M40 Build Guide

[Pvt.Joker]

Re: M40 Build Guide - Not M40A1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gutowsky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Next will be the M24 thread. Where will it all end?</div></div>

Hopefully with a loud "BANG!" at the range!

(But at the rate I'm going, I may have to settle for one of those Bugs Bunny cartoon "Bang!" flags sticking out of it on a wooden dowel rod...

)

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide - Not M40A1

+1 on the bang flag!

 

[nomore606]

Re: M40 Build Guide

hey your build inspired me to possibly do this to my 700 R5. what company did you use for the stock?

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

nomnre606: I've used these from Numrich. Did four so far, two to go.
http://www.gunpartscorp.com/catalog/Detail.aspx?pid=553690&filter=553690&catid=0

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

nomre606: Forgot to add:
The Numrich stocks need to have the barrel forarm end reconfigured (rounded off – Sanded). They come with a new butt plastic type butt pad. An Aluminum one from a Rem 721 or 725 fits better if you can’t find an early 700 pad. You will need to open up the barrel channel by sanding to get clearance. Check this thread above. It's all there.

Hope this helps.

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Only thing with the 721/722 etc is that they have horizontal ridges with top and bottom being smooth on the aluminum buttplate whereas the early 700's have a diamond/checkered pattern over the entire plate except for the Remington logo.

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

I have four "Extra" early aluminun butt plates from the 700's, all require some sanding down of the stock to fit. If you need one, let me know.

I orderd one of the 721 (or maybe for a 725?)(any way, they list them as for 721,722 & 725) one's from Numrich and it was checkered and it fit better. Maybe they don't know the diff?

http://www.gunpartscorp.com/catalog/Detail.aspx?pid=779420A&catid=4337

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Gutowsky- Thanks for the offer, think however I have at least 10 of the checkered ones. These early ones are marked with Remington Part # 16601 along with another 1 through 4 code number lower down. Remington installed the aluminum butt plates on the stocks and then sanded the stocks and butt plates together to get a nice fit. So it is hard to find a buttplate that fits exactly. Many of mine are a bit too narrow also on another stock. Pretty sure they do the same with the plastic ones also. Think the newer stock like used on the mid 80's 700P and the ones Sarco and Numurich have sold are a bit meater in the butt then the early 60's stocks?

Some of the 740/742/760 are checkered also. Hell I don't know if there was anything set in stone at Remington back then!!!! Maybe they used whatever shit was at hand?

 

[mjh30]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Gutowsky, my only gripe with the Numrich stocks is it seems the barrel channel is for a something greater than a varmint contour. I know several years ago, they had ADL uncheckered varmint stocks for sale that were a perfect fit. I am pretty sure someone on the Hide bought one for his M40 copy and it looked great. Dennis, kinda figured they sanded the buttplates down, I have never found two the same. Did you ever get a chance to do any research with regards to the swivels, just looking at the pictures, I just have to say they are 40X swivels nothing more.
Marty

 

[mjh30]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Brent, some edits if you care for them
Some of the later rifles did come from the factory stamped 7.62 Nato, now that would definitely include most of the later 300,000 serial numbered rifles and those seven digit rifles purchased after 1968 in the 62572** serial number range.

Don't think the Satin scopes were marked to the rifles like the green ones were, but there were four presentation rifles built on seven digit actons, that had the last four numbers of the rifles serial number electro pencilled on the base and left side of the scope.

The swivels are not Wichita, not on the early rifles, not before 1970 anyways. They seem to be and appear to be Remington 40X swivels nothing more, nothing less. Wichita was not awarded the contract with the USMC until 1970.

Finish parked, flat black on bolt body and bottom metal, gloss black on bolt shroud, I can only guess what they may have used.

Not sure on the base and rings, I have seen pictures that were blue and many that were matte, also manganese parked.
On aside note, glad your back building one, great job on the stock it looks great.
Marty

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

I was just thinking:

Back when I was a young Pup, I ran several Corvettes and messed with them all. Bigger engines, wider wheels all kinds of modifications. Well, had I maintained them as Stock from the manufacture they would be “Correct”. But, that wasn’t the goal at the time, being the first down the quarter-mile was more important.

So, with the M40’s & A1’s, we can all have different degrees of correctness that fits our needs. I appreciate the information as to what was the “As Built” details on both, but, we can’t all become so particular to shun those examples that might be somewhat “incorrect”.

