M40 Build Guide

#901
Front Swivel assembly... 3 pieces

Expanded the diagram, but don't know if it's sharp enough to read. Counting the swivel, there are three pieces:

1.) Swivel with machine threaded post (thread OD is .220 inches and is larger than today's 10-32 machine threaded post,)

2.) a compound threaded sleeve (exterior wood thread and machine threaded interior-?) which the swivel base shoulders against, installed into the bottom of the forearm

3.) a threaded escutcheon seated/inlet into the barrel channel.

7ef5a6d9-70b1-42a8-9bb6-017f706da965_zps7e84771c.jpg


Sorry, best I can do with my free Photobucket account.

Same swivel (bottom view) seen on commercial sporting rifle.

Rem725_ButtandSwivel_zps656c82ed.jpg
 
Last edited:
#902
M40 scope covers

Anybody knows what type/brand of scope covers was used on the M40? I've seen rubber bikini-style caps (from Redfield) but according to Chandlers @ IBA, they're no good...
 

Attachments

  • info_scopecaps.pdf
    154.7 KB · Views: 188
#905
Out of the box they came with cheap plastic covers that connect with a rubber band supplied along with the scope. Storm King, Storm Queen, and Ka-ram-ba covers were additional offerings from the catalog. What Mescabug posted above are the stock covers. Butler Creek came after the M40. IBA tends to look at the whole M40 project as one. I have the Badger repro base and rings. They were copied from a late model M40 set up. EDV made the flip up caps that were used on the M40. Not Butler Creek. Butler Creek merely bought the operation and rebranded the flip up lens. Didn't Toki post images of an EDV set he got off a scope on Ebay?

EDIT: Oops missed the question. I've seen that page from IBA before and SUPREME was something Butler Creek put on their lens covers. They are no different than the current BC covers without SUPREME on them.
 

Attachments

  • butler supreme.jpg
    butler supreme.jpg
    78.9 KB · Views: 47
Last edited by a moderator:
#906
I got the Redfield covers with a scope I bought. Now Part of an XM21 /AR TEL build I put together. There are also the Vissing marked flip caps documented in Senich's book. Someone has vintage storm queen caps on EBay. At $175.
 
Last edited:
#907
Storm Queen covers for the REDFIELD Gen.-1 ONLY

MescaBug said:
Anybody knows what type/brand of scope covers was used on the M40? I've seen rubber bikini-style caps (from Redfield) but according to Chandlers @ IBA, they're no good...
Click to expand...

STORM-QUEEN Photos and description, courtesy of eBay... (separation of content by me)

StormQueen_RedfieldGen1_M40_B_zps3aaabc00.jpg


StormQueen_RedfieldGen1_M40_C_zps14be20dc.jpg


"Offered is a pair of original, Scarce as hen lips USMC M40 Fit Redfield Sniper 3x9 Storm Queen lens covers . As you can see in the pics they are not out of the box perfect. A few nicks & dings. As found from an estate of a well know Texas USMC reserve sniper school CO in the 60s.

I need to make this clear to anyone considering bidding. These covers will not fit a commercial Redfield accutrac 3x9. Only the original green & early F series blued scopes. The same rear eye piece 7X dia as the USMC 4X Kollmorgen. The original mid 60s green M40 redfield has a 2 piece eye bell. Exactly the same dia as the 2X7 accutrac. Look at Senichs book closely the rear eye piece is in 2 parts. A hermetically sealed glass capsule to prevent fogging.

The commercial 3x9 accutrac eyepiece has an extruded bell formed into one solid piece & the glass is held in by a snap ring or a threaded ring. Later used in the late 60s & 70s as replacements. Those later scopes used flip caps. The front is the same 40MM on all m40 scopes,

If your scope is not the 2 pieces eye bell the rear storm queen cover will not fit. Just wanted to point that factoid out. Email me for clarifacation. The covers are super rare & were meant to protect the tombstone range finder from melting & becoming un bonded. As you can guess they were the first thing to get discarded. (Emphasis is mine)

Pictured is a 3x9 green M40 scope for comparison. Not for sale. It shows the covers on a original US issue M40 Green Scope .

