work on war used stuff. Replacing a defective product is always part of a contract and it's completely different than continuous servicing. USMC 2112's serviced the rifles, fixed them, modified them, etc. There were even entire maintenance echelons that were standardized for serving these rifles, none of which include Remington. In the One Round War, Senich discusses the RTE's M40 maintenance activity, but never mentions Remington servicing the rifles during the war. Once the Corps had the M40's, they had full control over them. If a part was damaged or unserviceable, the Marines would order a replacement and do the work themselves, this even includes worn out receivers.

Senich even talks about how in 1973 the Corps requested a quote and a plan from Remington to replace parts and/or rebuild the 425 M40's that were still in service, and the Corps ended up rejecting Remington's proposal. The Marines have always had a very strong "do it yourself" mindset, so it makes a lot of sense that they would have the 2112's work on these rifles and even upgrade them when the time came for the A1. Senich wrote a lot about M40 maintenance and I've also discussed this with people who were around during that time. No one has ever mentioned that rifles were maintained or sent back to Remington, so far you're the only person I've heard talk about Remington servicing the M40's. If you have information showing this occurred, please post it. No speculation, no conjecture, no appears to be, no possibly, no referring to some different government contract, etc. Only absolute proof matters. The facts we have on hand from various sources say that the Marines serviced their own rifles. The Marines had less than 1,000 M40's, so they could handle everything. It's not like the Army needing the assistance of Remington Defense with tens of thousands of M24's.

This might seem like a minor thing to argue about, but we're getting to the point where we have most of the M40 history documented and we're just working on the details. If I'm wrong about this, then I'll admit I'm wrong, but so far I haven't seen any contradictory information pertaining to this part of M40 history.

Thanks Random Guy. I am looking at a early barrel with a udn 41 and no 7.62 that belongs to a friend. I had a recollection that this was not inappropriate for and early run 65-66 barrel and was too lazy to rip out all the research to find it, so I thought i would rely on a younger mind. Thanks for the confirmation. I have seen both bedded and un-bedded original stocks . The two that were un-bedded that i remember were early 1st gen. Seems that it was pretty common on the later seven digits

I've never seen a UDN 41 barrel with a 7.62 stamp and I've owned about a dozen UDN 41 marked barrels. If a barrel from 1966 somehow has a 7.62 stamp on it, then it was added at a later date. Please post photos of the barrel in question and I'll try to help you out. What other markings does it have? Is it original finish or reparkerized?

Here are a few pics of some of my original UDN M40 barrels, as you can see there isn't a 7.62 stamp on them. The U is the final inspector, the D is the month, the N is the year and 41 is probably the assembly number. These barrels are from a large batch that was made in September 1966, this is a very common date for original M40 barrels (there are also other original M40 barrels with different month codes).

Here's a few photos of my original M40 (221235) with a receiver produced in 1966 and a barrel (UAR) produced in 1968. Most likely this receiver was an overrun that was in storage and then shipped to the Corps at a later date with a new barrel. The U is the final inspector, the A is the month and the R is the year, so this barrel was produced in March 1968. Notice how this barrel doesn't have an assembly number and it's stamped with 7.62 instead. The UAR is marked further down the barrel, leaving enough extra room for the 7.62 stamp. The 7.62 stamp wasn't an afterthought and the stamps aren't squished together. If a barrel has the markings squished together, then the 7.62 was added at a later date.

In case anyone is curious about markings on a civilian Remington 700 varmint special (pretty much the civilian equivalent of the M40, but not in 7.62 until the mid 70's), her is one of my rifles from 1968. The symbol is the final inspector, the B is the month, the R is the year and 65 is probably the assembly number.

The USMC M40 barrels are only stamped with basic information by the receiver, as you've seen in the previous photos. The civilian rifles had additional markings on the left side of the barrel.

The M40 barrels also had a flat crown and 1:10 rifling. Here's some other photos of one of my original M40 barrels barrels:

 

[Average guy]

Amazing history

 

[mjmd11]

All great information. My thanks to Random Guy and USMCSGT. Very useful and I am appreciative of the fact you both would take the time to help with my query. For the record I interpreted Random' s use of the term serviced to mean Remington continued to supply replacement parts and support where needed etc. I will save this string in my folder on the rifle. Thanks for the photos. Most helpful.

 

[Random Guy]

Where did you get this information? I've never seen anything that points to Remington servicing M40's during the war. Once the Corps received the M40's, Remington was out of the picture. The only thing they were on the hook for would be replacing a defective rifle directly from the factory, they didn't work on war used stuff. Replacing a defective product is always part of a contract and it's completely different than continuous servicing. USMC 2112's serviced the rifles, fixed them, modified them, etc.