I love to see what others have done and have tried to encourage the “Run what you B’rung” philosophy. The best examples of correctness are awesome and maybe someday I’ll try and copy this build! Till then mounting a New 5R into a wood stock, Piller Bedding and mounting a Kahles ZF-95 has produced the most “Fun” type of M40’ish rifle. It’s fun to shoot!

BTW: 100th post! Haha!

 

[Pinmaster]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gutowsky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
BTW: 100th post! Haha!
</div></div>

Congrats... What 1320 times did your vettes use to turn?

Im still working on my M40 clone. I will not be 100% spec but will be as close as I can get it with the parts that I have.

I am down to the buttplate issue. I have a older PSS going into a Wododen stock that looks like an old M40 stock. However, the stock is stight/flat in the buttplate area and not curved. I have seen in The One Round War book a picture of an early M40 that looks to be flat in the same area but do not have the book here at work to reference a page number. I wonder if my best option is to find the "correct" looking plate and reshape the stock to fit the curved plate.

A curved buttplate that I just bought and hope to receive soon:

b2 by rmw1971, on Flickr

b1 by rmw1971, on Flickr


The stock that I have now:

1 by rmw1971, on Flickr

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Put a thin Packmayer on that bad boy. I did one like that (guess I should learn how to post pictures, Huh.) and it not only looks neat, but takes some of the pounding out of shooting it.

 

[Pvt.Joker]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gutowsky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Put a thin Packmayer on that bad boy. I did one like that (guess I should learn how to post pictures, Huh.) and it not only looks neat, but takes some of the pounding out of shooting it. </div></div>

Or put the metal plate on it and get a Simms Limbsaver slip-on. Still saves the shoulder on a long day, but you can take it off and still have the metal "look" if you want it. I do agree that there IS a certain leeway in even doing a "correct" M700 clone, to a degree. If these were rebuilt along the way and the original barrels, scopes, etc. were changed out while in service, to keep them in the field, then it would seem to me that any variant of that would also be "correct" for the M40. Plus, it would depend on if you are trying to clone a Vietnam M700 or a post war version. Same receiver at the core, but the upgrade program (as I understand it) had some stages in between the 1966 as-built Remington M700 and the official changeover to the M40A1 specs. Or perhaps I am wrong? And either way, no matter WHAT we do to them, they still are not going to be originals (short of buying a documented "U.S." receiver and rebuilding it with take-off parts, IF you could find them) so I guess there is something to be said for the "run what ya brung" approach, too. Although I still am trying my best to get as near to correct as I can with my own...

Here's where mine is at right now.

Mine has an ADL stock that still needs the nose reshaped, the barrel channel opened (once I have the barrel), and the last of the checkering taken off/out.

I did manage to get the checkered buttplate for it, so that part is done, and used a set of Witchita swivels for it.

The two biggest things holding me up right now are A) deciding on and buying the "right" barrel for it, and B) getting the clip slot mods added correctly. But the point is, once it's done, it will be something that I am satisfied with, and hopefully also a good shooter.

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

That stock looks fantastic! I would get the barrel off of Gary Schnidler (sp?) as he supplied them to the Corps. Your scope is looking good too in its green dress! I’m saving my gloss black for a spec. build and will probably go the same route.
Not having the extra funds or the availability of original parts, makes this quest a labor of love.

Just think: If you could only pick six numbers? I’m not talking about receiver serial numbers!

 

[chad3]

Re: M40 Build Guide

No he didn't supply the barrels for the M40... A1 sure, but not M40. Pretty sure they were just done by Remington.

 

[RTH1800]

Re: M40 Build Guide

About the Redfield "green" scopes, I have one # to the action with the base # as well. (221xxx). The only thing is that the scope #s are just electro penned under the turrent, not forward on the bare tube. I have never seen a photo of one like that but the rig is otherwise right and correctly marked. Has anyone seen one marked on the tube, under the lip for the adj. turrent?

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Every pic in 'The Long-Range War' by Sennich shows them marked on the tube just behind where tube and objective bell start?

It also states that the 550 rifles from first initial order were marked at Remington after final assembly and testing. That being the rifle SN were engraved on the base and scope to show it as a "matched assembly". Book states that the 150 additional rifles with bases only DID NOT have SN etched on base.

So if your scope is marked somewhere else it would NOT be from initial order and either marked by USMC later and perhaps a replacement for a damaged one or marked by someone else to appear to be genuine. Surely not saying it isn't athentic USMC but that it is not from the first order of 700 rifles. The Corp could have marked it in a different location after receiving it as a replacement or whatever. Just seems they would have tried keeping them all the same. Who knows though?