It may be years before you see another set for sale. Ask questions. Scarce. No reserve ... Someone will own them. Again I don`t want the high bidder to call me saying the rear cover does not fit. to make it clear these covers only fit the green & blue EARLY F ,E. & P series m40 scopes. Not the later third issue scopes. If you have a greenie or two piece blue. This is your auction.
 
Last edited:
#908
Q. Re: The screws for the m40 redfield mount(s)

We know that the early Redfield 4 screw rings sets, identified on the bottom with a '64,' use standard slotted-head screws.

Q. At what point, if ever, are the Redfield mounts, on the M40, secured by TORX and/or Allen head screws?

Note the early style tall/flat sided safety (barrel appears to be stamped 7.62 NATO, on left side):
CORRECTION:Mount identified as a BADGER reproduction with Torx screws.

2nbezqw_zpsea5f6aa9.jpg


Just a piece of M40 gun porn:
CORRECTION: Scope is Gen.-1 with hybrid ocular piece and power ring.

REMM700-40X_USMCM40_zpsb84f2a24.jpg
 
Last edited:
#909
Bolt_trash....in regards to the Torx screws. They werent used on the Vietnam era rifles. I have a complete folder of pics of the rifle you posted pics of with the red back ground.
I bid on that exact rifle about two years ago when it was posted on GunB. This was back before I had really studied the M700 in depth. This rifle went for well over 10K. Im glad I didnt win it. I wont get into the details but one thing I can tell you is that it had a Gen2 Acu Range that was Anno's Green. The rifle its self looked really nice but the Torx screws and the Green Anno'd G2 are extremely suspect.
I would post more pics but Im a little challenged when it comes to posting in full screen.
 
#911
My comments in 'Dark Green.'

rlm8541 said:
Bolt_trash....in regards to the Torx screws. They werent used on the Vietnam era rifles.

I was pretty sure of that, but still wanted to run it through the SH_M40_ Fact Checkers. Thanks!!

This rifle went for well over 10K. Im glad I didnt win it. I wont get into the details but one thing I can tell you is that it had a Gen2 Acu Range that was Anno's Green. The rifle its self looked really nice but the Torx screws and the Green Anno'd G2 are extremely suspect.

The green Gen.2, like the Torx screws is a dead giveaway. Absent all of the other details, the rifle and scope mount do look pretty straight-up, even with the white chalk (?) highlighting the stamps and lettering . If you can mentally get past the green Gen.-2 while looking at the side profile photo, the rifle does have really nice lines. Maybe it is just really good photography.

I would post more pics but Im a little challenged when it comes to posting in full screen.

Send me a PM and I'll see if I can help you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#912
Torx or Allen head screws werent very popular in those years. Flat heads were supplied with all Redfield products. I've got an original Redfield 700SA base, box is dated 1973 and it comes with flat heads. Another one (for a Ruger M77) dated 1977 with Allen heads. I guess they made the switch somewhere mid 70's when Allen heads become more popular.

As for that M40, first time I see a green 2nd Gen. There is no real explanation as to why it was anodized green instead of satin black.... Something smells fishy. Not saying it didnt happen, but extremely remote IMO.

I saw those Storm Queen rubber covers on eBay. Didnt thought about posting it here, at 175$ it seemed like a joke. I didnt bother.
 
#913
Bolt_Trash said:
We know that the early Redfield 4 screw rings sets, identified on the bottom with a '64,' use standard slotted-head screws.

Q. At what point, if ever, are the Redfield mounts, on the M40, secured by TORX and/or Allen head screws?

That's not a Gen 2. Turret caps are flat, bell is a separate piece (you can tell because it's a different color, therefore a different alloy), BUT the zoom ring is a later version.