My guess is that Remington Arms provided some of the "5th Echelon" support if needed for M40s during the Vietnam war. I surmise that based on the replacement barrel info off the M40 that was kept at the Remington Arms Company museum. There are pics in Poyer's book (see attached). While his book has many errors, the information contained in that those pics is from the Remington Society of America Archives Research team, and presumably reflects the archival records. (I read that per USMC records, by 1969, only 90 M40 systems were left in Vietnam, and thus the majority were presumably at 5th echelon support getting repaired, and again, my guess that could include Remington Arms...given the USMC records re oxidized bores.)

BTW, I actually reached out to the Archives team regarding your original M40 rifle 221235, to see if Remington's records show the 1968 barrel as a factory replacement, which is apparently information that is found in the Remington archives. Unfortunately with Remington's bankruptcy, I didn't get a response, and my guess is the records are now inaccessible...but I tried.

On EDIT: Omitted contract discussion after conferring with former Remington Defense sales mgr - see post #10 for his recollections.

If I run into Maj. Jim Land (ret) at a future Quantico precision rifle match, I'll need to remember to ask him about the M40 program and Remington's support during the war. He might remember, as he was involved in the original M40 to M40A1 transition before he retired.

Digressing somewhat, but somewhat related to contract stuff: One thing that upset the USMC MOS 2112 a few years ago when the USMC adopted the Mk 13 Mod 7 - was the fact that they couldn't work on those rifles. Why? Because Crane held the Mk 13 contract - and thus all work/repairs on those rifles, including installing replacement barrels, required the rifles to be sent back to Crane, IN for a re-barrel, etc. I was told by the OIC of the Scout Sniper school at the time that this arrangement was "not welcomed" by the USMC precision armorers... Moreover, my understanding from a 2112 circa 2016 is that they were told not to "mess with or otherwise modify" the chassis system on the M40A6s. Thus the M40A5s built/bedded towards the end of the last decade were basically the last "hand-built and hand-bedded" sniper rifles built by MOS 2112s - ending a tradition that went back to the hand-crafted M40A1 program in the mid-to-late 1970s. I think it's a bummer. My 2cts.

 

[Average guy]

This is exactly why I always watch the vintage thread. So much knowledge, always something to be learned.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

My guess is that Remington Arms provided some of the "5th Echelon" support if needed for M40s during the Vietnam war. I say that based the replacement barrel info off the M40 that was kept at the Remington Arms Company museum. There are pics in Poyer's book (see attached). While his book has many errors, the information contained in that those pics is from the Remington Society of America Archives Research team. (I read that per USMC records, by 1969, only 90 M40 systems were left in Vietnam, and thus the majority were presumably at 5th echelon support getting repaired, and again, my guess that could include Remington Arms)

BTW, I actually reached out to the Archives team regarding your original M40 rifle 221235, to see if Remington's records show the 1968 barrel as a factory replacement, which is apparently information that is found in the Remington archives. Unfortunately with Remington's bankruptcy, I didn't get a response, and my guess is the records are now inaccessible...but I tried.

My opinion given the way federal contracts are typically written, is that the USMC required Remington to 'service and maintain' the M40s for a given Period of Performance (or what is called "PoP"). I can't speak for what was written in the original 1966 contact regarding Remington's requirements, but in 21st century small arms and optic systems often/typically have a 5 year Period of Performance (PoP). That said, to be sure, someone would have to look up in the archives the original contract: NOM-73566, which was run out of the Boston Procurement District, which was the original contract for the original 700 USMC M40 rifles. (All 700 were reportedly shipped on June 20, 1966, but 150 of them lacked scopes, but had the bases and other accessories).

Under the typical 5-year period where the manufacture is required to support its product and all its maintenance/servicing, that includes not just replacing any defective parts, but to "repair or replace" any parts that become "unserviceable or otherwise do not meet the original technical specifications." Ergo, rusted bores from a tour in Vietnam was a real problem re M40s, and I'm pretty sure Remington replaced barrels and stamped them accordingly, based on the attached pictures and Remington's archival info.

Fwiw, gov't contracts often have requirements for anything mechanical that requires "periodic maintenance"- from Xerox photo copiers to fighter jets...and this often includes rifles and optics too...After 5 yrs (or whatever the PoP was in the original contract), the gov't has the option to either:
1) Extend the contract for a short period, or
2) "Re-compete" the contract with open competition (esp if they are not happy with the performance of the "incumbent") or
3) Prepare a "Sole Source Justification" contract that is a major PITA to put together. Option 3 is only done if one - and only one - vendor can support the gov't's specific technical requirement(s) re some niche product and/or service. (Don't ask me how I know this FAR-related stuff - it gives me gray hairs).