 

[RTH1800]

Re: M40 Build Guide

That is what I thought as well, but the mount and action #s all match. 221xxx is not the beginning of the #s so that would not be it. I have no doubt that the scope is an original, but the excellent condition and placement of # may indicate it was a replacement.

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Yea, 221XXX is a Mid to late summer of '66 number. Does the electro pencil engraving look to be the same style/by the same engraver? Does it look like the style/engraver of those pictured in Sennich's 2 different books or other pics you have seen? Don't know if one person did them all at Remington or ???? Sometimes just when you think you have something figured out along comes a complete different colored horse????

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Chad3: Where did Atchison Barrel fit into the M40 – M40A1 USMC supply thing?
I remember talking to Gail McMillan and he told me he had purchased the barrel machinery and he & his brother were moving it to his new location.

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Atkinson, Hart, Douglas, HS Precision and Schneider were used on the M40A1. Don't know how many of each or in what order. Think I read somewhere that Schneider were some of the last.

Gutowsky, when did your conversation take place with Gale. Was this some time back when Brownell's etc sold Weisman/Mcmillan barrells in the 90's. Built my first 308 in 95 using a Weisman/McMillan blank. While it wasn't a tack driver it was around .75 and consistent with no matter what bullet, powder, primer etc I used. Cannot remember a load that shot over moa with it.

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Sorry for the late reply: Couldn't log in. Thought I was "Banished" for something I did! Apparently Not!: Whew!

Best I can remember: After ‘87 before 1990. Gail had returned my call as I was working on a job on the Golden Gate Bridge. I had inquired into making some sort of copy of a USMC sniper. We talked about the marine rifles, which he seemed to have great knowledge of. Finally decided that he would provide me with a stock and bottom metal and I would get the barreled action. I told him that it would be a 700PSS and that after the barrel wore out, would up-grade to the A1 heavy barrel (Still has the original Remington barrel and is accurate to ½ moa!).(Well, with my son shooting, not me.)

Gail told me about the Atkinson equipment he had acquired at that time and said that he could make the changes when I was ready. Well, it never happened. The balance of the conversation was about my work on the bridge, which he had great interest in. I liked the guy!

I knew about the H&S Precession supply of barrels to the USMC when we met with Janet Thompson, (really nice girl who knew about as much about precession rifles as anybody!) I had them make me three heavy barreled rifles that still shoot like new. Although I had them start on one of their take-down's (fits in a briefcase size case, 308 & 300 Win change barrels, with a Loopy 10X scope, ala James Bond), but problem in their manufacturing caused delays and I canceled the order (wish I hadn’t!).

None of these efforts were to create a spec build, but just neat, great shooting rifles. I’m thinking that someday I’ll try to build a spec. M40 Clone, but who knows.
Keep up the good work, I find it interesting.

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Marty: You may find this of interest:

Bore uniformity after rifling can be measured with an air gauge, a probe that is moved through the barrel with constant air pressure recording variations from specified dimensions. Shilen's air gauges are sensitive to 50 millionths of an inch. John Krieger recommends that every barrel be trimmed at least an inch at the muzzle when fitted to the rifle because the tooling used in bore finishing can leave a slight flare at the ends. Krieger barrels are lapped to just under 16 microinches in the direction of bullet travel. They're held to a tolerance of .0005 of an inch over nominal groove and bore dimensions, but the dimensions are uniform to within .0001 of an inch. Pac-Nor (button-rifling) and H-S Precision (cut-rifling) specify tolerances of .0003 of an inch for the bore diameter. Pac-Nor limits variation in groove diameter to .0001 of an inch.
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/techside/crown_120804/

Air gaging of rifled barrels has been happening for about 60 years.
A company by the name of Sheffield in England invented the process.
Here's how it works.

For a given bore diameter and groove count, a precision plug is
put in that has a few ten-thousandths of an inch clearance. Behind
that plug is a highly-regulated air pump. That pump pushes air into
the bore alongside the rod holding the precision plug gage. As the
air goes between each half of the plug, it escapes through the very
thin area between the plug and the bore/groove. As pressure is
regulated very precise, any increase/decrease in bore/groove diameter
is going to change the pressure between the plug halves. This change
in pressure has been calibrated to read on a gage that looks like a
thermometer to parts of thousandths of an inch in relative dimension.
The air gage reads variations about a norm which is the plug diameter.
http://yarchive.net/gun/barrel/air_gage.html

I've seen this used in the oil patch for checking drill pipe.