Note the early style tall/flat sided safety (barrel appears to be stamped 7.62 NATO, on left side):

2nbezqw_zpsea5f6aa9.jpg


Just a piece of M40 gun porn (ignore the green Gen.-2 [HERETIC- BURN THEM!!]):

REMM700-40X_USMCM40_zpsb84f2a24.jpg
Click to expand...

That is not a generation 2 scope. Flat turret caps, separate objective bell (you can tell because it's a different color, therefore a different alloy, therefore a separate part), but the actual zoom ring is suspect, along with a later eyepiece.
 
#915
The Badger base/rings is the one that doesn’t use flat head screws.

EDIT: I installed a Leupold Rifleman 3-9x40 using the Badger base and rings. The base came with flat head screws. The rings have allen head screws.

BTW, the Leupold Rifleman appears to be the best "new scope" alternative IMO. The RBR reticle (magnification [MENTION=97659]6.5[/MENTION]x) is spot on at 200 300 400 500 600 holdover with 600 being just below the heavy picket. This scope has friction adjustments like the original Redfields. The holdovers can be tuned for any load with a 200 yard zero by changing the magnification.
 

Attachments

  • Rifleman Ballistics Reticle.jpg
    Rifleman Ballistics Reticle.jpg
    253.9 KB · Views: 57
Last edited by a moderator:
#916
tokiwartooth said:
THIS is a generation 2, and NOT an original. I can tell from the ano finish. That color is the actual dye not oxidation.
Click to expand...

Your corrections of my obvious errors, in pointing out these Redfield design and component nuances, make us all better at critiquing the photos that we come across. Thanks!

Note: I've made 'CORRECTION(S) to the 'factoids' in my original post #908, based on members 'tokiwartooh's' and 'Culpeper's' comments.
 
Last edited:
#917
Culpeper said:
The Badger base/rings is the one that doesn’t use flat head screws.
Click to expand...

Culpeper, Thanks for that observation.

From a collectors standpoint, I'd think that you'd be absolutely required to declare, in the body and content of your sales description, the origin and presence of reproduction and/or aftermarket components to your rifle. Right?

Q.'s...

Q. Have any 'documented' M40's been located that had 'documented' scope mounts and/or 'documented' scopes mounted on them, that DID NOT match the serial number on the receiver?

Q. Or, is the matched pairings, of these components, an 'absolute' that was never deviated from?

In essence, this presupposes that scopes and mounts were never 're-purposed' or 'rebuilt/reconditioned,' but always replaced with 'factory-new.'
 
#918
According to Senich's book, rifle, scope and base were identified with matching serial number after sight-in and final acceptance.

- 550 rifles with scope were calibrated, test fired and serialized.
- 150 had only the Redfield base, no scope.

Rifles shipped without a scope did not have the serial on the base. So what happen to these 150 rifles after they shipped, we dont know. Did the armorers serialized the base after repairs? We dont know either.

There might be a publication in the archives somewhere with repairs procedures. My guess is that it was up to the armorers doing the job.
 
#919
MescaBug said:
According to Senich's book, rifle, scope and base were identified with matching serial number after sight-in and final acceptance.

- 550 rifles with scope were calibrated, test fired and serialized.
- 150 had only the Redfield base, no scope.

Rifles shipped without a scope did not have the serial on the base. So what happen to these 150 rifles after they shipped, we dont know. Did the armorers serialized the base after repairs? We dont know either.

There might be a publication in the archives somewhere with repairs procedures. My guess is that it was up to the armorers doing the job.
Click to expand...

That still leaves ~250 that followed, in production, without any comments and/or disposition on matching serialized receivers, bases and scopes. Just when you thought that there couldn't be another question about the M40, without an answer.