My opinion re the six digit USMC M40s with non-1966 dated barrels?
Based on the fact the Remington's archival records showed that 1) they replaced M40 barrels circa 1969 on a 1966 M40 (and by then stamped them according to the 1969 drawings with a "7.62 NATO" caliber designation), and 2) that I think Remington/Redfield reportedly replaced under contract some of the original "greenie" scopes with the black "Gen II" scopes beginning in 1968 regarding scopes that became "damaged or other unserviceable" during the Vietnam war - leads me to believe it was like a 4 or 5 year PoP/contract for the M40 program. I could be wrong, but that's my impression (M40s were ordered by various US Depts and Agencies over a$4+ year period, from 1966-1969, some sources say 1970, suggesting the M40 program might have been 5 year PoP)

To the larger point as reflected in Senichs' book. Did the RTE guys (MOS 2112s) modify M40s by enlarging the barrel change, and sometimes bedding during the Vietnam war? Yep, the climate conditions may have necessitated that procedure. Did the RTE/USMC MOS 2112 modify M40s and perhaps install some barrels 'in-country'? Possibly, but I suspect it was due to operational urgency, rather than sending them back to the US, etc. My guess is those barrels would lack the date codes or proof marks used by Remington: Question: What does the barrel have on it based on Dick Culver's rifle, is it original or a replacement? (I seem to recall that rifle was serviced by RTE at some point in the 1970s?)

Digressing somewhat, but somewhat related to contract stuff: One thing that upset the USMC MOS 2112 a few years ago when the USMC adopted the Mk 13 Mod 7 - was the fact that they couldn't work on those rifles. Why? Because Crane held the Mk 13 contract - and thus all work/repairs on those rifles, including installing replacement barrels, required the rifles to be sent back to Crane, IN for a re-barrel, etc. I was told by the OIC of the Scout Sniper school at the time that this arrangement was "not welcomed" by the USMC precision armorers... Moreover, my understanding from a 2112 circa 2016 is that they were told not to "mess with or otherwise modify" the chassis system on the M40A6s. Thus the M40A5s built/bedded towards the end of the last decade were basically the last "hand-built and hand-bedded" sniper rifles built by MOS 2112s - ending a tradition that went back to the hand-crafted M40A1 program in the mid-to-late 1970s. I think it's a bummer. My 2cts.

I'm not even going to respond in detail about everything you wrote, because it's all speculation without any actual information. I don't care what other contracts say, were talking about M40's not something else. Different equipment, different companies, different years, different contracts. Unless you pull the actual contrat for the original M40's, we'll never know the real answer. It's that cut and dry. All other evidence points to the Corps doing everything, not Remington.

Also, think about this for a second. The Corps only had 99 rifles in Vietnam out of 700, then they had 400+ during the rebuild to M40A1's. How do we know they even got replacement barrels? If they knew right away that they needed an upgraded M40 after Vietnam, why even buy replacement barrels that are just going to be replaced with A1 barrels a few years later? There weren't enough snipers in the Corps to burn through the original barrels on the 700 rifles and only 99 went to war. So, they had 601 new in box rifles to shoot periodically under controlled conditions stateside. I honestly don't know if they would have even needed a single replacement barrel.

Even Senich says that by the end of the war, there were still 2 dozen completely usable M40's in country and this was probably more rifles than they needed. So, the few Vietnam War used rifles that were ever used were still more than enough for the Corps. IIRC, Senich also wrote that they probably never did any barrel replacement in country and none of the Vietnam War used M40's had been sent out for servicing (they had records of the 99 rifle or pieces of them, full accountability).

I've had over a dozen original barrels in my collection and all of them were pulled off guns during the A1 rebuild. All of them are the original 1966 barrels, none have been replacement barrels. It appears that the Corps had ton of usable M40's and barrels weren't a problem. And when I say they weren't a problem, I understand they rust and get shot out. What I mean is that they had more than enough usable barrels on rifles, that finding a good one to use wasn't an issue.

Years ago I spoke to an armorer who was there at the RTE shop and who rebuilt Major Dick Culver's rifle, he said that they broke down rifles and mix and matched parts to make functional ones. The barrel on Culver's rifle is one that was pulled out of a pile of usable 1966 barrels when the rifle was rebuilt in the 1970's.