 

[Mike Fletcher]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SDWhirlwind</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have never found anything in writing to confirm a "reason" for clipslotting the M40 receivers but every pic I have seen shows them as being machined so. The Redfield 40X marked base sure didn't need/utilize this feature. Not until the the M40 receivers were rebuilt to M40A1 specs was a base made specifically to add strength to the mount via the clip slot machining??? Would be interesting to know why they were machined for it unless there was consideration at some point for aperature sight use?

XARMOR's pic of the one at the Springfield Muesuem doesn't have a 40X marked base but a much later(mid to late 70's or even early 80's) Redfield 700SA base. My guess it is more for show/history then authenticity to the last screw? </div></div>

The original M40 was made with Remington 40X receivers. The 40X receivers were clip slotted and drilled and tapped for receiver sights. The 40X was a target rifle commonly used in NRA High Power rifle matches using aperture sights. There was a timed fire stage that utilized a reload, stripper clips facilitated this reload during the timed event.

The idea of a lugged scope base that fit the clip slot came later.

Mike Fletcher

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike Fletcher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SDWhirlwind</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have never found anything in writing to confirm a "reason" for clipslotting the M40 receivers but every pic I have seen shows them as being machined so. The Redfield 40X marked base sure didn't need/utilize this feature. Not until the the M40 receivers were rebuilt to M40A1 specs was a base made specifically to add strength to the mount via the clip slot machining??? Would be interesting to know why they were machined for it unless there was consideration at some point for aperature sight use?

XARMOR's pic of the one at the Springfield Muesuem doesn't have a 40X marked base but a much later(mid to late 70's or even early 80's) Redfield 700SA base. My guess it is more for show/history then authenticity to the last screw? </div></div>

The original M40 was made with Remington 40X receivers. The 40X receivers were clip slotted and drilled and tapped for receiver sights. The 40X was a target rifle commonly used in NRA High Power rifle matches using aperture sights. There was a timed fire stage that utilized a reload, stripper clips facilitated this reload during the timed event.

The idea of a lugged scope base that fit the clip slot came later.

Mike Fletcher </div></div>

Sir, I am fully aware of the function/purpose of a clip slotted receiver. I have owned a couple of 40-X repeater receivers.

While your statement holds some logic (40-X = M40) please show proof that what you are stating is indeed factual and correct???? If Remington indeed used 40-X receivers then WHY were they stamped 700 instead of 40-X? Why are they serial numbered in line with 700 serial numbers from '66 etc and NOT with 40-XB serial numbering. If they were built on 40-XB receivers I see little reason Remington would mark them as 700 and serial number them inline with other Remington 700's during the '66 and later time frame. The 1966 based 40-XB repeater receivers should have a 25-26ish,XXXB number range Also your logic of the 40-X being "drilled and tapped for receiver sights" is NO indication they are 40-X receivers. All Remington 700, long and short were drilled and tapped for receiver sights up into the C prefix in the mid 80's. All the A's and some of the B. The reason I say C is because I have a Varmint Special in 222 with a C prefix that is drilled and tapped for a receiver sight, which is mid 80's manufacture.

The early lot of 212,XXX through 221,XXX would be from middish March through probably end of June of '66. I have a 236,XXX receiver with a barrel date of Aug/'66. August was the month the first batch of 700 M40's was shipped to the Corp after assembly of rifle, base, scope, and test firing and then electro penciled on all 3 with rifle serial number to indicate a "matched assembly"!

The M40 used a Redfield scope base marked 40X. I have personally never seen a 40X marked base in person, only pics but there are a couple floating around owned by members here. The base is identical in shape/length as the older Redfield 722 base. The screw spacing however is the same as the 700 marked base, just has square corners like the old 722 base instead of rounded off some on the front like that era of 700's were. As the early M40 receivers were clip slotted I assume that Unertl decided to make use of those features to make the bases for their heavier scope mounted on the M40A1 a bit stronger. With the rear clip slot and front receiver ring features on the base it would make it much more difficult to 'shear' the scope/base off and screws would/could take much more abuse.(Think that makes sense but I suck with trying to make a point in a few sentences)

Any addtional info on the M40 is sure appreciated here but would sure appreciate knowing the source for your statement????

Respectfully,
Dennis

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Dennis:
Somewhere I saw/read (internet) a procurement document calling for Remington to provide X number of Remington 40X – 700 receivers to the Corps.

Now, I’m guessing that means whatever you want as far as, were they 40x’s or 700’s.

