M40 / 700 finish questions

[Basic user]

I was wondering if anyone knew the finished used on the old M40s and civilian model 700s.
On the 40, what was the overall finish on the barreled actions? Were they parked? Blasted and blued? Proprietary? And did the bolts match the actions or where they done in a different finish.
And on the civilian 700's bolt heads, that shiny black finish-what is that? Anyone know? Is that paint?

Thanks for the help.

 

[camocorvette]

Believe M40A1 reciver and barrel was parkerized bolt was blued or satin black I think. Read through @pmclaine 's thread I believe it's mentioned in there. Lots of answers out there though with a quick Google search.

m40a1 finish - Google Search

 

[Basic user]

Thanks for that link, I appreciate it.

 

[Jrb572]

M40a1 are black oxided

 

[Random Guy]

On the 40, what was the overall finish on the barreled actions? Were they parked? Blasted and blued? Proprietary? And did the bolts match the actions or where they done in a different finish.

As noted by others, and discussed in many threads, the receiver, barrel and recoil lug were phosphated (aka parkerized via maganese-basd solution ). I think the magazine floor plate and trigger guard were also phosphated/parkererized on the original M40s. (Correction, the bottom metal were anodized aluminum parts, I was thinking about the metal M40A1 floor plates).

The bolt, scope mount and rings were blued, (some mounts appear to have what I would call a "brushed blued" finish), and some have a highly polished finish. (on edit: Redfield bases have been seen with both highly polished bluing, and some are not as polished and show sanding marks, as seen below). I think the safety was also still blued back then but not 100% sure. (Below is an original M40 circa 1966-67. Is not my rifle, but it appears to be all original, down to matching scope and base). Note: This finish applies only to the original M40s made by Remington circa 1966-1969.

When the USMC started rebuilding M40s into the M40A1 configuration in the late 1970s, they black oxided all those parts, and to the best of my knowledge - didn't really mess with any phosphating or bluing finishes. Why? Black oxide is able to darken/blacken the stainless steel barrels used on the M40A1 rifles, whereas traditional phosphating and bluing typically does not chemically darken SS. The black-oxide finish continued on the M40A3, etc.

I'll defer to others re commercial M700 finishes, but as a general rule, they were usually highly polish-blued finish back in the 1960-70s, with the bolt often polished in the white with 'turned' (aka swirling patterns) on the bolt, as a form of embellishing the finish. I think in the late 1980s when Remington started offering this Police Sniper System (PSS) rifle, they started using a more military-like phosphate finish on the barreled action/bolt, etc. This was 2 decades after the original M40s were made. The commercial rifles continued to have blued or SS finishes, for the most part, aside from the PSS and other military or LE specific M700s.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

I think the magazine floor plate and trigger guard were also phosphated/parkererized on the original M40s.
.
The bolt, scope mount and rings were blued, or more specifically what I would call a "brushed blued" finish as opposed to a highly polished finish.

The one piece bottom metal on the original M40 was anodized, since it was aluminum. Parkerizing would dissolve the original M40 bottom metal if you were to attempt it.

There is no such thing as a "brushed blued" finish on the Redfield scope rings/mounts, they're a typical mass produced item that was quickly polished and then blued. Some sets are more poylished them others, sometimes they have marks on them or look slightly matte, but they all had the same glossy bluing. Any marks that you see are from the machining steps or from a shorter polishing duration. Field used rings/bases will also appear more matte. There's a massive difference between the intentionally done matte Redfield scopes (green and black) that actually had a brushed finish applied to various parts of the scope, and the unintentional polished Redfield rings/mounts that could have spent more time being polished before bluing.

Did you come up with the "brushed blued" term for the Redfield scope rings/bases? (I'm asking about what you wrote about these specific parts, I'm aware of polishing/brushing/blasting/etc. then bluing in general, but this question focuses on what I quoted from you.) If so, please stop trying to come up with new terms, I hate seeing people try to come up with new names or terms for all of this stuff. For the past 6 decades these specific Redfield parts (and some scopes) have been called polished or glossy, which represents the shiny Redfield bluing. There's no need for new made-up terminology, especially when it's just flat out wrong.