You're also making a huge mistake by quoting Poyers book again, that guy could fuck up a wet dream. You need to put his book away and stop using it. He is far and wide the absolute worst historical author and all of his books are completely riddled with errors. You also completely misinterpreted the information in the photo you posted. Look at the barrel pics again, notice how there are TWO DIFFERENT BARRELS. The part you underlined is for the UDS 1969 barrel, which is on a 6257xxx rifle, not rifle 314169. That's not a replacement barrel, it's the rifle's original barrel. Here's a pic of a 6257xxx rifle so everyone reading this can follow along with actual proof:

The 314169 rifle is a complete anomaly for quite a few reasons, which I'm not going to hash out here. Now look at the information that's below your underlined portion and look at the markings on the 314169 barrel. Notice how it's only marked with 7.62; no inspector, month or year. If they had replacement barrels, this is how they could have been marked. And yet we've never come across one outside that photo. This is also why I believe my rifle (221235) doesn't have a replacement barrel, since it's not marked the same as the only known photo of a "replacement" barrel (if it even was one) that's on 314169. If there was any other information stamped on 314169's barrel, it would have been in frame like all the other information. So, if that's a replacement barrel on 314169, then it's not a replacement barrel on 221235. Hell, we don't even know when the barrel was put on 314169 in Poyer's book because it's not dated (he specifically writes that 314169's barrel doesn't have a date code, it's the sentence below the shit you underlined in your photo)! It could have been put on in the 1970's and maybe that's why it's not marked like any of the 1960's barrels. We have absolutely no idea because no one has this information.

And let me know if you find one of these loose replacement barrels, after all, there should be hundreds of them made and pulled off of the M40's during the A1 upgrade, right? That would mean that some have to be in collectors hands, just like the 1966 barrels, right? Assuming there even are any replacement USMC M40 barrels.

We also don't even know if that receiver was ever a USMC owned gun. Just because they labeled it a USMC receiver (also assuming that somehow Poyer didn't screw up basic information yet again), it doesn't mean it's an actual USMC receiver. It could have been pulled out of the batch or a shop sample labeled that way because it's meant to represent a USMC gun. One of my XM3's is a USMC XM3 that never got sent to the Corps. It was made for the same contract, but wasn't shipped with the batch of USMC rifles. Instead, it stayed behind for shop testing. So, it's not a true USMC rifle and yet it's talked about as if it is one, because it was built with the rest of the USMC rifles. But it isn't a USMC rifle. So, the M40 receiver in question could have been a loose receiver that they spun a barrel on and called a replacement. I don't know the actual story behind it and neither do you or anyone else here, so it's all speculation.

If I'm wrong about this, I'll be more than happy to eat crow. I want actual information, even if it's contrary to what I've written. Until any new information surfaces, this is where we are with the current information and unanswered questions surrounding it. If there is information in the contact where you say it might be, I'd love to see it. I can follow your logic and estimations all day long, but without any actual proof, this thought process is meaningless.

If people want correct barrel markings for an original USMC M40, look at my photos in my previous post.

 

[Random Guy]

As a quick follow-up, here's what the former Remington Defense manager circa 2004-2016 recalls about the original M40 program per the older guys at Remington in the mid-200Xs.

"...Onto your question, it is my understanding that the USMC did all of the barrel replacements, however I do know that they sourced barrels from Remington Arms Company (RAC) during that period. That said, I do believe that very early on RAC did some barrel replacements as an effort to stay in the good graces of the US Military. I remember talking to one of the older guys who told me that the Marines sent a team to Ilion where they spent some time (a week or so) working with the RAC custom shop learning how RAC did their barrel replacements. All this said, there were MANY back door deals throughout the years and it is virtually impossible to know who did what when.

I do know this, any barrel stampings such as the caliber would have been done once the barrel was installed. The 7.62 NATO deal was a US military push for several reasons, first is that in the 60's the UK was pushing for other calibers to become the "NATO" standard and by labeling everything it provided the illusion that this is the only way they could be. Secondly the US Military wanted to try and ensure that service members would not try and fire 7.62x39 in anything US weapons. Believe it or not this was a real issue. When I came into the Army back in 1978 I remember hearing rumors about how you could use 7.62 "AK" in some US weapons but not the other way around which I guess might be technically true in the sense that you could get a 7.62x39 round to fire (once) is some platforms but the rumor alluded to it being more like "plug and play".

Perhaps a shorter answer to your question is this, I have no doubt that RAC did replace some M40 barrels especially early on but as WTB/Quantico became more established this would have been forbidden as it is today. You have to remember that pretty early on the USMC was very sure that they were the only ones capable of building a precision rifle or a rifle to be used by Marines. .

In reference to the optics, there is very little information about this subject. I got involved with the sale of the M40 remake back around 05' and subsequently looked at some historical documents about the original M40 program none of which talked about the optics or the mounts. I was told by the "old" guys that the USMC sourced the mounts (Redfield Jr) and optics directly from the respective manufacturers and that RAC only supplied the rifle. The one document I saw which was a part of the original USMC contract talked about how the USMC would bring in all of the parts (rifle, optics, mount and sling) and assemble the M40, test it and issue it. There was however some indication that very early one RAC did put together complete rifles, perhaps as a part of a first article or something."