I also note that the circulated, "purported Remington Shop drawing" (maybe, maybe not by Remington - no title block, no date, nothing!) details the dimensions in producing the clip slotted receiver.

Also on that drawing there is a note as to the two drilled and taped holes on the left side of the rear bridge of the receiver “6-43 ns 2 inc (2) on 40XB + 40XC only".

Now: Were all the 40X rifles intended to have rear aperture sights? I believe so.
Were they also to be capable to be clip loaded for reloading? Again, I believe so.

Now we take the leap of faith:

I believe that Remington and the Corps combined this nomenclature (40X-700) to be generic as to all of the production 700 receivers Remington produced in those early six digit series. Only for sales to other than the Corps, they omitted the clip slot.
Or more exactly: For those going to the Corps, this hybrid was called the model “40X-700” and retained the model 700 markings.

Is this fact? Absolutely Not!
But it makes sense, and is another theory to go on.
Gutowsky

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Gutowsky...I had read also that initial rifles and testing from Remington included the 40-XB receivers???? Wouldn't surprise me that for testing purposes they indeed used the 40-XB as they were supposedly of tighter tolerances than a production 700 thus the extra cost/expense. IIRC somebody had posted here or elsewhere that the only 'real' difference in the external tolerance wise was that the 700 was turned and polished externally whereas the 40-X/XB actions etc were 'surface ground' to maintain a more uniform OD by the time they were finished???

Perhaps both were tested and the Corp decided there wasn't enough difference tolerance wise, or were too tight tolerance wise for the additional cost and went with a somewhat modded 700, ala clip slotted???

IIRC Remington used the X to indicate "experimental". That was justification for the XP-100 pistol retaining the prototype designation so perhaps for the 40-X/XB etc also.

There were few scopes being used in the early 60's or even produced so the 2 side mounting screws for a rear bridge receiver site was on the early Winchesters also and others so buyers/shooters, especially target shooters had an option for distance vs barrel mounted sights. There were numerous companies marketing receivers sights back then, Williams, Lyman and Redfield probably being the largest of them off the top of my noggin!!!

As for the 40-X/XB being clip slotted only the repeaters were/are just a FYI.

As for omitting or whatever the clip slot on 700's the 721722 and early 700 up to about 3XX,XXX had a relief cut in the rear bridge so that an adapter could be screwed on top of rear bridge so the mag could be loaded via stripper clips. I assume this more for competitive use then hunting??

Some of my remarks are speculation or a real uneducated guess

and please don't take them all as factual and to the bank. I responded only because Mike Fletcher's post comes off to my interpretation as being 100% factual and correct so I was questioning him on where he obtained this posted information. We all can 'guess/speculate' all day as the advent of the M40 came about 45yrs ago so I assume(guessing again) that most that had anything to do with design etc of it are long gone. Documents either from Remington or the Corp would be the only absolute proof of anything we are guessing/speculating/assuming on.

Ok, now I am done rambling again.

Respectfully,
Dennis

 

[aj_brown]

Re: M40 Build Guide

The M40 designation did not come until late or possibly after the war was over. They were listed the Remington 700 Sniper rifle. The first 10 rifles were purchased by NAD Crane for the Marine Expeditionary Force. The Marines, Navy, and Air Force all received the weapons.

Alan

 

[Mike Fletcher]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Page 151 "The Remington 700" by John F. Lacy and there are also several references in "Death From Afar" by Norm & Rocky Chandler of Iron Brigade Armory, but I don't have the pages handy right now.
Evidently the first rifles were Remington 40X receivers and the Marines said These will do or words to tht effect, so...
Mike Fletcher

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Alan
Thanks for the info. How are you doing health wise? Good I hope? Did you make it out dog shooting yet? Have you ever started on "the project" we discussed a while back??? I am still interested!

Mike, I haven't read neither of those books and thanks for clarifying your source. I haven't read John's book from what I have heard/read he has done a ton of research on Remington's.

All of my hydrocodone use I sometimes seem to forget but didn't Winchester and Remington furnish examples for testing and the Corp chose Remington??? Seems I read that somewhere? I know that Hathcock used a Win 06 his first tour with the Unertl 8X then carried the Rem 308 for however many months of his second before his near demise.

Alot was accomplished in the hands of those elite men with such a simple tool in that era.

Thanks.

Respectfully,
Dennis

 

[aj_brown]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Dennis

Doing good for an old guy, we were out this spring and will be back on the 18th in White Owl. The project is still in the works. I have 15 new orignal butt plates but having trouble with the orignal contractor doing the work that he said he would.