My tendency, in the instant case, is to go with the USMC armorers, insuring that these components, stayed matched. I.E., broken - meant defective - meant discarded and replaced with brand new. An earlier post made the point that the numbers were engraved on the mounts and bases, by hand; which isn't time and labor intensive and an easy procedure to adhere to.

Absent, of course, a 'proof,' to the contrary and then I'm dead wrong... :p

IF, however, two (2) documented scopes are found with the same serial number, I fall on the right side of a good guess... :cool: Note: This may, in fact, be the better of the two (2) options, in looking for a 'proof.'
 
#920
Many didn't survive the war and other surviving parts became surplus. Then you have the RVN losing everything to The North. Nobody will ever know for sure.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 
#925
MescaBug,

Let me the first to say, CONGRATULATIONS!!

That sure looks like the real deal and the buttplate, swivels, sling and full bottom metal are great bonus features.

You've done a really great post in the "Vintage" section and well worth the read. Here's a redirect link to help other M40 members:

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...242934-genuine-remington-m40-stock-found.html

Once you re-enter earth's orbit and you've decompressed, I'll be wanting all sorts of details and measurements. :cool:
 
Last edited:
#926
Looks like the barrel channel has been bedded as well.

From Senich's book:

- The stock warps at the forend, touching the barrel and adversely affecting accuracy.
- Fiberglass the receivers and full-float the barrel channels at the factory. Waterproof the barrel channels.

Looks like some improvements have been made to that stock. It fits that description.

Bolt_Trash said:
Does this stock have a high-sheen oil finish on it? Waxed?
Click to expand...

Looks like a varnish of some kind. Again, from Senich's book:

- The stock is not sufficiently waterproofed as the oil treatment is totally unsatisfactory in this climate.
- Adopt the use of a waterproof finish such as hard polyurethane varnish, then paint the stocks a dull-grey or non-gloss dark green to eliminate reflection.

Chuck Mawhinney's and other documented rifles have that same finish. On my stock, we can clearly see some green/olive drab paint overspray:





 
Last edited:
#927
Again great find Mesca....I found one of these through a friendas well. Although, mine doesnt seem to have seen heavy field use. No bedding or varnish ether. ( I actually like yours better as the paint, basonite and wear reveals more history).
Thanks for sharing man and look forward to seeing it on a build.
 
#928
It is indeed an awesome find! Thanks for the comments ;)

Reading through Senich's book again trying to find other clues.

I have a nice 6-digit Rem 700 from 1966 that I could use for a build. But it is such a nice gun, I just cant canibalize it... The hunt continues for another 6-digit.

 
#931
Guys,

I finally was able to remove the buttplate. Took almost an hour, very slowly as I didnt want to strip the heads. The screws were stuck. My guess is that maybe the wood swelled because of moisture?

We can see that water or a liquid of some sort dripped down the buttstock. There is a masking tape label on the buttplate. It is so old I cant even touch it, it goes to dust. It is yellowed with age. Could that be the rifle last 4 digit? Again, that's a guess.... There is a faint "US" mark on the buttstock.

This is getting more and more interesting!



 
#932
The number is from Remington. At one time the stock had the same number. This way the plate can be matched to the correct stock during fit and finish process. You have the real McCoy. The rest of the rifle probably became an M40A1.:D

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
 
  • Like
Reactions: LUNCHBOX0621
#933
Curious...

MescaBug,

... about the surface of the butt stock. Is it sealed with green-ish paint? Would make sense, given that the wood for stock blanks is also typically painted to seal the end grain during curing and to reduce checking.

Man, I love see'n these details.:cool:

This is gett'n down to the nitty-gritty of stock details, for the M40, something that heretofore was completely unavailable to us.


MescaBug said:
Guys,

I finally was able to remove the buttplate. Took almost an hour, very slowly as I didnt want to strip the heads. The screws were stuck. My guess is that maybe the wood swelled because of moisture?