There's a lot of polished bluing on these original Redfield 40X scope bases and 1-64/1-66 scope rings, over 2 dozen original USMC M40 sets to look at and compare. The original mint condition ones are highly polished, the used sets and refinished sets are matte. I have a large sample size of original USMC M40 parts in my collection to examine, nothing beats firsthand experience:

These polish blued Redfield scope rings/bases are so shiny that they're extremely difficult to photograph correctly. Absolutely no brushing anywhere on this set (a few machining marks on the underside isn't brushing either):

 

[Random Guy]

There is no such thing as a "brushed blued" finish on the Redfield scope rings/mounts, they're a typical mass produced item that was quickly polished and then blued....Any marks that you see are from the machining steps or from a shorter polishing duration.

Well, yes, a "shorter polishing duration" results in what some gunsmiths call a "brushed blued" finish. It is simply referring to the relative grit of the sanding material used, and the time/level of effort polishing the metal before the bluing process. More grit and less time in gunsmith speak is sometimes called "brushed blue." It's what might be called an in-between level of bluing with 400 or so grit sanding material. That's what I used on my M70 project. Not matte, not highly polished, but a "brushed blue" finish. Finer grit and more time polishing is called a variety of things, but "highly polished" is obviously the common terminology. It's semantics as both are blued via the same chemical process, only the level of surface prep is different. IMO, brushed blued finish simply means that some sanding marks are still visible after bluing, and thus the surface is not especially reflective.

Anyhow, that is what I see on some of the original Redfield mounts, but as you noted, some are also highly polished mounts just like the rings. It's a subtle difference, as seen here. (Note how the left and right rings reflected your hands holding the camera, but the bases themselves are not reflective - at least not these two originals that you own as seen here...but again, some of those Redfield bases you have were indeed polished to a high-level before bluing. The one on that original rifle also has the subtle sanding marks. (The circumference of the rings do not show sanding marks, and as such are very reflective.)

Fwiw, Colt used to offer an option of polishing a 1911 pistol with 2000 grit and that bluing job is called a "Royal blue" - its totally reflective, w/ no sanding marks. Did a project Colt like that many years ago...it takes FOREVER to polish it that level. Sometimes called “peerless” or a "presentation" level bluing, but that's semantics.

Hard to photograph, but here's the before and after pics. This was originally a moderately high polish:

..."in between pic" after much additional polishing to remove sanding marks...(the roll-marks were lightly restored by a jewelry engraver)

...and the after pic. As you noted, its very hard to photograph such a surface, but one can see how reflective the surface is via the images of the window frame and grass in my back yard, which fully reflected on the slide and Bomar sight rib of this old Colt 1911. (Fwiw, if someone called this a "brushed blue" finish I would be greatly offended...it was about 10 hrs of tedious polishing...) I hope that makes sense re the comment about some original Redfield bases.

 

[USMCSGT0331]

I was able to wipe the "brushed finish" off with my shirt before I took this photo tonight. Nothing but an old, worn, beat-up, scratched base that lost it's high polished luster long ago, and barely used polished rings I got off ebay. The bases would have looked pretty close to the rings when they were brand new, just like the base in the hugh resolution photos in my previous post.

I had a long write-up and more pics, but I'm done with long posts and arguments, there's just no point anymore. I've been posting less and less, but I'll still help out where I can.

 

[jetmd]

Once again I would like to thank Frank & SH for the Ignore feature.

It has been of great use to me during my time since joining.

 

[Random Guy]

I've been posting less and less, but I'll still help out where I can.

Your collection of parts and knowledge re M40s is very much an asset to this forum.
I wasn't trying to argue about the mounts. To my eyes the mount on your original, pristine M40 s/n #221235 looks like what I call a medium brushed blued finish given the sanding marks that my eyes suggest, with the rings the typical highly polished finish that lacks any sanding marks. To your eyes the scope base looks like a highly polished finish. No biggie, it's a subjective topic. (It's done by hand, so variation is of course possible).

(Fwiw, here's the 4 flavors of bluing that I am aware of: https://www.fordsguns.com/blue Each level of polish requiring more time and finer grit sanding, and typically more expensive as one goes from Matte to 'Master' blued finish, at least as far as a custom blued finish goes on a carbon steel pistol):