Alan

 

[mjh30]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Dennis, your memory serves you well, the Corp tested the following rifles, 2 each Rem Model 600, 2 Rem 700 ADL & BDL, 2 Harrington and Richardson Ultra-Rifles, 2 Win Model 70's one in 30-06, the other 308 and 2 Rem Model 700-40Xb. The Corp picked the heavy barreled 40X, as its winner, as they felt the BDL was too light. The test rifles Remington supplied to the Corp were 40Xb target actions and so marked, although all the later rifles supplied were marked Remington 700.

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Well, after spending some time searching the internet, I’ve come up with this theory:

In 1965, Remington dumped the 722 action and went with the model 700 on their 40X series of rifles. In late 1966, early 1967, the order for the M40 marine rifle came in. Remington referenced it as Model 40X-700.

Looking at the probable production flow, Remington would have produced receivers for the new 700’s combining as many machining process as possible to keep cost down. Remember, this was all before CNC Machining Centers. Each specific operations was performed on a dedicated machine, although, it was common to use multiple cutting tools ganged together and have six or more receivers held in jigs at one time. All model 700 receivers were machined for the common details, placed in a stock bin and would then flow through “model specific” operations in those specific production lines. For less common alterations, but knowing you had orders for, such as the clip-slot addition, some receivers were modified by removing a portion of the rear bridge and placed into another storage bin. So, you had two in process source stocks to draw from depending on the final configuration.

Those destined to be the 40X rifles were drawn from the process stock bin and completed in the Custom Shop. Roll stamping (Model 40X*, assigned serial number) was done after final finishing (polishing) and assembly (and testing). These receivers were generic Model 700 and received machine truing to tighter specifications. I’m not sure if all 40X series rifles had “clip-slots” or not. They also had the two screws on the left receiver side for sight attachment. Although this may have been common for all 700’s made at that time. (?) In essence, the only difference between the model 700 and the 40X was tolerances held!

Those receivers pulled from the stock bin for the Corps order were likewise processed, possibly in the custom shop or more probably on a separate assemble line specific for that order. These receivers required the clip-slot modification. (I don’t have a clue why, but they did!). They also shared the two screws on the left receiver side for possible sight attachment. These were plugged by flush screws. After completed assembly they received Roll Stamp marking (Model 700, assigned serial number specific from a block of numbers, “U.S.” marked above.). They were then tested for accuracy and received final acceptance stamps.

Remington also had their commercial lines to fulfill, for the model 700 rifles.
These receivers would be pulled from in process stock receivers and likewise be machined for the intended configurations.

Now, why do we find commercial six digit receivers having clip-slots?
Simply: To control in process product inventory and process flow, they would run more than required through the receiver production line. Model Specific machining operations (clip-slots, sight attachment screw holes (did they all have these?) would be over run to include anticipated sales requirements. Thus you can deduce that some of the receivers originally intended for the 40X and Corps rifles would end up on commercial rifles. Although, lacking the Specific Roll Stamp “U.S.”.
(Possibly Remington charged extra for the clip-slot to help defray the extra machining costs on commercial sales? Not sure if this was so.)

It’s hard today to imagine the number of specialized machines and highly skilled employees required in this type of plant to produce such a vast number of different rifles back in the 60’s & 70’s. Now just think of Smith & Wesson!

This is derived from my personal 45 years experience in large manufacturing plants (U.S. Steel). So, if you can add any information from Remington that would change this, please do.

So; If you can get a six digit receiver, model 700 with the factory clip-slot, by adding the “U.S.” marking above the serial number is about as close as you can get to an original USMC M40.

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Quote by Gail McMillan: "I designed the M40,
trained the armors, and manufactured the stocks for it."

Maybe he ment the A1? or was this an Al Gore?

See: http://yarchive.net/gun/rifle/remington700.html

Go to index: Great blogs from the 1990's about everything on guns.

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

All your ideas and theories are starting to make my head hurt.lol

The Remington 700 action series was introduced in 1962. The 40-X rimfire action was replaced with the 40-XB receiver sometime in 64. Don't know when Remington switched to the XB for centerfire but would surely think about the same time.

Your '66-'67 time frame is a bit off considering info from Sennich's book "The Long-Range War..Sniping in Vietnam".

To quote info from pg 190 and 191 as follows for the 'contract' for the rifles and scopes.....

<span style="font-weight: bold"> The contract also stated that shipments were scheduled to begin on or before 20 June 1966, with final shipment on or before 29 August 1966.

In addition to the Redfield order, Headquarters, USMC placed a parallel contract with the Remington Arms Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut("Supply Contract" NOm-73566, 17 May 1966), for the Rifle, 7.62mm, Sniper, Remington M700 with requirements as follows:

550 each, Redfield scope and base installed, calibrated and test fired

150 each, Redfield base only installed

In accordance with the contract specifications, in this case, shipments were to be made as follow:

123 of the rifles with telescopic sights and 29 without the sights(base only), were consigned to Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany, Georgia

427 of the rifles with telescopic sights and 121 without the sights(base only) were destined for shipment to Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow, California.

The time of delivery for both the telescope and the rifle was coordinated through 29 August 1966 in the contract as well </span>

I have a 243 SN236,XXX with an August '66 date code so Remington was already well past the 221,xxxish numbers by Aug and would make sense that all receivers destined for the USMC contract had been made by or assembledby the June 20 date listed above.

As the initial order was for 700 "7.62 mm Model 700(note not M40)Sniper Rifles" from '66 to '71 I cannot imagine Remington storing a bunch of parts in '66 or continuing to omit certain manufacturing steps on a yearly bases with ALL receivers just in case they had some orders. Perhaps they made a run whenever needed of 40-XR single shot, repeater and rimfire receivers whenever needed by the Custom Shop????

AJ Brown (who is a 'whiz kid' from Crane

) posted that the M40 nomenclature was added later and this first order terminology refers to them as M700 Sniper Rifle and if anyone knows I would surely think Alan would. He is kinda like the meat in the sandwich, he knows what goes on in the inside

. Sorry Alan, just had to be a smartass.lol You know I luv ya like a brotha!!!!!!!

Well, better shut up now. My head hurts when I think to much and try and convey it into words!!!

Respectfully,
Dennis

 

[SDWhirlwind]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gutowsky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quote by Gail McMillan: "I designed the M40,
trained the armors, and manufactured the stocks for it."

Maybe he ment the A1? or was this an Al Gore?

See: http://yarchive.net/gun/rifle/remington700.html

Go to index: Great blogs from the 1990's about everything on guns. </div></div>

That sure comes off as your reference "Al Gore moment" as I have NEVER read, heard of in any of my many conversations etc about the M40 ever having any reference to Gale McMillan or him having absolutely anything to do with it. I can see the M40A1 as helped with stock design and then supplied them but don't even think he was probably in the firearms manufacturing business at the advent of the M700/M40. Would be news to me.

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Correct on the brain pain! Well, I’ll just be happy with a six digit receiver to make my spec. clone.

As to Glen’s quote: Let just give him the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant the M40A1.

Still, I was surprised by his stated involvement with the Corps.

 

[chad3]

Re: M40 Build Guide

All marks have been shown as 700 builds so we can assume that they are in fact 700 receivers. I really don't know how this is so hard to wrap brains around. Numbers have been stated and they match the numbers in that year. Remington or USMC may have done the clip slots, but everything else works.
Someone did them to the 700 receivers. Lets work from there.
Build guide continued...
Chad

 

[Mike Fletcher]

Re: M40 Build Guide

RE: Clip Guides
If my memory serves me either or both Iron Brigade Armory (Chandler)in their "Death From Afar" Series and Texas Brigade Armory (Lau) in "The Military & Police Sniper" refer to the clip guides as the "Remington Clip Guides" and I believe their is an engineering drawing as well. I will look through the books to make certain I am not halucinating and post clarification and page numbers if available.

Mike Fletcher

FWIW I have one of the Remington M40 SSA Commemoratives and it is properly clip slotted.

 

[Mike Fletcher]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Page 194 of<span style="font-weight: bold">Death From Afar Volume 1</span>from Iron Brigade Armory has Machinist drawing of the M40 (Remington 700) clip slot cuts as performed by Remington with Photo Credit:Remington Arms

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Mike: Yep, same page number (194) for the drawing I have. Must be from the same book. (I sent copy via email to you.)

I think the drawing if from Remington. Not the Corps!

 

[Mike Fletcher]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gutowsky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mike: Yep, same page number (194) for the drawing I have. Must be from the same book. (I sent copy via email to you.)

I think the drawing if from Remington. Not the Corps!

</div></div>

Agreed!