...I hope that info helps, and might explain the odd barrels on some M40s. For anyone interested, here's what he said about M24 support:

"...As it relates to the M24, yes the Army did in fact develop and implement a maintenance contract for that platform mainly because by 1988 the Army had no entity (other than the AMU) that had the equipment or knowledge on how to replace barrels. To my knowledge the M24 was the first small arms weapon's system acquired by the US military in this fashion. As you are probably aware, the USAF also acquired M24's via the US Army contract however interestingly enough they did not issue or support the maintenance contract. I think it was around 07 or so that I convinced them to put one together to get their M24's repaired. Up until that time they had done nothing with them except shoot them. Another interesting thing is that when we started to bring in USAF rifles we discovered that they had a number of commercial 700's (some call them PSS although that was never a RAC title) which the AF HQ did not even know were there."

...just some random info from The Source.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

As a quick follow-up, here's what the former Remington Defense manager circa 2004-2016 recalls about the original M40 program per the older guys at Remington in the mid-200Xs.

"...Onto your question, it is my understanding that the USMC did all of the barrel replacements, however I do know that they sourced barrels from Remington Arms Company (RAC) during that period. That said, I do believe that very early on RAC did some barrel replacements as an effort to stay in the good graces of the US Military. I remember talking to one of the older guys who told me that the Marines sent a team to Ilion where they spent some time (a week or so) working with the RAC custom shop learning how RAC did their barrel replacements. All this said, there were MANY back door deals throughout the years and it is virtually impossible to know who did what when.

I do know this, any barrel stampings such as the caliber would have been done once the barrel was installed. The 7.62 NATO deal was a US military push for several reasons, first is that in the 60's the UK was pushing for other calibers to become the "NATO" standard and by labeling everything it provided the illusion that this is the only way they could be. Secondly the US Military wanted to try and ensure that service members would not try and fire 7.62x39 in anything US weapons. Believe it or not this was a real issue. When I came into the Army back in 1978 I remember hearing rumors about how you could use 7.62 "AK" in some US weapons but not the other way around which I guess might be technically true in the sense that you could get a 7.62x39 round to fire (once) is some platforms but the rumor alluded to it being more like "plug and play".

Perhaps a shorter answer to your question is this, I have no doubt that RAC did replace some M40 barrels especially early on but as WTB/Quantico became more established this would have been forbidden as it is today. You have to remember that pretty early on the USMC was very sure that they were the only ones capable of building a precision rifle or a rifle to be used by Marines. .

In reference to the optics, there is very little information about this subject. I got involved with the sale of the M40 remake back around 05' and subsequently looked at some historical documents about the original M40 program none of which talked about the optics or the mounts. I was told by the "old" guys that the USMC sourced the mounts (Redfield Jr) and optics directly from the respective manufacturers and that RAC only supplied the rifle. The one document I saw which was a part of the original USMC contract talked about how the USMC would bring in all of the parts (rifle, optics, mount and sling) and assemble the M40, test it and issue it. There was however some indication that very early one RAC did put together complete rifles, perhaps as a part of a first article or something."

...I hope that info helps, and might explain the odd barrels on some M40s. For anyone interested, here's what he said about M24 support:

"...As it relates to the M24, yes the Army did in fact develop and implement a maintenance contract for that platform mainly because by 1988 the Army had no entity (other than the AMU) that had the equipment or knowledge on how to replace barrels. To my knowledge the M24 was the first small arms weapon's system acquired by the US military in this fashion. As you are probably aware, the USAF also acquired M24's via the US Army contract however interestingly enough they did not issue or support the maintenance contract. I think it was around 07 or so that I convinced them to put one together to get their M24's repaired. Up until that time they had done nothing with them except shoot them. Another interesting thing is that when we started to bring in USAF rifles we discovered that they had a number of commercial 700's (some call them PSS although that was never a RAC title) which the AF HQ did not even know were there."

...just some random info from The Source.

Thank you for posting that info! Is this the Smiley guy who was posting on the M40 forum a few years ago? Supposedly him and/or his son worked on the original M40 contract.

This information lines up pretty much exactly with what I've been saying the entire time. The USMC serviced the M40's. If your source is correct, it doesn't surprise me that Remington changed a handful of barrels outside of the contract, so no PoP or multi-year contract for servicing. Like he says, staying in the government's good graces. But this is the absolute exception to the rule and it would be an extremely small number of rifles serviced. Nothing like what we've been discussing in this thread with PoP's, multi-year contracts, etc.

If the Corps got any replacement barrels, they would have obviously came from Remington, they weren't spinning on other brands until the A1's. I wish he had info on how many they shipped, because it probably wasn't very many. Like I said before, the Corps had plenty of usable parts when they were stripping rifles and rebuilding new ones with the original parts. It's also why we haven't seen any replacement barrels in private collections, only what's on the rifle in the Remington Society photo. I'd love to find one of these extremely rare replacement barrels from the handful or so that was supplied, it's one of the few M40 pieces I'm missing from my collection. I highly doubt I'll ever find one though.