We can see that water or a liquid of some sort dripped down the buttstock. There is a masking tape label on the buttplate. It is so old I cant even touch it, it goes to dust. It is yellowed with age. Could that be the rifle last 4 digit? Again, that's a guess.... There is a faint "US" mark on the buttstock.

This is getting more and more interesting!



Click to expand...
 
#934
Bolt_Trash said:
MescaBug,

... about the surface of the butt stock. Is it sealed with green-ish paint? Would make sense, given that the wood for stock blanks is also typically painted to seal the end grain during curing and to reduce checking.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the entire buttstock area or just the area covered by the buttplate?

The area under the buttplate is in fact, covered/sealed in dark olive paint. Its hard to tell from the picture, but water has dripped down the buttstock over the paint. Although it is a perfect fit, there is no seal between the buttplate/buttstock, I guess rain/moisture got in there.

I dont see any overspray on the buttplate, it was probably removed prior to painting the stock.

Culpeper said:
The rest of the rifle probably became an M40A1.:D
Click to expand...

Yeah probably! But the seller told my buddy what he still has the rifle he took this stock from. He got the complete rifle early 80's at a flea market. I dont believe it is a genuine M40 barreled action, but I am following a lead. Will keep you guys posted.
 
Last edited:
#935
Anybody know why these butt plates come with a prefix number under the part number. I've seen 1, 2, and 3. They are probably slightly different sized to match to a stock as close as possible before finishing. Just a guess.
 
#936
Culpeper said:
Anybody know why these butt plates come with a prefix number under the part number. I've seen 1, 2, and 3. They are probably slightly different sized to match to a stock as close as possible before finishing. Just a guess.
Click to expand...

That would be my guess as well. Take a look at post #822. I have a few of these buttplates, and they are all slightly different in length. I will have to check which one is what..

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...les/53800-m40-build-guide-17.html#post2907396
 
#937
That would be super cool if that tape is part of the original serial number. But my mind keeps telling me they would have engraved it like the other parts. Anything is possible. The armorers may have worked on a set of rifles and taped the buttplates to put them back on the correct rifle. That sounds logical too. Probably right and makes sense since the stock appears to be refinished by the Corps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#940
Culpeper said:
Anybody know why these butt plates come with a prefix number under the part number. I've seen 1, 2, and 3. They are probably slightly different sized to match to a stock as close as possible before finishing. Just a guess.
Click to expand...

I checked the buttplates I have, and there is no relation between the number and the length. I have 2 X #1, different length. #4 is shorter than one of the #1, #3 is the longest... It makes no sense. They were fitted (sanding, grinding) to the buttstock. So unless we can compare originals, we'll never know I guess. Maybe ask Remington?
 
#942
Sling Swivel Tutorial...

Thought I'd throw this up on the board to see if it sticks.

Some time back, I acquired a machine threaded front swivel post and body (Rem.725) out of a parts group (post #802.) The swivel was for a 3/4" to 7/8" sling. In a prior post (post #620) I speculated that the post could be exchanged by drifting the pin and swapping the post out... WRONG.

The post and swivel body is either a very clean one (1) piece casting or a press fit (trust me, I have the scrap metal to prove it) and the purpose of the pin, is to retain the swivel loop. Removing the pin, allows the swivel loop to be exchanged. The pin can be drifted out, after soaking the swivel in some WD40/oil and drifting with a common 1/16" pin punch (Ace Hardware.)

IMG_4673_zps9487c621.jpg


Remove the swivel loop by pushing one end completely through and then rotating the loop, slightly, clockwise or counter-clockwise. DO NOT BEND UPWARDS (as a certain Mr. In A Hurry did) SEE PHOTO.

IMG_4675_zps3c927e56.jpg



Sling Swivels: Left to Right / Numrich 513T, Numrich 513T and 1870-1880's Trapdoor donor part (same size, spec. hadn't really changed in ~100 years)

IMG_4672_zps31d472df.jpg



I think I'll keep the 513T intact and use the donor Trapdoor part. This swivel comes off of an old upper barrel band, with the stacking swivel. Reproduction Springfield parts would probably (?) also work.