 

[Joel989]

Re: M40 Build Guide

Still, we seem to agree that Remington did the clip slots on the M700’s for the Corps.
Now: How do we explain the commercial Model 700’s having the same clip slots that have been reported? Was this an option?

There is also a later rectangular clip slot on the commercial Model 700’s that is much simpler. Is this correct?

 

[Pvt.Joker]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gutowsky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still, we seem to agree that Remington did the clip slots on the M700’s for the Corps.
Now: How do we explain the commercial Model 700’s having the same clip slots that have been reported? Was this an option?

There is also a later rectangular clip slot on the commercial Model 700’s that is much simpler. Is this correct?
</div></div>

I thought the simplified square slots were the EARLIER commercial Remington ones, not after the M700 sniper rifle series? I might be wrong on that, though.

Also, where are you guys getting the month dates from on the serial number ranges? I called Remington and spoke to their guy about trying to get a build date on my six-digit receiver, and all he could give me was the year- 1966. He said he didn't have any way to narrow it down more than that, as it didn't have the factory barrel on it when I got it. The first 3 digits are 256xxx; does that help place it in a given month and if so, which one?

It does have the sight holes in the side (as does my "A" code receiver dated to 1977 by the barrel code) so I presume that those were a standard feature up until that time frame. I did notice that the "Remington" script is slightly different between the two, though, but I'd have to drag both out and take some comparison photos to remember the difference I saw. Plus, the 1977 version has the anti-bind rail in it and the bolt where the older version does not. Neither one has any clip slot of either variant in it, though. In fact, that's ONE of the big issues I'm kind of stuck at right now on the project- trying to find a way to either tackle it myself on a friend's mini-mill, or to send it off and have it professionally done.

 

[xarmor]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike Fletcher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Page 194 of<span style="font-weight: bold">Death From Afar Volume 1</span>from Iron Brigade Armory has Machinist drawing of the M40 (Remington 700) clip slot cuts as performed by Remington with Photo Credit:Remington Arms </div></div>

I don't have the Death From Afar book, is this what the drawing shows for the clip slot? According to Senich there were two types of clipslotting used.

 

[Mike Fletcher]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gutowsky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still, we seem to agree that Remington did the clip slots on the M700’s for the Corps.
Now: How do we explain the commercial Model 700’s having the same clip slots that have been reported? Was this an option?

There is also a later rectangular clip slot on the commercial Model 700’s that is much simpler. Is this correct?
</div></div>

First of all "all generalizations are incorrect". There will always be an exception out there some where.

The rectangular clip slot is more correctly called the magazine cut and was discontinued about 1966. Up until that time scopes were less common for most uses and folks used factory open sights or receiver sights, most factory rifle prior to mid 60's were drilled and tapped for receiver sights , but not always for scope bases. The magazine cut allowed placing cartridges straight down into the magazine.

There are a variety of reason that there could be clip slotted early model 700 commercial receivers, the most likely would be over runs from Marine and or Army contracts that were used for regular production.

Also could have been a special run for a distributor, etc.

Mike Fletcher

 

[Mike Fletcher]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XARMOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike Fletcher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Page 194 of<span style="font-weight: bold">Death From Afar Volume 1</span>from Iron Brigade Armory has Machinist drawing of the M40 (Remington 700) clip slot cuts as performed by Remington with Photo Credit:Remington Arms </div></div>

I don't have the Death From Afar book, is this what the drawing shows for the clip slot? According to Senich there were two types of clipslotting used.

</div></div>

That picture is a clip slot

 

[grunt0311]

Re: M40 Build Guide

I know that there is someone out there that knows how to clipslot. Im interested in seeing how its done. Is there anyone that is willing to video tape themselves showing how its done.

 

[Pinmaster]

Re: M40 Build Guide

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinmaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gutowsky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
BTW: 100th post! Haha!
</div></div>



Im still working on my M40 clone. I will not be 100% spec but will be as close as I can get it with the parts that I have.

I am down to the buttplate issue. I have a older PSS going into a Wododen stock that looks like an old M40 stock. However, the stock is stight/flat in the buttplate area and not curved. I have seen in The One Round War book a picture of an early M40 that looks to be flat in the same area but do not have the book here at work to reference a page number. I wonder if my best option is to find the "correct" looking plate and reshape the stock to fit the curved plate.

</div></div>

I now have two aluminum Remington buttplates. Both have the 16601 part number on the back. However, one is <span style="font-weight: bold">flat</span> and the other is <span style="font-weight: bold">curved</span>. I had to file the flat one to fit my stock but hope to have my project finished sometime this week.