This info also lines up with my contrasts between the M40 and M24 contracts in my previous posts. The Corps had 700 rifles that they could easily service, the Army had 15,000+ rifles they weren't able to service. Massive difference in the manpower and contracts that were signed. The M24 was a massive undertaking and even the first upgrades to the M2010 dwarfed all of the USMC M40's. BTW, in case anyone is interested, Joint Force Enterprises is on gunbroker selling a ton of original M24 stuff. Hit them up if you need original M24 rifles, receivers, stocks, triggers, barreled actions, etc.

I'm also curious as to why the source said "as WTB/Quantico became more established." During this time the RTE shop was very established and for many years they were building match winning rifles and pistols. They also built the Winchester M70 sniper rifles that were used during the beginning of the Vietnam War. Going back even further, the Philadelphia depot was serving their M1903 sniper rifles and other guns. So the Marines were extremely skilled gunsmiths with a proven track record that goes back long before the ink was wet on the M40 contract. As I said before, the Marines were more than capable of serving these rifles during this time.

As for training the Marines on their new M40's, it's also not surprising that they built some rifles with Remington to learn the ropes. The same thing also happened with Dan Ross and fitting the very first scope mounts on the A3's. In fact, the 2112's still have guest instructors and also send some of the Marines to various courses. The courses and guest instructors are very big names in the precision rifle/pistol world. Even some of the big names who hang out on this very forum have gone down to the PWS shop and trained 2112's (even though this kind of training is well known even outside the Corps, I'm not going to say any names, as I don't think it's appropriate to do so). These Marines get some of the best training the Corps can either give them or outsource for them, it's spectacular that they do this and continue developing 2112's into even better gunsmiths.

I wish you would have posted this sooner, it would have saved me a ton of typing on my phone's tiny keyboard, lol. I know you've got good sources and contacts, so I'll trust you on this one, no need to drop the guys name on a public forum. The information from both of our sources and Senich's books now show exactly what was going on at the time, the Corps did everything and a few rifles being serviced early on by Remington is the exception to that rule. I still want to see the original contract though, nothing is truly set in stone until absolute proof like that comes along. It doesn't sound like there would be any PoP section in it, but I understand your line of thinking and it's still a good idea to double check the actual documents.

 

[Toftwo]

As a quick follow-up, here's what the former Remington Defense manager circa 2004-2016 recalls about the original M40 program per the older guys at Remington in the mid-200Xs.

"...Onto your question, it is my understanding that the USMC did all of the barrel replacements, however I do know that they sourced barrels from Remington Arms Company (RAC) during that period. That said, I do believe that very early on RAC did some barrel replacements as an effort to stay in the good graces of the US Military. I remember talking to one of the older guys who told me that the Marines sent a team to Ilion where they spent some time (a week or so) working with the RAC custom shop learning how RAC did their barrel replacements. All this said, there were MANY back door deals throughout the years and it is virtually impossible to know who did what when.

I do know this, any barrel stampings such as the caliber would have been done once the barrel was installed. The 7.62 NATO deal was a US military push for several reasons, first is that in the 60's the UK was pushing for other calibers to become the "NATO" standard and by labeling everything it provided the illusion that this is the only way they could be. Secondly the US Military wanted to try and ensure that service members would not try and fire 7.62x39 in anything US weapons. Believe it or not this was a real issue. When I came into the Army back in 1978 I remember hearing rumors about how you could use 7.62 "AK" in some US weapons but not the other way around which I guess might be technically true in the sense that you could get a 7.62x39 round to fire (once) is some platforms but the rumor alluded to it being more like "plug and play".

Perhaps a shorter answer to your question is this, I have no doubt that RAC did replace some M40 barrels especially early on but as WTB/Quantico became more established this would have been forbidden as it is today. You have to remember that pretty early on the USMC was very sure that they were the only ones capable of building a precision rifle or a rifle to be used by Marines. .

In reference to the optics, there is very little information about this subject. I got involved with the sale of the M40 remake back around 05' and subsequently looked at some historical documents about the original M40 program none of which talked about the optics or the mounts. I was told by the "old" guys that the USMC sourced the mounts (Redfield Jr) and optics directly from the respective manufacturers and that RAC only supplied the rifle. The one document I saw which was a part of the original USMC contract talked about how the USMC would bring in all of the parts (rifle, optics, mount and sling) and assemble the M40, test it and issue it. There was however some indication that very early one RAC did put together complete rifles, perhaps as a part of a first article or something."

...I hope that info helps, and might explain the odd barrels on some M40s. For anyone interested, here's what he said about M24 support:

"...As it relates to the M24, yes the Army did in fact develop and implement a maintenance contract for that platform mainly because by 1988 the Army had no entity (other than the AMU) that had the equipment or knowledge on how to replace barrels. To my knowledge the M24 was the first small arms weapon's system acquired by the US military in this fashion. As you are probably aware, the USAF also acquired M24's via the US Army contract however interestingly enough they did not issue or support the maintenance contract. I think it was around 07 or so that I convinced them to put one together to get their M24's repaired. Up until that time they had done nothing with them except shoot them. Another interesting thing is that when we started to bring in USAF rifles we discovered that they had a number of commercial 700's (some call them PSS although that was never a RAC title) which the AF HQ did not even know were there."

...just some random info from The Source.

Interestingly AF EOD at Hill AFB had some commercial 700’s for SMUD.

 

[Random Guy]

Interestingly AF EOD at Hill AFB had some commercial 700’s for SMUD.

From The Source re AF M40s and commercial M700s:

"...They were appropriated by some individuals because essentially they were not on the books. The AF wrote them off for the most part and SOTIC was not supposed to have them (ie M700s)....The AF really didn't have a real sniper project until relatively recently as compared to the Army and USMC, however they did procure (and dispose of) a variety of rifles over the years most of which were M700's.

The AF does not handle weapons in the same way that the Marines and Army do, small arms are typically considered a tool and as such they are not procured as part of a larger effort. The Security Police have had sniper rifles on and off for years but I know for a fact that the rifles come and go based on the current commander's will. Some AF commanders do not see a need to have any and thus get rid of them, but then the next guy wants them and has to jump through hoops to get them back.

The proponent for small arms in the AF is at Warner Robbins GA and they are responsible for procuring, maintaining and disposing of small arms, however many AF units have gone out of the loop to get their own of one type or another."

...well, there you have it. My understanding is several years ago the AF had Remington upgrade their M24s to the M24A1 configuration (pre-bankruptcy).

 

[USMCSGT0331]

The Navy also had regular Remington 700's with the USMC stock but no clip slot or other receiver cuts. I've documented one in the 2xxxxx range, so pretty close to the original USMC M40's. The government has all sorts of cool shit that no one knows about.

 

[Toftwo]

From The Source re AF M40s and commercial M700s:

"...They were appropriated by some individuals because essentially they were not on the books. The AF wrote them off for the most part and SOTIC was not supposed to have them (ie M700s)....The AF really didn't have a real sniper project until relatively recently as compared to the Army and USMC, however they did procure (and dispose of) a variety of rifles over the years most of which were M700's.

The AF does not handle weapons in the same way that the Marines and Army do, small arms are typically considered a tool and as such they are not procured as part of a larger effort. The Security Police have had sniper rifles on and off for years but I know for a fact that the rifles come and go based on the current commander's will. Some AF commanders do not see a need to have any and thus get rid of them, but then the next guy wants them and has to jump through hoops to get them back.

The proponent for small arms in the AF is at Warner Robbins GA and they are responsible for procuring, maintaining and disposing of small arms, however many AF units have gone out of the loop to get their own of one type or another."

...well, there you have it. My understanding is several years ago the AF had Remington upgrade their M24s to the M24A1 configuration (pre-bankruptcy).

We (AF EOD) also bought a grip of AR10T’s that ended up being confiscated, because they were purchased out of said loop. Those rifles ended up and may still be sitting in an Navy armory, without any disposition instructions, because there’s no real disposition instructions for them.

 

[gbernardski]

Remington did something they called "hand bedding," which isn't the bedding we typically think of. Their hand bedding was just a more precise inlet for the barreled action, no actual bedding material was used. The USMC started bedding their M40 stocks in 1967, when the first rifles were shipped to Vietnam. They mainly used Bisonite, but other materials on hand were also used. It wasn't a standardized practice at the time, so the rifles back in the US weren't bedded (at least not right away).

I have no idea when they started to bed them back in CONUS, but I'd imagine that the 2112's started experimenting right away, especially after the first user information came back from Vietnam. In the end, not all of the M40's ended up being bedded, I have a few original stocks that don't have bedding compound, but most of the stocks I own are bedded.

Both of these stocks are original USMC M40 take-offs from 1966. The top one (left in bottom pic) is unmodified and it's the same condition as it came from the factory (oil finish, no bedding compound). The bottom one (right in bottom pic) has a waterproof coating on it and is bedded with Bisonite. These were 2 of the modifications the 2112's made to the rifles in Vietnam, so this could potentially be a war used stock. Or these modifications could have been made by the RTE shop here in the US at some point in time before the A1 rebuild started.

All of the barrels made for the original contract in 1966 (700 rifles) just had the basic barrel markings, none of them had the "7.62" stamp. The 7.62 markings came a few years later, I think they might have started in late 1967 or early 1968. Replacement barrels made during this time would have had the 7.62 stamp. If Remington supplied the Corps with some extra barrels in 1966 with the original rifles, they wouldn't have the 7.62 stamp. It all comes down to when they were produced.



Where did you get this information? I've never seen anything that points to Remington servicing M40's during the war. Once the Corps received the M40's, Remington was out of the picture. The only thing they were on the hook for would be replacing a defective rifle directly from the factory, they didn't work on war used stuff. Replacing a defective product is always part of a contract and it's completely different than continuous servicing. USMC 2112's serviced the rifles, fixed them, modified them, etc. There were even entire maintenance echelons that were standardized for serving these rifles, none of which include Remington. In the One Round War, Senich discusses the RTE's M40 maintenance activity, but never mentions Remington servicing the rifles during the war. Once the Corps had the M40's, they had full control over them. If a part was damaged or unserviceable, the Marines would order a replacement and do the work themselves, this even includes worn out receivers.

Senich even talks about how in 1973 the Corps requested a quote and a plan from Remington to replace parts and/or rebuild the 425 M40's that were still in service, and the Corps ended up rejecting Remington's proposal. The Marines have always had a very strong "do it yourself" mindset, so it makes a lot of sense that they would have the 2112's work on these rifles and even upgrade them when the time came for the A1. Senich wrote a lot about M40 maintenance and I've also discussed this with people who were around during that time. No one has ever mentioned that rifles were maintained or sent back to Remington, so far you're the only person I've heard talk about Remington servicing the M40's. If you have information showing this occurred, please post it. No speculation, no conjecture, no appears to be, no possibly, no referring to some different government contract, etc. Only absolute proof matters. The facts we have on hand from various sources say that the Marines serviced their own rifles. The Marines had less than 1,000 M40's, so they could handle everything. It's not like the Army needing the assistance of Remington Defense with tens of thousands of M24's.

This might seem like a minor thing to argue about, but we're getting to the point where we have most of the M40 history documented and we're just working on the details. If I'm wrong about this, then I'll admit I'm wrong, but so far I haven't seen any contradictory information pertaining to this part of M40 history.

I've never seen a UDN 41 barrel with a 7.62 stamp and I've owned about a dozen UDN 41 marked barrels. If a barrel from 1966 somehow has a 7.62 stamp on it, then it was added at a later date. Please post photos of the barrel in question and I'll try to help you out. What other markings does it have? Is it original finish or reparkerized?

Here are a few pics of some of my original UDN M40 barrels, as you can see there isn't a 7.62 stamp on them. The U is the final inspector, the D is the month, the N is the year and 41 is probably the assembly number. These barrels are from a large batch that was made in September 1966, this is a very common date for original M40 barrels (there are also other original M40 barrels with different month codes).

Here's a few photos of my original M40 (221235) with a receiver produced in 1966 and a barrel (UAR) produced in 1968. Most likely this receiver was an overrun that was in storage and then shipped to the Corps at a later date with a new barrel. The U is the final inspector, the A is the month and the R is the year, so this barrel was produced in March 1968. Notice how this barrel doesn't have an assembly number and it's stamped with 7.62 instead. The UAR is marked further down the barrel, leaving enough extra room for the 7.62 stamp. The 7.62 stamp wasn't an afterthought and the stamps aren't squished together. If a barrel has the markings squished together, then the 7.62 was added at a later date.

In case anyone is curious about markings on a civilian Remington 700 varmint special (pretty much the civilian equivalent of the M40, but not in 7.62 until the mid 70's), her is one of my rifles from 1968. The symbol is the final inspector, the B is the month, the R is the year and 65 is probably the assembly number.

The USMC M40 barrels are only stamped with basic information by the receiver, as you've seen in the previous photos. The civilian rifles had additional markings on the left side of the barrel.

The M40 barrels also had a flat crown and 1:10 rifling. Here's some other photos of one of my original M40 barrels barrels:

Thanks for info. I found this thread while I was searching for my barrel details. Its kinda funny that it's a UAR also, I didn't have to search for the month and date.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Thanks for info. I found this thread while I was searching for my barrel details. Its kinda funny that it's a UAR also, I didn't have to search for the month and date.

I'm glad that my post was helpful! I love helping out fellow collectors/historians and I really hope people are learning from the stuff I post. I try to be as detailed as possible, but that probably makes my posts tedious and boring as hell, lol.

 

[gbernardski]

I'm glad that my post was helpful! I love helping out fellow collectors/historians and I really hope people are learning from the stuff I post. I try to be as detailed as possible, but that probably makes my posts tedious and boring as hell, lol.

Guys such as yourself posting their knowledge on here are instrumental for helping guys like me and I appreciate it! Looking forward to future posts!