IMG_4674_zpsd4ed555f.jpg
 
Last edited:
#943
Nice! Thanks for posting. I would keep the 513 and grind the tabs off the Trapdoor swivel. And voila, you have a correct M40 front swivel.

I think the theads are 10/32 which is the same as a Uncle Mikes (or any other) machined insert.
 
#944
MescaBug said:
I think the theads are 10/32 which is the same as a Uncle Mikes (or any other) machined insert.
Click to expand...

That's a Negative there, MescaBug. If you go back to my prior Post #720, I really thought so too. You'd think that something on this rifle would be standard, but as we've been finding out, even the barrel was a new contour. Apparently in the early to mid 60's, Remington didn't know that they were supposed to listening to the Wall Street gurus and making their firearms, as cheaply as possible.

That machine threaded post on the M40 (Rem.725) is Heavy Duty. The post O.D. mic's to .220 " while the O.D on a 10-32 mic's to .1890". I don't have a thread gauge, but will find out and post/update later.

The I.D. of the Numrich 513T or the Springfield Trapdoor swivel loop are correct for M40. There's acceptable variation in every manufacturing process and the two (2) 513T swivel loops that I have, from Numrich, measure 1.475" and 1.490" respectively. The Trapdoor swivel measures 1.445. They're swivel loops, not parts for the NASA Mars landing project. They all look close, to the eye.

Too often, we get caught-up in the generic descriptions, i.e., "1-1/4 inch or 1-1/2 inch swivel," when the fact is that it's not an exact measurement and misleads us into thinking that we have a "close substitute," for our builds. Numrich describes the 513T as an 1-1/4" swivel, yet "tokiwartooth," stated that his 513T's were 1-1/2" in Post #694. Then, "Culpeper" pointed the way, when he actually mic'd his SSA swivel loop(s) at 1.475" in Post #806.

I thought I was going to have to replace my 513T swivel loops because they were advertised as "1-1/4 inch," and the M40's were 1-1/2 inch (my Post #802,) when in actuality, I've/we've all had the correct size, all along.
 
Last edited:
#946
Hey Mesca....That is true. They did grind the tabs off of the the follower in order to accom. that 5th round. I had heard it in the past as well. I then confirmed that through Capt. Land last year.
 
#947
rlm8541 said:
Hey Mesca....That is true. They did grind the tabs off of the the follower in order to accom. that 5th round. I had heard it in the past as well. I then confirmed that through Capt. Land last year.
Click to expand...

Allright thanks. Tabs are bent over the follower spring on mine. I can fit 5 rounds, but its a tight fit. I can see why they ground off the tabs. Maybe it was a quick fix, we'll never know.

New information: there is a faint number electro penciled on the milled follower. No idea what this means.

As for the sling swivels, they are 1-1/2". Outside 1.795" and 1.792".




 
#949
Hey Mesca, thanks for the pics. It looks as if the follower you have is a milled one. The tabs they refer to are a little closer to the front of the follower and from what I have seen (along with mine) were on the stamped followers.
Again, thanks for the pics
 
#950
I see course tool marks where the spring slides into the follower. But he is referring to the tabs to the left on photo #1. In photo #2 they appear to the right. Those appear to be bent over. Factory followers have these straight up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Which Scope Mount for my M40 Project
Replies
4
Views
236
lmc08541
lmc08541
Overwatch260
M40 build thread
Replies
19
Views
1K
MikeRTacOps
M
81sfo
SOLD Remington 700 M40
Replies
7
Views
2K
TCAP
TCAP
USMCSGT0331
Prototype Stiller Mk13 receivers
Replies
12
Views
764
nn8734
nn8734
C
EBay Beever156 M40 stock compared to original spec.
Replies
2
Views
516
Chris831
C
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts